Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Regarding weight

Perhaps I can help frame the debate. I believe Norton has done an excellent job of describing the Obama/Rezko, and through tireless effort has demonstrated that most major news sources have devoted serious attention to the matter. I am less convinced that they say it raises questions about Obama's judgment. For the most part that's not the role of straight journalism (as opposed to punditry or editorializing). Usually they just report that there is an issue, and what various parties say about it. They save the conclusions for their occasional news analysis articles, which are a different kind of source. I think we should all accept - anyone who is willing - that Noroton has made the case that the issue has gotten nearly universal coverage. So further arguing counts of news stories is going to be a distraction. The question that remains is: how much, if any, coverage of the matter does that suggest we include in an article about Obama's life and career? (and of course how, and where, but that is a different discussion). Here we have something of top importance, a major party presidential candidate, with hundreds of thousands of articles, probably to hundreds in each major news publication. The coverage of Obama in each paper alone is an order of magnitude greater than we can reasonably include in this article. So what do we add? Some very important subjects take few words to describe. Trivial subjects of no notability (e.g. where the campaign jet lands every day) get lots of ink. We do have to make some judgment calls about relevance. I think nearly all of us have accepted that we will describe the subject as best we can, but that the description will be succinct, to the point, an overview rather than a complete treatment (which can be in another article). And the range of options we're seriously considering is about 2 to 5 sentences. That's not so far off. Perhaps we can get farther by asking which version gives the best, clearest summary of the issue to the reader. That's what the encyclopedia is all about. This is a somewhat complex issue and too short does not necessarily mean the least derogatory. Let's select the salient facts that most add to understanding. Noroton's list of "grievances" looks intimidating and harsh on the candidate. But he has done a great job of condensing that into some neutral, nonthreatening language. I'm satisfied (with a few quibbles) with anything ranging from the current version to Noroton's proposed version. So whatever gets decided within reason I think will be okay. Wikidemo (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this ties in well with my comment from 18:50, and I think Wikidemo's point about salient facts fits in well with my suggestions for how to judge what's salient. Noroton (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that coverage has been "universal" (AP, Reuters newswire services guarantee that), but I would still characterize it as "minimal" or "low-level" when compared to other stories. This is important when considering WP:WEIGHT concerns. Also, much of the coverage has been very Chicago-centric. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Chicago-centric" is not inappropriate for a Chicagoan who is a U.S. Senator from Illinois. Other factors in WP:WEIGHT are going to be that this is a biography article and the Wright, Ayers and Rezko matters are biography subject matter, giving them more weight here than particular non-biography campaign issues. But this discussion doesn't really get us anywhere in the abstract, best to concentrate on the specific proposed additions. Noroton (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How could anyone complain about the "Chicago centric" nature of the news coverage? Obama has represented the Chicago area throughout his career. Now that he's a US senator from Illinois, he represents Chicago (one of the largest cities on earth) plus a few thousand square miles of beanfields and cornfields and the Shawnee National Forest. So the Chicago centric nature of the media coverage is an entirely natural event. There is nothing "minimal" or "low level" about this coverage. Nexis searches confirm that the story has received three times as much coverage as McCain and Keating, or Hillary and her Bosnian sniper story.

Use Nexis. You'll see what I mean, and its archives do go all the way back to the days of the Keating Five. By the way, you might notice that coverage of that investigation, at least as far as McCain was concerned, was "Arizona centric." WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree to add "friend" and "important fundraiser"?

Friend and fundraiser are two words in both my and Rick Block's proposal above, although Scjessey's proposal and the basic language that Clubjuggle posted doesn't have it. I think we can come to consensus that it be added. Here's Rick Block's language:

The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously purchased by the wife of developer Tony Rezko, who Obama has characterized as a friend. Rezko had been a fundraiser for Obama and other Illinois politicians from both major parties.

I don't think Rezko's freindship with Obama is really contested by anybody, but if it is, I'll provide the proof right here. Some may question whether Rezko is an important fundraiser of Obama, but I can provide quotes from Obama to that effect. Because the friendship is not a controversial matter (either on this page or anywhere else), why not save space and simply say something like "Tony Rezko, a friend ..."? I like the way I put it in Proposal two: "a friend and key fundraiser for Obama and other Illinois politicians from both major parties." Again, it's not the specific language so much as the idea. If anyone is uncomfortable with any of this, please say so, I'll provide evidence, and we can come to agreement on the facts. Second question, is there any question that it would be WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT problem to include the facts that Rezko is a friend and a key fundraiser? Noroton (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that since space = weight, we should be saving as much space as we can to satisfy those raising objections about weight. Just call him "developer Tony Rezko, a friend and key fundraiser for Obama." WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy with the proposed text above, but I would prefer this slightly altered version (change in bold):

The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously purchased by the wife of developer Tony Rezko, who Obama had described as a friend. Rezko had been a fundraiser for Obama and other Illinois politicians from both major political parties.

WB74's "equation" sort of makes sense, but his alternative language raises WP:NPOV concerns by making it seem as if Rezko raised money for Obama only. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think it would be better to keep the language about other politicians of both parties. Since on March 15, Obama said Rezko was still a friend (while the trial was either begun or about to begin), I'd rather just keep it to "a friend" and change it if Obama changes his description. This is what he said on March 15 to the Sun-Times:

Q: Do you still consider him a friend?

A: Yes, with the caveat that obviously if it turns out that the allegations are true, then he's not who I thought he was, and I'd be very disappointed with that.

At the very least, I'd say 'has described' (not "had"), which but this makes the sentence more difficult to write, but it's not important either way. Noroton (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The are two reasons why "had" is better than "has":

1. It can be implicitly surmised that Rezko is no longer a friend of Obama.
2. We say "Rezko had been" in the next sentence.

If we agree on this, I see no reason why this couldn't be applied to the article immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For 1), the problem is the last source I've seen (the one by Noroton above) shows that Obama still considers him a friend. While the past tense version is pretty close to OR territory. Arkon (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well we could circumvent that issue entirely by saying "who Obama described as a friend." What say ye? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Arkon (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"whom", not "who", but I'm a bit confused now as to how that phrase would fit in a single sentence, which I'd prefer over Rick Block's two-sentence version. For instance: The adjacent lot was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, a friend and key fundraiser for Obama and other Illinois politicians from both major parties. That's nice and short. We could remove "a friend and", then add to the end of the sentence whom Obama described as a friend. Then break off the end of the current sentence into its own sentence. The transaction later attracted some media scrutiny. Noroton (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves - we are just dealing with the first two sentences for the moment:

The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously purchased by the wife of developer Tony Rezko, whom Obama described as a friend. Rezko had been a fundraiser for Obama and other Illinois politicians from both major political parties.

This is fine as it is. It only gets confusing when you try to shoehorn the word "key" into the sentence, which we have not agreed to. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Well, that's part of what this section is for, as seen in the title. I have multiple sources for that, which I'll provide, and we can discuss it with the evidence in front of us. Noroton (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for "key fundraiser" It isn't just the raw amount of money that's important, but when the giver gives it:

• New York Times article, June 14, 2007 (Headline: "An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment"): Mr. Obama turned to Mr. Rezko for help at several important junctures. Records show that when Mr. Obama needed cash in the waning days of his losing 2000 Congressional campaign, Mr. Rezko rounded up thousands of dollars from business contacts. [...] In addition to enlisting his huge circle of donors, Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama talked frequently about campaign developments during the Senate race, Mr. Rezko’s associates said.
• Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2008: Although Rezko is not Obama’s largest bundler, he was there at the start and at critical moments along the way, helping support the candidate when few others were. [...] When Obama first sought public office in 1995, Rezko provided $2,000 in donations. Five years later, when Obama unsuccessfully challenged Democrat Bobby L. Rush for his U.S. House seat, Rezko and his associates contributed a much-needed infusion of cash in the final weeks of the campaign.
• Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007: Rezko became Obama's political patron. Obama got his first campaign contributions on July 31, 1995: $300 from a Loop lawyer, a $5,000 loan from a car dealer, and $2,000 from two food companies owned by Rezko. [...] Rezko was among the people Obama appointed to serve on his U.S. Senate campaign finance committee, the Sun-Times reported in 2003.
• Barack Obama quote from Sun-Times interview, March 15, 2008 (emphasis added): Probably our relationship deepened when I started my first political campaign for the state Senate. [...] some people talked to me about potentially running for that seat. And Tony was one of the people I talked to about that. And he then supported me in that first race. [...] I raised a grand total of $100,000 in that first race. [...] And this is an estimate. He probably raised about $10,000 of that $100,000. [...] So fast-forward to the U.S. Senate race. Tony joined my finance committee. He wasn't my largest fund-raiser but he was a significant fundraiser. He only held one event for us at his home in Wilmette. It was a successful event. We think he raised about $70,000 himself for the event [...] I had two state Senate races: the first, I raised $100,000. So my estimate of Tony having raised $10,000-15,000 sounds accurate. About 10 percent or 15 percent of the total I raised. That is an estimate but that sounds accurate to me. [...] My congressional race, rather. I raised approximately $600,000. Again, my estimate would be about $50,000 to 60,000. [...] Keep in mind that Tony raised money for me primarily in the primary. That was really when he was most active. And we started with eight people. It was a real stretch just to raise the first $250,000.
• Los Angeles Times "Top of the Ticket" blog, April 7, 2008: In his presidential race, Obama increasingly has relied on small donations delivered via the Internet from more than a million individuals. But when he started in Illinois politics, [Jay] Stewart [of the nonprofit government watchdog Better Government Assn. in Chicago] noted, “if you wanted money, you needed to ask the big boys.” Noroton (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "key" (or an equivalent) doesn't add anything to the text except extra weight. From your own sources, it seems that Rezko was not the largest fundraiser. Also, dropping it into the sentence implies Rezko was a key fundraiser for the other politicians as well, which (a) we don't know, and (b) would not be relevant to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring what the sources say? Obama himself calls him "significant", the point that the Jan. 23 L.A. Times made that Rezko was there at critical times when money was more important (a point Obama also makes), and the characterization of Rezko as a "patron" of Obama (Sun-Times and New York Times) and one of the "big boys" that "if you wanted money, you needed to ask" by Jay Stewart of the good government group. I haven't seen any source say that he was not significant. It is also universally acknowledged that he was enormously significant for the Illinois Gov. Blagojevich. If you think that it's not relevant to mention the fact that he was a big contributor to others, I have no problem dropping all of that and just saying he was a big Obama supporter. In terms of WP:WEIGHT, its a three-letter word that shows his relationship to Obama was important to Obama, just as "friend" does, so I don't understand an objection on that ground. Noroton (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not ignoring sources - I am reading them all. In fact, there really isn't any reason for you to keep regurgitating them here (although the odd quote and link has certainly been helpful). I'd like to hear some comment from others on this, but it seems to me that using the word "significant" is appropriate, but that no source I am aware of uses the word "key" (which has a subtly different meaning). We would have to be careful not to imply that Rezko was a significant fundraiser to politicians where this was not true. I have no idea why people keep banging on about Blagojevich, who has absolutely nothing to do with this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with "significant". I used "key" only because it's shorter, and I thought it would give you a bit less of a problem with WP:WEIGHT. Noroton (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This also sounds good to me. Keep it up guys! Arkon (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we mention the sale of the strip and that it took place with knowledge of Rezko's probe?

Something like this:

In early 2006, the Rezkos sold a strip of their lot to the Obamas. The transaction took place after Rezko was reported to be under investigation for unrelated corruption, for which he was later convicted.

Similar language is in my proposal and Rick Block's, but not Scjessey's. Bobblehead's (Proposal 4) states

Obama would later admit that the [...] purchase of a 10-foot wide strip of the Rezko lot created an appearance of impropriety.

But Bobblehead's version doesn't mention the fact that this sale was made after the investigation into Rezko had become publicly known. Newross' (Proposal 5) version has all the information:

Obama subsequently said it was a mistake [...] to purchase the 10-foot-wide-strip of land from Rezko because Rezko had been a political contributor and because Rezko had by then been reported to be under Federal investigation for corruption (unrelated to Obama), for which Rezko was later indicted and convicted.

Here's what Obama told the Sun-Times on March 15:

I think that a larger problem is me having bought the strip of land. At that point, it was clear that he was going to have some significant legal problems. But more to the point, even if he hadn't‚ he was a contributor and somebody who was doing business with the state. For me to enter into a business transaction with him was a bad idea. I've said repeatedly it was a boneheaded move, and a mistake that I regret.

Other citations:

• New York Times, June 14, 2007: The land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation.
• Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown (November 2, 2006): Since their original purchases, Rezko has sold Obama an additional 10-foot strip of his lot (1,500 square feet total) Noroton (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also Sun-Times article (January 30, 2008): Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, Obama expressed regret about the transaction, calling it "boneheaded" and "a mistake" because Tony Rezko was widely known to be under federal investigation at the time. -- Noroton (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Chicago Tribune timeline ("2006 Expanding Obama's Lot" item), no date: "A larger lapse of judgment existed when it came to the strip of property," Obama said. "Because at that time, it became clear that Rezko was getting into bigger problems. And this was now a business transaction with him. And this is what I’ve referred to as a 'boneheaded' move." -- Noroton (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Very brief version of the Rezko business

I'm not sure anyone noticed this suggestion above, but I'll repeat it here in it's own section. Noroton has pointed out the details are already in the Rezko article. Given this, I think a very brief summary is all that's needed here. For example, a minor variant from what I suggested above:

Obama's friendship and personal real estate entanglements with developer and political fund raiser Tony Rezko surfaced as a campaign issue during the 2008 presidential primaries due to Rezko's conviction on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama. Obama admitted it was a mistake to be involved with Rezko since it created an appearance of impropriety and donated all Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

I think this captures the critical essence of the issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The "real estate entanglements" (don't like that word) were with Tony Rezko's wife, not Tony Rezko. Commas would be needed to break up the awkward second sentence, but otherwise it sounds pretty good. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm stillnot sure Rezko has been much of a campaign issue so far, in comparison to the rest of the campaign. Most of this came up prior to Obama's presidential campaign (October 2006) and would have continued regardless of Obama campaigning or not and chances are will continue once the campaign is over. Rezko is more of a career issue than a single event issue and really should be covered in this article as such. I like the succinctness of this offering, so if there is a way to reword it in a way that it doesn't focus only on the presidential campaign and still maintain that succinctness, I'm all for it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Rick, there were separate articles on the Keating Five, the Whitewater controversy and the Lewinsky scandal and they had a lot of detail, but that didn't stop one or even two lengthy paragraphs on each controversy appearing in John McCain and Hillary Clinton. For Hillary, these controversies even had bold section headers and for McCain, the Keating case was mentioned in the article lead. Please explain why Barack Obama shouldn't receive the same treatment. This is the well-established practice for Wikipedia biographies about famous politicians.

SCJ, Obama himself (as well as all of the news media) have indicated that the entanglements are with Tony Rezko and most of them don't even use the name "Rita." They just refer to her as "Tony Rezko's wife." Furthermore, there's no way she could pay for that property herself. She has a part time job. Everybody knows where the money for it came from. Evelyn Pringle has even suggested that the money came from Rezko's proven multi-million dollar frauds that he committed against GE Capital in Spring 2005. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There are separate articles for those 3 controversies because they were huge, front page issues that went on for months. One of them resulted in an impeachment process. There is no comparison that you can make with this Rezko thing, which is virtually unheard of outside of Chicago and political sections of newspapers. Regarding Rezko's wife, you are advocating that we lie to Wikipedia readers by stating it was Rezko, and not his wife? That would be a serious WP:BLP violation. "Everybody knows" and "[insert reporter here] has even suggested" are not good enough reasons to put lies in articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Scjessey, you have commented more on this page than anybody else over the past few weeks, and yet you make statements like "were with Tony Rezko's wife, not Tony Rezko". Why on earth would you say that when not one source, anywhere, indicates she was anything but the person whose name was on the deed. The mind boggles at the things you say. Obama himself, in his interview with the Sun-Times on March 15, talks about inviting Tony Rezko over to look at the house and talking with Tony Rezko about Tony Rezko buying the lot and Tony Rezko deciding to sell the strip of land. Really, the mind just boggles. Stop wasting our time, for the love of all that is St. Obama, please stop wasting our time. You are, yet again, spreading misinformation. Noroton (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Let's just all let Scjessey say whatever he wants about Rezko's wife, because it's not going to make a bit of difference. Nobody else is going to believe that. Nobody. We're wasting time even responding to Scjessey. This is an encyclopedia -- let's talk about reliable information. I would, however, like everybody to note that Scjessey said this and keep it in mind when you read everything else he says. Noroton (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the proposals we have been discussing have clearly stated "the wife of developer Tony Rezko." Now there is a suggestion that we just pretend it wasn't his wife, apparently, and I don't see that as acceptable. So all this mock outrage is just silly. I'm trying to make sure this article is neutral and accurate, and I'd be grateful if you would focus on the article and not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, from a business perspective, the real estate dealings were with Anita. Her name was the one on the original purchase agreement and was the name that was on strip of land agreement. Obama has also never admitted to discussing the purchase of the property with Rezko, except in the most passing of terms.. He showed the house to Rezko because Rezko was knowledgeable on the real estate in that area and could help him with whether or not it was a good buy. The Rezkos decision to purchase the lot was made independently of Obama..[1] Now who is spreading misinformation (The answer is you). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, you are now spreading the misinformation. From the very article you cite, in one of the top paragraphs: his private real estate transactions with Rezko, saying they were not simply mistakes of judgment because Rezko was under grand jury investigation at the time of their 2005 and 2006 dealings. "The mistake, by the way, was not just engaging in a transaction with Tony because he was having legal problems. The mistake was because he was a contributor and somebody who was involved in politics." Obama ain't talkin' about Rita here, Bobblehead. Nor here: he said Rezko took over that option after Rezko learned Obama was bidding for the house. Who was it that "took over that option", Bobblehead? Rita??? Do you really think so? Obama does not recall when he learned that Rezko was interested in buying the side lot- or even how Rezko learned it was for sale. Do you think Rita or Tony is the Rezko being mentioned here, Bobblehead? Are you really going to tell me it was Rita? Here's the spot where Rita is mentioned: That same day, Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the side lot for $625,000. A $37,000- a-year Cook County employee, she secured a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey. End of Rita mentions. But the article goes on to talk about what Tony was doing and was expected to do: Obama said Rezko "perhaps thought this would strengthen our relationship, that he was doing me a favor." But he added that Rezko also was making a sound business decision by buying the lot. Bobblehead, do you think the he in that sentence was a misprint? In what sense was the deal with the wife of Tony rather than with Tony, other than that her name was on the deed and the mortgage? But wait -- there's more! Rezko later sold the rest of the lot to one of his former attorneys [...] Did Rita get a sex-change operation that no one has reported about? No one says she sold the lot to her husband who later sold it to one of his attorneys. Why should I not be annoyed at having to take the time and effort of pointing this out when you and Scjessey haven't bothered to take the time and effort to find it out? Isn't my annoyance justified? Noroton (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what was said, actually. The only thing that matters is the legal fact that the arrangement was with Rezko's wife. So either we say "Rezko's wife", or we use more ambiguous language that doesn't specify. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did everyone catch that? It doesn't matter what was said, actually. Nope, reliable sources don't count. What counts is the "legal fact". How 'bout the fact fact as reported by the Chicago Tribune and every single other source that's ever reported on this that the decisionmaker was Tony Rezko and Obama's arrangements and transactions were with Tony? You know, the version accepted by all the sources that actually makes sense and doesn't obfuscate, confuse and mislead? No, none of that matters, because Scjessey, unlike the reliable sources, is the one to be trusted here. Noroton (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again with the uncivil language. Please stop that immediately. Please remember this is a BLP, and we can only include stuff that we are certain is factually accurate. We know that it was the wife of Tony Rezko who was the named individual in the transaction, so either we specify that (as we do in the existing version) or we change the language so that we don't need to be so specific. There are no sources, reliable or otherwise, that specifically state that it was Tony Rezko's name on the transaction; however, there are a great many stating it was his wife. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear the frustration from both of you, I wish I could help. Well, it's not really an important matter in terms of the article. We can say what we need to say without getting into all this. A number of parties related to Obama were involved in the series of transactions, so either we name them in regards to each transaction we list (more specificity), or we come up with a general term or list that describes all the parties, e.g. instead of "real estate entanglements" say "series of real estate transactions involving Rezko's wife, x, and y, or "Rezko's wife and other parties close to Rezko". I do think we're hitting the same issue, though. There may be a minimum reasonable size of any mention that attempts to "capture" the issue clearly succinctly, as opposed to referring to the issue and directing readers elsewhere. Wikidemo (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody to date has suggested that a transaction with Rezko's wife is tantamount to a transaction with Rezko himself - that's a new issue that would require support. The foregoing is all synthesis. Husbands and wives have a complex relationship in America. That a family is a single economic unit, or one spouse operates as a proxy of the other or pulls the other's puppet strings, is not so universal as to go without saying. Simply saying it is his wife, without elaboration, leaves the issue unexplored, which is the most neutral way to do it unless anyone has any strong evidence of something more than that.Wikidemo (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikidemo, every single source assumes it. Noroton (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

'Why this fails at "captur[ing] the critical essence of this issue": It fails to mention that the two are friends, which is part of the critical essence of this issue; it fails to mention that Rezko was a fundraiser for Obama and an important one, both part of that critical essence; it fails to mention that Obama was even criticized or that his judgment was called into question or that he replied by saying he was "boneheaded" and "mistaken" in his judgment in this case, this coming from someone who has made ethics and judgment key elements of his campaign. You don't even say how much was given to charity. I think it would be difficult to describe this episode in ways any more pro-Obama than has been done in this proposal. Oh -- I'm wrong on that one: "real estate entanglements" actually makes it sound worse than it was, making that part of it unfair to Obama. Seriously: when you avoid mentioning as many salient facts as possible and then use euphemisms at every turn when you can't avoid mentioning something, this is what it looks like. I've said above that the language we use in describing these events should not leave the reader who knows nothing about this scratching his head and asking, "Now why would this even be included in the article?" And what is the justification for this series of omissions, Rick? Noroton (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The point that is being made here is that there is full coverage at Tony Rezko, so all that is needed here is a brief summary. I'm not necessarily saying that this is the way to go, but I will say that this addresses my weight concerns, in the same way that the paragraph on the Jeremiah Wright issue did. Bobblehead is right about this not being a campaign issue, so the text would have to be rewritten to reflect that. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it does mention the friendship - right at the beginning, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that version identifies the issue and points readers to it. It doesn't really capture the issue. I'm fine either way. It's really an encyclopedia organization issue as far as I'm concerned - if we can all remove all the various hats we may be wearing. Wikidemo (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick Block hasn't yet explained why he's leaving out all these important details, nor has he explained why he's using euphemisms when plain encyclopedic language is called for. The "summary style" canard has also reared its ugly head again, ignoring analogous lengthy paragraphs in Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

The amount of space should be proportionate, not only to the size or importance of the event, but also the size of the biography subject's involvement in the event. Otherwise the World War II section should take up most of Ronald Reagan. Hillary had only a peripheral role in the Lewinsky scandal, but it gets a bold section header, two long paragraphs and a mention in the article lead in her biography. McCain had only a peripheral role in the Keating Five, but it gets two long paragraphs and a mention in the lead in his biography.

Why should we be showing favoritism to Barack Obama? WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"The amount of space should be proportionate, not only to the size or importance of the event, but also the size of the biography subject's involvement in the event"

By that rationale, it should occupy about 2 sentences - if that. The logical comparison you should be making is with the paragraph on Jeremiah Wright. That was a globally-covered issue that encompassed faith, patriotism and race. It received hundreds of times more coverage than Rezko. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're making another misrepresentation. Obama and Rezko have also received global coverage (see The Guardian, Reuters, AFP, Der Spiegel, Asahi Shimbun). But if you're suggesting that we should expand the Wright material to two paragraphs, I'd support that. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When I say "global", I mean the front page of just about every newspaper in Christendom for weeks, not a tiny note in the political pages once or twice. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Then coverage of the Keating Five wasn't "global," was it? What does your Nexis search tell you? WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but it still received more coverage than Rezko, even when you take into account the dramatic rise in global reporting since it happened. I'm right about the other things though. The sniper fire lie and Obama's "bittergate" got more national and international coverage than Rezko. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing the objections

Some replies:

• Rezko vs. Rezko's wife (and use of "entanglement") - OK, How about Obama's friendship with developer and political fund raiser Tony Rezko and his personal real estate transactions with Rezko's wife .... I like "entanglement" because I think it has the right sort of flavor. As Noroton rightly points out, regardless of who's name was on the actual deed the "entanglement" was with Rezko.

• campaign issue - fine, continuing the first sentence ... attracted media scrutiny due to Rezko's conviction on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama and resurfaced as a campaign issue in the 2008 presidential primaries."

• length - this is not the main exposition of this issue but a summary of it (identifying the issue and pointing the reader to where more details can be found as Wikidemo points out). IMO keeping this as brief as possible also helps the WP:WEIGHT issue (although there do seem to be two distinct camps on how much weight this issue deserves). Comparing this article to articles about other politicians is tricky since this one is a featured article (so the comparisons should probably be made in the other direction). This boils down to an editorial decision. I'm not saying it has to be this brief, but my opinion (as an editor, like anyone else here) is that approximately 50 words is the right length (this version is already over that target). I'm offering this as an alternative for consideration.

• friends - as already mentioned, this is incorporated

• fundraiser for Obama - this is implied by identifying Rezko as a political fund raiser and then (in the very next sentence) mentioning Rezko-linked campaign contributions.

• Obama criticized, judgement questioned, boneheaded, etc - Obama admitted it was a mistake is meant to cover this (in summary fashion). Would Obama has said it was a "boneheaded move" ... make this stronger?

• how much was given to charity - I suppose we can add it but does it really matter? I'm not sure what the point is - to show that it's a lot of money in absolute terms, or to show that it's an insignificant portion of what he's raised, or something else?

• pro-Obama - I don't mean this to be pro-Obama, I mean it to be neutral. Is there some way we can fix this without doubling or tripling the length?

• euphemisms - what euphemisms?

• omissions of details - this is a summary, which sort of by definition omits details. The details are here, in Wikipedia, one click away (at the Rezko article, which is linked), and will be in the references that we'll add to this section.

Rolling up suggestions so far, I think it would now read:

Obama's friendship with developer and political fund raiser Tony Rezko and his personal real estate transactions with Rezko's wife attracted media scrutiny due to Rezko's conviction on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama and resurfaced as a campaign issue in the 2008 presidential primaries. Obama has said it was a "boneheaded move" to be involved with Rezko, since it created an appearance of impropriety, and donated all Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

This has been said several times already, but I'll remind folks to comment on content, not editors. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

May I comment on whether "fundraiser" is one word or two? :) I do like this version a lot. I think it packs a strong punch by getting directly to the point - adding the details of the transaction would probably make the message weaker, not stronger. Yet it's utterly neutral in my opinion. As a point of order, I don't think he donated all the contributions, but something shy of $150K. "The majority of"? "$150,000 of..."? - Wikidemo (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Excellent incorporation of suggestions. :) I admittedly haven't been keeping up with the discussions so far and, honestly, don't have the energy to go through the vitriol, but is there a source that Obama has donated all Rezko-linked contributions to charity? The last numbers I saw was that he'd donated $150k and was donating $15k a week from that point. I'm also concerned about the use of "boneheaded move", that always seemed to introduce an unnecessary level of POV to me. Yes, yes, Obama did say it, but is it necessary and does it add anything to the narrative that saying he admitted it was a mistake (which he's also said)? What are your thoughts on clarifying that the real estate transactions are for his home and the next door property? So something like "... and Rezko's wife's purchase of the property adjacent to Obama's house and subsequent sale of a portion of that property to Obama ..." Limiting the wording to just "personal real estate transactions" seems too ambiguous as it leaves the option of interpreting it as anything between 2 transactions and an infinite number of transactions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To offer a source for the above question of fact, last I saw was that he has donated all Rezko-linked contributions to charity[2]. The linked article indicates the sequence of donations stems largely from the difficulty in identifying which contributions are or are not "Rezko-linked.". As a point of coherency, the first sentence seems terribly long. May I suggest, as a wording change, ...on polical corruption charges unrelated to Obama. The relationship resurfaced as a campaign issue in the 2008 presidential primaries. If we can't conclusively determine whether all contributions were donated, or just a portion, we may simply wish to strike the word "all". --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the brevity, but unfortunately this version suffers from a couple of problems:

1. First sentence too long.
2. The media scrutiny began before the conviction.
3. No real need to mention the campaign at all.

In the interests of trying to accommodate the views of Noroton and WB74, how about this compromise instead:

The land adjacent to their house was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and the transaction attracted media scrutiny. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer and fundraiser for Illinois politicians from both major political parties, was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction "a boneheaded move" as it created an appearance of impropriety, and donated the Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

My wife contributed to this version because she wants me back. It goes a bit further than I would like, but I am keen to get this over with and she's the boss! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• From a copyedit standpoint, this needs a comma at "corruption charges, for which...". Also, "the Rezko-linked campaign contributions" is awkward because there is no previous mention of Rezko raising funds for Obama. There's also the fact that the use of "the" suggests "all", which is apparently unclear from the sources. May I suggest "...and donated Rezko-linked contributions previously received by his campaigns to charity." I believe that conveys the same meaning a little more clearly. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me. That would mean something like this:

The land adjacent to their house was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and the transaction attracted media scrutiny. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer and fundraiser for Illinois politicians from both major political parties, was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction "a boneheaded move" as it created an appearance of impropriety, and donated Rezko-linked contributions previously received by his campaigns to charity.

My wife says I can support that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you call him a significant fundraiser for Obama (already proven above), then you don't have to add the wordier "previously received by his campaigns" because it's automatically assumed. So you shorten the paragraph. And provide the reader with essential information. Rezko was also a significant fundraiser for other politicians, including the current Illinois governor and even George W. Bush (also provable), so why not remove "Illinois" and say and significant fundraiser for Obama and other politicians from both major political parties. And if you want to shorten it further, you can even remove political since the context is clear. Now I've just shortened your proposal, given the reader more information and done it with information solidly grounded in the sources. And it's NPOV. I can't wait for the objections. Noroton (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (((forgot to add "significant" in my proposed phrase -- Noroton (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC))))'

I'll ignore your inflammatory final comment and say that I agree with some of what you have said. How's this:

The land adjacent to their house was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and the transaction attracted media scrutiny. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer and fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction "a boneheaded move" as it created an appearance of impropriety, and donated Rezko-linked contributions previously received by his campaigns to charity.

If the sources are telling you that Rezko has been a fundraiser for a number of politicians (not just Illinois-based) then I agree we can cut out the Illinois reference. There is no need to go into specifics about who or how much, because they are already covered extensively in Tony Rezko. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I have one question, and one concern. The question is, how do the words "signficant fundraiser" get worked into the above sentence. Second, and perhaps more important, is that "signficant" is vague. Is (at most) a quarter million dollars "significant" to a candidacy that has raised a quarter billion dollars so far? I'm not saying it isn't, but it is a fair question. Nevermind, [User:Noroton]'s subsequent edit during the edit-conflict answers my concerns. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(very annoying ec) The word "significant" is longer than the word "key." Use the word "key." WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither "significant" nor "key" are necessary, so that is a moot point. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Significant is defined as "having or likely to have a major effect; important" or "fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no significant opposition". The second definition, at least, is probably supportable by the evidence.

Key is defined as "of crucial importance; significant". I doubt that Rezko's funraising as holding "crucial" importance to Obama's or any campaign is NPOV clearly supportable by evidence.

Perhaps, signficant might be acceptable to all as a middle ground? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's necessary to show that Rezko isn't an ordinary fundraiser. Obama called him "significant." "Key" means the same thing but is shorter. I have a few other things to add, so please clear off this section for 10 mnutes while I do it. Ten minutes is all I'm asking here okay?

• "Simultaneously" is necessary to show readers how he created an appearance of impropriety. It raised a possibility of collusion on purchase prices.
• "Media scrutiny" doesn't accommodate comments by Hillary and McCain, who are not members of the media. So use "questions about his judgment," which is well-supported by a multitude of sources.
• "Previously received by his campaigns" is unnecessary. It must be worded in a way that doesn't give readers a false impression that ALL Rezko-linked contributions were donated to charity. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't necessary. It is fully explained at Tony Rezko, and we do not need to go into specifics per WP:SS. Furthermore, "key" does not mean the same thing as "significant". "Key" relates to importance, whereas "significant" is a vaguer term that relates to portion or amount. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, this is what upsets me about your attitude: adding a single word is not go[ing] into specifics or some kind of crazy violation of WP:SS. It's adding a freakin' word. It's important to WorkerBee74 and it's important to me. Now both of us are trying to work with you, will you please either give us a better reason why this important word should be left out or concede the point? Noroton (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't simply "a freakin' word", as you put it. Adding either word will also mean adding "Obama" to the sentence that talks about Rezko's "unrelated political corruption charges." That implies a connection that is unsupported by the sources. If you can come up with a succinct way of describing Rezko's relationship with Obama without linking Obama to the investigation/conviction, I might be more likely to accept "significant". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but the connection is supported by the sources. In December 2007, the Tribune and Sun-Times reported that the "unnamed political candidate" repeatedly mentioned in Rezko's indictment documents was Obama. Also, during opening arguments at Rezko's trial, a federal prosecutor said that when Rezko demanded an illegal kickback, he demanded that part of the money ($10K) be given in the form of contributions to Obama's campaign. This was supported by the testimony of the government's star witness, Stu Levine.

Evelyn Pringle also reported that as a state senator in 2003, Obama pushed through legislation that helped Rezko cronies take control of hundreds of millions of dollars in state funds. Within weeks, these cronies and their wives had donated thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign. So we don't need to jump through so many hoops here in our avoidance of implications. There are plenty of sources indicating that some political contributions to Obama may be linked, directly or indirectly, to Rezko's elaborate criminal conspiracies. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look at my version just below. I'm not sure how adding "significant" somehow links Obama to the charges against Rezko. You might want to explain how you think that, because I don't think I'm alone in being confused by what you say there. In fact, there was a link to Obama in the trial: Rezko was charged with funneling some money to one of Obama's campaigns, but there was no suggestion that Obama had any knowledge of that (and I don't even suspect him of knowing it). That's sourcable, and I can go find it and provide it later if you want. It seems to me that if we say that he was not suspected of wrongdoing we do all that we need to do in that regard. Noroton (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I probably misread your comment, Scjessey. I apologize if I misread your meaning on "significant". Earlier you wrote, but it seems to me that using the word "significant" is appropriate, but that no source I am aware of uses the word "key" (which has a subtly different meaning (14:25, 26 June 2008). I think "significant" is fine with all of us, isn't it? WorkerBee74's points about Simultaneously and Media scrutiny I share, and I have another problem or two related to that, but more below, and little later. I've gotta go. Noroton (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent and ec)Another suggestion: As has been pointed out, the amount of Rezko contributions Obama gave to charity is a bit complicated. It's not quite all contributions and the number changed over time as more Rezko-linked contributions were found, and for some reason some of the contributions were not given back -- I don't recall exactly what the reasons were, and I don't think it's important. The total amount given to charity has been $150,000 since January. It's simple and concise to give the number, so let's add $150,000 in to the passage. It's also an easy way of giving the reader a rough idea of how much money was involved (reinforcing "significant fundraiser"). And we can do it without adding to the length by also rewording "a boneheaded move" as it created an appearance of impropriety, into "boneheaded" for creating an appearance of impropriety. Here's another way to shorten it -- change: The land adjacent to their house to The adjacent lot. Again, a shorter version with more information in it and NPOV. Here's what the version looks like with all my suggestions so far:

The adjacent lot was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and the transaction attracted media scrutiny. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer and significant fundraiser for Obama and other politicians from both major parties, was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction "boneheaded" for creating an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

I've got other problems with it, but what do others think of these changes? Noroton (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot closer. Add the word "simultaneously," take out "and other politicians from both major parties," change "media scrutiny" to "questions about Obama's judgment," and you've got a deal. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I could support this as it appears right now. Any attempt to add the "judgment" editorializing over the more neutral and encompassing "media scrutiny" will earn an immediate revocation of support, though. Shem^(talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. I hope this is a good interim version that others can agree moves us forward. We should discuss "judgment" and a couple of other things later, and I think there is some alternate wording about that which might find consensus. Another problem I have with it is that I think we can briefly add the language about the sale of the strip (language similar to what I propose in the immediate previous section). I'm concerned about accuracy and precision here: The present wording is problematic in that transaction in the last sentence isn't quite the same as transaction in the first. Any change is going to lengthen the passage, but I think that's unavoidable. I always thought and other politicians from both major parties was something that editors preferred because it put Rezko's relationship with Obama into perspective, but I don't have a problem taking it out if other editors want to. More on all these later. Noroton (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, then how do we accommodate notable comments By Hillary and McCain? They're not members of the news media. Furthermore, any editorializing wasn't done by WP editors. It was done by reliable neutral secondary sources such as NYT & WP. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some editorial "judgment questions" were included in the scrutiny, but not all scrutiny invoked "judgment questions"; one is more encompassing than the other, and leaves out the editorial slant. Perhaps you need it in more simple terms: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Shem^(talk) 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, Shem, that "media scrutiny" is so vague and limp that it's a euphemism. Every politician and campaign receives "media scrutiny", but these transactions received very, very hard scrutiny in news reports, sharp criticism from media commentators, criticism from Obama's political opponents (most prominently Hillary Clinton and John McCain). I can go with language other than "questioned his judgment" but it would be helpful if you suggested some alternative language. Also, given the many, many sources I've come up with with just exactly the "questioned his judgment" language, it would be helpful if you could explain why all those sources don't justify that language. Since I think the topic is going to generate quite a bit of discussion, perhaps a separate section is in order. Now I've finally gotta get away from the keyboard for a bit. But I'd appreciate your thoughts and others' thoughts on this. Something beyond "It's POV" would be more useful. Noroton (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Noroton. What you call "vague and limp" I call "encompassing and neutral." Shem^(talk) 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• To the extent that it was a primary election campaign issue, any coverage of belongs at Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. If it becomes a general election issue, that can be covered at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. This is similar to the treatment given to the Keating Five controversy at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding the conflation

This version slightly alters Noroton's version to avoid conflating Obama with the unrelated corruption charges:

The adjacent lot was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and the transaction attracted media scrutiny. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for Obama and politicians from both major parties. Rezko was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction "a boneheaded move" as it created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

Are we there yet? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Good compromise. I'll support it. Shem^(talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Shem, could we please avoid voting for a bit longer? I think it's helped get us even more divided in the past, and when we concentrate on the particulars, we all seem to get closer to consensus. I'm hoping we don't have to vote at all on this to reach geneeral agreement, and these proposals keep changing anyway. As is pointed out just above, there are some more things to discuss first, so no, we're not there yet, but we're making a lot of progress. Noroton (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Same three points I've made previously: add the word "simultaneously," drop the words "and politicians from both major parties," and replace "media scrutiny" with "questions about Obama's judgment." Criticism about Obama exists, regarding his relationship with Rezko. It comes from a broad variety of notable sources. The words "questions about Obama's judgment" would be the first acknowledgement on this page that such criticism exists. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the proposal you want, make it somewhere else and see how much support you garner. Repeating it in every other proposal's section isn't helping anything. Shem^(talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the word simultaneously would be irrelevant at best and might carry misleading implications. The simultaneous closing dates were a condition demanded by the seller, not by Obama or Rezko.[3] --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The problems with not having "simultaneous" are that we may imply less of a link between the two sales than is warranted. Clearly Rezko bought the lot because Obama told him about buying the house. There are legitimate implications in all this, and if it raises suspicions -- well, that's always been one of the problems with the land deals: They raise legitimate suspicions. But there are complications with the language we're using now so that we probably need to rewrite a bit, and we might solve the "simultaneous" business in the rewrites. Potentially, we might say something like: When the Obamas bought the house, their friend, developer Tony Rezko, whom Obama consulted on the purchase, acquired the adjoining [adjacent?] lot and later sold them a portion of it. Something like that adds to the length a bit but maybe clarifies the Obama-Rezko transactions better than "simultaneously" while, I hope, removing any inaccurate implications. It also adds the sale of the strip in a concise way. I think "acquired" is vague enough that we can even leave Rezko's wife out of it, but I don't feel strongly about that. Now I have got to get away from the computer. Noroton (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with 'simultaneously' because in combination with use of passive voice ("was sold") it tends to avoid any innuendo. It is the simplest, most neutral and factual way to put it, and more precise than without the word. The whole issue that got people's attention was the timing, not that Obama consulted Rezko, which I think is a red Herring. I would not support conflating Rezko with his wife or descri ing the scrutiny as being over Obama's judgement, both of which are not established and seemingly inaccurate IMO. Wikidemo (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of "simultaneously." Regarding "questions about his judgment," there is still a desperate shortage of references to the abundant criticism of Obama from notable, reliable sources both partisan and neutral. The October 2004 version of George W. Bush contained 13 separate conjugations of the words "criticism," "critic" and "criticize." So instead of "questions about his judgment" or the inaccurate "media scrutiny," how about "criticism from political opponents and the news media"? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, featured articles should lead by example, not follow the poor example of others. Containing 13 conjugations of the word "criticism" is one good reason why George W. Bush never became featured article. Shem^(talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot support use of the word "simultaneously" per Clubjuggle's reasoning. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a new version at "Slightly tweaked Noroton version" below. Does the rewording get us past the "simultaneously" business to everyone's satisfaction? Let's continue the discussion down there. Noroton (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's try a different approach

Rezko donated or raised $250K for Obama. Obama donated only $150K to charity. Technically Rezko's wife has her name on the deed, but nobody gets a mortgage for $500K for a vacant lot with with a part-time job for $37K a year. The following version is painstakingly accurate factually. It is a bit longer than some editors would like, but now all we are arguing about is a difference of opinion on weight.

Adjacent land was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, Obama's friend and a key fundraiser. Obama later learned Rezko was under federal investigation for crimes linked to political fundraising, but in January 2006, he bought a strip of the Rezko land to widen his yard. These transactions raised questions about his judgment. Obama said it was "a boneheaded move" to create an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity. In June 2008, Rezko was convicted on bribery and fraud charges. Obama has not been accused of any crime.

My compliments to those who are making an effort to keep it civil and honest here. Next, I'd like to quote something I just saw on a User Talk page by User:Dragon695:

WP:BLP has become a coat-rack for all sorts of goody-goody nonsense by people who wring their hands too much. Why do people forget that it isn't our job to be taking sides in biographical subjects' lives? We're supposed to be the impartial observer, like a camera man who films a fox catching and devouring a mouse. ... If we are going to stand for WP:NPOV, then we should stand for it. But let's cut out the slow undermining of it by people who don't understand or don't like it.

For the version I've proposed, haggling over the accuracy of details such as "Rezko or his wife" and "is $150K all of it" has been completely eliminated. It is painstakingly accurate and avoids innuendo as well, in as few words as humanly possible; and in my humble opinion, a bit too short but a reasonable compromise.

If you believe it's too long, show me where a few words could be removed while still maintaining the painstaking, laborious, spell-it-all-out, yes-it's-Rezko's-wife accuracy and absolute absence of innuendo that is demanded.

We should also consider preceding the paragraph with the following indented line:

For more details, see Tony Rezko.

- WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nice work. It looks like your suggestions here have been largely incorporated into the proposed version immediately above. Would you mind taking a look to see if you have any remaining concerns? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• WB74's version is still really thick with obnoxious spin, totally unacceptable! Plus it is badly written with an awkward flow. LotLE×talk 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Slightly tweaked Noroton version

This would be OK. The "both major parties" is important, but this flows better than the weird run-on of tacking those after Obama. For timeline, we should give years when Rezko was charged and convicted, without them it's unclear how those relate to the date of transaction. If we know how long he was investigate, it might be OK to have "investigated for several years" or the like. We could probably lose the word "media" too, which isn't really doing anything. Oh, perfective rather than simple past clarifies that it was not merely "at some point he was not accused" LotLE×talk 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The adjacent lot was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and the transaction attracted media scrutiny. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. Rezko was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was charged in 2006 and convicted in 2008. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction "a boneheaded move," as it created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

Looks good to me. Minor copyedit issue: for creating is better than as it created because 'as' speaks to time, not causation. Using as in that sense is slightly colloquial. Also we should note this as our final consensus pending any significant developments, not just an interim truce (with proviso that the single issue of the land strip purchase be worked in succinctly).Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer "as" or "since" to "for", but I think a comme is needed at '"a boneheaded move," as...' --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence is still awkward, with or without the comma. I'm not sure why it is necessary to go into specifics about dates, since these are already covered in Tony Rezko and they have nothing to do with Obama. Here's a slightly different version:

The adjacent lot was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and the transaction attracted media scrutiny. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. Rezko was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, it created an appearance of impropriety. Obama called the transaction a "boneheaded move" and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

It's a bit longer than I would like, but I think it does a good job of cramming all the necessary details in without sounding awkward. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think some timeline should be incl. to make clear, that he wasn't convicted when the deal was made and when it attracted media scrutiny. Maybe like this:

Rezko was under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges at that time, for which he was later convicted.

It's only 3 words longer for this to add on. --Floridianed (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Noroton Version X7

I'm getting increasingly confused by all the versions, some of which are not incorporating suggestions that everybody might agree on. Let me try again with LotLE's and Scjessey's two most recent versions. Scjessey's takes out Obama's admission that it created an appearance of impropriety, which I strongly feel should be kept in. Keep in mind that the June 2005 sales and the January 2006 sale of the strip all came before the Chicago Tribune broke the story that they had taken place (November 2006). I've incorporated a few word changes that shorten the passage and retained LotLE's years. I've also incorporated a new first sentence I suggested at my 18:00 post. The new first sentence makes it a bit longer, but much clearer. I'd be interested in Scjessey's take on whether "acquired" would work in eliminating Rita Rezko, who I think is not essential to this:

When the house was bought, Obama consulted his friend, developer Tony Rezko, who acquired the adjoining lot and sold them part of it in 2006, transactions which later attracted scrutiny. Rezko was a significant fundraiser for politicians of both major parties, including Obama. Rezko was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was charged in 2006 and convicted in 2008. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction "boneheaded" for creating an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

I also changed "media scrutiny" to "scrutiny" but I'm still dissatisfied with it. There's got to be some better way of phrasing that. The second and third sentences, both beginning with "Rezko" and both very short, don't flow well at all. I don't understand the need for separating them, as I've mentioned above -- there is a small connection between the trial and Obama, who unknowingly received some tainted money from Rezko. It came out in the trial. I'm fine with "unrelated corruption charges" because Obama didn't know about the taint of the campaign contributions, but I don't get the reason for separating the sentences. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (((quick tweak -- Noroton (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC))))

Please re-read my version above, which most certainly does include the "impropriety" comment. Your new version does not read well to me, and contains various details that are really not necessary for a summary. Also, your attempt to get around the "wife" issue has created a misrepresentation. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, you did have it. Could you elaborate on why it's a misrepresentation for Wikipedia to say Rezko acquired the property but multiple reliable-source news organizations say it? And could you discuss why these details are not necessary while the details in your last version are acceptable? I'd like to keep the discussion going. Noroton (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of acquire, and it's broader than "buy":

1: to get as one's own: a: to come into possession or control of often by unspecified means b: to come to have as a new or added characteristic, trait, or ability (as by sustained effort or natural selection) <acquire fluency in French> <bacteria that acquire tolerance to antibiotics>

1: to locate and hold (a desired object) in a detector <acquire a target by radar>

I thought it was an improvement. Noroton (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to the "Obama consulted" part, and prefer the latest version Scjessey posted. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The property was bought/purchased/acquired/snapped-up/grabbed by Rezko's wife. Finagling of the facts to increase negativity is a Double-Plus Ungood. And as I said before, specific date details are unnecessary because they are given full coverage in Tony Rezko (where they belong, because the trial and conviction were about him and not Obama). What we are now reduced to is arguing over which language will portray the relationship in the worst light possible. I have already compromised a great deal, and now it is the turn of the inclusionists to compromise. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Noroton. You said:"... there is a small connection between the trial and Obama, who unknowingly received some tainted money from Rezko. It came out in the trial. I'm fine with "unrelated corruption charges" because Obama didn't know about the taint of the campaign contributions,..."

That would make Obama a victim and we would need to describe him as such and I don't think we want to do that. --Floridianed (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with this latest Noroton version. Of the most recent wordings by me, Scjessey, and Noroton, there seems to be little substantial difference. I have some mild preferences about what flows best, but if it can put this issue to sleep, I heartily endorse Noroton's words (as he's been pushing for a change, while neither I nor Scjessey has been terribly unhappy with the current wording). FWIW, I don't find it unreasonable to say Rezko acquired the land; clearly prior Obama's association with Rezko was greater than that with Rezko's wife. LotLE×talk 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be perfectly honest. I completely dislike this version, primarily because the wording is tremendously awkward. Also, while we can speculate as to whether Tony or Rita Rezko was really in control of the transaction, the fact remains that it was Rita's name on the deed. That means that "the wife of Tony Rezko" is known to be factually accurate, and anything else is just speculation. Our responsibility is to document facts, it is up to the readers to draw their own conclusions. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Clubjuggle that the wording is tremendously awkward. The word "scrutiny" should be replaced with the phrase "criticism from political rivals and the media." The words "simultaneously" and "boneheaded" are necessary to show the appearance of impropriety and Obama's awareness of it, respectively. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Noroton version X6, tweaked by WB74

I believe this version is far less awkward. Chronological order resolves a lot of objections:

Adjacent land was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, Obama's friend and a key fundraiser. Obama later learned Rezko was under investigation for crimes linked to political fundraising, but in January 2006, he bought a strip of the Rezko land to widen his yard. These transactions attracted criticism from his political rivals and the media. Obama admitted it was "a bonehaded move" to create an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 of the $250,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity. Rezko was convicted on bribery and fraud charges in June 2008; Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

LotLE was opposed to this version, Clubjuggle likes it, and nobody else has said anything. What do the rest of you have to say? WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Not sure where you get that I like this version --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I like this version, and have struck the statement from your comment above. I did consider Noroton version X6 acceptable, but your modifications to that version are substantial and include language I strongly oppose. In fact, I have serious concerns about this version, not least of which is the substitution of "key" for "significant", the reasons for which has already been discussed to death, and the lack of consensus for which is already clear from this discussion, so I will not repeat my reasons yet again here. The use of "admitted" is also dubious per WP:AVOID#Admit.2C_confess.2C_deny_.5Bwords_that_presume_guilt.5D; "called" is probably a more encyclopedic wording for that reason. As an attempt to word chronologically, this wording would make it appear that he called the transaction boneheaded after his political rivals questioned it, when it reality it was before; Obama had not yet launched his campaign at that time. Finally, the specific charges on which Rezko were convicted seem outside the scope of an article on Barack Obama. They should be (and are) covered adequately at Tony Rezko. My recommendation is that we continue discussion from the Rick Block version below as I believe it addresses more of the concerns that have been raised by the various editors to this point. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I got that from your comment at 15:27 GMT yesterday, that started with "Nice work." I thought the words "Nice work" indicated that you liked it. I was previously unaware of the WP:AVOID guideline. It seemed to me that saying "He admitted he made a mistake," or in this case "He admitted that it was a boneheaded move," was a fair way to put it; but I will concede the point due to guideline. See discussion of Rick's version as modified below. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Scjessey version

I'm sorry, but even if it were accurate (which I believe it isn't, for the reasons I stated above) the wording is still extremely awkward - particularly with the first and last sentences. This would be better, and let me also bring in the previous sentence for context:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. In transactions that attracted scrutiny, the adjacent lot was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. Rezko was investigated for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, it created an appearance of impropriety. Obama called the transaction a "boneheaded move" and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

It includes an abbreviated version of Noroton's timeline ("...the following year") and avoids the awkwardness of the first and last sentences. Again, the details for Rezko's charge and conviction are left for Tony Rezko, where they belong. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle modification/ Tvoz tweak

I'd like to offer a slightly modified version of the above.

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. In transactions that attracted media and public scrutiny, the adjacent lot was sold to the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. At the time of the transactions, Rezko was under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

I believe the change to what is in my version the last sentence is important. Simply stating that the transaction creates an appearance of impropriety is editorializing. Stating that Obama said the transaction created such an appearance is a documented fact. I also believe it's important to state "at the time of the transactions," as that establishes why this is a fact worth mentioning in the first place. This is also a documented fact for which a citation will be needed. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I can throw my support behind Clubjuggle's effort. The last sentence still "sounds" a bit weird when I read it, but I can find nothing grammatically wrong with it. I've looked at a number of dictionaries (paper and online) to get a definitive answer on the fundraiser/fund-raiser/fund raiser question. It seems that "fund-raiser" is technically correct, but "fundraiser" has now become ubiquitous, although only supported by a few of the established dictionaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also more or less ok with Clubjuggle's version (although I still think what is in the article now is plenty sufficient). I do think it flows better than Scj's , but I have a few tweaks: I don't know how it became "media and public" scrutiny - I'd go with media scrutiny; also, instead of having "sold" twice, which on a quick reading can sound like Obama sold it to Rezko who then sold it back - I would say "the adjacent lot was bought by the wife of ...", and I'd rearrange that sentence a bit. So I'd try it as follows:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The adjacent lot was bought by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who sold part of it to the Obamas the following year, in transactions that attracted media scrutiny. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. At the time of the transactions, Rezko was under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Forgot to sign Tvoz/talk 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that better. I think Clubjuggle was attempting to address the issue of comments by Clinton and McCain, but when I think about it they didn't really "scrutinize" anything. Nor did the public, who appear to be utterly apathetic to the whole thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In the context of this biographical article, I was referring to the scrutiny it originally received back in 2006. I still contend that discussion of the transactions as a presidential campaign issue, if any, belongs in the campaign article(s). I just think "scrutiny" by itself leads the reader to wonder "by who?" I also agree with "fund-raiser". I have a hard time following the flow of Tvoz's proposal above, but if my proposal is still on the table, perhaps the confusion he mentioned can be eliminated as follows.

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. In transactions that attracted media and public scrutiny, a lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. At the time of the transactions, Rezko was under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Is that clearer? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any "public" scrutiny really, and I have not seen a source that says so. I'd be happier with going back to "media scrutiny" and letting the campaign-related part take care of itself in the campaign article. Other than that, it looks fine to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds quite good to me (better than the brief version that I suggested above, particularly given the existing first sentence in the paragraph), although I agree "media and public scrutiny" sounds odd and that "media scrutiny" seems sufficient. I'd reorder the wording as below. One minor point, "the transaction" in the last sentence will clearly require a reference and should be changed to "the initial transaction", "the second transaction" (meaning the Obama purchase of the portion of the lot) or "the transactions" according to whatever the cited source says. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. These transactions attracted media scrutiny because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

That's very well-written. Are there any remaining concerns that anyone feels have not been adequately addressed? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This version is excellent. It has my unqualified support, and I recommend immediate article insertionery! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the ticket. Finally! Shem^(talk) 21:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Add the word "simultaneously," replace the phrase "media scrutiny" with "criticism from political rivals and the media," (after which I'd like to add specific reference links to Hillary and McCain's criticisms, and criticisms published in major news media) and you've got a deal. The word "then" in the second sentence is subsumed by the phrase "the following year," so it should be removed. We are getting perilously close to consensus and my compliments to all wh have been making this happen, including Mrs. SCJ. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. SCJ thanks you for your kind words. Mr. SCJ also thanks you, but disagrees with your suggestions. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the word "simultaneously" is already in there (I didn't add it, don't look at me like that) and it will take a showing of consensus to remove it. By the way, I wish I could send the lady some flowers. She could certainly use a little something to brighten up her weekend. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "simultaneously" is a big deal because not much about this would be different if the side lot had been sold at another time. As Rick Block mentions, I'd change "transaction" in the last sentence to plural ("transactions"), to cover both the initial purchases and the later sale of the strip of land. Obama has repeated "boneheaded" a lot and I'm sure he's used it for both transactions, but yes, we need to source it((Broke off this comment from the rest of my comment with this timestamp when creating "Let's fully discuss judgment/media scrutiny/other alternative language" below Noroton (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC))))

Let's fully discuss judgment/media scrutiny/other alternative language

This is a proposal to replace media scrutiny with criticism from political rivals and others, a net gain of four words to the article. Four freakin' words. Just wanted to make that clear. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But they are also four words which are less clear, more slanted, read poorly, and generally sound awkward and forced. LotLE×talk 09:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, rather than simply stating your opinion, why don't you try explaining how it's justified. I find the phrase plain as day and perfectly clear. Why don't you? It states a fact with more solid references found for it than any other fact on the entire Obama page, so how is it slanted? I'm trying to imagine how you think it sounds awkward, and I can't. I don't even know what you mean by "forced". Please do what you're supposed to do on a talk page and provide evidence and reasons, not just bald statements. Noroton (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you, Noroton. Comments from political rivals are not germane to the issue, since they were typical, campaign-related "as far as I know!" type comments. Political back-and-forth is manifestly part of politics, and politicians will always use the worse possible negative language when talking about an opponent, particularly when involved in an election. No amount of references will change this fact. If their comments had any relevancy at all, it would be for the campaign article, but I think they would fail even that standard. And I am unclear as to what you mean by the word "others". That sounds weasely and unsupported to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I've brought this up before and I'll say it again: I shouldn't have to do your work for you. "Others" is fully explained in the footnote, which is described just a little bit lower. Which anyone paying the slightest attention to what I'm proposing would have seen. Honestly, are you playing stupid? Are you trying to goad me? Or are you just typing whatever pops into your head without bothering to even think about what has been written so far in the discussion (for any other editors reading this, the discussion started lower down in this section)? Perhaps you could start paying that slight bit of attention before typing in yet another post that provides more heat than light and is so full of your scorn and total disrespect for those you disagree with. If we're going to mention the Rezko matter at all, it's worth noting in a few words (literally three: "from political rivals") that the matter made it into the campaign and was criticized by others. I'm perfectly happy to bring up some of the language from the footnote into the article and make the addition even longer: criticism from commentators, good government groups and political rivals. How's that? Noroton (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are proposing is to (a) expand the text beyond what is already a little unreasonable with yet more words, and (b) further elaborate/expand/inflate/sensationalize by dumping still more non-neutral, one-sided criticism into the footnotes. Now can the filibuster stop so we can move on to the next thing? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you should try not to raise the temperature? It might be interpreted as constant goading on your part to be constantly characterizing as "biased" anything you disagree with.

• First you say I am unclear as to what you mean by the word "others". That sounds weasely and unsupported to me. And you said that despite the fact that I had already explained why it wasn't an example of weasel wording and despite the fact that I had explained that I was elaborating in the footnotes. Yet again, you're relying on me to do your work for you. Scjessey, I can't read the section for you -- you'll have to do that on your own.
• expand the text beyond what is already a little unreasonable with yet more words I would say that "yet more words" is strange way to characterize an expansion from a net gain of four words to a net gain of seven words. So in my adding three extra words to meet your objection I get another objection that the addition is now too long. Just as when I treat your vituperation-laden comments with patience and try to move the discussion toward a constructive end by addressing whatever points you've got in them, you call it "filibustering". This is why discussions with you call for truckloads of patience: You will object over the tiniest changes and refuse to be satisfied. It seems to me that this isn't a constructive attitude that can lead to eventual consensus. One might eventually conclude after repeated examples of this that you're not discussing in good faith, Scjessey.
• Why are you saying that briefly reporting on the fact that criticism exists is somehow to further elaborate/expand/inflate/sensationalize by dumping still more non-neutral, one-sided criticism into the footnotes? Scjessey, you've again been inattentive: The footnote merely reported that there was criticism, and the language I could move up into the text of the article said exactly that. There is nothing non-neutral or one-sided about that. As you well know, WP:NPOV says we can report criticism. The fact that there was criticism is an integral element of the Rezko matter, and any NPOV treatment of the matter would mention it. What do you mean by "still more" criticism? The footnotes cite the fact that criticism came from these sources. I found more than 20 sources in my long list of footnotes at the top of this talk page. You haven't referred to any sources that say Obama did nothing wrong. I'm happy to have an NPOV sampling of sources, including the supportive Chicago Tribune editorial, as I said earlier in this discussion (just below). So where does the non-neutral, one-sided criticism charge come from? I mean, what is it with you that you disparage my efforts to provide sourcing as "one-sided" and provide no evidence to back it up? Where are your sources, Scjessey? What work have you done to provide proper sourcing? When I simply call attention to something that I justify as important, and do so in a reasonable way, you call it an effort to "sensationalize". How is it sensationalizing?
• Now can the filibuster stop so we can move on to the next thing? Scjessey, now you're being impolite by characterizing a discussion as a "filibuster". Do you think this is a bit odd coming from someone who posts more than anybody else to this page, and with posts that provide so little of what WP:TALK suggests are constructive? Here I've been patient with your disparaging comments, your lack of civility, your inattentiveness to the discussion, your lack of evidence and your assertions not supported by logic, policy or proof from sources, and treat what comments you have with serious attention, and what do I get in return but these unuseful replies? You can be useful in this discussion by answering the many questions I've asked you. And I think any other editor reading this will see how unconstructive you've been so far. Please answer the questions so we can make some progress here. The sooner you do, the sooner we can conclude the discussion, something you say you want. Noroton (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in this sideshow debate about an expansion I consider unreasonable and non-neutral. Please see the new ClubJuggle initiative below. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion originally started here:

I think adding criticism from political rivals and others, with footnotes noting McCain, Clinton and a sampling of mentions about the two good government groups and some of the commentators would be perfect, saying in the footnote that these are samples. The footnote might look something like this (minus the links and specific references):

The transactions received criticism from rival presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (specific cite) and John McCain (specific cite), Illinois good government groups including (specific cite), and commentators including (one or two specific cites)

It doesn't much matter to me who we cite in the footnote, and I wouldn't mind mentioning the Chicago Tribune editorial that was supportive of Obama (add but the Chicago Tribune editorialized that the matter didn't affect their support for Obama (specific cite)) It wouldn't be weasel-wording because we footnote it and the reason we're doing it is to meet space concerns. It also is NPOV by giving mention to what looks like the predominant reaction to the sale. It also puts into perspective Obama's own evaluation of the matter, and we should have both Obama's reaction and the general reaction. I won't be able to participate here again until either late tonight or tomorrow. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (((This comment was split from one with the same timestamp in the previous section -- Noroton (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC))))

This is a new proposal that has not been on the table recently. Criticism from political rivals is not relevant here. We're not set up to reserve space in the Obama article the hay the Clinton and McCain campaigns make in the form of talking points on every aspect of Obama's life. Every single fact, event, and statement about any politician has a reaction from the other side in a campaign. That sort of point-counterpoint format is the stuff of mass media media campaigns, and to some extent in the articles that cover these political contents, i.e. the campaign articles. But is not a good way to organize biographical articles about politicians. The compromise version of the Rezko section already has undue weight - which may be allowable here on the theory that if we are going to mention it at all (which is iffy to begin with) we ought to give enough context so that we at least frame it properly. Adding a criticism section on the topic would be over the top. Wikidemo (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia discourages criticism sections because they become coatracks. Let's not even waste any time talking about this. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be contrary to WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. You don't reach consensus by trying to roll over people who disagree with you with some kind of majority, you listen to what they have to say, consider it with an open mind and leave yourself open to possibly agreeing with it. You give it a chance to be discussed. (And when you discuss it, you use logic and citations and policies & guidelines, according to WP:TALK). Noroton (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, criticism sections?!? Eh? How are six words a "criticism section"? And how can it possibly be WP:COATRACK stuff to mention that there was criticism from various sources. I don't get it. Please explain. Noroton (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad. When I first read your comment I thought you were advocating a separate criticism section. That being said, we should not be reporting campaign-related criticism from rival politicians. Such comments are part of the normal campaigning or politicking process, and not noteworthy. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism from political rivals is directly relevant here. Other biographies about prominent politicians, including Tony Blair on the day it attained Featured Article status, contain such criticism. Noroton isn't proposing a criticism / controversy section.

I believe that what Noroton proposes does not belong in a footnote, but in the text of the article as follows: "These transactions drew criticism from political rivals [Hillary ref] [McCain ref] and the media. [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref]" WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the Barack Obama article, not the Tony Blair article. I would reject the proposal on relevance, weight, and POV grounds, and for being inappropriate in a BLP. Further, I would not support any consensus to change the language on Tony Rezko unless it's understood that it takes additional attempts to expand on criticism off the table.Wikidemo (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo wrote, I would reject the proposal on relevance, weight, and POV grounds. Let's go over that.

• Relevance -- We've got Obama saying it was "boneheaded" and we've got "media scrutiny", but there's no context for "boneheaded" and "media scrutiny" doesn't cover criticism, which has come up from Obama supporters in the media (opinion columnists), good government groups (including one that worked with Obama when he was in the Illinois legislature) and Obama's two most important political rivals in 2007 and 2008. I suspect every single one of the most influential news organizations in this country have covered this and many, many of them have noted that it lends perspective to Obama's emphasis on ethics and judgment. There has been no real debate on these pages about whether or not the Rezko matter is worthy of inclusion at all, just on what aspects of it are worthy of describing it. It is hardly irrelevant that it has received this much comment from supporters of Obama and opponents and neutral parties.
• Weight -- In terms of length this phrase is minuscule -- there are only six words to be added to the text criticism from political rivals and others. I thought my suggestion for the footnote is a very fair, NPOV description of the public discussion about this matter.
• POV -- It isn't written in a POV way at all, it simply reports on the POV of others, which have been unusually one-sided from what I've seen. Where is the proof that anyone is saying Obama did nothing wrong? Even he doesn't say that! This reflects the sources, and we're supposed to reflect what the sources say. If this is POV, then you should be able to provide an NPOV version. If you try to do so, I think you'll find that this isn't bad. Please reconsider. Noroton (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think McCain's and Clinton's talking points in the campaign bear on what makes Obama notable, so it's irrelevant. Repeating irrelevant POV introduces POV problems, and the section is already too long. But I really can't consider this issue apart from the overall proposed language we're trying to agree on. Wikidemo (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're fixating on McClain's and Clinton's criticism, but it's not as if I'm doing anything other than mentioning it in the briefest way possible and allowing people to get to the source through a footnote. It is perfectly appropriate for the biography article of a presidential candidate, or anyone in a similar position, such as a U.S. president or a prime minister, to have notable criticism mentioned. What makes these people notable is inherently connected to controversy. I don't think that this criticism is notable enough to mention any more prominently than I'm suggesting here, but it is worth mentioning because it's part of the small set of essential elements of this matter. It is one way that the reader gets an idea of the importance of this matter: it was important enough that political rivals mentioned it, and that others criticized him. That makes it a good six-word addition to the text of the article. For crying out loud, your comments make it sound as if I'd proposed including three paragraphs of a McCain speech. I'm following the WP:WELLKNOWN section of WP:BLP, which overcomes your BLP objections. Noroton (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying and reposting JJB's comment from below and my response to it because they are relevant to this section. I'm not deleting the comments that are in their original spots:

• "Media scrutiny" acceptable, because even if there's rival or public criticism, that's part of what "media scrutiny" can cover, and further specification is unnecessary. We don't need to use the magic words "criticism" or "controversy" every time there is a WP editorial battle. Again, there is consensus to proceed here. JJB 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and this should be discussed in the section above because we're now discussing the same topic in two different spots. "Media scrutiny" means news organizations asked questions; it does not describe criticism from political rivals or the good government groups, the language I proposed does that. I'm going to copy JJB's comment and this one and post them in the section discussing this. Noroton (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : a searching study, inquiry, or inspection : examination

2 : a searching look

3 : close watch : surveillance

No commentary, opinions, criticism implied. The word doesn't cover the subject; criticism covers the subject. Noroton (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another JJB comment posted below that I'm copying (part of) and replying to here:

"Without seeking out every comment made by the outliers (alas!), I have enough to make this qualified statement. (1) Footnotes are a bad idea because they tempt people to delete the footnote tag, promote the text, and reopen the wounds. This happened at Ron Paul and stood for a little while, but was not supported when the controversy resurfaced. There is no consensus for footnotes. Also, we're dealing with the situation now, not after the election, at which point footnoting can be revisited. [...] (3) I see Noroton's sources, and understand the claim that Rezko is now the best-sourced part of the article, but the respectable number of verified sources on this point is not comparable to the potential number of verifiable sources on more significant points. I would hope that Noroton is using these sources to the hilt on the Rezko and campaign articles. On this article, the amount of space in this compromise is in the correct range, and no more weight is necessary, especially given the weight due to Wright, ahem."

Last point first: We don't have consensus yet on Wright or Ayers; expect those discussions to restart. As for (1) If we implement this, we'll have a consensus that will have to be changed on this page before changes are made in the text, this article will probably always have to be watched for people who want to make changes all over it, including this passage -- there is nothing we can do to change that, and putting some information in a footnote or not is not going to make any difference, IMO. Even if there is an added temptation, the benefit to the reader is more important. (3) You talk about amount of space, but keep in mind I'm talking about adding a six-word phrase -- I don't see where WP:WEIGHT can really enter into this when criticism of Obama is a crucial element in this matter. This amount of sourcing also shows the questioning was widespread and the criticism was extremely broad-based. I found it hard to find sources saying it wasn't important and impossible to find a source, including Obama, saying nothing wrong happened. It's important to give some indication of that. Noroton (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Last point first: We don't have consensus yet on Wright or Ayers..."

Sure we do. The article already reflects the current consensus regarding both of those individuals after much discussion and debate. Editors wishing to add further details or change what exists will first have to build a new consensus. As with the Rezko material, failure to meet consensus will mean no changes to the current wording with respect to these individuals. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is how much (if any) of this is appropriate for the "Family and personal life" section. We mention the purchase of the house which is how we're getting into any of it. Including the fact that Rezko purchased the adjacent lot and that he's been convicted on political corruption charges seems reasonable. However, the more I think about this the more like a footnote this seems given that with two years of intense media scrutiny the worst anyone has been able to say is "he should have known better". Lots of people have been fishing, for a very long time, but there's been no official investigation (right?), just questions raised. Making any kind of a deal about this at all in the context of this section of the article seems peculiar to me. This section is not about Obama's public image (deserved or not) as a squeaky clean politician nor any campaigns. If we want to move the bulk of it to the Cultural and political image section then I think we're in an entirely different discussion. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'd be all right splitting off the parts of it that aren't directly related to his personal life and rehashing the whole thing in the campaign or "Cultural and political image" section or both. But I think if weight is the chief concern, we consolidate it in one spot, since it's pretty short, and the parts of this that aren't directly and completely part of his personal life can be considered a short, necessary digression. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time in our articles due to the nature of certain topics, so it's not peculiar. I think this helps illuminate Obama's relationship to ethics and judgment, which has been such a big part of both his campaign and public image. But it also helps illuminate his personal life. Just because Obama wasn't the target of a federal investigation or didn't have to go before a grand jury doesn't mean there's nothing to consider important here. No fishing needed to find he was widely criticized, and there's a reason news organizations looked into this very, very closely. Noroton (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "scrutiny" (investigation by the media) with "criticism" (opinion based on the scrutiny). Reputable, neutral sources will investigate and report without coloring the story with opinion. We should use the neutral sources, and draw our text from those places, not the sources that offer opinion (which cannot, by definition, be neutral). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is Ayers or Wright consensus, and I disagree with both current handlings; perhaps SCJ could point me to where those consensuses were established in talk, or where it was established that (as implied) changes to these topics could be reverted without reference to that establishment? Much rather than that, I'd prefer to say that consensus is at least established here on Rezko than talk about moving Rezko to a different section. But then, I have a COI in that I am quasiofficially interested in destabilizing the article. I don't object to Noroton's 6 words, only to the fact that consensus seemed to lean against them, but perhaps you can tweak it. JJB 18:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The existing consensus for the treatment of Wright and Ayers is two-fold. Firstly, both have had extensive, consensus-building discussions on this talk page (see the extensive archive of multiple discussions). No consensus was found for expanding the Wright text, and no consensus was found for documenting the Ayers pseudo-controversy. Secondly, the absence of edits to the article with respect to Wright and Ayers can be seen as consensus by silence. As I said earlier, a new consensus would have to be found on this talk page before making changes, and a failure to find consensus would mean that any changes would be inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus: Rick Block's tweak of Tvoz's tweak of Clubjuggle's tweak of Scjessey's version

Rick Block's version is perfect. It's a good compromise, well-written, and gives the information without unnecessary length. I reckon Rick Block's proposal has enough support to be accepted as a broad consensus.

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions attracted media scrutiny because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

The only opposition I've seen is from WorkerBee(s) and Noroton (who I understand would like to insert more, but may be willing to accept this compromise in the interim). What say y'all? Shem^(talk) 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can support this version. Though I personally prefer "media scrutiny", "media and public scrutiny" may be closer to consensus. I would fully support either. I still feel that from the perspective of a biography on Obama, stating that it drew scrutiny from McCain and Clinton is overkill. To the extent that it was a personal issue, it belongs in his biography. Unless it were a major controversy at the time it happened (read: Jeremiah Wright) I don't feel we should address it here as a campaign issue, especially since it (so far) failed to gain any traction as such. To whatever extent it does warrant mention as a campaign issue, it belongs in the campaign articles. I also agree with an earlier comment that the fact the purchases were simultaneous doesn't really change anything, so in my opinion, there's no point wasting the space.

For obvious reasons, I do not think it is wise to vote on this. In the interest of hearing out any remaining concerns, I would like to ask for input on the following questions from all editors who have been active in this discussion so far. In particular we should wait until Noroton has a chance to weigh in, since he has been so active in this discussion.--Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Discuss, don't vote. These sections look a little too much like votes, which haven't helped us get consensus and are especially counterproductive when no full discussion has taken place. Despite the fact that this subject goes back at least to my long list of quotes about "judgment" and "scrutiny" or "media scrutiny" was a substitute for that. There has been an ongoing lack of interest in actually discussing the subject since then and it has attracted only scattered comments, the vast majority of them simple statements of positions editors hold rather than stating of reasons why people take those positions. This is contrary to the WP:TALK guideline, which states (italics in text added):

• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal).
• How to provide an opinion: Some pages invite you to provide an opinion on a topic. Many people add their opinion as a bullet (*) underneath the relevant topic and bold (''') a brief one- or two-word summary of that opinion. This practice is optional (and somewhat controversial). Your opinion will typically carry more weight depending on the quality of the rationale you provide for making it. Take your time considering a good rationale, based on how the project operates. [...] Note that polling is not a substitute for discussion.

And Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is a gudeline I'd forgotten about. This section could be very useful for editors here to read: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Polling discourages consensus is worth reading in full (just over two short paragraphs). I have a proposal just above this section. Let's discuss it. -- Noroton (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For style, please change "year. Mr. Rezko" to "year; Rezko". Semicolon necessary because ID of Rezko is a side issue to the flow of narrative. Change "These transactions" to "The property transactions" for same reason. A more significant tweak appears below, but I think it will pass muster too. JJB 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mr. is necessary in that spot to distinguish Tony Rezko from Rita Rezko. I don't have a problem with the semicolon. I agree with "The property transactions" because I think it's easier for the reader to understand. Noroton (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Should the word simultaneously be included?

• No...Not an essential detail, but not terribly objectionable. "concurrently" is more accurate I think. I doubt they recorded at the same instant - they were just synchronized to close the same day.Wikidemo (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• No...Objectionable on the basis that it implies there was some sort of collusion going on, when in fact it was actually a condition set by the seller. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• No. The sentence already explains things clearly. Shem^(talk) 04:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. The word is already in there and you need a showing of consensus to take it out. You know how Noroton feels about this. You also know how Andyvphil and K4T will feel about it when they come back in two weeks. Accommodate their concerns and prevent any future problems. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• No, because if we say "simultaneously" we should also say that according to Obama [4] the negotiations were independent and that before the Obamas made an offer on the house there was an existing full price offer on the lot. Without explaining all of this, "simultaneously" strongly implies collusion. It is true that the purchases closed on the same day, but mentioning this without providing the context is misleading. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• No. For all the "no"-reasons stated above. --Floridianed (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this or the other numbered sections are productive, although this one is pretty harmless because I think we've had adequate discussion on this. I encourage WorkerBee74, the only person now arguing in favor, to elaborate his reasons for using the word if he feels not enough discussion has taken place. Please see my comment at the top of this subsection (timestamp 23:49, 29 June) for more about how WP:TALK and WP:POLLS show why these numbered sections are unproductive. Noroton (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (((add "arguing" in second sentence. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC); sigh -- add last few words to finish the sentence. -- Noroton (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC))))

• No, simultaneity is such a trivial detail of the relationship that it can go in a different article. On this question we do have a showing of consensus, and you may see my talk page for K4T's opinion. JJB 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Scrutiny from whom?

• From the press. "public" scrutiny is not supported by the sources - it's OR/synthesis to take comments here and there and call it "public." The term is more or less meaningless too. Public scrutiny does not mean the same as scrutiny from the public, and the public is an ill defined concept. Moreover, criticism by opponents is not notable. Every single thing any politician does or says about anything will automatically draw a critical response from opponents and detractors. I'm also fine with just plain scrutiny without describing whom. Wikidemo (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Media scrutiny. "Scrutiny" implies some sort of investigation, which is what the press does. Neither "the public", nor Clinton or McCain would be "scrutinizing" anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• The media. "Media scrutiny" is best for Obama's biography; the bulk has come from the press since long before the primary season, and the minutiae of back-and-forth debate quips (H. Clinton's "slum landlord" comment) don't really belong here. Shem^(talk) 04:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• It isn't just the media because it includes Hillary, McCain and the bloggers. It isn't just scrutiny because it includes criticism, a word that some editors seem to have a pathological aversion to using in this article. Both words, "media" and "scrutiny," are therefore inaccurate. Use the phrase, "criticism from political rivals and the media." WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm was and will be for the media scrutiny. --Floridianed (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Discuss, don't vote. This subsection in particular is counterproductive. See my comment with this same timestamp at the top of this section. Noroton (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Media scrutiny" acceptable, because even if there's rival or public criticism, that's part of what "media scrutiny" can cover, and further specification is unnecessary. We don't need to use the magic words "criticism" or "controversy" every time there is a WP editorial battle. Again, there is consensus to proceed here. JJB 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and this should be discussed in the section above because we're now discussing the same topic in two different spots. "Media scrutiny" means news organizations asked questions; it does not describe criticism from political rivals or the good government groups, the language I proposed does that. I'm going to copy JJB's comment and this one and post them in the section discussing this. Noroton (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Are there any other concerns you feel have not been adequately addressed, and if so, do you consider them "dealbreakers?"

• This should be understood as a final and complete consensus / compromise on the issue unless and until there is a significant new development or revelation - not something that holds while we continue debating, and not a baseline subject to additional detail. Otherwise we haven't really reached agreement. Wikidemo (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Wikidemo. I have no outstanding concerns beyond the suggestion of using footnotes to push campaign-related Clintonage and McCainery that would belong in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Nothing here. Good work, all. Shem^(talk) 04:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• If you really are concerned about unnecessary length, you will agree that the phrase "politicians of both political parties" is completely unnecessary. It is Rezko's support for Obama that is relevant here. His relationships with others are irrelevant. But the two concerns I've raised above are dealbreakers. Take out "simultaneously" and pretend that the response can be adequately described by "media scrutiny," and I predict there will be a lot of hassles when Andy and K4T return. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• All text that follows the first sentence will need to be in a footnote to avoid problems of undue weight for this section. The word unrelated is unnecessary or misleading and should be dropped. The first line will need a reference. This interview from March 2008 looks to be the most complete source on the subject. The sentence that begins "These transactions attracted media scrutiny because" will likely need its own RS to substantiate the because claim. --HailFire (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes but no. I can live with this version as is. --Floridianed (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a counter-productive vote. Please see my comment at the first part of this section, with the same timestamp as this comment. Noroton (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All of these sections are discussions, not votes. It is sometimes helpful to organize discussion around various issues, depending on the circumstances and how it is done. After a long discussion and apparent consensus it's useful to make sure people are all on the same page. Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikidemo, I have noted that there has been inadequate discussion on a particular, important topic and I've stared a subsection for it after waiting (yet again, I should add) for others to actually discuss it. Your phrase "after long discussion" is completely inaccurate on that point, and my comment near the top of this subsection has already elaborated on why that's so. Noroton (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is very counterproductive. There was a lot of support from certain editors for making this a "done deal" before such editors as Andy and K4T return. That is a recipe for a renewed edit war when they do inevitably return. I predict that the response would be demands from these same editors for blocks and topic bans for Andy and K4T.

I am advocating, in the strongest possible terms, that we must anticipate their objections and accommodate them. They can be productive editors and they have a point. This article was a whitewash three months ago. We are making maddeningly slow baby steps toward NPOV. Make giant strides. Use the word "criticism" and leave in the word "simultaneously." WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we have to discuss with the editors we actually have, and discuss the pros and cons until we're all, or almost all, satisfied that we've brought up and considered all the points that editors want to make. Are there any points that haven't received responses or any new points you'd like to make? Noroton (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What about you, Noroton? After seemingly going along with the results of a long consensus process you've started another topic heading to propose a new section devoted to criticism on the subject of Rezko in addition to the language we've apparently agreed on. Are you rejecting the proposal as worded, tying it to adding more criticism, or saying that any agreement on this is not the complete agreement? Something else? I would not support any consensus to expand degree of derogatory coverage of Obama over the Rezko matter unless it's understood as the full treatment, not a new baseline against which people keep advocating for yet more criticism. Wikidemo (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. I brought it up before. Look at the timestamp. And it's been brought up previously, and brought up in a different form and it's been ignored, even after I mentioned it was ignored. I've provided links in my first comment at the top of this section that go way back to my long list of sources, which was about that same subject. You say, Are you rejecting the proposal as worded, tying it to adding more criticism, or saying that any agreement on this is not the complete agreement? Something else? I'm not advocating any of those things. That would be premature because the discussion isn't over, since discussion on that topic never actually started (although it's gotten a inadequate comment here and there). It also happens to be the topic better referenced than any other on this page. Look at the quotes I cited up at 23:49, 29 June at the top of this "Consensus" subsection. That's what we're supposed to be doing here, and that's what I'm trying to do. I'm not being unreasonable, asking people to discuss something already discussed or bringing up something irrational. I'm doing just what we're all supposed to be doing here. I get the impression that this might be an uncomfortable topic for some editors and that's why they're avoiding it, but I can't read minds. I would not support any consensus to expand degree of derogatory coverage of Obama over the Rezko matter unless it's understood as the full treatment, not a new baseline against which people keep advocating for yet more criticism. I'm not even sure I understand what that means. I've been thinking about this in terms of what information is important whether it's negative or positive. You well know that I've added both negative and positive information to articles such as Bernardine Dohrn, and you've told me so. The goal here is not to get more or less negative information in the article but the right amount and the only way to figure that out is by discussing it. Now I've had that comment up for more than a day and people have gone right around it to comment on this page elsewhere. I think it's high time we talked about it. At least three Wikipedia guidelines urge us to do just that. Guidelines also ask us to tie our discussions to citable facts, logic and policies and guidelines. Why can't we just do that on this topic? Noroton (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for a month and has been restarted 10-15 times. Nobody can reasonably ask people to have the discussion more than that, or say that if they are unwilling they have refused to discuss. We're trying to figure out if the proposed addition of new content is agreeable to enough people to have consensus and, if not, whether there might be an acceptable version. If we can't agree after a month we'll have to acknowledge that there is no consensus to add it. The meaning of my comment on finality should be obvious. If we're going to agree on compromise language, it has to be a real agreement and not a shifting target that leaves open attempts to change it again. The question is whether all of us can accept the current proposal. I accept it if it is final - if people are not crossing their fingers behind their back when they shake hands on it. Wikidemo (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Actual discussion did not take place. Despite my efforts. People announced their views and withdrew. That isn't discussion. I've quoted the relevant parts of WP:TALK and linked to a particular section of WP:POLLS, and I don't get the impression you've looked at them dispassionately, based on what I've been seeing in your most recent comments. I always said I had problems with this particular language, and I haven't said anything to mislead anyone about that. Stop suggesting that I've been unreasonable or will be unreasonable. And stop saying that consensus has formed before editors have actually fully discussed the matter because the only consensus that counts when it's reasonable to discuss something is after the discussion has started, not before. You seem even more interested in discussing how awful it is to actually discuss than you are in engaging in that discussion itself. Noroton (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with those guidelines and the process. We've had free form discussion, discussion organized in sections, parallel discussions, straw polls, discussion segmented by category, etc. Exactly what have we not yet discussed, and how many more times are we going to go over this in how many new permutations? I'll grant that there may have been a misunderstanding about how we're doing this, with some people thinking that the paragraph we were asked to approve is the final version, and your intending to add another sentence to it about McCain's and Clinton's criticism of Obama over the issue. Can we get it all out on the table, so that we have a complete, final proposal about what the Rezko paragraph is supposed to say? I've certainly laid out my opinion on that addition - if you do that we can see what some others have to say. Unfortunately that means firing up the proposal yet again. I sense the mood of cooperation is wearing thin unless we make a strong effort to continue, given the new AN/I report and statements made by various editors. Wikidemo (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Without seeking out every comment made by the outliers (alas!), I have enough to make this qualified statement. (1) Footnotes are a bad idea because they tempt people to delete the footnote tag, promote the text, and reopen the wounds. This happened at Ron Paul and stood for a little while, but was not supported when the controversy resurfaced. There is no consensus for footnotes. Also, we're dealing with the situation now, not after the election, at which point footnoting can be revisited. (2) WorkerBee appears to be arguing outside of consensus and I believe we can proceed safely with the present version, barring new information of course. (3) I see Noroton's sources, and understand the claim that Rezko is now the best-sourced part of the article, but the respectable number of verified sources on this point is not comparable to the potential number of verifiable sources on more significant points. I would hope that Noroton is using these sources to the hilt on the Rezko and campaign articles. On this article, the amount of space in this compromise is in the correct range, and no more weight is necessary, especially given the weight due to Wright, ahem. (4) I hope that Andy and Kossack will also respect the same observation, and refer readers again to K4T's comment on my talk. (On one pass of this article, I found no coverage of Ayers, Rezko, or Wright at all, and that's just silly. Overdoing it is equally so. Proper weight is the watchword, and progress is necessary because someday FAC review will return.)

However, I do have two minor points appropriate for this section. I noted some style changes above which I would hope can pass by silent consensus. Secondly, I think the consensus at this point is "passed, except for the language about Rezko's fundraising clients". Right now that clause is clunky more than anything. My first thought would be more like: "had raised funds for Obama, George W. Bush, and many local politicians". It's not something that seems to have any controversy underneath when you lift the rock, but, Who knows. JJB 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with JJB's suggestion about the Rezko fundraising language or with the language as it currently stands. I'm going to copy JJB's comment down tot he end of point 3 and answer it in the subsection above this one. Noroton (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reaching consensus

It appears from the previous sections that we are approaching a consensus, with views beginning to coalesce. Currently, there are three "outliers":

1. HailFire - Argues for most of the text to be shunted into the footnotes to address the weight problem. I think it is a good idea, but I fear it will be difficult to achieve a consensus for that. Ultimately, it will probably end up there when the election is over.
2. Noroton - Now wants more discussion, <sarcasm>because obviously we haven't had enough</sarcasm>. He is arguing for more negative language, and has the sources to back them up, but it is felt by most that this would violate WP:WEIGHT (and perhaps WP:NPOV).
3. WorkerBee74 - Arguing for even more negative language than Noroton, and even (it appears) some negative spin. He appears to be conducting a filibuster, hoping to keep this discussion going until K4T and Andy return. There has also been a completely inappropriate suggestion that unless we adopt the more negative language, the future return of K4T and Andy will herald a new round of edit warring.

The language for this event has been discussed extensively, to the minutest of detail, for weeks and weeks - an amount of time completely disproportionate to its importance. There comes a time when we must draw a line under the discussion, update the article, and move on to the next issue. I feel we are coming to that time, with further discussion unlikely to change the current text in any significant way. The proposed text (last updated by Rick Block) is this:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. These transactions attracted media scrutiny because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Obviously, consensus can change. Some of us feel this issue will fade into the background as the election ends, and perhaps we will end up adopting HailFire's footnote approach. Others think it will become a major campaign issue, and so it might need expansion. But that is gazing into the crystal ball, and we shouldn't try to anticipate which way it is going to go. I suggest we update the article with this version of the text and move on for the time being. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK and WP:POLLS. You shouldn't try to force it. It's reasonable to discuss points that have been brought up, unreasonable to ignore them, and against guidelines. Noroton (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing it above, and we've talked this section to death. Besides, WP:TALK and WP:POLLS are just guidelines, and we are treading carefully under the helpful stewardship of an administrator. As I said before, this is starting to look a bit like a filibuster. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite the reader to compare Scjessey's comment just above with the actual language of WP:TALK and WP:POLLS, especially the parts I quoted at this spot in the "Consensus: Rick Block's..." subsection above. It's a telling contrast. Noroton (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(for about the 5th or 6th time) I am fine with that language (and with a number of variants of it within reason) as a compromise version, but only if we have consensus among enough people here that it's the final and complete version of this subject that we will stick with. We should not extend this discussion indefinitely while awaiting consensus. If people cannot agree on a new version we should stay with the current language and accept that no consensus has been established for expanding on it. Wikidemo (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Answered here. -- Noroton (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in prior section. JJB 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Now see, the following is why I don't like to actually look at the article. There was absolutely nothing on Ayers (did we get consensus for that?); there was the old imbalance on Wright, despite my former attempts at guidance; and there was arguably three paragraphs on Ahmed Yousef, which is ridiculous for one statement. Yousef was apparently overblown because of the Wiki effect lengthening his entry at FactCheck. I see now that it was a very recent drive-by, but along with the other longstanding unresolved issues, you'd think that we'd be closer to stability by now. JJB 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The completely inappropriate, WP:WEIGHT-busting paragraph on Hamas has been removed, and is not relevant to this particular section discussing Rezko. Ayers is not in the article because there is nothing to put in (just a campaign smear tactic that failed to gain traction) - again, irrelevant to this talk page section. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, misrepresenting the facts. Talking about Ayers is not a "campaign smear tactic" because, as you already know, George Stephanopoulos hasn't been involved with anyone's political campaign for at least 12 years and besides, he's a Democrat. SCJ, kindly limit your remarks to the truth. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you had forgotten, George Stephanopoulos was pilloried for the shameful ABC debate in which he (former Clinton communications director) essentially attacked Obama (opponent to Clinton) after being prompted by Sean Hannity on a live radio broadcast earlier. Incidentally, accusing me of lying is not going to win you any more friends. You need to take a step back from this topic if you are always having to resort to personal attacks to make your points. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are we kiddin here, Scjessey? Pilloried by whom? The MSM? That's not an unbiased characterization whatsoever. Ya mean partisan folks pilloried George: not Hannity, Hewitt, or National Review; more likely HuffPo, the Nation, etc. Which, if that's what you meant, is what ya should have said. As for the MSM, note e/g the NYT's Dowd, Rich, and Brooks (who had these things to say at the time!):

Asked about his friendly relationship with the former Weather Underground anarchist William Ayers — an association that The Wall Street Journal suggests could turn into the Swift Boat of 2008 given Ayers’s statement that “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough” — Obama defended him with a line that only the eggheads orbiting his campaign could appreciate. Ayers, he said, is “a professor of English in Chicago.”
Obama has to prove to Americans that, despite his exotic background and multicultural looks, he shares or at least respects their values and understands why they would be upset about his associations with the Rev. Wright and an ex-Weatherman.----MAUREEN DOWD

Of course, Obama fans were angry because of the barrage of McCarthyesque guilt-by-association charges against their candidate, portraying him as a fellow traveler of bomb-throwing, America-hating, flag-denigrating terrorists. The debate’s co-moderator, George Stephanopoulos, second to no journalist in his firsthand knowledge of the Clinton White House, could have easily rectified the imbalance. All he had to do was draw on his expertise to ask similar questions about Bill Clinton’s check-bearing business and foundation associates circling a potential new Clinton administration. He did not.----FRANK RICH

"I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that's their own fault."----DAVID BROOKS

Namely Dowd sez candidates gotta weather tough Q's, Brooks agrees, and Rich kvetches about George's not giving Hillary equally hard Q's as he gave Obama!

I support Obama, even contributing to his campaign. It's just that as contributors I believe we all oughta stongly support such guidelines as----

Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk (discussion) pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.----WIKIPEDIA:ETIQUETTE

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Misdirection doesn't change the fact of misrepresentation. Hannity isn't involved with anyone's campaign either. The fact of the matter is that when you claimed it was a "campaign smear tactic," it was a false statement and such unapologetically false statements are your trademark here. By the way, I don't notice any aversion to mentioning criticism in the Stephanolpoulos biography, even an extensive quote from one of his harshest critics. Since you linked it, I can only conclude that you believe it's a sterlingexample of Wikipedia biography style, and it's chock full of criticism. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"The fact of the matter is that when you claimed it was a "campaign smear tactic," it was a false statement and such unapologetically false statements are your trademark here."

Again with calling me a liar. Again, I urge you to take a step back before you get yourself further into trouble. It is a campaign smear tactic - a transparent attempt to conflate unrelated details to give the appearance of a controversy in order to influence the outcome of an electoral campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you two (three now) take this conversation someplace else. It's really not helping things here. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaching consensus would entail completely forgetting about whose viewpoint is right and whose is shameful and worthy of disparagement, instead looking to include all points of view in as balanced and neutral a way as possible, while practicing so-called "writing for the enemy" if need be. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try again

Now, with that said let's restart the discussion. I'd like to open it by asking User:Noroton to clearly lay out his remaining concerns, and then we can discuss those concerns on their merits. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, here is the current iteration of the text being discussed, so concerns should be addressed on what is wrong with this particular version:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. A lot adjacent to the house was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, who then sold part of it to the Obamas the following year; Mr. Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions attracted media scrutiny because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, he called the transaction a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

-- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Restart the discussion again, in yet another new section? How about this: I'm calling this, and implementing the current overwhelmingly supported version per Talk consensus. Consensus doesn't mean a unanimous vote. Shem^(talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And if I revert you, at what point would that start to be edit warring on this page? I'm more than happy to discuss with any admins just how far I can go in pressing my case without being disruptive. Where has anyone offered to compromise over my concerns or even met my concerns with adequate responses? Certainly not you, Shem, after my repeated requests for you to do so for quite some time. Certainly not you. I've been flexible in suggesting alternate language more than once, I'm calling for a small change in terms of number of words, and I'm met with, frankly, a bad attitude on the part of multiple editors. Wikipedia guidelines urge us to discuss the matter rather than edit war, but they allow for reverts while discussion is going on. I don't want to be disruptive and I don't want to tie up everyone's time, but I do want my proposal considered by editors who can show me that they've seriously thought about it. Noroton (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your solitary dissent doesn't override the clear consensus this discussion has produced Noroton. I'm sorry, and I understand your desire for additional material, but there comes a point where you need to acknowledge consensus and move on. Shem^(talk) 19:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Clubjuggle, I've done just exactly that at Talk:Barack Obama#Let's fully discuss judgment/media scrutiny/other alternative language. I get the impression some editors thought I wanted to add a whole section or paragraph or something. I'm proposing to replace media scrutiny in the fourth sentence with criticism from political opponents and others, a net addition of four words that adequately describes the reaction to the Obama/Rezko dealings, although I'm open to criticism from commentators, good government groups, and political opponents, a net addition of seven words, each part of it sourced in an NPOV way. If people think this adds too much to the length, I can show where the paragraph can be shortened by as many words with no loss of meaning. I am also open to other wording as long as it meets my concerns as already stated in that section. Any further discussion of this should occur back at that section. In fact, this section should be moved up to the bottom of the rest of the Rezko sections because we shouldn't be searching all over the page to discuss Rezko.

In addition, the last sentence should say "transactions" rather than "transaction". Noroton (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(interjecting here) - In the Tribune interview, Obama specifically referred to the second of the two transactions as "bone-headed" (see relevant part of transcript), so rather than adding an "s" to "transaction" we may need to rework that last sentence further. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama has said he used the term "boneheaded" on numerous occasions to describe the entanglement with Rezko. Here are three sources showing him using it about the earlier transaction (and he also used it regarding the later transaction, as Scjessey says, and there are multiple sources for that, too):

• Washington Post]: In June 2005, in what Obama now describes as a "boneheaded" mistake, Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjacent properties on Chicago's South Side
• ABC News: Obama maintains his relationship with Rezko was "above board and legal" but has admitted bad judgment, calling his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."
• Times of London: was sold by the same seller on the same day to Rita Rezko, the wife of Mr Obama's longtime friend and fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko. [...] The candidate has called the transaction a “boneheaded mistake” [...] In context it's clear "boneheaded" is referring to the original deal. Noroton (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at a few other sources and transcripts, and I agree that there is enough vagueness and repetition in the use of the term for "transactions" to be just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your fellow editors already addressed WorkerBee's desire to use the word "criticism." The same responses apply to your new wording. Shem^(talk) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the discussion in Talk:Barack Obama#Let's fully discuss judgment/media scrutiny/other alternative language? Please tell me, and if not, point out where that discussion starts and I'll read it. Noroton (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Norton's concerns I would like to suggest the following wording as a compromise:

"...media scrutiny and criticism from political opponents." --Floridianed (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the section as proposed already has more weight than is ideal (per all the arguments and discussions, which I will not repeat), but is nevertheless a good compromise and consensus. Moreover, it's a semi-complex issue that we've managed to describe well and succinctly. I don't think those four, or six, words are that relevant and they add to weight, so my preference is to leave them out. However, they aren't that offensive either so I would be pleased with either version if it has consensus.Wikidemo (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - I don't see the point of adding "criticism from political opponents" either. There is always going to be criticism from political opponents, about everything. That makes such an addition redundant. All it does it make the text longer and give more weight to something that is already disproportionally covered. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Floridaned, thank you for that suggestion, but to me, the more important point is the criticism from commentators, who include a number of people who support Obama, and the criticism from the good government groups. In terms of length there's very little difference. In terms of NPOV, I just don't get the objection -- no one's shown me anyone who says "hey, there was nothing wrong here". I think the good government groups and the commentators are more authoritative than the political opponents, and this was not just a campaign issue -- it was generated by reports in the media and by comments from people who were not partisan, including those good government groups. I had suggested criticism from political opponents and others because it was the shortest way I thought we could do this, but I've also said I'm fine with criticism from commentators, good government groups and political opponents. I could go with any of these:

• media scrutiny and criticism from good government groups and others
• criticism from good government groups and others
• In fact, any combination with media scrutiny and at the start of it, or any combination without that phrase
• criticism from commentators, good government groups and others
• criticism from commentators and others
• In fact, any combination with criticism from commentators or good governemnt groups as long as there's an others in there to provide sources for the Clinton and McCain campaigns and/or the good government groups and at least two commentators, and one of those could be an Obama supporter.

Is that flexible enough? Noroton (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. All of these choices involve adding opinion, as opposed to just reporting the facts, correct? They all use the word "criticism", which is a non-neutral characterization. As I've already stated before, the opinions of political opponents are not relevant or notable. I am also skeptical about whether a "good government group" can be considered a reliable source. Can you provide an example (just one will be sufficient)? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We're allowed to report on opinion and you know that. I'll give you two good government groups in a moment, but first I'm posting a previous response to you that got into an edit conflict with your post. Noroton (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here they are:

• 1. Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, (news article, New York Times) June 14, 2007: “Senator Obama is a very intelligent man, and everyone by then was very familiar with who Tony Rezko was,” said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a nonpartisan research group. “So it was a little stunning that so late in the game Senator Obama would still have such close involvement with Rezko.” An ABC News report called Canary's organization, "a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts."
  2. Los Angeles Times article, January 23, 2008, Lead paragraph: Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the name of Barack Obama’s Chicago patron into the South Carolina debate Monday night, putting front and center a tangled relationship that has the potential to undermine Obama’s image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent." [...] “Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble,” said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. “When he got indicted, there wasn’t a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming… . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you’re planning to run for president?”

In terms of reliable sourcing, any group giving its own opinion is generally considered a reliable source when we're simply saying in the article "this is there opinion". I'm sure that's explicitly stated in WP:RS. Noroton (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, responding to your statement above:

• There is always going to be criticism from political opponents, about everything. That makes such an addition redundant. But not always criticism from good government groups, which makes that criticism more important. And when you get widespread criticism from even your supporters among the commentariat, you've also got something unusual.
• All it does is make the text longer [...] I can shorten the proposed text without losing any real content, so the length would be about the same either way.
• All it does is [...] give more weight to something that is already disproportionally covered. Criticism from good gov't groups and commentators is justification for weight, not dead weight. It shows the matter was considered important by those who closely observed Obama and who were not necessarily partisan. That's valuable. Noroton (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is okay to carefully report opinion, but there are problems associated with that. First of all, additional reporting of any kind is an undue weight problem. In the opinion of a number of editors, the length and language of this text is already suffering from a weight problem, and we are already compromising in order to achieve consensus. Secondly, when reporting opinion WP:RS is quite specific about giving in-text attribution to the individual or organization stating that opinion. You are attempting to get around this by saying there is "criticism from good government groups", a vague phrase that can't adequately be supported by citations alone. Doing it justice would mean more of a weight problem, and we are already past what is really acceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS is a content guideline that is not set in stone. You yourself said that (about two other guidelines; see below) on this page within the past day or two. The purpose of not naming both groups is for space and weight reasons in an already long article. We are following the important part of WP:RS by citing reliable sources, and there is no effort to be evasive or to state something more prominently than is true. Further, we're just summarizing with "criticism", not giving the specific criticism itself, which I believe belongs in the primary campaign article. As I said, the criticism itself shows that the Rezko matter is important, and I can rewrite a few other parts of the proposed Rezko sentences to achieve a version that is longer by only a few words. Noroton (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (((amended with phrase in parentheses -- Noroton (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC))))

Here's what you said about following two other guidelines; it's in the subsection immediately above this one: [...] Besides, WP:TALK and WP:POLLS are just guidelines, and we are treading carefully under the helpful stewardship of an administrator. As I said before, this is starting to look a bit like a filibuster. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC) -- Noroton (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at your two examples and they seem to fit in with what is expected from WP:RS. That still leaves the problem of incorporating these opinions. But you aren't summarizing when using "criticism" (a non-neutral characterization), you are synthesizing. I think this could be solved by removing the word "media" (something previously proposed) and simply making sure that one of the sources we cite includes an example of the good government opinion you are seeking; however, that is not an invitation to load-up the text with scads of sources, because that is just as bad as having too much text. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Is this acceptable to you? criticism from commentators, good government groups and others. Each word (commentators, groups, others) is in the plural, indicating to me that we should have six sources. For "others" I'd include news articles reporting on what McCain and Clinton said, for gov't groups, two sources from what I posted just above, and I'd mention a pro-Obama commentator or editoral and an anti-Obama one. Noroton (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(Referring to the "guidelines" comment) - WP:RS is a guideline, yes, but WP:BLP#Sources is not, and that also mentions the attribution issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I just read that. It refers to "professionals" who state their opinions in the newspaper, but if you look at the preceding sentence, it makes clear that "professionals" are journalists opinionating in the newspaper on their blogs or elsewhere. It does not demand in-text citations of a person being quoted in the newspaper. I would want to use the person's name and the name of the group in the footnote, so there would be no question about who we're talking about. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Without reading the last essay's in this "forum thread" I propose yet another compromise (if you still can name it one) that would be in my opinion the furthest we can go:

"...media scrutiny and criticism from political opponents as well as some of his allies."

That should really please you, Noroton. However, I doubt others will approve this version but maybe I'm wrong. --Floridianed (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be fair. I'm not sure who else to call an "ally" other than the good government group that worked with him. If we changed it to "supporters in the media" we could source it to a columnist in Chicago and a Chicago Tribune editorial. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not support Floridianed's proposed amendment, partly because of the use of "criticism" and partly because it sounds awkward to me. Nor could I support Noroton's last proposal, particularly the idea of having six sources for a single sentence. I can envisage two sources (one to encompass media scrutiny, another to encompass good government opinion), but festooning the text with sources is just as much of a weight problem as expanding the text itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Would that be adequate sourcing? I wonder. I would agree if others say it's sufficient to have one source for "good government groups" and one for "commentators" and two for "political opponents" if we're including that, because we ought to link to sources mentioning McCain and mentioning Clinton (if one source covers both, that's fine by me). Scjessey, there is no policy or guideline anywhere that forbids us from saying that Obama was criticized for this, is there? I don't understand your objection to that. Please explain. And tell me what you can agree to. Noroton (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (((minor rewrite for clarity -- Noroton (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC))))

Most of your fellow editors've already explained to you what they can agree to throughout the course of this discussion. Through explaining our stances and going through tweaks and revisions, the epitome of Wikipedia's consensus-building process, we've come to a solid stone which clearly reflects the editorial sum of this talk page. You're now trying to squeeze water from that stone. Shem^(talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, you could try to work for consensus. I am. Noroton (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Most things on Wikipedia, as with this article, get 1 or 2 sources. More than that should not be necessary, and much more than that will be seen as an attempt to use references to achieve greater weight. There is nothing forbidding criticism, but use of that specific word would need to be supported in the chosen source (or else be a synthesis, due to it being a characterization). Like I said, there is no need to mention Clinton or McCain at all - they criticize (or have criticized) everything as part of the usual campaigning modus operandi. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've said I'm willing to drop political opponents. Please be flexible and offer an alternative. Noroton (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That page you cite specifically states: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly. That's all we'd be doing. Again, if it's OK with others, I'd cite one source for each type of group we have, "commentators" or "good government groups". But citing two for each group would not be excessive and certainly has precedent in widespread practice. The reason is that one source doesn't cover the plural meaning. Really, whether we have two sources or four shouldn't be a dealbreaker for you. Noroton (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(e.c. with below) To add my 0.02, I think "criticism from commentators and others" is a good in-between position. Addressing Scjessey, we are very close to an agreed-to wording here. Noroton offers to join the consensus, and his support would be very important. I think we've all laid out our thoughts. Granting you that you are right on this, the difference between "scrutiny" and "criticism" is fairly slight - and frankly scrutiny is a more loaded word. Would you rather be criticized or scrutinized? Scrutiny implies that you've done something wrong for which you need to be investigated. Criticism just means people have an opinion about what everyone knows you did, which may be closer to the truth. Then "and others" - any weight and relevance issues, even if there, are extremely minor. So even if you think it's completely wrong, a very small sacrifice of your belief about how it should be worded, in the interest of getting it done and having a stable article without any further dissent on this section. It would be a nice accomplishment to wrap this up while everyone is on the same page. Wikidemo (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Last proposal:

"...media scrutiny and some criticism from others."

"Others" are the one's in the footnote references that will go with it. --Floridianed (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's fine too as far as I'm concerned but it's more awkward than "criticism from commentators and others" an some other formulations. Oh, are we still talking about footnotes? Why not simply provide references, or add a footnote or parenthetical comment of the form: criticism from others (e.g.[5], [6])?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

That's what I meant. Fixed it. --Floridianed (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, to both Floridianed and Noroton, use of the word "criticism" is unacceptable to me. It is a loaded word that attempts to characterize, not summarize. "Scrutiny" implies investigation or study - not nearly as contentious, in my opinion. I have already proposed an alternative that I believe solves the problem in a previous comment. Let me make it obvious with an annotated version of the part of the text:

The property transactions attracted scrutiny^[cite][cite] because they occurred after Rezko was already under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges,^[cite] for which he was later convicted.^[cite]

-- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not concede to use of the word "criticism," period. In response to Wikidemo: where I'm from, "criticism" is an attack while "scrutiny" means someone simply takes a closer look at something. The latter's more neutral as I've known it used, and more accurate with regard to those who looked into the transactions. Rick Block's version is adequate in every way. Shem^(talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there some new word, or sentence structure that does it then? "Attention from", "commentary by", "critical response", "attracted the notice of". And to sort of repeat my suggestion above, instead of enumerating who it was (media, opponents, pundits, "others") we can put that all in a parenthetical clause or footnote with links rather than nouns. So to coin a word, if we compromised on the word "croutinty" we could say "in a transaction that later drew croutiny (for example, ^<fn1><fn2>)..." - Wikidemo (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. I have to go to the dentist (ouchy!) but I'll mull it over and see if I can think of an acceptable alternative. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Shem, would you characterize these as attacks?

• 1. Mark Brown, columnist, Sun-Times, November 2, 2006: I'm one of those who nominated Obama for his place in American history before he even got to Washington. [...] But now we must question his judgment — no small matter in a man who would be president.
  2. Chicago Tribune editorial, March 16, 2008 (overall, supportive of Obama, they say they still think his judgment is good, but notice that they address the issue): When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him. Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.

Both criticize. (The Chicago Tribune editorial criticizes elsewhere than what I've quoted, but follow the link and you can't miss it.) Noroton (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, so after all this you haven't budged an inch? "Criticism" is simply not a loaded word because what was being said was universally recognized as criticism. If we'd mischaracterized what was said, then there'd be something wrong. Floridaned, I'm worried that your suggestion might legitimately be called WP:WEASEL because we say nothing at all about where the criticism comes from, so I think we'll inevitably get objections from other editors later. Nevertheless, I can agree to either Floridaned's or Wikidemo's sugggestions. Can you come to agreement among yourselves? Noroton (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your last comment. I have compromised and capitulated on almost everything - please remember that I don't really think Rezko warrants a mention at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Mark Brown's column is an opinion piece qualified with this: "The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Chicago Sun-Times." Also, all these Chicago-centric sources are not necessarily reflective of the national view. To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi, "we must be cautious." -- Scjessey (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they're national or Chicago-centric. I put them there so Shem would see what the word "criticism" can encompass. I've got a ton of national sources at the top of this page. Please respond to my comment about why "criticism" is not a loaded word. I don't understand how you define loaded. Noroton (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Noroton. What about "undue weight"? In my opinion we could easily leave out the whole thing about criticism w/o compromising guidelines. So if you and Shem would move just a little bit (and Shem, I wrote"some" criticism which is far less an attack), we could finally reach consensus. --Floridianed (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Floridaned, I've moved every which way but that, which I think has shown a lot of flexibility. I've said why "scrutiny" isn't enough and even shown the definition of "scrutiny" which is a word that doesn't cover the criticism. (see my post at 15:52 30 June in Talk: Barack Obama#Let's fully discuss judgment/media scrutiny/other alternative language) "Criticism" is a neutral word when you're describing something that is, in fact, criticism. It isn't controversial to call this stuff criticism. I'm willing to accept other language that describes what I'm talking about.

As to undue weight: (1) the addition is minuscule in terms of verbiage, and I have suggestions for how the overall passage language can be trimmed so that we either have no net expansion or hardly any (a few words, maybe). Undue weight becomes less and less of a problem the shorter and shorter the item is that you're talking about. (2) Having looked at the coverage, I haven't found anyone who hasn't criticized Obama for this, including Obama, so we're not ignoring some notable minority out there. I will change that view in an instant if somebody finds a bunch of sources that say, "Nope, he did nothing wrong." That's kind of unlikely since Obama says he did something wrong. (3) The criticism is an important aspect of this, I don't see how it couldn't be. Obama isn't repeatedly calling it "boneheaded" in a vacuum but because he's being asked about it and it's being criticized. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

About criticism

The word is a characterization. It implies a judgment after investigation, and is always negative (contrast with "critique", which can be positive). "Scrutiny" does not have the "judgment" characterization attached to it - it is not loaded with judgment.

Also consider this - the emphasis should be on summarizing the events, not the opinion of the events. In an article written in summary style, where brevity is preferred, we can let the sources take care of the opinion aspect for us. A couple of well-chosen sources should be able to do this. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are against WP policy, no?

• so perhaps it follows we should avoid superfluous use of the word when possible. I refuse to read the heaping dark mass of the previous discussions on this matter because I can basically imagine it by looking at the sig lines.

scrutiny might be fine, like as in "media scrutiny." prolly the most accurate, though I think "media attention" might be even more neutral.

Some editors need to remember approx. 90% of the cites for not only this page but all the Obama subpages, are media cites. The media, generally, reports but does not criticize. And when they do criticize, they identify it as such, ie editorial. Many of those even are tv media cites, which is the least likely format to editorialize, with notable exceptions. But more to the point we have been minimizing the use of editorial cites. I don't know how many this page has, but the number could well be zero. The campaign page has a massive number of cites, and I'm sure a couple are editorial in nature, but again not a relatively high amount.

Simply put, not only is promotion of criticism/controversy sections frowned upon, but the cites we have do not come close to supporting such a statement, which I think is the more serious problem here. You need RS sources which actually criticize and not simply report criticism, and you need a bunch of them, to make such an argument. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not prohibited by Wikipedia policy, they are just discouraged. The closest policy gets to banning the sections is Wikipedia:NPOV#Article structure, but that's still not banning them. Mostly it's just a general agreement among many editors on Wikipedia that the sections are a bad thing and a sign of poor editing and whenever possible, they should be avoided. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

Given how there has been much criticism of Obama reported in the media, I find amazing that it is not represented here. I tried adding it twice, both times well-cited, from mainstream news publications and simply NPOV reporting what they say, and both times they got reverted.

I've better things to do than engage in edit wars but maybe other people would like to crusade for Truth. I just hope people continue to view Wikipedia as complementary to and not substitutes for other information sources.

gssq (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Simply put, Wikipedia is not a place to "crusade for Truth." It reall is as simple as that. S. Dean Jameson 13:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy I've always read about was to come to a version of an article that everyone can agree upon, and even supporters of Obama can agree that he has been criticised on many points, which are curiously absent from the article. Given that the Wikipedia guidelines play with semantics and advise the use of the word 'critique' instead of 'criticism', it is puzzling why edits were reverted instead of the section just being retitled.gssq (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And on one of the reverts, I was told that BLPs are not supposed to use the word 'criticism'. I looked in the BLP policy page but didn't see it. I looked harder and found it under the 'criticism' policy page. I've added that bit to the BLP page, but who knows - it might get reverted too (for some bizarre reason). All this given that I have seem 'criticism' sections in many other articles (albeit not as highly trafficked as this one). I'm going to try one last time, but I have no doubt that some other rule only dedicated Wikipedians know about will be thrown at me. Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, if they can read through long lists of policies and throw them back at those who revert their edits. <<<gssq 06:46>>>

added your sig which you... forgot on that last edit. please remember to use your sig for each edit so that you don't get accused of deceptive practices. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. gssq (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

yes god forbid we should use rules or something... if you truly do not understand the difference between editorials and news reports, then probably WP guidelines are the least of your worries. seriously. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• obviously sourced criticism is allowed, and is in fact present throughout the article. What should not be there, because the sources do not support it and because it is contrary to WP guidelines, is use of the word criticism. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just several months back was the first time that I started to edit Wikipedia, and to be honest, I was surprised that any encyclopedia would have a section devoted to "criticism" on someone or something. If there are appropriate and sourced points to be made, I see no reason why they couldn't fit into any of the other categories and not all lumped into one section. I don't object to sourced and notable criticism, just to an entire section devoted to and called this. Kman543210 (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, but I'm sure you'd have noticed that many articles have 'criticism' sections. Furthermore, the policy section doesn't object to a 'critique' section. gssq (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

unless- the sources are contrary to use of the word critique as well! as you have been told before- the fact that your proposal is contrary to WP guidelines (criticism/critique/angels on pin heads/etc) is less important than the fact that your proposal is a brazen violation of original research RULES, considering the sources we have... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I used? There were 5-6 and only 1 was an editorial. gssq (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

well then its doubtful they meet the definition of "criticism" as opposed to "reporting of criticism." Your best bet was probably to say you had more editorials that that, lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the material in question before making inapplicable comments. gssq (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] To me, the main argument against separate sections that are exclusively criticisms or controversies is that they easily can become dumping grounds for any negative thing that is said about an individual, giving them more weight than is appropriate. Integrating them into the appropriate section of a biography is better writing and forces editors to decide how significant each incident or item is in the context of a whole life before just dumping it in. It is felt to be less biased because it doesn't emphasize negative material unduly and allows for balanced, in context, presentation. It is also sometimes explained by saying consider what your reaction would be to an article that had a section called "Praise" - it wouldn't fly. This no-criticism-section argument has been made on biographies of people across political and other lines. But as Bobblehead said, it's a matter of general agreement among many editors, not an official policy. Tvoz/talk 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To expand upon this, late last year there was a concerted effort on the part of the editors involved with all the 2008 presidential candidates' articles (and there were a lot of candidates back then!) to rid them of separate "controversies" or "criticism" sections or subarticles, and to integrate that material (when it was legitimate) into the mainline of the article or articles about each candidate. You can see the discussions, and links to the separate Talk page discussions at the time, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages. As you can see, we successfully dismantled and disbursed all such sections and subarticles; some of the really big or prominent ones were those for Hillary, McCain, and Giuliani. Wikipedia has been a lot better for this action ever since, and now is not to time to backslide! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but for those not familiar with all this history, it is perplexing when edits get reverted when official policy doesn't say anything about it. gssq (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And while dismantling and disbursing is a good thing, reverting wholesale when there's material of worth isn't. gssq (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[out]There also is something in the FAQ for this article above - the revert probably should have pointed you to that in edit summary, but things sometimes move too quickly here for editors to notice that a new editor made an edit and may not know the background. The thing to do is to raise the issues you wanted added on Talk, and you'll find out quickly enough if it's something that has already been covered, or is in a sub article, or what. Tvoz/talk 18:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention of ACORN

A mention of ACORN was inserted, sourced only to a WSJ opinion piece. I've reverted it, and I'm opening a discussion related to the necessity of the mention. To me, it has a bit of a "guilt-by-association" feel to it. I'm open to other views, though, which is why I wanted to discuss it here. S. Dean Jameson 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The WSJ reference is [7] which includes:

In 1992, Acorn hired Mr. Obama to run a voter registration effort. He later became a trainer for the group, as well as its lawyer in election law cases.

Obama's connection with ACORN is a story rumbling around in conservative leaning sources, see for example this opinion piece from the National Review or this from Michelle Malkin. This article from the LA Times has an entirely different slant. It would appear Project Vote coordinated with ACORN, the ACORN folks were impressed with Obama, and ACORN then had him train some of their own folks (this is from the LA Times article). Although the WSJ claim that Acorn hired Obama to run a voter registration effort appears to be factually false (he worked for Project Vote [8], not ACORN), he did represent ACORN in at least one legal action [9]. All in all, it looks to me like this is an attempt to overstate Obama's relationship with ACORN. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my view as well. There seems to be a clear agenda in the sources that try to imply that Obama worked directly for ACORN, and didn't simply advise/train a few of their workers. S. Dean Jameson 17:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown that "In 1992, Acorn hired Mr. Obama to run a voter registration effort..." is "factually false". The ChicagoMag article you cite as saying that Obama did not work for ACORN is introduced as a chronicle of "a new political star" and is arguably as much "an opinion piece" that advances Obama's political ambitions as the WSJ cite retards them. If that article said Obama did not work for ACORN, you'd thereby have a conflict, not a refutation, but the article you cite makes no mention of ACORN, which proves nothing. For a conflict, you have to make the additional assumptions that the only voter registration effort Obama worked on in 1992 was the Project Vote! effort and, even if there was just the one, that Project Vote! and ACORN are not allied such that working for the former effectively means working for the latter. In any case, lawyers are "hired" by clients, and ACORN was an Obama client. If the WSJ should not be cited here, that's fine, but I disagree that a single brief mention of ACORN somewhere would "overstate" the relationship. I suggest that no mention of it at all is, in fact, an understatement.Bdell555 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PS This article makes it clear that Project Vote! was undertaken in direct partnership with ACORN.Bdell555 (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Those arguing that he did not work for ACORN do not bear the onus of proof here, Bdell. It's upon those who wish to include the material to reliably source it before inclusion. You have failed to do so. S. Dean Jameson 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that he did not work for ACORN is refuted by the Chicago Sun Times (amongst other sources) which indicate that Obama was a lawyer for ACORN. That means he worked for them. In any case, that's not the issue here. The issue is whether there should be any mention of a relationship or not. The criteria of WP:NOTABLE are satisfied here.Bdell555 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to show -- through reliable sources -- that he worked for ACORN, and not with ACORN, which is an important distinction. Thus far, you have simply sourced it to John Fund's WSJ opinion piece, which fails the reliability test. S. Dean Jameson 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do, do I? Says who, besides you? But we can have it your way, and just have something brief in the article to the effect that Obama worked "with" ACORN, and it could be sourced to the Chicago Reader article I mention below. How's that for a compromise?Bdell555 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)There's no need for anger. This would seem to demand a higher standard of inclusion. And no, I don't feel that the fact he once worked alongsid ACORN on a campaign is notable enough to require it be mentioned in the article. S. Dean Jameson 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I'm just asking you to quote specific words from WP:RS (and WP:NOTABLE) instead of just stating what you believe the rules are concerning reliable sources (and notability). I've already indicated that, in the interests of moving this towards a resolution, I'd substitute another source if you've got issues with reliability here. Whatever the rules are here, they ought to be applied uniformly. That means that if there should be no mention of ACORN on the grounds that it is unfavourable to Obama (which is the reason you gave initially), then all the "favourable" material in the article of comparable notability should also be removed in order to preserve WP:NPOV. WP:BLP does not override WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE and WP:NPOV.Bdell555 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These aren't the scales of justice. There's no quota of X number of positive mentions requires Y number of negative mentions. And just so you know our policy on biographies of living persons does take precedence over other policies. S. Dean Jameson 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP does NOT "take precedence". The policy says "biographical material about a living person ... must adhere strictly to ... all of our content policies, especially: Neutral Point of View...". WP:BLP also states, not once but twice, that "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" and does NOT indicate this paring back should discriminate in favour of what's favourable over what's unfavourable. Finally, the policy states that "Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show an excessive bias in their subject's favor". The WP:NPOV policy is described as "a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia." That language does not appear in WP:BLP. It's not clear that an association with ACORN is necessarily unflattering, anyway, since an association might simply reflect some sympathy for liberal or radical activism as opposed to questionable ethics.Bdell555 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute a contention that it is impossible to "mention" ACORN in a NPOV way. A Chicago Reader article from 1995 quotes the "lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization" as saying "Barack has proven himself among our members... we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer". It's possible that the Chicago Reader mentions ACORN in order to depict Obama more favourably, while the source I cited mentions ACORN in order to depict Obama less favourably. But that, in and of itself, would not automatically disqualify either source. The Chicago Reader could, in fact, clearly commit the "honour by association" fallacy while the source I cited commits the "guilt by association" fallacy and that would ultimately be of limited relevance because in neither case would the source's conclusion about Obama be cited, what's cited is rather a claim that is being used by both sources as a common starting point for their respective (valid or invalid) "arguments". Wikipedia needs to be NPOV, but its sources don't have have to be; they just have to be reliable. While I do not insist that my particular insertion remain, I do think the article would be more informative, and thereby improved, with a brief mention of Obama's work for this group. Keep in mind here that the assumption that a bad apple within ACORN spoils the whole bunch is itself a guilt by association error.Bdell555 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Add it back, sourced to the Chicago Reader. Noroton (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a helpful suggestion, since there's still significant disagreement on whether or not it belongs in the article. S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On first sight it looks like yet another anti-Obama attack issue. A quick trip to google shows it's almost if not entirely a matter of conservative bloggers and commentators trying to raise a stink. We have to be very careful about sourcing, and if it does turn out to be yet another trivial issue that gets blown up as a campaign issue, then put it in some part of the presidential campaign article or some special place devoted to these accusations. Wikidemo (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an existing article for these: /dev/null. (A joke for us Unix users; including OSX, of course). LotLE×talk 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you dragging Obama's 2008 presidential campaign into this? I merely suggest including a notable fact about the Obama of the 1990s without editorializing or otherwise implying that it is of particular relevance to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. If, with no small indulgence, we assume that material that "conservative bloggers" call attention to during a campaign is inadmissable by that fact alone, note that the Chicago Reader mentions ACORN in a 1995 article about Obama without any mention of Bill Ayers (a case you evidently consider analogous), and the Chicago Reader is not a presidential campaign conservative blogger. This isn't an issue whereby just contemporary "conservative bloggers and commentators" believe a mention of ACORN is relevant to Obama. Not every edit is an "accusation".Bdell555 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also note that an ACORN "endorsement" appears on barackobama.com. Is BarackObama.com amongst those "conservative bloggers" who are "raising a stink"?Bdell555 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a user blog, not an official campaign post. The site allows any user to create a blog. Domain name notwithstanding, that page bears no more importance than any other blog. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the party claiming that material from 2008 presidential campaign sources is relevant here. Recall that I'm "indulging" the assumption (in order to dispute Wikidemo's contention that it is exclusively "conservative bloggers" who are trying to draw a connection between ACORN and Obama). Anyway, I'm not sure why you wish to dissociate Obama with barackobama.com when Obama could surely dissociate himself. If Obama never said "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it..." I would think Obama would be inclined to get such a false claim removed from barackobama.com without any help, especially if "conservative bloggers" are "raising a stink" about it.Bdell555 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nail, meet Wikidemo. Wikidemo, meet nail. Seriously, you've hit the nail squarely on the head, and I'll leave you to this discussion with them now. I stumbled upon this in an RC perusal awhile back, and I have no desire to get drawn into the political fray here at WP. I have no preference for the presidency as yet, and I fear (because of positions I'm taking in this discussion) that I may be tarred with the pro-Obama brush. Good luck to you all. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Wikidemo, Obama was associated with ACORN, a prominent group nationwide. The Chicago Reader didn't write about it because it was an anti-Obama attack but to give it's readers a better understanding of Obama, which is supposed to be our goal. It's worth a line for that reason. You're bringing campaign issues into this is just as much a POV problem as the original sourcing to the Wall Street Journal editorial. A neutral perspective would be, I don't freaking care if it's a pro- or anti-Obama piece of information, give me the important information on Obama and I'll make up my own damn mind. Let the reader do that. And don't tell me you don't want to know about the associations a politician has. Everybody wants to know that. This one isn't huge, and the proposed addition reflects that. Noroton (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The ACORN detail is definitely irrelevant to this biography. Obama had many clients as a lawyer, and we're not about to compile his client list into a general biography. It does start to look like some kind of effort at guilt-by-association, but pretty strained if so (he once represented an organization that later had a member who <did-something-bad>). But whether or not the association actually make him seem guilty is irrelevant, since this just doesn't come close to main bio material in any event. On a side note though, I see that the ACORN article itself is vastly skewed toward criticism, in what really looks like coatracking... I'll have to look through the edit history to see if that imbalance is new. LotLE×talk 20:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Before expending a great deal of effort exposing "coatracking" and battling "efforts at guilt-by-association", I'd keep in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith. A number of media sources have mentioned Obama and ACORN in the same article without conspiratorial intent.Bdell555 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As I already wrote immediately above, whether or not your intention was to create a guilt-by-association is entirely irrelevant. The material is simply not significant for a main biography. Likewise, someone Obama once briefly had as a client, and who was completely above reproach (assuming there actually exists any person or organization above reproach), would not be appropriate to include either. A main bio of a prominent politician is not a place for a list of former clients. LotLE×talk 21:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Every new comment by Bdell555 makes the likelihood s/he's merely soapboxing seem higher. E.g. This article makes it clear that Project Vote! was undertaken in direct partnership with ACORN. Yep, Project Vote! once partnered with ACORN.. and with Demos, National Voting Rights Institute, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Fair Elections Legal Network, as well as other organizations. That's OK though, I'm sure someone associated with each of those organizations has at some point done something wrong... start digging. LotLE×talk 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If I inserted the quote "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career" cited to barackobama.com, would that be less objectionable to you and less undue weight on an ACORN connection than my insertation of the four words "on behalf of ACORN" to the section concerning his 1990s activities?Bdell555 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, more words on an irrelevant detail don't make it relevant (and claiming an ACORN press release as source seems dishonest too, but a better source wouldn't improve relevance). Obviously, Obama has said similar remarks about hundreds of organizations during his career. That's what politicians do: they claim sympathy and commonality with the people they speak to (hopefully within the bounds of accuracy, but still with a spin for the context). We also don't need the comments where Obama claimed to share goals with AARP, the Chamber of Commerce, the UAW, CORE, and everyone else he "has been fighting alongside with" during his career". LotLE×talk 22:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side. -- Chicago Reader, 1995. How is that a minor, lawyer-client relationship? He was teaching them about community organizing. Noroton (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this comment due to that I posted it out of anger. If I have offended anyone please accept my apologies. Brothejr (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Don't miss this anti-Obama report from that conservative rag, The New York Times ("Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side" May 11; I hope it's not behind their subscription wall):

Mr. Obama further expanded his list of allies by joining the boards of two well-known charities: the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. These memberships have allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants over the years to groups that championed the environment, campaign finance reform, gun control and other causes supported by the liberal network he was cultivating. Mr. Brazier’s group, the Woodlawn Organization, received money, for instance, as did antipoverty groups with ties to organized labor like Chicago Acorn, whose endorsement Mr. Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.

Nah, a group that involves itself with voter registration drives in Democratic neighborhoods, then has Obama for a lawyer, and which he helps by teaching classes for new leaders and who he gets money for and which endorses him early on in his career ... a relationship worth mentioning in a line in the article .... nah! It's all anti-Obama hype. -- Noroton (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And four words like "Obama worked with ACORN" in the 90s is something readers are best kept ignorant of but the fact the same work led "Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be" is a fact that must be noted?Bdell555 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an open mind but I see no evidence as yet that this satisfies WP:WEIGHT or relevancy to the subject of the article, and some evidence that it's a WP:POV issue. If we were to list every single client, association, endorsement, etc., the article would be hundreds of thousands of bytes long. Surely there are dozens if not hundreds of organizations that Obama has been a member of, represented as a lawyer, worked alongside, praised, and so on. Each one has one or two neutral reliable sources out there, or more, to say it happened. That's in the nature of being as famous as Obama. Why highlight this one? The only reason I can see that there is sudden interest in the matter is to impugn Obama by association. The bloggers got hold of this as the attack du jour, and then a few more neutral sources fact checked it. That's all. Nothing to see here. If it actually became a significant enough issue to mention we could do so, in the campaign article, because it's all about the Presidential campaign and not anything revealing about Obama's bio. Anyone who wants to claim otherwise needs to find a significant number of sources to say that it's relevant to Obama's life. A single mention or two in a reliable source just doesn't cut it here. Wikidemo (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

When did Obama work with ACORN? I can't find a reliable source that offers a timeline. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to be relevant because of the connection to Project Vote!. If the section regarding Project Vote! is going to be included as a positive aspect about Obama, then it should be mentioned that ACORN was a part of that. There are no POV issues here becuase there has been no attempt to link Obama with the criticism directed towards ACORN. If it is not to be included then the Project Vote! aspect should also go, as I don't see how you can mention one without the other. Arzel (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion. ACORN was one of many independent organizations that worked jointly with Project Vote! for common projects. This is not an article on Project Vote! (why isn't there one?!) Obama did legal work for ACORN, as he did for dozens of other clients, and he also tutored members of ACORN, but also many people outside of ACORN (probably from other groups as well). This is a contrived effort to shoe-horn ACORN into a connection with Obama, probably motivated by the idea that ACORN is itself subject to criticism (from what I can see, any wrong-doing associated with ACORN happened later than Obama's minor association with them). It is true that this slight association exists, but it's relevance is far below the level of main-bio material. LotLE×talk 02:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've wikilinked Project Vote! in the article. Interested parties can create the article and neutrally describe its association with ACORN, if they so choose. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up Clubjuggle's wikilink, I've created a stub article there. Please help to make the article better. Ideally, let's say a little bit about Project Vote! before we add, absent context, "is associated with ACORN". LotLE×talk 03:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, fellas. ACORN is a big, controversial (I take it back -- there's criticism of it, not controversy about the group as a whole) organization and Obama has strong ties to it in Illinois, and it was influential in helping him in his political career, particularly at the beginning when it really counted Details about Obama's and ACORN's close, important relationship are in an article (in Social Policy, [10], a quarterly periodical) written sometime after March 2004 and titled Case Study: Chicago - The Barack Obama Campaign. The article is online (but you have to go through their free registration to get it; I did and I urge everyone interested to go through the rigamarole and take a look). The article was written by Toni Foulkes, "a Chicago ACORN leader and a member of ACORN's National Association Board". The two paragraphs below the picture in the article show how close Obama and ACORN were:

1. ACORN picked him out to help with their lawsuit: ACORN noticed him when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois
2. Obama worked with Project VOTE in 1992: Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them).
3. Obama's work with Project Vote was done side-by-side with ACORN, according to Barack Obama: Senator Obama said, "I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” Source: [11]
4. Getting back to the article in Social Policy, every year since 1992 (at least up to late 2003), Obama has conducted "leadership training" sessions for ACORN, and in Obama's campaigns, ACORN members were volunteers: Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends. (Stanley Kurtz in National Review Online article that Rick Blog links to [12], notes that the author has the year wrong -- the run for Congress was in 2000).
5. How close was Project Vote to ACORN? Well, ACORN founded Project Vote, according to this source, which seems to be a conservative Washington group [13]. I bet there's a source out there that could confirm this, if necessary. Oh, here's a source: New York Times October 20, 2004: Project Vote, the charitable arm of Acorn, will spend at least $16 million in crucial states this year; it spent $1 million in 2000.
6. How big is ACORN? ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, with over 350,000 member families organized into 800 neighborhood chapters in 104 cities across the country. Source: [14]

Since Obama and ACORN agree they have a close, important relationship, why don't we mention it? Noroton (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (((added NYT source to item #5 -- Noroton (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC))))

copied from user talk:Rick Block I was wondering if you have any other sources for this contention of yours, which appears to be contradicted here:"...when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it..."Bdell555 (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote! and ACORN are different. Project Vote! is a 501c non-profit organization, founded in 1982 (see [15]). ACORN is member organization founded in 1970 with 1200 local chapters (see [16]). Project Vote! is an allied organization of ACORN, per [17], but they are different (but in some ways similar) organizations. The quote from wsjonline is In 1992, Acorn hired Mr. Obama to run a voter registration effort. According to the work history at [18] in 1992 Obama was the director of Illinois Project Vote. He was hired by Project Vote to run a voter registration effort, not ACORN. ACORN was also interested in getting people to register to vote, so they no doubt worked together, but during the voter registration effort Obama did not work for ACORN (at least not primarily - he may have trained ACORN organizers during this time, and may have been paid for this, but his primary job was clearly "Director - Illinois Project Vote"). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reread my last post, especially Item #5, where I added the New York Times quote. Project Vote is an arm of and creation of ACORN. Also, Obama was doing those seminars year after year after year from about 1992 to at least as late as 2003. Come on, he was working hand-in-glove with them. Noroton (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Guilt by association or an association worthy of note?

The majority of Noroton's very long descriptions are simply examples of guilt-by-association, most of them reaching quite far to find the alleged association. However, his #4 mentions something of possible encyclopedic value for the biography: every year since 1992 (at least up to late 2003), Obama has conducted "leadership training" sessions for ACORN. If a neutral citation for this can be found, it might be notable to mention in the article (I emphasize the MIGHT here). LotLE×talk 05:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not long descriptions, they're quotes. Quotes from Obama and mostly from the ACORN-affiliated author of the Social Policy article, which was hardly anti-Obama. Oh, and a quote from the New York Times. Quotes a/k/a evidence. Evidence of association, not of "guilt". He worked with them, they were important to him, he was important to them. I have this from the Los Angeles Times:

Several community organizers and Altgeld Gardens tenants confirmed Johnson was working on asbestos but said Obama organized residents to act. "He got people to vote with their feet" on the issue, organizer Madeleine Talbot said. At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff.

-- Noroton (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If a reader decides that a bio subject is "guilty" after reading a reliably sourced fact in Wikpedia, it's the reader that is making the fallacy, not Wikipedia. You can only engage in a logical fallacy if you're making an argument.Bdell555 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't trump WP:NPOV. Either can exist without the other. Wikipedia standards require both. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How am I suggesting that WP:RS trumps WP:NPOV? The error here is contending that something in Wikipedia is POV because a reader might draw an invalid conclusion from it. If a reader reads that Obama graduated from Harvard and concludes that Obama is a snob because that reader associates Harvard graduates with snobbery, that's the reader's problem, not ours. We should still say he graduated from Harvard; let readers draw their own conclusions about what that means. I might add that Obama himself doesn't seem to think his association with ACORN is all that incriminating when he says he's been "fighting alongside ACORN" for his "entire career".Bdell555 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking over all the quotes I've added to this section (including the ones at timestamps 22:37 and 22:51), who disputes that ACORN and Obama did not work together closely -- Obama helping train ACORN members -- and helping to get funds for the group -- and ACORN providing volunteers who helped in Obama's campaigns along with ACORN's own voter-registration efforts in 2004. These were allies. This is solid enough for a mention with a link to the ACORN article. Noroton (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything at this point. However, it appears that the real-world discussion of this issue taking place in the sources is mostly a POV matter advanced by anti-Obama partisans. It is natural to be suspicious regarding these sources. It is also natural to ask why the same editors who were proposing a litany of other material seen as derogatory to Obama are now pushing this issue now. Why not push some neutral association that isn't the subject of blogger hit pieces? The threshold for including any controversial information is not just verifiability, but it also has to satisfy weight, POV, and relevance concerns (BLP too but I don't see any BLP issue at the moment). It's up to those proposing to include controversial information to justify this and I just don't see it.

Regarding weight let me get the ball rolling with a rough count of the treatment we give to more or less every single thing from Obama's life (outside of the presidential campaign, his politics, policies, and legislastive accomplishments) covered in this article:

• Schools: Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia (each a brief mention), Harvard (5 sentences), U Chicago (1/2 sentence)
• Associations: Democratic party, Board of Public Allies (1 year, 1 sentence), Woods Fund of Chicago (9 years, 1/2 sentence), Joyce Foundation (8 years, 1/2 sentence), Chicago Annenberg Challenge (9 years, 1 sentence), Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center (1/3 sentence each).
• People: Michelle (wife, 3 sentences), 2 daughters (1 sentence), Tony Rezko (4 sentences), extended family and ancestry (6 sentences), Wright (&Pfleger, 6 sentences)
• Work: Developing Communities Project (3 years - 2 sentences); Gamaliel Foundation (1 sentence); Sydney & Austin and Hopkins & Sutter (summer internships, share 1/2 sentence), Project Vote (6 months, 1 run-on sentence), U Chicago (12 years, 1 sentence), Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland (11 years, 1 sentence), State Legislature (7 years, 10 sentences), 2004 Senate campaign (13 sentences), US Senate (4 years, 8 sentences + long sections on policy, etc).
• Accomplishments: Dreams From My Father (Book on race relations, 2 paragraphs), Audacity of hope (1 paragraph)
• Trips: Kenya 1988 (met Kenyan family, 1 sentence), Bali (several months, 1/2 sentence)
• Activities: Basketball (1 sentence), quit smoking (2 sentences), interest in architecture and chili cooking (1/2 sentence each), poker (1 sentence), left handed (1 sentence) - all this is fluff but not controversial
• Religion and church (4 sentences)
• Other: House and net worth (3 sentences, not including Rezko)

Given the foregoing, I don't see how the relationship of ACORN to the Vote project is of the same magnitude as any of these things as far as being an important part of Obama's life. I see no demonstration as yet that this generated coverage in reliable sources on the same scale as these other things. That Obama/Vote! may have supported ACORN or vice-versa is trivial. Obama must have hundreds of supporters, and he must have bestowed favors on hundreds. How many of those do we cover? Only a handful of the most important ones. - Wikidemo (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm an "anti-Obama partisan", what are you? If there's any suspicious timing here, isn't the timing of today's disappearance of the ACORN article's "Criticism" section equally suspicious? People familiar with Obama's work with ACORN would have not been surprised in the least to see Senator Obama pen this letter, which called for the blocking of a nominee to the Federal Election Commission who allegedly supported a Georgia voter identification requirement. Nor would they be surprised to later learn that both Obama and ACORN joined briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn Indiana's voter ID law (which, by the way, is stricter than Georgia's), or by Obama's reaction to the court's decision. Information about Obama's interest in chili cooking, on the other hand, suggests nothing about what he might do as a public figure.Bdell555 (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What am I? I generally try to hold the line against disruption and POV problems here at Wikipedia. I've never seen the ACORN article having just looked over it, it's obvious what happened. Tipped off by the attempt to tie Obama to ACORN people took a look at that article and saw the mess there. Criticism sections are discouraged but that's only one of the article's many problems. Anyway, your argument seems to be that Obama and ACORN both disfavor Voter ID laws. I don't see what that has to do with the issue under discussion. I trust you're not accusing editors here of being "Obama partisans". If you are, this discussion is devolving. Wikidemo (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's any suspicious timing here, isn't the timing of today's disappearance of the ACORN article's "Criticism" section equally suspicious? I resent that implication. The reason that the criticism section disappeared yesterday is that I had never seen the ACORN article before then. That criticism section was a RS|poorly-source piece of partisan coatracking that could very easily have been integrated into the main text while retaining all the content and making only a few cosmetic changes to the text. Given that everything in the criticism section was timelined and the article had a timeline section, one has to wonder why the criticism section was even created in the first place. I fact-checked everything, removed one paragraph that was grossly misleading, tagged (rather than removing) unsourced or poorly-sourced statements, and integrated ALL the content, with the exception of the one grossly misleading paragraph I removed, into the main body of the article. If you feel my edits are partisan, I encourage you to review my history of edits like [19] to disabuse yourself of that notion. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my use of the word IF. Fact is, there is no "suspicious timing" here or anywhere. Your editing is, in fact, an example of what Wikidemo should agree with me is innocent editing and I called attention to it in order to suggest that "why the same editors ... are pushing this issue now" merely insinuates about editors and says nothing about the merits of their edits.Bdell555 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Timing isn't the point - I've rephrased slightly to indicate I did not mean to use the word "now" in that sense. The issue is that editors on this page keep bringing up and pushing the inclusion of apparently irrelevant information that mirrors the various attacks being made by anti-Obama partisans in the world at large. Some editors are doing that repeatedly in serial fashion, to the exclusion of making any constructive contributions to the article. That bogs everything down. At first it was just Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko - each of whom, by my above analysis already has as much or more coverage in the article as they deserve. Michel Pfleger snuck in there somehow. Now there's a new piece of guilt by association. Each time we're going through the same routine, which is that those proposing the inclusion make the WP:SYNTH argument that the information says something important about Obama, then fall back on the argument that it's verifiable so it shouldn't be excluded. Next we'll have an interminable argument over weight, POV, sourcing. If we're ever going to get anywhere on this article we ought to agree only to list the bona fide organizations, causes, and people he actually affiliated with - not the clients of his firm, the allies of his friends, outfits that endorsed him, parties he dealt with to further a goal, etc. If you look at the article we're giving 1/2 to 2 sentences to outfits that employed him for years and nonprofits he was on the board of or ran. On that scale even a relatively more significant scandal like Tony Rezko is out of proportion - it gets more coverage than his wife and four times as much as his children. This being a bio article, we can't let it turn into a hodgepodge of controversial tidbits. Wikidemo (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to be more specific in your allegations and name names if you wish to continue down this road. You've got TWO editors here re the issue at hand (whether to mention ACORN): Noroton and I. Please call attention to edits of mine "on this page" that support your contention that I am "pushing the inclusion of ... information ... in serial fashion, to the exclusion of making any constructive contributions...". I earlier presented argument for why the Bill Ayers case is not analogous here, and you had no response. I added the four words "on behalf of ACORN" (an edit that has been manufactured into a "controversial tidbit" and/or "scandal") to this article, and it was reverted on the grounds that the edit created "guilt by association", which makes no sense since it is people that commit deductive fallacies, not facts/edits (see my "Harvard" example above).Bdell555 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Obama shouldn't be in the ACORN article, as well as there shouldn't be mention of him in the Project Vote article. However, to say that mention of him working for ACORN here is POV or some guilt by association is questionable at best. No one here is trying to imply that Obama did something bad with relation to ACORN, and it is apparant that he has been an important contributor to ACORN. To leave it out or insist that it be left out because those that favour Obama think it looks bad sounds a lot like "I don't like it" and censorship. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an American, I cannot vote, and I have no knowledge of ACORN or Project VOTE! at all. I am not at all qualified to offer comment on this matter, which is why I have left it for others to discuss; however, I do have a couple of questions. Is it unusual for a politician to be associated with either of these organizations? I mean, is it something that is rare enough to make it unusual, and thus (potentially) notable enough to be included? Can anyone give me examples of other politicians who may (at some point) have been associated with either of these organizations? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is unusual or not, but the fact that he has had a relationship with both Project Vote and ACORN since at least 1992 and one is mentioned and the other is not because some people think the unrelated problems of ACORN make it POV to include seems a little strange. It seems to me that this is something on his resume, so it should probably be mentioned here as part of his previous work experience. Arzel (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Excellent questions, Scjessey. ACORN is remarkably far left in the context of the United States, so it is unusual for a presidential candidate to have worked so closely with them for so long. Hillary Clinton had her own connections to left-wingers and it isn't an attack on her to observe that, but those connections were in college or shortly thereafter, as far as I know (her college thesis on Saul Alinsky; her work (was it an internship?) with a law firm representing the Black Panthers in New Haven shortly before or after she got her law degree). It wouldn't surprise me if Dennis Kusinich also worked with ACORN, but Kusinich is very unlikely to be president of the United States. If some Republican presidential candidate worked so closely with an equivalent rightwing group, I'd want it in that article as well, and for the exact same reason. Frankly, I'm distressed to look at the Trent Lott article and find that there's no mention of the Council of Conservative Citizens in it, given Senator Lott's long, close association with that radical group. How can we adequately cover Trent Lott without covering his questionable associations with segregationism and racism? (It looks like a lot of the information in this partisan Web page could be sourced and added to that article, and when I get some time I think I'm going to do it.) This isn't an exact analogy -- I'm not saying ACORN is as bad on the left as the CCC is on the right, but we need to cover important aspects of Wikipedia subjects. For a WP:WELLKNOWN person, the criteria for inclusion of what editors here may regard as "negative" information is going to be very close to the criteria used for "positive" information. If we see that something is true and important, it needs to be included. Incidentally, neither Obama nor ACORN considers the association to be negative. Neither group has distanced itself from the other. Obama sought and won ACORN's endorsement earlier this year. Noroton (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaborate response. So you are saying that association with either of these groups is unusual - rare enough to be notable, yes? Few politicians are, or have been, associated with Project VOTE! or ACORN, right? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I know you too well not to realize you're trying to lay a trap for me. Give me the presidents or presidential candidates, and show me how closely they've worked with ACORN. That's the point. Noroton (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are unable to answer my question. Please let someone else answer it if you don't know the answer yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is able to answer my question? I'm just asking if it is a particularly rare thing for politicians to be associated with Project VOTE! or ACORN (although it would seem the latter may not be as important in this context). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich's Campaign Press Secretary was ACORN's "national communications person" source. To try to answer your request for a difficult generalization, one could say that an advertised association with ACORN is "Kucinichish" (ie. it's not "unusual" for politicians of a certain political persuasion, but holding to that politicial persuasion is itself relatively "unusual" in the US).Bdell555 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I missed this answer earlier, but it doesn't seem to answer my question adequately. I'm not sure what you mean by "a certain political persuasion", or why you reference Dennis Kucinich. Please see my repeated question in the next section. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Acorn.org, "In November, 1994, the resurgence of the Republican Party in Congress dramatically changed the political picture for ACORN. It posed new threats to long-standing ACORN campaigns ... From its beginning, ACORN had fought against politicians who resisted ACORN's ideas and ACORN's work to build power for low- and moderate-income people. The history of ACORN shows it is stronger than ever and better prepared for the continued struggle." Conservatives in particular see this "struggle" as radical and on occasion of dubious legality. If Obama is a fellow traveller, it is something of interest. This essay, titled "ACORN And Progressive Politics in America", may be an interesting backgrounder that's written from a "progressive" perspective. In any case, I'm not suggesting that we say Obama is radical-left and cite that to an association with ACORN. We rather give a neutral and comprehensive account of Obama's career by mentioning his work with ACORN with appropriate weight and let interested readers draw their own conclusions.Bdell555 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a relevancy argument, and I find it strained because it's indirect. That's one hurdle; the other is to demonstrate that the appropriate weight is anything greater than zero, which it would appear to be on first look given that Obama was never formally affiliated with this organization and that we are giving only brief summary coverage to the organizations he actually did work with.Wikidemo (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Your separation of "relevancy" and "weight" needs a supporting argument. I suggest that what's less relevant should be given less weight. 2. "formal" affiliation is a standard for weight/relevancy that you've unilaterally invented. 3) You are splitting hairs here over "formal". Going back to my original edit, for example, I "briefly" and "summarily" noted that his Project Vote! work was "on behalf of ACORN". An edit of that sort does not make more out of the association than it is. Your contention that Obama "did not actually work with" ACORN is disputed.Bdell555 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your combative tone is rude but I'll do my best to explain Wikipedia's inclusion standards for you. Weight is clearly a concern for any disputed content (neutral content and fluff shouldn't be excessive either but unless challenged it doesn't become an issue). Beyond that people have varying ways to describe the standard of inclusion for otherwise neutral, reliably sourced information that doesn't violate all the miscellaneous policies and guidelines (copyvio, BLP, WP#NOT, etc). The most common is relevance - content must be relevant to the notability of the subject of the article. I didn't "unilaterally invent" this - if you want to see for yourself here are 70,000 article talk pages where it's been discussed.[20] Nobody's ever been able to agree on a guideline for this but a lot of people use that standard. It covers the entire encyclopedia and is one way of explaining, for example, why we don't have an extensive discussion of the Obama Girl or Jesse Jackson's microphone incident here despite both of these getting a lot of coverage (many times more than ACORN or Rezko, for instance). I don't believe ACORN is on Obama's resume - no W2, 1099, K1, or board seat. Correct me if I'm wrong. If we're going to start imputing connections between people based on shared efforts and interests, that's not very biographical and it opens the door wide to all kinds of content problems. Wikidemo (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm going to answer Wikidemo's 08:16, 13 July comment here. He makes the point that most of the sources on the Obama/ACORN matter are very partisan. I don't dispute that, but that fact alone doesn't make the matter unimportant. Although we should be suspicious of partisan sources, there are sources out there that are reliable, and I offered a slew of quotes and references to sources that were either neutral or pro-Obama. I wish, Wikidemo, you wouldn't ignore all that. You don't judge the importance of something solely by how prevalent the topic is among the sources that cover the subject, although that should be one factor in how you treat it. We're supposed to exercise our judgment based not only on volume of coverage but on how reasonable it is for us to cover a subject in a certain way (or not cover it). We don't consider only the volume of coverage of Intelligent Design as part of how we fit that into our article on Evolution. By the way, the John Fund article linked to near the top of this thread was written by someone who would get in trouble if he wrote something non-factual; on the other hand, it is an opinion piece and shouldn't be given as much weight as other sources. When it comes to WP:WEIGHT, the Fund piece (like the Kurtz piece in National Review) does show that intelligent, responsible publications have paid attention to this. That means that those two pieces both give this a certain amount of "heaviness" as well as "lightness" in terms of weight. ACORN is worth a short mention. Certainly as much or more than the fact that he's left-handed.

The thing of primary importance about Obama is that he has an excellent chance of becoming president of the United States, and while not drowning out everything else about his life, that fact is going to give more wieght to anything to do with his potential as president in his biography. Your long list of items seems to indicate that we should downplay the possible-president aspect of his life, when that just isn't the reasonable thing to do. As we've seen in recent weeks, candidates can adjust their political positions even during a campaign (and they can adjust them a lot more after the election). That indicates to me that the long, long section on Obama's political positions may be overemphasized in this article, especially when it's a summary of another article. In contrast, the political elements of his biography are reporting on unchangable facts that also tell us something about what kind of president he likely would be if he gets the job. If the most leftwing member of the U.S. Senate is running for president, it's worth knowing just how far left his associations go, especially his close associations. Do we know of many that are closer than this one? How controversial are they? Noroton (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's defending the chili cooking mention, and I already raised the issue that handedness isn't relevant. If anyone wants to challenge these on relevancy or weight grounds I wouldn't oppose. But these are uncontroversial, hence nobody much cares. I would also agree that this article gives too much weight to political positions, most of which are only indirectly related to his biography. If a political issue is a lifetime goal it makes sense that it attaches to him as a person. If a political issue is just an election tactic or a routine professional act as a legislator, those are better treated elsewhere. I think my point about the sources is just as you (Noroton) articulate. I'm not dismissing them for having been picked up by a bunch of partisans, only noting the fact and applying due skepticism for that. The appropriate measure of sourcing to establish weight is the coverage as a relevant issue by neutral reliable sources. Partisans, even intelligent, thoughtful ones, are discounted heavily, as are opinion pieces, fact checks (because they are only reactions to the partisanship), blogs, scandal sheets, pundits, etc. If we go beyond counting sources to consider objective facts and arguments to determine weight and relevancy, because this is a bio article and not a campaign article we should look at the impact and centrality to Obama's own life more heavily than insight into what kind of a president it would be or how it becomes a campaign issue or affects the vote. We have separated things into multiple articles with different scope of coverage. Best to put each thing where it best belongs. Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The "controversiality" of a reliably sourced and notable fact is irrelevant to the merits of its inclusion. 2. re "lifetime goal", I'd remind you of Obama's quote, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career". 3. re "Partisans ...are discounted heavily", NPOV applies to Wikipedia, not to Wikipedia's sources. Sources have to be reliable, not non-partisan. Some kid blogger out there might be perfectly threading the needle of non-partisanship between the somewhat leftish New York Times and the somewhat rightish Wall Street Journal. That does not make that blogger a more reliable source than either paper. If a highly partisan but otherwise reliable source starts with the contention that Mr X was born in 1969 to argue that Mr X is evil and nasty, that doesn't mean this source's starting point ("Mr X was born in 1969") can't be cited.Bdell555 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to source anything to do with ACORN to the Pittsburgh paper, National Review or John Fund's opinion piece in the WSJ. We have alternative sources, and the amount of sourcing of all types confirms the basic information in a reliable way. You say, Partisans, even intelligent, thoughtful ones, are discounted heavily, but WP:WEIGHT doesn't go into that at all (it does mention "significant" viewpoints) and we can meet WP:RS. We're actually not looking to add reporting on any viewpoints to the article, just the facts. Nor am I looking for great detail.

I think we should say something simple like He became a political ally of the Illinois chapter of ACORN, a nationwide group of community activists, and for many years he taught a seminar to train its members -- but I haven't looked into what exact language should be used. I'm fine with leaving details to other articles. In addition to its importance to our readers who want to find out about him as a potential president, his association with ACORN is also important here because it was important to him in his political career (running for state Senate, Congress and U.S. Senate) and because as a community organizer he worked with ACORN, doing some of the things they do; both he and ACORN found they were very compatable with each other and worked together in several different ways. These are biographical, not just presidential-campaign details, that have impact and centrality to Obama's own life, having to do with his progress in his political career for more than a decade. Noroton (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A concrete suggestion

If I may interject a concrete suggestion, how about suspending this discussion and working on adding something to Early life and career of Barack Obama (of which the section here is meant to be a summary) based on the Chicago Reader quote (Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side)? It seems we're putting the cart before the horse here. I believe Obama's association with ACORN (particularly the training work he has done for ACORN) is perfectly legitimate for that article. After hashing out what should go there, we can resume discussion about how (or whether) it needs to be summarized here. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes a whole lot of sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

His association with ACORN appears to have started in some way before he went to Harvard Law School, and it should be mentioned in that article in some detail, given the sources I've quoted above. But ACORN became important toward the tail end of the "Early life" section and then continued being important into his early career in elective office. So yes, it's very much worth adding there, but no one article covers the scope of his association with ACORN: community organizing together, the Project Vote get-out-the-vote effort, Obama sending grant money toward ACORN, training ACORN members, attracting ACORN members to volunteer in his campaign, ACORN helping with get-out-the-vote efforts in his 2004 race for U.S. Senate, National ACORN endorsing him in 2008. Noroton (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question, Noroton. Are there many other politicians (by which I mean senators, congressmen, governors, etc.) who have had associations with Project VOTE! and/or ACORN, or is this something that is limited to Obama and a few others? A simple yes or no would suffice. If Noroton is unable to answer, I would welcome a response from anyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Less involvement than Obama's direct community organizing experience (which by itself is probably rare), but John Edwards was apparently connecting with the same sorts of folks [21], and Howard Dean appears to be supportive [22] as well as Ted Kennedy [23]. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that you are saying that having some sort of association is unremarkable, but Obama's level of association is perhaps more than usual. Would that be a reasonable conclusion? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm making no conclusions (I haven't heard of ACORN before today either), just letting everyone in on some links I found (sorry). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)