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)

I thought I did answer your question, but I'll restate my answer here: "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." The excerpts I posted above were intended as in support of that statement.

Earlier, I posted excerpts from various articles in which the word criticism was used in a similar context. You responded, "Are any of those Featured Articles? No, they're not, and this article should lead by example." While I felt this argument missed my broader point, I nonetheless accepted that your point was valid, and set out to recheck my own arguments against the higher evidence standard of featured articles. Of the nine articles I chose to check, eight of them used the word "criticism" (or a conjugation thereof) in a similar context (only Grover Cleveland did not). The conclusion I drew from this, therefore, is that "criticism" is, by Wikipedia standards, an acceptable word to use in this context. I'll concede the point that there may be a couple examples of poor writing among the 19 excerpts I've posted above (the Nancy Reagan example you posted above, I agree, is terrible), but the vast majority are well-written, well-sourced, and written in a competent style. I can only conclude, therefore, that either 89% of the featured articles I checked contain unacceptable language, or that the use of the word "critiicism" in this context is, indeed, acceptable from a Wikipedia policy and style perspective.

I am open to the idea that my understanding may be incorrect, but if I am, I would appreciate if you could point me to some evidence that it is. I believe I have held my arguments to an appropriately if not excessively high standard of evidence. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained in detail why I support using "scrutiny" will not support "criticism": Obama was not criticized by everyone who closely examined (scrutinized) the real estate transactions. Contrast my reasons for objection to "criticism" with Noroton's objection to "scrutiny" -- Noroton disliked it because he found the language (in his own words) "so vague and limp that it's a euphemism." What Noroton calls "vague and limp" I call "encompassing and neutral." Shem^(talk) 03:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I ask again: If Noroton's solitary objection to "scrutiny" (including a threat to push 3RR over it) was enough to veto adopting a version, will my objection to "criticism" be treated with the same respect? Shem^(talk) 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a veto - it was only my own suggestion and the point is to get a version that will stick. Noroton is the only remaining active participant and the most persuasive among those who were earlier pushing for a more complete treatment of the material here. As such his views ought to be taken into account. As for whether you have a veto or not, we're still talking aren't we? As to the question, Obama wasn't criticized by everyone who scrutinized him, nor was he scrutinized by everyone who criticized him. I don't think the fact of close investigation is any more notable, prevalent, or neutral than the obvious fact that some commented negatively (neither word is terribly offensive, nor is either word really necessary or of great explanatory value). I wouldn't say scrutiny is limp or vague, it's just beside the point. And criticism isn't all that relevant either - I mean, since when has the fact that somebody criticized a politician been much of a surprise? The long list of articles where "criticism" is used is pretty persuasive. It's not a loaded word. I'm in the camp that says reaching an agreement and having a stable article is a far more important goal than the last tweak on the last word here. If we were sitting around a table over a beer I would suggest flipping a coin. Wikidemo (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

His view is that he dislikes "scrutiny" because it's "vague and limp," while I object because I consider "criticized" an unacceptable generalization. Also, how does someone criticize a real estate transaction without first looking into it?

It's Noroton's "vague and limp" complaint versus my overgeneralization and accuracy objections; you tell me which objection ought carry more weight on merit alone. "Scrutiny" has worked just fine for this article, and I see no compelling reason ("vague and limp" just doesn't cut it) to change it. Shem^(talk) 04:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, what's your reaction to Clubjuggle's long list of examples? He seems to have spent time to answer your point about "criticism" and in response you haven't really addressed it. Noroton (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer Shem's possibly rhetorical question, "How does someone criticize a real estate transaction without first looking into it?" - they read or hear a report from someone who has looked into the transaction (or perhaps they even operate from an uninformed or partisan position), then make a public statement describing it as a bad thing. Certainly McCain and Clinton did not scrutinize the transaction for themselves - I doubt they went down to the county courthouse, read the trial transcripts, etc., like the journalists did or perhaps their own research staff. Most op-ed people don't do a whole lot of research, they may not know anymore than you and I can get by watching CNN. In fact, there is probably a divergence between the people who did the research (political operatives, "good government" types, lawyers, and journalists) and the people who voiced opinions on the results. Scrutiny implies original research; criticism does not imply anything about factual basis. I really don't think either word is essential or gets to the heart of the matter (as I've said elsewhere), but nor is either word loaded. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

re: I ask again: If Noroton's solitary objection to "scrutiny" (including a threat to push 3RR over it) was enough to veto adopting a version, will my objection to "criticism" be treated with the same respect? - I can't come up with a reason you might ask this which doesn't involve dropping the good-faith assumption, so I must be missing something. What is your reason for asking this?

To be clear (I thought I was earlier, but I'm not always as clear as I mean to be), Noroton didn't veto anything. Discussion wasn't over yet. This also is not the place to accuse others of making threats, much less to keep bringing it up two days after the fact. Please focus on content, not contributors.

Your argument that not all scrutiny is criticism, is best countered by the fact that not all criticism is scrutiny. A few scrutinized the transactions, but a much larger number have criticized them, and some still do. Most of those who criticize didn't scrutinize. I contend that criticism is more accurate and encompassing. I welcome any evidence that supports that it isn't.

It's also worth noting that the proposed language indicates that the transactions drew criticism, not that Obama drew criticism directly. If someone had an agenda to rebuke Obama, that's pretty weak language to do it with. Finally, it should surprise no one that politicians' actions get criticized (well, except for Grover Cleveland, apparently), so having a statement in the article that one of Obama's actions was criticized is not exactly going to make people run screaming (to McCain, whose article documents criticism as well anyway). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:56, 3 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)

My response to Bobblehead's point about why "criticism" or "scrutiny" is used is below at this timestamp. Noroton (talk) 21:35, 3 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)

I can support it (17:28, 2 July Scjessey version) as is. Noroton (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I'll think about it, but I don't like the 17:28 version. It's long and I don't agree with re-introducing "criticism", which is POV, as Bobblehead said, and several editors object to. And I think the Rita Rezko part is confusing - introducing a new name without identifying her until later on, and then somewhat awkwardly. Also, why add "subsequently"? We say "the next year" already, which makes the point.

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 their 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. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but when these transactions were revealed he acknowledged that they were a mistake because they created an appearance of impropriety and he donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Does that help? Tvoz/talk 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't help me. "Criticism" is what I care about. I like the way you removed Rita's name, though. (and you need a comma after "impropriety"). What is your response to Clubjuggle's long, long lists of "criticism" found in so many other articles? Criticism is a natural topic in an article about someone involved in what is inherently a controversial job. WP:NPOV specifically embraces our reporting on different points of view, showing that we can use a word like "criticism" and remain NPOV since we're reporting on it, not necessarily agreeing with it. The WP:WELLKNOWN section specifically embraces our mentioning critical information on better-known public figures. I haven't yet seen a good response to any of these points, but if you have, please point them out to me or just repeat them here. This is a partisan subject, and if we don't state explicitly our reasons, based on something other than partisan feelings, then our positions are going to be suspect to everyone on at least one side. So please explain. The issue is pretty certain to come up again in the election and probably here. Best to get out your reasons now. Noroton (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get embroiled in the long-winded discussions here, Noroton, sorry. Life is too short and I think this endless debate is a distraction from what I'm here for - too many people like to hear the sound of their own voices, so to speak, and I think this protracted, repetitive, unending "conversation" about this minor point is absurd, and if we did it about every point we'd have no article. We managed just fine for months and months, working together, writing and editing in good faith - not in partisan support or attack - trying wording one way or another about any number of subjects without the partisanship we've seen here recently. We spent a lot of time fighting off sockpuppets, vandals, and POV-pushers hell-bent on adding libelous, incorrect and irrelevant material to this article and ended up maintaining Featured Article status - it wasn't perfect, but was well-written, comprehensive and fair. Pretty much the same thing happened at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and others I've worked on, although not all ended up as well. So I'm not going to play someone else's game here - I'll say this once. First, I think we are giving entirely too much attention to this in the main article, and I think the partisanship evident is from people who are operating in a far-from-neutral, anti-Obama way, pushing for more and more detail. Next, I don't object to including critical material, for heaven's sake - I do it all the time and have done so in this article. (I do, however, vigorously object to "criticism" or "controversy" sections because they always deteriorate into POV dumping grounds and are weak writing.) What I object to here is making an implication in this section that the reason Obama did x y or z is that he was criticized. That is a POV statement. We do not know that he made his decision to acknowledge an appearance of impropriety because of criticism, and it is not for us to conjure up motives. I won't sign off on that. It is, however, fair and neutral to say that the transaction was scrutinized by the media - looked at, examined, written about - and that in the wake of that scrutiny he acknowledged that it gave the appearance of impropriety and was therefore a stupid thing to have done. So I would be ok with "scrutiny", as I said more than once. But some people got hot under the collar about "scrutiny" (why?). So Bobblehead came up with a way to sidestep the problem in hopes of reaching consensus so we can move on from this tiny point that still has had little to no tangible impact even on the political campaign, and certainly is a very small matter in the story of his life and career which is what we are writing here, not a campaign piece pro or con. We've tweaked it, massaged it, made minute changes that barely change the meaning, and yet we can't seem to get agreement. So I am willing to compromise from my primary position that this matter is not significant enough to warrant so much coverage in the main biography, and am willing to support the tweaked version of Bobblehead's proposal which avoids using the words "criticism" and "scrutiny" but says the same thing. As for whether it is "pretty certain to come up again in the election", I'm not in the business of prediction, and I'll worry about that when and if the time comes. But unless it has a major impact on him or his campaign, it still won't belong in this main article to the extent that you are pushing it to be. I'm not taking this position based on what you called "partisan feelings", by the way - I have a different view, apparently, about what an encyclopedia article should be - it's not a place to sanitize, but nor is it necessary to provide an overly critical analysis which is more than likely OR anyway. A neutral presentation of a subject is all we should be doing. That's it - I'm not interested in debating this, and I'm not going to be chased away as I've seen done to other good editors of this article. But I think it is time to end this, edit the section if necessary and move the hell on already. Tvoz/talk 05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1. (Addressing Tvoz): Opinions or POV innt bad, just things not to be in denial about in order to be accounted for and dealt with fairly. Surely, however, pride in having run off POV pushers in the past and even a complaint about current contributors' holding to varied points of view are (this pride and complaint) markers of holding to a point of view, themselves.
2. Don't follow Rezco but I wanna chime in with a general bromide that WP should tend to err on the side of presenting all points of view by, if possible, mentioning major criticisms briefly, if only to be balanced by others' opinions that they're unfounded. And as for the difference between saying that something has been evaluated on the one hand and giving the Who, What, Where, of a specific, negative evaluation on the other: sometimes vagueness is a plus, eg when over-specificity in summary about a complex situation theoretically simply can't be done without being misleading; sometimes it's a minus, eg when its function is to imply the consensus of WP contributors believes an existing criticism is invalid and unworthy of coverage, when this simply innt so. But I don't wanna opine a plus or a minus here, not following Rezco. — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Out) I couldn't have worded it better, Tvoz. Hopefully, Clubjuggle (and others) will take this opportunity to quit portraying me as only one with objections/concerns here and move back towards the consensus we were so close to reaching earlier. If we can't find unanimity, we need to find what'll accommodate as many editors as is reasonably possible. We had a version earlier which was supported by every editor save one -- Noroton -- because he found one word's usage "vague and limp." That statement's not an argument, and shouldn't be given the weight others've bestowed upon it. Shem^(talk) 14:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You keep pretending that "only one editor" was objecting, Shem, but you know it wasn't just Noroton. I object. Andyvphil objects. Kossack4Truth objects. Justmeherenow objects. And a bunch of IP address editors object. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Tvoz's 05:49 post, with just the points about the subject at hand, despite his objection to discussion:

• What I object to here is making an implication in this section that the reason Obama did x y or z is that he was criticized. That is a POV statement. We do not know that he made his decision to acknowledge an appearance of impropriety because of criticism, and it is not for us to conjure up motives. You have no reason to say that by using the word "criticism" somewhere in this passage, Wikipedia is saying Obama only responded to the many questions about this because he was criticized. Simply including the word in the passage doesn't necessarily imply that, and I've been flexible about how the word can appear. We can write it all sorts of ways to get my point across. (I do think he was responding to criticism, but it's not a point I'm interested in making in the article because it's not that important.)
• It is, however, fair and neutral to say that the transaction was scrutinized by the media - looked at, examined, written about - and that in the wake of that scrutiny he acknowledged that it gave the appearance of impropriety and was therefore a stupid thing to have done. So I would be ok with "scrutiny", as I said more than once. But some people got hot under the collar about "scrutiny" (why?). You object to me writing at length, and yet since you don't read my points, you seem to want me to repeat them. I've repeatedly said why: every candidate gets scrutiny; criticism is something different and the criticism here is an important part of this story since it came from so many prominent and varied sources, including Obama supporters and Obama's own words acknowledged the justice of that criticism. I'm also not trying to make the point in the article that his own words were in response to media scrutiny because I don't think it's important (although I think it's obvious that they were).
• this tiny point that still has had little to no tangible impact even on the political campaign, and certainly is a very small matter in the story of his life and career Then why did he finally sit down with the Chicago Tribune and also with the Chicago Sun-Times on March 15 and grant a total of 3 hours (about 90 minutes apiece) for them to interview him on this? Why did the editorial page of the Chicago Tribune, one of his supporters, devote an extremely long editorial to this? Why did it come up in the coverage of all, or at least a big majority, of the most influential news organizations of the United States (not just reprints of wire reports, either), and in the coverage of many foreign news organizations? A candidate who made ethics and judgment big themes in his campaign committed what he admits is a lapse in judgment over ethics. He did so with a man who was a significant supporter of his and who was convicted of felonies for corruption in his role as a fundraiser for other politicians. And the matter concerned Obama's own home. This is why even Obama's sympathizers in the media and a good government group that worked with him criticized him. The criticism is a one-word critical element of this. The good government groups did not scrutinize -- they criticized, as did the commentators, political rivals, etc. There's a tiny minority in the sourcing that says it isn't important, and I don't mind having a link to one of those sources in the footnotes, but I can't find anyone who says he didn't do anything wrong. So that I don't have to repeat myself further, you might want to look at my two previous posts, both to Shem, below.Noroton (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, I also oppose that version. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to the Tvoz version above because of "when these transactions were revealed he acknowledged that they were a mistake". This statement suggests that Obama acknowledged the transactions were a mistake because the transactions were revealed, which is misleading and unfair, and might even border on WP:BLP. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Late response to Bobblehead's point about why "criticize" is necessary: Bobblehead writes at the top of this section: 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. That is the main reason why they were criticized, as the critics explicitly, repeatedly state. You can see it in the long list of links still at the top of this page. Please see my post to Tvoz at 21:16 July 3, where much of what I address to him is on this point and where I say why the fact that this received criticism is important. Noroton (talk) 21:35, 3 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, it seems doubtful any specific language will actually stop the month+ discussion.

LotLE×talk 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree re. bewildering. To your points:

• Yep.
• I think I've covered this above.
• The "boneheaded" quote is seemed unencyclopedic and a little gratuitous. The latest version reads much better.
• I don't feel strongly about "Illinois"; I simply brought it up as a point of fact which had been mentioned (and I thought settled) previously.
• I truly feel we're close to consensus with the version above. The question marks, of course, are User:Shem on the left and User:Noroton on the right. I believe that this point, they're the only holdouts, though if anyone else cannot support the latest proposal, please correct me.

To summarize how much progress we've made in the past few days I do know that since I've joined the discussion...

Noroton's side has:

• Given up the word 'simultaneously'
• Dropped "key" in favor of "significant" and otherwise softened their Rezko relationship description.
• Dropped the "judgment" language entirely
• Dropped the "a mistake" quote

...and Shem's side has:

• Added "friend", "significant" and "including Obama" to their Rezko relationship description.
• Accepted lengthening of the text to provide additional detail indicating Rezko was under investigation at the time of the transactions.
• Added Obama's acknowledgment that although no wrongdoing was alleged, the transactions created an appearance of impropriety.

All of which is to say we've come a long way, and my apologies to either side if I've left anything out. To reach consensus from here, we simply need the following:

• Noroton to agree to drop the "boneheaded" quote.  Done
• Shem to agree to "criticism".

I'm not the only one who's not agreeing to it. There're Tvoz's objections, and other editors admit that they'd rather not use the word but're giving in simply to "get things over with." There's no consensus behind swapping the long-standing "scrutiny" for "criticism." Shem^(talk) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We've come a long way, and I don't think that's a lot to ask of either side to put this behind us. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, Noroton could simply agree to "scrutiny" to reach the same effect. I object to "criticism" because it's an overgeneralization, while Noroton objects to "scrutiny" because he thinks the language is "vague and limp." I refuse to concede my substantive accuracy concern simply because Noroton finds something "vague and limp." Shem^(talk) 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism" is no more or less general than "scrutiny". In fact, I'd call it less general: scrutiny is automatic, it's what journalists and others do no matter how well you're doing, and it takes place simply because you're a candidate. "Criticism" takes place when people disagree with what you're doing and say you're in the wrong for doing it. Criticism is a watered down version of what I want, which is to report that the criticism came from widespread sources and hit at the central themes of Obama's campaign: judgment and ethics. This article should not be squeamish about describing Obama, including the fact that he's been criticized. Why don't you respond to Clubjuggle's massive evidence that "criticism" is normal to be mentioned in articles about political leaders? Noroton (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did. Many of the examples were terrible writing, and in no way beneficial to their articles. Your simple statement of disliking a word's alleged "limpness" isn't an argument, nor should that statement be given veto power over the section's language. Shem^(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

...These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are.
Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. (Even this might be made better by naming the section after the entity doing the criticism, however.)
Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism (in the meanwhile the "separate" section might be tagged "[POV-section]" "[criticism-section]," or similar).
It is important to note the difference between criticism and aspects of a topic that are or are likely to be criticized. For example, statements such as "Bob does such and such." do not belong in a criticism section. Instead, it should read "Bob has been criticized for doing such and such.", provided that Bob actually has been criticized for doing "such and such."...----WIKIPEDIA:CRITICISM — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice essay. Note that it's not a policy or a guideline. Shem^(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, I apologize for addressing my comments here to you directly. I try to avoid that as it then becomes too easy to write something that may be misinterpreted as a personal attack. Therefore I will open by saying that although these questions are directed to you, they are in no way intended as an attack, but rather to better understand your position. Given that your user talk page comments indicate a hard-line stance on this, I can only presume that it is pointless for me to present further evidence. You have shot down every piece of evidence presented in support of the assertion that Wikipedia considers "criticism" is a perfectly acceptable word to use in this circumstance, but have declined to provide similar evidence to the contrary. When I provided examples from articles on contemporary politicians, you stated they were poor examples because they did not come from featured articles. When I provided examples from almost every featured article I checked, you stated that "several of" the excerpts I provided were poorly written (meaning, therefore, that the rest were not, but you never addressed those). When presented with an essay indicating support of at least some Wikipedians for the use of "criticism", you dismissed it out of hand. In no case, however, have you countered with any evidence stronger than to indicate that "criticism" is unacceptable, or at least nothing that amounts to anything more than a restatement of WP:IDONTLIKEIT "I don't like it". Can you show me something that supports your assertion that "criticism" is inappropriate? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write an essay; they're no more authoritative than Talk page comments. I've addressed this, as has Tvoz, while other editors're claiming they'll support the word criticism "just to get things over with" despite their better judgment. If you're going to flippantly dismiss all these objections as "Idon'tlikeit" while deferring to Noroton's "vague and limp" complaint, I seriously question whether you current approach is suffering from a double-standard.

Noroton vetoed the closest thing we've had to a consensus based entirely on not liking* the word "scutinty" (because he finds it "vague and limp"). Methinks you're projecting someone else's behavior onto the person you currently disagree with, Clubjuggle.

*Though the essay WP:IDONTLIKEIT is about AfD deletions, and isn't remotely germane to the situation at hand. Can we please stop invoking non-policy, non-guideline editorial pieces as if they were actual Wikipedia policy? Shem^(talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write an essay ... In this particular case, the essay has been edited by some of the most prominent admins at Wikipedia, indicating that the current version has their support, so it isn't just "anyone," Shem. The editors of that essay number in the dozens. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To repeat for the hard of hearing: Can you show me something that supports your assertion that "criticism" is inappropriate? --Clubjuggle T/C 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC) -- Noroton (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's not from an essay, it's from a behavioral guideline about disruption. The nut graph for that page states: This page in a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked. The difference between my method and yours, Shem, is that I'm insisting that editors actually hold a discussion in which they state even minimally reasonable arguments in favor of their position against using the word "criticism". That's the only way to have a reasonable discussion, and a reasonable discussion is not disruption. I'm required to be reasonable myself under these circumstances, and I've listened and responded and tried to be flexible in a reasonable way. You, on the other hand, have ignored reasonable points made by others and have not provided adequate reasoning for your stance. Simply having more editors on your side isn't enough to form consensus until discussion is over. And it's never enough if those editors don't give reasonable explanations based on evidence, logic and WP policies and guidelines. So if you're impatient to move on, let's make progress the way Wikipedia tells us to and address the matter at hand in a reasonable discussion: Can you show me something that supports your assertion that "criticism" is inappropriate? Anybody who can't answer that question just doesn't count in forming consensus, and can be ignored. Now, there have been some interesting points made on your side that I need to respond to, and I recognize that discussion can't go on forever and that at some point enough reasonable points may be made by your side that I need to concede. But that's how this discussion will end, when a consensus of editors are agreeing to a reasonable argument -- not by jamming through a vote that doesn't have a reasonable argument behind it. It would take less time if more editors got with the WP:TALK program. And I'm going to hold future decisions to the standards Wikipedia gives us in that policy and that guideline. Noroton (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For you to essentially accuse someone of filibustering or offering poor, non-substantive arguments is a joke. You're the editor who single-handedly derailed an earlier consensus version on grounds that you considered one word too "limp." Again, there's a very clear double-standard operating here now: I'm required to go around in circles with you against replacing "scrutiny" with "criticism" (never mind Tvoz's disapproval of the word, or Scjessey's admission that using it would go against his better judgment), yet your opposition to "scrutiny" simply because you don't like it and consider it "limp" has been accepted as some unimpeachable, principled, well-argued stance (when it's no such thing). Shem^(talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for linking [{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. It's been a long time since I read it, and forgot that it only applied to AfD discussions. I've struck the text. I was writing with

Nobody "vetoed" anything. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. Discussion wasn't over yet and a non-consensus change was reverted.

I am not blindly "deferring to" Noroton or anyone else's opinion, and in light of the extensive effort I've undertaken to present evidence, I frankly take offense to the implication that I am. I've researched both sides of the argument and I believe the case for criticism stands on its merits - not the "vague and limp" quote you keep coming back to, but the argument that the word criticism is both acceptable and more accurate. I respect that you disagree and I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong, but I'm asking you to present evidence supporting the "scrutiny" rather than simply questioning the validity of the evidence presented for the "criticism" position. I apologize if I'm being WP:DENSE (it happens), so if there's a supporting policy, guideline, common practice or even essay argument for the inappropriateness of "criticism" or the preference of "scrutiny" that I've missed or which has not yet been posted, I'm obviously missing it. Please point me there, and feel free to use small words and speak slowly. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How is the observation inaccurate, Clubjuggle? There was a version with no objections whatsoever save Noroton's desire to replace the "limp" scrutiny with "criticism," and that version's implementation was denied solely due to that one objection. I don't know your background, but that's called a "veto" where I'm from. Shem^(talk) 21:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"One objection"? Aren't you forgetting something, Shem? I object. Kossack4Truth objects. Andyvphil objects. Justmeherenow objects. And there would be a lot of IP address editors objecting too, if someone hadn't used the "n-word" repeatedly (from an IP address) to convince the admins to exclude IP addresses with semi-protection. Isn't this supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit - including IP addresses? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the sampling bias inherent in having a discussion about neutral presentment of Obama related content in an article about Obama, I believe it is easy to confuse ensuring that all individials should be heard with the idea that all viewpoints should be heard. I for one was concerned that had not yet happened, and my own support for the reverts stemmed in part Remember, we use consensus, not voting. If one person is holding out, it could be that they are being stubborn, or it could be that they have a valid point. At that point, I already had doubts as to some of the assertions being made in support of the "scrutiny" language, or to be more precise, in opposition to the "criticism" language, especially the assertion that the word criticism was inherently POV and non-encyclopedic. Much of the blame belongs not to Noroton, but to me for taking what may have been too much time to research that issue. While I regret that delay, like outside Wikipedia does sometimes get in the way.

Now, with that answered, would you mind addressing my remaining question? thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, Can you show me something that supports your assertion that "criticism" is inappropriate? That's the last time I'll repeat it. I'll consider your refusal to acknowledge that you heard the question an admission that you aren't here to discuss the issue at hand. -- Noroton (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What a shame. For about a month, I've been asking somebody to explain why using the word "criticism" in this issue violates Wikipedia policy. Surely Shem can do it. Do it, Shem. Teach us about Wikipedia policy. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74: while hubris is often the WikiWay^®----well, at least for contributors in an article's majority----it's not something you should be trying on yourself in your present circumstances. Rather than trumpeting dissenting views you should be casting your eyes down to your six fuzzy black shoes, the toes of which you should be digging into the dirt while hemming and hawing necessarily vague apologies in order to, frankly, be going about the beeswax of going along to get along. Otherwise you'll end up in a kangaroo a.n./i.; and while I'm NOT saying that folks around here accustomed to being in the majority, such as my fellow lefties, have learned all the finer points of suffering the presence of dissenting views, I AM saying that such stuff can only be academic to you if you won't be allowed any more to edit here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 07:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another tweak

I cannot support any version which combines Rezko's fundraising for Obama with Rezko's investigation and conviction in the same sentence. Trying to excise Rita Rezko from the text necessarily means combining these details, so I think this format should remain. Incidentally, this "shorter sentence" approach will make it easier to add citations, although that is a minor detail:

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 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.

This version removes the redundant "subsequently" (dunno why I added it in the first place). I considered dropping "criticism" in favor of "critique" after reading the following from Dictionary.com:

Critique has been used as a verb meaning "to review or discuss critically" since the 18th century, but lately this usage has gained much wider currency, in part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense. But this use of critique is still regarded by many as pretentious jargon, although resistance appears to be weakening. -- see "Usage note" about halfway down this definition page.

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeating some comments from above that went largely ignored - this version explicitly links the criticism to the timing of the Rezko investigation which is an inference,. We can avoid this inference by a rewording that I think is more neutral as well as follows. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 3 July 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. An adjacent lot was purchased by Rita Rezko, who 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 was criticized for these transactions and acknowledged the transactions they created an appearance of impropriety. and Obama donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(I'm a bit confused, but I think I'm posting here between Rick Block's post and Scjessey's. Rick, if you put your signature/timestamp at the end of your post, I think it would be easier.) You indicate that it's an incorrect "inference" to explicitly link the criticism to the timing of the Rezko investigation, which is an inference. It isn't an inference at all. It's very, very explicit in the criticism that Obama was criticized for doing the property transactions when Rezko was being investigated. Just look through any of the items in my long list of links to criticism almost at the top of this page. No need to draw an inference when it's stated by the sources themselves, over and over. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a relatively minor point. The inference I'm talking about is that the criticism occurred because of the timing of the transactions relative to the investigation of Rezko. I think we can reasonably assume this to be the case for criticisms that occurred relatively close to these events, but the further away in time we get the more I think there might be other causality factors as well - for example I'd guess the criticism from Clinton was more because of campaign tactics than anything else (the timing of the transactions is what was criticized even in this case, but was almost certainly not the reason for the criticism). We could perhaps say "The property transactions were criticized for occurring when Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted". But this seems rather labored. Presenting the timing as an independent, verifiable fact seems (to me) like a better approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Now we are criticizing Obama, rather than the transactions. If we are going to go in this direction with the timing, let me suggest this alternative:

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 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 occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Receiving critique for these transactions, Obama acknowledged they created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

This version may answer Shem's concerns as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems awkward. "Critique" is rarely if ever used in that context. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps "scrutiny" is better after all. I'm just tying to find a solution that will satisfy Shem now. How about "critical comment"? That means the same thing as "criticism", but without the negative connotation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't drop "Although not accused of any wrongdoing". I agree the change I'm suggesting shifts the criticism from the transactions to Obama, but I think this is actually more accurate. From what I can tell, the criticisms are not that these transactions were illegal or unethical, but that Obama should not have had any dealings with Rezko. I think the phrasing "Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama was criticized ..." captures this. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps "scrutiny" is better after all. Indeed, and it was only prevented by the "vague and limp" complaint of one editor. If this article is to reflect the true consensus of its editors, you should go with the wording your better judgment favors. Shem^(talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My argument's here. Where's yours, Shem? Noroton (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, where's your argument? WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to state there was criticism explicitly

It occurs to me that any criticism received by Obama was necessarily based on what actually happened. Therefore, there is no need to explicitly state the opinions given by commentators when the reader can make up their own mind based on the same facts available to the commentators:

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 Tony Rezko, who sold part of it to the Obamas the following year. 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 occurred while 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.

Obama would not be "acknowledging" anything unless he had first received criticism. This version, similar to Rick Block's version, eliminates the argument about scrutiny/criticism by inferring it implicitly. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That'll definitely work. The reader can decide who's simply scrutinizing versus who goes on to criticize on their own. Shem^(talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the fact that it was criticized by so many, even Obama supporters, makes the criticism a big element of this. Therefore there is a need to explicitly state that criticism took place. It was unusual. For more, see my reply to Tvoz above. -- Noroton (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Scrutiny comes before criticism.

2) Squares and rectangles: Not all who scrutinized Obama on the matter followed up with criticism; indeed, the Chicago Tribune's editorial board concluded Obama's "any questions asked" response to their scrutiny was totally plausible:

"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."

The Chicago Tribune has pretty much been the authoritative primary source for Rezko-related reporting, and should be weighted accordingly. To generalize the reaction as "criticism" is inappropriate. Shem^(talk) 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is with the "Husband Tony Rezko..." wording? That is just a horrible construct and seriously needs to be rewritten. Why can't we just say "...wife of Tony Rezko..." and then begin the next sentence "Tony Rezko..." Rita's name is not important. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Jessey would object to the tweak; I've made it. Shem^(talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"1) Scrutiny comes before criticism" - Not always.

