Talk:Tony Rezko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] POV fork

Is this article about Tony Rezko or is this just an anti-Obama POV fork? It looks like the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.113.250 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific regarding your concerns? The contents seems well supported by the Sun-Times references. Are you saying that Rezko's link to Obama is given WP:UNDUE weight? AFAICT, that seems to be pretty much the sole reason for his notability. Ronnotel 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Obama article used to link here, but the Obama flak police kept removing any links to the Tony Rezko article. Most of the time that Rezko has done anything noteworthy, it have involved political corruption with Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich.

Should the POV flag be removed? There does not seem to be much reasoning for the flag given?

I think the POV flag should remain. This is my first time visiting the page. It does seem that much of the article is just a summary of charges made by one newspaper substantiated only by that newspaper's articles. I would suggest a more NPV treatment, with at least some comments from Obama's team about this issue. lk 06:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidates don't get to make statements directly to WP articles - particularly because this is WP:BLP. Anything that gets added must be reliably sourced. Besides, it seems like Obama's response has already been captured - he acknowledged the mistake and says he regrets it. If you can locate WP:RS material with additional responses then that would be fair game. Your justification for adding the POV tag seems a bit light - you don't get to call a source like the Sun-Times POV just because you happen to disagree with the reporting. Ronnotel 13:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Having an article reflect the views of only one (apparently biased) new newspaper is POV. POV tags should stand until there is general consensus that the article is NPV. lk 06:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think the Sun-Times articles are biased? Ronnotel 14:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Half the link references in the article are broken. I can't read them. Of those that I can read, it seems to me that the articles themselves point to innocuous mistakes, whereas in the wikipedia article they are written up as something more sinister. --lk 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but from what I remember of the articles, they are actually quite fair to Obama. The real estate deal in particular included a number of aspects that cast a negative light on Obama but are not mentioned - such as the likelihood that parts of the transaction occurred at non-market prices. Rezko engages in shady practices and his association with Obama has raised some questions about Obama's judgment. Obama has been evasive in his statements about those dealings. Sinister is your own interpretation - I simply see facts that have been written down. If you think the facts are incorrect, then fix it. Ronnotel 12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sinister might be too strong a word. What I meant was that, in the newspaper articles (at least in those I could read), Obama comes out in quite a good light. The 'mistakes' seem innocuous. But in this page on Rezko, they are written about in such a way as to imply wrongdoing by Obama. As such, I believe the POV tag should remain. Adding a POV tag does not obligate me to fix it. It just points out that it needs to be fixed, and it should remain until a consensus agreement that the article is NPV. --lk 03:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that, while the Sun-Times articles attempt to strike a balance of fairness, that same balance didn't make it onto this page. Facts and statements critical of Obama were included in this article while mitigating facts (and statements of response) were left out. I've edited a few of these to at least add the response that was in the original article and remove some of the more egregious POV statements, but there is still work to be done on this article to strike a neutral tone. --Loonymonkey 22:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this another PR page for Sen Obama? Aren't statements such as "No laws were broken and Obama is not under investigation" completely fabricated? Obama most certainly is under investigation, at least by the press, for being tied at the hip to one of the more notorious crooks in the state of Illinois. And of course, laws were broken. Tony Rezko has a laundry list of broken laws a mile long. Statements such as these are Obama campaign spin, not Encyclopedia level reference. If you want to remove POV, then remove the POV, don't just write more Obama propaganda.

That is your opinion, but wikipedia is not the place to argue political opinions. The fact is Obama is not under investigation and has not broken any laws. If evidence to the contrary were to surface, you can be sure it would be included both here and on the main Obama article. But until then, it's just speculation and opinion. ---- Loonymonkey (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What again is the opinion? How do you know he has not broken any laws? How do you know he is not under investigation? The statement either needs to be taken out, or the Obama flak POV removed. The only thing I am sure of with wikipedia entries on Sen Obama is that an army of PR types are out there trying to rewrite history so that the Senator's voting record and political history is buried.

