This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

wait until Glenn Beck discovers this guy.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.99.131 ( talk) 02:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL - he clearly has now. I better navigate away from this page before it makes me turn gay. Let the bollocks begin.-- Milowent ( talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox News just reported that on page 103 of Jennings' 2007 autobiography, Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir, Jennings wrote "I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned." Grundle2600 ( talk) 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's fascinating even if you aren't stoned. In the old days there were public observation platforms at airports where people could come watch operations. But however poetic this description is, it's possible to write a biography of Jennings that gets across the criticism of him without quoting all this as a separate section. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything is better when you're clean and sober. I agree with you that a separate section was not necessary. Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an editorial from The Washington Times, so it can't be used as a source in the article. But it's probably only a matter of time until a non-editorial source pays attention to this. It says that when Jennings was a teacher, a 15 year old student told him that he had been the victim of a statutory rape. It also says that Jennings broke the law by not reporting what happened. It also says that Jennings encouraged the student to have more sex with the adult. For someone who is the "safe schools czar," this is highly notable. Once a better source comes along, it should be added to the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent allegations that Kevin Jennings violated state law as a teacher in refusing to report a case of statutary rape between a 15-year-old student and an older man have been supported by a 2000 audiotape recording. ^[1]In reports by Fox News and The Washington Times, the tape was said to be of a talk that Jennings gave to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, in which Jennings recollected that he informed the student to make sure "to use a condom" when he was with the older man. In his 1994 book, One Teacher in 10, Jennings also notes that he allayed the student's concerns about the relationship such that the 15-year-old "left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.". ^[2] Conservative groups have launched upon this report as evidence of a failure to report a sexual predator when he had the chance.

Is this article going to go the way of Van Jones and John Edwards' articles where Fox News was not considered a credible source, despite solid backing, and all objectional parts were taken out and article locked down into pro-Jones and pro-Edwards PR? The Van Jones articles and Edwards articles as locked down were embarrasing; lets not do this with the Jennings information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.24.158 ( talk) 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP is a trailer, not a leader, in this kind of thing. WP:BLP is deliberately tilted to protect the interests and reputations of biographical subjects. When the NYT and WaPo and CNN get around to covering something, that's when it gets into WP for sure. If you want faster coverage than that, go to Fox News or the National Enquirer (Edwards) or HuffPo or whatever. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question from the unregistered user, yes, this is another case where the mainstream media has chosen to ignore controversial facts about a liberal politician, and so the right wing media was the one to break the story. The mainstream media refused to report that Van Jones, Obama's green czar, was a self described "communist" until after he resigned. More and more often, the right wing media are becoming the true, reliable media, while the mainstream media is losing more and more credibility. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, why do you say the Washington Times is a "trailer, not a leader" in this kind of thing? Can you cite any mainstream source that mentioned it before they did? Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To everyone - Just as I predicted when I started this section of the talk page, a mainstream source, ABC News, has finally decided to report on this incident. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here have any reasonable objections to citing that ABC report in this article? Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely a reasonable source to use. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

However, the ABC source doesn't mention anything about the law. And he meant that WikiPedia is a trailer - meaning we don't report breaking news of a negative aspect of a living person until we have numerous reliable sources. Grsz ¹¹ 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Wikipedia is a trailer. I assume everyone reads WP as an abbreviation for it, due to the WP:rules prefix use. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Grsz, you are correct about the ABC article not mentioning the law. Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This story is now heavily sourced, including by Jennings own public statement on September 30, 2009, as well as by two of his books, ABC News, etc. See Fox News Report of September 30:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-admits-bad-handling-teen-sex-case/ Obama's Safe Schools Czar Admits He Poorly Handled Underage Sex Case"] Fox News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.163.134 ( talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia had content on the Mark Foley scandal, and even an entire new article created on the Mark Foley Scandal immediately after the story broke. But a line is drawn with the Kevin Jennings scandal? Who determines what is a reputable media? The Washington Times, which has broke many stories since its founding in 1982, and Fox News, are not considered reputable (look at how Fox News' reports on John Edwards, proven true, were not allowed by Wikipedia), but other news media are? Who makes these determinations at Wikipedia?