"2) Rectangles and Rhombi might be more appropriate. Sometimes you get a square - the intersection of both -- but you can have either without the other. Not all who scrutinized the transactions criticized Obama, but not all who criticized Obama scrutinized the transactions either. I'd venture that a far greater number criticized than scrutinized. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were talking about Barack Obama's life, and the chronology of the events surrounding his property transactions with Tony Rezko. This isn't an article about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is a pretty textbook example of a red herring. You completely ignored the source attached to my second point, and responded with a ventured guess. The question here is this: Why must "scrutiny" be changed to "criticism"? I don't find Noroton's complaints of "limpness" even remotely persuasive in answering that question, nor your current line of argument.

I'm heading out for the rest of the evening, and won't be available again until tomorrow afternoon. Cheers. Shem^(talk) 23:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You too. I know it's not a social network but we've been working at this long enough, a happy 4th of July wish is in order. I may be gone too but you have my standing approval for any way you guys want to word it within the range of discussion of late.... Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The "husband construct" was an attempt to get around the fact we had to say "Tony Rezko" twice, in quick succession. That is also the reason for the earlier "Mr. Rezko" idea proposed by ClubJuggle.
2. Noroton justifies the use of "criticism" by attempting to quantify how much criticism there actually was. Yet no source can be provided that justifies this "big element" summation, which makes it speculative guesswork at best. This would seem to be in direct contradiction with the rules and spirit of WP:BLP. Specifically, the "amount of criticism" cannot be verified, no reliable source can be provided, and adding this kind of speculation would violate the rules of neutrality by potentially overstating significance. On that basis, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions would do far less harm. With these two points in mind, let me suggest 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. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while 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.

-- Scjessey (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to supply some sources to alleviate the fears of some editors in regards to the criticism being included. What sort of source would justify (in your eyes) the inclusion that he was criticized by the media (or opponents, or whatever)? Any ideas? Arkon (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Obama received some criticism - we already have the sources. What is unclear is exactly how much criticism there was, and whether or not it could be defined as significant enough to warrant explicitly including it in the text. I would need to see a reliable source that used a term such as "widespread criticism" before I could justify supporting its inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, I'll see what I can do. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved striked comment here (from up above somewhere). How about instead of saying person B was criticized by person or group A, it's said that A believes such-'n'-so about B? Several opposition MPs criticized the Prime Minister. Several opposition MPs believed/held/deemed these actions of the Prime Minister "inappropriate." ["Unhelpful," "evil," whatever the case may be.] — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Include major points of view (clearly labeled). I like Scjessey's idea. Let the readers think for themselves! Then, after we'd state what happened, instead of having WP declare that there was criticsm, we'd put some carefully chosen evaluations directly into their sources' mouths: some knowledgeable commentator's questioning Obama's judgement followed by another source----say, the Tribune's----opining that Obama was largely blameless. And again let readers decide for themselves. It would be the WikiWay^®: one that could approach a broad consensus? — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We're already arguably violating WP:WEIGHT here. Adding what multiple commentators have to say about this would be truly excessive. We're already figuratively making a mountain out of a mole hill. This would turn it into an entire mountain range. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if a majority of readers end up agreeing with you it's a mole hill, all readers might well appreciate full enough coverage allowing them to come to their own conclusions----which I still think is the WikiWay. As for weight, sometimes a relatively minor event is nonetheless complex enough that, along with the reactions to it being covered, they would have to gone into deep enough to give them justice; and if done in the right way, the result would be balanced. — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree we're pushing the limits of WP:WEIGHT. Accuracy trumps weight, but let's not make this longer than it needs to be. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Implicit and Explicit: A tale of two versions

For ease of comparison, I offer these two versions. Please confine comments to the subheading below. These differ only in whether or not "criticism" is implied, and that difference is highlighted in bold text:

1. 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 wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while 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.
2. ''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 wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged criticism that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

-- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Implicit and Explicit comments

I prefer #1, but I believe that #2 softens the "criticism" to the point where it is acceptable. It does so by implying that it was the criticism that prompted Obama's comments and donation to charity, which I believe is supported by the sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Between these two I'd "vote" # 1, since to my ears they're identical except for number 1's being two-words tighter and hence better. — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I could go with either one, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns with the second. Obama's acknowledgement was not that criticism existed ("Obama acknowledged criticism that..."). He acknowledged the appearance created by the transactions. I'm still thinking about the first. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, let me try. If it's brevity you want, this one is shorter than either one of those:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.65 million home in Kenwood. The wife of developer Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to Obama in January 2006. The transactions drew criticism from political rivals and others because they occurred while Rezko, Obama's friend and a key fundraiser, was under investigation for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged it was "a boneheaded move" to create an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

There you go. I'll trade you a "simultaneously" for a "criticism" and a "boneheaded move." What do you say? Is it a deal? WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry WB74, but we have moved on considerably in your absence. There are numerous problems in your version that have already been discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry SCJ, but several days ago I cautioned you against pretending that you could ignore the opinions of editors who are temporarily absent because they inevitably return. I don't see any problem with that version as a compromise. What's the problem? Don't complain about weight because it isn't a fringe POV. Don't complain about BLP because it's notable and the number of reliable sources Noroton and I produced is overwhelming. What's the problem? WorkerBee74 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WB74's proposal is a non-starter given the state of discussions. I have filed a new AN/I report here on this editor's post-block behavior, which I believe is disruptive and likely to derail attempts to reach consensus here. Accusing editors of "pretending", invoking support of blocked editors (including some socks likely operated by this editor), etc., is going to be a problem unless it is curbed. Wikidemo (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no one else supports it. Sorry you've missed the last 3 days' discussion, but you don't get a do-over. If you break the rules, you don't get to play. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no one else supports it. I support it. If WB74 wasn't constantly being shouted down by a handful of editors here, there would probably be others supporting it as well. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

July 4 Clubjuggle proposal

How about 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. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

In this version fact that "the relationship" was criticized is balanced directly against the fact that he was not accused of wrongdoing on the one side, and Obama's acknowledgment of the appearance on the other. Anyone has my permission to cut and paste this version into the section above if appropriate. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it! This version has my full support. I like it even more than the version without criticism because I believe it is a fair representation of what has transpired. Excellent work! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

W00t! It's amazing what a good night's sleep can do. If we can bring Shem and Noroton on board, we may have it. I'll make the pitch to Noroton on his talk page. Would you mind doing the same for Shem? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little problem: the words "although" and "nonetheless" create a strong impression that in the judgment of Wikipedia, the criticism isn't justified. By saying it was a "boneheaded move," Obama himself admitted that criticism was completely justified. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, K4T. ClubJuggle tried to explain this before. Obama did not admit the criticism was justified, but he admitted the transactions had the appearance of impropriety. Saying otherwise would be conjecture. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to skip 'nonetheless', it probably even reads better without it. 'Although'... well, I suppose 'While' would be OK also. Generally the wording is very nice. It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. LotLE×talk 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeat removal of comments

These comments are extremely unhelpful. They would reasonably be described as "baiting" or "taunting." They poison the well, as several well-established editors have observed. They are violations of WP:CIV and WP:AGF. User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, stop making these remarks immediately, or I will report this misconduct to admins and ask them to block you for it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your interpreteation of Obama's meaning, Wikipedia shouldn't appear to be making judgments about whether such criticism is justified. It's as bad as the word "incredibly" describing criticism in the Nancy Reagan bio cited above. Wikipedia cannot appear to be taking sides. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Obama only admitted that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety. While the construct is intended to specify that the transaction drew criticism despite no accusation of wrongdoing in the transactions, there's a bigger picture. The construct is also intended to more directly show that the criticism was justified by the relationship as well as appearance the transactions created. I'll be out for the day, checking in periodically if at all. I know this is not a social board but have a happy 4th, all. Whatever your views, go out and celebrate our right to debate them openly. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle, I notice that you've overcome your aversion and agreed with me on the propriety of using the word "criticism" in this article, and you did it in exactly the way I recommended: you reviewed Wikipedia biographies about similarly situated persons, and you observed an established practice that represents the consensus of thousands of veteran editors and admins. Well done. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree to this. K4T, I don't think it deprecates the criticism. I'd like to suggest to the other editors who haven't commented on this yet that if you have an objection, think about whether it is a small, medium or large one and ignore any but the biggest. Noroton (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a very large objection. K4T is correct. Wording it this way makes Wikipedia appear to take sides. It's almost the only thing allowed on the page that is clearly critical of Obama. We have sourcing that is as good as it gets, and the people who are criticizing Obama are just about as notable as people get. But the wording appears to be an attempt (deliberate or not) to delegitimize this criticism. It is as though Wikipedia itself has adopted the beliefs of Scjessey: that any criticism of St. Barack, no matter how well-founded in the facts and impeccably sourced, no matter how notable and neutral the sources, is a "campaign smear tactic" [18][19] and not worthy of inclusion in this biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording chosen by ClubJuggle does not attempt to quantify the amount of criticism, which earlier versions did. Furthermore, it ensures that we correctly describe that the criticism was not aimed at Obama's specific actions, but rather his relationship with Rezko (which some would consider of deeper concern). This harsh characterization is balanced by putting it in the "no wrongdoing" sentence, which also has the effect of making sure the timeline of events is more accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the concern that K4T has raised, and that I've repeated. It is this: the wording makes Wikipedia appear to take sides by delegitimizing criticism. What is your response to this concern? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My answer is that I don't think it delegitimizes anything. It correctly presents the facts in a neutral manner, which should always be Wikipedia's goal. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I don't want to be the one person left standing in the way of consensus. As long as we understand that this is an interim version (thus explicitly rejecting an unreasonable precondition demanded by WD), and further discussion and likely further tweaking is called for here, I will agree to posting this version in the mainspace. You get Shem on board, I'll try to get Noroton and K4T on board, and we'll be able to say that we moved the ball downfieldn even if it isn't quite in the net yet. Agreed? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This is not a proposed "interim" version. We are not creating a new baseline from which people can argue for more or less details. We are trying to create something that will be relatively stable until beyond election day. That is why this discussion has gone on as long as it has. Once the article is changed to reflect the new text, it would require an entirely new consensus-building process to get any future changes. Also, I think you will find that Noroton is already more or less on board with ClubJuggle's proposed text (see his most recent comment). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It is true that Obama was not accused of wrongdoing. "Nonetheless" does not at all necessarily deprecate the criticism or mean we don't take it seriously because the criticism never was that Obama was involved in the serious things that "wrongdoing" is about -- it helps show just that; "the appearance of an ethical conflict", as the next sentence indicates, is what it was about. This is a very small problem involving possible interpretations (that I seriously doubt readers will make) about an accurate way of considering what the "criticism" was about. There are so many more important improvements to make in this article. Please give in and let's get on to the next issues -- Wright and Ayers. Now I'm a bit reluctant to defend this language because we haven't heard from many of the other editors who have participated in this discussion. I think it's time they weighed in before I spin my wheels any further. Noroton (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T wrote above, By saying it was a "boneheaded move," Obama himself admitted that criticism was completely justified. No, actually, he had his own way of describing it, which was a bit less harsh than his stronger critics, but he seemed to admit most of what they were criticizing him about, and nearly all critics focused on how dumb it was to be so close to Rezko that it created the appearance of impropriety. With the set of public facts that we have, that's really just about all that critics could do, because there isn't evidence to accuse Obama of more than that. This language really does give a good, concise, sharply enough focused description of the Rezko matter that doesn't mislead readers. Readers will get a good idea of what the important points are about and anyone interested can click on the Rezko blue link for a more detailed version there. I've had big problems with earlier versions, they've now been met and I have no problem with editors tweaking so that they're comfortable with it. But when it gets down to which sentence some phrase should go into and what connecting words to use ("although", "nevertheless", "and", "but"), I wonder whether we're moving the ball more than a few inches on the field. Believe me, no one reading this article is going to be misinformed by reading this version, and to the extent that they might be misinformed, it will be in such a small way that they will never form a firm opinion about the Rezko-Obama relationship from that misinformation. Think about it: If you knew nothing about this and read that passage, took "nonetheless" and "although" to mean what WP74 and K4T are concerned you might infer, and then read that Obama himself said it created the appearance of a conflict of interest and gave $150,000 to charity, would you wind up thinking there was nothing to the criticism? Conversely, if Obama himself says that it created the appearance of a conflict of interest, the preceding mention of "criticism" and no-wrongdoing-known would indicate he got some heat for a relatively small issue, did something wrong and made a move to make it right -- and that would be accurate. If it mattered to you, you'd click on that blue link. If it didn't matter to you, your mind would still be open the next time you heard something about Rezko and Obama. That's why this is a small thing and we should get behind this language and put this matter to bed. Noroton (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The text has now been refined to such an extent, with clever use of nuance and balance, that it has reached a stage where it is essentially all things to all people. ClubJuggle should be congratulated for this version, and we probably all deserve a little pat on the back. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no objection to putting this version in the mainspace for today, but we haven't heard from Shem, Wikidemo or several other editors recently. I think it's just a bit premature to claim that this should stay this way until after the election. It is certain that the conservative side is going to make a lot of noise about Obama and Rezko in the coming months, so there will be further developments to be added, and this language will seem remarkably mild and neutered by October. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(comment relocated) I've said several times that all the versions within the range of discussion are agreeable and I'll repeat that here - this version (the July 4 Clubjuggle proposal) is fine. I can support it if the body of established editors on this page get behind it as a complete and final resolution of the matter, to stand until and unless there is a significant new development out in the world that renders it obsolete. I'm not going to say in advance what I would consider a development that is of sufficient weight to shed new light on Obama's biography - we can deal with that if we come to it. Obviously, as an agreed-to consensus it is a package deal and not a mix-and-match collection of phrases to use as a negotiating position in an ongoing debate to further change the language. I think that leaves Shem as the last one we need to hear from.Wikidemo (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the possible range of wordings and slants, this one seems very middle of the road. The Although ..., nonetheless ... wording seems pretty close to halfway between:

• (anti-Obama spin) Obama was not charged with any criminal offenses, but this admittedly "boneheaded" lapse of judgment was criticized by good government groups and others.

• (pro-Obama spin) Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing and neither was asked for or did any favors for Rezko, the relationship drew criticism from political rivals and others.

I would expect it to last until the election unless there's some significant new revelation. If it becomes a major campaign theme it might warrant mention in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (it's not mentioned there at all yet) which could lead to some summary of it in the section on the campaign in this article—but predicting the future is notoriously difficult. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(The following comment was entered before I labeled the deliberate spin of the above wordings. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)) Obama was not charged with any criminal offenses, but this admittedly "boneheaded" lapse of judgment was criticized by good government groups and others. I like this version the best. It has the "boneheaded" quote and the word "criticized." It doesn't ambiguate the criticism either. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that strays too far from the versions being discussed into territory that's unacceptable to several - Wikipedia calling it a "lapse of judgment" and "boneheaded", and "good government groups and others" are unlikely to meet approval. I'd suggest we stick with the current proposal (at the top of this subheading for now, with "although" and "nevertheless" replaced by a single connecting preposition) as the basis for discussion. It seems to have approval as a final, complete description of the matter from everyone but K4T and possibly WB74, and we have not heard lately from Shem. If Shem is onboard but K4T and/or WB74 simply refuse to accept it or propose something that the other editors can all live with, then we'll have to decide if that's consensus or not. Wikidemo (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant it to be obvious that the two versions above were not suggestions for wording to be included but examples of highly POV variants on both ends of the spectrum. I think the "although ... nonetheless" wording is essentially without any spin. In particular, including "nonetheless" avoids an implied editorial rebuke of the criticism (rebuking the criticism seems to be K4T's and WB74's problem with it). Compare with and without this word:

• Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.

• Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship drew criticism.

Without "nonetheless" the "although" clause seems to be stronger (at least as I read it). It might be possible to find some rephrasing that makes this even more neutral sounding (perhaps Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.), but as Noroton says above if we're in the realm of quibbling about which connecting words to use we're past the point of diminishing returns. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From a neutrality point of view, there's not a huge difference between these:

1. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.
2. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.

I'd be perfectly happy with either. I like the way #1 reads and I like that #2 is marginally more neutral. Whichever version is chosen, I feel we have reached the point where it is time to update the article and move on. Consensus does not require unanimous agreement, and this version seems to have the support of most editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Is there any regular contributor we haven't heard from on this? I think as soon as Shem sounds in we will have heard from everyone. At that point we can determine consensus, and move on, no? Should we just give Shem another day or so to respond or does anyone want to prompt him / her? Wikidemo (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem had an aversion to the word "criticism", but I think ClubJuggle has addressed that. Just as a reminder, there are two, very similar versions currently being discussed (difference in bold):

1. 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 wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.
2. 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 wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

We'll need to pick which one we think is best. After that, we will need to have some discussion about the references for the text. A recent attempt (by WorkerBee74) to slot in a different version of the text included an alarming number of sources, many of which seemed completely unnecessary. It is not unreasonable for me to say that having multiple references (that say the same thing) is a way of reinforcing a point of view. We need enough references to support the text - no more, no less. If a choice is available, we should select references that reflect the widest audience (such as picking a national newspaper over a local one). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What are the two versions? If there are two versions I guess that's okay - we can restate them and ask people to sound in. But I'm reluctant to re-open the floor to open-ended proposals. That's just an invitation to restart the whole discussion for the umpteenth time when it seems like we've reached consensus finally. No point delaying implementation while we figure out sources - surely we haven't sunk to such a stalemate that sourcing becomes an issue. Let's just implement the language we agree to and count on normal editing process to add or refine citations. Wikidemo (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to discuss this more, bringing up new points or points that haven't been addressed, I think we are just about at consensus here. I can go with either version Scjessey just put on the page (14:57 7 July). We need to think about footnotes. As I recall, Scjessey and I were both OK with having two citations in a footnote for the word "criticism". I'd be willing to put the mostly supportive Chicago Tribune editorial from March 2008 and an article which I'll find from National Review Online. Those were the two best opinion pieces I saw, and I think that's fair. Someone should check if the footnotes already in the article at that spot cover the information we're adding. If not, we should add reliable newspaper articles -- I think we've got several already linked to from this talk page. I think the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times are two of the largest-circulation newspapers and among the most respected in the country, and they're likely to be more accurate even than the national papers, but any reliable source is good enough for me. It would be good to move on this and get it off the table today, wouldn't it? I think we can do that. It would be nice if Clubjuggle were to do the actual addition. Noroton (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for "criticism"" One footnote with:

"Obama's Rezko narrative", editorial, Chicago Tribune, March 16, 2008; Spruiell, Stephen, "Rezko: Guilty", National Review Online, June 5, 2008, retrieved July 7, 2008 -- OK? -- Noroton (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, each piece of information needs only a single reference, so sentences should rarely need more than one or two sources. Stuffing the text full of sources will not be acceptable. I would, for the most part, expect to see reliable sources from the websites of national newspapers and television media, and perhaps from the two Chicago newspapers mentioned by Noroton. Sources must be used to verify facts, and not to add opinion or "color commentary". Sources like The National Review should only be used when wishing to offer a conservative/right-leaning point of view (just as "The Nation" would offer a liberal/left-leaning POV), and it is difficult to see why a biased view of any kind would be necessary with such contentious material. I agree that it would be good if ClubJuggle, or another administrator, would actually add the relevant text. I would be happy with either version above. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That National Review source would not be acceptable. The very first words ("Talk about bad timing...") expose the article as a conservative-leaning opinion piece. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. It's criticism. What do you think the Chicago Trib editorial is? WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN support judicious use of differing opinions. What is the policy basis or reasoning for keeping out opinion pieces from a footnote supporting the fact that there was criticism? Criticism is opinion. Noroton (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To be completely fair, the proposed Tribune op-ed is very pro-Obama. The two probably balance each other quite well, but I would not at all be opposed to dropping both of them in favor of a single, more neutral source. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think 2 references is okay, and that reasonably sane / tame examples are fine to illustrate criticism (they're allowed per WP:V), though not as good as a link to a reliable source that says there is criticism or goes over the criticism. Almost by definition an article that criticizes is not a reliable source. Anyway, let's go ahead and implement the language with the sources we now have, add a "fact" or "cite" or dummy reference where we think it needs referencing, then work through that calmly. I don't want to add any preconditions or telescope that discussion. As long as we understand that we're done on the content side, the citations are a minor work-throughWikidemo (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

'Clubjuggle and Wikidemo: We need as few sources as possible to substantiate each and every fact. If we can get one single source that does the whole thing, fine, but I never found one. I never found one saying "there was criticism from several sources", so we provide a footnote going directly to at least two sources, the minimum necessary to show it didn't come from just one spot. These two sources I'm proposing would only cite the word "criticism" (and the footnote would appear immediately after it in the text). WP:RS finds sources are perfectly acceptable for reporting their own opinion. WP:NPOV has no problem citing different opinions. I don't get your objection. Noroton (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) - There is a significant difference between opinion based on drawing conclusions from the facts (the Tribune piece) and opinion based on biased preconceptions (the Review piece). The latter reads almost like an "I told you so" piece. I have no problem with the criticism being referenced by conclusions drawn from traditional investigative journalism, but "The National Review" piece is just color commentary based on facts discovered by others and a generous helping of bias. You have never had trouble finding literally dozens and dozens of sources in the past, so why not come up with something a little more respectable? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

National Review, including its online version, is as respectiable as it gets in terms of opinion journalism in this country. It is impossible for me or anyone else to come up with something more respectable than the gold standard, recognizable across the ideological spectrum. Markos Moulitsas, who runs the left-wing Daily Kos Web site, told reporters in August 2007 that he doesn't read conservative blogs, with the exception of those on NRO: "I do like the blogs at the National Review — I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere," he said.[Begin Footnote]: [20]Ben Smith blog at the Web site of The Politico, "Markos speaks" post, August 2, 2007, accessed same day[End Footnote] You are the only person I have ever heard call NR or NRO not respectable. That hasn't been done since about the 1960s. You said earlier that you moved to the U.S. in 2000, so are you completely unfamiliar with opinion journalism in the United States? Your distinction between "opinion based on drawing conclusions from the facts" and the NRO piece is contradicted by commentary based on facts, and Scjessey, don't argue based on what you think is "biased". It's an opinion piece. It's supposed to be biased. I think I've gone out and found enough sources. Noroton (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is that The National Review is no more respected than The Nation. They are less respectable than MSM sources, but they are better than blogs, etc. Use of such publications as references should be when specifically seeking conservative or liberal commentary - especially when far less contentious sources are in abundance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Scjessey, that's incorrect, and the purpose of footnoting "criticism" was precisely to seek commentary. Criticism is a type of commentary. The Nation isn't respected. It has barely stopped pushing the line that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were innocent, even after the Soviet archives were opened. Actually it's probably more respected than it was 10 years ago. If you want a respectable magazine that's definitely on the left, try The American Prospect, possibly Harper's. Any of these magazines, including The Nation are expected to get facts correct, and they are held accountable if they don't. In any event, I've been thinking about it and I think these two sources would actually be better ones to use, and they can be used for much of the rest of the passags as well, possibly all of it:

• 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.
• Los Angeles Times article, January 23, 2008: “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?”

Yes, these would be much better sources. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

With great reluctance, I would like to gauge opinion of active participants in this discussion. This is not a vote. Editors are reminded to discuss issues on their merits, and not to use "majority/minority" arguments in future discussion. Editors who have actively participated in this discussion to date are asked to indicate their support or opposition (and the strength thereof) to each of the three proposed versions, and to indicate your reasons for support or opposition. Please do not simply indicate a position without an explanation.

The purpose of this straw poll is to identify the degree of convergence of opinion, as well as what issues other than sourcing remain to be resolved. The two versions are below, with differences in bold.

Clubjuggle version 1

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

• Support. I believe this version adequately balances the fact that no wrongdoing was alleged on the transactions with the fact that it was the relationship that was criticized. The direct and immediate follow-up to that statement with Obama's acknowledgment negates any dismissal of the criticism and provides the necessary balance. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - will not reiterate earlier arguments but they're around in case anyone cares to find them. Wikidemo (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - Perfectly fine with me, but use of "although" and "nonetheless" make the sentence sound a little weak. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. Weak support a bit too complex; simple is better. Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle version 2

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 wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

• Very weak support. Besides not reading well, I find the "but the relationship nonetheless..." actually does seem to almost completely de-legitimize the criticism. I do not believe this version provides the necessary balance. Although I am not at all enthused about this version, I will reluctantly support it, if necessary in the interest of consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Virtually identical to #1 but not worded as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - Less weak, but more clunky that #1. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. Weak support Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle version 3

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

• Strong support. I believe this version adequately balances the fact that no wrongdoing was alleged on the transactions with the fact that it was the relationship that was criticized. The direct and immediate follow-up to that statement with Obama's acknowledgment negates any dismissal of the criticism and provides the necessary balance. Although I originally proposed it, I believe the word "nonetheless" is superfluous (not harmful, just superfluous), so this version has my strong support in the interest of brevity. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - virtually identical to #1 but flows better. Wikidemo (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Neither weak, nor clunky. Could be tighter (see below). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• First preference I think this is the most neutral, but I support any of these four versions. Noroton (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Best of a bad lot. Least unacceptable and pathetic. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The version proposed below in table form reads better than this one. "Drew criticism" is an unnecessary phrase. LotLE×talk 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Probably the best possible. I gotta say though, this talk page is terrible to follow. It's hard to even make myself come back here anymore. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle/Scjessey remix edition (version 4)

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 wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of wrongdoing, but the relationship drew criticism. He acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

• Support - Strong wording, tighter language. Loses "although", "any" and "nonetheless". Swaps an "Obama" for "he". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Stylistically, I prefer "although" to "but". That's a really minor point though. I'm fine with swapping "he" for Obama in the last sentence in any version above. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could also say, "Obama was not accused of wrongdoing, although the relationship drew criticism." -- Scjessey (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. Weak support my second preference. Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• This one is fine too - Wikidemo (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• OPposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-cap

Sorry, just got back from the 4th weekend. Could someone briefly re-cap what's taken place since Friday? Shem^(talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Read or skim down from Talk:Barack Obama#Implicit and Explicit: A tale of two versions for the really important stuff. Really short version is we've found a fairly balanced version that has a really good shot and consensus, and the above straw poll is to gauge preference on a relatively minor point of wording. With your help we may be able to draw this matter to a close. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a real olive-branch effort there, making every single straw poll option use the word "criticism." Where I'm from, that's called "pissing on someone and telling them it's raining." Shem^(talk) 21:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion in detail (and the note SCJ left on your talk page) to determine how we got there. Except for you, it appears all editors fully support the change. The background discussion may be helpful in determining why the change is so broadly supported. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, at what point did Tvoz's input quit counting here? 'Cause I mentioned her objection above, and you ignored it outright. I'm well aware of Jessey's decision to back the change, and the (frankly) lousy reasoning behind it: His desire to just get this over with. I don't find that a persuasive reasoning at all. Shem^(talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe your understanding of his reasoning is outdated: "I like it! This version has my full support. I like it even more than the version without criticism because I believe it is a fair representation of what has transpired. Excellent work! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)"

See also his notes on my userpage. He likes these versions on their merits and fully supports them. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, If we can make this end, I'm perfectly happy with any of the several Clubjuggle versions. LotLE×talk 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the sort of comment I'm talking about. People've reached the point where they're consenting to "whatever" just for the sake of getting this over with. Shem^(talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes I want to be done with this discussion. But I did read all the latest Clubjuggle, and unlike many past suggestions, none of them raised red flags in my mind. I have slight preferences among these, but I'm not about "oppose" because one uses a period where I think a semicolon is better. LotLE×talk 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A willingness to compromise and move on in the name of consensus is nothing to be ashamed of, particularly when one sees the point as a minor one. In any event, I normally don't like to do this but I've left a note on User:Tvoz's page asking if he/she will offer an opinion. Wikidemo (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a few editors compromise simply in the name of moving on, but certainly not in the name of consensus. I've made it clear that I'll happily sign on to any compromise so long as it keeps "scrutiny" (which has been the stable version for quite some time); if that's not acceptable, find a new compromise that'll work. Any insinuation that I haven't worked to compromise here is pretty empty; I signed on for allowing material within the paragraph on their home purchase, and later drafted the interim compromise that put down last month's edit warring. Tvoz and Bobblehead had a few drafts which allowed the reader to make up their mind without using "scrutiny" or "criticism," which I found an excellent proposal. Shem^(talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Wikidemo - I haven't looked at this yet, but will get back to it later tonight. Tvoz/talk 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What of the direct quote to the contrary that I've posted above, and the one on my user page? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What of it? I'd point you to Scjessey's more recent comments today where he acknowledges "I have only agreed to using the word itself 'to get it over with' (as Shem correctly pointed out)." Shem^(talk) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] I am not trying to be obstructionist, and I don't think this is the most crucial thing at all that this article has to deal with. But Rezko has been discussed for a very long time here, long before most of the current editors were working on this article at all. We had consensus language with what I think was reasonable weight for this main article, with a long subarticle and long disquisition in the presidential campaign article. This is his overall biography, and Rezko has yet to become as big a deal to the public or even the mainstream media as some people suggest it was or expected it to become to rate so much space in the main bio. And I think entirely too much time has been spent here arguing after we reached consensus, and then again after we reached another consensus, and maybe there was a third or fourth round. Unfortunately others were not content with any of the consensus versions that were long in the article - and have stretched this out ad infinitum, in what has felt to me like a filibuster at times. I have not and am not going to edit war over it, but nor am I going to pretend that I agree with something I don't agree with just for the sake of ending it. I will keep thinking about it, but I am troubled that both the "scrutiny" option and the compromise version(s) that Bobblehead and I proposed (and Scjessey's July 4 00:07 UTC version which I also support) without using either "criticism" or "scrutiny" have disappeared - I think any of those were the best options that have been recently proposed. I too am willing to compromise - as should be clear I am compromising already by accepting this overly long paragraph which I have consistently said is giving too much weight for this matter in the main article. HailFire's use of footnote for this was exactly right, and I would guess we'll eventually be back to it when we're back to writing an encyclopedia article that isn't influenced by an election. Tvoz/talk 05:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz makes some good points here. I would still prefer to go the "implicit" route as far as "criticism" is concerned, and I have only agreed to using the word itself "to get it over with" (as Shem correctly pointed out). It could be argued that assuming Wikipedia readers will not be aware of the criticism, unless it is spelled-out to them explicitly, insults their intelligence. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that specifically use the word "criticism"? I know Arkon was going to look into whether or not something existed that used "widespread criticism" (or something similar). If a reliable source can be found that uses "criticism", I'd like to ask Shem if he would switch to supporting its use in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it follows that if nobody can find a reliable source that uses "criticism" (or "scrutiny", for that matter), it may be necessary to consider alternatives. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is abundant, very reliable sourcing for the word "criticism" and it is a well-established practice of Wikipedia biographies (including, specifically, Featured Articles) to use that word, as Noroton and I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Of course, there are also dozens of reliable sources for using the phrase "questions about his judgment." WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please post a few that we can select from for citation? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's this one in the Boston Globe: "Critics said Obama's links with Chicago powerbrokers, including Rezko ..." There's also this one by the CBS News affiliate in Chicago, under the headline, "Obama Rejecting Criticism On Work With Tony Rezko." Then there's this one from ABC News with the subheader, "Candidate Faces Criticism Over Ties to Radical Pastor and Indicted Businessman." WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, matters not one bit if the word is in one source or a thousand. If it's criticism, it's recognizable as such. Wikipedians summarize all the time. We're actually supposed to reword what the sources say. Noroton (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - we all know there was criticism. My personal hesitation had been a question of weight and relevance, not verifiability or POV. Considering it's obviously true and a relatively small impact on the article to note there had been criticism I accept the point. If finding good secondary sources that talk about the fact there was criticism is going to convince those yet unconvinced, fine. But having done so I see nothing wrong with choosing a good, solid, fair example of criticism to cite as a case in point. Surely we can trust our readers with a link to the New York Times or some equally august publication here so they can see for themselves.Wikidemo (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to repost this for the third time:

• 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.
• Los Angeles Times article, January 23, 2008: “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?”

-- a reposting of a reposting -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WB74 did what I was asking for, actually. I was looking for reliable sources that specifically used the word "criticism" when referring to Obama's ties with Rezko. This link, in particular, does that. This was not for my benefit (I have accepted the use of the word per Noroton's rationale above), but more for the likes of Shem and Tvoz who still have misgivings. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey-preferred version

This version eschews the word "criticism" because, to be frank, there really isn't much of it to be found in all the sources we have been looking at. This is the same version I proposed at 00:07 UTC on July 4th, and it already has the support of several editors (including Shem and Tvoz):

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 wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while 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 contains all the necessary information about what actually happened in a completely neutral manner, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Although WP:WELLKNOWN indicates that including an element of criticism is permitted, WP:NPOV indicates that such an inclusion should be balanced. Simply stating that Obama was not accused of wrongdoing is not sufficient to provide this balance. The only fair solution would be to leave it out, especially since mainstream media coverage has been so minimal. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unqualified support. Here's a real compromise. Shem^(talk) 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as well I'm totally willing to accept this version, which is a compromise for me regarding the matter's undue weight for this main article. I don't think there can be any other interpretation of "although...acknowledged", other than that the acknowledgment came in response to questions that were raised. I would footnote the word "acknowledged" with this editorial and/or this transcript of his meeting with the Tribune editorial board, or this one with the Sun-Times - or any other neutral, (that is probably not National Review or The Nation) article(s) that report on his acknowledgment of the appearance of impropriety. Some here are focused on including the word "criticism" and have said so - I think we do better by sidestepping the POV implications. The only tiny suggestion I'd make is to insert the word "that" after "acknowledged" which to my ear would read slightly better, but that's cosmetic. Tvoz/talk 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Tvoz's comments. My English teachers always told me that most instances of "that" aren't really necessary, although I would concede that it sounds better with that word in. And that's all I have to say about that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - er... obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I'm done with Wikipedia, but the use of the word "criticism" permeates the biographies of famous politicians at Wikipedia. It is everywhere else, it belongs here, and WorkerBee74 and Noroton have proved it beyond any reasonable expectation of proof. Keeping that word out of the Rezko section is an edit that pretends this politician has never been criticized for his relationship with Rezko. That edit is stupid. That edit is partisan. That edit is biased. That edit is everything that Wikipedia claims not to be. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. For reasons given below. Noroton (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What is supposed to be going on here? At 14:02 8 July, Scjessey posted the following (it's just above, but given the lack of attention some editors sometimes give this long discussion, it's worth repeating -- emphases added):

I was looking for reliable sources that specifically used the word "criticism" when referring to Obama's ties with Rezko. This link, in particular, does that. This was not for my benefit (I have accepted the use of the word per Noroton's rationale above), but more for the likes of Shem and Tvoz who still have misgivings. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly 30 minutes later we have an about-face and Scjessey is thumping for bumping the word again. I do want to concentrate on, and "comment on the edits rather than the editors", and anyone can change his mind, but I get the impression from this about-face, along with the reluctance of Shem and Tvoz to discuss and their preference for voting and shutting off discussion, that there's a move afoot to circumvent discussion and reasoning -- that is, to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS policy and WP:TALK guidelines when WorkerBee74 has been blocked and Kossack4Truth had announced he was retiring. I readily acknowledge that a group of editors can overrule me and others in forming a consensus on a question, whether or not that consensus enforces a strong POV on even a prominent article. But no group of editors is capable of doing it in simply a vote. You will have to discuss it. In a reasonable way (that is, citing facts and policies & guidelines and using logic in a reasonable way). I don't have all day to do it, but I can find time today and in upcoming days if necessary to go over your arguments and present mine again, but it might save time if you could point out to me where you've countered the following points, which essentially repeat what I've said before, or provide new arguments or facts or citations to policies & guidelines, because I don't see a good case for your bumping "criticism":

• WP:WEIGHT needs an awfully strong reason to bump a single word from a long article.
• WP:NPOV at the section WP:WELLKNOWN strongly favors including critical information, and adding the word "criticism" is the briefest of negative mentions in a very long article that is very, very, very positive toward its subject, who is, after all, in the midst of a contentious political race. If ever there was a controversial subject, it is the biography of someone whose life story is just now becoming better known to the public of the nation where half of all native English speakers come from. For Wikipedia, it is vitally important to at least come close to having a neutral article. Whether or not my position is in a minority here, it is certainly not insignificant in terms of readers -- Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters, voters who have made up their minds or have not and foreign people who want to find out about the person who may be the most powerful individual on the face of the earth come January 2009 -- coming to this article looking for a balanced treatment. Even the most fervent supporters of Obama are going to want to know what is being said against him. The most prominent criticisms of him pertaining to his life belong in this article.
• Evidence I have produced a ton of quotes and links still at the top of this page showing that criticism of Obama was widespread, given attention by the most influential news organizations in the United States, and the criticism extended so far as to make critics out of commentators who supported him, along with liberal commentators who could be expected to be sympathetic to him. It also includes good government organizations in Illinois, at least one of which worked closely with Obama. I haven't bothered to list all the Republican and conservative criticisms only because it doesn't seem necessary -- we can assume them, and nobody has said they doubt that those criticisms are there. The fact is, and it is a proven fact, that Obama received widespread, sustained, even harsh criticism which was widely reported, and there is evidence of it and it is on this page. What is the reasonable justification for ignoring this in an NPOV article?
• Scjessey's reasons are inadequate Scjessey has asserted, not reasoned. Where he cites NPOV policy, I've already rebutted his argument in my second bullet just above. Although he says mainstream media coverage has been so minimal, it's not true, as shown by the evidence (long list of quotes and links I provided at the top of the page). He has said before that either his own memory of coverage or the number of google hits he can round up mean that this has not received much coverage. But the quotes/links evidence I provided for this one word shows that it is the best-covered, most prominently sourced single word in the entire article. Where is the evidence backing up removal? Weeks ago, I asked Tvoz and Shem (and Scjessey and other editors) to give me reasons why the phrase "questioned his judgment" (an earlier, more elaborate alternative to the compromise word "criticism") should not go in the article. Scjessey has given his faulty argument, Shem and Tvoz have been reluctant to give more than minimal reasons. We need better reasons. Editors without a reasonable argument are without a consensus under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. I think we've reached the point where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT kicks in. Noroton (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn my support for versions that include the word "criticism". I have merely reiterated my strong support for this version that does not include it. I still believe, in the strongest possible terms, that any language that uses "criticism" is an example of Wikipedia expressing a point of view. I totally reject your ill-conceived rebuttal for many reasons, but I see no point in arguing about it for the eleventy-billionth time. We must simply agree to disagree. One thing I will say is that in all your "ton of quotes and links... showing that criticism of Obama was widespread" there are none that actually say there has been "widespread criticism", or a phrase like it. That is your characterization. I have just been bludgeoned into reluctantly accepting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, you seem to believe that argument length by virtue of repetition makes your statements more "adequate." This is not the case. You may disagree on certain semantics, but that doesn't make those in disagreement "inadequate." Shem^(talk) 20:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, Noroton. You've twice (at least) characterized me as not being willing to discuss and preferring voting - I ignored it the first time, but now I'm answering it. If you look back in the archives you'll discover that I frequently have chosen to not participate in these faux votes, in fact. I have made my points here, and I don't see the need to repeat them over and over. If someone else has said what I essentially think, I don't have to say more than that I agree with it unless I have something to add - that's not a vote, that's just not wasting mine and everyone's time with endless repetition of arguments - which seems not to be a problem for you, and which has driven away several long time contributors who couldn't take the huge volume of repetition here. The onus is on the people who want to change consensus to convince those who support it. There were several versions in the article that were a result of consensus - there has been something about Rezko for a very, very long time in this article, and having this overly long paragraph is giving it a great deal of weight vis-a-vis his entire life and career. But a new consensus was reached to include what is currently in the article, and I've gone along with it, even though I believe it belongs as a footnote to this article. Not content with that thorough and cited description, several editors have been pushing for more and more. Two or three of them have been blocked and/or "left", because they do not edit in a neutral or collegial way and say it's their way or no way - they have only themselves to thank for that, so don't turn that around and say that others are capitalizing on it. As far as I'm concerned the blocked/departed editors and some others have been disruptive, rude, and disrespectful of others' opinions, so I am happy to see them go. If the only way you can have what you think is consensus is by having those editors supporting you, then maybe you don't have the consensus you claim to have. And finally - I have worked for a year and a half, since December 2006, making almost 400 edits to this article and over 540 comments on this Talk page to keep this as a neutral and balanced article which doesn't over-emphasize some things that are pushed for political reasons - including encouraging semiprotection so that thousands of readers don't read lies and racist smears when they are posted for a few minutes at a time. You've been working on this article since the end of May and have made 2 edits to it and 360 comments on Talk - so please don't lecture me on discussion and POV and the need for balanced treatment. I know that and have worked for that on all of the hundreds and hundreds of articles I edit - most especially the many political ones. I have never even come close to being blocked for anything, so please keep me out of your accusatory comments. Where I grew up this drowning talk page pressure on editors who have expressed their views would be called bullying, and I'm not going to play your game. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Scjessey, who has argued every single step of the way since April (at least) that any negative information at all in the article must either not go in or must be minimized, down to arguing that the single nine-letter word "criticism" is "undue weight", and has fought tooth and nail every step of the way, is now asserting that he's being "bludgeoned". Now Scjessey is demanding that we provide sources that spoon-feed him what normal content decision-making should be able to chew on pretty easily: There was a good amount of widespread, serious criticism on this topic, so it's worth adding the word "criticism" to the article. It ain't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to recognize the reality staring you in the face. And if "any language that uses "criticism" is an example of Wikipedia expressing a point of view" then Wikipedia would never be able to mention "criticism" at all, and yet, as Clubjuggle previously demonstrated, we do it all the time. Is Scjessey right and all the rest of Wikipedia wrong? 2. Shem, where's your argument? I've been asking you for it since June 21. Same with you, Tvoz. 3. Tvoz, that's a lot of verbiage to complain about verbiage. I think you should have been able to answer my arguments in all these weeks, and you could do it in less space than you just used. It isn't bullying -- and it is hardly my "game" as you impolitely put it -- to ask you or anyone else to actually show us that you've got more than a personal preference to contribute here. That's not what "rationale" means in WP:TALK or WP:CONSENSUS. You can count up my edits, but you can't present reasons? Does that sound like consensus-building and encyclopedia-building? If you can't defend your reasons when I've shown they're unreasonable, how do you distinguish your position from POV pushing? Asking people to state their reasons, not just assert their opinions, is Wikipedia's "game". I think these are fair questions, not bullying. If you can't (or refuse to) defend your position, why shouldn't it be discounted? Noroton (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, I hope you don't think I actually counted edits. This tool does it for you. And my verbiage is too long? I don't think I've come anywhere close in the per K character count here. I did give my arguments - I just chose not to repeat them every time someone opened yet another section to discuss it again. I believe doing so is is a tactic to wear down opposition and get them to give up, as I said. I call it bullying - you can call it what you like. Last time, as I have said already: Rezko is being given too much weight for the main bio, and is properly handled in depth in the subarticles and as a footnote here, per HailFire and how we had it for a long time before you began editing here. Not the 9 letter word, Noroton - the whole story. But I agreed to a too-long version that is in the article in the interests of moving along. I do, however, prefer the latest July 7 Scjessey version which built on Bobblehead's and my version which clearly says that he acknowledged that there was an implication of impropriety and therefore took action. Footnoted with his long interview that spells it all out in detail and possibly a third party source or two who say it too. That version conveys exactly the information taht needs to be conveyed, but does not introduce the POV-laden word "criticism" which has us making a judgment about the scrutiny he received. Leave it to the sources and the readers. I'm sorry if you found my comment impolite - I find your characterization of my work here as avoiding discussion and wanting to vote - something I specifically don't like to do - impolite. So there you have it. I notice you didn't apologize for that, and in fact repeated your characterization. But that's par for the course around here, so I take no offense, just choose not to get embroiled in the constant demand for repeating of arguments. Clear now? Tvoz/talk 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, my point was that you want to close down debate before you -- or anyone else on your side -- has answered reasonable questions about your questionable assertions, and I have no reason to apologize for that, because it was part of pointing out the weakness of your position. If I made a mistake about talking about your position on "voting", I hope it didn't hurt you much, and please accept my apologies. Now try to keep your comments focused on the subject rather than using most of your verbiage to criticize an editor who has been trying to ... focus on the subject: Wikipedia using the word "criticism" implies only that it was prominent enough to be worth mentioning, it doesn't call for us to calibrate exactly how much. Editors "making a judgment about the scrutiny he received" -- the judgment that it was criticism and that it's worth mentioning that word to our readers -- is just exactly the kind of editorial decision that Wikipedia editors are called on to make. (WP:SYN: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing) I don't need to repeat what I just said one or two comments up about the criticism being so widespread that even those sympathetic to Obama engaged in it. You give no reason whatever for saying that our reporting that there was criticism (as WP:NPOV tells us is perfectly acceptable) is somehow, in and of itself, "POV-laden". You can repeat that as much as you want, but you haven't given anyone a reason to believe your assertion is correct. (WP:SUBSTANTIATE: Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. -- that's what using the word "criticism" does, together with a footnote substantiating it.) Clubjuggle gave Shem a slew of examples of biographical articles that have the word in it -- all "POV-laden"? All contrary to Wikipedia policy? Please point me to the edit on this huge page that answers these objection to your point. If this is all repetition, that should be no trouble for you. If it's never been responded to, we have some discussion to complete. Noroton (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, per Tvoz. This issue can be allowed to play too large a part of the article. Iit causes particular concerns with our policies regarding articles about living people if it's overplayed. S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It has become apparent...

That we cannot reach a consensus that will include the full range of opinions on this discussion. That the recent departure of User:Kossack4Truth and the (well-deserved) block of User:WorkerBee74 have magnified the sampling bias already inherent in any discussion of this type. While a commitment to neutrality and true consensus would require that editors make extra effort to treat opponents with respect and to hear and accomodate minority opinions, and for those in the minority to take great care to state their opinions clearly and carefully, making extra effort to avoid engaging in attacks that would overshadow any legitimacy in their arguments. Neither has happened to anywhere near the full extent it needs to, and I do not see this changing in the foreseeable future. As long as both sides draw lines in the sand, no progress is possible. I believe the only chance for resolution of this matter, if there is a chance at all, is to seek outside opinions via a request for comments. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We're at that point. But in order for it not to be a mess of multiple options, as we had last time, let's vote up or down on one or two. I suggest taking one of the options from the four you proposed earlier, since editors who voted nearly all seemed ready to accept any one of them; and the Scjessey-Schem-Tvoz language and asking outside editors to choose one or the other. The question is so narrow that editors can pretty easily figure out the issue. If we structure it in a way that gives all sorts of options, we'll get no consensus whatever. We might even simply ask, since I think this is the real difference, Do you want the word "criticism" to appear in this passage or not? We should present the question and start a discussion section under the tally, if we're going to present it in that form. I'll accept the result. Will other editors? Noroton (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm open to bringing in outside opinions via the usual channels, but Wikipedia works through consensus-building, not "up-or-down voting." Shem^(talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that voting is not the answer. As for "lines in the sand" - it is about the consensus word "scrutiny" vs the word "criticism". In order to break the logjam, versions were proposed which eliminated both words, yet retained the meaning and neutrality. Without going through the whole page above, my recollection is that the "scrutiny" people have accepted the no-word version (apologies if I have mis-remembered) - but the "criticism" people have said that they can't accept anything less than their word. I say this not in attack, but in frustration. Again, the version that is now in the article got there because the people editing compromised and reached consensus, and that wasn't easy. To overturn it should put the onus on those who wish to make changes to convince those who accepted the consensus. So, to be clear, I will accept the existing text, I will accept the original text in footnote that was here for a long time, and I will accept Scjessey's July 4 no-"scrutiny"-no-"criticism" approach. Three versions, two of which were consensus versions, are ok with me. I don't think that's me drawing a line in the sand - I think that's compromise. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring in other editors. Let's see how well the idea that using the single word "criticism" in the article makes it POV. Let's point other editors to the overwhelming evidence that there was enough criticism to make it worth mentioning, the clarity of WP:WELLKNOWN and the relevant parts of WP:NPOV, the clear common practice throughout the rest of Wikipedia and the pretty obvious summarizing that the word "criticism" does and compare it to whatever Tvoz, Shem and Scjessey can come up with to defend their position and let Wikipedia editors compare the two. Let good sense prevail. Let's see who's extending this discussion unnecessarily. Let's see how other Wikipedia editors define "reasonable". You don't need a consensus to request comments, Clubjuggle. Just do it. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there was a much debate over the fine wording of the United States Bill of Rights as whether Obama's land dealings with the Rezkos was criticized, scrutinized, neither, or both. Anyway, I'm fine with any of these versions. As to process, I don't think anyone's doing this on purpose but this is going awfully slow - at this pace we won't have the article ready in time for the election, perhaps not the next ice age. Sure you don't want to flip for it? Wikidemo (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept any version that takes away the pain. I have presented good arguments to explain why "criticism" is inappropriate. I've proposed a version which sidesteps this problem, but I've got to the point where I no longer care. The scary thing about all this is that this argument is nothing compared to the one we are going to have about Bill Ayers! I urge everyone concerned to view this video to gain an understanding of what I think of all this pointless bickering. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it is apparent that we have a consensus for Clubjuggle Version 3. It is the first preference of Clubjuggle, Noroton, WorkerBee74 and has the support of Scjessey, Wikidemo and LotLE -- six editors -- and is opposed by Tvoz and Shem. If Tvoz and Shem want to continue discussion, I'm fine with addressing any new points (new arguments, new information, new citations of Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines). If there are no new objections that have not been answered, let's implement Version 3 and be done with it. If no new points come up, we have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation that that policy calls disruptive and should not impede us from adding that to the article. I invite Clubjuggle to add it. We'll need to source it, but we can fix the citations later. There is no WP:BLP violation involved if we have the sourcing, and we do. I suggest adding the LA Times or Washington Post source that I provided above to make absolutely sure no BLP objections come up, and we can change the footnotes later if someone objects. Sound good?Noroton (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "apparent consensus" for the ClubJuggle "3" version, Noroton. There is considerable discontent. None of the facts in my version are contentious, correct? Not a single editor has objected to the details, or how they have been written (although Tvoz would prefer less, due to weight concerns). Am I right? So it follows that it would make more sense to implement my preferred version, which accurately presents the details and timeline of the Obama/Rezko relationship, and then continue the discussion about whether or not to include the "criticism" characterization. It is the only logical approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the question is whether or not we have consensus, then we have consensus with Clubjuggle's Version 3. I would declare consensus when it seems reasonable that the discussion has died down. If you would like to continue discussion of your version, feel free. I'm willing. Noroton (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Noroton. We do not have a consensus for that version. Simply stating it again does not make it so. I am contending we do have consensus for my preferred version, and we should implement it. There is no need to discuss my preferred version any further because everyone agrees to every detail of it. The only contentious item remaining is the inclusion of the "criticism" phrasing. It is the "criticism" phrasing that requires further debate. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's stopping you from debating it in the subsection just above, where Tvoz and I have already been discussing it? Feel free to chime in. Noroton (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that this version should be implemented immediately, with discussion on the "criticism" phrase continuing? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I always seem to have to repeat myself, even when I've been quite clear: We have consensus already for Clubjuggle's Version 3, although it would be prudent to wait a bit to see if other editors will support it or something else within the next 12 or maybe 18 hours. But if you have additional, new arguments to bring up, we are obligated to consider them. Yet you haven't brought any new ones up. Therefore, after a short while, we can recognize the consensus, add Clubjuggle's Version 3 and move on. That's the way consensus works. I have absolutely no idea what your reference table is supposed to show. Perhaps you could explain it. Noroton (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] I don;'t know how you define consensus, Noroton, but Scj's version has the support of Lulu, Shem, Scjessey, Wikidemo, and me as of now, and Clubjuggle's has Clubjuggle, you and Wikidemo, with Scjessey saying he prefers his own version although hasn't withdrawn his support for Club's. WorkerBee74 is blocked for his behavior, so I don't see how we count him anywhere since he can't change his mind or comment. Bobblehead hasn't been here for this last round, but Scjessey's version was similar to what he proposed regarding leaving off both criticism and scrutiny; perhaps he'll come back. Other editors haven't spoken, assuming I haven't missed anyone. So it's not clear to me at all that Club's has the consensus you assert. Tvoz/talk 05:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Add S. Dean and Bobblehead to those who appear to support Scjessey's version, and Arkon to those who prefer Club3. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We use consensus, not voting. As I've pointed out previously, there is a sampling bias inherent in these discussions, in that an article about any political candidate is bound to attract supporters of that candidate in disproportionate numbers. While this creates a natural tendency to railroad through changes over the objections of the minority, the only way to achieve true consensus is for those in the majority to make an extra effort to hear and understand the minority point of view. To be sure, the situation has been compounded by individuals in the minority who have behaved less-than-admirably, but when individuals like myself, who have been sometimes on the side of the majority and sometimes on the side of the minority, feel that our legitimate questions and concerns are being flat-out ignored (not just "not accepted", but "ignored"), that's indicative of a problem. When just under half of the editors active in the discussion do not support the purported consensus, it's not a consensus, and in light of that, I am somewhat angered by the fact that my attempt to place the interim "scrutiny" language back in place pending resolution of that issue has been reverted. If those opposed to "criticism" get what they want before negotiations can take place, what's their incentive to negotiate at all? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 06:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I always though we were supposed to ignore suggestions which violate multiple WP policies or guidelines. In view of current sources and structure, there is no way use of the word "criticism" will happen anytime soon, so don't be surprised if suggestions along those lines get ignored. It seems you are ready to take a break, which looks like a good idea to me considering the late history of the page, and if you come back please keep in mind the more reasonable your suggestions are the more likely they are to be treated reasonably, especially considering the continued failure of your arguments to overcome "rough consensus." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference table

This will help to make it obvious that we already have consensus for my preferred version, but not for the "criticism" phrase in other versions:

Sentence	Accurate?	Sourced?	Contentious?
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.	Yes	Yes	No
The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year.	Yes	Yes	No
Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama.	Yes	Yes	No
The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted.	Yes	Yes	No
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.	Yes	Yes	No
Alternate language: Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship drew criticism.	Arguably	Questionably	Definitely

-- Scjessey (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• The version presented in this table (in the base version, not the "alternate language") is better than previously proposed versions. Avoiding the unnecessary (and apparently contentious) terms "criticism" and "scrutiny" is cleaner and reads better. I currently "vote" for this version, and against all the others. LotLE×talk 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wow! And I have just been worried about the age old include or delete debate of a new article. You guys have been very busy with this Rezko stuff. I am very sorry if I've distracted any of you--and yes I confess there is a little sarcasm there. Yet I know all of the Rezko activists are acting in good faith. I always assume good faith. Still, what an epic discussion!--Utahredrock (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Rezko in this article

May I ask what the purpose is of this subsection and whether we can remove or archive it? It looks like something of a data dump and does not seem conducive to discussion. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this section is to show that single sentence treatment of Rezko has been the long-established norm for this article. (comment excerpted from User:Newross post

Okay then - then please leave it on the sub-page (link below) summarize and/or discuss here. Adding 50K of diffs makes this page unreadable, and hinders the ongoing consensus discussion. Plus, it's easier to look at that stuff if you care in a page of its own rather than inline in the middle of a 700K + talk page here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

/Historical diffs

Any change to this sentence is subsumed in the discussion of a rewrite to the Rezko material overall -- see the 30+ subsections above. Please review that discussion and feel free to comment. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the subpage is a good idea, but I think that Newross' entire comment on the purpose of this section should be here on the main talk page, not just the summary sentence. It's not that long:

The purpose of this section is to show that single sentence treatment of Rezko has been the long-established norm for this article.
Not the contentious, expanded treatment of Rezko, newly added, without consensus, to the Personal life section just one month ago by Wnt / Shem / Scjessey:

• for 3 years, 11 months (March 2004 – November 2006, February 2007 – May 2007) Rezko was not mentioned in this article
• for 6 months (May 2007 – November 2007) Rezko was mentioned in a single sentence footnote.
• for 6 months (November 2007 – April 2008, May 2008) Rezko was mentioned in a single sentence.
• in less than 24 hours on 4 April 2008, a series of edits by KVSTamilNAdu / Andyvphil / Johnpseudo / Fancycats-are-happy-cats (71.0.180.2) and Kossack4Truth / Andyvphil significantly expanded this article's treatment of Rezko with contentious edits that did not have consensus. Single sentence treatment of Rezko was subsequently restored in May and early June 2008.
• on 6 June 2008, a series of edits by Wnt again significantly expanded this article's treatment of Rezko with contentious edits that did not have consensus, which were then used as a basis for modifications by Shem and Scjessey, that were then inappropriately used as a baseline for a month-long discussion initiated by WorkerBee74 and dominated by Noroton arguing for yet further expansion this article's treatment of Rezko to be used as a WP:Coatrack for adding criticism.

Newross (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

reposted by Tvoz/talk 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. Noroton (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. My understanding of WP:TALK is that other editors' Talk comments shouldn't be edited - that would include when copying them in a situation like this. The detailed backup data may belong on the subpage so as to not drown this page any further than it's already been drowned, but the above is Newross' summary, making his point about the relative weight that the Rezko matter has had in the history of this article and how it got there, and I think this context is relevant for any editors coming here to help us through this. -Tvoz/talk 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Newross and others that there is currently far too much material on Rezko in the article (either before or after today's changes). This was worked out as a compromise, of sorts, mostly with editors who have been blocked or banned for sock-puppetry, incivility, edit-warring, 3RR, and so on. One remaining editor, Noroton, is still pushing for... something. Who knows what, it appears to be simply a matter of keeping this discussion going forever. On a minor point, the huge diff dump is quite disruptive on this main talk page; that's why I moved it to a linked child. I apologize if I lost some of the relevant summary commentary... but it was, y'know, a heroic effort to try to fix the disruption. I appreciate Tvoz' job of restoring that stuff here. LotLE×talk 20:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see my earlier edits are being used to (somehow I can't quite figure out...) represent a faction increasing the amount of Rezko text. While I have added Rezko text at some points in the past, in fact I do not support a "long-Rezko" version. The times I have added text on that subject it has been to support accuracy and developments, and it was always my explicit goal to keep Rezko text accurate but short. In my memory these edits were generally the result of insertion of entire Rezko paragraphs, which would then get rightly deleted, and then i would attempt some sense of neutrality. So please consider my edits a support of one-sentence Rezko "in the long term", sorry that they appear otherwise to some... the regular editors from the winter probably remember me... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Speaking of subpages.. How about moving this entire discussion to a subpage say Talk:Barack Obama/Tony Rezko discussion and leaving a prominent pointer to the subpage. We could do a similar method as they do on WP:AN/I when a discussion reaches a certain length, which is to leave the section header (in this case the Tony Rezko discussion header) and an undated comment saying that an extended discussion about how to appropriately treat Obama's relationship to Tony Rezko has been moved to the subpage. This page has an edit byte size of almost 670,000 bytes and 90% of that size is the Rezko discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, let's end this thing by asking others to come in, review the recent discussion and then support either one of Clubjuggle's versions or the Scjessey-Shem-Tvoz-LotLE version and be done with it. Then let's archive it. Nothing new has come up for quite some time in the discussion -- no new information, no new arguments, no new, novel citations of policy. Nothing. That means discussion is ending. Let's ask people who have previously participated to make their opinions known. Then we'll either have a consensus or we won't and we can move on. It's time. Bobblehead, why don't you cast your lot with one of the versions and show us which you support? Noroton (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already expressed my preference, doing so again is a waste of my time and having to repeat myself over and over and over again is one of the reasons why I have only been nominally involved in this discussion. Seriously, we're talking about one word here and an unnecessary one at that. The volume of text that have been wasted over this one word is rather remarkable. I'm also of the opinion that whatever version is agreed upon will not end the edit warring over how Rezko is handled in the article. Whatever this discussion has been, it has not been a consensus discussion, it has been a war of attrition that has virtually guaranteed continued edit warring over this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My feelings exactly - and, as usual, said more succinctly than I did. Tvoz/talk 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, if you don't help us get to consensus with a helpful comment in any of the poll lists, then I don't understand why you're complaining that we're not getting to consensus. How exactly do you think we actually get to consensus if we don't try to constructively discuss and help others understand where we are? Bobblehead, do you really want to force the people trying to reach consensus to go find your past comments in order to interpret which of the current proposals you support? Isn't that just making it more difficult? I just WP:CANVASSed all the user names who have contributed to the Rezko discussion and hopefully that will make it clearer. If there's anything you can do that would help us get closer to consensus, please do it. Same for you, Tvoz. Noroton (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like I said before, Noroton. There is already a consensus for the version I proposed. Only the "criticism" phrase in the versions you are advocating remains contentious. We should implement the consensus version and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is novel. You might want to lay out the reasons why you think this, because it doesn't make any sense to me so far. It would probably be helpful to explain it in a way that uninvolved administrators, trying to apply WP policy and guidelines, would understand. Noroton (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(after EC) - I've gone ahead and updated the text to reflect the uncontested language, seeing as what was there before wasn't technically accurate. I concede that it may be altered at a later date to include the "criticism" phrase, assuming a consensus forms for doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple, Noroton. A consensus exists for everything except the "criticism" phrase. Everyone agrees to everything except that one little bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about this, Noroton, I'll start working towards consensus when you do. This entire process has been a series of concessions made by the majority of editors on this page to a very vocal minority that has, unfortunately, responded to these concessions by whining like little <female dogs> by edit warring, name calling, and sockpuppetting to the point that most of them are now blocked from editing on Wikipedia, or retired in response to being told they have to start complying with Wikipedia's policies or they will be blocked. Now, I'm not saying you have behaved in this manner, Noroton, because except in a few situations where you were responding in kind to other editors out of frustration, you've been on rather good behavior. Unfortunately, the editors that have supported your position in the past have and, as a result, have lost the privilege of having their opinions heard on this matter. Now you are unnecessarily extending this discussion by planting your pole in the ground next to the word "criticism" and shouting "You shall not pass!!" in an attempt to force your minority opinion upon the majority. This article spent a year and a half either not mentioning Rezko at all, or mentioning him in a single sentence in a footnote. Now Rezko gets an entire paragraph and you want to stop consensus because of a single word instead of looking at the entire paragraph and thinking to yourself "Look at the good I've done"? Ridiculous. Suck it up, take your pole out of the ground, and move on. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. You're being uncivil in a very tense situation, Bobblehead. Please refactor. 2. Your very emotional, very inaccurate description of my position doesn't take into account that if editors agree with you they could easily state just that. I'm not forcing my opinion on anybody. I'm bringing up reasons which, for all the caterwauling about length of discussion, nobody seems able to simply answer. If you could answer my objections with something that could be interpreted as reasonable responses (not even correct responses, just enough so that uninvolved admins could say, "Well, I don't know if I agree with it, but it's not unreasonable"), then I'd have no reasonable objection. Notice that you, Tvoz, Shem, Scjessey, LotLE can't seem to come up with reasonable arguments to counter my points, as other editors have seen. Don't you think if other editors agreed with your assessment Scjessey's version would have a lot more votes? What is it with these objections that everything but rationale-giving, fact-citing, policy & guideline adhering is favored as a way of getting around the fact that my reasonable objections simply haven't been answered. All you have to do is find reasonable arguments to oppose mine -- I don't even get to decide what's reasonable and what isn't. What is it with you people that you can't decide do that? Is your position so lacking in reasonableness that you have to try every other means to impose your will on the page? Can't you simply follow what Wikipedia wants you to do on talk pages? I'm not the only one who's posted on this page. Most of my posts, I think, have been responding to Scjessey, who has run out of on-topic responses. Please refactor your name-calling. Noroton (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the attack language and belligerence, Noroton! Every single argument you have made have been addressed dozens, if not hundred, of times. At a certain point, it is true, other editors cannot be bothered to repeat the exact same obvious point in response to a hundredth repetition of the exact same argument by you. You don't "win" by writing more words than anyone else can possibly manage, especially when the last time anything even slightly new occurred in those words was weeks ago. There are only three categories of editors who have discussed this: (1) You; (2) Editors who want much, much more discussion of Rezko in this article, but who have been banned for edit warring, sock-puppetry, incivility, and so on; (3) Everyone else, all of whom want less material on Rezko, but who have mostly conceded to having as much as is there now. The train has left the station. LotLE×talk 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about Bobblehead's comment, and if this is a "tense" situation, it's because you have explicitly said it's all about one word. Scjessey's version that he posted on the article a few minutes ago and you promptly reverted could stand - there is nothing contentious in it and it is a good compromise - the one that was there has long been abandoned. But you won't have that. Tvoz/talk 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Get explicit consensus for your edit before making it, Scjessey. You have less support for your proposal, the one you just tried to add to the page without explicit consensus, than for Clubjuggle's versions. There is no explicit consensus for making some edits and not others, otherwise we'd have done it piecemeal all along. So I've reverted. This kind of thing could be interpreted as you gaming the system. I don't think it's good idea when we have a lot of difficult discussions ahead -- subjects like how to handle Ayers and Wright -- that we've put off but that we know we'll have a difficult time trying to come to consensus on. Please try to be helpful in reaching consensus. If you still want your version, continue the discussion if you have anything new to say. Noroton (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're putting us on notice that you plan to mount this kind of contentious debate on those subjects too? Good to know. Tvoz/talk 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We are done with this!

We have consensus. I updated the text with the new, non-contested version. Noroton reverted it with a misleading edit summary that claimed my edit was "disruptive" and that a consensus was still being built. We are done with building. It is time for doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

About the only difference between Scjessey's version and mine is that mine mentions criticism, and Scjessey's doesn't. That's a pretty important difference. This means that while we do have consensus on almost all of the language, we have no consensus on that specific issue. The default action in a no-consensus situation is to retain the existing language. In that spirit I've reverted to enact the consensus language. As to the one clause for which no consensus exists, I've inserted the "scrutiny" language that was accepted by all as an interim version pending discussion. I've also tagged the section for disputed neutrality and will seek input via WP:RFC and WP:NPOV/N. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a pretty important difference. It is the difference between Wikipedia adopting a neutral position and just reporting the facts, and Wikipedia offering a characterization under the guise of "a summary". I continue to offer my weak support for the "criticism" phrase, but my recent edit to the article (with a carefully written edit summary) reflected current feelings. Everyone was just sitting around waiting for something to happen, so I went ahead and put in what everyone had agreed on. Not unreasonable, wouldn't you say? Apparently not for Noroton, who has accused me of "lying, gaming the system, POV pushing" at AN/I. Disgraceful tactics. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your edit was unreasonable at all. Your edit was unquestionably in good faith but the criticism text remains an open question -- one person's characterization is another person's neutral, and one person's neutral is another person's whitewashing. Since there's still an open question on that phrase, I inserted the middle-ground "scrutiny" text that no one really liked, but that everyone at least agreed to put up with as an interim version. Giving one side everything they want kind of takes away any incentive for that side to discuss and negotiate -- <pov>kind of like Bush's demand that Iran give us everything we want before his administration will talk to them -- and you can see how well that's working</pov>. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 04:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Scjessey's edit removed both "scrutiny" and "criticism" and had no contentious wording, thereby admirably avoiding this debate entirely. And I recall his saying that discussion could continue about whether to add "scrutiny" or "criticism", but meanwhile the wording was neutral and noncontroversial. I haven't seen the An/I action yet, but if the characterization is correct I think it speaks volumes about why we have had so much trouble here in the last two months since Noroton and the cohort of now-blocked troublemakers arrived here. Tvoz/talk 05:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the intent of Scjessey's edit (and had even proposed a similar edit before the arguments swayed me to the other side on the mention of criticism), understand that from the perspective of someone who thinks there should be a mention of criticism, that edit is even worse. A mention of criticism indicates that there was at least a significant minority who thought the Rezko relationship was a Bad Thing™. Scrutiny means some people looked to see if it might have been a Bad Thing™. No mention at all suggests nobody cared, or to someone not familiar with US politics (remember, we're writing for a worldwide audience), that things like the Rezko situation are normal enough that no one pays attention to it. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please copy, move and spread my comment wherever it fits.

Revisiting the talk page history thanks to Newross reminded me of my very first stand on this issue when we tried to decide how much information to include regarding Ayers, Rezko and Wright. I realize now how much there is left of what I thought would be appropriate: Basically nothing after all those compromises. Does anyone realize that Rezko is now pretty much on the same level as Wright even so it was just a "no-brainer"? Since none of the proposed versions are fluent to read I'll not bother to discuss that part and just "take" it the way it is. I'd rather give my opinion about the last real consensus blocking "criticism". I prefer "scrutiny" over "critic", etc. because the reader, if interested, has to decide for himself (as I do too). That's all I have to say and feel free to use this in the future as a reference of my basic view point (in case this discussion goes on). --Floridianed (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer mediating

Effective immediately I will no longer attempt to mediate discussion, but will weigh in as an editor. Frankly, I am tired of the talk page messages and emails from certain individuals on both sides of the debate accusing my of bias for the other side. While my past experience has shown me that if you're getting comparable accusations from both sides are accusing you of bias for the other, that you're probably near the middle, I am frankly tired of getting beat up. I do intend to file a WP:RFC and open a discussion at WP:NPOV/N. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Clubjuggle. Tvoz/talk 05:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer editing

I've received WP:OUTING-related emails, and am retiring (permanently, this time) from the project. I've had a pretty long run, but I'm leaving my torch in this discussion with Tvoz now; best wishes, all. Shem^(talk) 06:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Welsh ancestry

I am bringing this to the talk page, seeing as people are clearly more interested in just revert warring and throwing around warning templates (seriously, what the hell is wrong with all the people who edit this page always doing that for the tiniest things: are you all 10 years old?). This edit is pure trivia, and has no place in this article, given that it is already way too long. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your charge of triviality for that edit is misplaced, The Evil Spartan, as you will see from the history? Yes, this single article is too long - thats why splitting has already been suggested. But I thought Obama himself valued his ancestry quite highly? I must have been imagining a future American President, with an ancestry spread across the globe, bringing nations together. Hmmmm, pure trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We already have the general idea of Obama's diverse ancestry well discussed without a little factoid about one specific distant ancestor. Moreover, you have already violated 3RR in the reinsertion of your favored trivia, Martinevans123. Please stop if you'd like to avoid being blocked. LotLE×talk 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So, Lulu, Reitwiesner's research work on Obama's ancestry is "a little factoid"? Did you actually look? Who else has mapped out that family tree so completely? But I imagine your insult was squarely aimed at me, not him. I altered my edits, in good faith, to try and accommodate the responses, but apparently that make a violator. Perhaps general ideas occasionally arise from facts, however small. Feel free to block. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well LotLE, at least I am not the only one you get personal with. Do you often threaten to block people or take even futher steps? It's a wiki-style that for the first time ever has made me wonder if I should waste my time on Wikipedia--which in general is a great resource and is often quite fun to edit.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple observations - I've left an edit warring caution on one of the editors pages[21], which I'll forego as moot in the case of User:Martinevans123 because MV123 is now on the talk page discussing. Please do not edit war, particularly on this article. Also, Evil Spartan, your frustration is understandable but please keep it calm. This is a mild issue that probably won't explode but there are lots of issues on this page that do get out of hand. With that in mind, ancestral background outside of the immediate family tree is generally not seen as important enough to include in a major politician's bio article, unless that politician makes it an issue. Some people call it "trivia" and it is a trivia-like factoid, in that it does not explain much about the person, their life and career, etc. People are more and more aware of genealogy given the online tools available and the scrutiny on major politicians. If we went down that path every bio article would have a "family tree tidbits" section and people just aren't going for that. Obama's family is unusually diverse, and that observation has come to define him to some extent. But there is a limit, obviously. As an example people have repeatedly rejected inserting the material about Obama being distant cousins with Dick Cheney. Wikidemo (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikidemo for your sensible mediation. I'd agree that ancestry beyond even two generations usually tells us nothing of the person. For those who are interested the link is http://www.wargs.com/political/obama.html. It's regrettable that a fact thought significant by Ieuan Wyn Jones should not deserve not even a word in the article. I have no political axe to grind, just a factual one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been a recent spate of editors adding insignificant genealogical details about Obama, so regular editors are probably a bit more "revert happy" than you might expect. That being said, it is unclear why you would think that the opinions of Ieuan Wyn Jones (not exactly a world-renowned politician, largely unknown beyond the Welsh border) are a significant enough detail to be included in a summary of Barack Obama's entire life. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, US Presidents, even their Deputies, tend to get known far beyond their own borders, don't they. Perhaps because they're so good? But Ieuan should certainly take none of the blame for my foolhardy edit. Maybe here in tiny Wales Reitwiesner's research is news only because of Wyn Jones' reaction. But to me that work looks somehow definitive, regardless of Welsh politicians, Welsh ancestry and any insignificances which may have preceeded it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Reitwiesner's research is (a) not a reliable source and (b) factually inaccurate (Obama's birth certificate says "Barack Hussein Obama II", not "Barack Hussein Obama Jr"). And like I said before, this is a summary of Obama's entire life, in which his Welsh ancestry is of little significance (ditto Irish, Dutch, German, et al). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(a) please outline why Reitwiesner's research is not reliable source and (b) although I don't know how or why a Jr should not also be a II for the purposes of genealogy, I think were are talking about the same person here, so your observation seems a little pedantic. And like I said before I am defending the addition of the genealogy link regardless of individual ancestors Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As with Scjessey, I cannot see any special importance of mentioning Jones. Obama has met lots of foreign politicians, and has many ancestors from different places. Singling out some particular one doesn't seem important, unless (hypothetically) Obama or someone around him (e.g. a political supporter or opponent) were to make some big point of a particular relative. Given that isn't the case, it's not main-bio level material. LotLE×talk 00:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I quite agree with that, Lulu. Forget about Ynys Mon, forget about Ieuan Wyn Jones but what about Reitwiesner? In any other bio article that kind of factual information would get a mention, or if not, at least an external link. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note the 23:08 comment on the 5th regarding Reitwiesner's research. The comment was removed by the racist IP vandal and somehow got missed in the restoration process. It would still be considered trivia, so an external link would be inappropriate even if it was accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Without speaking to the reliability of the specific source, I would not object to a footnote to a genealogy. Probably next to the quote about "our family looks like the United Nations". The footnote could use a short clause introducing the link (in the note, not in the article body), and have a URL for the external genealogy (assuming the source met WP:RS of course). LotLE×talk 20:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fair, Lulu, but we await any details from Scjessey of why the source does not meet WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfotunately, I have tried clicking on the URL you give a number of times, spaced out over hours. I always get a time-out error on that page. Since I can't get to the page, I can't make any judgment about its reliability (but if it stays a broken link, we can't really use the source anyway). LotLE×talk 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I guess sabottage though not impossible, is unlikely. I don't suppose anyone has actually asked Mr Reitwiesner if he wanted his research linking to this article, so it might be his idea. Googling "Reitwiesner Obama" still gives about 2,930 hits, so obviously some general interest has been created, not just in Anglesey. I must admit I could give no expert opinion on the material anyway, given that Genealogy is certainly not an exact science and having just assumed the author's integrity. Guess we'll just have to wait. At least ancestors can't ever disappear (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you are suggesting that the Reitwiesner page should be regarded as a reliable source because the author is a scholar of some kind (it does not fall under any of the other WP:RS categories), I am bound to point out that (a) scholarly material must be vetted by peers (no indication is given that this one has been), and (b) this text is labeled by the author as only a "draft" document. Therefore, it cannot be considered a reliable source. In fact, this source would not be acceptable for a footnote for the same reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was suggesting that. Seems the link is working again. So (a) we'll just have to wait for some "vetting" by a "fellow genealogist". Not sure how a family tree is completey "vetted" other than by checking all the links again from scratch, assuming all the source info is in public domain. Not many peer-reviewed Geneaology journals out there, are there. But (b), it seems strange that you'd attach more weight if the author simply removed his own "first draft" description. Although once it's not draft, wouldn't be likely to become copyrighted? Do all the existing ancestry facts pass on these criteria? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I can see the link again also, I'm inclined to think it doesn't meet WP:RS. The author states at the top: The following material on the immediate ancestry of Barack Obama should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft. Until or unless this is published somewhere more officially, I don't think we can use it. I'm happy to stipulate that Reitwiesner is a relevant expert, but he himself warns against putting too much weight on this particular informal publication. FWIW, the issue has nothing to do with copyright: under Berne, all works are copyrighted "at birth", so the material is already under copyright (but fair use and citation cannot be prohibited by copyright). LotLE×talk 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to interject something in there. While I think it is interesting that Obama has Welsh ancestry and is distantly related to Dick Cheney, I've got to ask is it really important to include in an article about Obama's Life? No. Is it even worth a mention in the article? No. I've got a variety of ancestors from around the world including French, Russian, German, Polish, English, Irish, Scottish, and even a small bit of Native American (I completely consider myself and American first and foremost with no ties to any other country then America!). Can I speak any of those languages other then English? No. Do I know any of my really distant relatives in any of those countries, no. Have anyone of them shaped my life, No. So would it be even worth making a comment about it or adding a category to an article about me, no. The same thing applies to Obama's page. He has made no mention of any Welsh descent, he has not mentioned that it has shaped his life, or even made mention that he even knew that he is distantly related to some Welsh person. I would like that there would be better more important things to discuss and add to the article then this. Brothejr (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wise words Brotherjr, with which I tend to agree. And thanks for the information. I suppose the real sugnificance of any `genetic contribution' is going to be controverial, although in general terms Obama himself seems to attach some importance to the variety of his own. Maybe those with more restricted ancestry attach more significance to unexpected discoveries. But I wholly agree that there should be more important issues to discuss. Before this toptic is concluded I'd still welcome assurance that the sources for the existing ancestral details pass the WP:RS criteria. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But so glad we can all trust The Press as a WP:RS - look where "The Baltimore Sun" got its info (in the extisting footnote)...! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the existing footnote we have quite a mixed bag. The Chicago Sun-Times cites "... interviews with family members and genealogists, a study of archives and records, and Obama's book...", The Washington Post cites "... Stephen Neill, a local Anglican rector... " and The Baltimore Sun cites only "... Reitwiesner's Web site [which] carries a disclaimer that it is a "first draft... ". Who are the "scholarly peers" here? Could you explain the WP:RS logic? And what exactly are the criteria for the "notabality" of ancestors"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that WP:RS states:

• "However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."

I had thought I was being more diligent by using the source "facts" but the concensus now seems to be that these facts are an unreliable and non-scholarly "first draft". But still reliable enough for The Washington Post? Could someone please explain? Perhaps one or more of the existing newspaper references should be removed (as "trivia"?) to save space in this article? But I fear I might get more threats of blocking if I did that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are still banging on about this. It has already been explained to you, several times, that Obama's "Welsh ancestry" is too insignificant a detail for a summary of his entire life. Not only is it insignificant, but its inclusion would also present problems because we would also have to document his ancestral ties to dozens of other countries for balance. Furthermore, it has already been argued that the source you wish to use does not pass WP:RS muster because it has not received any sort of scholarly review. Newspaper reporters are not scholars - "scholarly review" means a review by peers (other respectable genealogists and experts on ancestry). Any newspaper presenting "facts" based on a draft document that has not been either completed or verified is basically being extremely sloppy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC

Scjessey I am not "banging on", I am asking some serious questions - did you not read them? It was not I who entitled this section "Welsh ancestry". My questions are about that source in general. Why does the current article cite newspaper material which you describe as "extremely sloppy". But it's a relief that you won't be responding to me again, since the tone of your responses have been both offensive and patronising Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper, especially one of well-known repute, is generally a reliable source under WP's meaning of WP:RS (please read that guideline, since it already answers all your questions on this page). A personal publication that is explicitly described by the author as "not authoritative" just isn't WP:RS. The meaning of "reliable" for WP is not "true", which might be your confusion (again, read the guideline). If a respected source like Washington Post nonetheless does sloppy reporting, we might in our own minds have doubt about its truth, but that doesn't change the nature of the source for WP purposes (if other WP:RS's contradict the Post, then it becomes more complicated to weigh conflicting sources).

In terms of the narrow issue you ask about facts are not reliable or unreliable in the WP meaning (again, read WP:RS), sources are. If the Post reports that the moon is made of green cheese, and mentions a blog that makes the same claim we: (a) can cite the Post on WP, but not the blog; (b) do not make independent judgment or research about whether the moon really is made of green cheese; (c) assume that "behind the scene" the Post did fact checking beyond reading the blog mentioned. LotLE×talk 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lulu, for a clear and polite explanation. Yes, I seem to have confused reliabilty of "facts" with "sources". Am still a little puzzled, though, on the relative notability of different ancestors. Is this a reliable newpaper source: Western Mail article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Western Mail look like it meets WP:RS perfectly well. The issue the Scjessey has is primarily of relevance. It's not worth the words in this article to discuss one particular great-great-... whatever. We don't do that in relation to any other of his 2^8 great-(x6)-grandparents. However, the Western Mail article itself describes this relative with the same sort of "maybe/possibly" that Reitwiesner does, so that isn't WP:RS either. Still, even if a source said "with 100% certainty, Obama has this great-great-... ancestor, it wouldn't be relevant without additional motivating context. The general "diversity" covers the point perfectly well. LotLE×talk 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. Although fascinating to the individual, ANY ancestors that distant, unless famous, really are just names. But I'll keep an eye on Reitwiesner and maybe return when the new President eventually takes office, green or otherwise. (In retrospect, meats looks more appropriate). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Obama's family

See Abongo Obama which is currently up for deletion. Abongo is a half-brother of Barack's and is mentioned at length in Dreams from my Father. The deletionsists argue primarily that Abongo (formerly Roy and possibly also known as Malik too) is not notable. Beyond Barack's book, where he is discussed at length, sources do seem limited, however, there are some available. A link to the call for deletion is available on Abongo's page, while the page lives. It's been deleted before.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Abongo Obama was deleted but then quickly revived as Malik Abongo Obama. This guy goes by a lot of names (including Roy). Maybe that alone makes him notable.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Radical Roots

As journalists examine Barack Obama more closely, they have been discovering that he has ties to many radical figures. The article had only a passing reference to this fact and so I decided a section needed to be created to document these ties. Syntacticus (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Which I reverted due to (a) a lack of anything approaching a reliable source, and (b) violations of WP:BLP concerning guilt-by-association, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and a host of other policies. You will find this matter has been extensively discussed if you review the talk page archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey: You are not being reasonable and are using the rules of Wikipedia selectively to censor my work. I am not trying to convict Obama of anything here. I am merely pointing out that these issues of significance have been raised. And how dare you say Foundation Watch is not a reliable source. It is published by Capital Research Center, a Washington, DC think tank established in 1984. You should be ashamed of yourself. Syntacticus (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies concerning the biographies of living persons before accusing anyone of "censoring [your] work". You may also wish to read WP:RS to see what is considered a reliable source. Furthermore, please refrain from editing the userpage of other editors. You will note that I have left civil warnings on your talk page, and your response has been personal attacks. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All Washington think tanks are not created equal, not even those founded in 1984. As for Obama's ties, he has 'ties' of some sort to hundreds if not thousands of people, of all possible backgrounds and views. You could just as well write about his ties to the-opposite-of-radicals Paul Volcker and Warren Buffet. He's worked more closely with conservative Senator Tom Coburn than he ever did with Bill Ayers, although I don't see a rush of Wikipedians intent on 'exposing' that. So...you obviously have a pre-set agenda, the rest of us have had this discussion about Bill Ayers innumerable times already at Wikipedia, and you can't even be bothered to read any of the Talk archives. Just so you understand why you're not likely to get a lot of sympathy. We've been there, done that, have the t-shirt. Flatterworld (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the convenience of those concerned, this is just part of the archived Ayers discussion. It demonstrates how exhaustively the matter has been discussed, and the fact that no consensus was reached for including any information about the relationship (or lack thereof) in the article. Any addition would need to first build a consensus here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey: I see now. Unless there is a consensus, no negative information about Obama gets posted. How enlightened. My agenda is balance. The Obama page is what in journalistic circles is called a puff piece. There is virtually no derogatory information about him on it and yet media outlets have reported so much negative information about him in recent months. To ignore this information is to do the public a disservice. I am aware of the rules and have been editing on Wikipedia for nearly two years. You are lawyering those rules and are not acting in good faith and the record reflects that you have a history of protecting the Barack Obama page from derogatory information you apparently don't like. The Capital Research Center meets all the criteria for being a "reliable source" in the policy, and besides the article extensively cites other reliable sources throughout. If you believe that think tank is less than credible, the burden is on you to make your case rather than to imperiously, arbitrarily, and capriciously strike down edits you object to. The NYT and WashPost are not the only credible sources of information in the United States. I also note how you keep referring to policies without actually engaging in argument. If you have a specific objection, cite it instead of referring to some policy document that covers multiple topics. Syntacticus (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor wishing to add or alter information on an article, particularly a BLP, has the burden of proving the information is both accurate and properly cited with a reliable source. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to be a constructive editor. It is not beholden on other editors to educate you. As I said before, you will find all the information you need at WP:BLP. Pay particular attention to the following:

"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

"Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

"Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."

These words will give you some idea of why your inclusion is inappropriate, but other policies also apply. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Syntacticus, Please moderate your tone and attitude if you wish to contribute to this conversation. This article has been the subject of a lot of edit warring, incivility, and shenanigans, as well as a number of editors on long term blocks. Please edit constructively, and do not stir up trouble. In the above post you have accused an editor of bad faith and wikilawyering, called the article a puff piece, said you want to insert derogatory information for balance - all as an editor new to this page fresh into the article after an attempt to edit war. I am not willing to go along with that kind of editing. The editors on this page have made an informal agreement to consider the Ayers material, but only after dealing with another disputed content proposal regarding Rezko. As such, I oppose any change or addition to the Ayers section at this time. That's likely my final word on this until we're ready to deal with it, and I suggest we mark this discussion closed. Wikidemo (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Syntacticus, this is the Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade. You see what they're doing here? The longer they can drag out the Rezko discussion - by resorting to tactics as ludicrous as arguing against the use of NYT, LAT & WaPo as reliable sources - the longer they can avoid a discussion about Ayers. They're hoping to prevent the appearance of the word "criticism" on this page until after the election. Discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss. Spend three or four days moving the word "nonetheless" around so that it makes anyone who criticizes Obama's judgment look as stupid as possible. Oh gosh, it isn't consensus until we hear from Shem! But we can certainly have consensus without anyone who disagrees with Shem. See how this works, Syntacticus? And if you think that's funny, report the worst of them at WP:ANI and watch him get a free pass. Try giving one of them a warning and get blocked for 72 hours. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Baracknophobia

The article now links to Baracknophobia on Wiktionary; if you object to the neologism, please take it up on Wiktionary, not here. So long as an entry exists on Wiktionary, a link to it belongs here. --Una Smith (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We rarely have external links in articles to Wiktionary entries for related concepts. When there's a Wiktionary entry for the exact same term we often provide that, though. Wikidemo (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. --Una Smith (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Profession

Someone added Politician to Attorney, in the Profession field; someone else deleted the addition. For the record, politics is not a profession. --Una Smith (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some lifelong politicians would be disappointed to learn that their career is not a profession. In any event, I did some spot checking and most senators have "politician" or "senator" listed in their profession along with lawyer or whatever their early training may be. Wikidemo (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could redefine Profession, but what does Barack Obama say is his profession? Many people use "profession" as a synonym for "occupation", but people who have attained a profession (eg, by passing the bar) tend to respect the difference. --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, hasn't it been called the second-oldest profession? Just kidding, just kidding. Noroton (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Abongo Obama----

is nominated for deletion here. As a side comment to Tvoz: to abide by good Wikietiquette, since I'm myself not in favor of its deletion, were no contributors to show up to in fact advocate for deletion, I'll withdraw its nomination if poss. soz no resolution might be considered a formal "keep"(?) Anyway, if all interested parties would chime in there, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First African-American

We claim Obama is the first African-American major party presidential candidate, yet Joel Augustus Rogers asserted there had been Five Negro Presidents (in the book of that name).[22] Perhaps we shouldn't jump the gun with such a racialised suggestion even if the MSN does, and at least not front with it in the introduction. Terjen (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are fringe theories and have no place in the Obama article. Even if one or all of those presidents had some black in their ancestry, it doesn't automatically make them black just because there used to be a one-drop rule. They didn't identify as black, and no one else saw them as such. Kman543210 (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A Pledge

I have been following the talk page for a while now, but I've been trying to stay out of it mainly due to the contentious nature of it. It is about time that the editors involved come to a basic agreement of how discussions and edits of the Barack Obama shall be from now on. I have been doing some thinking as to how editors can come to an agreement without causing even more ongoing arguments. I then came up with the idea of a simple pledge that everyone signs. If you do sign the pledge it means you are agreeing to a neutral point of view and that you are only working to better the article. Also, if you do sign the pledge you are also telling everyone else that you are willing to work with everyone else who signs the pledge to better the article.

Here is the pledge:

• I pledge to remain civil in all discussions, debates, and reviews of the Barack Obama article.
• I pledge to leave my personal political beliefs at the door when editing or discussing the Barack Obama article.
• I pledge to keep all discussions strictly about Barack Obama and take any discussion not directly about Barack Obama to the appropriate related article.
• I pledge not to use guilt by association, hearsay, web search (I.E. there are hundreds of articles on this controversy so it must be important!), or massive amount of rule citations to push a criticism. I instead will use only verifiable facts to back up the criticism. (Facts within an article/news report, not the article/news report by itself. If the article/news report is properly written then it will have verifiable facts and statements within it that can be cited in here.)
• I pledge to use as few words as possible to describe a controversy, to keep it strictly related to Barack Obama, and to remain as neutral as possible by ignoring all outside pressures no matter how numerous or famous.
• I pledge not to use voting, straw poles, or any similar methods to reach a consensuses or push a point.
• I pledge not to attack other editors by either calling them names or any other way to disparage them.
• I pledge to help each editor and to try to understand their viewpoints.
• I pledge that if I should break any of these pledges that I will take a break and not participant for at least twenty four hours or more.

By agreeing to these pledges, then you are saying you are willing to work with everyone to edit this article in a positive and neutral way. Also, if you are not willing to sign this pledge, then I'd like you to ask yourself why you are not able to edit neutrally and follow these simple guidelines.

If you are willing to sign then please sign here:

• Brothejr (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Won't per-se sign but will try and follow these ideals, anyway----or as best I interpret them  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

article looks good

I came back after a long break to tell you guys that the article looks better than it did in may/june, even with all the usual whining and BS talk page activity... nice.

[complaint about talk page semi-protection] 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pps- in the future if someone must delete the potty-mouth, please add your sig so others don't have to dick around with the page history. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this exchange - [23]. That's 12 insertions of the N word, with some monkeys and c*m s**king thrown in, from 5 different IP addresses, in the space of 6 hours. And it follows some earlier incidents of the same thing from the same editor. Anonymous IP is nice, but we do have to keep the hate speech out. Wikidemo (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WIkidemo beat me to it - I'll add that BLP concerns are being taken very seriously these days, after a recent Arbcom ruling, so short-term sprot on the the talk page was a prudent move. It's not permanent. Glad you like the article, Fancy.Tvoz/talk 07:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are against WP policy, no?

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

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

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

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

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