They don't do "secret investigations" of major politicians. If Obama were alleged to have broken the law or was under investigation, it would be in the news. Your argument seems to be "maybe he did something illegal but nobody knows about it." That's great for a political discussion forum, but it's not really good enough for a wikipedia article.
On a related note, I invite you to review the Principals of Wikipedia Etiquette, particularly the first principal which is "assume good faith." Also don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant statement LM, "They don't do "secret investigations" of major politicians"...apparently Sen Obama is under investigation by the Feds and is mentioned in the charges against Rezko. Your conjecture that all allegations vs. the Sentaor must have already been published (thus it is impossible for the Sen. to have committed any crime, as the media would have already reported it) is the more of the BS PR that Obama's team consistently deliver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.147 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Obama is not under investigation by the federal government. You might want to go back and re-read that Sun Times article (or perhaps you don't understand what the term "under investigation" actually means). In any case, this article is not going to be turned into a POV fork about Obama. There are plenty of political forums and blogs out there where you can express your hatred of a particular candidate. Wikipedia isn't one of them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone should explain that to Federal Prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald then, because he is mentioning him in his charges against Tony Rezko, which is certainly part of a Federal Investigation. I personally kind of like Senator Obama, it is just bewildering how many people want to shield him from any scrutiny from the press. This article should not be turned into one more Press Release disguised by the Obama flaks as an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.147 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're changing your story now. You said that he is "under investigation by the Feds." He's not, of course. Perhaps you should read past the first sentence of the link you keep inserting. Your attempts to push POV about Obama in an article not about him won't work. Go find a nice blog if that's what you want to do. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why Sen. Obama is included in the Feds case against Rezko, since, as you say, he is not under investigation "of course"? Stating the facts of recent newspaper reports is by no means POV. Censorship by LM is certainly POV. Rezko is a notable person because of Obama and Blagojevich...your continued attempts to remove reference to the Illinois Politicians supported by Rezko smacks of the very reason why Wiki is failing to provide balanced information to readers, and becoming just another marketing mechanism for politicians. Why not leave in a factual reference, and let the readers decide if it is relevant or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.147 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is they? The SunTimes and Tribune have been reporting on this for more than a year. Rezko is under Federal Indictment and was a fugitive during the Governor election in Illinois. This article is about Rezko. Why is it necessary to put statements such as "Obama is not under investigation" in an article about a person who is definitely indicted? I have followed the Barak Obama entry since its inception. I have assumed good faith in the past, but I do not need to assume anything anymore , as his PR corps definitely spins any entry about him, and removes any possible hint that Sen Obama may not have a perfect record. Now the PR flak are invading other entries to post such mindless PR as "No laws were broken and Obama is not under investigation", even though there is no claim otherwise. There really should be some policing of the Obama campaign using Wikipedia for PR.

Well, you're getting to the real point which is why is why is it necessary to spend so much time talking about Obama at all? This article isn't about him. The complaint with this article all along was that it was written simply as a POV fork to make allegations about Obama and was only ostensibly about Rezko. You make a much better argument for eliminating most of the "connections to Obama" section and reducing it to a couple of sentences.
As for good faith, as much as you claim the rule no longer applies to you, you really do need to assume good faith in your dealings with others on wikipedia. Believe it or not, there isn't a vast conspiracy by Obama's "PR corps" to revert your edits. Most of your conflicts are with long-established editors who adhere to the principals of wikipedia. I doubt that much of it is by fervent Obama supporters, but rather people who are trying to maintain good quality articles (personally, Obama is not my favorite candidate, but my personal politics are irrelevent to this). Oh, and please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

LM...horsemanure..What evidence of good faith is there? A large number of PR people making happy statements about Obama? How is that good faith? The attempt at a good quality article is at least secondary to making their candidate look good. Hiding behind a bunch of wikilawyering by no means justifies using wikipedia to boost a chosen candidate. Why bother following any rules on this system if PR Flaks are allowed to pump up their candidate without recourse? Ruins the whole system. Just read the above misleading entry ""No laws were broken and Obama is not under investigation", even though there is no claim otherwise. There really should be some policing of the Obama campaign using Wikipedia for PR." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.147 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to remove the POV tag?

It's still has a bit of an anti-Obama slant, but it's mostly factual now. Any objections to removing the POV tag? --lk 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Time to remove POV tag. Decoratrix (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Article still has serious problems and is getting worse, not better.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article has clearly turned into a POV fork now.

The section on Obama is actually longer than the section on Rezko. Isn't this article supposed to be about Rezko? The Obama section needs to be severely pruned to indicate his connection to Rezko, and that's it. There is no need to rush in and add a new reference every time Obama is mentioned in reference to the same material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the main reasons there is some of the Obama material here is that the "pro-Obama" wiki-censors clamored for the material to be here. In fact all the material should be here AND in the Obama article. Decoratrix (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, your comment pretty much proves my point. Whatever conflicts you had while editing another article have nothing to do with this one. Trying to put here what you weren't able to put somewhere else is the very definition of a POV fork. This article is supposed to be about Tony Rezko, not Barack Obama. Attempts to turn it into a coatrack of Obama mentions are not acceptable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Please review the record of the relevant talk page before attacking another editor. The consensus of Obama talk page was to place it here. That was not my unilateral decision. Decoratrix (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Attacking? I haven't attacked anyone. I am very familiar with the talk page of Obama (and the other candidates). There was no consensus to make the edit that you made here, that's simply not true. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Rezko's relationship with Obama is relevant to a Rezko article. The article is short, but objective. Loonymonkey has exhausted the presumption of good faith and should spend his time working for the Obama campaign, not monkeying with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) Okay, just to keep a running tally, in the past week I've been accused of working for the Obama, Romney, Clinton and McCain campaigns. You should work slightly harder at playing nice and assuming good faith. My only "agenda" is to prevent tendentious editing for or against a candidate by people with political motives. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A presumption of goodfaith is not the same thing as a delusion of good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

The move note pretty much says it, but Tony Rezko is by far the most common name for this person (26,000+ hits versus 4,000+ hits), so I moved the page across the redirect. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is very sparce with details about Rezko and his connection to Obama compared to the info out there

The web is buzzing with information apparently being circulated by supporters of the Clinton camp. Take a look at this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html. Should some of this information be worked into the article? Moe (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ynilp has said it well. There is a huge amount of information out there regarding a series of Obama-Rezko scandals that wiki-censors have systematically deleted from obama and rezko articles. Wikipedia should not be a place to sanitize one's favourite candidates, but should be a source of notable facts. Decoratrix (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Picture of Obama's house in Chicago

If you want to bring accusations forth connecting Rezko with the Clintons, you may want to include both parties in the debate. Ddweb (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entrepreneur of the Decade

Earlier today, an unsourced addition to this article was removed. Here's one sentence that was added by 207.244.161.93:

"He was awarded "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association."