Right now it's over half of the article, which is a severe violation of WP:UNDUE. Grsz ¹¹ 18:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be one sentence about his past frequent drug use, and one sentence about him not reporting the statutory rape. Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow Grundle, then I have overstated your side in the article. Grsz ¹¹ 03:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Foley and Edwards cases are not a good parallel, as Foley was a prominent leadership member of the House of Representatives and Edwards was a two-time presidential primary candidate and a nominated vice-presidential candidate, while Jennings is an obscure person holding an obscure office in a relatively unimportant cabinet department. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the statement about the Director of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools being called the "Safe Schools Czar". I've done a lot of searching, and I can't find any regular news source other than Fox News that calls it that, either in connection with Jennings or any prior director. The AP, Los Angeles Times, ABC News, and other news outlets that we've used in this article don't use the "czar" term. Nor should they; czars are special positions that are set up to cross bureaucratic lines to solve some particular problem, and who typically report to the president. This is just an office within a single cabinet department set up to handle some particular aspect of what that department is supposed to be doing, and the announcement of it was made by Secretary Duncan, not Obama. It's no different than the Office of Federal Student Aid or the Office of Vocational and Adult Education or the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services with the Department of Ed, or hundreds of other offices in other departments. This "czar" use is just an example of Fox News getting a bit carried away. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner is also using the term. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And so is The Washington Times. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 16:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"From what I've heard, I have concerns as well," Jennings told the Boston Globe in May 2000. "GLSEN believes that children do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner.

"What troubles me is the people who have the tape know what our mission is, they know that our work is about preventing harassment and they know that session was not the totality of what was offered at a conference with over 50 sessions," he said.

But Peter LaBarbera, President of "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, said Jennings' reaction was weak and unacceptable.

"He never really apologized. If a conservative group had done that, they would be out of business," LaBarbera said. ^[3]

This was a rather unnotable episode from years ago that Jennings was only peripherally involved with - and guess what? - that conservative group invaded a safe space for queer youth and illegally taped them asking questions of Department of education staffers. Jennings was simply not involved and there is about zero content worthy of being added to this article. -- Banjeboi 06:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jennings has come under criticism[21] for his praise of Harry Hay, a prominent public supporter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).[22][23] In 1994, Jennings edited and co-authored a book entitled Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students, in which chapter 11 is called Harry Hay and the Beginnings of the Homophile Movement.[24]

Someone reverted this eight minutes after I included it, although I reverted it back twelve minutes after that. In any event, the text cites articles from Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner, and the text of Jennings' own book, taken from Google Books, thus I'm a little unclear how it could have been reverted on the basis of its "unreliable sources" (as it was). I would hope that does not happen again, as it seems totally inappropriate. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 14:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

27 minutes after I reverted his revert (effective deletion) of my edits, Newross reverted them a second time. I had left a message at his Talk page asking him not to do this, explaining that the edits were properly sourced. I have left a second message at his Talk page, demonstrating more clearly the reliability of the sources I cited, and reminded him of the three-revert rule, and provided him with a link to WP:Edit warring. If he reverts it a third time, he will have no valid excuse for his violation of Wikipedia policy. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding KevinOKeeffe's repeated WP:BLP violations not citing WP:Reliable sources:

• a Sean Hannity opinion column is not a WP:RS
• a Mark Tapscott opinion column is not a WP:RS
• a Dan Riehl " Riehl World View" blog entry is not a WP:RS
• KevinOKeeffe's Google Book Search snippet view is not a WP:RS

Newross ( talk) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sean Hannity opinion column is employed in order to demonstrate that Mr. Jennings has been criticized; surely Mr. Hannity calling for his resignation constitutes "criticism?" That is why I put that citation (#21, as can be readily viewed above, in my initial quoting of my edits to the article, at the top of this section) immediately after the phrase "Jennings has come under criticism..."

The Mark Tapscott piece from the Washington Examiner cited facts; I did not quote Mr. Tapscott's subjective opinion about the relative merits of Mr. Jennings, but rather the facts of the case which were noted in the piece.

I did not cite the http://www.riehlworldview.com article itself, but rather I cited a reference to it contained wholly within the website of The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal cited that RiehlWorldView piece, and I cited The Wall Street Journal. That is a very different thing from what you allege I have done.

