Talk:Tony Rezko

message: It's still has a bit of an anti-Obama slant, but it's mostly factual now.  Any objections to removing the POV tag?  --lk 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to remove POV tag. Decoratrix (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Article still has serious problems and is getting worse, not better.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to remove the POV tag?

message: The section on Obama is actually longer than the section on Rezko.  Isn't this article supposed to be about Rezko?  The Obama section needs to be severely pruned to indicate his connection to Rezko, and that's it.  There is no need to rush in and add a new reference every time Obama is mentioned in reference to the same material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the main reasons there is some of the Obama material here is that the "pro-Obama" wiki-censors clamored for the material to be here. In fact all the material should be here AND in the Obama article. Decoratrix (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your comment pretty much proves my point. Whatever conflicts you had while editing another article have nothing to do with this one. Trying to put here what you weren't able to put somewhere else is the very definition of a POV fork. This article is supposed to be about Tony Rezko, not Barack Obama.  Attempts to turn it into a coatrack of Obama mentions are not acceptable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the record of the relevant talk page before attacking another editor. The consensus of Obama talk page was to place it here. That was not my unilateral decision. Decoratrix (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Attacking? I haven't attacked anyone.  I am very familiar with the talk page of Obama (and the other candidates).  There was no consensus to make the edit that you made here, that's simply not true. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Rezko's relationship with Obama is relevant to a Rezko article. The article is short, but objective. Loonymonkey has exhausted the presumption of good faith and should spend his time working for the Obama campaign, not monkeying with this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) Okay, just to keep a running tally, in the past week I've been accused of working for the Obama, Romney, Clinton and McCain campaigns.  You should work slightly harder at playing nice and assuming good faith.  My only "agenda" is to prevent tendentious editing for or against a candidate by people with political motives. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.  Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has clearly turned into a POV fork now. 

message: The move note pretty much says it, but Tony Rezko is by far the most common name for this person (26,000+ hits versus 4,000+ hits), so I moved the page across the redirect. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: The web is buzzing with information apparently being circulated by supporters of the Clinton camp.  Take a look at this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html.  Should some of this information be worked into the article? Moe (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ynilp has said it well. There is a huge amount of information out there regarding a series of Obama-Rezko scandals that wiki-censors have systematically deleted from obama and rezko articles. Wikipedia should not be a place to sanitize one's favourite candidates, but should be a source of notable facts. Decoratrix (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very sparce with details about Rezko and his connection to Obama compared to the info out there 

message: If you want to bring accusations forth connecting Rezko with the Clintons, you may want to include both parties in the debate. Ddweb (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Obama's house in Chicago 

message: Earlier today, an unsourced addition to this article was removed. Here's one sentence that was added by 207.244.161.93:
"He was awarded "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association."
Here is a blog that makes the same claim. Corey Salzano (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these reliable sources though? Arab American Media Services seems to be a self-published blog (which is the original source of the Hanania.com article you're linking to). Based on a literal reading of WP:SPS then AAMS can't be used as a source. On the other hand, it does appear that Ray Hanania is/was a syndicated columnist focusing on Arab topics.  All in all, if it is a reliable source, then there is a ton of other information in Hanania's writing that can be used to flesh out Rezko's business history and his ties to politicians beyond Obama. He seems to be closely tied to Gov Blagojevich as well. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. I saw a revert this week that contained this sentence, and I thought damn, with all this negative information in the article, I should see if there was any sources that would verify this award. Here is a search on the Goo that reveals a few sites that contain that same statement. Thanks for your continued help. Corey Salzano (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrepreneur of the Decade 

message: Here is a blog that claims Rezko renamed his Papa John's restaurants to "Papa Tony's" after disagreements with the franchise resulted in his license being terminated. Corey Salzano (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papa Johns 

message: well i like this picture actually, yet in terms of neutrality, i tend to think u need to put up a pic with him and obama, and also one with him at the bush fundraiser he chaired!!! in terms of neutrality and seeing hows theres an election... it seems thats the neutral point of view... not just the pic with him and bill & hillary... this person has interesting connections to many politicians and the "wikipedia picture evidence" should show that i think  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.162.18 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion. There's already plenty of discussion about this image on this very same web page, and most of it is not based on opinions. Corey Salzano (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed a pic 