Here[1] is a blog that makes the same claim. Corey Salzano (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another source[2] Corey Salzano (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources though? Arab American Media Services seems to be a self-published blog (which is the original source of the Hanania.com article you're linking to).[3] Based on a literal reading of WP:SPS then AAMS can't be used as a source. On the other hand, it does appear that Ray Hanania is/was a syndicated columnist focusing on Arab topics. All in all, if it is a reliable source, then there is a ton of other information in Hanania's writing that can be used to flesh out Rezko's business history and his ties to politicians beyond Obama. He seems to be closely tied to Gov Blagojevich as well. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea. I saw a revert this week that contained this sentence, and I thought damn, with all this negative information in the article, I should see if there was any sources that would verify this award. Here[4] is a search on the Goo that reveals a few sites that contain that same statement. Thanks for your continued help. Corey Salzano (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Papa Johns

Here[5] is a blog that claims Rezko renamed his Papa John's restaurants to "Papa Tony's" after disagreements with the franchise resulted in his license being terminated. Corey Salzano (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source[6] that claims he had 30 restaurants and they were renamed to "Pappa Tony’s." Corey Salzano (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removed a pic

well i like this picture actually, yet in terms of neutrality, i tend to think u need to put up a pic with him and obama, and also one with him at the bush fundraiser he chaired!!! in terms of neutrality and seeing hows theres an election... it seems thats the neutral point of view... not just the pic with him and bill & hillary... this person has interesting connections to many politicians and the "wikipedia picture evidence" should show that i think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.162.18 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

otherwise it smacks to me of electioneering... yet i hope these other pictures are found and pasted here, so this one can be returned in a neutral manner! 195.176.162.18 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. There's already plenty of discussion about this image on this very same web page, and most of it is not based on opinions. Corey Salzano (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Absence of Information

Why is wiki so barren on this topic? I recall over 1000 words dedicated to "macaca" on wikipedia. Is wikipedia coddling and protecting the Great Obama? Lets have some more info please...just the facts, as multiple media sources are now reporting. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)

What information do you feel is being left out? What would you like to see included? Please give specific suggestions, not just general criticism of the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It does seem like the prominence of this subject in recent weeks has grown somewhat. When this was basically a hometown issue it seemed like the article length was appropriate. Since the start of the trial, however, it's a legitimate national story - perhaps *the* story of why Clinton seems to be having a late surge in Texas. I think it's time for arguments about WP:UNDUE to be given somewhat less weight. Ronnotel (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, do you have any specific suggestions? What edits are you suggesting? --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looneymonkey-- You are the one who keeps reverting my edits with little to no explanation. You claimed that "(The Sun-Times called him Obama's 'Slumlord Patron?' I don't think so. Not only is your language POV, you are factually incorrect on many points (such as returning donations)." First off, if you check the reference, the title that comes up on the title bar of my browser is "Tony Rezko and his slumlord patron". That is what i had based my original revision on-- I use tabs and that is what the title was to me. As to your charge on returning donations, I had simply clicked the link on the NYT article that is referenced at the end of the article, and that says "Since early June, Mr. Obama has given to charity more than $21,000 in donations that his Senate campaign had received from Rezko associates now linked to the federal inquiries." If you have other sources, please quote them, but the source as quoted was incorrect. There are actually two different numbers, the previous sentence refers to $50-60k in donations, that is over the total of Obama's political career. The second sentance, on returning money claims that Obama returned $21k, the total amount donated to his Senate campaign, but doesn't mention Obama returning money from earlier elections. If you have other sources, please quote them and include them. I'm merely ensuring that the article accurately reflects the given references. Meanwhile, you're reverting a number of edits, including a clarified narrative on the land deal. Please be far more careful when reverting entire edits, and check the actual sources. --Flyboy121 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, where do I start. First of all, it seems you didn't read the cite very carefully. The $21,000 mentioned in there was not "from Rezko" as you stated, but money that was raised by Rezko. The very next sentence in the cite states that he previously had returned the $11,500 that actually was "from Rezko" (making both the language and numbers in your edit incorrect). More importantly, that cite is from June 2007. This is March 2008. Due to the political fallout from being linked to Rezko financially, he has since donated all of the funds raised by Rezko to charity. This is in more recent cites already on the page, but if you need me to, I'll cite it there. As a rule off thumb, you shouldn't get into edit wars anyway, you should discuss the changes you propose if they are under contention before simply reverting repeatedly. But you especially shouldn't fight over factual data unless you are 100% sure that you have your facts correct and have researched the subject thoroughly.--Loonymonkey (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Looneymonkey, thank you for a citation on the fact that Obama has recently donated all of the Rezko funding to charities. But, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. No one, especially lowly editors such as myself are omniscient enough to claim to know all the facts. Wikipedia is based upon incremental improvement, validation and ensuring that all claims are properly backed up by references. I went back and reviewed the historical version of this article at the time of my first edit, and read all of the sources. Contrary to you assertion above, not a single one carried the claim that Obama had returned all the money. The only reference on donating to charity was from the NYT article, and in that article it wasn't clear if the $11,500 was included in the $21k number, even still $32k is less than $50-60k. The Tribune article with the claim that Obama's returned all the money is new. You added that, and now that it is properly referenced, I shall leave the claim as is.
As to your claims of edit wars, you are the one who initiated a war by deleting an edit of mine that had made numerous changes, instead of simply validating the one fact that was incorrect and adding a proper source for your information. I had no basis for validating your claims until you edited the article and added proper citations. You are the one who needs to be a little less trigger happy with that undo button, and quit deleting other's work. Thank you for finally limiting yourself to individual edits and citing your sources. But, your actions on this and the Obama page show a tendency to try and censor claims that are reflect poorly on a certain political figure, and those actions are not NPOV.--Flyboy121 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looneymonkey-- also, what is your problem with my edit on the Obama article? Rezko was indicted for trying to bribe contractors looking for government contracts, claiming that he has the pull to push the contracts their way. How is that not political corruption? Taking bribes for steering government contracts seems to me to be the definition of political corruption. For an update on the trial, try here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/812207,morerez022508.article Do you have an alternate characterization for the charges? If so, please edit to something you think is more fair, instead of deleting a very important fact (that Rezko was indicted for his behavior) from the article. Such actions make me believe that you are the one trying to push a POV. --Flyboy121 (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem was not the cite (or even mentioning that Rezko is under indictment, which is necessary). The problem is that your edits were poorly written. You can't say he was "indicted on charges of political corruption" because there is no such charge as "political corruption." Why not simply say what he was actually indicted for? --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Looneymonkey-- check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal), which clearly states when discussing specific cases, "Summary in fairly plain language, for a lay audience, possibly followed by a more detailed introduction." Not to mention that none of the references list all the actual charges. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a general audience, and overly technical language that would not be understandable by that audience should be avoided. Primarily though, a simple list of the charges does not convey the significance of the case. Now once again, what is your problem with the characterization "political corruption"? Can you provide me an explanation why this is not a case of political corruption? Why do you keep deleting something that you claim is "necessary" to include? If this is poorly written, why haven't you rewritten it? --Flyboy121 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Provided Abongo's notability can be established by the use of reliable sources, there's no reason why such an article couldn't be started. A quick search revealed recent pieces by Investor's Business Daily and the Chicago Sun-Times so it seems at least plausible that a case could be made. The deletion process is not a vote and if the subject meets the requirements, the page will stand. Ronnotel (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But then again, it seems like he's an accountant with some possibly non-mainstream views. If that's all there is then maybe not notable after all. Ronnotel (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nominate for deletion

Deletion proposed because Rezko is not noteable aside from gossip about Obama. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. Rezko gets 600,000+ hits on google in general and 2,000+ hits on google news just in the last month.. Rezko is clearly notable.. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are serious about nominating for deletion, please see WP:AFD. Anyone can make a nomination but I suspect any such proposal will very likely fail. Ronnotel (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Rezko is national news now that his trial has started. Deletion now is highly unlikely. Corey Salzano (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Increasing the value of Obama's property sentence

I've reverted this addition of by Flyboy121[7] as original research, which can't be used in a biography of a living person (or in regards to a living person on non-biographical articles). Flyboy121, regardless of the context of the wording "a favor", you simply can not include your own speculation about what the columnist meant when he said he did Obama "a favor". There are numerous speculations one could draw from that wording and only one of them is that the purchase of the strip of land increased the value of Obama's land beyond the purchase price. You either need to stop adding unsourced speculation into the article, or find a source that supports your claim. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image of the property in question

As per WP:BLP:

Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.

Any image of the property in question must properly sourced, and a similar image must already have been published by a reliable secondary source. Ronnotel (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have raised a separate issue with this image on its discussion page[8] Corey Salzano (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As per this MSNBC news story, visual images of the property have clearly been cited in a reliable source. I no longer have objections to a neutral image of Obama's residence (i.e. without super-imposed pictures of Obama or Rezko) being included in the article provided such an image can be properly sourced and released under GFLD. Ronnotel (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture with Clintons

I added this picture because it is relevant as long as the Ties to Politicians section exists. It has already been removed by a named user and 208.116.141.1, and restored by myself and another user. Please avoid a revert war and recognize the relevance of this image to this section of the article. Corey Salzano (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that the image is relevant, considering the news coverage, however, we need to know what the copyright status of it is. If it was taken by an official White House photographer, then it is a US Gov PD image and should be marked as such. However, if it was taken by a Dem. Party or campaign staff photographer, then it is probably copyrighted and can't be used on wikipedia. Can you find out the original source? I know you got it from Drudge Report, but where did it originally come from? --rogerd (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. According to this article[9] the picture may have been taken at a fund raising event for Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, which would indicate that it is not an official White House Photographer. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice find, Bobblehead. I agree that the origin of the photo is certainly important. That article also says "There was no immediate way to know for sure if that is when the picture was taken." 71.61.52.248 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is true, problem is without knowing the origin of the picture, then it should be assumed that it is copyrighted. This means it should probably not be used on Wikipedia until the origin is known for sure. Looks like someone has claimed fair use on the image now. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. If there is an issue with the image's validity on the wiki I think discussion/decisions will be made at the image, and if it is deleted it will be removed from articles that it is used in at that time. Corey Salzano (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to repeat what I wrote on January 28. If there is a problem with this image's fair use on wikipedia, debate will take place AT THE IMAGE. This discussion is not about the image. This discussion is about Tony Rezko's article and what should be contained within. If you contest the copyright usage of the image, go to the image and have that debate. Corey Salzano (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Corey, this is about your blatant abuse of your priviledges at WP, to promote the agenda of your own candidate, and to unfairly create a public misperception by placing this picture on this page to suggest that Clintons somehow have to do with the dealings of Rezko. The main dispute is not with the image itself, which makes a legitimate point, but to use it as the ONLY picture on this page about Tony Rezko is incredibly lopsided and egregious.

Please take a look at the rationale dispute I added to Image:Rezko.jpg. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is hilarious that this picture was added. It is nice to know that people are using wikipedia to promote a political agenda. :) 69.217.167.178 (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Corey Salzano, and perhaps a couple of others clearly have some personal stake in putting up the clinton picture with Rezko, to somehow make insinuations that Clintons, rather than Obama would have some connection with Rezko in the allegations against him. This is typical tactics of Obama and his public spin machine that David Axelrod runs out of Chicago. It is certainly not a stretch to imagine that Corey maybe part of the propaganda machine coming from the Obama camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.236.48 (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article contains a sourced description of the image that you are trying to remove. You say "rather than Obama" as if you'd rather have the article be bias against Obama rather than any other politician. This article is about Tony Rezko, and as long as the "Ties to Politicians" section exists, any politician that has ties to Rezko is relevant. Suggesting that I am "part of the propaganda machine" is not assuming good faith. Shame on you. Corey Salzano (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)And I take it that because you want to remove the image that we should assume that you are part of the Clinton campaign and part of the public spin machine that Mark Penn runs out of (wherever Mark Penn is located). The image of the Clinton's with Rezko meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, but if you have another image that includes Rezko and a politician that meets the inclusion criteria, we can certainly discuss using that image as well, or replace the Clinton image with the new image. I've done quite a bit of searching for an image of Rezko and another politician that we can use, but have so far come up empty. Perhaps you will have more luck with it than I have... Considering Rezko's association with Blagojevich there's bound to be some pictures out there of Rezko and either Blagojevich or his wife... --Bobblehead (rants) 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, so you agree that we should not put up any image of Clinton or Obama on this page, so as not to cause this type of problem. I only put the other picture back up to show you how absurd it is to make this type of suggestive connection for the readers. If you are honest and fair-minded, you would agree that the Clinton picture shoudl come down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.236.48 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not. WP:NPOV clearly states "Let the facts speak for themselves" The article discusses, with sources, the controversy surrounding the Clinton image. The article does not discuss any other significant photo, or I would favor both photos. Corey Salzano (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To Bobblehead: so you are saying that it is OK to insinuate political connections by putting up a picture that does not necessarily need to be there (why is the the connections with politicians section getting the picture, while not others?), rather than simply be fair-minded and not put up a picture at all. If you are really concerned about NPOV, you would agree to remove the Clinton picture as well. You know this makes this page, as well as you guys who maintain the page (Bobblehead, Corey, and a few others) look like political hacks for Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.236.48 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not insinuating anything. The picture of Rezko with the Clinton's is included in the article because it meets the inclusion criteria for images. The house image that you kept inserting violated several of Wikipedia's policies (it used copyrighted images for one, which precludes it from being released under Public Domain). I'm not sure you have a proper understanding of NPOV though. Including an image that is fully explained in the article text and that is applicable to the section in which it is included and not including an image that, unfortunately, does not exist is not POV. If you'd prefer, we can move the image from the top of the political ties section and down to the paragraph that explains it's context. That would move the image closer to the explanation of the context in which the image is being used on the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Back on February 1st[10] there was an image of just Tony at the top of the article. It was deleted from Wikipedia because it did not meet inclusion criteria. If having only the Clinton image is bothersome to you guys, why not find a picture of just Tony that will stand the test of inclusion guidelines so the article will have more than one photo once again? Corey Salzano (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; it does seem that most here are pretty biased against Clinton, given that the only picture in the story centers around his transient relationship with them; while there is so much more in terms of his associations with Blajgoivich, Obama, the Daley machine and others. It just seems a bit unfair to single out the one set of politicians that may have only a miniscule amount of association with him. I have to make full disclosure; I'm a McCain supporter, but the coverage of this article does seem very skewed, and I don't think that Corey or Bobblehead has made any disclosures about their poilitical leanings while speculating about roles of others in certain campaigns; if they are to make such a prominent role in editing this article, they should make those disclosures. 99.147.17.156 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an image of Rezko with any other politician, you're more than welcome to include it in the article. As Corey mentioned, the image of Rezko with the Clintons became as much of the "story" as Hillary's mentioning Obama's connection to Rezko in the debate... --Bobblehead (rants) 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit humourous. Two Obama fanatics like Corey Salzano and Bobblehead puts on some incendiary picture of the Clintons on WP and tries to pass them off as even-handed editing work. And then the Hillary campaign supporters bite back like mad dogs. I think that, at the risk of a little too much cynicism, I'm already looking forward to the fall campaign. Democrats are just doing to themselves what their opponents in the general would be doing anyway; I couldn't be more relieved that fellows like you are already doing the dirty work and paving the ground for us.99.147.17.156 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am registered Republican for the first time in my life to vote for Ron Paul. He has recently secured the top ballot position in Pennslyvania's primary[11], which is where I will be voting. Corey Salzano (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure you are *wink*. 99.147.17.156 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially considering that Ron Paul ended his campaign today, lol. This is hilarious, Obama supporters trying to dress up as republicans to beat up on Hillary, even Gingrich could not have scripted it better. 99.147.17.156 (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:99.147.17.156, I like to suggest that you take a look WP's policy on assuming good faith. It's an important aspect of why WP works as well as it does. Please note that repeatedly failing to observe this policy can be seen as disruptive. Blanket accusations of political bias are not helpful. Ronnotel (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been receiving insults for maintaining this photo for months. Today was the actually the first time I noticed what someone has added after my signature on my January 29th post, so today alone I have felt insulted on more than one occasion. Am I really the one who's being fanatical about this? I come here and cite sources, whether they be additions to this website or its own policies. Anonymous posters accuse me of ridiculous things, but I am the one who is fanatical. Do you want me to upload screen shots of my name appearing on Ron Paul's website for being a recent donor? Would that make you happy or would you just keep calling me fanatical?
This article has at least ten sources tying Obama to Rezko and one tying him to Hillary Clinton. The photo has its own source, but we're talking about this article only here. Is the slant really against Clinton? Read the article. If the business history section didn't have what I added to it at the end of January, with Bobblehead's help, we'd even have more weight on the ties to politicians section. The majority of this particular section is about Obama; ten sources worth. If somehow the Clinton image creates a dramatic slant towards smearing her, why don't you expand the rest of the article? I can confidently say I have enhanced this article, and I'm not playing politics. My edits speak for themselves.
Again, WP:NPOV says "Let the facts speak for themselves." If you are not happy with the facts in this article perhaps you can add some more to the smaller sections? My earlier advice was to find a photo of just Tony that meets inclusion criteria like someone tried February 1. Corey Salzano (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And Corey, as I reminded User:99.147.17.156 about WP:AGF, I'd like to remind you about WP:DBTN. Ronnotel (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To Ronnotel -- I'm not really assuming anything. But to say that one is voting for Ron Paul in Pennsylvania on the same day that he's actually getting out of the race is just a very good indication that the poster doesn't even seem to know or mention his departure from active campaigning. To say that he's voting for him, without mentioning something like "I'll caste my vote in his favour even though he's no longer conducting an active campaign, because I believe that the causes that his campaign championed are right", or something similar, is the clearest indication that the poster knows next to nothing about Paul's campaign, much less vote for him. 99.147.17.156 (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm happy that you are not assuming anything. Let's leave it at and move forward. Ronnotel (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for not making any assumptions. Regardless of what is in the news today, the Pennsylvania ballots aren't going to be reprinted. This is all besides the matter at hand, and if you'd like to continue feel free to use my talk page. I would also like to move on. Corey Salzano (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we explain the relevance of this photo? The article makes no mention of it, as far as I can see. I particularly question the image's placement, which juxtaposes rather interestingly with adjacent text describing an argument between Obama and Clinton regarding ties to Rezko -- strikes me as a neutrality problem to forcibly manufacture this comparison if we can't justify it with sourcing and article text. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
See the last paragraph in the section that starts with "On Friday, January 25, 2008, Matt Lauer.." As far as the placement, the only reason it is located there is because if it was placed between the second to last paragraph and the last paragraph the image left quite a bit of white space at the end of the section, but if you'd prefer, we can definitely slide it down one paragraph. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Argh, I was just coming to strike out the above, too. :p No idea how I missed that last paragraph, actually went to check if it was in there on the version I'd been reading. Since it came up in the interview, there's a claim to relevance and the image isn't just coming out of the blue. The placement still concerns me, though, as images can be very loud; has Lauer's question been widely repeated? It hasn't that I know of, but I'll poke around a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Because of its relationship to Clinton bringing up Rezko in the SC debate, it got quite a bit of coverage in the days following the debate and is periodically brought up when the pundits are talking about Obama's ties to Rezko. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
*nod* Yeah, thought that might be so. Trying to figure out a good way to present the image as a piece of the debate, rather than as the center of it (I don't think that was the intent, just that it's hard to balance the article's sole image against its accompanying text). Perhaps a slightly more wordy caption? "The photo discussed in Clinton's interview with Matt Lauer, depicting Rezko (center) with Bill and Hillary Clinton," or something like that? Still looking for something that says when it was taken, so we could perhaps say "The 199x photo" or some such. Anything else I come up with is much too long, but the general idea of offering just a touch more context seems good. Your thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We aren't sure the date the image was taken, so "The 199x photo" probably wouldn't worked. Your suggestion would work, or maybe something like "Within days of the South Carolina debate, this 1990s photo of Rezko (center) with Bill and Hillary Clinton was discovered." --Bobblehead (rants) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Went ahead and implemented that, will watch for any further comments. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UNDUE