I am also more than a little unclear how it is improper to cite the Table of Contents page from a book, when attempting to establish the name of one of the chapters of that same book. That would seem to be a very distinctly ludicrous proposition. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that I have aptly refuted the claims of Newross, who clearly makes ridiculous charges, such as that I have linked to a site I have not linked to, and that linking to the Table of Contents page of a book (page 7, as it so happens) is somehow inappropriate when attempting to establish the name of one of the chapters within that same book, I feel that I am properly justified in re-introducing my edits, as there exists no readily apparent basis for his contention that my edits constitute "unreliable sources." I was previously under the misimpression that the three-revert rule explicitly disallowed a third revert, but since it explicitly disallows a fourth, I shall make my third revert in order to reintroduce the edits I researched & wrote a couple of hours ago. In the event a fourth revert takes place, I shall be filing the appropriate report. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 15:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking around for further evidentiary substantiation for my recent edits, and I found some in an editorial piece from The Washington Times, which I have added as a reference within the article. Before it is claimed that an editorial piece is somehow not germane to the topic at hand, due to its non-NPOV status or whatnot, allow me to quote the relevant section of the article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/04/obamas-lewd-schools-czar/?feat=article_top10_read

---QUOTE BEGINS---

On Oct. 25, 1997, at a conference for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Mr. Jennings stated, "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay." The late Hay was a "gay-rights" activist most notorious for supporting the North American Man Boy Love Association. In 1983, speaking in support of NAMBLA, Hay claimed: "[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

---QUOTE ENDS---

I trust we are all in agreement that the above text is supportive of my contention that Mr. Jennings praised Harry Hay, as well as the related contention that praise of Mr. Hay is controversial within American society? KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Jennings did praise Harry Hay, but not for his support of NAMBLA (not that Hay did support NAMBLA, but that's another issue). In fact, before (his communist activities) and after (his anti-assimilationist activities) his founding of the modern gay rights movement, Harry Hay was not very prominent or notable. You can see this by the full speech, not taken out of context wherein Jennings expounds on exactly what he praises Hay for.

Second contention, Hay is not 'controversial within American society', because he was not a "prominent public supporter of NAMBLA". He didn't like their marginalization, so he withdrew from the main pride parade and joined an alternative one—but this was already AFTER the gay rights movement was going, and he lost influence. He did not go on public speaking tours for their cause. I suggest you read his biography, or maybe some of his obituaries, because you are putting too much weight on one small aspect of his politics. Pepe Silvia ( talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The attack on Jennings is based on this syllogism: Person A praises person B for doing thing X. Person B also has done thing Y. Therefore Person A endorses thing Y. This is obviously faulty. You are allowed to praise somebody for having done a particular thing without buying into everything else the person has done. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself documents Harry Hay's involvement in NAMBLA. Anytime a public figure praises an individual with ties to NAMBLA, it should be considered controversial and newsworthy. 208.107.76.142 ( talk) 16:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the writing in this article is substandard. A sentence such as, "The chairwoman of the NEA's Republican Educators Caucus criticized the NEA for the award, citing a 1988 story from one of Jennings' books where he being a high school teacher and counseling a teenage male student who was sexually involved with an adult male", does not make sense and is not grammatical. I'm calling attention to this here as the badness of the writing may well be a clue to other problems. BG talk 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article's undergone heavy moving around and editing of material. But I've tried to fix up this instance. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What's there now is better, I think it could stand to be improved further, however. BG talk 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use these sources especially to add negative material on BLPs - they just aren't helpful and anything notable enough will be covered in reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 23:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The material that I've just restored is sourced to AP, CNN, Fox News, LA Times, etc., all news sources not editorials. You can't pretend that Jennings' appointment hasn't produced some attacks against him. Nor can you just delete the statements of the Secretary of Education, White House press secretary and others defending him! But as stated above, I'm in favor of keeping the ridiculous Harry Hay stuff out. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unneeded and undue and completely unencyclopedic. Simply note that there was some opposed and why and that others supported him. We are not a tabloid and we don't keep scorecards of those opposed/supporting. -- Banjeboi 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Put your comments in the straw poll below, which you requested. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't request a straw poll but I have added my comment there. This thread, BTW, was on sourcing not content per se. If the content is well sourced and presented neutrally I have no issue with it. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this as not only being poorly written but also for it's likely intention to conflate Jennings with pedophilia. If this content has any actual merit please find neutral reliable sources that feel this has any merit whatsoever. A quick look shows this has been propped up as a smear campaign against Jennings. This violates NPOV as well as BLP policies. It's called cherry-picking some remark from a public person's past to somehow vilify them. We're an encyclopedia not a tabloid. If this persists more eyes will indeed land on those working to add such dubious content. In contrast the man founded and led one of the leading LGBT youth organizations yet we spend more time discussing his praise for Hay who was a gay liberation activist for four decades. -- Banjeboi 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this makes no sense as written, and violates BLP badly as Hannity and his ilk intended. But as for amount of time spent on this versus the rest of the article, if you checked the edit history you'll see I'm responsible for researching and adding about 90% of the pre-2009 biographical material in the article. I've haven't seen you do nearly as much. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We each offer what we can when we can - the article needed overhauling and clean-up and I did exactly that. It's looking much better now and I appreciate your efforts to improve it. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry Hay is pretty close to being indisputably the most prominent public advocate of sexual relations between adult men and underage youth in American history. When a prominent official within the U.S. Department of Education praises a man who attended NAMBLA conferences, and marched with NAMBLA banners (photographic evidence of which I recently posted to the Harry Hay Talk page), then that fact becomes a major aspect of his public persona, whether his faithful partisans like it or not. If one Googles "Harry Hay," one of the first ten hits to come up is a NAMBLA link to an essay entitled "Harry Hay on Man/Boy Love." Within the narrow confines of the gay activist community, Harry Hay may be seen as a pioneering activist, but almost everyone else in the Western world, among those familiar with his name, regard him as one of the most disgusting and vile public figures in modern memory. When Kevin Jennings praises Harry Hay, a very public & prominent child-adult sex advocate, that fact forever attaches itself to Kevin Jennings, and his career. That's just the way the world works, outside of the insular world of gay activism. If a member of the Bush administration praised George Lincoln Rockwell, I very much doubt any of you guys would be trying to remove that from his article. Well, this is the same kind of situation, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 05:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry hay is known for many things - from my understanding he is best known for his leading role in the Radical faeries movement. To suggest that his life work should be equated with pedophilia and all who praise his lifelong accomplishments as endorsing NAMBLA or pedophilia or anything resembling that is quite a stretch. Show that Jennings directly endorses pedophilia without Original research or move on. -- Banjeboi 09:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

George Lincoln Rockwell is not a good analogy – he founded the American Nazi Party and was the leading figure in the post-war neo-Nazi movement in the U.S. He isn't known for anything else. A better analogy would be someone like Rosie O'Donnell – it's certainly possible to praise a lot of what she's done in the entertainment world and the gay rights world without buying into her over-the-top remarks on Bush and Iraq or her idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories. Or someone like Charlton Heston – someone could easily praise his acting abilities, screen presence, and 1960s civil rights work, without buying into his NRA presidency. Or the reverse – someone could think Heston was great as a gun rights advocate but stiff and self-conscious as an actor. Your syllogism is still faulty. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry Hays is more analogous to George Lincoln Rockwell than Rosie O'Donnell. Some actions (Nazism, murder, pedophilia) are such great evils that they overshadow everything else a person has done. The criticism of Kevin Jennings for his praise of Harry Hays is accurate. Why isn't it documented in the article? 208.107.76.142 ( talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed material:

[following description of drug use objections and defense] Renewed discussion of the 1988 counseling incident also occurred. ^{[8] [9]} The Family Research Council expressed the view that Jennings should resign or be removed. ^[10] In October 2009, U.S. Representative Steve King also called on Obama to dismiss Jennings. ^[11] Secretary Duncan supported Jennings, ^[8] as did White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. ^[11] The head of the National Association of Secondary School Principals also supported Jennings, ^[9] and the head of the NEA accused Jennings' attackers of practicing McCarthyism. ^[12]

• Support I see no reason why this should not be included. This gives the reactions of a leading social conservative organization, a congressman, the Secretary of Education, the White House press secretary, and two leading educational organizations. It is simple and factual. To remove this material is to pretend that Jennings' appointment has not generated criticism and support when it obviously has. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed It's redundant and unneeded. It really doesn't matter to our readers that John Doe and Group X endorse or oppose because we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. We report dispassionately that Jennings was appointed but the appointment was protested in some way and why. For NPOV we add that he also had support. I can't remember which other BLP it was but we had a similar situation of a lengthy WP:Coatrack of all the groups who opposed or supported the actions - they were all removed for a more generalized and neutral statement. A year from now we really won't care that much. That's the recentism effect - those calling for his firing will move onto their next target and the one after that. This, in part, is why we shouldn't even bother with partisan sources including op ed pieces. They're just not creditable and have a skewed perception based on a POV agenda. For our purposes we look to the most reliable sources and follow their lead. If they think this is a really big deal and the story has a lot of traction then they will start running a lot of stories on it. In general the media makes money by stirring drama - we don't do either. -- Banjeboi 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting adding all groups for and against, just the key government figures and interest groups relevant to the office he holds. And note that your current text in the last section suggests that past drug use is the only thing he's being opposed on, which isn't correct. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - provides a correct and verified reaction to the appointment.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Plus, this statement: "His appointment was criticized by socially conservative groups" is too vague and doesn't account for the criticism from the Congressman. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If that Congressman's statement is that notable it could possibly be wedged as "and elected officials" - which sees weasely - but then the race to add praise from some other congressman is also added etc ad nuseum. There seems little doubt that many don't like the appointment and many do, our job is to neutrally explain the encyclopedic overview rather than the polarized opinions which are more suitable for talk radio. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The support from administration figures is also important. It's when Van Jones didn't get that level of support that you knew his goose was cooked. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, we make believe that but is there relaible sources that show these opinions are really that important? I'd much rather give it a few weeks and see if it's that big of story or not. There are so many news reports that are blown up and recirculated and in hindsight not that important. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, the flap will die down at some point, and Hannity et al will find somebody else to harp on. But that doesn't mean the attention won't have had an effect. It may damage Jennings within certain parts of the Dept of Ed or wider educational community, or it may distract him from mastering the bureaucratic subtleties of his new office, or it may intimidate Jennings from taking certain actions as director, or conversely it may have a backlash effect and give more support and power to Jennings than he otherwise would have had. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as excessive coverage of a transient media circus. Remember Mark Lloyd. Pepe Silvia ( talk) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support throw Jennings' name into google news - this is what he is known for. The proposed text is well sourced, neutrally worded and presents both sides, of course it should be included. - Schrandit ( talk) 07:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Throw[ing]" his name into Google News spits out recent articles concerning him. This does not mean it's what he's known for. Type Bill Clinton into Google News. It gives you tons of recent articles almost none of which have anything to do with him being President for 8 years which, of course, is what he is most known for. I have no problem with the proposed material itself, but it is redundant and Steve King, a seven-year Congressman, is hardly a powerful member of Congress. He has never chaired a subcommittee and is best known for his controversial statements to the media. You might as well write, "Jennings' opponents oppose him but his supporters support him." The list could go on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.238.55 ( talk) 21:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support notable, well sourced and descriptive. clearly encyclopedic. Cdcdoc ( talk) 01:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - unnecessary repetition of information already mentioned in the article (that he was criticised for the 1988 counselling controversy). We don't need, and shouldn't have, long lists of supporters and opposers on articles like this - it's enough to say he's been the target of criticism from conservatives, we don't have to name them all. Robofish ( talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - cites too many outdated, inaccurate and unreliable sources for a WP:BLP—see: Following Media Matters exclusives, CNN dismantles Fox's lies about Jennings.
  Jessica Yellin's October 2, 2009 CNN article Ex-pupil defends Obama aide over controversial advice in 1988 is the least inaccurate cited source, although:

  — Jennings is not an "Obama aide"—he is an Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education who reports to Deputy Secretary of Education Tony Miller who reports to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. [1]
  — Jennings did not write in any book "that when he was a 24-year-old teacher, a gay student confided that he'd had sex with an older man."

  The Family Research Council started the Christian right's campaign against Jennings' appointment. [2] Newross ( talk) 20:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  

I have rewritten the two paragraphs about:

1. NEA Republican Caucus chairwoman Diane Lenning's 2004 accusations against Jennings (citing the only contemporaneous—and potentially libelous source—the " Moonie" conservative newspaper, The Washington Times.)
2. The Family Research Council's 2009 campaign against Jennings (citing a press release by the Family Research Council, a Washington, D.C. Christian right conservative lobby group—not a WP:NPOV or WP:Reliable source)

These paragraphs may still give undue weight to a false, potentially libelous claim for the inclusion of either paragraph in this WP:BLP. Newross ( talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your revisions have definitely improved the article, but most of your comments and changes are independent of the straw poll question. I think the article as it stands now is in danger of violating BLP: there are two detailed paragraphs describing the 2004 and 2009 attacks on Jennings, yet the article is completely hiding the fact that Duncan, Gibbs, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the NEA are all backing Jennings. If I didn't know better and was just reading this article, I'd think the guy was isolated and without supporters. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned them up a bit to removed extraneous details - we don't care for instance that Lenning was an Orange County, California high school teacher as this has to stay focussed on Jennings. I also reintegrated that content so it's only in the one section and removed Family Research Council campaign. They are only a reliable source on themselves and they seem to do campaign on lots of things, who cares? Show that independent reliable sources think that's a big deal and we have something to work with. Otherwise it feels soapboxy and I don't think anyone wants that. To Wasted Time R's concerns I do share that maybe who supports or condemns that appointment may be relevant but arguably Obama's appointing him would seem the most relevant. If reliable sourcing shows other folks' condemnation or endorsement is a big deal then let's look at those and figure out what to do. -- Banjeboi 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That the Family Research Council has led the attack on Jennings is supported by this NYT writeup, this LAT story, this CNN story, this other CNN story, this Fox News story, and this ABC News story, among others. The current article just says "His appointment was criticized by socially conservative groups". There are, in fact, many "socially conservative" groups, most of whom have probably never said a word about Jennings. Why isn't being specific better than being vague? Why isn't your refusal to name FRC a violation of WP:WEASEL? Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The FRC leads attacks on lots of people [3] - mainly against anything Obama is doing - it's part of the US Christian right-wing and does an excellent job at that - it doesn't mean we should promote them or in any way add anything but encyclopedic material about Jennings. Show the FRC's campaign has had a notable impact on anything then we can look to adding context. By the way, that other Obama article this reminded me of is Gerald Walpin who had a whole paragraph of who endorsed him being fired and who opposed it - ugh! It was all removed. -- Banjeboi 17:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I can see this is getting nowhere. I'm just repeating myself over and over without getting anywhere, never a good sign. I'll cease and desist here. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support For all the reasons already stated. The article does, however, need a little re-writing. ElizaBarrington ( talk) 19:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is now:

The 1988 counseling issue has been generally re-written and moved to the section above. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the part about the person being of age and not having sex since it didn't really make sense. I guess the talking headz(my s key iz broken) are making thiz an izzue? Anywayz, let me get a new key board :) -- Tom (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ok,I see this material is covered in the section above. Is seems a bit repeatitive, maybe a rewrite with care for BLP? Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jennings gives an extended speech about GLSEN [4]. -- Banjeboi 04:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I look back through the discussion history regarding this article, I must say quite frankly that it is one of the worst displays of whitewashing and sanitizing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Any attempt by anyone to add information on the significant criticism of Jennings as Director of the Office of Safe Schools (which criticism is one of the best-known and most notable facts about Mr. Jennings) has been downplayed or removed based on tenuous-at-best claims about sources, notability, etc. For those editors who are determined to create an online encyclopedia that is devoted less to facts than to promulgating a liberal worldview, I say: Congratulations. You've done a great job. The current article embeds some mention of the "Brewster" episode within one paragraph, then quickly dismisses it. The section on Mr. Jennings' current position has "consensus" language stating that there was opposition to his appointment, but politely declines to mention WHY there was opposition. This is nothing short of ridiculous. The article is unbalanced and reeks of POV. Unfortunately, I have every confidence that it will stay that way. 72.224.119.119 ( talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You raise a good point that we omitted why they were protesting, I thought t it was there and have added that content. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Presidential advisorss category correct? TIA -- Tom (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's United States presidential advisors. DLHugsly ( talk) 07:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)