message: Deletion proposed because Rezko is not noteable aside from gossip about Obama. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.. Rezko gets 600,000+ hits on google in general and 2,000+ hits on google news just in the last month.. Rezko is clearly notable.. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are serious about nominating for deletion, please see WP:AFD. Anyone can make a nomination but I suspect any such proposal will very likely fail. Ronnotel (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Rezko is national news now that his trial has started. Deletion now is highly unlikely. Corey Salzano (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominate for deletion 

message: I've reverted this addition of by Flyboy121 as original research, which can't be used in a biography of a living person (or in regards to a living person on non-biographical articles).  Flyboy121, regardless of the context of the wording "a favor", you simply can not include your own speculation about what the columnist meant when he said he did Obama "a favor".  There are numerous speculations one could draw from that wording and only one of them is that the purchase of the strip of land increased the value of Obama's land beyond the purchase price. You either need to stop adding unsourced speculation into the article, or find a source that supports your claim. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing the value of Obama's property sentence 

message: As per WP:BLP:
Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.
Any image of the property in question must properly sourced, and a similar image must already have been published by a reliable secondary source. Ronnotel (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have raised a separate issue with this image on its discussion page Corey Salzano (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per this MSNBC news story, visual images of the property have clearly been cited in a reliable source. I no longer have objections to a neutral image of Obama's residence (i.e. without super-imposed pictures of Obama or Rezko) being included in the article provided such an image can be properly sourced and released under GFLD. Ronnotel (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of the property in question

message: There's a key aspect of the NPOV policy (which I'm surprised Luna did not mention) that is very relevant here, namely WP:UNDUE. The problem I have with this photo is that I believe it is clearly given undue weight in this article given that it is the only picture. Lest there be accusations of bias as above, let me fully disclose that while not exactly a full-blown "supporter," I very much hope that Obama defeats Clinton in the Dem nomination fight and goes on to be president. My argument is thus based on encyclopedia policy, not political beliefs.
WP:UNDUE notes that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Rezko has ties to politicians, but as near as I can tell the only tie to the Clinton's is this picture. Thousands of people have had their picture taken with the Clinton's so that's not much of a "tie." I'm quite certain that media mentions of the Obama/Rezko connection outnumber mentions of the Clinton/Rezko connection roughly 100 to 1. Matt Lauer mentioned it, but this is hardly something that is regularly discussed (I don't find any Rezko/Obama photos online, but obviously that would be ten times more appropriate for this article). Just to give a personal example, I am a big time political news junkie who has followed every aspect of this campaign (saving many hundreds of articles in folders on my computer), and I had never heard of this photo until I came here, though I am quite familiar with Rezko. That's anecdotal, but it suggests this article is making news more than it is accurately reflecting (with proper considerations for weight) what has been reported.
As they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and readers who come to this article in the next few weeks (and many will) knowing little about this guy will assume his connections to Clinton are as strong or even stronger than the ones to Obama if they only give the article a cursory glance (as many will). This is factually inaccurate, and I think inclusion of this photo thus misleads readers and violates a key portion of our NPOV policy.
I think there are basically two ways to proceed. If we had other photos (maybe one of Rezko himself at the top, one of him with another politician, etc.) then I would certainly not have a problem keeping the Clinton photo. However I do not think the Clinton photo alone is acceptable. If we cannot find other photos I strongly feel that it should be removed. I'm interested to hear arguments that inclusion of this photo does not provide undue weight to what is ultimately an extremely trivial aspect of Rezko's career - the fact that he (like many powerful people) once had his picture taken with a sitting president.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will now feel like an idiot. Excellent point, Bigtimepeace, and, honestly, not one I'd thought of and I really should have. *sigh* I was more approaching the image from a standpoint that including the image didn't represent a bias rather than giving the image undue weight as the only image on the article and I really should have. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries Bobblehead, and certainly don't feel like an idiot! Thanks for removing the image, like I said I think that's the way to go for now but certainly am not prejudiced against adding it back in later if the article was expanded, particularly with more photos (or perhaps humorous caricatures of the various personages?...errr wait).--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:UNDUE

message: More detail here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/09/clinton-got-money-from-re_n_90605.html
--John Bahrain (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is applicable to this article because.... --Bobblehead (rants) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This source might be a better fit for the fundraising section of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 Corey Salzano (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that as the trial progresses we should make it is own article.  In that article, there can be a section that deals with the ties Rezko and his codefenants have to politicals (i.e. Clinton and Obama.)  The trail will likely get a lot of attention and a separate article that details it is the best way to go.  --John Bahrain (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be a good idea, but I'm not following the trial close enough to know enough to do that.  The trial seems to be only followed closely by the Chicago press and I don't live there. So, if someone in Chicago wants to start the article and maintain it... --Bobblehead (rants) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Clintons got money from Rezko co-defendants 

