Talk:Jeremiah Wright/Archive 3

protection

I've semi-protected the page again... should cover the page through the Democratic convention. This should limit possible vandalism, but please try to discuss changes here before we get into another round of edit warring that might result in full protection.Balloonman (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ooops! I knew there was something to be done when that round of full protection was lapsed! Betcha a few dimes that it ends up protected sooner than later... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, I was on my way here to re-semi protect it, but it looks like someone got here first. Lets hope full protection will not be needed again. Tiptoety ^talk 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurtz

The text,

Stanley Kurtz, adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute and fellow of the Hoover Institution, has made the following satirical comments about Wright's sermons: "In short, from the standpoint of deconstruction and postcolonial theory (and only from that standpoint), Wright’s remarks are undisturbing, and in fact most welcome. Since the most eminent universities in the United States have consistently these discourses it follows that (unless you’ve got a problem with deconstruction or postcolonial theory — and how could you possibly?) Wright is to be commended."[1]

is a very poor addition. Kurtz admits he has created a straw man ("OK, I’ve been tweaking actual deconstructionist and post-colonial texts, and adding some "original" analysis of my own, to fit the Wright affair."). The piece is principally his rant against his (mis-)understandings about major deconstructionist and post-colonial thinkers.

CyberAnth (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NAACP speech

Is there a source with a transcript of the speech? I remember Wright saying some things that might be applicable to his biography, but I would like to have them well-sourced first. TheslB (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

CNN has a transcript here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. TheslB (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright Jealous of Obama

A theory is emerging that Wright is trying to sabotage Obama's candidacy out of jealousy. foxnews. Muntuwandi (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Trip to Libya - source for quote

Can somebody provide a source for the quote about "Jewish support drying up like a snow ball in hell". The current citation does not include that. Thank you. --nyc171 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote is from Jodi Kantor's March 6, 2007 New York Times article Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized:

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

Reverend Wright wrote a letter soon thereafter disputing Kantor's reporting on him. Text of Letter from Wright to the New York Times on March 11, 2007. TheslB (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well during the debate, they asked him about it, and they mentioned the quote and he didn't dispute it. You would think that a quote so egregious would ring off in someone's mind if he knew the person didn't say it. Barack Obama didn't see a light bulb appear above his head, not to mention, it was being asked by debate moderators, who wouldn't just make up a quote like that.Tallicfan20 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverend Wright, the subject of the article, did dispute Kantor's reporting, calling it "one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years." Furthermore, Obama was not asked whether the quote was accurate. He was asked about Jewish-American support and he answered:

Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.

And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.

You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.

But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.

When I was -- just last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti- Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.

TheslB (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Letter of thanks RE: Johnson

The letter superimposed on the Johnson hospital picture is a letter of thanks. It is not, nor does it state, that it is a commendation. There is really nothing more to it.Jombl (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a military letter of commendation:[2] Jombl (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright (second from right, behind I.V. pole), in 1966, as a U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman. He is tending to President Lyndon Johnson, for which he was commended (see letter superimposed on photo).

Please review the biography we have already discussed:

During 1965 and 1966, [Wright] was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

And the HistoryMakers's biography:

Wright is the recipient of numerous awards, including three honorary doctorates and three presidential commendations.

I also see you changed the sourced language on Jeremiah Wright's letters of commendation from the body of the article earlier (and despite our discussion above also removed valedictorian). The photo as it appeared before your recent changes is on the right. Please stop altering the caption to remove the term commended. TheslB (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Kari Bethel is not a Reliable Source, the source you link to is signed by her, the second part of it is a Wiki reprint. The letter is a clear letter of thanks it does not "Commend". I have already posted a copy of what a military letter of commendation looks like in the first paragraph in this section. What possible basis do you have for mischaracterizing the clearly written text from the note superimposed on the photo? "Three" presidential commendations is not a proper foundation - especially when we have one here and it is clearly a letter of thanks and not a commendation. What or where are the other two? It looks like the entire claim comes from Wiki and was based upon the op-ed piece discussed earlier.Jombl (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan

The association between Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan should not have been removed. Both Rev. Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ honored Farrakhan with a major lifetime award. Rev. Wright and Farrakhan visited Syria together which is not only a predominately Muslim country hostile to the U.S., but a country listed by our Department of State as supporting international terrorism. It is similar when you read about Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic remarks and his praise for Hitler. This association tells the reader volumes about the person. Please do not remove important information in an effort to be politically correct. LeeAmericanVet (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the Farrakhan connection should be noted. Of course the liberals who run Wikipedia will not allow it, no real surprise. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean that "association" where Wright, Jackson and Farrakhan "visited" Syria in January 1984 to secure the release of Robert Goodman, an A-6 Intruder Naval Flight Officer and graduate of the United States Naval Academy who was shot down over Lebanon on December 4, 1983 during Reagan's fumbling around in the mid-east, and who was captured upon ejection from his stricken plane, and whose release was facilitated by Reverend Wright? – Lestatdelc (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am talking about the Lifetime Achievement Award that Jeremiah Wright gave to hateful, anti-semetic, anti-American Farrakhan. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh so you mean the "achievement award" Trinity United Church of Christ (not Wright) gave Farrakahn for his prison ministry work. If you feel compelled to write about the "award", then put it into the Trinity article as it is not relevant to Wright's bio article since the churches publication gave the "award" and not Jeremiah Wright. And the person I was addressing was indeed talking about the Syria mission I was asking for clarification on. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

How could you defend such vile men as Wright and Farrakhan? You are on the wrong side of good vs. evil. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So if I make edits to a Wikipedia article, and add to the talk page on how to improve an article on Adolf Hitler for example, that transmogrifies me into someone who is on the wrong side of good and evil? Odd sort of argument. So would that make The History Channel (which has a lot of programs about Hitler and the Nazi's) on the wrong side of good and evil as well? Such binary and woefully misguided, agenda laden argumentation is a sign that someone is becoming unhinged. Wikipedia articles are for conveying accurate, well balanced information about the people, places, things and events therein, not as a polemic on good and evil. - Lestatdelc (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not the forum for the battle of good and evil. There are internet discussion groups and forums for such activities. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. - Lestatdelc (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Restoring Photo of Wright with President Clinton

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

Um, no. Bill Clinton's term in office is long since done with but that doesn't mean we should put the image of him hugging Monica Lewinsky into his article's gallery. POV-pushing doesn't have an expiration date. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed, the reason for including the uncropped, undistorted photo is to show Wright's prominence as one of the comparatively few members of the clergy who was invited to a very important National Prayer Breakfast by a sitting President. --Tkhorse (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If we actually had a free licensed photo of Clinton and Lewinsky, it might be a useful illustration, but no such photo seems to be free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the photo to the article. As noted previously, it is alas one of only two photos of Wright determined to be free licensed (what was believed to be a third was determined to be a private rather than Marine Corps photo and deleted). Again, identification of additonal free licensed photos or contacting photographers/sources asking them to please free license useful photos is strongly encouraged. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed it, for reasons previously stated above. Whether or not an image is freely licensed does not supersede other Wikipedia policies such as adhering to a neutral point of view. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have zero interest in getting into any edit war about whether the photo should be in the article or not, but I wish to get my opinion on record that your claim that there is any Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue to it is completely baseless. Were there text saying that Wright at the White House event was wonderful and somehow supports some sort of political viewpoint, or alternatively that it was evil and besmirches someone or something, that would be a NPOV violation, which Wikipedia rightly prohibits. As far as I can determine, the photo and the short description noting when and where it was made are a simple record of fact. I haven't seen any suggestion that the meeting did not actually take place, or that the circumstances of the photo different from those described, or that the photo is a forgery. If there is any debate about the authenticity of the photo or if the time, place, and people shown are not as described, please provide a pointer to it. Otherwise, the claim that there is some NPOV issue with it is 100% bogus. If there is some important issue here I am missing, please explain it. Thank you, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say that I have not already said elsewhere in this talk page. The connotations of such a photo are clear, just as a Monica-Bill image or a Bill-with-a-cigar image would be. Tarc (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Back it goes. I rather suspect you trying to promote some sort of political viewpoint. Whether you think that that Wright met with President Clinton somehow makes him look "bad" or "good" I don't know, nor do I give a damn. For most people, having a chance to meet a President of the United States is a special and notable occasion. It is therefore a notable event in the life of the article's subject. If you think otherwise, please give an actual explanation, or provide alternative free licensed images of even more important events in the subject's life. Thanks, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given an actual explanation; endless repetition will not make it any clearer to you if you don't understand it by now. The mere fact that it happens to be a free image does not automatically merit inclusion into an article, and neither I nor anyone else is responsible for finding an alternative, as none is necessary. We already have other images of Rev. Wright in the article, so the reader is well-aware of the what the subject looks like. An image where Wright was one of many, many other religious figures to meet with the President in the White House that day does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied to on your user talk page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I become famous some day by proving some great theorem like P=NP, and get a wikipedia bio article and an invitation to the White House, I sure hope that somebod puts up a picture of my smilin' face standing next to Obama. I'll certainly put the picture on my own User Page. Front and center. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that I would expect my picture to appear in Obama's bio article (although I would certainly have no objection if it did!). I mention this because of the comments above reguarding putting pictures like this in the president's bio article. That is not a comparable situation. The picture of me and Obama would be much more interesting in my own bio article than it would be in Obama's bio artile. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is still some pending reason to keep the cropped photo at this point (and I can't imagine what the reason would be at this point in time), I am going to go ahead and replace it with the original complete photo. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted the pic into the Career as minister section. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Affair

Didn't he have an extramarital affair at one point? He's certainly not the only man of the cloth to have violated the sixth commandment (or the seventh, if you are Catholic; see Ten Commandments). Remember Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Ted Haggard?

In any case, there should definitely be a mention of that in this article.

Stonemason89 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you had any evidence that supported your claim... Grsz^talk 15:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any hard proof of an affair at this moment, just an article in the New York Post, which is a tabloid, so we should probably take it with a small grain of salt. I made sure to mention that it was an alleged affair, not on solid ground, and that it was reported in the Post (which enables readers to consider the source). However, we must remember that John Edwards' affair would never have been revealed if the National Enquirer had not discovered it. Tabloids may be trashy, but sometimes they are the first to reveal when something isn't right....

Stonemason89 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wright did not have an affair. That was a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karencwallace (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? Were you in charge of his penis? Stonemason89 would do well to remember that "tabloid" is simply a printing format, and has nothing to do with content. Think "folio" as in Shakespeare.

hen was the page created

My I ask when this Page was created?It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

October 10, 2006 at 12:47pm, why do you ask? Lestatdelc (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering really. Thanks And how did you find that out?It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Isn't "Former Pastor" and "Pastor Emeritus" two different names for the same thing? If so, one should be chosen and the other deleted. 71.61.254.106 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of all mention of B. Obama?

Somebody claimed that there is a ban on any connections between Wright and Obama, and the section was removed without discussion. What rules would support this? Rv-d the change in the meantime. Most Americans had never heard of the man before the campaign. Bachcell (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Someone should add the quotes that made Wright famous: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color"; "God damm America"; and 9/11 was "chickens coming home to roost." Also, how about his $1.6 million house?[3] As the article stands now, it appears that Wright was innocent victim of "intense media scrutiny." Kauffner (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think a whole article (Jeremiah Wright controversy) filled with his quotes is not enough?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason Wright is famous should be mentioned prominently in this article -- it has nothing to do with what is in some other article. The article is supposed to be a service to the reader. It should tell the story in way that makes sense. Kauffner (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can try to work towards a new consensus. Till then you might want to restrain yourself to edit this section.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And please note that this article falls under the "Obama-probation".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)