There's a key aspect of the NPOV policy (which I'm surprised Luna did not mention) that is very relevant here, namely WP:UNDUE. The problem I have with this photo is that I believe it is clearly given undue weight in this article given that it is the only picture. Lest there be accusations of bias as above, let me fully disclose that while not exactly a full-blown "supporter," I very much hope that Obama defeats Clinton in the Dem nomination fight and goes on to be president. My argument is thus based on encyclopedia policy, not political beliefs.

WP:UNDUE notes that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Rezko has ties to politicians, but as near as I can tell the only tie to the Clinton's is this picture. Thousands of people have had their picture taken with the Clinton's so that's not much of a "tie." I'm quite certain that media mentions of the Obama/Rezko connection outnumber mentions of the Clinton/Rezko connection roughly 100 to 1. Matt Lauer mentioned it, but this is hardly something that is regularly discussed (I don't find any Rezko/Obama photos online, but obviously that would be ten times more appropriate for this article). Just to give a personal example, I am a big time political news junkie who has followed every aspect of this campaign (saving many hundreds of articles in folders on my computer), and I had never heard of this photo until I came here, though I am quite familiar with Rezko. That's anecdotal, but it suggests this article is making news more than it is accurately reflecting (with proper considerations for weight) what has been reported.

As they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and readers who come to this article in the next few weeks (and many will) knowing little about this guy will assume his connections to Clinton are as strong or even stronger than the ones to Obama if they only give the article a cursory glance (as many will). This is factually inaccurate, and I think inclusion of this photo thus misleads readers and violates a key portion of our NPOV policy.

I think there are basically two ways to proceed. If we had other photos (maybe one of Rezko himself at the top, one of him with another politician, etc.) then I would certainly not have a problem keeping the Clinton photo. However I do not think the Clinton photo alone is acceptable. If we cannot find other photos I strongly feel that it should be removed. I'm interested to hear arguments that inclusion of this photo does not provide undue weight to what is ultimately an extremely trivial aspect of Rezko's career - the fact that he (like many powerful people) once had his picture taken with a sitting president.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will now feel like an idiot. Excellent point, Bigtimepeace, and, honestly, not one I'd thought of and I really should have. *sigh* I was more approaching the image from a standpoint that including the image didn't represent a bias rather than giving the image undue weight as the only image on the article and I really should have. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries Bobblehead, and certainly don't feel like an idiot! Thanks for removing the image, like I said I think that's the way to go for now but certainly am not prejudiced against adding it back in later if the article was expanded, particularly with more photos (or perhaps humorous caricatures of the various personages?...errr wait).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Clintons got money from Rezko co-defendants

More detail here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/09/clinton-got-money-from-re_n_90605.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is applicable to this article because.... --Bobblehead (rants) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This source might be a better fit for the fundraising section of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 Corey Salzano (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that as the trial progresses we should make it is own article. In that article, there can be a section that deals with the ties Rezko and his codefenants have to politicals (i.e. Clinton and Obama.) The trail will likely get a lot of attention and a separate article that details it is the best way to go. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That may be a good idea, but I'm not following the trial close enough to know enough to do that. The trial seems to be only followed closely by the Chicago press and I don't live there. So, if someone in Chicago wants to start the article and maintain it... --Bobblehead (rants) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Explanation for removal of image