message: Is "downscale black" more or less POV than "working-class African-American"? (the subject of a current low-level editing conflict)  72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note. I went ahead and made this change since it seems like a good compromise which has several backers and no objections as yet (after a week). Obviously if anyone has a better idea I'm open to it.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC : Neighborhood characterization

message: Strange: defense did not present witness despite the state's 8 weeks of case building. I added this, therefore: On May 6, 2008, both the prosecution and the defense rested their cases. Government prosecutors spent 8 weeks for their case, with final witness, Ali Ata, a former high-ranking state official. But Rezko’s lawyer, Joseph J. Duffy, did not present any witnesses. Closing arguments are set for next Monday. www.nytimes.com, Illinois: No Defense Witnesses for Rezko --Florentino floro (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gamble

message: How much information should Obama's bio article have on his embarassing associates -- Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko? The Barack Obama talk page now has an important discussion about this (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details).
Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Other examples:
* Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
* John McCain and John C. Hagee
* Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik
Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article. On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (here, at least). Noroton (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How do we treat Tony Rezko on the Barack Obama page?

message: Just start a discussion on the wording of the lead, in particular the sentence that currently reads "Rezko has been involved in fundraising for local Illinois Democratic and Republican politicians since the 1980s." An IP address has been coming by several times in the last few days to add "some" in front of Republican or in one case, outright removing reference to Republicans. Rezko seems to focus his political contributions on whichever party is in power at the moment. So for the Chicago area that's primarily Democrats, but until recently his state level contributions have focused primarily on Republicans, but now that the Dems control Illinois state government his contributions have shift there (and quite heavily if you look at his recent contributions). So question is, how does everyone want to present this information in the lead? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions to Democrats and Republicans in the lead. 

message: Why is there no picture of Tony Resko on this article? He is the center of a high-profile corruption case in Illinois and needs to be shown! If someone could find a picture of Resko, it would help out this article a bit more as far a visualization goes. - Crazyconan (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got a free one, we'd love to have it. Since Rezko is alive we can't really claim fair use on the copyrighted ones out there and I haven't been able to find a free picture of him yet. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture?

message: This information is verifiable and relevant to the section "Ties to Barack Obama" and should remain in the article:
The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Rezko's lot and Obama's new home was purchased.
(See: Times of London)
In April 2004, Auchi attended a party in his honor at the home of Rezko.  Obama also attended the party and is alleged to have toasted Auchi, according to one guest.  (See: WSJ)
Freedom Fan (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ties to Barack Obama

message: I see in the article that Rezko was found guilty.  
Has he been sentenced?  Is he in prison now?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.102.229 (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is currently in prison waiting for sentencing. It was originally scheduled for September 3, but was rescheduled to October 28 to allow more time for his lawyers to file post-trial motions. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now it's a year anad a half later.  Has he been sentenced and if not, why not? 72.209.63.226 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentencing? 

message: Just read the article for yourself and please don't be bias. It clearly stated "A review by the Los Angeles Times shows that Rezko, a businessman long active in Chicago politics, played a deeper role in Obama's political and financial biography than the candidate has acknowledged."  I myself am a Democrat, but I am neutral.  I don't like fan-based vandalism of facts.75.72.35.253 (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The LA Times clearly reported that Rezko had closer ties to Obama than Obama had previously acknowledged

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Tony Rezko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090114200413/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2006/pr1011_01.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2006/pr1011_01.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Tony Rezko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rezko.trial.verdict.2.740375.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/hot/us_v_rezko_exhibits/2008_03_07/fob_chart_2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320145638/http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/oct30_08a.pdf to http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/oct30_08a.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamalegal6apr06,0,26672.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tony Rezko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418205340/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/print.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/print.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150709063619/http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/752319/tony-rezko-released-halfway-house to http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/752319/tony-rezko-released-halfway-house
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418205340/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/print.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/print.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The timeline is confusing, mainly because of the gap between conviction and sentencing.  The following link may help:
A Tony Rezko timeline
Although an entry for "Tuesday" needs to be related to the published date.   It's possible that the timeline, or our article, or both, are wrong, of course.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline