Talk:Barack Obama

Tony Rezko discussion

I know this kind of thing has been tried before for the Ayers issue and perhaps others, but I think this is a good point at which to centralize the discussion on Rezko. I think we've made some good progress on this question above and there is proposed language from different people with which multiple editors have expressed at least some agreement. As often happens though the discussion is kind of all over the place now and perhaps too unwieldy to be effective. I propose we centralize discussion here and avoid new subsections that take us off track. I most certainly don't want to impose this approach if others disagree with it and see a better route, it's just my personal view that we need to try to zero in and discuss this in one place.

If folks agree, let's have a two step process: 1) Editors can propose language to discuss Obama's ties to Rezko, while explaining where they want it in the article (don't editorialize, just word it as you want it worded and put links to your sources); 2) We discuss, not vote on, the various proposals, probably ending up with something slightly different from anything proposed, but keeping our eyes on the prize at all times, which is coming to some sort of rough consensus and ending the debate over Rezko.

Let's try to keep the focus on specific wording and avoid philosophizing or general statements. In the scheme of things this is not a major issue and we should come to some agreement soon, knowing we can always make adjustments later. I would also propose we set a bit of a time limit on discussion (maybe five days or a week) and bring it to a close at the end, making every effort to arrive at some form of consensus even if not everyone is happy.

Let's think of this not just as a way to discuss and put to rest the Rezko issue, but also as a model (if it actually works!) for future discussions on difficult topics.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Rezko language

Let's try to keep this to about four or five proposals AT MOST, bearing in mind that this is not a vote for a certain version and we can tweak anything proposed here (i.e., if someone has proposed something close to what you want, just discuss differences you have with it in the discussion section below). If you add new proposed language, start your own subsection and make sure you point out which section or sections of the article you want the proposed language to live in.

Proposal 1: Current language slightly altered

The existing language isn't too bad, but I would make some minor modifications:

The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, a fundraiser for several prominent Illinois politicians from both major political parties, and the transaction later attracted some media scrutiny. Rezko was investigated for unrelated corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

I would suggest that the stability of the previous version was more a consequence of many editors stepping away from the article for a few days; however, my proposed language is very similar. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Slightly better language and more fluent. --Floridianed (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. This is pretty much the same as the one above, but the language isn't quite so clumsy. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Yeah, this is slightly better wording. LotLE×talk 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support as a better wording of our earlier compromise. Keeping the stability of that compromise is what's important. Shem^(talk) 22:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support This is fine. Tvoz/talk 23:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC) support

Oppose

1. Oppose too vague, too incomplete, see discussion below. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Proposal 2 is best so far. Arkon (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Strongly Oppose. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
4. Oppose. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Please do not label me as an SPA. Over 90% of my edits are to other articles.
5. Oppose. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) — 216.153.214.89 (talk • contribs) may be a sock puppet of Rex071404 (SSP • ArbCom)
6. Oppose. 68.31.185.221 (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC) — 68.31.185.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
7. Strongly Oppose. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (((posting as per message to my talk page -- Noroton (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC))))

Proposal 2 by Noroton

The easiest thing to do was take Scjessey's language as a base, although Wikidemo's and Workerbee74's previous proposals could have been reworked as well:

The land adjacent to their house 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. The transaction later raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment. The purchases were made after Rezko was reported to be under investigation for unrelated corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Later, a strip of the Rezko lot was sold to widen the Obama property. Obama later said it was "boneheaded" and "a mistake" for him to create the appearance of impropriety by involving Rezko in the real estate deals. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Aside from this, I might also propose language at another spot in the article, but I have to think about that. I can provide quotes and weblinks to articles to back up each statement (and footnotes will be added anyway), and I'm open to wording changes. Noroton (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support -- as author/proposer Noroton (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support -- Best so far. Arkon (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Strongly Support. This is consistent with established Wikipedia practice and with WP:NPOV. It provides a proportionate amount of space to the POV that finds these real estate deals to be questionable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
4. Support. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) — 216.153.214.89 (talk • contribs) may be a sock puppet of Rex071404 (SSP • ArbCom)
6. Weak Support 68.31.185.221 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) — 68.31.185.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
7. Support if a sentence is added that briefly describes the January 2006 sale of a portion of Rezko's land to Obama. Obama admits that this was done after he knew that Rezko was under investigation, so I believe it is significant. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (((posted as per message on my talk page -- Noroton (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC))))
8. None of the choices are good but this is the best The trouble with this kind of vote is Obama supporters oppose all negative information and Hillary supporters who don't like Obama support negative information. The problem with all of the choices is we are combining 2 unrelated issues into one. Separate them. One issue is the home purchase. Another issue is the donations. Don't confuse the two.

Censoring the information hurts wikipedia because it shows wikipedia is not objective. Keeping the information but providing Obama's explanation is the fair way. The way to objectively write the article is to link the articles of Hillary, Obama, and McCain and treat them the same way. That way if one person has more supporters, their article doesn't get favorable treatment because they can outvote the other side. So if there is a controversy in the article, we treat them in the same way. For example, if we say that we need to list the controversy and Obama's response, then we also list McCain's controversy and his response Ttob (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Some parts are not written in a neutral manner. Pretty sure "to widen the Obama property" is a synthesis, along with the biased "raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment." -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Opposed. Doubles the length of the paragraph, and "raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment" is complete editorializing (intended to, by your own admission, imply that Obama has contradicted his campaign themes). Shem^(talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Strongly Oppose. Adds more words for no good effect. Rambling; flows badly; and all the additions seem to amount to "throw stuff at the wall and hope something sticks". LotLE×talk 02:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Strongly Oppose. Some of this is blatantly POV, particularly the "raise questions about judgement" part. Further, the last sentence is a classic weasel word structure. What does his not being accused of wrongdoing have to do with his giving money to charity? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Aside from what is mentioned above, it includes a factual error. The investigation into Rezko didn't hit the presses until after Obama purchased the house and Rita purchased the land. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - POV and overly long, also inaccurate. Tvoz/talk 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. Very good -- I may be offline for a while and may change to support (with caveats) on further reflection when I get back, but I like this approach. Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 3 by Rick Block

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. The transaction and subsequent purchase of a portion of the adjacent lot by Obama later attracted media scrutiny due to unrelated corruption charges of which Rezko was ultimately convicted. In a 92-minute interview with three dozen journalists from the Chicago Tribune, Obama answered all questions about his personal and political connections with Rezko saying it was a "boneheaded move" and "in retrospect, this was an error" for him to be involved with Rezko in real estate transactions. Even though Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing and has never been accused of doing any personal or political favors for Rezko, he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

The point is if we're going to go into any detail at all we should go into enough detail to explain what happened here, and I think it's appropriate to lean primarily on [4]. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support -- Rick Block (talk) (assumed, so added by Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
2. Strongly support. This is the best of the three, but I'd also support No. 2. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
3. Strongly support. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong Support. 68.31.185.221 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) — 68.31.185.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
5. Strongly Support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (((posted as per message on my talk page -- Noroton (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC))))

Oppose

1. Oppose - reasonably neutral, but extraneous detail and extra length puts us into undue weight territory. Not sure what the point is of saying "three dozen journalists". -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose. Even more needless words than Proposal 2. LotLE×talk 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose very mildly - I think the additions are unnecessary detail which would be better in the election article; should include "questioned his judgment" language, which I'll provide conclusive evidence for very soon; the Chicago Trib mention is inappropriate, I think, because Obama gave much the same quotes elsehwere and gave the Trib's rival, the Sun-Times an interview the same day that was about as long (one source says 80 minutes, others say 90 minutes). Obama has been accused of doing a favor for Rezko, although it's a pretty minor thing (he once wrote a letter urging funding for a project that benefitted Rezko). Noroton (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak opposition - This one isn't really objectionable but I think it uses too much space for the relatively unimportant issue of the interview, and the "never been accused" is a bit of overkill in my opinion.Wikidemo (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose, and note: User:Fovean Author's now been blocked for sockpuppetry; both he and the IP address he's claiming above have edit-warred and double-voted together on AfDs in the past. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fovean_Author for more information. Shem^(talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - too much exculpatory disclaimers for Obama, re: "has never been accused" would reqquire day-to-day monitoring in case that changes. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC) — 216.153.214.89 (talk • contribs) may be a sock puppet of Rex071404 (SSP • ArbCom)
7. Oppose Too long, raising weight issues. This level of detail not appropriate for a biography of an individual's whole life. Tvoz/talk 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 4 by Bobblehead

Obama would later admit that the simultaneous purchase of the land adjacent to their house by the wife of developer Tony Rezko, a friend and key fundraiser for Obama and other Illinois politicians from both major parties that was later convicted on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama, and Obama's subsequent purchase of a 10-foot wide strip of the Rezko lot created an appearance of impropriety.

I don't have an opinion on this, just throwing out a proposal that seems to include much of what everyone wants without being overly long. I also didn't think the donation of the money was that important. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, similarly brief. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's friendship and personal real estate dealings with developer and political fund raiser Tony Rezko became a campaign issue 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.

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose - awkward-sounding sentence. When I try to read it, the clause "a friend... unrelated to Obama" creates a confusing interruption. Probably too much to squeeze into a single sentence. Actual content is okay. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other

Proposal 5 by Newross

Features: “a friend and major fundraiser for Obama’s five previous campaigns”, “a mistake”, wikilink to Tony Rezko article.

An adjacent vacant lot was simultaneously sold by the previous owners of the house to the wife of real estate developer Tony Rezko, a friend and major fundraiser for Obama's five previous campaigns. Six months later Obama purchased a 10-foot-wide strip of Rezko's lot. Obama subsequently said it was a mistake to not discourage Rezko from purchasing the adjacent lot and a larger 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.

As with Proposal 4, since this is Obama's encyclopedia biography and not an article about the operation of the Obama 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign, the Obama 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign’s donation to charity of all identified Rezko-linked contributions ($160,000 $157,835) to the $14.9 million Obama 2004 U.S. Senate campaign is not discussed here. It is however discussed at length in the Ties to Barack Obama section that takes up over 30% of Tony Rezko's encyclopedia biography, to which a wikilink is thoughtfully provided.

Revised by Newross (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC):

1. add: "A side yard separately listed as"
2. change: "adjacent vacant lot" to: "adjacent 60-foot-by-150-foot vacant lot"
3. change: "simultaneously sold" to: "concurrently sold"
4. change: "Six months later" to: "Seven months later"
5. change: "10-foot-wide strip" to: "10-foot-by-150-foot strip"
6. change: "10-foot-wide-strip of land" to: "strip of land"
7. change: "under Federal investigation" to: "under investigation"

A side yard separately listed as an adjacent 60-foot-by-150-foot vacant lot was concurrently sold by the previous owners of the house to the wife of real estate developer Tony Rezko, a friend and major fundraiser for Obama's five previous campaigns. Seven months later Obama purchased a 10-foot-by-150-foot strip of Rezko's lot. Obama subsequently said it was a mistake to not discourage Rezko from purchasing the adjacent lot and a larger mistake to purchase the strip of land from Rezko because Rezko had been a political contributor and because Rezko had by then been reported to be under investigation for corruption (unrelated to Obama), for which Rezko was later indicted and convicted.

Support

1. Support -- Newross (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
   Although, at more than three times the length of the single sentence on this topic in this article for most of the past year (including six months as a footnote only), my proposal is admittedly much too long, giving undue weight to this topic. It would work better as the footnote it used to be. Newross (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Other

Discussion of Rezko language

Proposal 1 discussion

Oppose -- after looking through a long representative sample of the sources, including some key sources often cited elsewhere, I have to conclude that this is too vague and incomplete for quite a few reasons (citations & quotes available for every point, even the minor ones):

• 1. Rezko must be identified as a "friend", something Obama characterized him as on March 15, 2008;
  2. Rezko must be identified as an important fundraiser for Obama, who has said just that about him, and plenty of reliable sources have said this as well; anything less masks the importance of the connection, and it can be fixed with a few words;
  3. It should be mentioned that Rezko advised Obama on the purchase; we don't need to say so, but we know this was at Obama's request, that Rezko visited the house with him, that Obama said he knew it was to his advantage that a friend buy the adjoining lot, and therefore this worked like a favor to Obama;
  4. The transaction attracted more than "some media scrutiny", it raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment, and if you think that sounds strong, just look: the questions have come from two or three Chicago good-government groups, the Chicago Tribune editorial board (which continues to endorse Obama), newspaper columnists in Chicago, reporters in Chicago and elsewhere, David Corn of Mother Jones magazine, and numerious national commentators across the political spectrum (including supporters), and then there's the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Republican National Committee -- obviously this list is only partial -- and the fact that Obama has been questioned about this has been itself reported; the Republican National Committee says this will definitely be a campaign issue in the fall; what made the matter more important is that central themes of Obama's campaign have been ethics and judgment;
  5. "unrelated corruption charges" isn't good enough -- they were corruption charges very closely related to the fact that he was a key fundraiser for Gov. Blagojevich (dating back to when Blagojevich was a state legislator); the fact that his crimes could only have occurred because he had entree into the Blogevich administration due to the fact that he built up a friendship/fundraising relationship with the politician is important to mention because that was the type of relationship he had with Obama; to put it into a metaphor, this was a house built by the same builder on a similar foundation at the same time in the same housing development -- if one foundation is faulty it may or may not mean that the other one is, but when considering the other house you pay attention to what happened with the first; the language can be fixed with: an Obama friend and key fundraiser for Illinois politicians of both major parties (if we can find one GOP friend of Rezko, we can word it slightly differently; numerous sources note he wasn't just any fundraiser for Obama but an important one);
  6. The transaction took place after it was prominently reported that Rezko was under investigation for corruption with a politician (Blagojevich) with whom he was a friend and important fundraiser, and that is specifically what raises the judgment question; so add to the second sentence The transaction took place after Rezko was reported to be under investigation for unrelated corruption charges, for which he was later convicted.
  7. This proposed language lacks the following statement that Obama repeated over and over again for more than a year: Obama later said that it was "boneheaded" and "a mistake" to create the appearance of impropriety by involving Rezko in the real estate transactions. If that's wordy, it's because I'm trying to be fair to Obama;
  8. I think the $150,000 figure is inaccurate by now, but I'm not sure. I'm suggesting a major rewrite, but not much longer. Obviously, I need to propose my own language; I'll do that soon. Noroton (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I read your suggestion with an open mind 'til I reached Points #4 and 5, Noroton. On your fourth point: "Media scrutiny" is perfectly neutral, and you want to replace it with a plainly subjective interpretation. On your fifth point: They are unrelated charges, nor has Obama been accused of any wrongdoing; I can tell you upfront that any attempt at diluting those two points will almost certainly invoke WP:BLP concerns and fail miserably. Shem^(talk) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Shem, please reread. I'm not calling for removing the statement that the crimes were unrelated to Obama; my point is that the similarity of the relationships Rezko-Blagojevich and Rezko-Obama simply justifies a bit more attention. Neutrality for Wikipedia simply means that we cover the topic without a point of view, not that we make things unnecesarily vague -- it's a simple fact that this has been said about Obama. I repeat: a simple fact. WP:NPOV specifically allows us to describe a range of opinions. News of the Rezko-Obama dealings produced just this reaction; the reaction is worthy of our mention; the extra space I'm proposing is minuscule.

Thanks. As I've said elsewhere, for the most part these appear true, fairly and neutrally described, and verifiable / properly sourced. So for me it is a question of weight and relevancy (with too much weight or too little relevance creating a POV/balance issue even if unintended). Of them I am sympathetic to #2 (but not the specific word "important"), #6 (if we include Obama's claim that he did not know and took Rezko's assurances), and #7. #4 is arguable regarding "judgment" but not as to the extent of the criticism, which is minimal, and overall I don't think sufficiently relevant. #1 and 3 suffer from both weight and relevancy issues. #5 is tenuous and requires several leaps (or at least steps) of logic. #8, if true, is something we ought to fix. Wikidemo (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By weight, you mean essentially a space issue, right? I'll write up my version and we'll see how much longer it is, but I think what I'll propose won't be much longer. As for relevancy, please keep that in mind and feel free to ask me about it when you see my language -- I'm going to need to footnote it, and I should be able to provide multiple quotes that I think will show relevancy, accuracy, importance, etc. When you see the sourcing and quotes, I think a lot of your other objections may disappear. Noroton (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Weight = volume X density x gravity. I'm game. Wikidemo (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2 discussion

unrelated corruption charges -- in both proposals so far and the current language of the article -- is meant to say that the corruption charges against Rezko are not related to Obama, but that language might imply that there are "corruption charges" related to Obama. Obama, of course, has not been charged or accused of corruption with Rezko, just criticized for acting in a way that could create the appearance of an impropriety, something different. What about rewriting that sentence to: The purchases were made after Rezko was reported to be under investigation for corruption, for which he was later convicted in a case matter unrelated to Obama. Noroton (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC) -- Replaced "case" with "matter" for additional clarity -- don't want to imply an Obama criminal "case" -- whew! Noroton (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Scjessey's objections — (a) Pretty sure "to widen the Obama property" is a synthesis -- I'll find quotes/weblinks for you; (b) with the biased "raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment." See my point #4 in the Proposal 1 discussion; they say things like "raises questions about Obama's judgment" or "Senator Obama, doesn't this raise questions about your judgment?" No synthesis involved. Bias? Who rejects the idea that it doesn't raise questions about his judgment? It seems to be the widespread, consensus view. I can show the wide variety of numerous sources, so why not say "many"? Noroton (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than respond specifically to your comment, let me instead point you to the comment I posted earlier that addresses this very issue of notability and coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sjessey, this is what you said, and it appears to be a different point entirely:

"It has received enormous national coverage"

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. I've seen hardly any coverage at all, and I watch political programming for pleasure. By way of comparison, I've seen considerably more coverage of McCain's Shia/Sunni mistake, and orders of magnitude more for his "100 years" in Iraq. Even the "bittergate" nonsense has received more coverage than Rezko, even though it was just a misstatement. This is simply a gross overstatement of importance, and I think the text I have proposed below is more than adequate coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You bring up two points, I offer to get evidence to counter your points, and when I ask you a question (so why not say "many"?) you bring up a different point, in effect telling me that no matter what evidence I bring to the table, you will not support it because in general you just don't believe it's important because of the coverage that you yourself have seen elsewhere. The difference in our proposals is about three lines, and yet those three lines amount to "a gross overstatement of importance." I think I'm just wasting my time and this space responding to your objections. Or is there any evidence I could bring that would sway you? I'm willing to try to work with anybody, but it's got to be a two-way street. If anyone else wants your questions answered, and if it would make a difference in what they would support, I invite them to ask, but I'm only going to spend time on something productive. Noroton (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey's objection on length (and Shem's and LotLE's): Also, to answer your last point (the one-paragraph quote above), the way to judge national coverage is to compare this coverage with other coverage of elements of Obama's life and how important these elements are. How many other five-line elements of Obama's life have received more coverage than this? This has been one of the more serious topics of coverage of Obama's life. I'm not talking about campaign comments -- this is biographical information having to do with a controversial person he's associated with, and it's been addressed by every single major news outlet in the United States and received coverage abroad. I have doubts that any changes in my proposed language would change LotLE's mind. Shem, is there any evidence (quotes, weblinks) that might change your mind? If so, I'm willing to present them. Noroton (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many links/sources/references you find. You have made up your mind about how much coverage you think there should be, based on your personal point of view, and now you are hunting for sources to justify your decision. And you keep saying that this has received a lot of media coverage, but it simply hasn't. We all know what transpired, and we are all quite capable of finding eleventy-billion references to support the facts, but doing so would violate WP:WEIGHT. It's a minor blip on the radar. A single tree in a huge forest. A little molehill in a mountain range. A grain of sand on a beach. An ordinary, yellow star in a galaxy of 100 billion others. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This response is pretty full of self contradictory thought. If there are "eleventy-billion references", its silly to state that it is a minor blip. Arkon (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Er...no it isn't. The point I was making is that news organizations all regurgitate the same stories because of common sources like AP and Reuters. A minor event can be repeated on literally thousands of news sites automatically. This is not so with television coverage, however, which has not given the Rezko story any more than the barest minimum coverage. As I said before, it received orders of magnitude less coverage than McCain's "100 years" comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I really hope I am wrong here, but you seem to not only be infering the tv coverage is somehow more weighty than written coverage, but also that tv news doesn't duplicate coverage. Lastly, are you stating that all the references that can be found are just duplicates of an ap or reuters story? Arkon (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Obama's judgment / many quarters"

This is long, but no one else indicated they were looking into the matter, and I was getting objections to this language. So here's proof. I have some other quotes on other topics, which I expect to add later (they won't be this long). I don't know of a better way of proving this other than posting these quotes. I think they nail it. Noroton (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC) (((-- added a phrase to this comment for clarity. Noroton (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC))))

LANGUAGE: The transaction later raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment.

OBJECTIONS:

• Shem: — "raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment" is complete editorializing (intended to, by your own admission, imply that Obama has contradicted his campaign themes).
• Scjessey: — the biased "raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment."
• Loonymonkey — Some of this is blatantly POV, particularly the "raise questions about judgement" part.
• Bobblehead — [...] what is mentioned above [...]

JUSTIFICATION:

• Many quarters: See the number of citations here from a wide variety of sources and keep in mind that this is only representative -- I stopped when I thought I had what any fair person would consider "many".
• Judgment: This word is either specifically used in the sources or the source clearly alludes to it. In every single case cited. This is not an exaggeration. Some sources refer to a "lapse in judgment", some use language akin to "judgment in this case", but it all amounts to the same thing: his judgment was called into question.
• The transaction "raised questions" in any way you want to interpret that language: Some commented that they worried about or doubted his judgment, and reporters are quoted specifically asking Obama whether his association should raise doubts about his judgment. Obama's answers were interpreted in a number of news accounts as admitting that he had acted with a lack of judgment

KEEP IN MIND:

• This has been treated in the media and by Obama himself as not just a political controversy but an ethical lapse
• This is coverage (almost entirely) from influential and highly respected news organizations
• News articles are generally written by reporters who attempt to be fair and examined by multiple editors before publication
• The matter arose separately from the campaign, from news reporters scrutinizing Obama, and criticism has come from across the political spectrum; even those who don't criticize indicate they understand the matter is important
• Sources state that the matter of judgment and the ethical implications are particularly important to someone who campaigned on having judgment and having higher ethics

EVIDENCE:

-- DIRECT CRITICISM

• 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. John Dickerson in Slate magazine, December 14, 2006, TITLE OF ARTICLE: Barack Obama has a little real-estate scandal that raises questions about his judgment." Slate article mentioned by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post, December 18, 2006.
  3. Louis Weisberg, editor of Free Press in Chicago (as quoted in Sun-Times article), May 27, 2007: “It’s like the [Tony] Rezko thing: It’s association with someone he perceives might be able to do him some good, but somebody who has a tarnished image,” said Louis Weisberg, founding editor of the gay-oriented Free Press. “Between Rezko and Bauer, I wouldn’t vote for Obama. I question his judgment.”
  4. 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."
  5. Dan Morain, writing in what appears to be a column in the Los Angeles Times "national" section, September 08, 2007: Already the senator has had to admit to poor judgment in a personal transaction involving his financial patron. It arose during Obama’s purchase of his current house.
  6. The Swamp blog at The Baltimore Sun, January 23, 2008 (not sure this is an expression of opinion or more like news analysis but I'll put it here): But the Obama-Rezko relationship that's even more troubling for Obama, because it goes to the heart of his campaign's argument about his judgment being superior to the other candidates, is the personal real-estate deal the two men did. Title of this blog post: Obama's Rezko problem; it's about judgment
  7. 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?”
  8. Steve Huntley, columnist, Chicago Sun-Times, June 6, 2008: Do his Wright-Rezko lapses inspire confidence that Obama has the judgment, insight and discernment to accurately size up the likes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
  9. David Corn, Mojo blog at the Mother Jones magazine website, March 11, 2008: So how big a deal is this? Obama was dumb to enter into a deal with Rezko after news accounts disclosed he was under investigation for corruption. Does this show Obama's judgment was faulty? Certainly to a degree — especially since he has made ethics and clean government a top-of-the-list issue. And he has not been as transparent as possible in addressing questions about the deal.
  10. 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.
  11. Richard Cohen, editorial columnist, The Washington Post, March 18, 2008: But a presidential candidate [...] operates in a different context. We examine everything about him for the slightest clue about character. On Wright, Obama has shown a worrisome tic. He has done so also with his relationship with Tony Rezko, the shadowy Chicago political figure. Obama last week submitted to a grilling on this matter by the staff of the Chicago Tribune and was given a clean bill of health. I accept it. But that hardly changes the fact that Obama should never have done business with Rezko in the first place. He concedes that now, but it was still a failure of judgment.
  12. Carol Marin, Sun-Times columnist, April 30, 2008: It took a relentless chorus of Chicago media almost a year to finally get Obama and his people to deliver long-asked-for documents and answer what were, at best, incompletely answered questions about his former friend and now-indicted fund-raiser, Tony Rezko. He finally did so in March. There are judgment questions, fair ones, to be asked about Obama's past dealings with controversial people.