Just to be clear, I am not opposed to having an image of Obama's house being included on this article, I'm just opposed to this specific image from being included I don't believe that it meets NFCC#1 in that the image itself is not notable (it is not mentioned in the article[12] as User:Ddweb claims) and the image itself is easily recreatable. Just to keep the discussion in one spot, I've started a discussion at Image talk:Rezko Obama Property Deal.jpg#Replaceable image. Please respond there and not here. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So if the image passes the "notability" test, that is, for example garnering specific mention in a credible article(e.g. exact wording to the effect of "here is a picture that shows such and such..." in non-trivial notable presentation), that would be sufficient for inclusion? Or would that still not be fair game, as it would (or broadly, pictures of houses in general) fail on No Free Equivalent, because anyone can take a picture of a house, and any photo of a house cannot be included so long as free equivalents of said image of the property exist somewhere in any qualitative/quantifiable term?
Or let me state it another way. In hypothetical terms. If a WP:RS reporter were to take the ABC News article composite image as is, and confronted Senator Obama(or surrogates) during a scheduled news conference or at a rally, generated some type of media or public controversy that went on to receive notable [WP:RS] journalistic coverage in which said image was the focal point of the story, with multiple references throughout, then and only then would it be fair game? Or would it still not be good enough?
In the spirit of understanding, are you saying that any usable image must itself not only be NOTABLE, but rather also be the focal point of a [WP:RS] worthy source, that is, pointed discussion must be of and about the_image and not what the_image is representing? So hypothetically again, if the ABC News article had not been gimped, and discussions pertinent to the real estate property it depicted include phrases to the effect of "In this photo...", or "This specific photo...", or "Here, in this 2007 photo at Obama's residence...". I'm not against Senator Obama or for Senator Clinton, but a lot of people here are wondering why the image of an unproven Rezko-Clinton tie seems eerily suspect given the origins, nature of, and legal facts surrounding a publicly well known Rezko-Obama political tie.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Clintons AFAIK have not been publicly charged as having political ties to Rezko. Why is the picture under a heading that claims that that, in fact, is what it is? I hope you don't want to ask me what my definition of "is" is. This is Wikipedia right? An unbiased , most reliable encyclopedia in the world? Because I and a few others would like to know, are we making the claim here, that Rezko is tied to the Clintons? If that is not what we are claiming, then would it not be more factually presentable to separate the two, one headed by "Political Ties", the second, "Alleged Political Ties". Because while a Rezko-Obama tie is beyond a shadow of a doubt, a Rezko-Clinton tie is very much only speculation. Ddweb (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In order for a copyrighted image to be used in an article under the fair use tag, the image itself must be notable, or it must not be something that is replaceable by free images. The ABC news image does not meet either of these requirements, so it can not be used on Wikipedia under the fair use tag. If you can provide an image that is either free or independently notable of Obama's home, or of Obama and Rezko together, then you are more than welcome to add that image to this article. I've been looking on the usual free image sites, but as of yet I have not found one that is not copyrighted or using a license that prevents us from using the image on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is the [WP:RS] cite for your above statement "Looks like someone has claimed fair use on the image now"? Is it on DR? The Fox News article used in the cite [13] irrefutably states "The unsourced photo appeared Friday morning on DrudgeReport.com". If you cannot provide an reliable source supporting your comment above then I will remove it.
An Administrator has approved the fair use of an image of the property without decoration if it is [WP:RS]. When such an image becomes available it will be posted as its connection to the Political Ties section of the Rezko article is indisputable. If you want to remove it you need to provide evidence that a free equivalent exists before removing it.
Last time I checked this is still Wikipedia, not Digg. Ddweb (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about? You just provided a reliable source that is about the photo we have on the article, thus it meets the WP:RS criteria.. There were multiple articles solely about the photo. The FoxNews article is saying it is unsourced because it isn't known where the photo came from, not that we can't use it in Wikipedia. The photographer that took the photo and where it was taken does not have to be known for it to meet the reliable source criteria. If you find an image of Rezko and Obama or Obama's house that is either free, or meets the non-free content criteria, then you are more than welcome and encouraged to include it in this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC : Neighborhood characterization

Is "downscale black" more or less POV than "working-class African-American"? (the subject of a current low-level editing conflict) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, alternative proposal. Neither are particularly good in my opinion. The Salon article used "downscale black" but that does not mean we have to use it—it's a strange term (what exactly does "downscale" mean?) and I don't think it's good for the article. "Working-class African-American" probably is not ideal either though. Rather than edit war over such a trivial matter, why not come up with a third alternative on which all can agree? What we are really talking about here are neighborhoods that are predominantly African American and where there is significant poverty. Why not simply say "lower income African American neighborhoods" or "lower income black neighborhoods"? I would vote for the former since it's more precise (black obviously can have multiple meanings, whereas African American cannot). Describing neighborhoods as "lower income" or "low income" is routine and I think wholly appropriate here. If not that I would recommend some other third option since there are people who don't like either of the ones above. It should be easy to agree on something because really this ain't a big deal and there's all kinds of ways we can say what we need to say about the kind of neighborhoods in which Rezko held real estate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Downscale black" definitely seems more POV than "working-class African-American," which is the term often used in demographic studies. After reading the line in the article, I agree with Bigtimepeace above that low income black neighborhood is best.Renee (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agree that "low-income" is more descriptive and less POV than "downscale."Axiomatica (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Note. I went ahead and made this change since it seems like a good compromise which has several backers and no objections as yet (after a week). Obviously if anyone has a better idea I'm open to it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment that seems like the best move imo. Good call Bigtimepeace. Chris M. (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gamble

Strange: defense did not present witness despite the state's 8 weeks of case building. I added this, therefore: On May 6, 2008, both the prosecution and the defense rested their cases. Government prosecutors spent 8 weeks for their case, with final witness, Ali Ata, a former high-ranking state official. But Rezko’s lawyer, Joseph J. Duffy, did not present any witnesses. Closing arguments are set for next Monday.www.nytimes.com, Illinois: No Defense Witnesses for Rezko --Florentino floro (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do we treat Tony Rezko on the Barack Obama page?

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

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

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article. On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (here, at least). Noroton (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions to Democrats and Republicans in the lead.

Just start a discussion on the wording of the lead, in particular the sentence that currently reads "Rezko has been involved in fundraising for local Illinois Democratic and Republican politicians since the 1980s."[14] An IP address has been coming by several times in the last few days to add "some" in front of Republican[15] or in one case, outright removing reference to Republicans. Rezko seems to focus his political contributions on whichever party is in power at the moment. So for the Chicago area that's primarily Democrats, but until recently his state level contributions have focused primarily on Republicans, but now that the Dems control Illinois state government his contributions have shift there (and quite heavily if you look at his recent contributions). So question is, how does everyone want to present this information in the lead? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Why is there no picture of Tony Resko on this article? He is the center of a high-profile corruption case in Illinois and needs to be shown! If someone could find a picture of Resko, it would help out this article a bit more as far a visualization goes. - Crazyconan (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a free one, we'd love to have it. Since Rezko is alive we can't really claim fair use on the copyrighted ones out there and I haven't been able to find a free picture of him yet. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)