Talk:A More Perfect Union/Archive 1

Adding More
Great start, but it would be nice to expand upon this further if it is going to be listed at DYK (which should draw a number of editors over to help work on it). For one thing the actual analysis of the speech could be greatly elaborated on. Ultimately the stuff about Wright is probably less important. Much more attention needs to be paid to the general discussion on race, which we can get at as more analysis comes out in the next couple of days.

Further work is also needed in the reaction section. Conservatives are of course reacting to this speech as well and we need to represent their views (some seem to have liked the speech, while many are complementing it but saying it did not go far enough, and others are viewing it as self-serving). The Op-Ed in the Washington Post by Michael Gerson might be a good place to start. The comment by libertarian conservative Andrew Sullivan might also be worthy of mention as one which is highly supportive, though on balance most comments from conservatives seem to be at least partially if not fully critical and this article needs to reflect that. Of course we want general feedback from sources which are not explicitly conservative or liberal, but aside from that right now the article is too heavy on the latter.

I'll try to help with this if I can in the next couple of days - might not have much time unfortunately - but just wanted to make these suggestions in the interim.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies to SynergeticMaggot, somehow when I added the above comment it must have deleted that user's placement of the AfD box. Anyhow I re-added it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

MLK
Is this going to be the next "I have a dream"? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article should absolutely be kept, as it concerns a speech that will be in the history books, and studied and quoted for many years (even centuries, assuming race remains a persistent issue in America) to come. It is absolutely inexplicable how this article could fit under any of the normal deletion critera, such as for (1) poor writing, (2) pages needing expert attention, (3) articles written in a foreign language, (4) bias, (5) a short article, (6)lack of verifiability, or (7) a small article which could be merged into a larger one.  This article is not going to be a small article.  It is likely to grow in length as the tens, perhaps hundreds, of commentaries about the speech accumulate over the coming weeks.  I suspect some of the comments above are from people who have not read the speech from beginning to end (be honest).  Seeing a few snippets on cable entertainment/news does not fulfill the responsibility of a Wikipedia contributor on this subject. --Tkhorse (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Make sure to voice your opinion here then. Articles_for_deletion/A_More_Perfect_Union Yonisyuumei (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This Article Deserves Deletion
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. To say this is going to be the next "I have a dream" speech two days after it has been delivered is violating Wikipedia policy. I think the speech should be referenced prominently within Obama's primary wikipedia article. Otherwise every speech given for the rest of the 2008 campaign, by any candidate, should be added to Wikipedia. Highlighting the historic nature of the speech violates NPOV as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.72.194.79 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not the place to discuss that. Articles_for_deletion/A_More_Perfect_Union Yonisyuumei (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article should not say it is "the next 'I have a dream' speech". However this speech does stand out as important, and there are plenty of media outlets, academics and others that have said as much. You shouldn't have any problem finding citations from a variety of people and organizations who believe the speech was notable compared to others.VatoFirme (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct to say that no one has a crystal to foretell what from the 2008 campaign will be inscribed in the textbooks for 1st graders for the future. However when you here the speech it feels like listening to JFK's inaugural address. One of those subjects that is instant history. What Wikipedia is, is not only an encyclopedia, but a record of what people that and how this evolved over time. Through edits and re-edits one can see the evolution of a topic. To delete this article is to remove that which makes wikipedia vibrant.

PS I not only think this is the greatest speech since MLK, it is probably the greatest since Gettysburg. Both addressing in solemness what we are and the hopefulness that is the American Dream whilst reflecting on the dreams of the Founding Fathers.

Plagiarism
I only just started editing this article, and immediately the very first paragraphs I read turned out to be taken, word-for-word, from a variety of different sources, with no quotations. This needs to be fixed immediately. I don't know how extensive the copyviolation is, but every single line of the article will need to be checked before the page can be restored. Otherwise, it must be started from scratch. -Silence (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, for anyone coming across this, another editor came through and checked for further copyvios and apparently did not find any. That editor also reworded the copyvio text so it seems this problem has been fixed for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of changes, suggestions for additional work
Under the assumption that this will pass AfD, I've made a bunch of changes and some significant additions which I think improve this article, but of course welcome others to review those changes and make whatever adjustments seem appropriate. One of the key things I did was to rename the response section "Initial response." My rationale here is that this is a speech which will almost certainly be discussed for some years to come (I'm not really crystal-balling, that's just an informed guess). As such I think we will want to separate out the immediate reaction to the speech from the long term reaction. The latter could include scholarly articles, discussions in books, at conferences, etc. - all things which will begin to come out probably in the next few months and will continue to come out in the years ahead (again, call it a prediction). We can add that stuff when appropriate, but obviously are only concerned for now with the immediate reaction. I added a new subsection there on "academics." All of the sources there were taken from a helpful little Time magazine article, but it would be nice to get additional responses from scholars in the next week or two and if that happens we probably can/should pare down some of what I added. I wasn't sure about the subsection title, perhaps "Academics and other experts" or something similar would be better, though some "pundits" could be considered experts and I though it made sense to separate out the responses of scholars of political science and other fields from those of the punditry.