-- REPORTERS' QUESTIONS:

• 1. Long Chicago Sun-Times interview, March 15, 2008: Q: You talk a lot about judgment in your campaign. Was this a judgment issue? A: It was a mistake. I said it was a boneheaded move, I think it is further evidence I am not perfect. I would put it in the context now of somebody who has been in politics for 11 or 12 years and other than this has had a blemishless record in a political context where it's very easy to get blemished. I think I've conducted myself with the highest ethical standards.
  2. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill interview with Obama, March 17, 2008: MS. IFILL: The distinction between you and Senator Clinton that’s been drawn by both of you over the last several weeks has been judgment versus experience. So let me ask you about your judgment on some issues, not only Reverend Wright and your association with him over the years but also Tony Rezko who you’ve talked a lot about recently, the Chicago developer who is now on trial on federal charges. Do you think that your association with those two people or people we don’t know about would raise questions about your judgment? SEN. OBAMA: Well, no, look, all of us have people in our lives who we meet, we get to know, in some cases form friendships with, who end up getting themselves into trouble or say things that we don’t agree with. [...] MS. IFILL: But let’s talk about political judgment. Neither of these are new issues. Are these things you could have laid to rest some months ago?
  3. Fox News political editor mentioned in a Sun-Times account, June 6, 2008: But Obama shrugged off Fox Political Editor Jack Conaty's question about whether his friendship with Rezko raised concerns about his judgment.

-- IN NEWS ACCOUNTS

• 1. New York Times, June 14, 2007: The land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation. That awkward fact prompted Mr. Obama, who has cast himself as largely free from the normal influences of politics, to express regret over what he called his own bad judgment.
  2. ABC News report by Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz, January 10, 2008: In sharp contrast to his tough talk about ethics reform in government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house [...] 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."
  3. New York Times, January 29, 2008: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, has raised questions about Mr. Obama’s judgment in dealing with Mr. Rezko,
  4. Newsweek, (end of article) March 1, 2008: Even so, by Obama's own account his real-estate entanglement with Rezko was a "boneheaded" mistake. It's a chapter that the candidate, who is running on the strength of his good "judgment," would just as soon put behind him. And one that his opponents are all too happy to keep squarely out front.
  5. Washington Post article, March 4, 2008, page 3: Ethics watchdogs in Chicago accept Obama's account, noting that he was instrumental in passing the strongest state ethics law in 25 years as a freshman state senator. But they have called the real estate deal and his failure to distance himself from Rezko a lapse in judgment.
  6. New York Times, March 15, 2008, lead paragraph: WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama said Friday that he had made repeated lapses of judgment in dealing with an indicted Chicago real estate developer, Antoin Rezko [...] Voters concerned about his judgment, Mr. Obama said, should view the transaction as “a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest.”
  7. Mark Halperin, "The Page" blog at TIME magazine, which appears to be a news blog but may be an opinion blog, March 15, 2008, Headline: "Obama admits repeated poor judgment with Rezko"

-- OBAMA'S OWN RESPONSE: IT'S A MATTER OF ETHICS:

Obama does not react to his judgment being questioned with outrage or by saying reporters are biased or by saying it's only a political charge with nothing to it. Instead, he answers the question, admits problems and treats it like an ethical issue involving conflict of interest perceptions:

• 1. It's a matter of ethics, he told the Chicago Sun-Times, November 5, 2006: "With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko," Obama said.
  2. "The Trail" blog at The Washington Post, March 14, 2008: Obama, who has made ethics a centerpiece of his career, told the Chicago Tribune that he made a mistake "in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest."
  3. Long Chicago Sun-Times interview, March 15, 2008: But it's fair to say at that time a red light might have gone off in my mind in terms of him purchasing his property next to mine, and the potential conflicts of interest.
  4. Chicago Tribune editorial, March 16, 2008: Obama said Friday that his "smaller lapse of judgment" was inviting Rezko to help him evaluate the house before he purchased it. [...] Obama's "bigger lapse of judgment," he said, came later when he bought a strip of the Rezko lot to expand his own yard. That embroiled the two men in negotiations over fencing and other issues at a time when Rezko was under increasing suspicion. That involvement with Rezko in the land deal, Obama said Friday, was the "boneheaded move" to which he's previously confessed. "In retrospect," he said Friday, "this was an error."

-- EXPECTATIONS THAT THIS WILL COME UP IN THE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN:

Both Obama nor the Republican National Committee both expect this to be a feature of the general election campaign:

• 1. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill interview with Obama, March 17, 2008: SEN. OBAMA: I understand though that I’m now a presidential candidate. So having done this six or nine months ago, it was probably important for us to do it again. And I suspect when I’m the nominee of the Democratic Party, the same crop of questions will come up. We’ll have to do it again three months from now.
  2. Republican National Committee statement quoted in The Daily Telegraph in the U.K., June 5, 2008: The Republican party's national committee said in a statement: "This is further proof that Obama's high-flying rhetoric is just that.... today's verdict and Obama's friendship with Rezko raise serious questions about whether he has the judgment to serve as president." RNC Chairman in the Washington Post, same day as the Daily Telegraph article: GOP Chairman Robert M. Duncan soon followed with a contention that the verdict creates doubts about Obama's judgment, and Duncan's staff posted a video designed to highlight Obama's connections to Rezko [...]
  3. McClatchy Newspapers news service, Boston Herald, June 12, 2008: the Republican Party plans to use Barack Obama’s relationships with controversial figures to undermine the public’s view of his character, according to the chairman of the Republican National Committee. The party will make an issue out of Obama’s ties to such people as Chicago developer Antoin Rezko [...]

I've removed Scjessey's WP:CRYSTAL notification box. It is not acceptable to change others' comments on a talk page. Make your point if you want, Scjessey, but don't change comments. By the way, WP:CRYSTAL applies to article space, not talk space. The point is to counter comments from other editors that this is some kind of unimportant, passing issue. This section is actually thematically separate from the rest.Noroton (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell where to add my $0.02, but I agree that "many sources" is an editorial comment / analysis that's unnecessary and not supported by evidence. No amount of counting individual examples can really prove it, and for every source that actually describes the criticism as widespread there will be other sources that describe the criticism as minimal or a ploy by political opponents (in which case it's an attack, not criticism). Also, "raises questions" serves to adopt the question. On the other hand, the phrase can be reworded to mean almost the same thing without these problems, something like "a number of commentators questioned Obama's judgment after..." Wikidemo (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

@Noroton, after edit conflict: - I didn't change your comment. Since you created no section headers, it was the only way I could think of highlighting a whole section. The point I was making is that you cannot use speculation of some possible future event as a way to justify putting extra details into a BLP. Furthermore, what you don't seem to be able to understand is that there is no dispute about what should be included, only about how it should be included. Your proposed version cherry-picks negative language from various sources in order to present the Rezko relationship in the worst possible light. You have misrepresented the media coverage, bombarding us with sources to make it look as if there has been a lot of coverage (when in fact there has been very little). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, you may be more effective in swaying Noroton and others (me too!), if, like he has you back up your statements with sources. Repeating things like "very little coverage", "misrepresented media", are by themselves not very convincing when they are compared to scores of cites displaying the opposite. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - you are asking me to provide sources for a lack of coverage? How does one do that, exactly? That's like asking me to prove the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. It was an attempt to get the point across that the only thing you have supporting your arguments in regards to undue weight and misrepresentation, are your comments. Others have sources disputing these claims. I hope you see why it is hard to argree with you in this instance. Arkon (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see why at all. It is impossible to provide sources to prove an absence of coverage. I think it is clear to anyone that the Rezko-related issues do not get a tiny fraction of the coverage that "100 years", "Wright", "sniper fire", "Keating Five", or even "Jesse Jackson won twice in SC" get. Ask anyone in the street to describe the relationship between Obama and Rezko and they will most likely answer, "who is Rezko?". Do you think they'd have trouble identifying who said we should stay in Iraq for 100 years? If I could be bothered (and I'm totally not) I could probably provide a significantly greater number of reliable sources to document these other "issues" than Noroton could ever find about Rezko. It is incredible to me that so much effort is being wasted on something so insignificant. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(after dueling edit conflict) Another thought...one issue is that "many" has several distinct meanings. First, it means a large count, e.g. "there are many things on that list." Probably any number over 20 qualifies. Second, it can mean a large number under the circumstances or given the context, e.g. "there are many ants in that yard" probably means thousands. Third, it can mean a sizable proportion, e.g. "many Americans caught flu this year" means millions, but "Many Americans suffer from multiple personality disorder" is not true even though the actual number could be hundreds of people. The term is just not precise enough, and it's too easy to misunderstand.Wikidemo (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(I guess it was a triple edit conflict -- a first for me!) Wikidemo, I'm not trying to prove this is the dominant view, I'm trying to prove exactly what I said. And as long as this is, it isn't the full list -- it's just literally an "exhaustive" list because I got exhausted and figured I had to stop somewhere. I mean, this is already looking like the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" scene in Fantasia. Not that it matters, but I only found one single source saying that this did not cause them to question Obama's judgment (Chicago Trib editorial in first section). Really, how else would you prove that something is prevalent other than by showing it's prevalent. I'll think about your suggested change. It doesn't cover the news organizations that brought up the matter on news pages -- many examples of news rooms trying not to be biased but drawing public attention to the question. And remember, journalists haven't exactly been known to be anti-Obama, by and large. This evidence should also show that this part of Obama's biography has engaged quite a bit of interest from very serious quarters, not just Obama's opponents. And all I want to do is note it in a very short way. I'm not "adopting" the question. I'm reporting that it was raised in a significant way, again and again and again. From 2006 to the present. Noroton (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be more than enough for most articles but it's a controversial claim in a heavily editied and read article, and perhaps something that's unprovable (hence an endless task). Even if you could show that some huge number, say 10% of all news writers, questioned Obama's judgment, there would be a valid objection that given the context of a partisan issue in a major election a 10% opinion is not "many" as a proportion. So, again, perhaps there is a word or phrasing that is not subject to multiple meanings and interpretations.Wikidemo (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• This proof has answered every one of the following objections, but the editors have either ignored it or, in Scjessey's case, refused to concede the obvious -- that the proposal was based on facts. In response, Scjessey has either changed the subject or simply asserted in the face of evidence that his own perceptions are unbiased while the cited, referenced language is the result of bias, a lack of assumption of good faith which he simply asserts.

Again, here are the statements made by editors that my evidence has shown is not biased, not POV, and yet when presented with the evidence, no adjustment has been made:

• • Shem: — "raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment" is complete editorializing (intended to, by your own admission, imply that Obama has contradicted his campaign themes).
  • Scjessey: — the biased "raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment."
  • Loonymonkey — Some of this is blatantly POV, particularly the "raise questions about judgement" part.
  • Bobblehead — [...] what is mentioned above [...]

I would like to ask Shem, Loonymonkey and Bobblehead to respond to the evidence, and I would like Sjessey to admit that my proposing the phrase was not the result of bias, but the result of research. In their !votes on Proposal 2, other editors have challenged the accuracy of some parts, and I can defend them with evidence, but frankly, what is the point of taking the time and effort to respond if editors ignore evidence? If you object to something, respond when your objections have been met. The quotes above, and further evidence I can provide, show that the imply that Obama has contradicted his campaign themes has been a part of the record from reliable sources. You can see it in some of the quotes and there are additional reliable sources. If there were a point of view that said Obama's real estate deal did NOT provide reason to question his judgment, would there not be sources for it, since the issue came up repeatedly over the past two years? There is one source for it: The Chicago Tribune editorial I quote above. But it is the only one I found. Look, I don't mind compromising in order to get a consensus, but just do me the courtesy of actually thinking about the evidence I've bothered to gather. Noroton (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I also do not see sufficient justification to include the phrase "many quarters", and as noted elsewhere think the proposition is more or less unprovable given the lack of precision of the word "many" and different senses in which the word can be used. I suggest rewording in some more neutral or precise way - that should not be hard. Also, "judgment" is a bit biased and it tends to characterize the criticisms too much. That may be the issue for some people, but not all. Again, it should not be a big deal to make a small wording change to avoid the problem. Wikidemo (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait to talk about specific wording like "many" concerning the large amount of critical comment on his judgment until some of the editors who said my proposal was blatantly biased and then ignored the evidence that I wasn't operating out of bias have responded. Noroton (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in discussion of Proposal 2

This is a different point from my point about "questioning his judgment". The following passage from a June 14, New York Times article shows that this matter is a significant, serious part of the coverage of Obama's life:

And when Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a house in 2005, Mr. Rezko stepped in again. Even though his finances were deteriorating, Mr. Rezko arranged for his wife to buy an adjacent lot, and she later sold the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land that expanded their yard.

The land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation. That awkward fact prompted Mr. Obama, who has cast himself as largely free from the normal influences of politics, to express regret over what he called his own bad judgment.

“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.”

Surely, the most important points here are that (1) Obama dealt with Rezko after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation and surely when (2) Obama himself is prompted to express regret over what he called his own bad judgment then THAT is worth including, and surely when criticism of Obama's judgment is coming from so many quarters, we can at the very least find some way of including (3) mention that he has been criticized in the article, especially absent any defense of Obama's judgment in this case including from Barack Obama himself. So WHY haven't we seen ANY recognition at all that these are significant, serious, important facts worth mentioning in this biography article from:

• SCJESSEY -- whose many comments have not addressed 1 & 2 and whose objections to 3 are not falsifiable, therefore not constructive
• SHEM
• BOBBLEHEAD -- who addresses some of this, but not all, in his Proposal 4
• LOONYMONKEY
• LOTLE
• TVOZ
• MODOCC
• BIGTIMEPEACE

I challenge each one of you to explain why this significant information -- in some form -- should not be in the article. I challenge you to tell us, if you don't believe it is significant, why it is not significant. I challenge you to follow the facts in an unbiased way as I have done, to provide evidence to back up your position, to show logically why you hold that position (and to refrain from questioning my biases without proof, as some of you have done). Noroton (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't get it now, Noroton, you are never going to get it. I've already explained, in great length, over a period of weeks, why this sort of language is unacceptable. You have responded by simply bombarding this talk page with "evidence", totally missing the point. I am quite sure you are doing this in good faith, but your reasoning is still flawed. Your proposed language overstates the importance of Obama's relationship with Rezko. As I've explained to Arkon above, it is not possible to prove how little coverage this issue has received - you just have to use common sense. Let me ask you some questions which demonstrate how little coverage the Rezko issue gets:

• Which issue has received more media attention? Obama's relationship with Rezko or McCain's "100 years" comment? - McCain's comment is not mentioned in his BLP.
• Which issue has received more media attention? Obama's relationship with Rezko or McCain's relationships with Falwell and Hagee? - Only McCain's criticism of Falwell is covered in his BLP.
• Which issue has received more media attention? Obama's relationship with Rezko or Clinton's lie about dodging sniper fire? - Her lie gets a single phrase in her BLP.
• Which issue has received more media attention? Obama's relationship with Rezko or Bill Clinton's comment about Jesse Jackson winning in South Carolina twice, that sparked a huge racism debate? - Bill's comment is not mentioned in Hillary Clinton's BLP.

All of these issues have received much more coverage than Rezko (who most American's have never heard of), yet they are not discussed (or only mentioned briefly) in the BLPs of the other candidates. Do you see where I'm coming from? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about "common sense", Scjessey:

McCain's 100 years comment is not biography material aside from the campaign, and the same can be said for McCain/Falwell and McCain/Hagee, and the same can be said for Clinton dodging sniper fire or anything else you've mentioned. Therefore the amount of coverage is irrelevant. The flaw in your reasoning is that you only consider this a campaign issue because, despite the many references above, you don't recognize that this has been a feature of coverage of Obama since November 2006 and Rezko has been an important part of Obama's life. This is a biography article.

Obama's relationship with Rezko is important because:

• (and this is the least of it) Rezko was connected in important ways with people in the 12-attorney firm Obama joined in 1993: Allison, the managing partner and Obama's boss, as well as senior partner Davis (whose name forms part of the firm's name) both became business partners with Rezko in various ventures. The firm itself, including 4-5 of Obama's billable hours, was involved in drawing up proposals and contracts for the Rezko/nonprofit organizations who applied for housing grants. So Obama had a number of people he knew well who also knew Rezko well. He had multiple ways of knowing whether there was anything fishy or problematic about Rezko. Both Allison and Davis have said they saw no ethical problems with Rezko, for what it's worth.
• Obama says he got to know Rezko well starting in 1995 when Obama started his campaign for state Senate. He has said Rezko was a valuable early financial backer. It's in the long March 15 Sun-Times interview. Bigtimepeace has compared Rezko to Ken Lay, but I've never heard that Ken Lay played such an important role in the career of George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush.
• Obama said in that March 15 interview that he still considered Rezko a "friend". This friendship seems to have largely centered around Rezko's fundraising activities, but also included the two spending time together along with each other's wives. After the Sun-Times brought up the point that an FBI mole had said Obama and Rezko would sometimes be in daily contact -- and only until that was brought up to Obama in that interview, did Obama admit that, yes, there were periods when he was in daily contact with Rezko. In fact, Obama originally said he very infrequently met with Rezko, and only after reporters who had more information pressed Obama did Obama admit more contact.
• Rezko's importance as a fundraiser extends well beyond the raw amount of money: It's been reported repeatedly that he provided early money to Obama, and Obama himself has said that that was valuable (March 15 Sun-Times interview and elsewhere). I can provide quotes from quite a few sources on this.
• Rezko has a pattern of siding up to politicians, helping them with campaign financing, and eventually asking them for more and more favors, eventually leading to corruption. This is why he's in jail now. We have no evidence whatever that he ever asked Obama for anything but the most minor favors (he invited him to a meeting with important Middle Eastern investors once during the 2004 campaign -- the only favor we really know he ever asked). A Chicago commentator, a supporter of Obama, said Rezko was a long-term operator who didn't quickly demand paybacks for his campaign financing support. Obama has repeatedly said Rezko never asked him for a favor.
• I've quoted two good-government types, one heading an organization that worked with Obama in the state legislature, who questioned Obama's judgment; I've quoted supporters of Obama who have noted that his relationship with Rezko raised judgment questions; I've quoted news reporters, national commentators, analysts who have said that Obama based much of his campaign on ethics and judgment and that this episode raises serious questions on that topic. Even if you don't think that language should be included, you must admit that it lends significant, serious weight to this matter.
• Just as the Keating connection is important for the McCain biography and the Pendergast connection is important for the Truman biography (although this is not as important as either of those connections).
• Obama brought Rezko into his real estate purchase at a time when Obama says he was having trouble reaching agreement with the owners of the house on a lower price; during the months it took for the price to come down, Obama visited the house with Rezko. Before the purchase was made in June, Rezko was widely reported, on the front page of the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere, to be in the thick of the investigation into a corruption scandal involving campaign financing and kickbacks for favors. Rezko was widely known to be a key player as someone to go to for jobs and as a key campaign finance person for the governor. All this was known before Obama bought the house. Obama admits he made a mistake in judgment because of the public perception that the dual purchase of the Obama lot and the Rezko lot would incur. Scjessey, this matter in June 2005 was not just a campaign issue, nor one that was about Obama's politicking or public-office holding. It was about how he conducted his private life in accordance with ethical standards, and when he talks about it he talks about it in those terms: conflict-of-interest, public perception.
• After it was revealed that Rezko was himself being investigated, Obama bought the strip of land from the Rezko property. Obama has called this a bigger lapse in judgment, more important than the first.

Based on all this we can conclude that Obama himself entered into a relationship with a corrupt political wheeler-dealer, whether or not he knew how bad Rezko was, and that he got even closer to Rezko when Rezko's corruption had become public, and that this matter was considered important enough for important observers to voice their concerns in public, and that this is in sharp contrast to the theme of ethics that Obama concentrated on throughout his political career and the theme of judgment that also featured prominently in his campaign for president.

Scjessey, none of this is deniable. Its importance can't be gauged by comparing Google hits for news stories. It is considered very serious by the two news organizations that have covered Obama more than any others: The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. Its importance has been verified by coverage from all of the major news organizations in the United States and several abroad (I'm not counting wire-service articles printed in major or minor publications either). You have provided no reason that six lines of this long biography cannot be devoted to this.

Anyone: feel free to ask me to back this up with citations. Noroton (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is about notability and weight. The neutral language I proposed gives sufficient coverage to the actual facts of what happened, and includes a blue link to Tony Rezko that makes it easy for interested readers to get additional information. Your version offers up additional superfluous details and uses a negatively-biased tone. You have cherry-picked whatever bad language you can find in your sources to make sure the language reflects your own characterization. You must stop trying to impose your own point-of-view on BLPs and adopt a neutral tone. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, for the umpteenth time, you have accused me of bad faith when you have no evidence whatsoever that I "cherry picked" anything at all. Please explain how I am supposed to have done that and from what larger coverage of the Obama/Rezko matter I've "cherrypicked" just the worst examples. If you can't, then you need to take back that charge. I've just explained why notability and weight mean that the details I want in are important enough for inclusion (how do you define "superfluous" in this case? Why is it "superfluous" that Obama has been widely criticized for this? Why is it "superfluous" that Obama himself called it "boneheaded" and an example of mistaken judgment? Why is it "superfluous" to say that Rezko has been a friend and key fundraiser of Obama? These are details that don't take up much room but give just enough basic facts for the reader to decide how important this matter is in considering the overall subject of Obama's life. I make reasoned arguments with citations, you offer your simple opinion combined with personal attacks. What is not neutral about these additional facts? What is the "negatively-biased tone" I use -- does that mean that the same facts could be written in a different "tone"? If so, suggest a rewrite of the same facts that would lose the "tone" you detect. These are not rhetorical questions. Please answer them. Noroton (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have not accused you of bad faith. In fact, I specifically stated in my earlier comment that "I am quite sure you are doing this in good faith." Secondly, you only have to read your proposal to see that you have chosen particularly negative language. It is plain for all to see, and other editors have agreed with me. Finally, there is already a version which states all the relevant facts in the proper neutral tone. My version. I shall not be arguing with you anymore on this matter, because you are refusing to be reasonable and acknowledge what appears to be the prevailing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec with WB74, below) How can you claim not to have accused me of bad faith when you said this: You have cherry-picked whatever bad language you can find in your sources to make sure the language reflects your own characterization. You must stop trying to impose your own point-of-view on BLPs and adopt a neutral tone. How could I have possibly done this without bad faith? And by the way, how could I possibly have done this? Did I pick 20+ items out of 400? Is there a vast number of sources saying "There's no poor judgment shown here! This in no way reflects on Obama's judgment!" If I cherry picked, then it should be easy to find the other sources, right? Scjessey, are you embarassed that you haven't got those sources? Are you embarassed that you accuse me of bias when you can't prove it? When you don't answer my questions, don't provide your own evidence and don't respond to my points and when your position is more protective of Obama than he is of himself and more positive about Obama in this episode than he is himself (comparing the language of your proposal and how he himself has characterized the episode), does that make you uncomfortable? Since you didn't answer my non-rhetorical questions, feel free to ignore these rhetorical ones. Noroton (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Noroton on the thrust of his comments. The Rezko connection is getting a kid glove treament in this article and that's not up to full wiki standards. And while Klieg light scrutiny might not be warranted, this matter should not be soft soap'd by us either. The Chicago press has the best perch to see this from. Our article should not soft-sell those Rezko negatives which the chicago press has carped about regarding this. Obama has indeed stepped into a cow pie with Rezko and that should be evident in our article. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, Noroton, since you feel so passionately about this Rezko thing, you should find a blog or other publication source in which to devote your many thousand words. None of this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article (nor even really to an article talk page), but many other publication avenues exist which are better suited for publication of your personal political opinions.

FWIW, if you could do anything to convince the hordes of SPAs and sock-puppets not to "vote" in favor of all your suggestions, that would improve the quality of discussion. I don't think they are you, but their participation most definitely "poisons the well". LotLE×talk 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? If the well wasn't poisoned before, this comment surely does it. Arkon (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec with WB74) LotLE, I'm trying to avoid personal attacks and incivility with editors who are personally attacking me (Scjessey, for one) and being uncivil (you, for one). What possible reply could I make to a comment like yours that wouldn't lead us away from eventual consensus. If consensus is a goal of yours, you have a strange way of demonstrating it. As you well know, if I had anything to do with any socks here, I wouldn't bother to put so much effort into research and argument -- I'd just create more socks. I can't ask check users to check me out (it's against the rules, apparently), but you can feel free to do so. You wouldn't be offending me at all. Not that offending me has ever held you back. Feel free also to accept my challenge above and actually defend your position. Noroton (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The well isn't poisoned. The only poison here is in the attitudes of a few editors who are on the losing end of a consensus decision. They think they can turn it around by hurling "sockpuppet," "SPA" and "cherry picking" accusations at every account that disagrees with them. But at Wikipedia, the word "consensus" is a term of art. It refers not just to the number of editors who support the proposed content change, but also the strength of their position in light of Wikipedia policy and established WP practices.

Noroton has done stellar work here. The logic of his position and the overwhelming amount of reliable sources he cites are a powerful combination. It comes as no surprise that new editors arriving on this page are drawn to agree with him.

I will again direct everyone's attention to well-established Wikipedia practice in the biographies of famous politicians such as George W. Bush, which had 13 separate conjugations of the words "critic," "criticize" and "criticism" in October 2004, during a hotly-contested re-election campaign; Hillary Clinton, which had entire sections with the bold headers "Lewinsky scandal" and "Whitewater and other investigations" during the hotly-contested 2008 primaries; and John McCain, which had two paragraphs (plus a sentence prominently positioned in the lead of the article) on the Keating Five investigation during the 2008 primaries.

All three of these examples occurred despite the existence of separate articles about the Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater and the Keating case, and several separate articles covering the multitude of criticisms and controversies surrounding Bush. The fact that their political rivals have used all these controversies as ammunition against them does not mean they're disqualified from the respective biographies.

The opposite, in fact, is true. Because such a broad array of neutral, reliable secondary sources has covered the use of this ammunition (and asked many of the same questions), Wikipedia policy and well-established practice require their coverage in these biographies. A certain level of contextual detail is also required.

I suggest that we have consensus here, supporting the version Noroton has proposed. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No way is there any consensus for Noroton's proposal. Most of the "support" comments come from single-purpose accounts like your own. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to dismiss the opinions of several IP address accounts because they don't SHOW an extensive and varied edit history is duly noted and refuted (in fact completely destroyed) by the excellent essay found here.

I will also point out that you believe your attempt to delegitimize the many editors who disagree with you to be sufficient. You have carefully avoided any discussion of the merits of Noroton's arguments and mine, believing that the "SPA" canard is sufficient to carry the day.

Consensus isn't just about numbers, even though we have the numbers. Consensus is also about the strength of the arguments. By avoiding any discussion on the merits, you have apparently conceded that our arguments are unassailable. I accept that concession. We have consensus. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You go right ahead and attempt editing the article with that attitude, WorkerBee. See how long you last. Shem^(talk) 23:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't dare to make any changes. There is no real consensus established yet and the result would be just another useless destructive edit war. All want to have it cleared and done ASAP but without some more patience it'll make it only worse. --Floridianed (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious from their previous participation on this page that such editors as Fovean Author, Justmeherenow, Andyvphil and Floorsheim would support Noroton and me. They're not sockpuppets or SPAs, so that defense won't even start to work.

I continue to wait for Scjessey, Shem and LotLE to come out from behind their attitudes and their many, many accusations (without any evidence to support them) and present an argument on the merits.

I will wait another day for an argument on the merits that would explain why, when it comes to controversy and criticism, Barack Obama must be treated differently than George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Kerry, Tony Blair, John Howard, Stephen Harper, Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Sarkozy, etc., etc.

I will wait another day for an argument on the merits that refutes Noroton's argument and explains why, even though Scjessey is outnumbered, his version should be the one that goes into the article.

But I won't wait forever. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Grandstanding doesn't help your case, WB74. I can't count the number of times that you've abandoned the actual discussion in order to fall back on general statements of how those who disagree with you aren't "arguing on the merits" and that you "just want this article to conform to Wikipedia practices." The discussion is not whether this article should be correct and encyclopedic (as we all want) it's whether the edits you are vehemently pushing for accomplish such a thing. Quite a number of editors feel that they don't. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Those "general statements" of mine are accurate, and your "quite a number" are obviously in the minority. I will concede to a strong argument on the merits, but we refuse to be bullied by false claims of sockpuppetry, SPA, cherry picking, or whatever other maneuver is about to pop out of the bottomless bag of tricks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no point arguing the merits in the sort of editing environment WorkerBee74 is proposing. Either we have to keep on talking, or give up and declare that there is no consensus to improve this part of the article. WorkerBee74's recent contributions seem needlessly provocative, so another possibility is to admonish him to tone things down and ask him to spend time away from the article if he will not. Wikidemo (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The editing environment I've continuously proposed is for those who are inclined to make sockpuppetry, SPA or cherry picking accusations to refrain from doing so, because it poisons the atmosphere as Arkon and Noroton have accurately observed. If they can't keep such accusations to themselves then they should be the ones taking time away from the article. Present your argument on the merits. If you can't, and if false accusations are all you've got, we'll understand. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I've finally read through all of the more recent comments on the Rezko issue (apologies for being inactive the last few days) and must say things have gone downhill fast. I don't think any particular person or persons are to blame, but the discussion has deteriorated to a dangerous and nonconstructive point. I'll try to suggest some alternative language above because some folks are getting pretty far away from the spirit of consensus at this point. With respect to this immediate thread, WB74 you need to dial it back a good number of notches. Consensus is obviously lacking at this point, and regardless supposed consensus is never a club with which to beat other good-faith editors over the head. Vaguely threatening statements like "But I won't wait forever" could not have less place on this talk page. Please change your tone.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have grown very, very weary of the use of sockpuppet and SPA accusations by certain editors as a substitute for any discussion on the merits. Do you, or do you not agree that the discussion should not be focused on accusations against editors? Do you, or do you not not agree that the discussion should be focused on the content of the edits, and the Wikipedia policies and established practices that should guide our edits?

Direct your wrath against LotLE, Scjessey and Shem. As others have accurately observed, those three are poisoning the well with their false accusations, and the rest of us should not be forced to sit here silently and let them do it. They're in the minority. Noroton and I have presented arguments on the merits that form a powerful combination. You know it, they know it, and they believe that these false accusations are the way for them to gain the upper hand. Are you going to allow them to continue in this vein? WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that most of the support for Noroton's language relies on the IP/SPA editors, I think it is clear that this "powerful combination" is not as strong as you claim. Support for my own proposal is pretty stable and consists of established editors, while opposition is largely from the IP/SPA crowd who support Noroton's proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For those inclined to examine these SPA allegations under the harsh light of truth, I suggest a brief reading here. One of the editors accused of being an "IP/SPA" slices and dices Clubjuggle for adopting the position that SCJ has been advocating on this page. IP editor reports that he has been editing WP for years on hundreds of articles, but his ISP changes his IP address daily. He refuses to get a named account due to the "politics and the drama" associated with having an account. (Can't say as I blame him.)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyone.

Without proof that they are actually SPA accounts, they must be given the same weight as everyone else.

I may fairly be labeled an SPA account. But I am not going to waste any time on other articles, because it is here that I've stumbled upon a substabtial problem, with an extremely high profile article, that needs to be resolved. I have presented a solid argument, well-grounded in cited precedents, proving that there is a well-established style for Wikipedia bios about similar people in similar situations, and that for this reason, we're bound to follow precedent.

Trying to wave off that argument by simply sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "SPA, SPA" demonstrates to any neutral observer that SCJ has been defeated on the merits. He cannot respond on the merits. Neither can LotLE who keeps chanting, "Sockpuppet, sockpuppet" with his fingers in his ears. WorkerBee74 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For established editors who have been around long enough to have suffered the presence of individuals like this, the problem of IP/SPA/Sock accounts is very real and very annoying. Popular articles like this are magnets for these 3 types of users, so established editors are naturally wary when new folks show up out of the blue and start vote-stacking and wikilawyering almost immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

Huh? If an account is an actual SPA/sockpuppet, more than likely, they are not new. Rightly speaking, new accounts would be editors with few previous edits of any kind ever. But, by definition a sock is a 'alternate' account of already established editor and a SPA (single purpose account) is and account which has an edit history that indicates narrow focus of edits.

Frankly, I don't see narrow focus as an issue at all. And unless one is "vote-stacking", I don't see how a sock account degrades the discourse here either. If an editor here is focusing on the article content, stays out of disputes and does not vote-stack, then to me it should not make any difference who suspects what about that editor. All this probing of interpersonal suspicions makes me think that some are just looking for excuses to label edits/editors who's suggestions they disagree with as "annoying" and therefore not worthy of inclusion in the group dialog, ie; their suggestions can be ignored or they should be blocked.

Other than people trying to vote-stack (which would not be good), I see no problem with anonymous editing and I think the regulars here would do better to examine the merits of the talk postings/article edits themselves - rather than all this scrutiny/complaining stuff.

I ask you to consider that maybe, just maybe there is a considerable constituency of people who would enjoy editing on wikipedia, are interested to get good at it, wish to avoid problems and are motivated to make positive contributions, but at the same time are not interested in interpersonal drama and as a matter of personal preference, either haven't yet decided to take an account name or don't think it's right that they should be forced to get one. Nobody likes to be bullied and all this pressure to have an account name is not someting that is fair to those who haven't decided yet, or have decided no.

Frankly, either IP only editing ought to be eliminated from the wiki, or the extreme scrutiny/attempted blackballing of IP only editors should stop. It's like being a second class citizen. There's too much gossiping, suspicions and harping about IP editors. It's IPism and it's discriminatory.

Also, since when did an IP only account start getting routinely labled "sockpuppet"? I thought souckpuppet meant addtional names for the purposes of fooling others. Indeed, according to this wiki Sockpuppet (Internet) "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception". By defenition then, when one accuses an IP editor of being a sockpuppet, one is making an accusation in violation of WP:AGF as the very accusation of "sockpuppet" has by dffinition the premise that the person being called that is engaged in "deception". I failed to see how a non-identitity editor (IP only) is a de facto deceiver. And if not, why are they being called that? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - I have never accused an IP editor of being a sock puppet who didn't already have more than one username as well. I see nothing wrong with IP editors as a whole, but many of the IP editors we see here have very few edits indeed. The fact remains, however, that an established username editor with a good record in a number of articles is going to carry more weight in a consensus discussion than an IP, SPA, or new editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec - X2) Nobody has defeated anybody on the merits, and we will not get to the merits as long as people making content proposals are confrontational and disruptive. Reasonable, well-placed suspicion that SPAs and IP editors may be sockpuppets or otherwise bad faith editors must be allowed, and quickly dealt with, because anything else plunges articles like this into chaos. Noroton makes good arguments (in my opinion), but there is obviously little support for Norton's position outside of IP editors / SPAs who have shown up to edit this article. There is considerable proof that at least some of those IP editors and SPAs are sock puppets - only the investigations have not been pursued or concluded yet. It is quite a stretch to read the discussion as license to make the changes Noroton proposes, or to dismiss most of the established editors as having nothing to say or being out-argued by the mass of SPAs. Under the circumstances renewed confrontation, taunting, grandstanding, etc., is at the very least unhelpful. Wikidemo (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

... we will not get to the merits as long as .... This sort of language is unhelpful. I want something; it's reasonable for me to request it. It is a discussion on the merits without any accusations, or attempts to classify those who disagree with you as second-class citizens. I want this discussion and you are refusing to give it to me. You are holding it hostage.

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. History and the law tell us that past attempts to discriminate in real life have ended badly, and are now known to be unfair. We now know that separate can never be equal. Why do we let such an attitude survive here? SPAs and IP address accounts have every right to be here and to be treated as equals.

Reasonable, well-placed suspicion that SPAs and IP editors may be sockpuppets or otherwise bad faith editors must be allowed, and quickly dealt with ... Bravo. Slight problem with that: they're not being quickly dealt with. Instead, LotLE, Shem and SCJ are allowed to keep repeating these false accusations and keep on poisoning the well, and the targets of these false accusations are expected to just keep on sitting here silently and letting them do it.

Quickly deal with these false accusations. You took them to WP:SSP where they have been sitting around for a month. Take them to WP:RFCU. Get told by a Checkuser that all of these accounts are unrelated. Let everyone know with certainty that all of these accusations, with the sole exception of exclusionist User:Life.temp, are false.

Noroton has presented a very solid and well-supported argument, refuting the argument that claims, " 'raised questions ... about Obama's judgment' is complete editorializing ..." I have also presented a solid and well-supported argument about existing WP practices. If SCJ and LotLE were capable of presenting an effective rebuttal, they would have done it already. Instead, they hide behind false accusations, and claims that essentially say, "We've been here longer, so we win." Seniority should not be allowed to trump what Noroton and I have done here. If you must look at it as a contest between veterans and newbies, then in my opinion, the newbies have beaten the veterans on the merits, because the veterans refuse to even try to present their case. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Let everyone know with certainty that all of these accusations, with the sole exception of exclusionist User:Life.temp, are false."

Let everyone know with certainty that you are wrong about that. Since you only started editing this article recently (presumably when it dawned on you that Obama might become the next POTUS), you will not be aware of the history this BLP has had with socks, SPAs and hit-and-run IPs. Of particular note, for example, is the continued activity of this individual - he/she may well be participating in this very conversation, for all I know. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Let everyone know with certainty that you are wrong about that. Dereks1x is ancient history. I am sure that the Checkuser administrators have already been running RFCUs on some of these accounts. That's how User:Life.temp was caught. Out of the current batch of accusations, I can assure you that at least one or two are false accusations, based on weak, circumstantial evidence and bad attitude on the part of the accuser, and nothing more.

... presumably when it dawned on you that Obama might become the next POTUS ... That is a snide remark. It is the sort of thing that is unhelpful, like treating some users as less than your equals, dismissing them as SPAs or puppets and therefore unworthy of attention or weight in a discussion, etc. SPA accusations go to the issue of bias, SCJ. If I am so biased, then surely you'll be able to easily crush my arguments on their merits, just by pointing to the spots where my bias shows. So let's see what you've got. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Dereks1x is not at all ancient history. Just last week one of his socks was blocked, and there are several others who are being watched as we speak. A few who have posted on this talk page recently. Tvoz/talk 04:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not out to "crush" your arguments. They lack merit without any help from me. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people disagree with that assessment. Let's see what the others have to say about my position and Noroton's. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break 3

SCJ, I am wondering; when you posted this sentence "presumably when it dawned on you that Obama might become the next POTUS", were you trying to be snide to WB74? Please clarify - I'd like to be allowed the same leeway in my comments on this page as you are. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't intended as a snide remark. I was merely stating the obvious fact that WB74, an SPA himself, begun editing around the time Obama's campaign took control of the Democratic primaries (and by extension, the General Election). As I understand it, your own conduct with respect to accounts is under suspicion so it might be a good idea to avoid drawing attention to yourself unduly. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I interpret it as a snide remark, consistent with your many other snide remarks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thaanks for your swift reply SCJ. Please clarify: Are you saying that the phrase "presumably when it dawned on you" is not snide? Also, if I am not mistaken, I don't believe my "conduct" is under suspicion at the link you posted. Rather, I believe it's me personally who is. And regarding me as a person, I've made my views on that clear (you've no doubt seen my talk page posting). Therefor, since you know where I stand, I ask you to please stop trying to focus your attention on me a person and stay on the matter at hand, which is; trying to improve this article. And do please answer regarding your phrase "presumably when it dawned on you". I want to be sure it's ok to add that to my talk page vernacular and also to direct it to you - perhaps along these lines: Though you've been editing this page longer than some others (presumably when it dawned on you that Obama might be defeated by McCain) that doesn't make you an authority on which (if any) aspects of this BLP's history other editors are aware of, does it? So tell me SCJ, is that an acceptably non-snide usage of the phrase "presumably when it dawned on you"? Please let me know ASAP. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I first turned my attention to editing this page when I heard it mentioned on TV, although I forget which show. At the time, I was hoping Joe Biden would win the Democratic nomination (I live quite close to Delaware, and I like Biden's foreign policy approach). The rest of your presumption is inaccurate, since I don't believe McCain has a shot at winning the election in the current political climate. Please understand that my reasons for being here are to ensure the article remains neutral, not to advance the cause of any particular candidate. I am a Wikipedian first and foremost. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

... your own conduct with respect to accounts is under suspicion so it might be a good idea to avoid drawing attention to yourself unduly. This is what I mean when I say, "bullying." SCJ is bullying the anonymous IP editor by using the sockpuppetry accusation to steer the discussion. I wonder if this is what he really means: "Shut up and drop it, or I'll out you as a sock." WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask WorkerBee74, again, as well as the IP account 216.153.214.89, to stop making collateral attacks on the process, stop declaring their arguments to have prevailed, and stop complaining about other editors, and instead concentrate on any constructive comments regarding article content. There are strong, well-grounded suspicions that 216.153.214.89 is a block-evading sockpuppet (which would mean that the editor's numerous contributions to this talk page are therefore illegitimate) and that some other IP "votes" are problematic as well. The SPA / sockpuppet situation still awaits resolution. The merits of the Rezko material have been discussed at length over a period of several weeks now but attempts at consensus have reset several times. They seem to have stalled again, and bickering is not going to get things moving one way or another. Please confine your contributions to discussion of the material itself, and don't interfere with good faith efforts to figure out who are the fake accounts and who is real.Wikidemo (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, this sentence "There are strong, well-grounded suspicions that 216.153.214.89 is a block-evading sockpuppet..." is malarkey. Please stop trying to delegitimize my edits. There is nothing "fake" about editing as an IP only - and the sooner you accept that and stop focusing on stigmatizing IP editors, the sooner we can all focus on improving the article. If seeking fair treatment and honest dialog is going to be characterized by you as "making collateral attacks", then frankly there is no point in talking with you at all. Therefore, unless and until you post something on this page I feel is good for the article, I'll likely not respond to you again after this post. I am here to improve this article and I hope everyone else will focus on that too! 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The suspicions raised here[5] and here[6] have not been answered. I do not wish to debate on this page whether accusations of sockpuppetry against any particular editor are true or not, but there are clearly serious, grounded, and strongly held suspicions - six sock puppetry reports I know of regarding recent contributors here (see section below) and several sock puppets found already. It is obviously a serious concern. I think we need the assistance of administrators experienced in sock puppetry and arbcom enforcement to make sense of this. To establish consensus for any disputed changes to this article we will need both productive discussion and also a sense of who here is legitimate. Wikidemo (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Serious? No. Strongly grounded? Hell no. Strongly held? That much is obvious, because without these accusations, the exclusionists can't muster an argument to refute Noroton's or mine. Noroton's argument has been sitting here unchallenged all weekend, and mine has been sitting here unchallenged for a week. No response, except to point fingers and make false accusations. Request Checkusers, or apologize for the false accusations and drop it immediately. To continue chanting these false accusations without any resolution is a sick parody of what editing an encyclopedia should be. Good editors are being driven off. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not get into an argument, but I appeal for any administrators here to again help enforce some calm. Again, reaching consensus to modify the disputed sections of the article is impractical if we're sliding back into name-calling, and if there are too many outstanding questions about the legitimacy of some editors. At this point there is no consensus to do anything so we seem to be stuck. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we have Wikidemo holding progress on this page hostage to his efforts to drive off other editors; read his quote: "and if there are too many outstanding questions about the legitimacy of some editors [reaching consensus...is impractical]" WikiD, you need to reconsider what you are saying, which is basically that YOU refuse to examine the article related comments on this page on the merits but instead choose to focus (excessively I feel) on other editors as people. Please do us all a favor and back off on this overt clamouring to examine other editors. Please do your duty and focus on the improving the article. I feel that you are becoming a impediment to progress here. Is that what you want, to refuse to deliberate on the excuse of "questions" about other editors? Please stop that now. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to make constructive progress when sock puppets, IP trolls and single-purpose accounts are involved in vote-stacking and talk page disruption. Meaningful discussion is next to impossible under those circumstances. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec - addressed to IP account) I will not stoop to answer that kind of incivility and personal attack here but please concentrate, as you have promised, on any constructive suggestions you may have for improving the article. There is another forum - several open sock puppet reports in fact - to address the so far unanswered concerns about sock puppetry. Wikidemo (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To SCJ and WikiD: I condem, in the strongest possible terms, your baiting of myself and WorkerBee. It is the both of you who are making pesonal attacks by hurling around accusations of sockpuppetry, rather than focus on the article itself. And to top it off, the two of you then have the gall to claim that civil responses to your accusations are "talk page disruption" and "personal attack". Frankly, I am shocked at the behavior of both of you and will not respond to either of you again on this or any other page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That goes too far. I have added yet another caution over civility, for the record[7] on the growing list on this IP editor's talk page. Again, any administrative help on this is welcome. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since an RFCU has been filed, I suggest that we allow the Checkuser admins to do their job, and reserve this page for making some constructive progress on resolving the content dispute. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on the merits

NOTE: This subsection is reserved for a discussion of Noroton's proposal on its merits. Any message here that contains the terms "sockpuppet," "single purpose account" or other terms meaning the same thing will be moved to the preceding section.