I also started a new section called "Effect on voters." I would hope that this is something we build up in the weeks ahead and to begin with I included a useful poll from Fox News. Obviously a key question is whether this speech helps Obama in his campaign, both in upcoming primaries like Pennsylvania but also (if he wins the nomination) in the general election. I'm sure pollsters will ask voters specifically about this speech and/or about Rev. Wright, and we should search out that data and include it when appropriate in the weeks and months ahead (if it stays an issue for that long). Obviously we don't know how this will turn out, but whether the speech wins back some voters for Obama or ultimately does not save his chance for the nomination, either way it will be worthy of discussion so long as it is covered in secondary sources.

I added a general introduction to the "Initial response" section which I think was appropriate but obviously we can tweak that going forward.

What I would like to see is some more work put into the "Politicians" and "News media and pundits" sections to get them more up to par. For one thing, it would be nice if both sub-sections were briefly introduced with a general sentence or two about the range of reactions (for the news media section, this article in E & P might be helpful in that regard). The politician section only contains reactions from Democrats - we need Republican (and independent/third party) responses there too, obviously. The news media sections could likewise do well with some more conservative voices. We should also try to structure these sections so it's not just "Person A said, Person B said, Person C said...", but rather so that the responses are grouped based on their similarities ("Some thought it was great and would help him beat Hillary (example, example)"; "Some thought it was great but he would still lose (example, example)"; "Some thought it was self-serving and annoyingly preachy (example, example)"; etc.; etc.). I might try to work on that soon but perhaps someone else is willing to take a stab at it as well.

Finally, as I said in a previous section, we can and should have more analysis of the speech itself in the "speech" section. We can base this entirely on secondary sources, but I'd like to see us pick apart the key components of the speech in greater detail - give the reader unfamiliar with the speech a good sense of all of the high points in six to eight paragraphs or so.

Anyhow those are my (lengthy) thoughts for now - I'd love to hear objections or agreement or tangential concerns if anyone has them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the first two Republican comments on the speech that came to hand and I'm a bit surprised to see them still there. The Obama fans at the bio and campaign article are much more rabid. In the couple of weeks before he Wright videos hit the media propeller I'd been trying to add a couple anodyne sentences to the bio quoting the NYTimes that Trinity was Afrocentric and more than usually political, and that Obama had distanced himself from Wright, but my prescient awareness that this would prove important was met by obdurate revertism.
 * Anyway the POV that this is a speech for the ages is just that -- a POV -- and I'm just going to ask you to try to not make it an assumption underlying the structure of the article. Exactly what that means I don't yet know. Andyvphil (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article which says this is a "speech for the ages," unless we are quoting commentators along those lines. As I said above, it is very likely - not guaranteed - that there will be a long term reaction to the speech, and if so I think it would make sense to have that in a separate section. I then said that "we can add that stuff when appropriate, but obviously are only concerned for now with the immediate reaction." Of course we are not going to talk about historical impact until (and if) secondary sources start talking about historical impact. My only point is that it is quite likely that that will happen and if it does it will warrant its own section. There is nothing wrong with looking forward and considering how we might, again might, structure the article in the months and years ahead.


 * I'm glad you added the conservative reaction and I will be adding more. I'm sorry if you feel "obdurate revertism" blocked you from adding relevant material to other articles on Obama. This is a different article though, and I think I for one have made it perfectly clear that we need to include more conservative voices and voices skeptical of the speech. My only interest is turning this into a good NPOV article and I would certainly welcome your help in that respect so long as we keep it civil and assume good faith - obviously these political articles can be quite contentious.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I appreciate both your stated attitude and the degree to which you've attempted to walk the walk. Nonetheless, it takes a long time before anyone unenthusiastic is quoted in this article. There's a bit, in WP:NPOV I think, about how structure can be POV. Consider the alternative structure here. You've made a choice. It may not be NPOV. There may have to be changes. Andyvphil (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would point out that it takes a long time before anyone is quoted saying anything about the speech - there is not commentary until the "politicians" section. As I said below, I did not (so far) find any major politicians who said anything critical. If you find something please put it in, and I'll keep looking. I'm sure there is (or will be) something out there along those lines. I would note though, and I think you can agree, that reaction to the speech has been much more positive than negative on the whole. There has been a lot of criticism, sure, but the compliments have been far more numerous. In order to remain NPOV the article should reflect that, and as a result I think it also makes sense to lead the politicians section (again, the first reaction section) with positive and relatively neutral commentary.


 * As to the Politico article you linked to, I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting we "consider the alternative structure." We obviously are not going to structure this article like that or any other opiniony piece. The Politico article is about Obama's overall issue with race and much of it is beyond the scope of this Wikipedia entry. Of course it is already cited here in the news media section, though I think we could do a better job explaining the authors' POV. I guess I don't see the POV problem with structuring the articles as 1) Intro 2) Background to speech 3) Overview of speech 4) Immediate reactions 5) Effect on voters and (possibly) 6) Long term impact. The only major POV danger is in section four and we just need to keep that balanced which is what I am trying to do. Section five might end up suggesting that the speech helped Obama with voters or that it failed to do so - we just don't know at this point. Section 6 may or may not end up in there and if it does we don't know what kind of things it would say. The "long term view" of the speech could range from "one of the most important speeches of all time" to "some pretty words but a colossal failure in terms of helping Obama's campaign and sparking a racial dialogue in the U.S." So I think the structure is still pretty open ended. If you have alternative suggestions for structure perhaps you can propose something specific in a new section below. So far a number of other editors seem okay with the way we are proceeding.


 * I've held off on revising the news media section because it already had some critical and conservative comments in it (thanks to your additions) and I simply have not had time to work on that yet since it needs some real reorganizing. I already have saved reaction pieces from Michael Gerson, Peggy Noonan (who is somewhat critical but also complementary), Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby, and Michelle Malkin and plan to put some or all of those reactions in while revising the overall structure of that section. From what I've read, while the "liberal" pundit reaction is overwhelmingly positive, the "conservative" reaction is a bit more mixed, though of course far more negative overall. I will work on this later but I just don't have time right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy quotation about the speech
An anchor for MSNBC began that network's coverage of the speech thus, and I quote: "First we begin with what some are calling the most important speech on race relations since Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963". I'm not sure who the "some" she mentions are (presumably someone must have said that between the speech's delivery at 11:00am ET and 3:00pm ET on Tuesday, when the anchor spoke). But I think that it's important to note that the mainstream media was making this comparison on the same day that the speech was made.

I'd add the quote to the "News media and pundits" section, except that I don't know who the MSNBC anchor is — she doesn't seem to be any of the ones whose bios are listed here. If anyone knows the anchor, the quote can be added with this citation:

Just add the anchor's name in the "people" field. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So nobody knows who that MSNBC anchor is? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked yet, I was holding off on this until I can actually work on that whole section. Also, I think it would be best if we had someone actually saying "this is the most important speech on race relations since Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech" rather than a news anchor saying "some people are saying that this is..." Also, I wonder if MSNBC keeps those video links up indefinitely, or if they take them down fairly quickly? If the latter it might not be the best think to link to. Anyhow I'm going to try to work on that entire section (hopefully I'll have time soon, but I'm not sure) and when I do I'll try to figure out what to do with this MSNBC comment.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the anchor is Norah O'Donnell. Joshdboz (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. She must be one of those people who look completely different in still photo than in motion, because I looked at her bio and completely failed to recognize her from the news clip.


 * Would it be disingenuous, inaccurate or POV to say something like "MSNBC news anchor Norah O'Donnell compared the speech with Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech"? I've done a little more searching, and haven't been able to find who the "some" she mentions are, but I still think that it's noteworthy that a MSNBC anchor said the comparison was being made. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any objection, I've been bold and added O'Donnell's comment, as well as a few others from the New York Times. If the section is getting unwieldy, it can of course be trimmed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found who O'Donnell was quoting: MSNBC analyst Michelle Bernard. We don't have a page on her, but NNDB (not a reliable source, alas) says she's a Republican. I've sourced this to video on the MSNBC website. I was looking for a better source for Matthews' comment, which we currently have sourced to somebody's YouTube compilation. That's not ideal, and I'm wondering whether we even need the Matthews line. Would anyone object if it was deleted? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a better source for the Matthews comment - the conservative "NewsBusters" blog which transcribed several passages from that day's Hardball program. I think that's good enough for now and I think the quote should stay - Matthews is obviously one of the more powerful news personalities in the U.S. I also added a source demonstrating Michelle Bernard's notability. She is the CEO of the Independent Women's Forum which makes her opinion relevant I think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Politicians section
I've reworked and significantly expanded this section. The main problem is that I have not been able to find much in the way of reaction from Republican politicians/political strategists (there's plenty of reaction from Republican/conservative pundits and we can put more of that in the media section). The only thing I came across was some interesting comments by Mike Huckabee, but those were actually highly laudatory. I expect there will be some more criticism coming forward at some point. If prominent Republicans like McCain or even Bush get asked about the speech in the near future we should include their responses, so hopefully we can keep a look out for those kind of comments in order to provide more balance to that section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I Suggest the article's name be changed to Barack Obama and race
with its treatment appropriately broadened and with Obama's keystone speech on the topic (along with the various reactions to it) likewise the keystone to the article. -- Justmeherenow (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It might well make sense to have a "Barack Obama and race" article at some point, but this article is already fairly long and could potentially be much longer. The latter could certainly be a topic in the former, but personally I don't think the speech should be completely subsumed under an Obama/race article. The speech is already notable in its own right.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Biggest omission: summary of the speech itself
Right now, the biggest problem with this page is that it doesn't go into any detail about the speech itself. I know that we need to avoid original research, but I think that there must be a way to summarize Obama's arguments without interpreting them. If nobody else wants to take this on, I'll give it a try. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, and I'll try to help you with that in the next couple of days. I actually think we can do this pretty easily through secondary sources. What I would maybe recommend is reading through the speech and picking out the key arguments throughout (maybe do a rough outline of those, you could even stick it here on the talk page) and then giving a quick overview of all of them along with a sampling of the most relevant quotes. We can of course cite the speech directly, but we can also try to use newspaper articles and other secondary sources to cite claims like "Obama discussed the history and legacy of racial discrimination in the United States in some detail" (or whatever). I think it's actually fine (i.e. not really OR) to just say something like that, but if we can source those kind of general summaries of aspects of the speech to secondary sources it's even better. I have a bunch of articles saved which might be useful for that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll try to work out an outline over the next day or so, as you suggest, and we can figure out how to cite each element here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's my first attempt at a summary of the speech. It's way too long, and probably has too many quotations from the speech itself, but it's a start. (It's hard to paraphrase someone who's as good a writer as Obama — there's no fat to cut, and no easy way to convey the ideas more succinctly than Obama himself has.) All the citations are to the speech itself; we can add citations to secondary sources later. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft of text
Obama's speech began by quoting the Preamble to the United States Constitution: We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.Noting his proximity to Independence Hall, Obama highlighted the tension between the ideals of equal citizenship and freedom expressed in the Constitution and America's history of slavery, and connected the civil war and civil rights movement with the goals of his own campaign, "to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America."

Obama described his own family history, stating that "in no other country on Earth is my story even possible" and connecting both his multicultural background and his campaign with the American motto, "out of many, we are one". He mentioned that he has had primary victories both in "states with some of the whitest populations in the country" and in South Carolina, where he won with the support of white and black voters. Obama paraphrased the comments of Geraldine Ferraro as "the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap" and then addressed the comments of Jeremiah Wright: ...we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. Obama went on to say that Wright's views were "not only wrong but divisive... at a time when we need unity". He then posed the rhetorical question of why he would have allied himself with Reverend Wright in the first place. His answer was that Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ have been misrepresented by "the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube". Obama spoke of Wright's service to the poor and needy, and of the role Wright played in his own journey to Christianity. He quoted a passage from his memoir Dreams from My Father describing the first service he attended at Trinity, in which the stories of the Bible merged with the stories of the black experience in America to create something "at once unique and universal, black and more than black".

Obama stated that like other black churches, Trinity contains the full spectrum of the black community: "the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America." Similarly, he argued that Wright "contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years". Therefore, Obama stated: I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love. Emphasizing that he was in no way justifying or excusing Wright's comments, Obama said that to dismiss Wright as a "crank or a demagogue" ... "would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America — to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality." Obama argued that the Wright and Ferraro controversies "reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect."

Obama quoted William Faulkner's aphorism, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." He argued that many of the inequalities of modern African-American life can be traced to the sufferings of previous generations under slavery and Jim Crow laws, noting the long-term effects of unequal education, lack of economic opportunity, the "erosion of black families" and the lack of basic services in urban black neighborhoods. Obama observed that the environment in which African-Americans of Reverend Wright's generation grew up, segregation and degredation were common, and even those who succeeded in life despite these obstacles were scarred by them with anger and bitterness. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races. Obama then shifted to an expression of what he called "a similar anger" in the white community, based on resentments over busing, affirmative action and the way in which fears about crime are met with accusations of racism. These resentments, he noted, have been used by politicians and media figures for their own advantage, and have "distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many." Obama stated that these resentments are rooted in legitimate concerns and said that to dismiss them as misguided or racist widens the racial divide and increases misunderstanding.

Obama described the resultant situation as "a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years". He pointed out that his "imperfect" candidacy is not the solution to racial division, but argued that it is possible and important for Americans of all races to work together to overcome it. To that end, he called for the African-American community to "[bind] our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans" and for the white community to acknowledge the "legacy of discrimination ... and current incidents of discrimination." He emphasized that racial progress was possible, and pointed to the successes of his own campaign as proof: The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

Obama presented a choice to his listeners, between on the one hand continuing to treat race "only as spectacle — as we did in the OJ trial — or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina — or as fodder for the nightly news." and on the other coming together to solve the country's problems. He specifically mentioned education, health care, jobs moving overseas, the Iraq War and care for its veterans. This, he said, was the goal of his campaign: I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.

Obama concluded his speech by relating an anecdote about a young white woman who organized for his campaign in South Carolina, and the personal connection she made with an elderly black volunteer. By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Comments on draft
That's a 1763-word summary of a 4916-word speech. That's not ideal, and anyone who wants to hack and slash at this first attempt is more than welcome to do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove some of the personal comments, if the speech is that good it will stand on its own. Frmorrison (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Personal comments? Are you talking about the draft summary above, or the article as a whole (which contains the views of many pundits, politicians, and so forth)?  If the latter, I agree that we can cut back on that some.  If the former, please give some examples — I was trying to relate the content of the speech neutrally. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you mean the quotations? (Sorry, still confused.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a great first draft - thanks for doing the hard work. I agree that it needs to be cut down in size, possibly by elimintating or reducing some of the block quotes and leaving only the really key excerpts that the media has highlighted.  But as it stands now, it's quite usable.  I'll try to have a longer look at this later. Joshdboz (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been a couple of days now, so in the absence of any serious criticism I guess I'll put it in the article. I encourage anybody who wants to cut it down to give that a go, and if anyone wants to cite secondary sources that would be good too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Josiah for working on this. I also think it is a bit too long, and I'm going to try to cut it down a bit probably be reducing some of the block quotes as Joshdboz suggests.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please have at it! :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous puff piece!
Well, it isn't hard to tell that Obama has a team of Wikipedia editors on his payroll. I am personally stunned at the sychophants who watch this article and his bio all day and all night, ensuring that they both remain shameless puff pieces.

It is said, and it is true, that there is no institution so flawless that a Democrat can't ruin it - so goes Wikipedia, where the gutless rabble rewrite history.

Perhaps Geraldine Ferraro said it best: If Obama were white, he wouldn't have a shot at being President. We sure as hell wouldn't know about THIS ridiculous, say-nothing speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you were trying to accomplish with that comment, but it certainly didn't work. Calling other editors "sychophants" (sic) and members of the "gutless rabble" are personal attacks. Suggesting that the folks editing this article are on Obama's payroll is a massive failure to assume good faith (I assure you I am not on Obama's payroll, and I wrote much of what is currently in the article). I think the article is relatively balanced though there is still more work to be done. If you want to help then help, but comments like the preceding are not at all constructive.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know you don't have to read Wikipedia. If you're so sick of this "puff piece" you can go ahead and use your excellent use of vocabulary ("It is said"...""sychophants") to add some information and citations. Good luck buddy, I'm sure you'd make a great contributor. '' conman33 (. . .talk)  01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that this article is not in keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, please point out specific problem areas and show us reliable sources calling this a "ridiculous, say-nothing speech". The article as it stands cites many sources, including several critics. If you feel that undue weight has been placed on the positive reviews, please work with other editors to bring the article into balance. Making accusations towards other editors won't help anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Viral video?
Given that NPR discussed how video of the speech "went viral", would it be appropriate to add this to Category:Viral videos? It's rather different from the normal sort of viral video, but a reliable source used the term, so...? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see why we can add it the category, due to the enormous hits it got on YouTube and such. I'm not for sure though. That's up in the air with me. '' conman33 (. . .talk)  04:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
Why is it that none of the numerous articles and news sources like Fox who have criticized this speech for its divisiveness and throwing his white grandmother under the bus mentioned in this article? Are we only allowed to post information that kisses his ass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.122.59 (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By no means. Feel free to add appropriately cited criticisms.  They should be integrated with the other material (Wikipedia discourages separate "criticisms" sections), but it's always good to have a range of opinions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Coat Rack due to current trends
in a couple weeks, if the polls keep moving the same way, thats what this page will look like, a content forked coatrack. fyi... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What polls are you referring to? In the Gallup daily tracking poll Obama's back where he was before the Wright business erupted, and Pew shows no real change since February.  Of course, we shouldn't be basing our editorial judgments on polls, but on what reliable sources say.  Do you have specific criticisms about the sources used in this article?  Are there reliable sources with differing views the article should include?  Please present them.  We can also trim sources which are less significant or redundant, if you think one viewpoint is being given undue weight.


 * As for the article being a coatrack, a key question is whether the material in the article is directly related to its subject or if it's being used as an excuse to present tangentially related material. Is there something here that you think is not directly related to the March 18 speech? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * no I just mean in a couple weeks when this Wright thing is a bit less topical, the whole page will just seem a bit coat-racky. I agree there is really no other way to deal with the current crop of Wright-pushers, but once they stop pushing it, where is this article going to go? It looks to be almost as long as the entire campaign page, which is kind of hilarious... I don't generally advocate deletion and I don't either in this case- but I think the time will come for some trimming at least... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree that some trimming is in order. (It's not something I'm particularly good at, alas.)  As for the future of the article, well, I don't have a crystal ball, but I wouldn't be surprised if this speech is remembered and analyzed even after Jeremiah Wright finally falls out of the news cycle.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Censoring Clinton's response to Obama
It's been more than a week since I warned that treating this speech as something for the history books smelled of pro-Obama POV and that the editors reponsible for this page would have to work to control the degree to which their biases affect its content. I think the shit has now hit the fan, in that two main editors of this article have removed mention of Hillary Clinton's actual response to the speech that gives context to her initial welcome, before she had seen or read it,, which is quoted in the article. Obama's statement about Wright, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community", is one of the most widely quoted lines in the speech, and indeed is quoted in this article, yet when removing mention of Clinton's response ("You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend... hate speech [is] unacceptable in any setting... I just think you have to speak out against that... if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving.") Grsz11 insists, apparently straight-faced, "article isnt about responses to Wright controversy, just the speech", and in backing him up Bigtimepeace writes "Clinton's comment... was not related to the speech" and (I love when entrenched POV warriors emit this stink-bug gas) "Andy you obviously don't have consensus yet for this addition, please make your case on the talk page...". Either Clinton's actual response goes in or you can stop pretending to be attempting the neutral point of view. Andyvphil (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tone it down. Calling other editors POV warriors is not helpful, nor are vague threats along the lines of "either put in what I want to put in or admit that you are not adhering to NPOV." I'm happy to discuss this with you and even maybe be persuaded by your point of view, but let's remain civil. I would also point out that the most recent additions I made were a very negative reaction from Ed Koch and a reaction from Newt Gingrich  which was fairly positive but also called on Obama to move away from PC left politics, as Gingrich put it. So I'm not trying to limit the inclusion of negative views (or conservative views) and I'd kindly ask you to refrain from making that baseless accusation in the future.


 * Which brings me to my actual objection to the Clinton quote, which you already alluded to. It is a simple statement of fact that what she said was not a reaction to the the speech but rather a general comment about the Obama-Wright affair. This article is about the speech, not the wider issue relating to Wright. Many of the responses in the article deal with Wright, but always in the context of how well Obama's speech dealt with the issue (and many of those responses are critical). If we let in the Clinton quote it suggests that we would let in any comment from someone who continues to criticize Obama over the Wright affair without reference to the speech itself. That would make no sense. I understand your argument is that Clinton is obviously referring to the speech because she criticizes Obama for not speaking out against Wright and/or leaving the church. I think that that argument is somewhat illogical. Obama was criticized for not leaving the church and chastizing Wright before he ever even gave the speech - it's probably the main reason he gave it. To suggest that Clinton is really referring to the speech (when she makes no mention of it explicitly) by reiterating arguments made before the speech was made is not a sound argument. Her comments, taken at face value, without reading into them, refer in general to the Wright controversy which is beyond the scope of this article.


 * I hope we end up with a more detailed Clinton reaction and I assume we will - I just want it to refer at least in part directly to the speech. There is a debate in Philadelphia in a few weeks and I imagine there will be some questions/comments about Obama's speech and the issue of race. If Clinton has not given a more direct opinion on the speech by then I would expect/hope that the debate will provide us with fodder for the article. Whenever Clinton (or even her campaign surrogates) comments directly on the speech I will certainly argue for its inclusion. I don't at all want to keep Clinton's view out, I just want to limit the scope of the article to reactions to the speech itself. Your Clinton quote would make more sense in the article on Obama's campaign, the Jeremiah Wright article, or an article on the Obama-Wright controversy.


 * I'm happy to discuss this, but I ask you to respect the views of other editors and the need to work for consensus. In mentioning consensus and the need to discuss controversial additions to an article I was not emitting "stink-bug gas," I was invoking Wikipedia policy.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I were to have inserted the comment as a standalone from a different individual you might have a point about drawing the line between comments on the speech and comments on the controversy, although it would point to the oddity of having an article on this speech while a more important subject of which it is part (the Wright-Obama nexus) as yet has none. That's assuming you don't buy the assertion that it's one of the "great speeches in American history", something you may hope for but highly POV as a premise. Anyway, Clinton is already quoted, and her response is misrepresented if you don't note that she's explicitly disagreed with Obama's core defense. It's not ok to keep the misrepresentation in place while you wait for a better quote.
 * As to your tender sensibilities, if you hit the revert button in support of an anti-NPOV warrior like Grsz11 don't be surprised if you get lumped in with him. Whether Clinton's comment should be in this article isn't a close question. If you think it is then your biases are in control, whether you realize it or not. Andyvphil (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A small point: in terms of media coverage, your assertion that the Wright matter is more important than the Obama speech is belied by this data from Pew, which shows that although both Wright and Obama's speech got a lot of coverage, Obama's speech got more. Whether the "Wright-Obama nexus" deserves an article or not is another question, but the speech clearly does.  The speech was occasioned by the Wright controversy, but that's not all it was about; and this article is about the speech, not Wright. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Andy, we comment on content, not editors. I know nothing about Grsz11 and that editor's activities - I reverted your addition based on my own beliefs of what did or did not warrant inclusion and would ask you to refrain from lumping me (or anyone else) in with other editors since that's not how we work here. Snarky comments about my "tender sensibilities" and continued references to supposed bias on my part are not at all appreciated (you obviously know nothing about my political POV, but it might interest you to know that I've never voted for a Democrat for president - which goes back to 1996 - and do not know who I will vote for this year). It is critical on contentious articles like this one to assume good faith and treat other editors with respect. I would also note that all I ever asked you to do was to take this to the talk page and get consensus. You did that, and now the material you wanted in has been included (in the end I did not even object to it). That's why talking things out is always good, and it's always easier to do that when we remain civil and do not impugn one another's motives - whether said motives be conscious or unconscious.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for consensus on reinstating Clinton's comments
Just for context, I am one of the editors who has the most edits on both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and I do not recall agreeing with Andyvphil on anything before - in fact I generally vehemently disagree with him. I do not agree with the characterization above that this is a matter of "censoring" Clinton's comments, and I specifically disassociate myself from any of his comments that suggest that, which is why I am posting this in a separate section. However, on this one limited point, I agree with him that the paragraph that quotes Clinton is directly relevant to this article. When she said you can't pick your relatives but you can pick your pastor, she was responding to the very point he is making that he can no more disown his pastor than he can disown his grandmother. We can't have it both ways - this article is about the speech and the responses to it - we should not be picking and choosing among legitimate responses to include those which we find more (or less) favorable to the text. Her comments are absolutely relevant to this article - perhaps also to the campaign pieces, but that's another subject - and I think we should reinstate this paragraph (I might edit it a bit however, and will be glad to if we can agree to include it):
 * When asked about the controversy about Obama's pastor that prompted, and was addressed by, Obama's speech, Clinton answered "He would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend... hate speech [is] unacceptable in any setting... I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."  Tvoz | talk 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If included, it should certainly be noted that she originally stated her approval of the speech (here) as an expression of the significance of this race in both gender and racial terms. Her "he would not be my pastor" comment was purely political, as it was made after Obama had regained his lead.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no point in trying to parse what is political and what is not, Grsz - one could just as easily say that Obama's speech itself   was entirely political, and the reaction of the people running against him in this election are certainly therefore at least as relevant if not more than their surrogates.   The article already says that her initial response was that she was glad he gave it, and I'm not suggesting we remove that - and would probably agree to expanding it beyond the one line afforded it now.  But I am speaking in favor of also including her subsequent response to what he said.  I should also say I haven't read the entire back and forth above, so  hope it's clear that I am not commenting on  anything other than including Clinton's words - specifically her "He would not have been my pastor" and "you don't choose your family" comments.  Tvoz | talk 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok ok, but it must be noted that the negative response was not her first response, and the change in the polls.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not to the change in the polls, unless you have some evidence that this is the case. (And not Maureen Dowd or other Clinton-bashers as a source on this.) Let's keep motivation out of it - we're not saying that Obama made the speech because of the hit he was taking in the polls as a result of the broadcast of Wright's comments, we refer to it as the "spike in attention" - so I don't agree that we should be characterizing Clinton's response as poll-response. Tvoz | talk 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec with above comments) I see your point Tvoz, and just to be clear by no means was I trying to pick and choose between responses. I very much want there to be a detailed response from Clinton in the article, I just feel that her comment was about the Wright issue overall and not necessarily the speech per say (it can be read either way in my opinion). As I said above I would expect there to be a more specific conversation about the speech and the issue of race at the next debate, and I think that whatever comes out of that would be more useful for the purposes of this article. I'm not going to stand in the way of re-adding that material if most folks are in favor of that, however I think it does set a bit of a bad precedent. Clinton did not refer directly to the speech, and including this comment suggests it is okay to include reactions that obviously relate to the Wright issue but do not on the face deal with the speech itself. I'm sure we'll see plenty of comments about the Wright-Obama issue in the months ahead, and I don't think it would be appropriate to include those if the speaker simply says "You can choose your pastor and Obama should have abandoned Wright" or something along those lines. Likewise comments from notable people like "Obama can help Americans transcend our troubled history with respect to race" that don't mention the speech directly should also not be included. We need to limit the scope of what we discuss in this article, and from my view the Clinton quote expands the scope beyond what I find workable in the long term. However it's not such a huge problem that I would put up any further fight over it, rather I would just ask that we try to limit this article to the speech, its effects, and reactions to it rather than broader issues surrounding the speech.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think both Clinton statements can be considered to be related to "the speech." Also I think you should include both because it is quite true that the more critical statements were not made until well after Obama's poll bounce. Possibly even mentioning that for the sake of full disclosure. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't take much of a stretch to say that Clinton's comments were related to the speech. There's a difference between a comment which can be construed as responding directly to a line in the speech and comments more directly related to the Wright controversy in general.  A pundit or politician talking about the line about "white greed" quoted in Dreams from My Father isn't responding to the speech, and is outside the remit of this article, but I think the Clinton remark is close enough that it can stay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ETA: I'm not sure that we should mention the polls in connection with the Clinton comment; doing so might be considered an original juxtaposition of facts, suggesting causation. The only way we could justify that is if we could find a reliable source (a really reliable source, not something like CNS) indicating that the change in her tune was in response to the polls... and even then, we're straying from the subject matter of the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think its OR at all, we generally tell the story chronologically, and in that sense the two events are juxtaposed. I haven't looked at the sections enough to see if it would even fit... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If we keep her comment in - and that seems to be the general consensus - I do not think it's appropriate to mention the poll data. That would definitely be OR, unless it was discussed in reliable sources (even then its questionable though). We're interested in people's reactions, not why they reacted that way. We could question the motives of most or all of the folks in the response section in one way or another.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * well thats exactly what we are talking about- a person who had two opposite "reactions" and the "motives" for that difference. I'm not saying we need to include poll data, but we need some level of chronological explanation of the whole issue, not just clinton, and that chronological explanation will need to have either a poll-based framework, or a critical reception framework- either of which will need to account for Clinton's increasing negative tone on the issue. It would be far worse to simply present both statements from her as if they did not have clear differences in rhetoric, let alone the factual timeline of the matter. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Andyvphil's version had Clinton's March 25 comments immediately after her March 18 comments, not placed chronologically. I don't have a problem with that placement, but think that we should note the timing (even if it's just by saying "asked a week later"...).  I'll also repeat my suggestion that if the Clinton quote is restored, we should cite it from either a mainstream source like The Washington Post, or the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, where Clinton's comments first appeared ,not the highly partisan CNS source cited by Andyvphil. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ralph E. Reed, Jr. and Jesse Jackson
I don't think it's appropriate for these two to be listed as "Politicians". Yes, Jackson ran for President, but he's certainly no politician, and Reed is just a Christian Coaltion exec. They should be under Others, or we can create a new section for religious figures, and put the Rabbi Michael Lerner there as well.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 03:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It might make sense to have a section for religious leaders if we get responses from enough of them, but I think both of these men are clearly politicians. Jackson ran for president twice (and did quite well the second time - he wasn't some fringe candidate) and Reed ran for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia just two years ago and was the chair of the Georgia Republican Party prior to that. Both men are primarily political activists at this point in their careers - "politicians" are not simply folks who currently hold elective office. And while Jackson is an ordained Reverend (though I don't think he has a congregation), Reed was simply the executive director of a Christian organization (he is not anymore incidentally). Basically all of his work has been in politics. So I think both should stay in the section they are in, though perhaps we could broaden the section title to "Politicians and political consultants" or something like that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Ralph Reed quote because I have been unable to find anything resembling a reliable source, which CNS mostly certainly is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the same quote on Newsmax, and a shorter quote on Bloomberg. Joshdboz (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Newsmax quotes the CNS article, so that's no good. The Bloomberg piece quotes something else entirely, so it isn't valid. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a different quote from Reed, but that quote might be worth including, as it takes a slightly different angle than other criticisms: in the Bloomberg story, Reed says that the problem is that Obama didn't highlight how damaging views like Wright's are to the African-American community itself. I don't think we have anything like that in the article, and Reed is a sufficiently noteworthy figure to justify their inclusion.  (I leave the advisability of a white evangelical operative telling the African-American community what's good for them to readers' judgments.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I'm going to add that in. Reed obviously has a strong opinion about this and it's worth quoting him I think. He has a pretty large influence on American politics in the last 20 years.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this revised quote. I think it is important to have his view of the speech just to offer a proper balance. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I missed that Newsmax was just quoting CNS. Joshdboz (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't have time now, but I expect I'll restore the CNS/Reed quote, since what Reed identifies as the "central issue" is obviously significant. I don't see any reason to think CNS unreliable as to what Reed said to their reporter. Andyvphil (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I indicated with the source above, CNS is a completely unreliable source. You cannot restore the quote until you can find a WP:RS for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing at Sourcewatch to indicate CNS is not a RS, particularly for this purpose. Two entries that don't indicate any asserted factual inaccuracies and Bagala claiming that he was misquoted means Sourcewatch couldn't come up with anything serious about source on the other side of the political spectrum, which is rather a testimony to CNS's reliability. There is exactly zero reason to think Reed was misquoted by Bozell -- they're in pretty close agreement, after all, and the quote isn't controversial. Reed hasn't denied it and it's congruent with what you'd think he would say. It's extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof. Still no time to do it, but I'm not waiting for the discreditited judgment of Scjessey to align with reality. That would be unheard of Andyvphil (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a right wing, conservative news outlet run by a bunch of right wing conservatives (like L. Brent Bozell III) for the purposes of "balancing" alleged left-wing (or liberal, to use your preferred euphamism) mainstream media. It's like FOX, only much worse. Not only is it not a reliable source, it's not even got the slightest whiff of reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The remarkable thing about Scjessey is that he is so oblivious to his extreme biases and logical failings. It is scarcely necessary to point out he is wrong (again) to think that being either conservative, right wing, or both, disqualifies a source from RS status. Neither does being left-wing, so Media Matters, FAIR, CounterPunch, The Nation, etc. all can be --and are-- used in selected circumstances as RS. Sourcewatch on the other hand is never a RS. Not because it is left wing, though it is, or biased, though it is, but because it's a wiki. Andyvphil (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Speech section trim
Per discussion above, I significantly cut down the discussion of the speech. Josiah Rowe did quite an excellent job summarizing the speech so it was difficult to make cuts, but I think it was necessary for us to shorten what was there for readability purposes. I cut out some of the block quotes (and shortened others) and also cut out some detail that seemed, to me at least, relatively tangential to the key points of the speech. This is something we can and should play with, and like Josiah's first stab at summarizing the speech this was merely a first stab at revising his good work. Some copy editing-type checking is definitely warranted just in case I introduced new errors, though I'm going to check for that now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bigtimepeace, that was a big time improvement. Thanks.  The only quibble I have is with the removal of the section about American society not being static.  That bit was highlighted by many commentators, especially the conservatives who wrote favorably about the speech.  I know that we mostly need to subtract rather than add to that section, but I think that quotation is key.  If we want to cut another quotation in exchange, perhaps we could cut the last one? (Although I'm not sure how we would describe his coda — I fiddled with a few attempts, but they were all as wordy as quoting the speech itself.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I think you're right that we should keep that piece in as it was one of the most often quoted aspects of the speech. It's only a couple of lines so it doesn't really add to the length much. The fact is that this was a lengthy and complex speech - particularly for a politician - so it's not easy to summarize it succinctly. I think what we have now does a good job of summarizing the speech for the reader without being overlong, but obviously we could probably do even better as we continue to work on it. I think that section actually could be a model for other speeches (for example I Have a Dream, which could use some real attention) which warrant a Wikipedia article. This speech has actually received much more attention from Wiki editors than, for example, MLK's speech or Lincoln's second inaugural (both of which are obviously far more historically important than Obama's speech) so maybe some of the approaches taken here can eventually be used on those and other articles about important speeches in world history.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. This meeting of the mutual appreciation society is now adjourned. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)