Can anyone explain why Noroton's argument should fail, and his version of the Rezko paragraph should not be used in the Personal Life section, without recycling one of the claims that Noroton has already refuted (with citations) above? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see any of the dozens of above comments that clearly describe the inappropriateness of excessive verbiage and labored cherry-picking of negative spin. This has been discussed to death, and any extra ten thousand word essay "proving" we need unencyclopedic language still doesn't fly. LotLE×talk 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Each of the six editors expressing opposition above to this proposal raised substantive objections. Collectively, they included neutrality and other WP:NPOV issues, WP:SYNTH/editorializing, length/WP:WEIGHT, "rambling"/poor flow, relevance / context, and factual error. It is opposed by (six) established editors, and has less support among established editors here than option 1, which is more or less to preserve the status quo with some clean-up. Thus, it remains the job of people who wish to add disputed material to establish consensus, and nothing close to that has happened so far. Personally I do not think it is too bad, but I do have some concerns about relevance. The "many quarters" and "judgment" sections will have to be changed because they are editorializing and not supported by the sources, as has been argued extensively in the discussion section above. But with those changes made I would have no objections. I am fine with option 1 as well. Wikidemo (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia biographies about presidential nominees have contained entire sections devoted to specific scandals and controversies, even though the nominee was cleared in an investigation, and even though there were separate WP articles covering the campaigns and the controversies themselves. See Hillary Clinton, John McCain and the October 2004 version of George W. Bush. Critics of each nominee have been heard in a full-throated roar in the nominees' biographies. That doesn't matter? We're going to make an exception in that well-established practice for Barack Obama? Why make this exception?

What LotLE dismisses as "excessive verbiage" is the context required by the summary style that Scjessey defends so passionately. LotLE claims "labored cherry-picking of negative spin" but offers absolutely no proof in support of this claim. A few dozen sources where the writers state that the Rezko case DIDN'T cause them to question Obama's judgment would be a good start. Besides, I don't see how such sources as Talking Points Memo, Mother Jones, Slate.com and other certifiably progressive leaning sources could be fairly described as "negative spin" about a progressive candidate. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, Noroton's suggested paragraph comes across highly negatively biased, mostly because of innuendos (which is primarily why I suggested an alternative above). To make it clear what I'm talking about, I've annotated a version of Noroton's suggestion.

The land adjacent to their house 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. [Putting the sale, and stressing that it was simultaneous in the same sentence as the identification of Rezko as a key fundraiser implies a connection between the sale and the fact that Rezko is a fundraiser.] The transaction later raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment. [Was it this transaction, or the subsequent purchase of the strip of land, or both? Putting this sentence here says (not implies) the original transaction by itself raised the questions. Unless there's a whole slew of references about this dated in the interval between the original purchase and the subsequent sale of the strip of land, this sentence is rather misleading about what the controversy is about.] The purchases were made after Rezko was reported to be under investigation for unrelated corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. [By its position, this sentence is strongly implying the questions about Obama's judgment are related to Obama entering into a joint purchase agreement with Rezko knowing that Rezko was already under investigation for charges of corruption - are there sources indicating Obama knew about the corruption investigation at the time of the original purchase?] Later, a strip of the Rezko lot was sold to widen the Obama property. [Later than what? Later than the controversy? Later than the Rezko corruption conviction? More on this, ahem, later. And, sold to whom? "To widen the Obama property" makes it sound like this was done as some sort of favor for Obama.] Obama later said it was "boneheaded" and "a mistake" for him to create the appearance of impropriety by involving Rezko in the real estate deals. [Again, later than what? The sentences here create the impression the sequence was Rezko investigation, house purchase, questions of judgement, Rezko conviction, sale of strip of land, Obama calls himself boneheaded. Is this the actual sequence? Repeated use of the word "later" obscures the sequence of events and permits multiple interpretations.] Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity. [Given the rest of this paragraph, this sentence is far too weakly worded. It would be much stronger if it were combined with the previous sentence, e.g. "Obama later said ... for him to create the appearance of impropriety by involving Rezko in the real estate deals, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity." Note how putting this in one sentence implies the donation is related to clearing up the appearance of impropriety, rather than in some unspecified way to the absence of accusations of wrongdoing.]

I'm not really a writer, but I think clearing up the innuendos takes more words which is a problem for this specific incident in the context of this article. The other approach is to go into far less detail here (ala Bobblehead's approach, above) and leave the details for elsewhere. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

• Later reply to Rick Block's objections: Thank you for going over my proposal in detail. I'm going to assume that if I meet your objections, you'd support my language. Some of your objections are simply factually wrong, and I think you'd save time just by going to the sources. Obama himself answers some of your objections in his interview with the Sun-Times on March 15. You can read the whole interview or look at the relevant excerpts I put in my user space (both referred to, with links, earlier on this page). Here's my detailed response:

• 1. The land adjacent to their house 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. [Putting the sale, and stressing that it was simultaneous in the same sentence as the identification of Rezko as a key fundraiser implies a connection between the sale and the fact that Rezko is a fundraiser.] It implies no such thing -- Tony Rezko is simply identified. There is, actually a connection: Obama knew Rezko so well because their relationship as "friends" developed based on Rezko's fundraising for Obama. Obama talked with Rezko and brought him to the property and the two discussed Rezko's possibly buying the other lot. Which Obama recognized would be in Obama's interest. He has said this explicitly in the Sun-Times interview. He has also said that there was a problem with "appearances" in this deal. That means people might suspect something. If Obama has said all this, what's the unfair implication here? Again, whatever it is, please suggest a rewrite.
  2. The transaction later raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment. [Was it this transaction, or the subsequent purchase of the strip of land, or both? Both.
  3. Putting this sentence here says (not implies) the original transaction by itself raised the questions. Unless there's a whole slew of references about this dated in the interval between the original purchase and the subsequent sale of the strip of land, this sentence is rather misleading about what the controversy is about.] No, the whole matter didn't become public until a Nov. 2, 2006 Chicago Tribune story (I think I link to it above, but I can provide the link). I really think if you look closer at the sources I've already cited, it will be clear.
  4. The purchases were made after Rezko was reported to be under investigation for unrelated corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. [By its position, this sentence is strongly implying the questions about Obama's judgment are related to Obama entering into a joint purchase agreement with Rezko knowing that Rezko was already under investigation for charges of corruption - are there sources indicating Obama knew about the corruption investigation at the time of the original purchase?] He knew Rezko was in the thick of the investigation when he bought the house. He knew Rezko was specifically being investigated when he bought the strip of land. He has said he didn't fully realize how much Rezko was in trouble when he bought the house in June, although there had been plenty in the press about it and it is natural to assume that people heavily involved in Illinois politics would have understood quite well that Rezko was in plenty of trouble at the time of the first real estate transaction. That is what numerous sources have said, as I've quoted them further up on this page. Those numerous sources are the good-government types (one of which worked with Obama), and the reporters in their stories and in interviews with Obama and the commentators. Obama explicitly says he made a mistake in judgment when he didn't ask Rezko to step away and not buy the adjoining property. If you read the sources, your objection should vanish.
  5. Later, a strip of the Rezko lot was sold to widen the Obama property. Later than what? Later than the original land sale in June. Later than the controversy? It broke out after both transactions were done. Later than the Rezko corruption conviction? No, it was a controversy starting in November 2006. The conviction was in June 2008. And, sold to whom? Sold by Rezko (technically Rezko's wife, and to avoid the complications, it was easier to use the passive voice) to Obama. "To widen the Obama property" makes it sound like this was done as some sort of favor for Obama. Even Obama says that was likely part of the reason Rezko did it. Obama proposed the sale. Rezko had no reason to sell the strip to Obama, so far as anyone knows, other than Obama's request to him to sell the strip. This is quite clear in the Sun-Times interview.
  6. Obama later said it was "boneheaded" and "a mistake" for him to create the appearance of impropriety by involving Rezko in the real estate deals. [Again, later than what? The sentences here create the impression the sequence was Rezko investigation, house purchase, questions of judgement, Rezko conviction, sale of strip of land, Obama calls himself boneheaded. Is this the actual sequence? Repeated use of the word "later" obscures the sequence of events and permits multiple interpretations.] Sequence: 1. Obama first asks Rezko to look at the property, and Rezko decides he'd like to buy the adjoining lot, much to Obama's advantage, as Obama himself states. 2. Stories start appearing prominently in the Chicago press that there are investigations of corruption concerning fundraising and hiring in the Blagovich administration; sources repeatedly tell us that Obama should have known Rezko was in trouble at this point; 3. The initial sales take place in which both lots are bought; 4. Investigations continue and Rezko is indicted. 5. Obama buys the strip of land from Rezko's wife 6. In November 2004, Chicago Trib reveals on its front page that the three real estate transactions took place (Sun-Times indicates it feels awful that the Trib scooped them on such a big story). 7. Obama makes some initial statements about Rezko and then says very, very little for a long, long time. 8. Obama campaign announces that contributions from Rezko to Obama's '04 U.S. Senate campaign and to the presidential campaign will be given to charity, the strong implication being that Obama doesn't want to be tainted by Rezko's possible corruption. 8. In January 2008, Obama campaign says it found even more money connected to Rezko that it didn't know about, and it's giving that money to charity as well. 9. March 15, 2008, Obama gives long interviews to the Trib and the Sun-Times 10. Rezko's trial results in his conviction. See The Chicago Tribune's timeline.
  7. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity. [Given the rest of this paragraph, this sentence is far too weakly worded. It would be much stronger if it were combined with the previous sentence, e.g. "Obama later said ... for him to create the appearance of impropriety by involving Rezko in the real estate deals, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity." Note how putting this in one sentence implies the donation is related to clearing up the appearance of impropriety, rather than in some unspecified way to the absence of accusations of wrongdoing.] I have no problem with this change. I don't think it makes any difference. Noroton (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding #1, I see where the complaint is coming from but I think the use of the passive tense ("was simultaneously sold") is about as far as one can go to disclaim any connection without going into a long explanation that would compound any problems of undue weight. It implies that the seller made the decision. To treat the Rezko issue at all you have to mention that there was a series of real estate transactions in which the various parties were involved, and having done so, there is a minimum level of context one needs to avoid murkiness. So I'm fine with that language personally. Wikidemo (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Re. #2, I still think "many quarters" is a debatable editorial judgment about the sources, and nothing in the sources. And I'm still a little concerned about "judgment" because that's not entirely clear. But it should be easy enough to modify the wording. I don't want to propose anything specific right now because I don't want to shift the debate. But something like "...drew scrutiny from a number of sources.." (or "various", or "from several dozen major media", or whatever). Wikidemo (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't really see the issue with #3 or #4. We just lay out the facts. It is a relevant issue that Obama entered these transactions after Rezko was already under investigation - that's the heart of the issue. But we aren't saying anything about Obama's state of knowledge here. Any connection the reader draws is unwarranted. I don't think we can assume the reader is misreading things. Wikidemo (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Regarding #5 ("later"...) I think that's a technical objection. One could move this sentence to just before the one about the conviction, and say "a year" (or however long) later. I generally tend to discourage use of exact dates when describing controversies unless absolutely necessary because they distract more than they add to understanding and they compound weight problems. With #6, same issue - I don't think it's all that important when Obama admitted to being boneheaded. Technically I think it was after the scandal broke but before the conviction. But so what? Getting the timing right will add lots of words that confuse more than it aids understanding. Wikidemo (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Finally, I don't see anything wrong with explaining why Obama gave the money back, although I think it's obvious. Quoting or paraphrasing Obama's statement on it is a bit one-sided and slightly off target, I think. What's important is how and why he did it, not what he had to say about it. And if we start racheting up the issue it only makes sense to give it more context and balance, and then we've got a weight problem. To keep things simple why not simply say he donated the money to charity in the wake of the scandal? Wikidemo (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...so overall, as I've said elsewhere, I don't have any problem with this language and with a little tweaking I think it's perfect. I don't object to version 1 either. Of the versions that go into more detail this is in my opinion the most balanced and best written one, best aligned with the sources, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, thanks for your constructive comments. In the interests of getting closer to consensus, I can agree to striking "many quarters" and simply saying his judgment was widely questioned, but I really wish we could hear from more editors who opposed my proposal. Now the word "judgment" is actually in the many sources, as I emphasized on my long post of quotes. Even the word "questioned" is in many of those sources. I'd consider even modifying the word "judgment" with the addition of "in this situation", but it's something I'd want to think about. Obama started calling himself "boneheaded" about this in late 2006, I think, and then continually since then. We might save space and confusion by saying something like real estate transactions in which Obama and Rezko bought property next to each other and Rezko sold part of his property to Obama and then say that they took place while Rezko was under increasing public suspicion in the scandal that later resulted in his conviction on corruption charges. Something like that can get at the heart of it without too many confusing details. Noroton (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

As you know, it takes me time to compose a detailed reply and edit conflicts mess me up, since I can't cut and paste. Please leave this little subsection alone while I compose my response to Rick Block. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Rick Block has done a good job of itemizing the objections to Noroton's version and I would like to address most (but not all) of them with a "modified Noroton's version."

Vacant land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, a friend and key fundraiser for Obama. Six months later, after Obama learned of a federal investigation of Rezko linked to campaign fundraising, he bought a strip of the Rezko land to widen his own property. These transactions later raised questions from some quarters about Obama's judgment. Obama said it was "boneheaded" and "a mistake" for him to create an appearance of impropriety by becoming involved with Rezko in the real estate deals, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity. Rezko was convicted in June 2008 on 16 counts of fraud, bribery and money laundering; Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

This addresses such questions as "How much later" because it puts everything in chronological order and states the six month timespan. This simple step eliminates most of Rick's concerns. It eliminates unnecessary innuendo. I've adopted Rick's wording for the "appearance of impropriety" sentence. Rezko's convictions should be specified in this manner. Noroton has already addressed such concerns as weight, neutrality, WP:SYNTH (multiple notable and reliable sources are doing the synthesizing, not us) poor flow/relevancy and factual error. The controversial "many quarters" has been toned down to "some quarters." WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is still completely unacceptable. Here are just some of the issues:

"...after Obama learned of a federal investigation of Rezko linked to campaign fundraising, he bought a strip of the Rezko land to widen his own property."

The wording implies that Obama bought the land because of the investigation, and the idea that Obama bought the strip of land to "widen" the property is (as far as I know) original research. For all we know, Rezko wanted to sell it for some unspecified reason. Too much speculation here.

"..later raised questions from some quarters.."

Still original research, which is why I prefer the term "drew media scrutiny" which doesn't attempt to quantify.

"Rezko was convicted in June 2008 on 16 counts of fraud, bribery and money laundering."

Overly-specific details about a conviction not associated with Obama in any way. Transparent attempt at guilt-by-association that violates WP:BLP.

There are other, lesser issues with your version. For example, the length and specificity raises undue weight concerns. All in all, this no improvement over Noroton's effort above. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was writing some of the very same objections, but Scjessey beat me to the punch (and said it pretty succinctly). There's no need to reiterate the same points, so I'll just add that I agree. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording implies that Obama bought the land because of the investigation ... This is the only way to give events in chronological order and such an implication, if it really exists, is not intended. Further, it's neutralized by the later "appearance of impropriety" material.

... (as far as I know) original research ... See Sun-Times and Tribune articles previously linked by Noroton. Obama himself has stated that the purpose was to widen his yard.

Too much speculation here. There is no speculation at all. It is a dispassionate listing of facts. Since you can cut and paste, please cut and paste the one sentence in that paragraph containing the most speculation.

Still original research ... This is the best and most neutral way to summarize the dozens of sources across the political spectrum that Noroton found using the word "judgment." It isn't original research to say "some quarters." "Media scrutiny" doesn't take into account the questions raised by McCain and Hillary. "Some quarters" does.

Overly-specific details ... This is the context required by the summary style that you have championed with such great vigor and passion in the past. Readers should know the dimensions of the shadow that has been cast on Obama's campaign by this case. It's neutralized completely by "not been accused of any wrongdoing."

Now let me address your weight concerns again. Hillary was completely, formally cleared in Whitewater. McCain was completely, formally cleared in Keating. Both biographies carried extensive coverage of these cases during the campaign, despite the candidates being cleared many years ago. Obama has not been cleared. This is an ongoing investigation. Fitzgerald could announce at any time that Obama and Blagojevich have been indicted.

Even if Obama is simply subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, or even if he's asked by the FBI to make himself available for "a few questions down at our office," it could cause tremendous shock waves in the campaign, particularly if it occurs in September or October. For this reason, it deserves as much weight as Keating and Whitewater have received in the respective bios. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"...such an implication, if it really exists, is not intended."

Well it may not be intended, but that is the result. We don't cherry-pick reliable sources to fit in with our opinion, we report dispassionately and neutrally.

""Media scrutiny" doesn't take into account the questions raised by McCain and Hillary."

Campaign opinions expressed by rival candidates are not reliable sources for neutral reporting.

"This is the context required by the summary style that you have championed with such great vigor and passion in the past. Readers should know the dimensions of the shadow that has been cast on Obama's campaign by this case. It's neutralized completely by 'not been accused of any wrongdoing.'"

This is not "context" we are talking about here, but guilt-by-association. That is completely unacceptable, non-neutral, and violates the policies for biographies of living persons.

"Hillary was completely, formally cleared in Whitewater. McCain was completely, formally cleared in Keating."

Again, these controversies received orders of magnitude more coverage than the relationship between Obama and Rezko. The former was with the wife of a serving President, and it dominated the media for months. There is no comparison you can make there. Furthermore, we do not judge the quality of an article based on its similarity to other articles, which is why this article is Featured and the others are not.

"Even if Obama is simply subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury..."

Your theory that Obama might be indicted for his relationship with Rezko is delusional fantasy, and even if it were true (perhaps in some parallel universe where up is down) we do not write articles based on what we think might happen. Frankly, I'm amazed any editor could proffer such rampant bias with a straight face. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, you continue to use the phrase "cherry pick" when you offer no proof that I did that. I've already said how I got the sources. Your continued assumption of bad faith without proof should continue to embarass you. As I've said, I've provided plenty of sources, but you haven't. If there weren't a consensus among the sources that shows this was widely questioned and important, you should be able to find plenty of sources saying the opposite. When you continue to push a particular line without the evidence to show that you're trying to get a non-POV result, you make yourself look like a POV pusher. I don't understand why that doesn't bother you.

You talk about "implications" in the language that are somehow darkly insinuating crazy things about Obama. If "implications" were all that bothered you, you could easily suggest rewording. I'm not committed to this particular language and I doubt anybody else is. The "implications" business is a solvable objection that you haven't bothered to try to solve because it isn't your real objection at all, isn't that right?

Whatever anyone says in terms of objections or responses to them, you'll always just fall back on your position that you didn't hear much about this during the primary campaign, therefore it can't be important and must be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. This is despite the fact that you don't have any evidence and have shown no one else how inclusion of this added three lines would create a problem with WP:WEIGHT or WP:UNDUE. You make an assertion, other editors make assertions, and you are satisfied with your opinion. Yet by not having either an argument or evidence for your position, you can't distinguish it from POV pushing. Therefore, why should anyone who disagrees with you on this argue over any other point? Nothing will convince you. Noroton (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would urge both Noroton and Scjessey to step back on the strength of rhetoric and the sensitivity with which you read each other's comments. "Cherry pick" and "implications" are hardly an assumption of bad faith, but they are overstated, and now that Norton has raised an objection I don't think it's constructive to continue describing his use of sources that way. There is indeed a sample bias, necessarily so if one is looking for sources that report on the Rezko connection as an insight into Obama's judgment. Those people who think it offers no insight are not going to comment either way, probably not even write an article about it. There is likely no evidence of a lack of interest in the subject, nor can there be. So it's up to us to use our judgment as to whether the body of sources is enough to establish weight and relevance, or to claim that a certain thing is done widely or by "many" people. Language, however used, tends to imply things. If the language seems to suggest things that are inaccurate, one can easily change the wording. At some point people have laid out their positions and we may just have to leave it at that. I also think there is some confusion because what WorkerBee74 and Noroton have proposed is different, and because WorkerBee74 has advanced some rather weak arguments for some points (e.g. that Obama could potentially be indicted for his association with Rezko) for something that has much stronger arguments going for it (e.g. that many people think it is an indication of his judgment). Wikidemo (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, I appreciate the peacemaking attempt, but, by definition, you can't cherry pick without acting in bad faith. Those people who think it offers no insight are not going to comment either way, probably not even write an article about it. Not so. The Chicago Tribune wrote an editorial saying that while Obama was certainly in the wrong in dealing with Rezko in connection with this land, it specifically thinks Obama's overall judgment is just fine, based on long observation of him. I've already quoted and linked to nearly every one of the most influential news outlets in the United States. I've got the two major Chicago papers, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, Fox News, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, etc., just on the "questioned his judgment" point. I know the Wall Street Journal also mentioned it, and would it surprise anyone if USA Today, CBS, NBC and CNN could be added to the list (I don't know, but I expect most of them could). When you've got a significant number (a majority?) of the most influential news organizations saying essentially the same thing, what's the problem with "many" or "widely"? When you've got people who obviously have no ax to grind with Obama, such as David Corn of Mother Jones, and, uh, Obama himself taking this stuff seriously, why do editors here insist on being more Catholic than the Pope? Nowhere else in Wikipedia is there this much trouble in getting a phrase into an article that has this much to back it up. Standard operating procedure has been thrown out ther door here by editors yelling "POV" who don't have the evidence and haven't indicated they've looked at the evidence even though it's been splayed out on this page. What I find most frustrating is that few of these editors see any need whatever to actually provide reasons, or, when their one-line reasons are refuted by evidence and logic, even bother to respond. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to squeeze in.

Tiny little almost invisible input about different wording. How about "several" or "a notable number of (major) news outlets" instead of "many" or "widely" etc? --Floridianed (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All this bickering is a waste of time, and we are getting nowhere. The version of the language I have proposed has received far more legitimate support than any other version, and the onus is on the "inclusionists" to win support for their extra detail. In the meantime, I recommend that we change the article to the language I have proposed because it is better than what is there at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there it is: "far more legitimate support." There's one of those implications that Scjessey keeps talking about. He implies that the support for Noroton's version is illegitimate. Tell us please, Scjessey: why is support for Noroton's version illegitimate? (Before you respond, remember that any mention of "sockpuppet" or "single purpose account" will be removed from this section. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.) WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The version labeled as option one has more support than the others, and the other versions are opposed more than they are supported, by established editors. Option one represents the baseline so it is the default position anyway, unless consensus can be found for adding more material. I am going to strike out your threat, above, to edit other people's talk comments - that is unduly confrontational. Now that you bring it up again, though, sckpuppetry and single purpose accounts are indeed a concern here. We do not need to go there. Wikidemo (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC) You don't own this page, and you don't get to set arbitrary rules. If you refactor or remove others' talk page comments, you will be reported at WP:AIV. I would also suggest that neither one of you is in a position to be calling the other out on WP:AGF.

As to the discussion at hand, Wikipedia is not a democracy. As noted on that page, polls can impede rather than progress discussion and this certainly appears to be one of those cases. I've reverted to the version User:Scjessey posted earlier today. While I do not endorse that version (I have some concerns about it, in fact), the previous version reverted to by User:Noroton has timeline issues that may raise WP:BLP concerns. Specifically, the wording suggests that Rezko was already under investigation at the time of the land deal, an assertion which is not supported by the cited source. I respectfully request that ALL parties refrain from editing the Rezko language further until a clear consensus (not "majority vote") can be established. If desired, I can file a request for mediation (or am willing to act as an informal mediator myself, if all parties accept that). If editing warring on this section continues, however, I will request page protection. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the idea of keeping it at a default until we decide what to do, but I am also weary of making changes when there is obvious disagreement on a page like this. So, I moved the version back to where it was prior to the edits today (and it seems it has been that way for quite a while). This needs to be resolved here before anything really gets overhauled. (I don't want to make claims about what is the consensus version, I just put it back to its default state) Arkon (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, it's been at that version the last few days because a few editors have been rather forceful about putting it there. My concern goes beyond consensus, and into WP:BLP. The wording of the current version will suggest to the average reader that Rezko was investigated and convicted for his land deal with Obama (which isn't the case), and that he was under investigation at the time the deal happened (which I don't know if it's the case or not, but that isn't suported by the sources). Accuracy comes first, then we can settle weight and significance issues. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I must be missing something here. I've re-read the edit a few times now, and I apologize, but I really don't see the objection regarding the accuracy. I can't parse the edit as insinuating either of the inaccuracies that you state. I've responded on my talk as well, and would gladly self revert if I am missing something. Arkon (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Frankly, my reverting Scjessey had probably more to do with his edit summary, update Rezko text per talk page proposal with most support, although debate continues and this may change later) (undo) There is no real BLP issue because neither Obama nor Rezko is cast in a worse light by one of those versions than the other. Sources (although maybe not the one cited in the article) are clear that Rezko was under investigation by the time of the final land sale, and therefore it really doesn't matter what the situation was during the first (although he was in hot water then, too, which is the real point). The version Scjessey preferred is actually a bit clearer and is written better. In the interests of helping to cool things down and eventually reach consensus, I can agree to the Scjessey edit while we continue to discuss this. But not if it's claimed to be closer to consensus. It isn't. I suggest we all just support the version Clubjuggle reverted to and move on. I also suggest that Scjessey not touch it and not write provocative edit summaries. Noroton (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could view that edit summary as provocative. First of all, it accurately stated the current position of established editors, and secondly it acknowledged that the text may yet change because the debate was ongoing. In fact, it was written specifically not to be provocative. Perhaps you are just overly sensitive to anything I write? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, why would I be overly sensitive to anything you write, Scjessey? Is there a policy I missed where only "established" editors are counted in getting consensus? Rather than wave your hands, why not do some research and support your opinions with it? You could start by reading the short Sun-Times article I link to just below. You could continue by reading this timeline treatment by the Chicago Tribune and by actually reading the words of St. Barack here (or my summary at User:Noroton/Obama notes). Will you please read at least these? Noroton (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Established" was my word and I'm sorry if it's becoming a problem. It's just a shorthand to combine a whole cluster of issues I'm trying to explain in the positive rather than the negative.Wikidemo (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. It's very clear to me we have no consensus at this point, but if we can agree on this as a starting point, we can at least begin to work on one. Also if there are no objections, I would like to create a new section on the talk page to start this discussion over. This section has become impossible to follow. Deal? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Same, thanks to Clubjuggle for beating me with the cluebat on my talk, I get where he was coming from now, I am actually going to self revert to that version....and then maybe go home....My editing privileges should be revoked when I am think bonked. Arkon (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL... we probably all have to be a little "think bonked" to be engaging in this discussion in the first place! :o) --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, start a new section, but by the way, here's a good source (last paragraph). I recommend that people please, please read at least a little of the coverage on this, and it will be easier to get somewhere. Here, take a peek:

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) 00:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We could definitely use a moderator or mediator. Refactoring/owning talk pages isn't really a vandalism issue, more of an edit war or general AN/I issue. But it's best not to blow up any controversy more than we have to. The problem is that any non-administrator, any person who has been active on the page, and even any administrator who puts his/her foot down on anything, gets attacked and their impartiality questioned. Wikidemo (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

If no one objects, I'd like to take a few hours to compose a proper reply. I'm going to be busy in real life for a while but promise to get right on this when I get home tonight. Thanks for your patience. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is my reply to Scjessey and the concerns he has raised about the "modified Noroton's version."

• Well it may not be intended, but that is the result. I just don't see any such implicaton. But if the implication does exist, it's neutralized by "Obama said it was 'boneheaded' and 'a mistake' to create the appearance of impropriety ..." I despair at the prospect of being forced to demolish each and every one of these alleged implications in this laborious fashion. Obama himself states that it was "a mistake," therefore it was not deliberate, therefore all of the oxygen has been sucked out of the alleged implication. I mentioned the "appearance of impropriety" material earlier as a neutralizing element against this alleged implication. You ignored it. Why did you ignore it?

• We don't cherry-pick reliable sources to fit in with our opinion, we report dispassionately and neutrally. Which is exactly what I've been doing: reporting dispassionately and neutrally.

• Campaign opinions expressed by rival candidates are not reliable sources for neutral reporting. But they are very notable, especially at the presidential level; and when those opinions are quoted in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and ABC News, those are reliable sources for neutral reporting.

• This is not 'context' we are talking about here, but guilt by association. That is completely unacceptable, non-neutral, and violates the policies for biographies of living persons. If we were the only ones mentioning this, you'd be right. But the association between the candidate and the convicted felon has been reported by every major news media outlet in the world. Because they report it, we have a duty to report it. This summarized itemization of the 16 convictions is necessary to show the reader that these charges were closely related to campaign fundraising. It's the word "bribery" you find most offensive, isn't it?

• Again, these controversies received orders of magnitude more coverage than the relationship between Obama and Rezko. Nexis searches for "McCain Keating" and "Obama Rezko" actually produce more hits for the latter, possibly because there wasn't the 24-hour news cycle in the 1980s and certainly because McCain wasn't the primary focus of the Keating investigation. The Whitewater investigation had more coverage because it involved a sitting president.

• Furthermore, we do not judge the quality of an article based on its similarity to other articles, which is why this article is Featured and the others are not. This article gained FA status long before the Rezko, Wright and Ayers stuff became so noteworthy. Also, we DO judge the amount of coverage for controversies in an article based on the amount of coverage for controversies in articles about similar subjects. This is why we have the term of art "Wikiproject," to maintain a consistency of quality and style among articles on similar subjects. The October 2004 version of George W. Bush contained the words "critic," "criticize" and "criticism" at least 13 times.

• Your theory that Obama might be indicted for his relationship with Rezko is delusional fantasy ... we do not write articles based on what we think might happen. I didn't write anything like that into the article. I wrote it on the Talk page, and it is a very real possibility. K4T mentioned a series of articles by investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle, where she discusses that possibility.

A tip of the hat to Noroton, who has demolished SCJ's objections in greater detail. Every major news organization in the world has mentioned the relationship between this candidate and that convicted felon. They agree that this could be a serious problem for Obama during the fall campaign. We only seek to report what these reliable, neutral secondary sources are saying. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is a certain amount of fascist elitism involved in dismissing the opinions of new accounts, IP address accounts, and anyone else who isn't a "Revered Elder" around here. Judge proposals and remarks based on their content, not on the identity of the person who offered the. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a similar dream. He wanted his children to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Is it too much to ask for my remarks and proposals to receive the same courtesy? 74.94.99.17 (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is too much, particularly when the request is accompanied by calling other editors "fascist" and "elitist" for their efforts to deal with trolls. Giving weight to the opinions of established editors is a matter of practical experience dealing with fake accounts and disruptive editors. Some people are simply not entitled to participate, having abused the privilege, and nobody is entitled to participate twice or in bad faith. Those editors carry no weight at all here, whatever they say. Their participation is disruptive and deleted where it can be found. Moreover, we are a meritocracy. You are judged by the quality of your edits - not just single edits but your body of contributions to the encyclopedia. Nearly all of us participate anonymously; a few provide our real-life identities. Choosing a user name and signing up for an account does nothing to sacrifice your anonymity. All it does is let people see what else you have done for the encyclopedia. That is the opposite of elitism. Elitism exists when you attempt to say that your edits are more valid than others based on your real-world credentials and standing. Something like "I am a tenured professor at Harvard, so don't you dare say I don't know what I'm talking about." That is rare here, and people tend to dismiss it. However, "I have been contributing constructively to Wikipedia for the past three years, and have wide respect in the community even among those who disagree" is a perfectly valid kind of reputation... best if others say it than to bang your own drum. Wikidemo (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think all the anonymous IP editor is saying is that each message on this page should be judged on its own merits. Ignore the signature lines and focus entirely on content. If you must make your judgments based strictly on editing experience, Noroton is a very experienced editor and he has done exhaustive work, documenting all of his sources, supporting every brush stroke he's made and systematically destroying SCJ's unsupported arguments, which don't even contain one link. There's a good reason why new editors and IP addresses are flocking to support experienced editor Noroton: he is very convincing.

I would also like to clarify an earlier mischaracterization. I have written the paragraph this way because the neutral, reliable secondary sources support it. I spelled this out for Rick Block on my Talk page several days ago.

My speculation about the possible indictment of Obama was offered as an aside. It is not a certainty, only a possibility, and it's definitely not the driving force behind my edits. Any other characterization by others is inaccurate to say the least. I am driven wherever the reliable, neutral secondary sources take me, and they drive me to support Noroton.

SCJ claims that all the news stories he's read are saying something else. I would like to cordially invite SCJ to post a few dozen examples, as Noroton has done. If he can't, then we know how truthful he's been in making this claim. The truthfulness thing has been an issue. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We do look at who has made the edits, particularly when there are exit wars, voting and contentious edits by single purpose and IP accounts, and questions of sock puppetry. I don't believe Noroton is being categorized with those but I distinctly read the word "fascist" directed by one of the newly arrived IP accounts towards the editors here. Your accusing another editor of being untruthful here is problematic, as is your trumpeting an editor's arguments as being "systematically destroyed" and "unsupported." Please tone it down. Wikidemo (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"SCJ claims that all the news stories he's read are saying something else."

That is a false statement. I never said any such thing, because "all the news stories" aren't saying anything at all about Rezko. I actually said that I've seen hardly any coverage of this "controversy" in the mainstream media, besides an AP story covering the conviction a couple of weeks ago. I have to specifically search for Rezko-related articles in order to find anything, which is a clear indication of how little traction this supposed "controversy" is getting. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"all the news stories" aren't saying anything at all about Rezko. That is a false statement. Since you have access to Nexis searching, you are well aware that there have been hundreds of stories about Obama and Rezko, from every major news media source in America and many in Europe such as AFP and Reuters. There's no way anyone would have to search in order to find more than one story about Obama and Rezko, unless one is limited to a single news source. Is AP all that you read, SCJ? There have been hundreds of news stories, SCJ. Hundreds. In particular, the Chicago press was on this hard and heavy in 2006, before Obama announced that he was running for president, so it's hard to support any claim that the Tribune and Sun-Times were serving as house organs for the RNC.

Muckraking on politicians is what the Chicago press does. And Chicago political reporters live in a target rich environment. As this biography chronicled for many months, Obama was first elected to the US Senate through the convenient unsealing of embarassing divorce records on his GOP opponent Jack Ryan (no relation to George or Jim Ryan). Very convenient, because before the unsealing Jack Ryan was statistically tied with Obama in the polls.

Who do you suppose was the petitioner on the court action to get those divorce records unsealed? The Chicago Tribune. So Obama might not even be in the US Senate, if it wasn't for the Chicago press. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"As this biography chronicled for many months..."

Strange that you should wait until long after that inappropriate text had been purged before you created an account and jumped into the fray like a seasoned pro. Anyway, this conversation has moved along and left you behind. Please cease your weak personal attacks against me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

... long after that inappropriate text was purged before you created an account ... That's another misrepresentation. My first edit was on June 1. The material appears to have been removed around May 27. Four or five days is not a "long time." Nor is exposing your misrepresentations and false statements a personal attack. They address your credibility, and the weight that will be given to your opinion in determining consensus. You have engaged in numerous misrepresentations on this page. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If this section gets too long we can create new discussion subsections, but let's keep it centralized. Stay calm and civil, assume good faith, and don't comment on the motivations of other editors.

Rezko II:Consensus Strikes Back

Moving the Rezko discussion down here, where it might be more easy to follow it. Secondly, I believe I might need some assistance. Apparantly I cannot undo my own revert, and I am not to keen on trying to manually make the change, since it appears my braincells have gone on strike. Would any of you gents be so kind to revert me? Arkon (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Lulu for the revert. Arkon (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseline version

The following version of the section in question has does not represent consensus but has been agreed upon as a baseline for discussion, and as an interim version to appear within the article while discussion takes place.

This version is included for reference purposes. Please do not modify it:

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 land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, a fundraiser for several prominent Illinois politicians from both major political parties, and the transaction later attracted some media scrutiny. Rezko was investigated for unrelated corruption charges, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity. In December 2007, Money magazine estimated the Obama family's net worth at $1.3 million. Their 2007 tax return showed a household income of $4.2 million, up from about $1 million in 2006 and $1.6 million in 2005, mostly from sales of his books.

Proposed ground rules for discussion

In the interest of keeping this discussion civil and productive, I would like to propose the following ground rules for the discussion:

• All editors in this section are reminded to demonstrate and assume good faith.
• All editors in this section are reminded to avoid personal attacks.
• Edits made to the relevant section of the main page without consensus may be reverted to the version above by any editor.
• Editors or IPs with few or no edits outside this topic may be noted as such using Template:SPA but must refrain from making any accusations of bad faith (including but not limited to sockpuppetry) within this section. Editors will note that WP:SPA cautions established users not to rush to bad-faith assumptions, avoid biting the newbies and cautions new users and holders of SPAs to exercise care in following policy while editing, avoid NPOV/advocacy concerns and avoid conflicts of interest.
• Editors are reminded that Wikipedia is not a democracy. To the greatest extent possible, concerns of sockpuppetry will be sidestepped by refraining from the use of polls or votes in place of discussion. Our goal will be to produce a mutually acceptable version of the above section. When stating your opinions, providing solid reasoning is therefore essential.

The above is a proposal. Please feel free to propose modifications below. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Airing of Grievances

Against the text, not your fellow editors! :o)

In this section, please clearly indicate any concerns you have with baseline version that appears above. Please do not propose edits yet. Let's just start by identifying the parts the respective editors feel need attention, and what the cause(s) for concern are with those sections. Once we know where we're going, we can then worry about how to get there.

All editors are reminded to comment on content, not contributors. In other words, please focus all comments on improving the proposed text, and refrain from commenting or speculating on the actions or motivations of other editors. If you have an issue with another editor, that you feel must be addressed, please leave a note at User talk:Clubjuggle and I'll take a look. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Although this is the version I proposed, I should say that it probably needs a reference after "attracted some media scrutiny." If someone knows of a reference that describes how much (or little) coverage the matter has received, they should go ahead and add it immediately. Note that this does not mean adding a bunch of references as a way of showing lots of coverage - one reference that indicates the level of coverage is enough. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the main sticklers of this whole thing is the fact that part of the reason all this is notable, is that because of the relationship with Rezko, certain things were written about him, so the reader asks "what kind of things"?, and Noroton has answered with "judgement was questioned". It just seems as though the current version says there was a controversy, but not what occurred due to it. There are some tough barbs in this area as well, but I think the many different cites provided, particularly in the cases where they use similar language, justifies the addition of "what happened next". Right now it just seems to say "this happened, the media talked about it". Standard disclaimer in regards to my current mental ability applies at the moment. Arkon (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• My opinion on this is first that the Rezko incident doesn't belong in the "Family and personal life" section at all. This is a primarily a campaign issue - it belongs in the campaign section. Second, an entire paragraph (or more) about this seems to be necessary to adequately explain it in a neutral fashion. This paragraph (or more) belongs in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, and should be (briefly, I'd suggest approximately 50 words) summarized in this article in the campaign section. I'll note that the separate campaign article at this point has no mention of Rezko. I really don't mean to derail things here, but perhaps it might be helpful to first write up a neutral account of this in the campaign article and then summarize it here. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Rezko part should be moved elsewhere, irrespective of the degree to which we cover it and how. The text starting with ", and the transaction" through "he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity" should be excised, and we should have a short 1-3 sentence paragraph about the Rezko matter somewhere else. The baseline version of that, then, becomes something like: "Real estate transactions related to Obama's home later attracted some media scrutiny. Rezko, husband of the purchaser of the lot next door, was investigated for unrelated corruption charges, for which he was later convicted.[4] Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity." However, I would think we need to better explain and give a little more context than is provided in this baseline version. I think Noroton is on the right track and something very close to his version is good, but I'm open to a wide range of things in between.

Rick, it's not primarily a campaign issue, although it is that, too. If Obama were not running for president, this would still be worth including. Rezko and Obama have had a longstanding relationship that's been important to Obama's political career, and if you'd read the sources I've read, you'd agree. The Chicago media would be reporting this whether or not Obama was running for president. The only difference is that it's now gotten more national coverage than it would have if he weren't a candidate. It was Obama's home, Rick. And Rezko is in prison for turning a fundraising relationship with another politician into an illegal mess. The speaker of the house is now on TV saying Obama will bring "judgment" to the White House. "What it's about is judgment", Pelosi just said as I type this. Greta Van Susterin has just picked up on Pelosi's "judgment" comment and came back at her with Obama's judgment invovling Rev. Wright. The Rezko matter is also about judgment. Judgment. See the 23 quotes above.Noroton (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due regard, Noroton? Repeating single words over and over again makes you sound like you're promoting talking points, not trying to write an encyclopedia article. Shem^(talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, so much for not airing grievances about other editors. [I've removed the rest of my off-topic comments. Let's keep the discussion on track.] Noroton (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) -- (((removed sentences))) Noroton (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problems are that the following important information is not reflected in the article (it doesn't necessarily all need to be added, but it should be reflected in what we add; three more lines could add it all), and therefore not enough WP:WEIGHT has been devoted to the Rezko business:
  • Rezko was a friend of Obama, and Obama himself described him as still a friend on March 15, 2008.
  • Rezko was one of Obama's most important financial backers, and we can at least say that he was a fundraiser for Obama
  • Obama asked Rezko to get involved in the house purchase (to advise him, to look at the place), and when Rezko said he'd like to buy the next-door property, Obama liked the idea and said so.
  • In late May 2005, the Chicago Tribune reported that Rezko was in the thick of the gathering scandal surrounding the Blagojevich administration; by that time other ethical problems involving Rezko were prominent enough in the Chicago media that Obama should have known Rezko was radioactive, ethically.
  • Obama says it was a mistake not to ask Rezko not to purchase the next-door lot.
  • Months later, it came out that Rezko was the target of a federal investigation into his role with Blagojevich, a role that stemmed from Rezko's fundraising for Blagojevich.
  • Obama then bought a 10 x 150 foot strip of land along the property line between his lot and Rezko's lot in order to be able to put up a fence a little farther away from Obama's house. This sale occurred in January or February 2006.
  • Obama has called this move a bigger mistake.
  • In November 2006, the Chicago Tribune broke the news of all three land transactions.
  • Obama has made ethics and judgment key themes of his presidential campaign, as reported by multiple sources.
  • Multiple sources, including most of the most prominent news organizations in the United States have said, in news articles, that Obama's behavior in this episode has "raised questions about [Obama's] judgment". See the 23-quote, football-field-sized post above for confirmation of that.
  • Obama has responded to questions about this in a way that confirms he too sees mistakes in judgment in this episode.
  • Obama has referred to these mistakes in judgment as problems involving the appearance of unethical conduct. For my condensed version of the long Obama interview with the Sun-Times, see User:Noroton/Obama notes
  • This episode has been reported on since the story was broken by the Tribune in early November 2006 up until the last time I checked, just last week.
  • Obama and the Republican National Committee have said this issue is expected to come up in the general election, and the RNC chairman has already questioned Obama's judgment.
  • In short, when a crony goes to prison and is involved in the life of a presidential candidate to this degree, we need enough space to add these major facts: friendship, financial backer, prominent questions raised as to judgment, candidate calling himself "boneheaded" and "mistaken", enough information to tell you what candidate says he was boneheaded about (not thinking about appearances when he should have known better) and why prominent questions have been raised (a candidate who campaigns on ethics and judgment is caught doing a thing that neutral parties and even very sympathetic observers say raises doubts about his sincerity on that). Readers are actually coming to this article to learn more about one of the two people who will be the next POTUS. Potential problems with this candidate are going to be a big concern of those readers. Just ask me to back up any of this with sources. Just ask. Noroton (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And it's been made crystal clear that most of this article's established editors categorically disagree with your (arguably novel) interpretation of WP:NPOV#WEIGHT. The sooner you accept that there's no consensus for more Rezko content, the sooner we can move on to improving other parts of the article. Shem^(talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's that "established editors" elitism again. Noroton is an established editor. In the past, he has attracted the support of other established editors, such as Justmeherenow. There's a reason why Noroton attracts so much support from new editors and IP editors: he's right. He has mustered 23 reliable sources in support of a single paragraph. The "established editors" who oppose him, with such a large number of edits and so much time on their hands, can't even produce one source (aside from the one Noroton found himself) claiming that their opinion of Obama's judgment was unaffected.

The "established editors" are being eclipsed by just one established editor and a gang of newbies. Unless you can find the sources to support SCJ's version, Noroton's (or the modified version) is the one that belongs in the article mainspace.

Don't allow any bias in favor of "established editors" or your own political beliefs to cloud your judgment. Ignore the signature lines, look at the content of the statements on this page and the vast legion of sources in support of one side but not the other, make your judgment based strictly on the quality of the content of the messages here, and you'll know which side deserves to win this content dispute. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No: neutrality, reasonable weight, verifiability, consensus and other Wikipedia principles "deserve to win", not the "side" that rounds up the most people to chime in at a given moment. But if you're counting heads, consider that some people may be exhausted by the incredible number of times we've had to re-state our agreement with the consensus language that is in the article. Isn't it time to get on with it and stop re-visiting the same thing over and over and over? For the record, again, I support Scjessey's neutrally worded, reasonably weighted, well-sourced version and its location. And I take offense at your dismissal of the hard work that, yes, established editors have put into this article and its daughters when you call it "elitism". Tvoz/talk 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it is impossible to find reliable sources to show a lack of coverage. Please stop using this "justification". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a clue: name 20 major news media sources that you think should be controlling. Major news agencies such as AP and Reuters, major TV networks such as ABC and CNN, and major daily papers in the US such as the Chicago Tribune and New York Times. I'll run Nexis searches on them and I'll tell you what I find. That should prove whether you've been truthful about this alleged "lack of coverage." WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot think of another way of saying the same thing so that you can comprehend my meaning. Let me try one more time: If you have to search for coverage, using tools like LexisNexis, then it is fair to say that the coverage is minimal at best. "Major" coverage would constitute something that regularly (and currently) appears on mainstream news and current affairs programs, such as "Nightly News" or "Meet The Press". Things like Hillary's "sniper fire" incident were given major coverage. Ditto Jeremiah Wright. Rezko has received minimal coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just run two quick Nexis searches and got three times as many hits for "Obama Rezko" as I did for "Hillary sniper Bosnia." This result is easily echoed using a standard Google search: 478,000 hits for "Hillary sniper Bosnia," and 1.7 million for "Obama Rezko." Would you care to try again with a different point of reference, or will you admit that you weren't being truthful? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Google searches aren't a reliable source to make a point here. Rather you get some reference to work with but only if you do a Google-NEWS search. --Floridianed (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did the Nexis search first and only did a Google search to confirm the result, in a manner that accessible to all WP editors. But fine, let's do a Google News search. I get 652 hits for "Hillary sniper Bosnia," and 2,097 for "Obama Rezko." These results are easily duplicated by anyone who reads this. SCJ, are you ready to admit that you weren't being truthful when you claimed "a lack of coverage"? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would be before the return of the Google Search Gambit. How can respond to such a strategic tour de force? I whither in the shadow of a staggering intellect. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep ducking and dodging and twisting and weaving, SCJ. At this point, you're carefully avoiding the fact that I only used Google to confirm the results of a Nexis search.

Let me repeat that: a Nexis search.

Do you know what a Nexis search is, SCJ? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have been using LexisNexis since discovering it when I moved to the US in 2001. Please stop being uncivil. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you can see the hundreds of hits for "Obama Rezko judgment," can't you? Are you prepared to concede that there is no "lack of coverage"? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec with everyone, apparently) Floridaned, I addressed this point yesterday, here. It would be interesting to see Scjessey respond to it. We don't judge additions of 3-6 lines with some ironclad comparison, we look at the seriousness of the matter, how seriously it's treated by the best sources. The best, most appropriate "reference works" we have on this matter is the news coverage this has received from reliable sources. The most prominent, influential, largest news organizations have paid attention to this in a serious way. Unless we have a good reason not to (which is always possible), our description of the matter should essentially follow theirs. To repeat myself slightly, Scjessey's unique interpretation of WP:WEIGHT -- that what should guide him and us in this his memory of what he's happened to see in the news organizations he's happened to follow, and comparing that to other campaign issues -- is not terribly convincing. We all follow our own personal set of news organizations. I think this is Scjessey's chief argument, but I don't think it can ever be a point that you would get a consensus around (everybody's memory is different and can be affected too much by personal biases), so we should look to things we can all see and potentially agree on. I think it's telling to look at Obama's own treatment of this, as well as the treatment given by good-government groups in Illinois, news accounts that attempt to be neutral, commentators from all sides, and, particularly telling, commentators who are sympathetic to Obama. When we see wide agreement on something (like, ahem, questions about judgment), and it's explicitly stated in the sources, I think that gives strong reason for having it in the article, especially if not too much space is taken up. If someone has a better way of approaching WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE, I'm open to considering it. Noroton (talk)--minor addition for clarity Noroton (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey this far: There does seem to be less coverage of this than a lot of other things, and I think the amount of space in my proposal approaches the maximum we should give it. This is more important than the Ayers matter and less important than the Wright matter. I think if we concentrate on the specifics of what should or should not be changed in the language as it is on the page, we can make the most progress. If we concentrate more on whether particular facts are essential or not, perhaps we can get closer to agreement. My own way of doing this is to try to answer the question What are the essential aspects of this that make it important to mention at all? and Why did this whole matter become a controversy? Can we explain that to the readers without the reader scratching their heads wondering why this passage is in the article at all? Ideally, there ought to be just enough facts to make it obvious. I think we can come to agreement on these questions in how they apply to the specific facts I want to add. For instance, adding the word "friend" or the fact that he was a significant financial backer in Obama's political career. These are statements that can be defended with evidence -- specific citations and quotes. Can we agree to add them? Noroton (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with the use of the word "friend", and I agree that the Rezko issue was more significant that the Ayers issue (which wasn't of any significance - the flag pin thing was a bigger deal) and less significant that the Wright issue (which was a full-blown controversy for a while), although all of these are dwarfed by the Whitewater and Keating 5 controversies. I'd like to answer Noroton's specific questions:

What are the essential aspects of this that make it important to mention at all?

Some people, particularly from the Illinois area, think that buying a strip of land from the wife of Tony Rezko was a Really Bad Thing™. It isn't, but the whole "guilt-by-association" thing has forced Obama to concede that it wasn't a wise move.

Why did this whole matter become a controversy?

It didn't really; however, the RNC has been distributing press releases on a weekly basis in the hope that it will become a controversy. The dueling Chicago newspapers have stoked the story to win readers.

Can we explain that to the readers without the reader scratching their heads wondering why this passage is in the article at all?

Not without violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP.

...he was a significant financial backer in Obama's political career..."

Although partly true (we should say "fundraiser" instead of "backer"), WP:NPOV means we have to indicate that Rezko was a fundraiser for a number of politicians from both parties.

-- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, but the whole "guilt-by-association" thing has forced Obama to concede that it wasn't a wise move. Rezko was under investigation a year before the sale of the strip of land, and six months before the initial simultaneous sale of the house and vacant lot. That was when he hired Joseph Duffy, criminal defense attorney. It was the sale of the house that raises questions of collusion. We're expected to believe that Rezko didn't tell his squeaky clean protege Obama that he was under investigation by the feds and had "lawyered up," until after the initial purchase in Summer 2005.

It didn't really; however, the RNC has been distributing press releases on a weekly basis in the hope that it will become a controversy. As I said earlier, the Chicago press was covering this thoroughly in 2006, before he announced his presidential run. The guilty verdict for Rezko is an opportunity for the GOP, but it isn't as though they created the media following with their press releases. That is a misrepresentation.

The dueling Chicago newspapers have stoked the story to win readers. That's correct, but they were doing it years before any RNC press releases, okay? I'm glad we could get this little misrepresentation cleared up.

Not without violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. Quoting BLP specifically the section WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant and well documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article - even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Quoting WEIGHT: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Including "established editors," SCJ. There is a viewpoint which believes that Obama's long and close relationship with Rezko raises questions about his judgment. That viewpoint is prevalent among at least two dozen different mainstream media sources, as well as sources on the left (TPM, Mother Jones) and on the right (National Review).

WP:NPOV means we have to indiicate that Rezko was a fundraiser for a number of politicians from both parties. No, it doesn't. Remember, space is weight. That would turn a 5-line paragraph into a 6-line paragraph. It is sufficient to say that Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Remember, this article is about Obama, not about other people, and Rezko's relationships with other people are irrelevant. I think the phrase "key fundraiser" is fine. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Innocent until proven guilty," I believe the term is. All Obama did was buy a strip of land from the wife of someone who was under investigation. Once again, Obama did nothing illegal, or even morally wrong. Now please stop addressing me directly and focus on the article, rather than the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "Innocent until proven guilty," I believe the term is. Of course, but it only applies to the courts, not to the press or to public opinion. Many questions have been raised and Obama admits that the affair has an appearance of impropriety. He admits that it was a "boneheaded move" and that quote belongs in the article mainspace.

Now please stop addressing me directly ... It is your version that we find in the article mainspace, and it is your version that should be changed, SCJ. You are the most active advocate in favor of the status quo, which is inadequate to represent the significant viewpoint out there that raises questions about Obama's judgment. If you can't take the heat, Truman said, get out of the kitchen and let someone else step up and try to defend your version. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The version in the article has the overwhelming support of established editors, and it was only a minor formatting/grammatical tweak of the previous version. I proposed it because it sounded better and more accurately reflected the references, not because it had any substantive advantage over what was already there. Please focus on the text, not the editor! If you continue to bait me in this way, I will seek administrator assistance in the matter.

Back to the issue. Let me just throw and analogous question out there:

Let's say you had a friend who owned a car dealership. You wanted to buy a car from him because he was offering you a great deal "for a friend". If you learned that his business was being investigated for suspicion of tax evasion, but when you asked your friend about it he said that it was "nothing to worry about - just a clerical error," would you go ahead and buy the car?

I definitely would! Partly because of the great deal, but mostly because my friend assured me everything was okay. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In politics, though, you have to be careful about who your friends are. In real life too. But in politics the "friends" get the whole country in trouble, not just you. It has become a staple of politics that politicians are judged by their associations, rightly or wrongly, whether that is fair or not. In the context of deciding what they think of candidates' judgment, political astuteness, trustworthiness, background (whatever you call it), people respond. If we simply report an association because it exists we are falling prey to that thinking and endorsing it. However, if we report that the association has caused a controversy, and the controversy is significant enough to merit the weight given to it in the article, then it can be relevant.Wikidemo (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying; however, I think that there is a danger that we are going to be giving too much weight to what has really been a very minor event in Obama's life, and is much more about Tony Rezko. Consider how this stacks up against the Jeremiah Wright issue, for example. A 20-year relationship culminating in an acrimonious split that encompassed such things as faith, patriotism and race. I think it got a very fair treatment - a full paragraph and an associated daughter article. The substantially less important Rezko issue should be given far less weight. The Rezko BLP spells out all the details, so we just need a 2 or 3 sentence summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a 23-year friendship and mentorship with Wright, and an 18-year alliance with Rezko. That difference isn't very big. Furthermore, there's no suggestion that Wright could possibly have done anything illegal, or involved Obama in anything illegal. In the Rezko case, it isn't just a possibility, but a proven fact that Rezko committed multiple felonies related to campaign fundraising, and campaign fundraising is what he did for Barack Obama. The locus of the relationship is exactly the kind of activity that is sending Rezko to prison.

There are dozens of notable, neutral, reliable sources that agree this raises questions about Obama's judgment. There are three times as many news stories about Obama and Rezko as there are about Hillary's Bosnian sniper fire story. The same can be said for McCain and Keating. I've run the Nexis search and McCain was seldom mentioned. The investigation was centered on the three Democrats who were eventually censured by the full Senate, while McCain was completely cleared.

Both weight and BLP concerns have been satisfied. The sentence I quoted from WP:WELLKNOWN, and the many other biographies of prominent politicians I've cited on this page, indicate that the longer version by Noroton, or the "modified Noroton's version" which better satisfies Rick Block's concerns, belongs in the article. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes (enough weight to include in my opinion), but weight is a sliding scale. Just how much weight? I'm arguing that 2-5 neutral, well-written, factual, verifiable sentences - which is what we're talking about - is all within the reasonable range so that we should think more about how to explain it best than trying to fine-tune the exact amount of verbiage. Wikidemo (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's "a load of old cobblers" (as we like to say in England). There is no suggestion whatsoever that Barack Obama has done anything illegal. None whatsoever. Furthermore, your "calculation" about the number of news stories is based on a completely flawed, unrepresentative search analysis. The sniper fire incident had poll-changing significance that was so ludicrous, it made its way into the pop culture lexicon. It cast serious doubts on Hillary Clinton's honesty, and may actually have cost her the nomination (although I personally blame the Iraq War vote). The stupid flag pin thing is more notable than Rezko. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no suggestion whatsoever that Barack Obama has done anything illegal. None whatsoever. I will again direct your attention to the series of articles by investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle that was uncovered by K4T. She has observed that Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, enabled Rezko's cronies to take control of hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding, and they rewarded him with thousands of dollars in contributions to his US Senate campaign. This again has the appearance of impropriety. The campaign contributions by Rezko's cronies could have been payment for services rendered. In other words, they could have been bribes. It's an ongoing federal investigation.

There's also the initial real estate purchase in Summer 2005. It is possible that Rezko and Obama colluded with one another to enable Obama to purchase the property for a lower price than the $1.9 million that was asked. These are possibilities. Any one of the $250,000 in contributions raised for Obama by Rezko could have been a bribe. And if my search analysis is "completely flawed, unrepresentative" etc., please explain. Tell me how to structure a Nexis search the right way. I look forward to learning how to do it the right way. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"could have been" + "could have been" again + "it is possible" + "these are possibilities" + "could have been" a third time = WP:CRYSTAL. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

CJ, this is only to refute SCJ's claim that "there is no suggestion." There ARE suggestions. There are lots of suggestions. Evelyn Pringle is making these suggestions, she's suggesting cronies' names and dates and dollar amounts of the cronies' political contributions (and even suggesting the name of the bill Obama pushed through the State Senate) in support of her suggestions, and the Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times have both suggested it's possible that Obama has been involved in something shady with Rezko. For such a discussion, "could have done this" and "could have done that" are appropriate. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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..[8] 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[9]. 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.[10] --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 [11] 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.[12], [13])?— 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)

Arbitrary section break 1.0

Sorry for being so slow in responding. Today was a very busy work day. I've had a thorough reread of the thread. If I understand correctly, "media scrutiny" is the only remaining issue in this paragraph.

I've spent some time looking at the discussion of similar issues in articles on other politicians, including but not limited to John McCain (GA-class), John Kerry, Mike Huckabee, and Hillary Clinton (GA-class). Based upon my reading of these articles, in particular sections on controversies of roughly comparable weight, I believe the use of the word "criticism" by itself would be entirely fair, appropriate, and consistent with prevailing practice on Wikipedia. I therefore recommend changing "media scrutiny" to "critisism" 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. 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 criticism 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.

While discussing further, please keep in mind that taking a nose-count on this or any other issue is dangerous, not least because it invites sock-puppetry (as we have seen) but also because among editors of articles on any politician, there will be a built-in sampling bias in that people tend to focus on subjects they have researched extensively, and people tend to most extensively research people they like. I believe the language above is fair, neutral and balanced. the existence of criticism can easily be documented, so the statement is accurate, It does not make any assertion one way or the other as to wrongdoing, and in fact the final sentence of the paragraph further clarifies that Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, how about just dropping "media" and just saying "The property transactions attracted scrutiny..." The attention to the transaction (and Obama's relationship with Rezko as a whole) is from more than just the media and use of the word "scrutiny" seems to avoid the potential POV concerns about the word "criticism" that have been raised while still reflecting that more than normal attention was paid to the matter. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph, "scrutiny" may be worse than "criticism". Scrutiny implies "close investigation". Given the mention of Rezko being "under investigation for unrelated political corruption charges" later in the sentence, the construct would suggest that Obama was investigated for wrongdoing, there is no indication that was the case. From the perspective of an Obama supporter, criticism is an unpleasant word, sure, but the attention the transaction drew was, in fact, criticism. I haven't seen a single source out there saying the transactions were a wise move. Certainly Obama himself has not said so. Also, "criticism" is balanced by the assertion that Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent point. I was just throwing it out there as an option, but it has been quite soundly squished as an option. :) Suggestion stricken.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, your claim that "criticism" is more neutral than "scrutiny" isn't universally accepted. The transactions were scrutinized -- closely examined -- after which some may have criticized Obama and others may have not. I will not support using the word "criticism" over "scrutiny" in this article, period, because the latter is more encompassing and accurate. Shem^(talk) 23:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It's pointing the criticism to the deal which attracted the "scrutiny". --Floridianed (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate it. But I can accept it. Noroton (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem. Now that Noroton is willing to accept this version can you find a way to give in that last little bit and go with it? Now we have a real chance to put this behind us so please consider. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No; the Rick Block proposal already contains significant "giving in" when you bear in mind that many editors don't consider Rezko relevant to the biography at all. "Scrutiny" is more encompassing, neutral, and just plain accurate. Introducing the word "criticism" (one of WorkerBee's demands) would diminish this article and is a deal-breaker for me. It's another "squares and rectangles" issue; the transactions were scrutinized (looked at closely), but not all who scrutinized the transactions criticized Obama for them. If Noroton wants to reject the Rick Block version and argue that this has become a "no consensus" discussion, I'm now perfectly fine with that result; I'd rather have the current language than see "criticism" introduced. Shem^(talk) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest people take two or three steps back so they can see how small the question is over which word we should choose. There was clearly some criticism, and some scrutiny. Both words, though, are not encompassing. Criticism (in this sense - the word has multiple meanings) is a negative comment about something, coupled with some degree of argumentation or analysis. Scrutiny means a higher-than-ordinary degree of examination, in an attempt to see if something is wrong. Most of the media weren't scrutinizing, no more than they normally do on any story. They didn't subject it to an extra degree of review as compared to other stories nor were most of them looking for a skeleton in the closet. They were just reporting - reporting what happened, who said what, what people thought about it, whatever. What's the gravamen of what we're trying to say? Mainly that it became an issue. It came to light. It was discussed. It was reported on. People scratched their heads and thought about it. We've all agreed that the end of the paragraph will say it "created an appearance of impropriety". Well that's negative. If someone had said Mr. Obama, you have created the appearance of impropriety...that sounds like a criticism to me. Given that the fact we report is already as strong as any characterization of people's reaction to it, why not simply say neutrally that the issue came to light and attracted attention (or some other neutral word)? But really, the difference is so slight compared to the overall scope of this article that I personally am happy with any compromise people could come up with. Wikidemo (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I most definitely consider an hour and a half of unlimited questions solely on this issue alone before the Chicago Tribune board "an extra degree of review." Shem^(talk) 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditions

I am prepared to offer qualified support for the following, slightly-adjusted text:

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 drew criticism 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 transactions a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Note that I've changed "attracted criticism" to "drew criticism", which I feel slightly softens this very judgmental word. I have also added an "s" to "transaction" in the last sentence. I am not happy with this version, but I will accept it with the following qualifiers:

1. Within reason*, this version would remain unchanged until after the election.
2. This version will not be used as a new "baseline" from which "inclusionists" and anti-Obama editors can push for more detail, or additional negative bias. This is already a significant compromise from what many editors feel is appropriate.
3. Editors will agree that, according to WP:RECENT, a future version of the article will scale back coverage accordingly*.
4. Any proposed changes to the text would require a completely new consensus-building discussion to take place.
5. Any undiscussed changes to the article should be reverted, with the edit summary pointing to the archive of this discussion.

* If a new development were to occur, such as a previously unknown "revelation" or a significant (national) increase in media coverage, changes could be considered.

-- Scjessey (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can propose changes here, and WorkerBee74 and Kossak4Truth and any other editor have that right, so condition 1 and 2 can't be guaranteed by anybody here. Personally, I will not support that. I expect this to be condensed if he is elected president because pressure will increase to add new information and condense old info. If he isn't elected, that will happen more slowly. Scaling back needs to be looked at in context and no promises can possibly be made about that now, but it would be natural for us to be open to it. The last two numbered items are fully in line with policy and guidelines and what I always expected. I support those two fully. I would not support changing this consensus version once posted. If any unpredictable event makes an enormous change in Obama's life -- dramatic scandal, that other possibility we don't want to even mention, some utterly dramatic turn in the campaign -- then all bets are off and we of course could consider condensation or removal of this in order to make space for information obviously far more important, but I'm talking catastrophe here, not the normal campaign reversals. Just keep in mind that this is not simply a campaign issue and it doesn't automatically go out the window the day after the election.

I have no problem with Scjessey's language. Here are some style tweaks to make it slightly shorter, but editors might not feel it flows as well. I won't argue if there are objections (the change after "Tony Rezko" is really necessary, since the former "who then" must refer to the immediately preceding person):

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. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and she 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 drew criticism 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 transactions a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

For style reasons alone, I'd remove "charges" after the word "corruption" in the second-to-last sentence, but I think it would be divisive, so never mind. I think we'll need more sourcing, but I haven't looked into it. Noroton (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the "attracted criticism" awkward phrasing. Perhaps the following?

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 criticism 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 legal or ethical wrongdoing, he has been criticized for these transactions which he has acknowledged called a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and. He donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

The tradeoff here is if we're going to include "criticism" then, to remain NPOV, we need to strengthen the "no accusation of wrongdoing" wording. I think putting these in the same sentence, and explicitly saying "legal or ethical" accomplishes this. If we need references for the baselessness of the criticisms, perhaps [14] would do (the ex-governor of Illinois, a Republican, calls Rezko's dealings with Obama "overblown") or [15] (the seller confirms Obama's version of the original sale) or [16] (Tom Bevan, a self-proclaimed conservative blogger for RealClearPolitics, says the Tribune's treatment of at least one aspect of this controversy is "over the top" and that he wonders whether there "isn't more to Clarke's argument [in the New Republic, that this is a non-scandal] than I originally thought") or [17] (where credit for much of the attention to the Obama/Rezko matter is given to "a long-planned and well-orchestrated communications plan by the Republican National Committee"). I won't insist that we include the words "baseless" or "politically motivated", but I think it's fairly clear both actually apply in this case. Wikipedia needs to be very careful to avoid being used to advance either side's agenda. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the fact that a politician has been criticized is such a traumatic thing to acknowledge. Kinda happens all the time to the current president, and to every campaigner. Get used to it, folks. Rick, when Obama himself says he created an appearance of impropriety, that makes a statement that "Obama has not been accused of any [...] ethical wrongdoing" problematic. A lot of ethics is about appearances even when you're not guilty of wrongdoing in any deeper ethical or legal way. That's a gray area we need to stay away from -- you're creating unnecessary confusion. Leave it at "wrongdoing" and "legal" is assumed since nobody, really, uses the phrase "ethical wrongdoing" (sounds like an oxymoron, too -- some reader will want to change it to "unethical wrongdoing" and then some other reader will come by and remove the "unethical" with an edit summary saying "all wrongdoing is unethical"). I'm unimpressed with the Chicago Tribune story, which I'd seen and thought was totally unimportant. A total of three of my sources out of the long list still posted at the top of this page were published after the Rezko verdict when the "long-planned" communications campaign apparently went into effect. Whether or not this is a "scandal" hasn't been part of our discussions and doesn't affect the proposed wording. And now you're proposing we remove "boneheaded move" which Obama repeated again and again from 2006 to 2008? No. Stylistically it's a bright spot in a sometimes dull article. There is no POV problem with us reporting the fact that he's been criticized. And Bevan actually criticized the New Republic piece:

I had planned on slamming Clarke for the simple reason that Obama's association with a shady dealer like Rezko is a reflection of Obama's judgment and character and is totally fair game, in the same way that Rudy Giuliani's association with Bernie Kerik will undoubtedly be used against him - as it was the other day by Charlie Rangel. I still believe that, and if more serious details about Obama's direct dealings with Rezko emerge, they should be given fair scrutiny.

The passage is better in Scjessey's or my last versions, which also flow better. I can't agree to Rick Block's suggestions. Noroton (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I can't agree to Rick Block's new version given his swap for the word "criticism." Rick's previous version had consensus -- something we're now clearly straying from again. Shem^(talk) 03:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the flow. My latest suggestion puts the temporal sequencing of the transactions (the sentence starting with "The property transactions ...") in its own sentence, as a plain verifiable fact. In the Scjessey/Noroton version (and I admit I may have been the original author of this particular sentence) the "drew criticism because" phrase is included in this sentence, which makes it an inference (albeit an inference that any idiot should be able to make). In my latest version the "criticism" phrase is juxtaposed with the "no accusation of wrongdoing" phrasing, which I think makes this a more neutral presentation (of both the no wrongdoing and criticism phrases). The two facts that Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing and that he's been criticized are the two POV sides of the same event. Presenting these in the same sentence is the essence of NPOV. The "although" ordering in this sentence may give a slight editorial edge to the "no accusations of wrongdoing" side, but the reverse order ("Although Obama has been criticized for these transactions which he has acknowledged created an appearance of impropriety, he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.") makes no sense since it reverses the potential causality. Deleting the "boneheaded" quote is in the interest of space and readability ("has acknowledged" vs. "called a boneheaded move that"). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing will come of more distraction

With Shem's recent insertion of modified language as a concession to Noroton, and with Noroton's immediate reversion of that, I am 100% certain that no changed language will escape edit warring. Moreover, looking at the diff, the "old" language that's been there for a week verbatim, and for a month minus some cosmetic wording improvements, really is slightly better than Shem's attempted (consensus) insertion. I'd be happy to live with the slightly expanded version, but it's not an actual improvement (so I won't personally restore it).

This discussion most pointedly is not aimed at reaching consensus on the part of those two or three editors who want to get more anti-Obama language into the article for no purpose other than being explicitly anti-Obama. 5 or 10 neutral-ish editors have OK'd the changed language Shem tried putting in, and that language is predominantly an effort to address the stated desires of Noroton.

Workerbee74—who has happily been blocked for a few days (not long enough, but it's a start)—simply wants the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible, apparently out of a political antipathy to its subject. Those "concerns" can most certainly never be addressed within an encyclopedic article, so our only choice is to simply disregard and ignore any comments by him/her. Noroton seems primarily concerned with an avenue for his/her long political essays (probably 30k words on the topic by now, far in excess of every other editor; probably all others combined). I have suggested with a genuine absence of ill-will that a better forum for these long essays is a personal blog, or other opinion publication. A WP talk page is just not an appropriate place for this type of material. In any case, it appears that his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" from settling, because doing so would remove the justification for the continued essays.

So please everyone, just let the discussion fall silent. Let's use this talk page for productive discussion, and let the article keep it's perfectly neutral and concise version of the Rezko material. Dont' feed the trolls. LotLE×talk 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the proposed ground rules for discussion proposed at the outset, please do not make changes to this section of the article until consensus is reached. In those same ground rules it was proposed that if any author changed the section before consensus was reached, any other editor could revert the change on sight. User:Noroton's reversion is perfectly appropriate and simply signifies that discussion is continuing, which it is. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I never accepted any "proposed ground rules" other than Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shem^(talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clearer, many of us did. You aren't helping. Arkon (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. Now that the sockpuppet legions've been largely dealt with, it seems to me that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are perfectly capable of handling this article. Shem^(talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The point in this that I'd like to respond to is about Noroton's "essays". The dude has done stellar work, absolutely essential work actually, in regards to sourcing for this article and in attempting to satisfy objections with yet -MORE- sources. We've all done things that we can be criticized for, but this isn't even close to being there. Arkon (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lulu's convinced me to self-revert. While the compromise may better reflect some editors' desires, I don't consider it an improvement. I tried to implement a strongly-backed compromise, but if Noroton's content to filibuster the gesture (including explicitly threatening to game 3RR to prevent it), I'll gladly keep the status quo version instead. Shem^(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think we should declare / enforce consensus over Noroton's objections (some of the less thoughtful editors are a nother matter). So though I think your attempt was too bold I do tend to agree that if we can't get everyone on board it is indeed a "no consensus day." Part of my reasoning is that I don't want to reach an agreement among those people who favor a relatively light treatment of the Rezko material, only to leave the edit open to later attack by people who want to insert a harsher slant or declare that there wasn't really consensus for that version. Let's get it right, now, and all agree that we've done our best! If we can't do that, move on. But we should try very hard. It is very close. Some of the positions that seem to be hardening are really just the last attempt to register an objection before saying it's time now. That's a common last step in any negotiation. Wikidemo (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should declare / enforce consensus over Noroton's objections: It's when this line here became "conventional wisdom" on this talk page that the discussion quit being about consensus altogether. Shem^(talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Affirming Rick Block's widely-supported 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.

This was the version around which this Talk page's greatest manifestation of consensus coalesced. We're now rapidly losing what'd been forged from the discussion, review, and revision that's taken place here. It's time to refocus: Are there any objections to this version other than Noroton and WorkerBee's desire to see the word "criticism" injected? Shem^(talk) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mine too now, but since there seems to be a fair amount of acceptance from both sides, I could just as easily ask the following:

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 drew criticism 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 transactions a "boneheaded move" that created an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Are there any objections to this version other than Shem's desire to see "criticism" excluded?

Or, given the fact that there is still give and take occurring on both sides, perhaps the discussion, although long and at times frustrating, has perhaps not yet run its course.

The word "criticism" is widely used on Wikipedia in a variety of similar situations, for example:

• John McCain: In 1997, McCain became chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee; he was criticized for accepting funds from corporations and businesses under the committee's purview,[103] but in response said the restricted contributions he received were not part of the big-money nature of the campaign finance problem.
• John McCain: The McCain campaign faced criticism about lobbyists in its midst,[205] and issued new rules in May 2008 calling for campaign staff to either cut lobbying ties or leave, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest; five top aides left
• Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton had made more statements attracting criticism for their perceived racial implications late in the South Carolina campaign,[267] and by now his role was seen as damaging enough to her[268] that a wave of supporters within and outside of the campaign said the former President "needs to stop."
• Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has come under criticism for his handling of the case of Wayne DuMond (also spelled Dumond), a convicted rapist who was released during Huckabee's governorship.
• Mike Huckabee: Later in 2001, his refusal to raise taxes in the face of a budget shortfall sparked criticism from lawmakers and the media.
• Mike Huckabee: In November 2006, both Huckabee and his wife drew criticism for creating wedding registries in the amount of over $6000 at both the Target and Dillard's web sites, in conjunction with a housewarming party to celebrate a new house they had purchased in Little Rock.
• Mike Huckabee: Over the years, Huckabee has made a number of public statements that have drawn criticism,[193][194][195][196][197][198] including comparing his weight loss to the experience of a concentration camp, for which the National Jewish Democratic Council chastised Huckabee;[199] his joking about suicide while speaking of fundraising efforts by himself and his opponents in the Republican primaries, for which he was criticized by various suicide awareness groups;[200] and his asking "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" when discussing Mitt Romney's religion.[201][202]
• Mike Huckabee: In December 2007, Huckabee was criticized for his comments subsequent to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. He said that Pakistan has more illegal immigrants to the United States than any country but Mexico. However, INS data indicates that Pakistan is nowhere near the top of the list.
• John Kerry: On April 18, 1985, a few months after taking his Senate seat, Kerry and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa traveled to Nicaragua and met the country's president, Daniel Ortega. Though Ortega was democratically elected, the trip was criticized because Ortega and his leftist Sandinista government had strong ties to Cuba and the USSR.
• Al Gore: In 1996 Gore was criticized for attending an event at the Buddhist Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California (see 1996 United States campaign finance controversy). In an interview on NBC's Today the following year, he stated that, "I did not know that it was a fund-raiser. I knew it was a political event, and I knew there were finance people that were going to be present, and so that alone should have told me, 'This is inappropriate and this is a mistake; don't do this.' And I take responsibility for that. It was a mistake."
• Michael Dukakis: The most controversial criticism against Dukakis involved his support for a prison furlough program.
• Michael Dukakis: He was criticized during the campaign for a perceived softness on defense issues, particularly the controversial "Star Wars" SDI program, which Dukakis promised to scale down (although not cancel).
• George W. Bush (lede): After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism and began losing support from his Republican base largely due to his stance on illegal immigration and government spending.
• George W. Bush: Bush has received heavy criticism for his handling of the Iraq War, his response to Hurricane Katrina, and to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, NSA warrantless surveillance of terrorists or individuals suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, Scooter Libby/Plamegate, and Guantanamo Bay detainment camp controversies.
• George W. Bush: The initial success of U.S. operations increased his popularity, but the U.S. and allied forces faced a growing insurgency led by sectarian groups; Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech would later be criticized as premature.
• Criticism of George W. Bush is its own article.

If I am to throw my support behind "scrutiny" over "criticism", I first need help understanding why a word that is so broadly used across Wikipedia in comparable articles and contests is unacceptable in this one. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Are any of those Featured Articles? No, they're not, and this article should lead by example. The Barack Obama article has gone years without the word "criticism," which was a badge of honor to its credit. Could you please explain why you're treating Noroton's sole objection with total deference (he's been allowed to single-handedly "veto" Rick Block's version by threatening to game 3RR) while dismissing mine offhand? Shem^(talk) 13:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While I concede that none of those articles are featured articles, that does not change the larger point that the word criticism is in use in similar contexts in nearly every article I checked, suggesting, at least, a broad consensus across Wikipedia that the use of the word criticism is appropriate or acceptable in situations like this one. Also, I am not treating anyone's arguments with "total deference" (remember, I have backed your side over Noroton's on several issues here). In an honest effort to understand what a viewpoint that, honestly, I originally opposed, I've done my own research (see my long post above) and now I believe the argument for the use of the word criticism in this context stands on its merits.

To the featured article point, I offer the following examples, which all come from featured articles in the Politics & Government category:

• Ronald Reagan: The Reagan administration was criticized for its slow response to the growing HIV-AIDS epidemic.
• Ronald Reagan: On October 27, 1986, Reagan signed a drug enforcement bill that budgeted $1.7 billion dollars to fund the War on Drugs and specified a mandatory minimum penalty for drug offenses.[135] The bill was criticized for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population, because of the differences in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine.
• Ronald Reagan: The commission could not find direct evidence that Reagan had prior knowledge of the program, but criticized him heavily for his disengagement from managing his staff, making the diversion of funds possible.
• Ronald Reagan: Reagan's foreign policies were criticized variously as aggressive, imperialistic, and known to some as "warmongering."
• Wesley Clark: The John Edwards campaign brought on Hugh Shelton — the general who had said Clark was made to leave the SACEUR post early due to "integrity and character issues" — as an advisor, a move that drew criticism from the Clark campaign. (note the use of the exact phrase "drew criticism" here)
• Calvin Coolidge: Coolidge has often been criticized for his actions during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, the worst natural disaster to hit the Gulf Coast until Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
• Gerald Ford: Ford came under criticism for a 60 Minutes interview his wife Betty gave in 1975, in which she stated that Roe v. Wade was a "great, great decision."
• Bob McEwen: When McEwen was late in 1990 to the House because of a massive traffic jam on the I-495 beltway around Washington, D.C., he said on the House floor on February 21 that the District of Columbia's government should be replaced: ... After McEwen was criticized for his remarks, he delivered a thirty-minute speech in the House on March 1, 1990, on "The Worst City Government in America".
• Bob McEwen: In 1991, McEwen had also been criticized for his use of the franking privilege and his frequent trips overseas at taxpayer expense, but McEwen defended the trips as part of his work on the Intelligence Committee and in building relationships with legislatures overseas.
• Nancy Reagan (appears twice in lede): She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981 following her husband's victory, but experienced criticism early in his first term largely due to her decision to replenish the White House china. Nancy restored a Kennedy-esque glamor to the White House following years of lax formality, and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention, as well as criticism.
• Nancy Reagan: Her elegant fashions and wardrobe were also controversial subjects. In 1982, she revealed that she had accepted thousands of dollars in clothing, jewelry, and other gifts, but defended herself by stating that she had borrowed the clothes and that they would either be returned or donated to museums,[66][63] and that she was promoting the American fashion industry.[67] Facing criticism, she soon said she would no longer accept such loans.
• Nancy Reagan: The new china, White House renovations, expensive clothing, and her attendance at the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana[73] gave her an aura of being "out of touch" with the American people during an economic recession.[6] This and her taste for splendor inspired the derogatory nickname "Queen Nancy".[6] In an attempt to deflect the criticism, she self-deprecatingly donned a baglady costume at the 1982 Gridiron Dinner and sang "Second-Hand Clothes", mimicking the song "Second-Hand Rose".
• Nancy Reagan: Nancy Reagan reflected on the criticisms in her 1989 autobiography, My Turn.
• Nancy Reagan: After consultation with doctors, Nancy decided to have a mastectomy performed rather than a lumpectomy.[97] Incredibly, even that decision was criticized.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt: Unfazed by these criticisms and confident in the wisdom of his foreign policy initiatives, FDR continued his twin policies of preparedness and aid to the Allied coalition.
• Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt is its own article.
• Harry S. Truman: Truman shocked many when he attended his disgraced patron Pendergast's funeral a few days after being sworn in. Truman was reportedly the only elected official who attended the funeral. Truman brushed aside the criticism, saying simply, "He was always my friend and I have always been his."
• Harry S. Truman: Responding to criticism over readiness, Truman fired his Secretary of Defense, Louis A. Johnson, replacing him with retired General George Marshall.
• Harry S. Truman: Fierce criticism from virtually all quarters accused Truman of refusing to shoulder the blame for a war gone sour and blaming his generals instead.

Again, I need help understanding why a word that is so broadly used across Wikipedia in comparable featured articles and contexts is unacceptable in this one. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- some of those excerpts are absolutely terrible writing, especially in the Reagan articles. The sentence "incredibly, even that decision was criticized" in Nancy's is a grievous eyesore. Again, and please answer my question: Why is it is that Noroton's sole objection to the word "scrutiny" has been imparted veto power over implementing a consensus version, but my objections to "criticism" aren't respected in kind? I've already explained why I support "scrutiny" over "criticism," and don't appreciate being treated as though I haven't. There's a double-standard operating here. Shem^(talk) 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another version! Yay!

After a good night's sleep, I have returned to find new versions for me to salivate over. Noroton fettled the version I proposed last night, and Rick Block churned out something a bit different. Shem reaffirmed the earlier Rick Block version, and ClubJuggle weighed-in with a tome supporting "criticism" (a word I think should be banned from Wikipedia, personally). All of these versions have good ideas, so I would like to cherry-pick their best bits, add in a little spice I thought of during the night, and propose yet another 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. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and she 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 drew criticism because they occurred when Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

I am convinced this will be met with approval (except, perhaps, from Shem and WorkerBee74) because it cuts to the heart of the issue while still remaining relatively fair. I am still not all that happy about "criticism" being used, but it will do. I expect Noroton to work hard to find the appropriate sources to support the text, without going overboard into a situation like this.^{[134][135][136][137][138]} -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You diminish the quality of the article and the project by suggesting the "criticism" bug should enter the Obama article after years without it. This discussion's ceased being about improving the project, and now only seeks to quiet Noroton's objections and threats. Shem^(talk) 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. It is fair to say that I am willing to go beyond what I consider to be reasonable to achieve resolution. The desire to "get it over with" has now exceeded my desire to maintain article quality. I just don't want to fight over this anymore, and I am keen to move on to other areas that have been neglected while the debate has raged. I'm ashamed about it, but there it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead/Tvoz version

Is it necessary to say that Obama was criticized or received media scrutiny for it at all? It also seems to indicate that the only reason the transactions were criticized is because Rezko was under investigation at the time, when that is only why the property transactions came to light. It was the appearance of impropriety that caused the criticism, not Rezko's investigation, indictment, and conviction. Perhaps something like:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko on the same date, and a portion of the property was sold 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 occurred while Tony Rezko—a real estate broker and significant fundraiser for Illinois politicians from both major parties, including Obama— was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

That seems to avoid the whole criticism vs scrutiny kerfuffle, while getting across the point that transaction was not a Good Thing^TM. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot support that version for a number of reasons. For example, it includes needless information we previously agreed to exclude (the "simultaneous" purchase of the properties), and it suggests a hint of additional impropriety be mentioning the Rezko investigation/conviction in the same sentence as the fundraising for Obama. Despite use of the word "criticism", I believe my version is more neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, struck out the objectionable parts, added the original sentence describing Rezko (underlined to show it's new since original proposal). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] I essentially support Bobblehead's version, and I approve of the dashes setting off the identifying phrase, rather than the more awkward "Mr. Rezko" which is not wiki style. I think "unrelated political corruption" makes it clear that it's, well, unrelated - even though it's in the same sentence. I think readers can read and follow the thought. Take out "on the same date" and return to the "she sold" wording if agreement was reached regarding leaving off "simultaneous" - who can keep track? But since I also am not inclined to support "criticism" over "scrutiny", even to make peace - that feels like bullying to me - I think Bobblehead's work-around removing it, with a tweak, is a very good solution. It would then look like this:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. An adjacent lot was purchased by the wife of friend Tony Rezko, and she sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. The property transactions occurred while Tony Rezko—a real estate broker and significant fundraiser for Illinois politicians from both major parties, including Obama—was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

How's that? Tvoz/talk 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an edit conflict - I didn't see Bobble's revision until I posted, but I guess either way is ok (although I prefer his original as tweaked) so I'll support it. Tvoz/talk 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer your version to my tweaking of the original tweaked version, Tvoz, for much the same reasons you do. The "Mr. Rezko..." sentence seems out of place and is likely to cause consternation for anyone that comes through to copy edit this article and I'm really not seeing how having those political contributions in a different sentence breaks the connection with the investigation any more than the emdashes. If it isn't clear enough, the sentence could be modified to end "...was being investigated for political corruption unrelated to Obama and the property transactions, for which he was later convicted." But whatever version ends the constant edit warring and bickering works for me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need the "unrelated political corruption" to be directly followed by the "for which he was later convicted". And a big vote for ending the inanity. Tvoz/talk 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I was just popping back to edit my comment to remove the suggested ending because upon further reading I thought it read like crap.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is much better writing, and also eliminates the "Mr." problem. I'm fine with this solution. Shem^(talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to think about this some more. I am unhappy with the fact that Obama's name occurs in the same sentence as the investigation/conviction, which has nothing to do with him. The previous versions of the text kept these issues separate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with these versions, due to several concerns. First and least importantly, Rezko was not just a fundraiser for Illinois politicians, I believe it was mentioned earlier that he was a fundraiser for [{George W. Bush]], for example. Second, the wholesale removal of scrutiny criticism (insert word here) creates the appearance that Obama disclosed and acknowledged the appearance of the transactions on his own, and not in response to outside scrutiny criticism (insert word here). Whether you support Obama or not, whether you think the transactions were a big deal or not, I think we can all agree that wasn't the case. When coupled with the removal of the "boneheaded move" quote, this version is unlikely to garner consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another try to answer ClubJuggle's concerns:

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. An adjacent lot was purchased by Rita Rezko, who subsequently sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. Husband Tony Rezko, a friend of Obama and a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions drew criticism because they occurred when Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

It's a little bit clunkier because of the Rita/Tony thing, but it keeps the salient points from before intact. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a change I can believe in. :) --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

W00t! Anyone else care to voice their support/dissent? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Rezko was not a significant fundraiser for national politicians. He only held one fundraiser for Bush, which considering how much money Rezko has raised for Illinois politicans barely even warrants a mention, but if it is really an issue, then Illinois can be removed. Second, the concern about the wording make it appear Obama raising the issue on his own, that is better fixed by modifying the final sentence to reflect why Obama commented on it. I don't see how leaving "boneheaded move" is a problem here. It inserts a level of POV into the article that isn't necessary and is better served by just saying Obama acknowledged it as a mistake. So, with that, the final sentence of Tvoz's version would be something like to begin with "Following revelation of the real estate transactions by <whichever paper revealed it>, Obama, who has not been accused of any wrong doing, acknowledged the transactions were a mistake because they created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Version 1 million

I confess that these versions-of-subversions-with-strikeouts are becoming bewildering. Well, they've been so for a couple weeks. All the last few look fine to me. A couple general points on my opinion:

• Fewer words are better than more words!
• I really don't care about scrutiny vs. criticism.
• Removing the direct quote about "bone-headed" is far better, since the forced circumlocution to include the quote was just plain ugly. Encyclopedic voice about "Obama acknowledged ..." is the right thing.
• Limiting politicians to only Illinois is probably wrong, so let's not use that adjective.
• ... most importantly, no matter what anyone else agrees on, Noroton simply wants the conversation to go on forever, and WB74 will definitely disrupt the process to try to get libelous material in the article (until sh/he is blocked permanently). So all these versions and agreements are really moot if we don't stop listening.

LotLE×talk 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Socks

There are a large number of votes and comments on this talk page by banned sock-puppets or suspected sock-puppets. This is, obviously, extremely disruptive of editing. The large number of IP addresses who show up to cast (identical) votes on polls greatly raises my suspicion that there is yet more not-yet-reported sock-puppetry going on. An incomplete list:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009 (blocked)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.153.214.89 (blocked)

... Alleged puppet master was blocked four years ago. No proof offered, besides a similarity in IP addresses. Edits have not been problematic. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fovean Author (blocked)

... for a double vote on an AfD three months ago. (Not this article.) No evidence of sockpuppetry by FA in this article space; in fact, no other evidence of sockpuppetry by FA at all. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(below by Wikidemo) Add, in the interest of completeness:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth (Andyvphil, Fovean Author blocked; Kossack4Truth, WorkerBee74 multiple expired blocks for 3RR/edit-warring)

... Editwarring is not sockpuppetry; "multiple" in this case means "two" and they expired a long time ago. Andy will be back in two weeks. The report has been sitting around at SSP for three weeks without an RFCU. Request a Checkuser or drop it. You have no evidence. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

... Also blocked multiple times for editwars; "multiple" in this case means "a lot more than two." It's interesting that you somehow overlooked this important fact. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (blocked; but not active here, why listed?)

... This is the only proven case of sockpuppetry on this article and it was User:Life.temp, who tried on two separate occasions, despite warnings from admins, to delete every trace of Rezko, Wright and Ayers from this article. Again, it's interesting that you somehow overlooked this. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just a complete fantasy. What about Improve2009 and Dereks1x? Both have been very active editors of this article with their various accounts. The former has done everything possible to spoil this article, and the latter spent most of the time edit warring on the Jeremiah Wright and Iraq War-related material to make it sound bad, right up until a couple of days ago. Now either you are just unaware of these facts because you haven't done your homework properly, or you are just ignoring these facts because they don't fit in with your argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget DianeFinn, another sock that spent about 14 hours a day attempting to add every detail imaginable about the lives of Ayers and Rezko until getting blocked last month. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

DianeFinn was one of the Dereks1x socks. Also Watchingobama. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances it is discouraging to participate in the discussion and hard to gage the legitimacy of any apparent consensus. Unless we have some confident that most editors here are legitimate there doesn't seem to be much point. It would be useful if someone with a lot of expertise in sockpuppet attacks could help us address this whole thing at once rather than piecemeal. Wikidemo (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there really isn't a way to approach it except piecemeal. The high visibility and high emotions around Obama and his campaign are bound to unleash the sock hordes. This means that it is incumbent upon the established editors on this page to mark any new accounts/IP addresses with {{spa}} so that their opinion on the matter can be weighted accordingly and to keep an eye out for socks as they crop up and try to squish them just as quickly. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting philosophical. Martialists must defend against aggression, pacifists being useless for the job. Yet once a martialist, deciding what's right and making war to defend it, to complain about counter-aggression is rank hypocrisy: a death penalty for user A for assertions via edit warring, when User B remains to edit war another day, B's same behavior in self-described defense of the status quo. Rather than diss others' tactics that are the same as our own----sure, set down rules of engagement and adjudicate by em, but more importantly, let's debate what should be assaulted in an article and what defended.

Red sox, green sox, kind sox, mean sox. WB74 is a new account. I've no idea if it's a sock or even the exact particulars under which sox would be disallowed; however WB74's comments about not being able to cut and paste remind me of when I first I contributed to WP a dozen moons ago. I went to a contributor's talk page to comment, only to happen to read a private discussion expressing conviction that I myself must be a "sockpuppet," a term itself new to me then----reason being, I sure knew my way around Wikipedia for somebody supposedly a brand new account. I chuckled, knowing that, as WorkerBee's described, I still typed stuff all the way out to quote it, ignorant of the mysteries of how to "paint" text and then cut and paste it. I ignored the accusation except dismissively to deny it; yet here I'd come to Wikipedia to address its encyclopedic coverage of a particular issue----one that a faction of editors also championed, resulting in some more-or-less-agreed-upon blocks of text that remains to this day----only to find it was whether I was a jason voorhees that dominated my opponents' consciousness as much or more than the issues at hand. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "rules of engagement" are pretty simple. Edit under one identity and don't come in under another identity or IP address to support your own position, or to argue with it for that matter (sometimes done trying to throw people off your trail). Follow the restrictions on number of reverts allowed in a day - and don't come in under another identity or IP address to do a few more reverts. If you're blocked for some misbehavior, don't come in under a different identity or IP address to continue editing. It's really not that complicated - editing an article under more than one account without disclosing that fact gives an impression that there are multiple people taking a position when in fact there may be only one, and doing so to evade any restrictions that have been placed on you or on everyone is deceitful and has no place here. Tvoz/talk 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz has it right, the rules are quite simple. Definitively detecting sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry can of course be more difficult. I'm not an expert, nor a total novice, on sockpuppetry investigations but if anyone has concerns they can feel free to bring them to me and I'll have a quick look when I get a chance (I've been a bit busy the last few days and will continue to be for the next week or so, but will have more time after that). Of course there's also always the option to file a report at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU, but in contentious situations like this that can often serve only to escalate tensions. Basically there are no easy answers for dealing with socks on a page like this, and we just have to take it case by case.

One thing I would say, when having discussions like the one on Rezko above, I think the comments of random (i.e. not regularly contributing) IP addresses and brand new accounts (particularly the former) should be taken with large grains of salt. I'm all in favor of anonymous editors and am sure a lot of new accounts will show up to edit this page and go on to make good contributions (I take WP:BITE very seriously), but there's nothing wrong with giving far more weight to the opinions of established users, be they editors with accounts or IP editors who have made a number of contributions. I say this only for lengthy discussions like the Rezko one above, which involve knotty and ongoing issues. We'll see lots of IPs and fairly new accounts show up and start new discussion topics and/or edit the page out of the blue and we should of course assume good faith of those users. When we're trying to have a focused discussion on a thorny problem though I think it's fine (and even necessary) to keep the conversation largely among established users.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"[I] think it's fine (and even necessary) to keep the conversation largely among established users."... Needless to say, this is a carte blanche to pick & choose one's honest brokering; which of course, defeats the purpose of being an honest broker. Editors here have duty to address the merits of all reasonable comments on this page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The sock solution is easy. All accusations of socks must stop. All mention of consensus should only include the logic of an edit or the logic of a delete. Saying "I agree" should be discounted. If an edit can be explained as fair and neutral, even one person saying it is enough. If 100 established people favor a biased edit, even if they are in 100 countries, such violates Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. Since it is very easy for campaign supporters (even Ralph Nader has 100 supporters) to form a "consensus", we must judge edits on neutrality and not say it's a consensus if I agree and a sock if I disagree. FridayCell7 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion's become a parody of itself. An account which joined 22 hours ago and has only made 18 edits is now demanding no one highlight the barrage of SPA/sockpuppet activity taking place. Shem^(talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC X 2 - I wonder if we're being trolled, and not just socked). The IP editor above is, if you follow the second SSP report in the list, a case in point. Either the editor is, or is not, a block-evading IP sock of a user who has been gone, involuntarily, for years. If the editor is a sock, then the IP use is not for avoiding "drama" it is for avoiding detection, and clearly they should not be posting all over this page. It's a fallacious argument many ways over to say that we should evaluate the edits, and not the editor, when considering editors who are not entitled to be here at all. Most of those under suspicion are making bad edits too, so the question is not whether to dismiss good contributions but how to deal with the disruption. If the IP editor is not a sock, the lack of an account name or edit history leave us sorely unable to evaluate the editor's legitimacy or quality of contributions. Wikidemo (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WD, you wrote: "If the IP editor is not a sock, the lack of an account name or edit history leave us sorely unable to evaluate the editor's legitimacy or quality of contributions." I am not persuaded by this sentence. If an IP editor comes to wiki and writes one sentence: "Water is a liquid at room temperature." - that sentence can be evaluated on it's merits. No outside reference to the editors account name or edit history is required. Likewise, if I an editor writes on this page, "I think we must make explicitly clear that Obama is biracial, with a white parent and a black parent" and then goes on to cite reasons; again, that sentence and the supporting reasons, can be evaluated on their merits. I do not see the merit of as sound argument changing based on who makes the argument (or on what we know about that editor). 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you or are you not the person who formerly edited under the account name Rex071404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and others? Until we answer that question everything else is moot. Wikidemo (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe he can be compelled to answer. His edits have not even been slightly problematic. AGF in this case, or run a Checkuser and rely on the result. In all these cases, we need to resolve these accusations. Run Checkusers or apologize for your false accusations and drop it. If the Checkusers prove sockpuppetry, block them. If they don't, apologize for your false accusations and drop it.

These false accusations are poisoning the well, destroying civility and the cooperative atmosphere necessary for good editing. Resolve these accusations, one way or the other, and let's move on. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppeting..[18] It seems that it is possible per CU that WorkerBee74 has done his fair share of vote stacking. And people wonder why it's hard to get consensus on this page... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A report has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. Any further comments should be added there so we can keep this page focused on improving the article. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo wrote: "Until we answer that question everything else is moot.". This kind of approach comes as a surprise to me. It seems that WD is more interested in cross-examining IP editors - with the aim of persuing personal indentity suspicions, than he is in editing this article. Word to WD: You are not the arbiter of relevance to this community. Nor are you the gatekeeper of editor access. Frankly, I am beginning to think that WorkerBee has a point: Various article content arguments have been recently made on this page by new editors and yet, several of those points have gone unanswered by certain long time editors here. But at the same time - those non-responding editors are focusing their activity on attempting to exclude these other editors from having access. I am not at all impressed with this type of behaviour. To me, it's shameless protectionism of the status-quo: Rather than admit that various article changes being suggested here are meritious (or counter-arguing agaisnt them), status-quo editors are trying to exclude the editors who are the source of the differing suggestions. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that those inclined to express elitism or perceived superiority over IP address editors should just can it. What you're saying is that a 15-year-old high school sophomore with 1,000 edits has more value in this discussion than a 34-year-old with a master's degree in political science who has made 100 edits. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit looks suspiciously like our old friend to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

HuffPo "socks," indeed

The HuffPo's easy flinging of socks at folks who'd add Barack's full name to his article certainly says more about HuffPo's attitude than that of such contributors to Wikipedia. (Same goes for fellow contributors who'd adopt this mindset....)

I recently surfed from a user's talkpage barnstar to a few-months-old HuffPo bits of interviews with a couple of regular contributors here on the WP Obama and HRC bios. I thought, "Hey, Wikipedia talkpages' denizens allege biases of the Right (eg asserting the influence of partisan Hannity upon the MSM's Stephanopoulos), while an apparent unity of purpose among "Hannitys" of the Left such as the New Republic and HuffPo with Wikipedia talkpages' denizens goes unremarked upon?"

In any case, the piece's writer conflated stuff to the point of using a ridiculously offhand shorthand equating folks' adding the obviously[?] superfluous Jr. to Barack's name with WP's technical usage of........."socks."

"That's interesting," I thought, "seeing as I myself had wondered why Jr. was missing (...Um, all other "juniors" throughout WP get the name added without there being flung charges of perversity...) and had added it to Barack's full name in the lede!"

What happened then was a regular contributor (conjecture-ably influenced by the HuffPo's authority?) immediately reverted the addition, saying via edit summary and quick talkpage bromide that Barack doesn't use the name and the matter had been authoritatively settled in some discussion accessible only in the archives.

"Geez, whatever happened to footnotes?" I thought. I surfed the archive and the only thing there was one contributor's offhand suggestion, Hey, maybe WP ought to go with Barack's own practice here. Upon which I Google Obama and Jr. and among the bizillion hits----are ones to Encylopaedia Britannica's entry on Obama and another to a sidebar bio in the New York Times. — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

was: Slightly tweaked Noroton version

For the confused among us, five sections that were here have been reorganized and now appear above, at #Slightly tweaked Noroton version and subsequent sections. I'd revert this but more comments have been added so I think reverting would make it even more confusing. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

I've requested semi-protection of this page to stop the recent vandalism by IP socks. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected 8 hours. Tan | 39 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both. Arkon (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The current crop of IP vandalism is obviously from a single individual using different IP addresses. Can we use blocks/bans instead of protection? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If any administrators are reading this, could we please block any editor on sight without warning for adding the n-word to the article or discussion? There's absolutely no excuse and it's terribly demoralizing, more than a mere annoyance. The editor is not on a stable IP, so as long as they want to continue we should keep the article safe. I don't think African Americans reading or editing this material (or anyone else for that matter) should be subject to the same racist taunts that have kept them down for decades, particularly not in an article about the first black leader who has a chance at breaking through one of the final race barriers in America.Wikidemo (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Still just a senator? The side box

The side box summary of Obama has one web site--it's his senate site.

As the presumptive nominee I recommend we put his campaign site there instead.

Being a candidate (even if not yet officially) of one of America's two great political parties is far more significant than just being a U.S. senator. Also, readers are almost certainly interested in him because of his presidential campaign, not because he is a senator.

I know his campaign site is linked to elsewhere, but I think it should be the web site of note in the side box.

I encourage an Obama editor with clout to make this change. McCain should get equal treatment.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Obama is still an active and voting member of the U.S. Senate, a position that includes important roles on committees (including a chairing position). This has already been discussed previously (see the archive). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the lowliest of contributors* hereabouts but have added B's private, eponymous campaign website to his U.S. Senatorial website to the infobox as Utahredrock has suggested. *But then I'm not afraid of being reverted in this particular instance, either! — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Scjessey here. The campaign web site is largely for fund raising. At various times in the campaign the entire opening page of that site has been taken over by "important" requests for donations and getting past that to the rest of the site for real information is made deliberately confusing. For example, during some of the primaries clicking a very small box in the bottom corner of the opening page was the only way to get past donation requests to get to the rest of the site, something a novice Internet user might never figure out. At the moment that I write this the layout of his campaign site is better, but I'm assuming it will change back and forth like it has in the past, and his Senate one is definitely more informative and less about raising cash. Also, his "real" job is still Senator. Assuming that the prior discussion for this was for the inclusion of his Senate site, I'm thinking it should be reverted to that unless a consensus builds for putting the campaign site there. Quenn (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Senate website is the appropriate one for this article. This is a biography of the whole life of a notable person, not a piece about a presidential candidate, as has been expressed repeatedly. His primary job and identification is as US Senator, and that should be followed through in the infobox as it has been for a very long time. Wikipedia style is to have the highest and/or most recent position as the primary ID - hence John Edwards is also shown as a US Senator with the start and end dates. It doesn't matter which website looks better - it's a matter of consistency to use the Senate site in this article. His presidential campaign article has the campaign website, as is appropriate. I'll revert if it hasn't been already, and please leave it as such. unless there is some kind of encyclopedia-wide change in this matter of style. Tvoz/talk 03:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking further I see that "Presumptive nominee" has been added to both Obama and McCain 's infoboxes - I'm going to check further to see if there was any discussion of this, but my first reaction is both should be removed - they are Senators, and that is the way I think their infoboxes should read- nominee isn't a job, and even after Senators, governors, presidents etc leave office Wikipedia lists that job as their highest position. We wouldn't have "Previous nominee" in an infobox and I don't think we should have nominee. Whoever gets elected will have President added above Senator. Any thoughts on this? Obviously I think we should handle both infoboxes in the same way - infoboxes should be consistent across articles, even though articles can vary in content according to the individual subject and editors' choices. Tvoz/talk 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure they are senators, but they are both nominees (in waiting) of the two major parties for an office that many consider to be the highest elective office in the world.

It is highly absurd to assert that their biographies should reflect anything less than this.--Utahredrock (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Utahredrock. If Obama wasn't running for president, he would be just another freshman senator. He would only be more notable than Jon Tester by virtue of being African American and having published a couple of books. It is the presidential campaign that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester and the appropriate subject of a far longer biography than Jon Tester. The presidential campaign section should be a lot longer.

Wikipedia style is to have the highest and/or most recent position as the primary ID ... I couldn't agree more. The well-established Wikipedia style for biographies of famous politicians must be followed. Floridianed also used the same reasoning on another content issue. I'm so glad you agree, Tvoz, that established Wikipedia biography style must be followed.

This is why the inclusion of more criticism and controversy is necessary in this article. The style of all other biographies about prominent politicians in a race for the highest office in government - George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John McCain, Stephen Harper, Hillary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, John Howard and many, many more - is well-established. The critics of the politician are cited repeatedly and quoted in the biography. Controversies, even where the politician was completely exonerated, even where there are separate WP articles specifically covering those controversies, even where the politician was only peripherally involved, get a detailed examination in the politician's biography. It is not a BLP violation or an NPOV violation to report these controversies and cite these criticisms. These other WP biographies represent the consensus of thousands of well established editors.

Compare Barack Obama to the many other biographies I've linked here and you will immediately notice a severe shortage of criticism compared to the other biographies. It is not in the best interests of the Wikipedia project to show favoritism to Barack Obama. He must be treated exactly like the rest of these prominent politicians. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not fair, blah blah blah. Where do you see a criticism section for Clinton? Grsz^talk 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and none of the articles you link -- George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John McCain, Stephen Harper, Hillary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, John Howard -- have managed to reach Featured Article status, likely in part due to their "controversy" peddling. Shem^(talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's that Featured Article canard again: "This is a Featured Article, so we must avoid any mention of the word 'criticism.' " Shem, the word "likely" signals the moment where you departed from fact and entered your unproven opinion. This article attained FA status in 2004, years before Obama's relationships with Rezko, Wright or Ayers had become targets of criticism. If it was a new candidate for FA status today, I believe it would fail because it doesn't give enough space to the abundant controversies. NPOV requires, and BLP allows, controversy about the subject of a biography if it is notable and published in a reliable source, and criticism of Obama satisfies both requirements many times over, yet we don't see it in this article. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way Shem, George W. Bush was an FA candidate in February 2006 and failed. See discussion here. No mention of "too much controversy peddling" whatsoever. The main worry was article stability. Tony Blair achieved FA status in December 2004 and lost it in June 2007, with discussion here. Again, absolutely not one word about "too much controversy peddling." Concerns were article stability and a dozen "citation needed" tags. So you see, lots and lots of controversy is consistent with FA status. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet none (0) of your examples're Featured Articles, and none of your proposed additions've garnered anything even remotely resembling consensus. It's time to accept that you won't be getting your way with this article, WorkerBee, IP socks and vote-stacking be damned. Shem^(talk) 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

They failed, or were once FA but demoted, for other reasons unrelated to coverage of controversy. Once again, you run and hide behind your false accusations. Once again, the fact that you do so underscores the weakness of your arguments on the merits. You've unnecessarily created heat rather than light, and it is most unhelpful - not only to the project, but to you. The evidence shows that an extensive coverage of controversy is not inconsistent with FA status. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before, but it was taken out of context by Andvphil. One of the reasons that the Obama article lacks criticism is that, as a relative newcomer, he has not had the chance to accumulate much criticism. Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, etc., have been in the game much longer. Blair, Bush, Putin and Cheney have all been highly controversial, criminally-negligent politicians who have occupied some of the highest offices in the world. No doubt 8 years of being POTUS will give us much to criticize Obama about, and I fully expect this BLP will evolve accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that Bush, Blair and Cheney are "criminally negligent" suggests bias and may even be a BLP violation. And while a "newcomer" defense would have worked four months ago, it doesn't work any more. Obama has now accumulated abundant criticism, even at several certifiably progressive-biased sites like TPM. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't create a BLP violation on a talk page. And anyone living in the US or UK will be well aware of what these three morons have done to ruin our lives, our countries, and our standing in the world. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lost in the ruins ye shall find that... Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Not that there are any major faults here though. Carry on. Modocc (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[out] Thanks a lot for hijacking the thread. This thread had nothing whatsoever to do with criticism or controversy or BLP concerns - have your argument somewhere else. This is a simple matter of infoboxes, and I am discussing it on McCain as well - this infobox addition has apparently not been discussed by anyone and I'm told was added by one editor who's going around adding it around the encyclopedia. I think that we should remove it from here and from McCain's main bio, as I said, because "presumptive nominee" and "nominee" are not positions that belong in infoboxes. In biographies of politicians, the style of the encyclopedia has been that they are used to identify the most recent position the individual has held, even after they are no longer in office. I'd like some opinions from editors, but only if you can stick to the point. Tvoz/talk 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would keep it the way it is now. It doesn't hurt if both sites contain the same. I myself don't know how it was handled before, just got your word and of course believe you, yet it doesn't have to be this way this time, but I have no problem either way if consensus would be against my stance. --Floridianed (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wasted Time R's comments [19] on Talk: John McCain. Tvoz/talk 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and as I said before, I can go and support either way. No veto from my side to expect. --Floridianed (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair on the day it became a Featured Article

Here it is, packed with criticism and controversy. There's an entire section devoted to the impeachment that never happened, and never even gained significant support. The second paragraph of the article lead provides a loud amplification to "critics of the left [who] feel that ... he has compromised [the Labour Party's] founders' principles, and that government places insufficient emphasis on the redistribution of wealth." Trotskyism, anyone?

And in the heart of the article we find this: "Several anti-war pressure groups want to try Blair for war crimes in Iraq at the International Criminal Court ..." Another left-wing fantasy comeuppance that has never even looked like it stood a chance of materializing. But there it is, loud and proud, in a Wikipedia biography that was being granted FA status that day.

Claiming that FAs just aren't allowed to contain criticism or controversy is just plain false. Claiming that the case against Blair was stronger than the case against Obama requires original research. Furthermore, it's not our job at Wikipedia to judge the relative merits of anti-Blair versus anti-Obama. It is only our job to report that notable and substantial criticism from respected voices is out there, that there's a lot of it, and that it has a solid basis in the facts. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be told? We follow Wikipedia's policies. We might look to other articles for guidance in terms of structure, formatting, etc., but not for content decisions. Apart from articles like Main page, this is by far the most popular article on Wikipedia. It must be maintained to the highest possible standard, which is why we are so strict about following the rules and not letting bias creep in. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. We must follow the policies that say, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article - even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." And we must be strict about following the rules and not letting bias creep in. That includes pro-Obama bias.

There is an allegation that Obama's associations with not only Rezko, but also Wright and Ayers, raise questions about his judgment. It is notable. It is relevant. And it is well-documented by reliable published sources. It belongs in the article. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But even well-sourced information can be over-reported, and that violates WP:WEIGHT. When you add well-sourced, but disproportionately-weighted details you create bias. Bombastically repeating that "it is notable" and "relevant" will not answer these weight concerns, which is why it is necessary to discuss the details and build a consensus for what is fair and neutral. You need to respect all the applicable Wikipedia policies, not just the ones that help you to advance your cause. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's WP:WEIGHT: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Is it your position that "raised questions about Obama's judgment" or "criticized Obama" represents a tiny-minority or fringe view? Because that's the only excuse for excluding it from this biography based on weight.

Jimmy Wales has an answer for you, SCJ. From WP:WEIGHT:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ...

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

So it's "prevalence in reliable sources" that should be the determining factor, and Noroton has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is an extremely prevalent viewpoint. For one thing, Obama shares this viewpoint himself. (Cf. "boneheaded move.") For another thing, it's also shared by the New York Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Miami Herald, the Boston Globe ABC News, Mother Jones, The Nation, Talking Points Memo and the Wall Street Journal. It isn't just the National Review (although it's shared by that publication as well). In fact, it's hard to find a major news media source (or even a certifiably progressive-biased source like TPM) that uses the words "Obama" and "Rezko" without also using the word "judgment" at some point, in at least one article, and I've been using Nexis.

For any "fringe POV" defense based on WP:WEIGHT, Noroton has blown you out of the water as badly as the HMS Hood. This has "prevalent" written all over it, SCJ. Please review another policy called WP:WELLKNOWN, talk it over with your wife and get back to me in the morning. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have misinterpreted Wikipedia policy and misrepresented facts. The number of reliable sources is not directly proportional to the notability of a viewpoint. We have already come up with a version of the text which everyone seems to think is neutral and fair, taking into account public opinion as well as press opinion, but you remain fixated on shoving particular negative terminology into the text to support your POV. Your repetition of the same, tired arguments is no longer constructive and is now best ignored by the neutral editors who are moving on.

One more thing: Your last comment comes dangerously close to using my wife as a tool to make a personal attack. Do that again and I will have you dragged in front of the administrators faster than you can say "single-purpose account". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you have misrepresented Wikipedia policy and misrepresented the facts. You must be a disciple of Saul Alinsky. In "Rules for Radicals" he advised left-wing revolutionaries to accuse their opponents of exactly the same misbehavior that the left-wing revolutionaries themselves were committing.

The number of reliable sources is not directly proportional to the notability of a viewpoint. Numbers alone might be arguable, but in this case, we also have the notability of the sources themselves: New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, Agence France Press, indeed most of the prominent news sources in the Western world.

We have already come up with a version of the text which everyone seems to think is neutral and fair ... That is yet another of your endless stream of misrepresentations. Not everyone thinks it's neutral and fair. Noroton doesn't. I don't. When they come back, Andy and K4T won't. I'm sure there are others as well. Your rush to create a "done deal" here and present Andy and K4T with a fait accompli when they return is a transparent ploy.

One more thing: Your last comment ... Gimme a break SCJ. You're not that sensitive. If you feel that you have been personally attacked, file your complaint at WP:ANI but I'll bet that in the privacy of their homes and offices, a lot of admins will be pointing their fingers at their monitors and laughing at you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With that latest incivility, I think we should ask WorkerBee74 to take a break from this article, and if he(she?) won't we should ask an administrator to make it happen. He also accused me of "misreprentation" in the last few minutes, in a comment[20] I deleted. There's really no point further responding to the editor's disruptions. Wikidemo (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be removing other editors' comments like that. When you make a false statement that's material to the discussion, it shouldn't be ignored. But calling it a "lie," while accurate and entirely fair, would be awfully harsh. Maybe I should just say that you don't have your facts straight. Would that be considered a personal attack? WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the other part of the insult, but you have just accused but you are still accusing me again of lying. Are you going to leave that personal attack or remove it? I ask you to please remove it.Wikidemo (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (text edited in response to partial retraction of insult - Wikidemo (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Hello?

All of this debate about criticism is nice, but my initial point was that we should link to Obama's campaign site instead of (or in addition to?) his senate site in the side box.

Despite a user's asserting that "Presumptive Nominee" be removed from the box (luckily there didn't seem to be much agreement), Sen. Obama has achieve a rare and high place in American politics. Linking [just] to his senate web site in the side box seems limited given who he is.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That was already discussed, and the prevailing view was that linking to his campaign website would be wholly inappropriate. It is primarily a fundraising tool and has very little to do with his political career (or even his biography). Obama is a still-serving senator, so the infobox is pointing to the correct place. Assuming Obama becomes President, the box will be changed to the appropriate site after his inauguration. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, and furthermore I am suggesting that we return the infobox to the style of the encyclopedia as it has been for biographies - listing actual positions held. There wasn't much discussion because the thread was hijacked as I said above. For the hundredth time, this is a biography of a notable individual - his whole life and career - and should not be skewed to the current campaign. I say the same thing about McCain's article, and I have said it about Clinton, Edwards, and several other Republicans. This is not a partisan issue. See Wasted Time R's comments [21] on Talk: John McCain. Tvoz/talk 01:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New York Times article on Obama's "snubbing" of Muslims

I would like to add the following material in the cultural image segment of the article but it has been questioned by a couple of users. This is an important issue and must be provided for objective analysis. Any thoughts on how to make it "wikipedia-acceptable?"

Obama has strongly distanced himself from Muslim communities in many of his speeches. The New York Times reported on June 24, 2008 that Muslim voters felt "snubbed" by Obama and were concerned about his deliberate apathy towards them despite their willingness to help with his campaign.Saleemhali (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Andrea Elliot, "Muslim Leaders detect a Snub from Obama," The New York Times, June 24, 2008

I would say that this a campaign-specific matter, and belongs in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me of minimal biographical significance also. Possibly in the campaign article, but even there it's really just one reporter trying to find an interesting spin for what is (at least so far) a complete non-issue. Given all the other stuff that's gone on here, I confess I also have extra suspicion about such a new account proposing this addition (however, Saleemhali seems to have edited a number of non-Obama things; so I'll assume s/he is just a newish editor who will come to do much good for WP). LotLE×talk 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

LotLE. Please be careful with your "extra suspicion. I made that mistake yesterday with reversed his 2nd edit attempt w/o really looking into it. I apologized and felt pretty embarrassed about my actions. So don't fall into the same hole as I did and assume good faith. ;) --Floridianed (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's quite reasonable to guess that less experienced editors have less familiarity with WP guidelines, and a less refined sense of weight, tone, and balance. I think that's the case with Saleemhali's edit, which is completely in line with WP:AGF. S/he probably found the NYT opinion piece "interesting", but lacks a certain nuance about what really ascends to main-bio importance.... hence my prior comment about his/her promising future editing. (I don't remotely suspect this editor of being a vandal or sockpuppet, just new-ish). LotLE×talk 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This probably does deserve a brief mention at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning both benches (a note to all parties in the Rezko discussion)

Please stop. Take a deep breath, reread your recent posts, and consider whether they could have been worded in ways that would be less abrasive. I understand tensions are high at the moment, not least of which is because a disruptive editor has recently been blocked. Please assume good faith and debate your points on their merits. I do not wish to turn this matter over to ArbCom, in part because I do not wish to subject them to this whole mess, but more importantly because I believe a consensus is still achievable if all parties drop the personal attacks. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)