Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25


Malia Obama

Hiding discussion started by a sock of a banned user. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I support Malia as a separate article. Many oppose. A common opinion is "More reasonably covered in the article about her father. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)" and redirect/put info in Barack Obama-personal life.

So I am putting Malia information in. If you delete it, you should go to AFD and support Malia Obama article. If you oppose the Malia article, then leave the stuff in this article. You can't be for redirect AND for getting rid of sourced information, otherwise that's censorship and reason to delete other sourced info in this article.

Thank you. Watchingobama (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible that the fact that Malia Obama, age 9, likes Beyonce and doesn't like Paris Hilton, is unencyclopedic and does not need to be placed anywhere on Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
To bring that information here, you have to get a consensus to MERGE. As of right now, the result will be DELETE or REDIRECT. Grsztalk 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2The only thing that is notable about Malia Obama is that she is Barack and Michelle's child and this is covered in the article. Her not wanting to patronize Hilton hotels because of Paris Hilton and asking her dad if he should run for VP first isn't anything more than trivia. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been offline for a couple of hours watching a rather depressing movie, and it seems that while I've been away all hell has broken loose - including the suggestion that I'm a murderer. I did a bit of expansion on the Malia Obama article when I stumbled across it earlier today, but I was immediately convinced that it was better off as a redirect, so I did the deed. I'm sorry if that sucked everyone into a gunfight. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No apology from you is needed on this. All it has been since 2005 is a redirect, and that's all it should be. This is disruption writ large. Tvoz/talk 07:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

how is this a featured article?

how is this a featured article? i see it contains a section that is being questioned for its neutrality. is this enough to revoke featured status?

im not trying to be partisan here, i just wish to be fair to the other candidates who's articles are not featured but have no warning labels.

(70.181.148.148 (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, looks like we just never removed the tag after the discussions over Wright ended. I don't see any discussions currently on the page about NPOV issues with the Presidential campaign section so I've gone ahead and removed it. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Senate Career section changes

Lots of changes here. Comments welcome. --HailFire (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The reorganization makes sense to me, and I approve of the removal of some less-than-essential content such as the Senator Barack Obama Primary School in Kenya. (Details, as always, are in the relevant daughter article.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of "less-than-essential content", yet again Andy has decided to take it upon himself to expand the NJ and ADA ratings to include information that isn't necessary for a summary section of Obama's senate career.[1] I've moved his additional information to Obama's senate career article[2] and removed it from this article.[3] I've also shifted Obama's response to the NJ's rating to the sentence following the rating's sentence. While I understand why his response was located where it was (to counter both the NJ and ADA ratings), since the response is specifically to the NJ's rating and not to the ADA rating, it just seems odd to me to have his response after the ADA's rating. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And yet again, Andy has taken it upon himself to revert my moving of his detail to the sub-article without discussion.[4] What is everyone else's opinion of having TNJ's and ADA's ratings to the detail that Andy would like them to have.. I'm of the opinion the detail is completely unnecessary for the main article and is better placed in the sub-article (where it already is). --Bobblehead (rants) 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gotta say that I don't really have a huge opinion on this. I can do with either. I would suggest that it doesn't harm the article to include it here. So why not hold hands and sing kumbaya and include it to keep the tension down around here. (Or the other way around) Arkon (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it is clearly wrong to include it because it goes into specific (and in some cases, slightly dubious) details that seem horribly out of place in the summary-style prose. Rolling over to the POV-pushers in the hope they will play nice doesn't work, because once they get their way on something they just start a new battle elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't really helpful. Arkon (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
And a suggestion that we "hold hands and sing kumbaya" is? Suggesting that these changes would "keep the tension down around here" is not sufficient reason for inclusion. I'm not opposed to the votes being in the article, but they'd really need to be summarized. There's no reason to spend time going into excessive detail on them. --Ubiq (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, it is. Working together, keeping the heat down, is, very, helpful. Now excuse me while I go buy some more commas. Arkon (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, obviously working together and keeping the heat down are helpful in reducing tension. But working together doesn't entail blindly accepting one version just to appease the person who wants it to be included. --Ubiq (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The article history clearly demonstrates that POV-pushers (editors who do almost nothing but add or restore negative POV) will not accept compromise, and the result is that neutral editors just "give in" to try to restore stability. Such an approach is unacceptable. Bobblehead's edits are being continuously reverted by Andy, which is considered disruptive. Andy likes to burden the article with negative details of little or no significance in order to redress what he sees as an imbalance. If the neutral editors acquiesced to every POV-push by Andy, the article would be double the length and a distortion of reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) See I think this is part of the problem though. I give a rather bland 'meh' response about the inclusion of the materials after bobblehead asked for input and the next few responses are riddled with "POV-pusher" language. As if that is the only type of person who would disagree. Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning anything done by some legitimate pov pushers, but the reflexive fallback to that at every turn is not helping matters. Arkon (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Arkon, I don't think the "POV-pusher" language is being aimed at anyone that would disagree that the details are not necessary for this article, but rather at the specific editor that is adding them. Not that I agree with the usage of the language (I agree that isn't particularly helpful). --Bobblehead (rants) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is the version Bobblehead wanted:[5]

The National Journal, which uses 99 roll call votes it sees as important and useful in drawing ideological distinctions, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007 after ranking him 16th most liberal in 2005 and 10th most liberal in 2004.[1] Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.[2] Ratings of Obama's liberalism by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), based on 20 ADA-selected votes each year, declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007.[3][4]

...and this is the version I replaced[6][7] that with:

The National Journal, in its 27th annual vote ratings, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007 after ranking him 16th most liberal in 2005 and 10th most liberal in 2006. Of the Senate's 442 roll-call votes the publication chose 99 as important and useful in drawing ideological distinctions. Obama voted for the "liberal position" on 65 of 66 occasions, missing 33 of the votes.[5] Ratings of Obama's liberalism by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), based on 20 ADA-selected votes each year, declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% (one vote the ADA counted as not-liberal) in 2006 and 75% (five missed votes) in 2007.[6][7] Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.[8]

Not too crazy about that last sentence, which half-regurgitates some incoherent Media Matters criticism of Politico 's characterization of Obama's response which we nonetheless repeat unmodified, meanwhile making the cite an indirect one, but I'm not responsible for it. I only moved it back to the end of the paragraph, since it's point is that Obama rejects the label "liberal" though somehow, if you read the transcript, "progressive" is fine. The sentence needs reconsideration and probably rollback to an earlier, simpler, version, but that's not what's at issue now.

Bobblehead's sentence on the ADA is simply misleading, as it implies Obama is becoming less "liberal", year by year. My version makes it clear that in 55 votes he voted the ADA-approved way 54 times.

It also shows that in 2007 Obama voted in the way a pure liberal would be expected to by the NJ 65 of 66 times, missing 33 of the 99 votes selected from 442 that year. Bobblehead gives the number 99 with no context whatsoever and gives no idea of why the NJ would conclude Obama was liberal other than bald assertion.

The second version is simply more informative. If ignorance is pro-Obama I guess that makes it anti-Obama. Andyvphil (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, what you see as being "more informative" others might call "original research". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Reporting what a cite says in greater detail is not OR. Andyvphil (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

More edit warring

There's more back-and-forth edit warring going on over this material. Let's discuss it piece by piece, see what the general view is and whether there's room for compromise. (I'm signing each section so that people can reply to the relevant bit without it being confusing who said what.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Details of ideological ranking

Version 1 (originated by HailFire, I think):

The National Journal, which uses 99 roll call votes it sees as important and useful in drawing ideological distinctions, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007 after ranking him 16th most liberal in 2005 and 10th most liberal in 2004.[9] Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.[10] Ratings of Obama's liberalism by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), based on 20 ADA-selected votes each year, declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007.[11][12]

Version 2 (originated by AndyvPhil):

The National Journal, in its 27th annual vote ratings, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007. Of the Senate's 442 roll-call votes the publication chose 99 as important and useful in drawing ideological distinctions. Obama voted fot the "liberal position" on 65 of 66 occasions, missing 33 of the votes.[13] Ratings of Obama's liberalism by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), based on 20 ADA-selected votes each year, declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% (one vote the ADA counted as not-liberal) in 2006 and 75% (five missed votes) in 2007.[14][15] Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.[16]

Some of the material in Version 2 seems like irrelevant detail to me (why would readers care that the 2007 ratings were the 27th annual?) Additionally, some of the wording ("one vote the ADA counted as not-liberal") is extraordinarily clumsy. But most important, I worry that analyzing the details of these ratings is original research. If we're going to include this sort of vote rating, we should either cite the score as reported by each organization, or (if we want to add analysis) cite a reliable third party which has analyzed the material. We can't dissect it ourselves. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed the problems with Bobblehead's version above. The point of "27th annual" is to counter the idea, expressed on this page when someone first added mention of the NJ rating, that they just fell out of a tree and started doing this to trash Obama. I can live without it, and if you find "not-liberal" clumsy fell free to substitute something better, but that's not the kind of edit that this text is getting from the pro-Obama crewe. Your concerns about WP:OR are unfounded. Everything said about the NJ and the ADA ratings conforms to WP:PSTS, q.v. Andyvphil (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How about:

CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, has characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on analysis of all Senate votes cast in 2005–2007, and the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of 99 selected votes during 2007.<ref>Nather, David (January 14 2008). "The Space Between Clinton and Obama". CQ Weekly. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: Curry, Tom (February 21 2008). "What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref><ref>"Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" labeling of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.<ref>"Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: Toner, Robin (March 23 2008). "Obama's Promise of a New Majority". International Herald Tribune. also NYT version (published 2008-03-25). Retrieved 2008-04-30. {{cite news}}: Check |first= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)</ref>

--HailFire (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess Toner is better than Media Matters(except you don't use any of the content) but it otherwise looks just like Bobblehead, ADA-deletion, no-context "99", and corroded last sentence and all. We've got plenty of room. Take Toner and run with it. See what you can do to characterize Obama's record. The remnant you suggest is a non-starter. Andyvphil (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that we are trying to square the circle. Andy is correct in that missing out some of the information he has been adding is going to give a misleading picture. But keeping all that information gives us a paragraph that contains too much detail for a BLP, and probably too much weight to the subject. It is hard to summarize statistics without conducting original research - that's just the way it is. I have long been in favor of removing all the numbers completely, mainly for these reasons:
  • We have a good source that uses the term "loyal democrat" - a characterization that neutrally represents CQ's data.
  • Statistics cannot be summarized without compromising their integrity.
  • Liberal/conservative rankings based on votes are unreliable - many votes are cast based on objections to attached earmarks, or specific wording, rather than to the central issue.
  • A campaigning candidate will always have a smaller voting sample, leading to inaccuracy.
All that being said, I certainly think that Obama's voting record can be thoroughly explored in the Senate career article without the need to compromise. With that in mind, I think a one-sentence treatment can be added to Barack Obama#Political positions (along the lines of "Obama has been described as a 'loyal democrat.'") with the CQ reference attached. I don't think we are going to be able to create an acceptable summary paragraph without resorting to original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking the CQ one sentence summarization is a bit too short, if only because the most notable of the three ratings is the TNJ rating. I also don't think that not including the detail beyond the 95% is "compromising the integrity" of the statistics. It's very common in statistics to leave out the details and only report the percentages. Perhaps we could use wording more inline with the VoteSmart source on ADA and word it as "Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005, 95 percent 2006, and 75 percent in 2007.[17]" Or if including the word "Liberal" is so important, "The Americans for Democratic Action gave Obama a Liberal Quotient of 100% in 2005, 95% in 2006, and 75% in 2007,[18]" --130.76.32.182 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"a practicing Muslim"

I'm of two minds whether this is relevant or not. The evidence of whether Lolo Soetoro was a practicing Muslim is somewhat equivocal. Certainly, he was a nominal Muslim and attended mosque on occasion. But we've also got reliable sources saying that he was "much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors", and "hardly the image of a pious Muslim". And Obama's sister has said, "My father saw Islam as a way to connect with the community. He never went to prayer services except for big communal events. I am absolutely certain that my father did not go to services every Friday. He was not religious." Now, you may question Maya Soetoro-Ng's veracity, but this shows that baldly describing Lolo Soetoro as "a practicing Muslim" isn't uncontroversial. Early life and career of Barack Obama goes into some of this detail, but I think that it's too tangential to include here. And without that detail, we'd be violating NPOV if we simply say that he was a practicing Muslim. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is absolutely uncontroversial that Lolo Soetero was a practicing Muslim. Not "devout" or "pious" or "fanatical" or "conservative" or "Wahabbi" , but "Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths." (Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama, emphasis added.)[8] He went to the mosque, he prayed, he took Barry there, he practiced. I don't question his half-sister's veracity here, just the clarity of her vocabulary. She seems to be using "religious" as a synonym for "pious". But it's absolutely uncontroversial that Lolo Soetero practiced a faith and called it Islam. Describing him only as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful" is completely misleading. Andyvphil (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, guys? I can't believe that we are arguing over his father's religious practices. Is there mention in the articles of other public figures about their parents' church attendance? Should we mention how many church ceremonies John McCain's parents attended... or discuss whether John F. Kennedy (and the other Kennedys) truly believed/believe that the mother of Jesus was a virgin? Personally, I am an atheist, so I don't see any religion as more or less valid than another... but it seems that the edit warring here is only due to the fact that Islam is the religion in question and not Christianity. Let's try to get past it. Paisan30 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not just Lolo who went to the mosque for Friday prayer. Lolo took Barry. That's an unusual experience for an American presidential candidate. Anyway, your suggestion is we just delete the paragraph? Andyvphil (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I partially agree with Paisan30. There is currently too much detail on the religious beliefs of his family, and it appears that we are having difficulty verifying at least one of those details. If in doubt, leave it out is my mantra, when faced with a circumstance like this. A Republican smear campaign, stoked by Hillary's "as far as I know" comment, has made this an issue that really should be addressed. Perhaps we could say something like:
...and his Indonesian stepfather as a Muslim, "who saw religion as not particularly useful."
That would take care of the difficulty in verifying his stepfather's Muslimness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the typo should be "...and his Indonesian stepfather was a Muslim,...", I'm fine with Scjessey's proposal. --130.76.32.182 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In the context of the paragraph, it should be "as" - "[He describes] his Indonesian stepfather as a Muslim, 'who saw religion as not particularly useful.'" -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I have made this change in anticipation of agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The cited pages from Audacity, 202-208, contain no identification of Obama's stepfather as "a Muslim", practicing or otherwise. Also, this addition is entirely inappropriate here in the context of Obama's adult religious beliefs. I've removed it. Please do not make additions without verifying them first by checking the cited source. --HailFire (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay I see what the problem is. In "The Audacity of Hope", Obama says his Indonesian stepfather was "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." In "Dreams from My Father", he wrote "[l]ike many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths." If we are going to say that his stepfather was a Muslim (in any capacity), we would have to use both sources. That would mean the paragraph would need a complete rewrite. Perhaps this could be expanded upon in a footnote instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How about adding a double reference after the quote, like this:
<ref>Obama (2006), p. 204. Obama wrote in the ''[[Audacity of Hope]]'', "When my mother remarried, it was to an Indonesian with an equally skeptical bent, a man who saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one's way in the world, and who had grown up in a country that easily blended its Islamic faith with remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions."</ref><ref>Obama (1995), p. 77. Obama wrote in ''[[Dreams from My Father]]'', "Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths."</ref>
Does that work? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Not here. The paragraph is about how Obama has chosen to characterize his own spiritual path. The "his Indonesian stepfather as a Muslim" edit that you and Andy are trying so hard to include here (and attribute to Obama's own statements) can't be verifiably sourced because it is a misreading of what Obama has written. --HailFire (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I am not "trying so hard" to include it. I'd be perfectly happy to exclude any mention of Islam (or Christianity, for that matter) because I believe faith (or the lack thereof) is a personal thing that should not be paraded in public or used to influence politics. The fact is, however, that the Republicans and the Clinton campaign have tried to use Obama's Muslim relatives to leverage their agendas, and it would be silly to ignore it completely - especially because Obama himself talks about his relatives in both books. The references I suggested above are direct quotes from his books that I have sourced from Obama's campaign website, and not a "misreading" of anything. I was suggesting putting these references in instead of the modified text (keeping the existing version). Thanks for lumping me in with Andy and making me laugh, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Details of Trinity UCC

Andy wants to include this in the "Personal life" section:

A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ.[19][20] The religious doctrine it teaches is black liberation theology.[21][22]

I simply think this detail is unnecessary; readers can find more information about Trinity by following the link to Trinity United Church of Christ. George W. Bush doesn't go into details about his personal theology (surprisingly, even the daughter article Religious faith of George W. Bush doesn't talk about his being born-again). Trinity and Jeremiah Wright have become campaign issues, but that's not enough of a reason why we should have to discuss the details of the church's membership or theology. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You think Bush's articles ought not say he self-identifies as "born again"??? I think it's inexcusable that his articles don't say so. He says his Christianity is important, and I think we should take that seriously enough to identify what flavor of that faith it is. And similarly for Obama. Saying "Religion - Christian: (United Church of Christ)" doesn't mean much. If black liberation theology is an insignificant "detail" it's hard to see why we bother mentioning anything in this article. Andyvphil (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy is correct when he says that black liberation theology is a significant part of what Trinity is about - the church was founded in the '60s around that particular theology, and still continues to evoke it today. Black liberation theology is more about empowering blacks that feel put down by what they see as a ruling white class, and the church often evokes that theme - although not in an "anti-white" manner as some have been saying. All that said, Josiah is correct when he says that such details are not necessary in this particular article. There is no suggestion that Obama attends Trinity because he agrees with this particular theology (in fact, he pointedly has said he does not). Specifics about Trinity, such as what it is and how large its congregation is, belong in Trinity United Church of Christ. The reason we have blue links is so that we don't have to overstuff articles with detail, particularly when using the summary style we have here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wong again. Obama has not said anywhere that he disagrees with black liberation theology. And, "There is no suggestion that Obama attends Trinity because he agrees with this particular theology"??? The fact that he chose to join and remain and support TUCC suggests exactly that,[9] though the sugggestion that he joined the church for its political utliy has also been made. Andyvphil (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No Andy. It is you who is wrong here. Attendance of TUCC is not explicit evidence of supporting BLT. At best, it is implicit evidence. You would need an unequivocal statement from Obama that he supports Black Liberation Theology in order to justify saying so. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Choosing to join a church is prima facae evidence that you agree with its theology. The whose point of a church is to constitute a community of shared belief. Wright's was pastor for 36 years, and Obama knew him for seven years before choosing to join TUCC, so Wright's theology was clear and Obama knew what it was. Your statement that Obama "pointedly has said he does not...[agree] with this particular theology" is simply false. He has never distanced himself from Trinity's theology. The idea that his church's belief is in black liberation theology is a mere detail is, frankly, nuts. Andyvphil (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"The whose point of a church is to constitute a community of shared belief." Community first please. Plenty of folks know that their family and community loved ones come first. Just cause you are joined at the hip, don't mean you have to agree/disagree. Even married folk's beliefs disagree sometimes. Of course, he love's his church community and his country. The churchs' foundations are not relevant to his bio. 172.166.175.101 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Modocc (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Obama didn't inherit his "community", or Trinity. He chose both as an adult. He says his religious beliefs are important. What are they? Christian. OK, we say that. Denomination: UCC. OK, we say that. Trinity's theology is idiosyncratic in the UCC. If we are going to say what Obama's religion is, why are we stopping before the level at which it is defined? Andyvphil (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your fallacy is the absurd assertion that because Obama choose a church, he must therefore have done so because of its specific theology. Plenty of other reasons for joining include praying to God, getting to know Jesus, building the community, friendships, etc. Only Obama need ever clarify what his personal religion actually entails and this article is about Obama and not doctrine. Modocc (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm making no assertion about why Obama joined TUCC. My guess is that he's still a religious skeptic and joined TUCC for political reasons, but that is neither here nor there. I am merely asserting that failing to accurately report the characteristics of the community he chose to join, which community has been significant and long term influence on his life and career, is a travesty of biography. You are trying to suppress a neutral, true, and properly cited observation that Trinity promotes this unusual belief system, and the assertion that that fact is a trivial detail is absurd. Andyvphil (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"I'm making no assertion..." You most certainly have with your rationale for the edit, to justify its nontrivial nature. For Trinity's theology/practices see the church article, where space allows it to be accurately characterized. Modocc (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Andy, there are simply no reasons to go into specific details about Trinity when the church has its own article. A blue link is perfectly sufficient for the task. As I indicated before, Obama's attendance is not an unequivocal pointer to his personal beliefs. Adding these details creates what may be a false implication about those beliefs. Let people follow the blue link and draw their own conclusions instead of imposing your own conclusions on this BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Before this goes farther, is there a page on the church? If there is a page on the church, then include a link to the church and leave the description/ideas of that church to the related article. The information is not directly about Obama, but the church he attended. This information lends nothing to the article, but adds to the controversy. Brothejr (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes - Trinity United Church of Christ. That is already linked in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Leave it as a link to TUCC without the details of what the church is.. This article isn't about TUCC, it's about Barack Obama. We don't include the "controversial" beliefs of the Catholic Church in the bios of Catholics, I don't see how this would be any different. --130.76.32.182 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion and Bobblehead's edit summary here, I have removed excessive detailing of TUCC from the Barack Obama#Personal life section of this article. --HailFire (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Should the article use images from his senate photo gallery at http://obama.senate.gov/photo/ ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem we've had with using images from his senate photo gallery is that even though they are on a .gov website the images were not actually taken by an employee of the federal government, so are copyrighted. We'd have to get clarification on the copyright status of those images before we can call them PD and use them. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

US government offices are to declare when the copyright is held by the photographer when posted on a website. The website and its information are created by a US government employee in the course of his or her duties.[10] According to a document on that page compiled by the Conference on Fair Use, a FU rationale is stronger if the digital image is much smaller than the original: a "thumbnail" image. "Thumbnail" images technically do little to compete with the original photograph and Google's use of "thumbnails" was held to be fair use in its lawsuit with Perfect 10 because of its transformative nature. The senate "photo gallery" is actually a "digital image gallery," which are reproductions of photographs. The senate photos, if used in the article, should a fair use rationale claiming that the digital images are US government works and the transformative nature of the digital images used constitutes a fair use of the photographic copyright whether held by the photographer or as assigned to the US government (works assigned but not created by the US government retain their copyright and therefore would not fall under public domain until after the copyright expired). Legis Nuntius (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles, particularly biographies of living people, try to avoid the use of fair use images as much as possible because many of the FA reviewers are of the opinion that since the person is still alive, then the image is "easily replaceable". Of course, there are exceptions made for historically important photographs, but those are few and far between. There isn't anything currently on Obama's photo gallery that is historically important and, unfortunately, the Obama senate page has a history of poorly noting the copyright status, so there really isn't much point in using the images currently stored there. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A history of poorly noting the copyright status? The directive is that if the copyright holder is someone other than a US government office, then that person is to be credited. I'm not sure that the extent of the copyright issue with the photographs could be discovered short of a FOIA request. Nevertheless, the copyright holder identity would be irrelevant under a fair use rationale. I would suggest resizing the existing photographs to make the image smaller. Their use on this article is fair given their size, but larger images on the specific image page is a weaker argument. The rationale for use should be changed to fair use for each because the photos would have a copyright even if assigned to the government by contract. I'm not sure what fair use has to do with whether an image is "easily replaceable." That is not part of the fair use analysis. The 1st Amendment is the backbone of fair use. That Obama is a public figure gets factored into the "nature of the copyrighted work," (see Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates) although his status as a public figure is not dispositive of fair use. (see Harper & Row). If the digital images comply with copyright law, their copyright status should have no bearing on the FA status of the article. Any fair use argument is bolstered by simply reducing the size of the image, thanks to Google and its lawyers. As for the subject matter, that is a separate issue. Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Our policies implicitly forbid us from using images under fair use unless absolutely necessary. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Generally speaking, for a BLP of a extremely well known, extremely public figure, it is unlikely any images under fair use will be allowed unless there is something extremely special, irreplacable and extremely important about what the image depicts. Free images, regardless of whether they are copyrighted or not, however are okay. Images produced by the US government or it's employees during their work for the US government are generally in the public domain and not copyrighted, and therefore they are free images by definition. Please be aware that although wikipedia is hosted in the US, our aim is to be a free encylopaedia for everyone, and part of this means that we don't only consider US law Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no conflict of laws between the Berne convention and US copyright law for this issue. The domestic law of the US would apply for copyrighted works that originated from the US.[11] I see that my legal knowledge is a lost cause here. There is a stronger argument for removing Mickey Mouse. The saying among copyright attorneys goes: "Disney always wins." That wikipedia non-free image policy would include images that have a weaker fair use rationale and exclude images that have a stronger fair use rationale would go against common sense. I direct you to a link at the top of the non-free image policy page to wikipedia's policy on common sense. Legis Nuntius (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


What on earth is going on with that image of Obama on the front page? That is completely inappropriate, not to mention undecipherable. jagorev 11:34, 14 May 2008 (EST)

looks like this has been fixed, for now jagorev 11:41, 14 May 2008 (EST)

Revert

Ok, so I reverted the most recent addition of information following the latest primaries. Generally it was good info, and I was -really- trying to stay away from making actual edits to this article, but I also wanted to short circuit a possible flame up of tension around here. So, what say thee editors? I would think from the way this discussion page reads that all the campaign stuff should be shunted into the campaign article, and the rest should probably hold off under the guise of being too recent and a little crystal ballish. (By the way, feel free to revert me, I was just trying to get your attention to the talk page, this is a pretty senstive article and changes without discussion tend not to last). Arkon (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The section tends to be updated with the latest results in the primaries and caucuses as those tend to be "set in stone". Generally not in as flowery of language as was added, but the results are at least mentioned. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates

Apparently (according to fox news), obama now leads in superdelegates, its worth a mention in the article in my opinion. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The superdelegate math is even more variable than the pledged delegate math. CNN has it 268 Obama to 272 Clinton, NY Times is 266 Obama to 264 Clinton, and the AP is 271 Obama to 272 Clinton. All in all, it's best to keep the source consistent throughout the article. If the AP is being used for the pledged delegate source, then the AP should be used for the superdelegate source. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why we have a section on Obama's presidential campaign, but I cannot understand why there is so much detail in it. Specific primary results and delegate counts are surely not in the spirit of WP:RECENT - especially when this section is only supposed to be a summary to a comprehensive campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I imagine a lot of it will get removed with time, what seems important now might not seem important in 9 months. These things work themselves out. Regarding the delegates, agreed, leave till there is consensus amongst the experts at the very least. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey.. WP:RECENT is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so not sure why this articles gives so much importance to it. But like Realist2 said.. As the campaign evolves, the details of the primaries will probably lose their importance as general election info rises in importance. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware that it is an essay, but I happen to think it is very valid - particularly with respect to a BLP. Too many articles suffer from having to be continuously updated (which usually means they are dated), and going into excessive detail about recent events raises undue weight concerns as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i wouldnt worry Scjessey, in a few months time things will be removed and no1 will blink an eye. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BLPs are constantly in flux, particularly if their "star is rising" like Obama's. It's one of the downfalls of a "real-time" encyclopedia. Things will rise and fall in importance as ime passes. Right now the primaries are extremely important in Obama's life, so they have a prominent mention in the section. If he wins the Dem. candidacy, the general election info will start pushing the Primary info out, if he wins the general election, his presidency will start pushing the general election and Senate section off the main page. Etc. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

New scandal brewing

I'm not saying this necessarily should be in the article yet, but it probably warrants some additional research on the issue. Basically, a news story reported that a captured laptop computer provides tangible evidence linking FARC and Hugo Chavez. Also, it provides evidence that seems to indicate supporters of Barack Obama have attempted to reach out to FARC to discuss "various issues." [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58071] RonCram (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a controversy there, just a splashing of Obama's name. Heck, if you really read the article, it is saying President Bush is trying to open up talks with Columbia (I.E. for the free trade deal amung other things) while what the article said about Obama: "They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program." From what it looks like, if Obama becomes president, he won't support the Farc, the free trade agreement, or the military aid program. Brothejr (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
@RonCram: Even if there were anything to this story, which there isn't, you wouldn't be able to use WorldNetDaily as your source. This is just another right-wing smear tactic, rather than any sort of serious "news story," as you describe it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
With the Ecuadorian government as a cutout it doesn't seem possible to identify which "gringos...[who] say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama" are interested "in talking to [FARC] on various issues". Could develop into an embarassment, like the reassurances to Canada, squared, but is several steps removed at present. Andyvphil (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with William Ayers

Much as the Obama pundits have been deleting this, it's unavoidable that we include Obama's relationship with Ayers, which is going to be a talking point for the rest of his candidacy. Especially considering how poorly he handled the questions about Ayers, and Ayers past, there is no way there won't be questions about it, and people with questions about that will logically come here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs)

Regarding, "which is going to be a talking point", please note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Grsz11 01:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And regarding "pundit", I do not think that word means what you think it means. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A pundit (sometimes mispronounced pundant) is someone who offers mass-media opinion, analysis or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport), on which they are presumed to be knowledgeable. As the term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities lacking special expertise[attribution needed], however, it can be used in a derogative manner. Pundit is also a slang term for politically biased people attempting to be neutral.[citation needed]
Pretty much nailed it, I believe. You two clearly have no intention of allowing Obama's Wikipedia page to be anything but a pro-Obama puff piece. --Fovean Author
Rather, can you state what relevance this has to his biography? Grsz11 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It probably more appropriate for the campaign article, unless it becomes more noteworthy. Obama's campaign has acknowledged they are "friendly", but Obama appears friendly with many people, to many to mention in a biography. It is me i think (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's probably only appropriate if it becomes noteworthy at all. Politicians know lots of people. It's a simple guilt by association tactic that, according to policy, should be deleted. Grsz11 01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Or it could be more appropriate in the IL state senate article, since they know each other from IL, but I am not sure when the relationship fits, but it has been talked about in context of the presidential campaign. It is me i think (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guilt by association is not sufficient to send someone to jail, but it's a useful and appropriate way to measure a man's character. If you associate with mafioso, you might not be mafia, but we know a little more about your character. If John McCain's 20 year pastor was a racist like David Duke and another long term friend was the Oklahoma bomber it would be newsworthy (at the least).

I don't know why anyone other than an Obama campaign volunteer like Grsz would actively try to hide Obama's associations with a racist (Wright) and a terrorist (Ayers). These two characters (and Obama's wife who is finally proud of America) give important insight into a man which we barely know. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and your point of view is oh so neutral. Was I the only one who argued against it? No. Thanks, Grsz11 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if Grsz admits these issues are important now that his candidate got handily spanked in Pennsylvania. 72.205.37.144 (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to include all relevant information, his associations are a huge part of his public persona and the media has noted this many times. Include this information, it's relevant and it's notable. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Ayers information to the article. Clearly we have consensus - even Grsz's criteria of 'if it proves noteworthy.' There isn't anyone in the old or new news media who aren't 'noting it' now. Fovean Author (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You don't have a consensus. Notability is not the only criteria for inclusion in a BLP. --Ubiq (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I DO have a consensus, and 'making Obama look good' is also not a criteria for inclusion. I don't care if this rattles you guys at Obama Campaign Headqarters, but in fact this is a relevant reference to Obama's life, it is WELL documented, and it is pertinant.Fovean Author (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, really. Did Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and John McCain get a Wikipedia account that we don't know about? Grsztalk 03:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like 3 editors have stated objections, 2 of which contribute to this article on a normal basis, and 3 editors want it to be included, none of which contribute to this article on a regular basis. You can fling accusations about who you think is an Obama supporter ad nauseam, but it doesn't really help your arguments. The edits in question are not pertinent to his life, are not about events that have had a significant influence about any aspect of his life, and they would only serve to perpetuate an association fallacy, something that an encyclopedia's role does not entail. If you want people to know about it so badly, go write about it in your blog or make a YouTube video or something. It doesn't belong in his biography. --Ubiq (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the IPs are the same editor. Grsztalk 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I was counting fovean, quirky and the IP as a total of 3. Either way 3 to 3 is not the consensus he claims. --Ubiq (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the heading about William Ayers because the topic does not deserve its own heading. Whatever verifiable information there is, of course, ought to be included, NPOV as possible, possibly under a heading entitled "controversies," or some other such grouping that could cover other topics as well in such a long article. The point is not to give undue weight to a singular issue for which journalistic coverage and the information generally known to be available do not represent it as equally important as, for instance, the other topics which are given their own headings in the article. - Aratuk (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned - in the article about his campaign, because that's where it's relevant. Grsztalk 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to omit the information about Ayers from this article. The #1 reason I cite is the disparity in the ratio of included controversial material in the B. Obama article and the H. Clinton article. Certainly, if we under-report Obama's controversies (even in brief) from this article, we are putting our thumb on the scale in favor of him. That favoring occurs because naturally, Mr. Obama, being newer to the national political scene, will have less information reported about him. However, it's not the qty of the subject matter reporting that ought to be measured, but rather, how fully in the inclusion or exclusion of the information, informs the reader of the total picture of the person. Obama is now a national figure. Serious allegations and controversies must be mentioned (at least in brief) in the main article. Frankly, it is unprecedented that a leading US Presidential candidate freely associate(s)/(d) with a unrepentant domestic bomber. William Ayers is on recent record as an admitted criminal bomber. Omitting any pointers to that relationship from this article is a gross abdication of perspective and balance. 7390r0g (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to a brief (probably one-sentence) mention of the Ayers matter, if we can source it to unimpeachable sources. However, it's worth remembering that the BLP policy will encourage underreporting of any controversy, for any person, because most such "controversies" are pushed by sources which don't meet the high standards of reliability which BLP requires. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any justification for mentioning "the Ayers matter", as you put it. Such a thing would be only be appropriate in the campaign article, insofar as it has been given sensationalist media exposure, but in the context of Obama's life it lacks any significance whatsoever. If a consensus forms to include anything about Ayers, any mention of the whole "weatherman" thing would violate the Wikipedia "do no harm" policy. His association with Obama is based on their shared experience with the Woods Fund of Chicago, and not with anything in Ayers' distant past. I believe that the association has been given a more than sufficient treatment here, and I would regard any attempt to add information to this article as a POV push. - Scjessey (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"I would regard any attempt to add information to this article as a POV push"... interesting. Let me posit a question to you. Are you saying that the mere inclusion of any mention of Ayers is by definition POV? If so, how did you come to that conclusion? As I see it, if your premise is true 'this is inherently POV stuff', then isn't the reciprocal of that premise also true, ie: unilateral exclusion of it is also POV?. Personally, my view is that any United States Senator, by virtue of holding that office, is an extremely notable person, about whom many people are interested to learn more. Senator Obama's relationship/friendhip is not notable because Obama is a Presidential candidate in 2008. No, it's notable because it's illustrative of Obama's comfort level regarding whom he is willing to associate. I remember when Nixon was still alive and close with BeBe Reboza. Suffice it to say, Reboza had some unsavory elements to his background and it was very reasonable that people wanted to know: "Wow - Nixon is pals with Reboza". Likewise, Ayers has a very high profile and unsavory past. The fact that Obama is friends with him does not become exclusive to 2008 campaign. Think about it, if Obama was not running, how would you justify excluding the Ayers connection from this article? The answer is that you couldn't. Ayers is notable and controversial. Obama is close to him. That connection deserves a mention. BTW: If César Chávez were still alive and he were also friends with Obama, would you exclude that fact too - simply because some in the media might be clucking about it? We are letting the tail wag the dog if we let muckrackers/bloggers, etc. force us into capricious limits on fact inclusion - simply because some elements of the media are pronse to hysteria. Ayers is on record as saying "I don't regret setting bombs," Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough." [12]. As I see it, that makes Ayers very notable and by extention, his friendship with Obama is notable. Also, as per this Boston Globe article from April 18, 2008 it's reasonably clear that the connection between Obama and Ayers is notable, (albeit controversial as well). Here too is another article, but one which points out Ayers details in another light. LA Times puts their perspective on Obama/Ayers. This link On Hot Air has what I feel is possibly an illuminating quote from a poster "The whole Bill Ayers situation says more about the the left-wing Democrat mob-church that runs Chicago and forgives sins though social action than any social climber that comes though there." Also, Powerline has some readable (if not overwrought) details that add light. Anyway, as I see it, it's this quote ""Like many other tenured and well-heeled radicals, Ayers keeps hoping for a revolutionary upheaval that will finally bring down American capitalism and imperialism," wrote Stern. "But now, instead of planting bombs in bathrooms, [Ayers] has been planting the seeds of resistance and rebellion in America's future teachers, who will then pass on the lesson to the students in their classrooms." from this article which makes clear that Ayers is notable enough that his friendship Obama ought to be mentioned and it shuld be mentioned here, in this article. Ayers, as an unrpentant doer of criminal deeds, because he now has some influence, while still persuing a path of radicalism, is a notable person. And, the fact that the Ayers home was the location which held Obama's very 1st state senate election meeting, makes clear that the Ayers connection predates election 2008. Ayers, a dyed-in-the-wool radical, has been very helpful to and is close to Obama. Omitting that connection is, of itself, a form of POV. I leave it to others to see how it can be mentioned, but mentioned it should be. 7390r0g (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ayers content is included in relevant articles about the 2008 presidential campaign. Please do not continue to re-insert references in this biography with the justification that "omission" is POV. Every event of Obama's political campaigns cannot be included in what is a summary article of his life. Thanks. Harro5 05:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For the records, I HAVE NOT "inserted" ANY referrences to Ayers into this article. Rather, I am attempting to discuss WHY a modest one SHOULD BE inserted. I ask that yuo cease merely reiterating a routine "NO! It's campaign related" EXCUSE and instead ACTUALLY DISCUSS the pros/cons of inclusion. Here again are the pros:

1) Obama is a senator - this makes him notable - regardless of being a pres. candidate.
2) Bill Ayers is notable and controversial on his own accord - if you don't believe that read his wiki page!
3) Obama's Chicago political career initiated his 1st campaign at a meeting in Ayers home!
4) This Ayers help pre-dates by far, election 2008
5) Obama has many connections to Ayers going back many years.

Attempting to sweep this away into some other article is blatant manipulation and POV.

I recommend the inclusion of a single sentence in the "Cultural and political image" section of this article:

In recent times, as his public profile has risen, some of Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko have been the subject of increased scrutiny.

This sentence states indisputable notable facts and is appropriate because the "Cultural and political image" section is a virtual puff-piece for Obama. You can't open the door to personal criticism by having a section called "Cultural and political image" and then refuse to allow any negatives into that section - only positives. Such editng is absurd!

Forcing any and all negatives about Obama's "Cultural and political image" out of the article on the basis of "campaign" makes me question why we even HAVE a section called "Cultural and political image" if we are going to purposefully exclude all unflattering detail from that section... Who's kidding who here? 7390r0g (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest Obama's relationship with Ayers can be characterized as "close", or "a friendship". What little "relationship" there is can be safely regarded as insignificant. It is true that both individuals are notable, but their relationship to one another is not, except in the minds of the FOX News-watching sheep. Furthermore, a sentence beginning with, "In recent times" is almost certainly going to violate WP:RECENT. This is a clear attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, and it is laughably transparent. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thin "laughably transparent" around here, is the obvious schemes by whitewash minded editors who seek to put 'we love Obama' spin on this article. And for your information, the solution to you complaint is to strike "In recent times", leaving us with:

"As his public profile has risen, some of Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko have been the subject of increased scrutiny.

Now, with that correction made, does anyone here dare dispute that the above sentence is 100% true? Does anyone DENY that Senator Obama's associations with those two have been the subject of increased scrutiny?

I will wait one day and if no honest-broker reasons for keeping my suggested sentence out appear, I am inserting it. It's a true fact. It's a notable fact. It's germane to the section I intend to put it in and it's written in strictly non-pov manner. Does anyone deny this? 7390r0g (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that wording was true, neutral and appropriate. It's not appropriate to go into details of Obama's relationship with Ayers (or lack thereof), but it has been the subject of media scrutiny. I haven't checked the sources mentioned above, so I'm not sure which (if any) of them would be best to use as a reference for this proposed sentence. Ideally, it should be something from a highly reliable source (not an opinion column or editorial — but analysis is OK) noting the scrutiny and possibly mentioning its effect on Obama's public image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Where are you intending to insert this sentence? Why are we mentioning Rezko yet again? Only the right wing loonies are "scrutinizing" Obama's connection with Ayers, and filling the sentence out by mentioning Rezko in the same breath may make it seem "true" and "neutral", but it is certainly not appropriate. It is just another guilt-by-association wrap that is best dealt with by the campaign article. There is nothing sinister about Obama's connection with Ayers (who has never been convicted of anything, has become a distinguished professor, and only knows Obama through a connection with a now defunct charity). Why don't we just let Sean Hannity maintain this article by himself? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, to answer your question "Where are you intending to insert this sentence?": As I stated, the sentence which I intend to insert into this article is:

"As his public profile has risen, some of Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko have been the subject of increased scrutiny.

and I intend to insert it in the section titled "Cultural and political image". As I see it, that section title and the current content of it, opens the door to the sentence which I wish to put in.

It is simply preposterous to suggest that my sentence is POV in any way - it's not. There is no slander, no slight, no negative in that sentence. My sentence does nothing more than allow the reader to comprehend three 100% true, neutral, germane, salient facts pertaining to Obama's "Cultural and Political image" - those facts being:

1) Obama's been associated with these two people.
2) Those two people are controversial.
3) Obama's association with them has been subject to increased scrutiny.

Frankly, I am not impressed at all with Scjessey arguments on this point. As I see it, he's got WP:OWN problems here and needs to back off. 7390r0g (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. What you are doing, by mentioning Ayers and Rezko (who are unrelated) in the same sentence is creating a conflation. This is a sum-greater-than-parts approach, and the result is negative POV. This is a common tactic, as evidenced by Andy's comments below. And I'm not sure who you think you are telling me to back off. I am simply trying to ensure the article remains neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I applaud your pure motives, but I suggest that your vision is clouded here. There is no "conflation" in my suggested sentence. The subject of the sentence is the "increased scrutiny" of "controversial [person] association(s)". My sentence allows a readers to read for themselves - at the corresponding linked articles, who those people are and what they are all about. Scjessey, you presume that a reader of my sentence MUST come away with some adverse conclusion about Obama - because of my sentence. That reasoning is not grounded in the facts at hand, but is based on the negative spin you impute into my sentence. The sentence I am sugegsting, in no way is negative for Obama. Those other individuals stand or fall on their own merits - and the wiki pages for them will reflect that. However, to exclude from this article the truth that Obama's association with those two has come under increased scrutiny - merely because you conjecture that it's a negative (and you do conjecture that - you've been saying POV! POV!), does not make my desired edit fail wiki standards. I ask that you volunteer to put this point of discussion up for a request for comment. I've made my views clear - as have you. Let's not argue. Let's seek wider consensus from the community. 7390r0g (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't see the problem with your proposal, but the problem still exists. Your reason for introducing this conflation, as you have already stated is, "the disparity in the ratio of included controversial material in the B. Obama article and the H. Clinton article," which is not an appropriate justification at all. Yes, there has been scrutiny, but that has been a result of the Presidential campaign. The Ayers association motivated by a guilt-by-association agenda, and the conflation with Rezko adds more weight to what would otherwise be a non-story. Furthermore, the actual details of Obama's association with Ayers are already covered in a sub-article where they can be given the appropriate exposure. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You entirely miss the point of the sentence, which is: to alert the reader that there has been increased scrutiny of controversial associations. You can't have an entire section about a Senator's "Cultural and Political image" but then screen out factual data points merely because that information might be interpreted as a negative. Our readers are not fools - they can decide for themselves if Ayers and/or Rezko are "bad" (as you seem to suggest our readers will conclude). If as you say, the things with Ayers are all the the past, well then where's the beef? On the other hand, Resko is likely more of a controversy for himself and for Obama as the association there is close and many people are troubled by the charges against Resko (hence the increased scutiny). Also, I see that you did not respond to my suggestion. I think we should open up a request for comment. I want my sentence included in the section I have mentioned and you are opposed to that. We are at an impasse. If you won't agree to seeking wider comment, then I feel that you do indeed have WP:OWN issues here. Yes or no, will you agree to a request for comment? I seek your agreement to go forward on that as I prefer consensus to confrontation. Please reply on this point today. I will look for your answer later on this evening. 7390r0g (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to "alert the reader that there has been increased scrutiny of controversial associations," as you put it, as it would violate WP:RECENT. First of all, the Rezko-related material has already been given a treatment in the article so further mentions would violate WP:WEIGHT. Secondly, there is only increased scrutiny on the trivial association with Bill Ayers because Obama is in the middle of a campaign, and because Hannity made a big deal out of it on the radio. There is a case for including it in the campaign article on that basis, but even that is tenuous at best. Thirdly, there is no reason to mention the two associations together other than to conflate the separate issues to push a negative agenda. Fourthly, you do not need my permission or consent to seek a request for comment, as it seems you are extremely fond of doing. Finally, I resent you implication that I somehow claim ownership of the article. There is no evidence in my edit history to support your claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's evident that you are combatively closed-minded and are not interested in reaching common ground. And frankly, I resent your mocking tone and your wiki-lawyering. I am inserting the sentence as per above. If you don't like it, you can start an RFC - I offered that to you. 7390r0g (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Try to be a bit more civil if you can. Scjessey raises some good points. BLPs don't serve as a news source, and it isn't our job in this article to "alert the reader that there has been increased scrutiny of controversial associations" so much as to inform the reader about Barack Obama's life. Criteria for inclusion in a BLP isn't merely: 1. fact 2. sourced. It has to be demonstrated that this holds particular relevance to his life, and as Scjessey alluded to, it might be quite a bit too early to show that it does. Obama has also been criticized and drawn scrutiny for a vast number of things due to the territory that comes with being a presidential candidate. We can't list them all in his BLP just because they happen to facts. --Ubiq (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ubiq, your personal attack against me ("Try to be a bit more civil if you can") reeks of snideness and is unwarranted, please withdraw it. Further, I am be fully civil, 100%. Now, as to the sentence under discussion, are you saying we are not the "alert the reader" to things? Frankly, if that's the case, why are we telling the readers what (for example) Andrew Sullivan and other commentators think? Why is that relevant and the sentence I advance here, not? Further, you are attempting to twist my dialog on this page so as to impeach the merit of my edit. The merit of my edit speaks for itself. I've added many reasons here, but why I get in return is wiki-lawyering and insults. Frankly, I think this page is well overdue for some RFC input - we could use some fresh insight. Also, there is no BLP violation with my sentence and it's false to say that there is. I will tell you though, now that I see the retorts my sincere efforts have been slapped with, I understand why this article is such a squsihy blob of puffery. Just look what happens on the talk page - try to add A SINGLE SENTENCE and you get reams and reams of legalistic justifications to block it. My word, I amazed that there is so much WP:OWN vigor on this page. 7390r0g (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have actually read WP:OWN, which has no relevancy to this. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, please stop leaping to conclusions and hurling insults. How can you say "I don't think you have actually read..." without asking me first? That's very insulting - and evidently, intentionally so. Frankly, if you keep this up, I feel that I should report you for user conduct. Now for your informationm, you can find this "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." at WP:OWN and it's EXACTLY what I am suggesting you are doing - and you are doing it in violation of the spirit (and guidelines of this wiki) so please stop!. I am going to ask you again: yes or no, will you agree to a content RFC regarding this disagreement? I believe we can benefit ffrom outside input? Will you agree to that? 7390r0g (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Look. I'm only going to say this one more time because it is clear you are just ignoring all common sense here. The sentence you are trying to add is not appropriate in this article for the following reasons:
  1. It violates WP:BLP with respect to WP:HARM#TEST because you are trying to use guilt-by-association by drawing attention to Obama's tenuous relationship to Bill Ayers because of something Obama has nothing to do with.
  2. It violates WP:WEIGHT because it suggests an increase of scrutiny over Tony Rezko, where none exists, and because Rezko is already covered in the article.
  3. It violates WP:NPOV because the mention of Ayers and Rezko in the same sentence, whose controversies are not related, is a conflation that introduces a negative point-of-view, even if that is not your intention.
  4. It violates WP:RECENT because it draws attention to recent campaign events, and has no longevity in a biography of Obama's entire life.
  5. It violates WP:RS because... well.... you didn't actually provide any at all.
  6. It violates WP:OR because you made the sentence up yourself, without referring to, or including any, reliable sources.
So can you understand why I would think this sentence would be inappropriate now? It violates five Wikipedia policies and two essays. Do you really think this article would have reached and maintained FA status if the editors had let folks throw in any old bit of unsourced original research? Please consider self-reverting your edit, for which you have no consensus for introducing. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You are free to file an RFC any time you want and don't need the approval of others to do so. I don't think your behavior on this talk page is acceptable. Your notion that my suggestion for you to be a bit more civil somehow constitutes a personal attack (and subsequent demand for a retraction) is a prime example. I'm not going to engage in discussion with you unless I see you being nicer and less combative. I'd recommend Scjessey to do the same. As it stands, there is no consensus for inclusion of this disputed content and the edit has been reverted. Go for an RFC if you feel this still warrants inclusion. --Ubiq (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That's way harsh, Tai [13] 7390r0g (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
For better or worse, right-wing loonies like Sean Hannity have an influence on our national discourse these days. We can't ignore that reality. Of course, we shouldn't pretend that they're reliable sources of factual information, but they do have an influence on public perceptions. I don't think it's appropriate to argue the details of how much Obama did or didn't have a relationship with Ayers here, but it is appropriate to note that some media sources have pushed the relationship as a story, and that it's had an impact in some quarters. If you can find a reliable source discussing the way that right-wing media have pushed the story, the one sentence could say something like ""As his public profile has risen, some conservative media outlets have scrutinized Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko.'" But again, I haven't checked the sources to see what they say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
My contention is that this issue does not seem to be biographically relevant. It is already covered in here, and that should be more than sufficient. Also, the attempt to conflate Ayers with Rezko is a clear POV-push. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The Woods Fund is defunct? The $1M Obama voted to invest with Davis is gone? What happened to the other $71M? Nah, it's just Scjessey being wrong again. Actually, what's really needed is a sentence in Early Life and Career about Ayers (not convicted, but an admitted and unrepentant bomber),[14] then chairman of the WF BoD, naming Junior Associate Obama to a Directorship ($6,000/yr back when Obama needed it)[15] and also hosting Obama's first meet-and-greet when he first ran for office, to which run Rezko was the first substantial contributor. Obama barely knows the guy's name of course. It's just wonderful how these guys he barely knows do so much for him. Only in America. Andyvphil (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's another board. Joyce Foundation, 8 yr, $70,000.[16] How many of these? Adds up to how much of what the guy was doing for a living? Andyvphil (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. This is the anti-gun foundation[17][18] that his wife wanted him to quit politics, after the Rush defeat, to become president of. No mention in his bio, though. Andyvphil (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I had incorrectly assumed that the charity had become defunct because their domain was no longer resolving. My bad. That being said, all the details you describe above are irrelevant, since in the context of this BLP we can regard the "weatherman" characterization as "inadmissible" per the policy to "do no harm". Ayers is a distinguished professor and a civic leader in Chicago, and it is hardly surprising that Obama has had some association with him - an association that was of a largely philanthropic nature. The controversies of Ayers' past have nothing to do with Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Davis. Nothing to do with Obama. "...in the context of this BLP we can regard the 'weatherman' characterization as 'inadmissible' per the policy to 'do no harm'"??? Good one! Can't mention that bomber business, or the dead people! ROFL!!! Andyvphil (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no. Obama didn't bomb anyone or kill anyone. And trying to conflate Wright, Ayers, Rezko and Davis is just a POV-push, Andy. They are unrelated. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Conflating Wright and Ayers may be a POV-push, but if so it's one shared by NBC and The Wall Street Journal, which asked voters in a recent poll to describe how concerned they were by the issue which they described as "It is hard to know Barack Obama’s values because he has friends like Reverend Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers." That sounds like push polling to me, but that's what they asked, and 32% of the people surveyed said they had "major concerns". Now, we can't tell from that how much of the concern stems from Ayers and how much from Wright, but it would seem to indicate that Ayers is being treated as an issue affecting Obama's image by reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the issue above relates to conflating Ayers and Rezko, and the sentence in question was some original research that was not even placed in the campaign section. And that poll also asks about the flag pin, so perhaps we should have a sentence that points to the increased scrutiny (more than Ayers and Rezko combined) over his lack of a flag pin, which proves he hates America and is probably an evil Muslim terrorist? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, no — in part because that poll shows that the vast majority of voters (59%) have no real concerns over the flag pin business, and another 14% have only minor concerns. Only 27% have "major" or "moderate" concerns about flag pins (which is frankly far too many, but that's my own opinion). However, a significant minority (32%) said they have "major concerns" about Obama's past association with Wright and Ayers, and another 15% have moderate concerns. That's nearly half the electorate. I think that's a view which should be represented in the article — not with undue weight, but with a brief mention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Even if there is polling data to indicate that Obama's association with Ayers is a problem, this is still a fly on the back of a hippo in terms of significance. Besides, it's a campaign issue (if anything) and it violates WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What is a significant minority? And to what end would we keep providing such data with the assistance of our evaluation of a poll? Presumably, significant minorities have concerns about other things too. I've read that ~8% percent of voters in some states admit not wanting to vote for him because he's black, though some have suggested the number is likely much more than this. Should we include a sentence about this? I'm just a bit puzzled as to why such things would be mentioned in his BLP. I don't see anything like that in John McCain's or Hillary Clinton's article. I also don't see, whether he wins or loses in November, why these mentions would be particularly relevant to his life. I think his public image has certainly taken a hit following from the media scrutiny, and I could see how we could perhaps provide a short paragraph to show this shift, but I do think we would need to give it some time before we do this. His image could go back up for one reason or another and ultimately the downward shift would be rendered irrelevant to his life. --Ubiq (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As an example of a noteworthy critic lumping Rezko, Wright and Ayers together, see this column by Charles Krauthammer, which contains the sentence, "Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist." Of course, he's obviously pushing his own agenda there, but it's further evidence of the aforementioned "scrutiny". (Someone who wasn't trying to follow NPOV might very well call it mud-throwing rather than scrutiny, but I couldn't possibly comment.) Some of us may think the Ayers question insignificant, but we've got to include all significant viewpoints, and like it or not there is a significant viewpoint which holds that Obama's associations with Ayers are problematic. We need at least to mention him in the article, and I think the proposed "scrutiny" sentence is an appropriate level. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Go for it. And on that note, there is a significant viewpoint that he's elitist and out of touch. That should probably be included as well. --Ubiq (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget the flag pin thing. There are loads of reliable sources for that as well, and for Michelle's lack of pride in her country. Oh, and don't forget to mention his poor bowling effort while you're at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
While I am for once in complete agreement with Josiah Rowe, let me also add that the purpose of Wikipedia is to be able to look information up and to follow links from article to article, NOT to make political candidates 'look good.' It is absolutely likely that someone is going to have a question about Ayers' and Obama's relationship and start looking here. The same with Jeremiah Wright, the same with Rezko. Those who fight this because they believe they're conceding to the bad press about Obama do the whole project a disservice -- Fovean Author (talk) 3:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A neutral solution

There is a way that we can mention Obama's association with Bill Ayers without using the non-neutral solution proposed above, and that is by describing his involvement with the Woods Fund of Chicago:

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities.[23] In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996.[23] This association would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.[24]

I am not sure if the source I have used passes WP:RS (although this archived discussion says it does), but I believe this approach is better than simply saying that Obama's association with Ayers is drawing scrutiny. Anyway, I'm going to replace Kossack4Truth's poorly-sourced POV edit for this new version. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why all the obsession with suppressing factual threads. At the least one should also mention the importance of Ayers to Obama's support. Ayers was more than just another friend. Ayers was a significant "rite of passage" persona in the Chicago scene. Their combined role on the Woods Fund board (a small and intimate board) in funding one million to Rezko is rather important since that's about one third of the annual budget for Woods, not to mention the other questionable grants made in their jont tenure to fund organisations linked to terrorism. This article should not be just another "puff piece" for Obama's campaign, but provide a spectrum of information on the man. Cdcdoc (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is written in a summary style, and cannot sustain the level of detail you are seeking without imposing undue weight. My solution alerts the reader to an association with Bill Ayers without risking defamation (Kossack's version described him as an "unrepentant bomber") or conflation (by linking Wright, Rezko and Ayers in the same sentence) and provides blue links to Bill Ayers and the campaign article where the reader can learn more. This approach is consistent with the rest of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(@ Cdcdoc, referring to these edits) I removed your recent contribution which was inaccurate and misleading. Exelon has 17,200 employees. The NYT reported the combined contributions of the employees and executives for over a number of years(presumably including contributions that date to the article's recent publication and not just prior to Obama's work on the bill). But you incorrectly attributed the aggregate contribution to the company itself and not to its employees and executives. Even if you had, the amount in question may not have preceded Obama's work as you stated. Furthermore, there is a substantial difference between the NYT raising concerns of undue influence and a contrived statement implying quid pro quo. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Coming in a bit late here (I got distracted at Jeremiah Wright controversy), but I support Scjessey's solution to the Ayers matter. Seems very reasonable to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I support Scjessey's edit too, as I simply forgot to mention above, having been hurried. The solution is great, a bloody brilliant edit, as it adds in the relevant information needed at the appropriate level. Modocc (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Same. --Ubiq (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Scjessey's proposed edit is a smoothly scripted shoehorn. Ask this: how is the Ayers membership on the Woods Fund board or the hosting of an event in 1996 worthy of inclusion in a summary section describing Obama's early life and career? Isn't any Ayers-related text best handled in the campaign subarticle as other editors here have previously stated? Please help to keep this article's first section evenly weighted and do not let it continue to devolve into a venue for election year attention seeking. --HailFire (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't really worthy of inclusion. Even a cursory glance at my comments above would indicate I am opposed to mentioning Bill Ayers at all; however, it dawned on me that Obama's participation in the Woods Fund was significant, so I saw an opportunity to offer a compromise to all the Hannity fans who wanted to see Ayers mentioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with HailFire... There really isn't a problem with mentioning Obama's involvement in the Woods Fund in the early life and career section, but Ayers should really be in Presidential campaign section (if he is mentioned at all in this article). --Bobblehead (rants) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that editors for and against the inclusion of this are pretty evenly matched. What should we do? As I have mentioned before, my mantra is: "If in doubt, leave it out!" -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, this current version.;) I would not be opposed to having the first sentence in your proposal included in the Early life and career section and a modified version of the last two in the Presidential campaign section after the Wright controversy paragraph or appended to the end of that paragraph. Something along the lines of "Obama's relationship with Weatherman founder Bill Ayers, who hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996 and joined him on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago in 1999, also drew scrutiny.[25]" --Bobblehead (rants) 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I could live with Bobble's approach - basically accomplishes what some want but not in Early life where Ayers doesn't belong at all. But given the option I'd have Ayers only in the sub article rather than giving it more weight here than it deserves. Tvoz/talk 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it would be better suited to the sub article if that is what everyone decides. I'm still convinced this Ayers business is just a smear campaign not worthy of mention in Wikipedia (flag-pinnery). Frankly, I am surprised that there was so little argument against it earlier (see parent of this section). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't really care if it is included in this article or not, but it should really be mentioned in the campaign sub-article in some manner. The impact of Obama's relationship with Ayers has been but a minor pothole in the road in comparison to Obama's relationship with Wright and most polls that try to measure the impact of Ayers always include Wright in the same question (like the one Josiah mentions above), so it is impossible to say if they said there was an impact because of Ayers, Wright, or both. My presumption is that the answers are mostly in regards to Wright because there really isn't a difference between the polls that mention Wright alone and those that mention both. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I probably should clarify my stance. My concurrence was more so a statement of IF this is going to be mentioned, it should be done in this way (scjessey's version). I too don't see it particularly necessary to include it. --Ubiq (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've striked my support due to HailFire's objection. As to adding a mention in the campaign summary, I'm neutral. Modocc (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey has said that this quote should not be incuded in the article: "As his public profile has risen, some conservative media outlets have scrutinized Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko.'" He said that it was listed somewhere else. But the link he listed is not active - that article had been deleted. Because this article was deleted the info should be in this article. Scjessey has been POV pushing during this entire article. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... I think you need to go back and read this entire conversation before making statements that don't make any rational sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Headings

He served in the state Senate before running for U.S. Senate. So, the headings "Senate campaign" and "Senate carrer" are confusing. This could be fixed by inserting the word "U.S." at the start of each of those two headings.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

European Union FAQ

The Barack Obama article should have a FAQ section like the European Union article. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This article does have a FAQ page. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

West virginia

Are we going to mention that he lost west virginia by 41 points, his biggest loss to date. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DONE. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Image of Barack

Hasn't anybody noticed that the image of Barack is very weird? Did somebody sabotage it? Whomever has the authority to do so, please change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.19 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, it does look shopped. Guitarplayer001 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New article on college years

AP has a new article on Obama's younger years. Nothing major here, but could flesh out some less well-known times. Here's the article [19]. Remember (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat duplicated Obama nav boxes

The Obama biographical series includes two somewhat replicated navigation templates, one that is specifically for the series towards the upper right and another one that is more inclusive in its constituent links as a banner along the bottom. So, looking for guidance from WP:SUMMARY, we see it lists as an example World War II, where there is at the upper right a navigational template linking to its constituent subarticles, but there also happens to be a template along this article's bottom (which happens to contain links to WP articles about the many World War II military campaigns). However, as an example of a navigation box to subarticles, WP:SUMMARY points us to the one for the Isaac Newton bio series, whose only template is a sidebar towards the upper right.

Yet, numerous main articles thoughout WP actually have side nav boxes inclusive of links to articles that are not specifically "subs" of the mainarticle; so, if we're to be guided by both WP informal practice and its formal guidelines...

  1. should we choose to include more links in the series navigational template, rendering the bottom template completely redundant?
  2. Or should we follow the World War II example and, while keeping the series templates at the upper right, limited to actual subarticles, reserve the banner along the bottom as an omnibus able to include articles that are more peripherally related? — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Side navigation boxes should be kept as short as possible so that they do not impact the readability and formatting of the article. One way to do that is to only include articles that are part of the series (so in this case, only the articles that were calved off this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Needs rework

A lot of things need to be re-worked in the article. Too much for one day for here's a start.

Under Presidential campaign...Amidst concerns for his safety as the first black candidate seen as having a viable chance of being elected president, the U.S. government assigned Secret Service protection to Obama 18 months before the general election.[88]

Is this one of the most important facts about Obama? Certainly not! Eliminate it. We need to ask about 200 more of these kind of questions. How about his parents names? Certainly yes so keep that. DianeFinn (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a consensus on what this article should be. Should it be a "gee whiz, that's an interesting fact that I didn't know"? + to this is it makes it interesting. - to that is that it could be a trivial fact that is really not notable.

Or should the article just be a very encyclopedia biography of the person without any hype? That it should just include the most important facts of his life (so all important facts of his life would be included and no unimportant facts). DianeFinn (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Early life and career needs to be split up because the article jumps to early life again later in the article. We need to spiff up this article because this article will be looked at a lot when the man becomes president, an almost certainty. DianeFinn (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewording

These races were seen as Clinton's last chance to make a comeback in the nomination fight. - i think this needs rewording. We know what its trying to say but isnt quite accurate. It can be argued quite fairly that Clinton had already made a number of comebacks in the campaign. The sentance can be read to mean that their wasnt any clinton comebacks at all. I think it just needs a little clarifying. Cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Would "...last chance to make a final comeback..." or "...final chance to make a another comeback..." work? Although, I don't see the distinction you're drawing. The sentence isn't saying Clinton hasn't made comeback's before, just that NC and IN were the last chance she had.. (Although, Clinton would argue she has a pretty good chance even now). --Bobblehead (rants) 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like it would fit much better in the campaign article imo. Arkon (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a more accurate statement would be that the primary results made it even harder for her to get the nomination. The sentance implies that A) Shes never had any comebacks (which see did) B) The games over (we cant be 100% sure yet). Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is pretty obvious to everyone, except to Clinton herself, that the game has been over since she lost Texas. Only some kind of scandalous revelation could make any difference, and none have been forthcoming (despite efforts to conflate Ayers/Rezko/Wright by the right-wing media and the Clintons). I'm not in favor of any of this election recentism, and I think specific details of primary wins and losses should be left to the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"Actually, it is pretty obvious to everyone, except to Clinton herself, that the game has been over since she lost Texas. Only some kind of scandalous revelation could make any difference, and none have been forthcoming (despite efforts to conflate Ayers/Rezko/Wright by the right-wing media and the Clintons)." It is remarks like this one that make me skeptical about the ability of certain editors here to keep their biases under control. Even now, Hillary Clinton could still win the nomination. The closing arguments in the Rezko trial started today and the jury could have a verdict as early as Thursday. Tomorrow is the West Virginia primary, and Tuesday, May 20 is the Kentucky primary; polls indicate that Hillary's lead over Obama in both states is in the 2-to-1 range. Also, one could hardly call ABC News and the Associated Press "right-wing media." Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Farther up the page this same editor said, "Only the right wing loonies are 'scrutinizing' Obama's connection with Ayers." The questions about Bill Ayers in the debate were asked by George Stephanopoulos, who served as press secretary for Bill Clinton. Again, one could hardly call Stephanopoulos a "right-wing looney," unless of course one can find a spot far enough to his left on the political spectrum from which Stephanopoulos appears right-wing. That would have to be somewhere near anarchy or socialism. Sorry, but some very mainstream and notable journalists are questioning these links between Obama and the bomb-tossing left. It is only fair to include this material. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"Even now, Hillary Clinton could still win the nomination." - Like I said, only with some amazing, scandalous, and highly unlikely last-minute revelation. The game is over. Insert coin. As for George Stephanopoulos is concerned, please remember that he was specifically asked by the acerbic, right-wing lunatic Sean Hannity to question Obama about Bill Ayers. None of the MSM are questioning Obama about Bill Ayers except the "fair and balanced" FOX News and their sympathizers. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Careful now, your slip is showing... Arkon (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My political views are available for all to see on my user page. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
... And in your mainspace edits. Unless Hannity used mind control drugs on Stephanopoulos, it was the latter (hardly a "right-wing looney" by any stretch of the imagination) who decided for himself that the question about Ayers was appropriate. And there'snothing "highly unlikely" about a revelation that Obama was involved in Rezko's schemes. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the offending sentence since I can't really think of a reason why it should be covered in this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead, you've "removed the offending sentence"? Who is it offending? I noticed that Realist2 quickly agreed, perhaps because he's a Hillary supporter (cf: his talk page). Are we providing adjustment to information to appease the activists or are we trying to align with an accurate presentation of information? ..... it just gets curioser and curioser .... Oxfordden (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I like obama too, if you carry on reading my page you will actual see that my views are more inline with obamas, thankfully i do have a NPOV, im a proud liberal who loves fox news, get your head around that. Please have good faith. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

yea, right. I have faith in fact, and when it stares me in the face - I listen. Oxfordden (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did Clinton win the Indiana primary by 1% or 2%?

It seems really odd to say that Clinton won the Indiana primary by 2%, when the actual percentages (rounded to hundredths of a percent) are 50.56% Clinton, 49.44% Obama, meaning Clinton actually won by 1.12%. I understand how one arrives at the 2% number, but you get 2% by compounding rounding errors, which is faulty math.

It's not a huge deal or anything, just seems strange is all. WIth this method of counting, it's only possible to win or lose by even percentages, which really irritates the mathematician in me. --Ashenai (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. Mathematically false is false, period. Prev cite didn't give numbers, so I added one which did, and it says 51-49 but I calc the "51" is ~50.557%, so I changed 2% to 1%. Satifies WP:PSTS, by my lights, since this level of arithmetic doesn't require "specialist knowledge". Andyvphil (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Either say 1% or 51% & 49%. That's the honest way to report the math. Clist08 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Map of popular vote caption

This map can be used to prove a point, especially one's opinion. So we have to be careful here. Some of the states were caucuses and don't have true popular vote. Some Obama won and some he lost (so noting the problem of caucuses is not pro or anti Obama) DianeFinn (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can already see an error. The map does not show Florida. You can say that Florida voted earlier than the party wanted them to. But Obama lost Florida. You can say that he didn't campaign there but whose fault is that - it's Obama's. Like or dislike Obama, if the map has an error, it must be removed from Wikipedia. DianeFinn (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The map shows the margins of victory for presidential preference elections held for the Democratic party. Florida and Michigan did not hold elections recognized by the Democratic party. There is no error. johnpseudo 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The results are recognized by the party, there's just controversy if the delegates should be seated. We run the risk of looking pro-Hillary if we shade MI and FL and risk looking pro-Obama if we omit them. So why not a very, very neutral statement in the caption that MI and FL are special circumstances and not depicted in the map. Such statement is very matter of fact. DianeFinn (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said to DianeFinn who wrote on my personal talk page, the map itself is of only passing relevance to this general biography to start with. It is certainly germane to those articles on the Obama Campaign, or to that on the 2008 Presidential Race, and so on, but those are different articles. Every extra word added to get pedantically correct niggles in the explanation make the digression of the map seem more awkward. I wouldn't mind taking the map out of this article entirely, but I definitely don't want any extra words added explaining its meaning... some other place, we might also digress into primaries vs. caucuses (versus TX's mixed primary/caucus), voter turnout percentage that is represented in each state, whether a state has an open or closed primary, etc. All of these give further meaning to "the nuance of the color" on the graph... but we can't put that in an image caption where the image is of small relevance to begin with. LotLE×talk 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


The whole article on Obama is practically biased... Zenxlow (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree Clist08 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

VP article proposal

An interesting article that hasn't yet been written is about the Democratic vice presidential candidates. A few weeks ago, Hillary suggested that Barack would be a fine VP (to her) as she talked about the dream team. Barack declined. Edwards declined to be be Obama's vice president yesterday. As the race develops there will be plenty of information valuable to future readers about the selection of VP. This material is unsuitable for Barack's article but great for a new article.

Opinions? Merge here or separate article? DianeFinn (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait! See WP:NOTCRYSTAL (and always WP:NOR). LotLE×talk 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't crystal (predictions) because facts already exists. For example, Hillary suggesting Barack as VP and Edwards declining to accept the job. But if you don't want it, fine. DianeFinn (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is exactly what is referred to in WP:NOTCRYSTAL as well as WP:NOTNEWS. You are proposing an article that merely speculates who will be the VP candidate based on speculation in the news. Why would we want such an article, especially given that it will be moot in a few months anyway? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! I don't want speculation, just the facts as they now exist! DianeFinn (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1996 election

Very notable to those outside Chicago is the fact that Obama got all of his opponents disqualified from the 1996 ballot by going through all the signatures in their petition. This is notable for Wikipedia because it is very noteworthy.

However, to avoid being a biased presentation, I quote the Chicago Tribune as saying that it is common in Chicago to use those kind of tactics.

Bringing this point up may be controversial because those who support Obama wouldn't want such an unflattering fact revealed. However, it has been mentioned many times in the national and local press. To avoid letting Obama haters use this point, I've worded it very neutrally and even mentioned that such tactics are common in Chicago (not just Obama), along with a reference saying that it is common.

I think that I will be attacked for bringing this up, both from pro-Obama and anti-Obama people. The middle is a hard place to stand. DianeFinn (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Alice J. Palmer#2nd Congressional District campaign and aftermath timeline
These edits[20][21][22]:

Obama ran unopposed after he successfully had all of his opponents disqualified from the ballot. However, Obama remarked that the saga was "very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."[23] The use of political tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago and not specific to Obama, according to the Chicago Tribune.[24]

were not an accurate NPOV summary.
Newross (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. That edit, as written, was neither NPOV nor entirely accurate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Then sugguest a NPOV way to say it. I've made it even more bland. I could leave out the explanation and just the first sentence if you like that better ...Obama ran unopposed after he successfully had all of his opponents disqualified from the ballot ...but I thought the further explanation makes it very NPOV. DianeFinn (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama ran unopposed after he successfully had all of his opponents disqualified from the ballot. He eventually ran unopposed, launching the career that has made him the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president...A look at his years in Chicago, based on interviews with friends, advisers, rivals and political strategists, reveals a shrewd combatant from one of the nation's toughest political arenas. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120873956522230099.html

My version is much more kind to Obama that this. DianeFinn (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole "disqualification" topic seems of little relevance to this article. It was certainly not Obama who did this. Illinois has certain rules for ballot qualification; those potential candidates who do not meet those rules (i.e. signature counts) don't go on the ballot... whether those rules are good or bad, those rules were made by prior state legislation, not by any particular candidate. There might be some other article where it would be interesting to read about particularly aggressive challenges to ballot qualification in Chicago (versus other jurisdictions), and in such an article, the case of Obama's state senate campaign might be a good example. But this article is a general biography. LotLE×talk 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The law allows disqualification, but someone has to file the challenge to the signatures. And also someone has to go through the signatures and determine which ones are not valid. This "someone" was in the employ of the Barack Obama campaign. Twist and squirm around this truth all you like, but the law is only a weapon. In order to do harm to someone, someone else must actively wield it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
From Talk:Alice J. Palmer#2nd Congressional District campaign and aftermath timeline:
  • Jun. 27, 1995 - Alice Palmer, age 56, announces she will be giving up her State Senate seat to run for Congress
  • Sep. 19, 1995 - Barack Obama, age 34, announces he is running for Palmer's State Senate seat with Palmer's enthusiastic support
  • Nov. 07, 1995 - Barack Obama's mother, Ann, age 52, dies of ovarian cancer in Hawaii
  • Nov. 28, 1995 - Alice Palmer finishes a distant third to winner Jesse Jackson, Jr., age 30, in her Democratic primary run for Congress, and dismayed at receiving with only 2,917 votes in Chicago, Palmer reiterates she will not seek re-election to the State Senate
  • Dec. 04, 1995 - Supporters of Alice Palmer announce they are lobbying her to break her promise to Obama and run for re-election
  • Dec. 11, 1995 - Barack Obama files nominating petitions with over 3,000 signatures in Springfield on the first day to file petitions
  • Dec. 18, 1995 - Alice Palmer announces she is breaking her promise to Barack Obama and running for re-election to State Senate at a press conference with supporters including: State Sen. Emil Jones, State Sen. Donne Trotter, State Sen. Arthur Berman, State Rep. Lou Jones, Ald. Barbara Holt, and Mark Allen (field organizer for Jesse Jackson Jr.'s campaign), and then drives to Springfield to file nominating petitions with 1,580 signatures on the last day to file petitions
  • Dec. 26, 1995 - Barack Obama supporter Ronald Davis files objections to the nominating petitions of Palmer and three other lesser-known prospective candidates (none of whom are determined to have the required 757 valid signatures to earn a spot on the ballot)
  • Jan. 17, 1996 - Alice Palmer announces she is ending her run for re-election to State Senate because she did not have enough valid signatures to earn a spot on the Democratic primary ballot (with 561 valid signatures, she was 196 short of the required 757)
  • Mar. 19, 1996 - Barack Obama wins the Democratic primary nomination for State Senate with 100% of the vote; Obama was the only prospective State Senate candidate with enough valid signatures on his nominating petitions to earn a spot on the primary ballot
  • Nov. 5, 1996 - Barack Obama (endorsed by the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune as "the clear choice" and "a worthy successor to retiring Sen. Alice Palmer") wins election to the State Senate in the general election with 82% of the vote; the Harold Washington Party candidate received 13% of the vote, and the Republican Party candidate received 5% of the vote
Newross (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A new NPOV persective has been added. It makes Obama look good because he learned from it. He admits the tactic was "awkward" and wished it ended differently. Very succinct. And a very good preface to his later support by others. So the flow in the article is nice.DianeFinn (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the consensus? Kossack and me for mention of the 1996 ballot disqualification. Kossack seems to favor a longer section, I tend to favor a brief mention. A mention is justified as it was one of the highlights of his term. Even in 2008, it is mentioned in mainstream newspapers, but some of the other stuff listed is not mentioned (making it even more relevant). To soften the blow, I suggested mention that the act was typical of Chicago politics, not that Obama was trickier than others. But people don't want the disclaimer, so just put the disqualification facts there. DianeFinn (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

need more specific information in article

Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group before moving to Chicago in 1985 to take a job as a community organizer.

(first sentence in early career subsection)

Suggest finding out where he was working and add to article. For example....before moving to Chicago in 1985 to take a job with the South Side People's Assistance Group as a community organizer. DianeFinn (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama's mother - name

I never thought it would be so contentious but it seems that discussion is needed. Another user has reverted the mother'a name several times. I even put both names as a compromise but still it is reverted.

The mother's name is Stanley Ann Dunham. It should be listed as such. As precedent, look at the Richard Nixon article. It says that his father was Francis Nixon. In the Francis Nixon article, it mentions that he was called "Frank". So we should treat Obama the same way. Give the mother all the respect and list her full name...Obama son of Stanley Ann Dunham (with a link to her article where it mentions that she was called "Ann").

In obituaries, they list the full legal name out of respect. So do other encyclopedias, especially in the sentence....person was son of Margaret Elizabeth Smith, etc.... DianeFinn (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is simply contrary to Wikipedia's style guide, as I have pointed out to DianeFinn when she writes on my own talk page. The common and familiar name of persons both makes up the title of their primary biography page, and is the appropriate link text for references to them (unless special circumstances make some other form of their name necessary to the discussion). For example, Oscar Wilde had the full name 'Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde'. Take a look at the pages that link to Wilde at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Oscar_Wilde. All such pages use his familiar shortened name.
When giving the names of parents, their full names are usually given. This, it appears, is the special circumstance you are overlooking. It's similar to referring to a woman by her maiden name when writing about her before she married, when (as here) the proper solution is to use a piped link. - Nunh-huh 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide even one single example of anyone with a WP biography where this alleged rule is followed, Nunh-huh? I've never seen it. Instead, all the articles I know follow WP:NAMES. It doesn't count, of course, if "full name" is also "article title" and "most commonly-used name." LotLE×talk 08:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
For examples of what WP actually does, Charles Darwin's father, "Dr. Robert Waring Darwin," has an article and link titled Robert Darwin and George W. Bush's father "George Herbert Walker Bush" has an article and link titled George H. W. Bush. Similarly, GWB's mother "Barbara Pierce Bush" has an article and link titled Barbara Bush. In all cases, parents are linked by article-title name rather than by full name. LotLE×talk 08:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Following WP style guide does not show either special respect, nor condemnation, of the person mentioned. It's just simply how we link to articles. Within those linked articles, there may be various discussion of other names the person went by, including name changes, less used middle names, longer titles for some persons, and so on. The article on Ann Dunham is titled as such, and we must link to it under that name, and not some other name variant. We also don't make the link say 'Stanley Ann Dunham Soetero' or 'Ann Sutoro', both of which she also went by in some contexts/times. LotLE×talk 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Note also that the article on Francis A. Nixon is titled exactly that. In the body of the article, there is discussion of the fact he went by "Frank", but not in the article title. The link in the Richard Nixon article links to the exact spelling of the name given by the article title (as it should). If, contrary to actual facts, the article on Ann Dunham was titled "Stanley Ann Dunham" and its text described her use of the name "Ann", DianeFinn's edits would be correct... as is, they simply violate style guides. LotLE×talk 23:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason, DianeFinn, why you think contradicting WP style guide has some special significance for Obama's mom's name?! If there was something in his bio that made her less used first name important, it might be worth adding. I'm being inventive here, but if he, e.g., named his pets or kids 'Stanley' in her honor, or the name was itself given her due to some historical figure that Obama found important, or something like that, it might be worth commenting on in this bio. But as a mere pointer to another article, it seems like some sort of empty pedantry. LotLE×talk 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Noting that Obama's mama's name is "Stanley Ann Dunham" doesn't violate any style guide. The accurate name should be used; there are hundreds of "Ann Dunham"s and probably only one "Stanley Ann Dunham". Using the correct name isn't pedantry: it's accuracy - which is what the reader has a right to expect in an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 00:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is a similar "accuracy" disregarded (by design) in every link to Oscar Wilde and Francis A. Nixon and Jimmy Carter, and just about everyone else who has a "most familiar" name that differs from the birth, full or other perceived-correct-by-someone name? It makes know differences to me whatsoever that Ann Dunham's birth name was "Stanley", but it jars on my copy-editing nerves to see the non-standard linking policy here (unless, of course, as noted, there was some specific reason motivating it). LotLE×talk 00:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the controlling guideline being violated is WP:NAMES. LotLE×talk
Yes, so you keep asserting, but there's nothing there that dictates that a link in a separate article must match the name linked to; that would be a very silly guideline in any case. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Even putting policy aside, giving Ann's full name is inconsistent, as well as being overly detailed. Should all other such biographical references be treated with full names? I would hope not. Why insist on giving Obama's mother's full name and not the father's too? Also, according to Times, Ms. Dunham wanted to be known as "Ann". Thus, its respectful to her self-identity to refer to her common name. Modocc (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It's inaccurate: the logical solution would be to link Stanley Ann Dunham; the complicating explanatory phrase was added only after that was objected to. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
What's being insisted on here is inaccuracy in the name. The "Stanley" part is not the article name, but neither is it the name by which she was generally known. It's sticking in a bit of trivia that makes the meaning just slightly less clear, for no purpose other than vacuous pedantry. I readily admit that compared to the awful soapboxing and WP:UNDUE weight on the Wright stuff, this is trivial... but why be wrong in even a trivial way for no reason whatsoever (especially when it's also contrary to WP:STYLE)?! LotLE×talk 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No, her name was Stanley Ann Durham. It's not inaccurate in any way to use her correct, and legal, name, and it certainly isn't "wrong". - Nunh-huh 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The use of Stanley Ann Dunham is the more respectful form and the most encyclopedic. DianeFinn (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a compromise? Use the formal and respectful form first, mention ("Ann") with it, and use Ann in any subsequent sentence. That's the way abbreviations are, like...International Business Machines (IBM) is a big company. IBM makes things.... DianeFinn (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
DianeFinn, I am ambivalent about the policy dispute, but if full names are so darn important, why bring up the example of Francis Nixon? That was not Frank's full name either. In addition, should it be agreed that full names be used, it would be prudent to only do so for both parents and to do a rewrite similar to Hillary Clinton's biography (Her father,...,. Her mother,...,.) for clarity and to avoid any confusion caused by Ann's unusual first name. Thus far, I've been unhappy with the uneven handiness of the edits and the tenacious editing, despite not reaching a consensus. Modocc (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let's change everyone's parents to their full name for dignity. After the first mention, it doesn't have to be the long version. DianeFinn (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Grandstanding

It appears that User:Kossack4Truth is trying to insert various electioneering into the article. I suppose it is because of a negative bias against the bio'd subject (not that I know anything about the user, but it sure seems like the slant of his/her insertions).

The one case is the ever longer digression into every minutia of the Wright story (and Ayers likewise). But then also the stuff about Illinois law on ballot qualification that s/he is trying to belabor as well. I'd urge editors to please read WP:UNDUE before inserting, at great length, material which is at best marginally relevant to the subject matter. A WP article on a person—even one of great significance—should be kept short-ish (20k is starting to get long), with side topics that deserve it be spun off into their own articles. There are separate articles on Wright, on the Obama Presidential Campaign, on the "More Perfect Union" speech, and so on. Those should, of course, themselves be kept to reasonable length, but each of those is already linked to, and each concerns a more narrow and focussed discussion of the material Kossack4Truth keeps expanding upon. LotLE×talk 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to treat each other as nicely as possible. A political controversy IS part of one's biography. However, the threshold of political controversy is a bit higher to become part of a biography and a bit lower just to become a controversy.
One example is Hillary Clinton's habit of developing a southern accent when speaking in the South. This was a political controversy for a short time. However, I don't think it reached to the level of becoming part of a biography.
The Rev. Wright controversy primarily involves Rev. Wright, not Sen. Obama. However, it becomes an Obama controversy when he gave an excuse and then a few weeks later condemned the pastor. Whether this controversy become part of his biography is a question. My feeling is that a short summary emphasizing Obama's relationship to the controversy is possibly ok.
More importantly, a decision should be made about whether this article should be a stately, time balanced biography. If so, then most of the daily details, campaign, political positions, and controversies need to go. The consensus (by both editors which seem to lean for, against, and indeterminate) seems to be a skew towards recent events and including all these daily details, campaign, political positions, and controversy. Because of this, there will be more recent events, including controversial events. Anyone favor a stately, time balanced bio? DianeFinn (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, DianeFinn, that the Wright dust-up should be mentioned briefly (as it is in my edits). Moreover, I really like the way you've characterized "controversy" versus "worth putting in bio". I just don't think (nor think you think) that the Wright stuff should be given more words than his entire legal career, or his famous 2004 Dem Convention speech, or various other things also worth mentioning. Actually, I doubt any mention at all will be worthwhile in five years (however USA political elections go before then), but it's worth mentioning briefly for now.
A little bit of bias towards "most current events" is reasonable. Not a large bias that way, but at least a slight emphasis. But the way too long narration about every side detail on Wright is definitely WP:UNDUE weight (i.e. the version in Kossack4Truth's versions). LotLE×talk 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Naturally, I disagree. The longer version of the Wright paragraph is a consensus version, reached after weeks of mostly civil discussion between people who clearly show a bias in Obama's favor and others who prefer a more NPOV approach. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I see lots of reversions but very little discussion by Lulu in the past 24 hours, and specifically since I placed this comment here, yet she accuses me of being "way past a 3RR violation" in her edit summary. Consensus on the Wright paragraph was well established, and even accepted by some pro-Obama editors, until Lulu arrived here. I do not choose to engage in an edit war. I choose to offer civil and constructive discussion, followed by consensus. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change, remember. Now that the Wright issue is effectively over (the Republicans tried to use it in the recent special election, and failed), the consensus version of the paragraph that you are referring to is no longer appropriate. The abbreviated version is inline with summary style, and the details will remain in the exhaustive sub article and the related biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Where and when was the extensive discussion that ordinarily precedes a change in consensus? It appears that it was done in one evening by Diane and Lulu, without allowing any time for anyone else to weigh in. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The point I am making is that consensus is currently changing, and your reverts (along with your usual POV additions) are just being disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If consensus hasn't change, but you're still trying to change it, how is my defense of the existing consensus disruptive? Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's be careful to watch whether Kossack4Truth violates WP:3RR on his/her constant reversions to the diatribe version of the Wright paragraph(s). A healthy block might keep the page stable longer, if that happens.

FWIW, I believe that something longer was consensus a couple months ago (though I wasn't watching/reading this article at that time), when a particular story was actively in the news. That story has moved to background, at most. Kossack4Truth knows this perfectly well, and is merely trying to corrupt WP into a forum for advancing his particular political slant. It's bad faith, pure and simple. LotLE×talk 23:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Following the initial Jeremiah Wright controversy, a consensus version of the events was worked out. It was an extremely unpleasant and tortuous experience that involved neutral and "pro-Obama" editors bending over backwards to accommodate 3 anti-Obama editors who wanted to make a as big a deal as possible out of Wright's ravings. The "negotiation" took weeks to accomplish, even with the timely assistance of an impartial and thoughtful administrator. Kossack is trying to restore this particular version, but he has embellished it with provocative sub-headings, and enhanced it by conflating it with Ayers-related BS. What he fails to understand is that the Wright controversy has now passed into history, and is no longer significant. It had no overall effect on the primaries, and Republican attempts to use it in a recent special election backfired. Therefore, an abbreviated summary is all that is now needed, and curious historians can read all the gory details in the exhaustive sub article and the related biography - as I mentioned earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you don't believe that the current version of the Wright paragraph is appropriate, may I suggest going through the proper channels, rather than trying to ambush people who disagree with you and getting them blocked? Present your version for statements of support or opposition, as was done below regarding the name of Obama's mother. If you can show that you have consensus, I will not oppose you. If you cannot show that you have consensus, then it should stay the way it is now. Kossack4Truth (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to that discussion. On one side, we'll have the Obama partisans and campaign volunteers. On the other side we'll have Kossack4Truth, Fovean Author, Andyvphil, and anyone else who's interested in making this article NPOV. For the record, Lulu, you're a Democrat like me and I think you voted for Obama in the primary, just like me. Unfortunately, I didn't know about Rezko and Ayers and Wright at that time because his Wikipedia article hadn't mentioned them. Now that I've learned about Obama's close and lengthy associations with such unsavory characters, I've been having second thoughts; but if he's the nominee, he'll have my vote in November unless he's indicted. Do we understand one anothere here? Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh?! Since when does Kossack4Truth have access to my voter registration records (or voting records!)? FWIW, I'm not a Democrat (I'm "unenrolled" with any party). And unfortunately, I didn't vote in this year's primaries because I was residing in a different state than my registration (and did not make the effort to obtain an absentee primary ballot).
However, I am someone who cares about encyclopedic articles, and resent Kossack4Truth trying to hijack a pretty good one for his/her own political posturing. LotLE×talk 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Still no attempt to discuss this proposed change in consensus by Newross or Brothejr, despite my cordial invitations, but they insist on reverting and they insist that they are supported by some new consensus that I can't find here. Do you think they might be trying to get their way through an edit war? Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe user:Scjessey had already answered your questions above and that you are only trying to spark an argument. The original revert by user:Newross was to bring it back to the consensus version that had been agreed upon by the majority. I suggest that if you feel these points need to be added to the article, then instead of reverting and editing the article against the consensus, then please make your argument for those edits here before adding them onto the page and please define them clearly. Brothejr (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly so. The new, shorter version of the Wright paragraph (to which I subsequently added a sentence about the more recent events) is more appropriate. A new consensus was reached for the wording, so the old consensus has been superseded. Kossack's so-called "bold" edits that add additional sub-headings and conflate Wright with Ayers are (a) violating WP:SS (which this article adopted a long time ago) and (b) are a clear push of an anti-Obama point-of-view (violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP). This is Wikipedia, not Kossack's soapbox. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section is political grandstanding???

Much work has been done in the Political Positions section. However, look at Jimmy Carter. No such section. Look at Richard Durbin, the other current Senator from Illinois. No such section.

We risk needless edit wars. The section is hard to write NPOV. The section also risks being an advertisement. After all, the unsaid message could be "vote for Obama, here's why" or "vote for Hillary, not Obama, here's why".

So we should eliminate political positions as Wikipedia is not an advertisement. If there are certain issues that Obama made special efforts in the Senate such that they are now part of his biography, then let's include the information in his Senate side.

I know that these comments will be unpopular because many have worked hard in this section. But look at the forest and not the trees and you'll see that the political positions section smacks of advertising and is not part of the other senator's articles nor of Jimmy Carter. DianeFinn (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite support an elimination of that section, but I definitely encourage a reduction of it. It's far too easy for someone who cares greatly about some particular narrow matter (relative to bio topic) to write at great length about it (whether pro- or anti-Obama, or merely just a topic that interests them). The section definitely suffers some of that (the recently added stuff on nuke policy seems like an example). WP should not try to be a campaign site, nor even one of those neutral "weigh the candidates" sites. Only positions that are defining of overall biography belong in this article.
Much of that, as DianeFinn writes, can and should go in Senate record. I think there are probably some issues that were never subject to legislation Obama actively supported or opposed that still are biographically relevant. I don't think a mere yes or no vote on a law counts as that much biographically (not even if the WP editor finds that vote either admirable or awful)... it takes something more like co-sponsorship of the bill. A senator might nonetheless take a strong position on an issue that s/he did not sponsor legislatively; or even one that never reached the Senate during his/her tenure.
Nonethelss, brevity is the soul of WP virtue. LotLE×talk 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter should have a section!!!! But its hardly a fair comparison to start with. Hillary Clinton and John McCain also have position sections, and since all these senators have entire articles on their political positions, the emphasis should not be on removing the sections, but deciding what is appropriate summary information from those articles to include. Modocc (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors should agree ahead of time to LOOK for opposing views.....WELCOME them, include them GLADLY

And this can happen if it's WILLED to be. I realise such a thing is anathema to many, however it is actually a part of WP guidelines, for example, to encourage the encylopedica treatment of recentism, which then is to be pared down later as aspects of it turn out to not be of enduring notability. Which is preferable to the opposite approach where there is instead a viceral "fear" of recentism, that results in stuff that turns out to be of enduring notabililty's having to be folded back into the text after its having been over-zealously pruned out about a gabajillion times already: an only-too-obvious make-more-work approach.

After all, Wikipedia's natural strength is its ability to give encyclopedic coverage to recent ideas or events. However, partisans just lurve the status quo wherein, of course, anything negative is duly made to pass the very daunting gauntlets of "recentism" and "notability" and so forth while instead anything more "positive" is believed to earn a free pass as the favored pets these ideas and events are. Indeed, instead of continuing to abide by the informal modus operandi of any opposing viewpoints to be considered "not-notable recentism" until if and when the campaign feels the need to address these issues (producing the not-surprising end result of WP text's looking like it comes from Madison Avenue hacks), how about editors actually internalize the part of the guidelines that encourage their actually TRYING to fit things whenever possible into the forumulation, "Such-and-such source argues thus'n'so while in contrast an adversarial group believes this'n'that"? Then, when somebody shows up from an adversarial camp to help edit, a page's editors will emit a collective sigh of relief that the second part of this formula just got easier to fill out. And then when the airwaves suddenly become full of whatever latest recriminations, say, about whomever is the current "Ayers" or "Wright" etc., readers will Google over to Wikipedia only to be greeted by, Suprise! a neutral and balanced, encyclopedic treatment of whatever the controversy----which had been written whenever the allegations first came to light, to including any explanations to-date that the campaign had given in reponse to them, if any. That's the Cellulited realism of the Wikipedia ideal, rather than glitzy shots filtered through the score of polarized lenses put on the camera by a like number of partisan editors, all moles airbrushed into beauty marks.

(I can dream can't I?) — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

the world is looking at you. I saw a craiglist ad which said that Wikipedia censors things that the administrator doesn't like. As proof, they said to go to this talk page, offer objective opinion, and see if you are banned or attacked. I accept the dare. I will offer my honest opinion. The ad didn't say what to write if you write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clist08 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record - this editor (Clist08 (talk · contribs · logs)) was also blocked as a confirmed Dereks1x sock. Tvoz/talk 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A cautious approach, please

I have noted that there have been a number of significant changes in a short period of time on this extremely popular article. Please remember that this is a featured article, and I would advise that significant changes are proposed and discussed here before being applied. Please give plenty of time for a consensus to develop (usually a few days) for major edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

His religion

I see that someone has removed the word "Christian" from the info box again. I put it back. The United Church of Christ, of which Senator Obama is a member, is a church not a religion. If it said "church membership" that would be fine. But it says "religion" and for Obama that would be Christianity. I will make sure that Clinton's and McCain's articles match. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the other candidates all say "Christian: (denomination)", so that seems like the right pattern to follow for Obama as well. For some reason, the others use a colon, where this article has a comma right now. It seems like both forms of punctuation are superfluous given the parentheses, to me. But that's a minor matter. LotLE×talk 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking more closely, it seems less clear. Sen's Clinton and McCain follow the pattern I mention, but former presidents Carter, Ford, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB all give denomination only (all xtian denominations, of course). To me, denomination-only looks the cleanest (maybe Wikilink to that denomination in the infobox, so readers can find what it means). If there is a controlling style guide on this, let's follow that (but someone find the right page). LotLE×talk 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

DOCTOR?!

Obama has a JD, so technically couldn't he be Dr. Obama as opposed to Mr. Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.40.151 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In the USA, people with a JD are not addressed as "Dr." Sometimes, the title "esquire" is used after a name to indicate that degree. "Dr." is used for those holding MD's, PhD's, and a few other post-secondary degrees (e.g. Ed.D.). However, WP style calls for indicating a person simply by last name (sometimes with disambiguating first name where another person with same last name is discussed in same context). None of these titles should be used in general biographic discussion. LotLE×talk 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sub-sections

Just a note... Since almost all of this article has been written in summary style there really shouldn't be any sub-sections within the sections, like there was in the Early life and career section prior to my removal of those subsections[25] and like there currently is in the U.S. Senate career section[26]. If it is felt that sub-sectioning of a summarized section is necessary, then that may be an indicator that the section is too long and some of the details in the section should be moved into the main article for that section. If it is still felt that the section needs sub-sections, then it is generally a good idea to have those sub-sections match the sections in the main article. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

These are mostly assertions without basis in policy or guideline or good sense. If a section has enough material so that subsections are helpful to navigation it should have subsections. Material that should be here, if necessary to properly understand the subject, should be here. Andyvphil (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

57 states

There are a lot of clips on Youtube that say Obama claims there are 57 states (in actuality he claimed that there were 60, but we can't expect the vast majority of people who think they know something about politics to actually be intelligent enough to count). Is this contradiction with very, very common knowledge noteworthy, or rather, does the frenzy around it make it noteworthy? --68.161.185.91 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think gaffes like that aren't even encyclopedic, especially since it's clear he meant 47 (One state to go, and he couldn't go to Hawaii and Alaska). Now, if months pass and his popularity ratings sink for some freak reason because of this, then I guess it could warrant inclusion. -- Frightwolf (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's not encyclopedic, but was it true? He said 60/57? Gautam Discuss 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


It's a slip of the tongue easily done when one is tired. Obviously he meant 47. If he does it again, then there's real cause for concern. Tom3605 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We are making a lot of assumptions...slip of the tongue, that he is tired (ok, what time was the statement made?), etc. He did say it but is it among the top 500 facts about him? If not, it is not for this article. Only about the top 500 facts should be in this article...that's a NPOV way to consider what is important. Is his birthdate among the top 500 facts? Of course. Then it comes to gray area. Is a particular scandal one of the 500 or so top facts? In some cases, yes, in some cases, no. Maybe this thought could help in deciding what stays (is notable) and what goes. DianeFinn (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Get a life. So he said 57 instead of 47. Everyone knows that it was a slip of the tongue that happened one time. And everyone knows that Obama is aware of how many states there are. Also, there is no "frenzy" around it. Paisan30 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Obama was mentally adjusting the 50 United States into the 47 he'd visited, but absentmindedly forgot to voice the "forty-" part. (Goes like this: He said "...Fifty- <pauses> um seven, [three unvisited]," exhaustedly thinking he'd said "...Fifty------um forty-seven, [three unvisited].)" Major gaffe? Doubtful. — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When you make a slip of the tongue, it's easy to realize your mistake and correct it. Obama did not. (65.4.227.97 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

RFC name

Please see this below.Tvoz/talk 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I start this RFC (I thought it could be resolved without a RFC but it keeps getting reverted). The RFC question is whether Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, should have her full legal name mentioned in the first instance of the article, where it mentions that Obama was son of father (Barack) and mother (Stanley Ann).

*for full name of mother - This gives her dignity, is encyclopedic, and very much like an obituary/encyclopedia/etc. It is ok to mention her informal name, Ann, in subsequent mentions of the lady. Richard Nixon's article refers to the father as Francis Nixon (Frank). Please support giving the article and the lady dignity by listing her legal name at least the first time it is used. I didn't think this would be so controversial but it has been reverted several times. I seek a nice and stately article (and to avoid edit wars) which is why I started this RFC.DianeFinn (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are advocating against using "full name", and instead substituting "birth name". God only knows why. LotLE×talk
  • Oppose. This is a ridiculous argument to be having - Wikipedia uses common names for links. Please do not accuse others of edit-warring for disagreeing with you or insisting on discussion before making changes. Thanks. Harro5 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::Others have made changes without discussion, not me. Also edit warring is when there is reverting back and forth, which is happening. Actually, it's not happening as I keep suggesting different changes while someone else insists on the same change. Also, I am not the only one who has changed it to the full legal name. Also, dignity and encyclopedic appearance is what WP is for so if the links don't follow it, it's time for us to follow it. DianeFinn (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose. We should not violate WP:NAMES for absolutely no reason. Style guides assure consistent presentation of information, and the non-title name variant for the link to Ann Dunham's article has no motivation other than one editor apparently thinking it "sounds nicer" (it doesn't). Moreover, neither DianeFinn nor Nunh-huh has provided one single example of any other article that follows the rule rather than WP:STYLE (not even one for the "special case" Nunh-huh alleges of "parents names" (i.e. see above examples whaere rule is followed: Darwin, GWB, Nixon, etc). The only "example" provide is that of Francis A. Nixon that exactly contradicts DianeFinn's point (i.e. all links are to exact spelling of article title). LotLE×talk 23:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing wrong with including her full name the first time it appears. Of course, in the spirit of avoiding redirects when possible, the link should go to her common name.Ngchen (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless there's a compelling reason to mention Ann's birth-versus-preferred names in Barack's article it needn't be included. As, dignified or not, a rule going the other way would bog ledes into such, um, unwieldinesses as

Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France (19 December 1778 – 19 October 1851) was the eldest child of King Louis XVI of France and his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette.

becoming

Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France (19 December 1778 – 19 October 1851) was the eldest child of Louis-Auguste (King Louis XVI of France) and his wife, Queen Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna von Habsburg-Lothringen.

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose She was known as Ann Dunham - the details of her name are already properly in her article as required by encyclopedia standards; there is absolutely no reason to use her birth name here, and the zeal with which this is being pursued raises some questions in my mind about motivation. Somehow, concern about the "dignity" of the late Ms. Dunham doesn't ring true. But my opposition is on the basis of Wikipedia policies on names. Tvoz/talk 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What purpose, Tvoz's worn-on-sleeve partisanship and Wiki-tribalism/ not "assuming good faith"? — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you really don't know what, if any, my "partisanship" is, so please don't make assumptions or accusations. I edit here neutrally, and the reason I was skeptical about assuming good faith by DianeFinn (talk · contribs · logs) was borne out by this below. Tvoz/talk 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh, nooow I get it. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for reasons stated above by Tvoz and others. The "dignity" argument is bizarre and irrelevant to WP:NAMES and the Nixon example simply falls into the realm of WP:OTHERCRAP. There is no reason not to use her common name which is also the name of the linked article. In fact there is really no reason for this RfC, as consensus on this issue is already pretty clear with the initiator being the only dissenter (and the chief instigator of this low-grade edit war). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for reasons already stated. It is normal form to use a person's common name, and I see no compelling reason to deviate from that. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • support. Of course we should use her real name. One's mother's name is a vital statistic; what matters is her legal name, not what she chose as a nickname. To pretend that this is a "violation" of WP:NAMES is bizarre to the degree of misrepresentation. As for examples: as I've pointed out to Lulu elsewhere, pick nearly any titled person: the name linked won't correspond to the article name (e.g, the mother of King George I of Great Britain). - Nunh-huh 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • opposeStrongly oppose. This is not the place to introduce a new convention (either formally or as a de facto convention) regarding the use of parents' full names. In accordance with WP:NAMES, biographies do begin with the subjects' full names whether they are the persons' birth names or subsequent legal names. With the example given, there is no convention to use Nixon's father's full name, Francis Anthony "Frank" Nixon, nor is it used in the president's biography. As the evidence presented shows, the consensus on Wikipedia is to use the established common names, such as with Nixon's father, and I agree with the other editors that there is absolutely no compelling reason here to do otherwise. Modocc (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "new convention": the conventions used for a name of a person at the beginning of an article about that person have no application to names used elsewhere. I really wish people would stop misrepresenting this- Nunh-huh 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Clarified my statement. Modocc (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

*full name that's the sensible way. the other reasons given seem bureaucratic, citing a wikipedia rule. what is wikipedia, just a website. it's suppose to be an encyclopedia. Clist08 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am again striking out comments that were made by two confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user. As he well knows, when you're banned, you're banned and you're not allowed to edit from any account. It has nothing to do with whether a comment is radical. Please don't undo the strike outs. Tvoz/talk 05:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Barack's New Name: "Barack Black Eagle"

The WashingtonPost.com reported on May 19, 2008:

Sen. Barack Obama became the first American presidential candidate to visit the reservation of the Crow Nation, and in doing so was adopted into the nation under the Crow name "One Who Helps People Throughout the Land."

"I want to thank my new parents," he said. "The nicest parents you could ever want to know. I like my new name. Barack Black Eagle. That is a good name!" -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrupp10799 (talk • contribs) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but not really notable enough for this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not buying it. Mainly because the "black eagle" part sounds so stereotypical to many of the Barrack Obama rumours that have been started. But if you have a source and higher rating Wikipedians say you can I don't see why it can't be on the article. Kobb (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough for this bio, but it seems to be verifiable:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23728392-12377,00.html; http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obamas-new-name.html; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124498372105711.html; http://www.nationaljournal.com/hotline/hl_20080520_3816.php.
LotLE×talk 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

DianeFinn blocked as sock

Just as an FYI, DianeFinn (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs).[27] --Bobblehead (rants) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that should make things easier for a few days or so. We still have a lot of work undoing the damage of the last week. Also, I invite regular editors to weigh in on the AfD discussion[28] of an article created by this banned sockpuppet that is similar to other articles created by the same sock. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The article should probably be speedied per WP:BAN unless someone else wants to claim ownership of the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am an established user. I've read what DianeFinn has edited here and I can't see anything that is radical. It's not "Obama is a Muslim" type of comments. However, this attacking of DianeFinn seems to be based on her opinions (not pro-Obama) so I'm not going to identify myself except to a certain group of trusted users. After all, why get blocked while trying to defuse a situation. (I am going to uncross out the passages that don't seem radical). CDCD5 (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
See above. Banned users are banned - they are not allowed to edit under socks, whether their edits are radical or not. It is irrelevant. I've re-struck out the comments. Tvoz/talk 05:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

!That's an admission of guilt! You can disagree with Finn but her comments were calm and had some logic to it. Finn also claimed that opponents called people sock to get rid of their opinions. This seems plausible. Looney's comments calling Finn's comments as damage when a normal person reading it wouldn't agree shows partisanship. Bamarack (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of DianeFinn's edits, banned editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia and there edits should be reverted on sight, unless an established editor wishes to "claim" the edits. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The above user is yet another sock puppet of Derek and has already been banned. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering I'm the above user, I hope you mean Bamarack (talk · contribs · logs). :)--Bobblehead (rants) 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha, yeah sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't think anyone would mistake you for him. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you'd be surprised [29] ....... cheerio Tvoz/talk 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey now, you didn't link to the dozens of other times Dereks1x socks have accused me of being his sockpuppet. Heh. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 22:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not alone in that... Tvoz/talk 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Add CDCD5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to the list. seicer | talk | contribs 06:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove Categories

Obama does not belong in Irish-American writers or Irish-American politicans categories. Even if Obama has some Irish roots, that does not make him an Irish-American. If you are going to put Obama in the Irish-American categories, you'll have to put Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge in African-American categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.113.218 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't explain Harding or Coolidge. As far as Irish, isn't his mother Irish? CDCD5 (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the IP doesn't have a point. A distantly removed Irish lineage is a stretch, why Irish over any other nationalities (I'm sure there are other European nationalities to which he pertains). 05:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We all know Ronald Reagan's dad was Irish-Yank but how many of us know (this according to here) that John Lennon (O Leannain's) dad was Irish-Brit as was Che Guevara (Lynch's) Irish-Argy? — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone in the Irish-American politicians category is at least half-Irish and has publicly identified with the Irish-American community. Barack Obama seems to be unaware that there is even such a group as Irish-Americans. Barack Obama's Irish heritage is no more than Warren G. Harding or Calvin Coolidge's African heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.113.218 (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see whether you really have a "new consensus"

I have been asking the Obama campaign volunteers to prove that they do indeed have the "new consensus" that they are claiming. They instead trotted off to get me blocked for 24 hours for a "3RR violation" even though I hadn't violated 3RR. So I'm going to force the issue. Let's see whether they really do have consensus.

Please indicate below whether you Support or Oppose the following version of this article:

(1) No quotations from Obama's admitted spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, are allowed. Despite the fact that the presidential campaign is the only thing that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester, another freshman senator who merits only a few hundred words, the major controversy about Wright during the campaign that has caused Obama himself to admit that he was "shaken" is to be treated as a speed bump. One short paragraph, and any quotations from Wright are to be reverted on sight.

(2) Never, ever allow a quotation from anyone who is actually criticizing Obama. Let alone a notable conservative like Fred Siegel in a notable conservative journal like National Review. (Horrors.) And Gaia forbid that such a quotation would mention Don Imus. (Oh, the humanity!) Any such quotation is to be reverted on sight. Two mild words about "Senate clubbiness" might be allowed if they come from a progressive.

(3) Never mention that Obama's friend, neighbor and political sponsor William Ayers is anything other than a bland, boring professor at UIC. Any mention of his bomb-tossing, unrepentant terrorist past is to be reverted on sight.

(4) Never, ever suggest the fact that Tony Rezko is under any criminal suspicion at all, even though the jury is currently deliberating on 24 felony counts against him based on political fund raising abuses, and Rezko raised $250,000 for Obama's political campaigns dating back to the first day of fund raising for Obama's first political campaign. Any mention of any suspicions against Tony Rezko are to be reverted on sight.

(5) It is unnecessary to discuss such reversions on the Talk page, or to demonstrate that you have consensus for your edit. Just revert these forbidden items the moment you see them. If you feel like verbally abusing the person who put them there and making accusations against him, go right ahead.

(6) Any material that might violate any of these enumerated points is to be banished to a satellite article that no one will ever read. This article is to be maintained as 100% pure Obama campaign literature.

  • Comment Please rewrite your poll in a neutral and actionable manner. The way it is currently written comes off as basically being a tirade about you being blocked for edit warring and includes a number of personal attacks and outright falsehoods that can not be supported or opposed by anyone. If you have concerns about specific content that is not being included, provide the content you wish to have included and your reasoning for including them and do so in a civil manner. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support following WP:SUMMARY style on this article, and oppose WP:SOAPBOX tirades against the bio subject :-). LotLE×talk 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of Last Line in First Section

I think this last line of the first section needs to be changed:

"Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized ending the war in Iraq, increasing energy independence, and providing universal health care as top national priorities."

He's definitely for ending the war, but I've heard him talk very little about increasing energy independence, and he is not at all made providing universal health care a top priority. His health care plan doesn't provide univeral health care. That last part should definitely be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiAccurate (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He talks about universal health care for all who want it and energy independence in every speech and town hall meeting he gives. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proseline in Barack Obama

This was left on my personal talk page, but it belongs here on the article talk page (LotLE×talk)

In response to your revert of my edit; Please see proseline for an explanation as to what proseline is.

Essentially, the paragraph my tag is in response to is this one:

On April 22, 2008 Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary to Hillary Clinton.[100] On May 6, he won North Carolina's primary, and lost Indiana's primary.[101][102] Obama continued to lead Clinton in the count of pledged delegates (1,584 to 1,413, according to a May 6 count by the Associated Press), and by May 12 he had also assumed the lead in committed superdelegates.[103] On May 14, 2008, Obama lost the West Virginia primary by a 41 percent margin.[104] On May 20, 2008, Obama lost the Democratic primary in Kentucky by 35% and won the Democratic primary in Oregon by 16%.[105]

This is essentially a timeline, but written in the form of prose. It should be rewritten/modified so that it reads as prose like the rest of the article. Text such as "On XX date" should be replaced by "Soon after", "Following this", etc. Thanks - ARC GrittTALK 22:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What you suggest seems to read much worse, as well as containing less precise information. In any case, please either make the changes you think are appropriate (WP:BOLD), or discuss them first on the article talk page. LotLE×talk 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I generally disagree with the essay you point to. Whatever it's virtues or demerits, however, a big infobox linking to an essay has no place disrupting a featured article. LotLE×talk
The "proseline" essay is pretty poor advice, in my opinion. And certainly the use of the tag is inappropriate, since there is no violation of policy. That being said, the section in question is something of a mess. It contains a level of detail best left to the related campaign article, and it should only really feature a summary of events. "Obama won this and Obama lost that" isn't very good, is it? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Scjessy that the presidential campaign section could stand to lose a whole lot of the niggling details of state-by-state votes. A general summary that said "Obama and Clinton have run a close race for the nomination, with some voting trends following demographic lines" would be fine (cited appropriately, of course). Maybe after that some general mention of the debates and overall areas of difference between the candidate positions. I suppose at this point, the fact that Obama leads the nomination contest, and is likely nominee, would be reasonable (again, cited). Microscopic detail of this primary and that primary, and this date and that date, belongs in a child article rather than in this summary-style biography. LotLE×talk 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

The political positions section now begins by saying that Obama's position are "collectivist and socialist." While Obama is hardly a libertarian capitalist, that characterization is obviously false. It is also directly contradicted by the material that immediately follows. As a new user (I logged in to delete that sentence), I can't fix that — it looks like vandalism or, at best, a smear. Can someone fix it?

Hi all, I'm writing to inquire why this revision I made was reverted by User:Scjessey. The small paragraph I added read:

Critics of the Illinois Senator have noted what they argue are contradictions within his positions. Fred Siegel of National Review wrote, "Obama is the internationalist opposed to free trade. He is the friend of race baiters who thinks Don Imus deserved to be fired... He is the post-racialist supporter of affirmative action."[26]

Scjessey called the paragraph "POV cherry-picking"; I call it legitimate criticisms of Obama's political record. If I did any cherry picking, it was in Obama's favor, as the full paragraph in National Review read:

"Obama is the internationalist opposed to free trade. He is the friend of race baiters who thinks Don Imus deserved to be fired. He is proponent of courage in the face of powerful interests who lacked the courage to break with Reverend Wright. He is the man who would lead our efforts against terrorism, yet was friendly with Bill Ayres, an unrepentent 1960s terrorist. He is the post-racialist supporter of affirmative action. He is the enemy of Big Oil who takes money from executives at Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and British Petroleum."

So as you can see, out of six legitimate criticisms, I picked the ones that I thought were the most appropriate and the least controversial. I even wrote a nice introduction sentence, specifically detailing that they are the views of Obama's critics and it is only they that argue that there are contradictions. These are part of Obama's political positions, like it or not, and their story needs to be told as well. Happyme22 (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let give Scjessey a chance to explain his revert. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the addition because there was no point to it, other than to offer another platform for Siegel's neo-conservative point of view. How, for example, can you justify adding a mention (and a blue link) to Don Imus in a BLP of Barack Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well this article is already a platform for obamas click of loyalists(as in liberal jornalisitic sources), maybe some opposing views are not such a bad thing, although some of those lines arent necassary or relevant. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey, thanks for the response. I understand that you had a reason to remove the edit, but I'm not sure where you are coming from. I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate to link to Don Imus. And Realist2, I'm in favor of implementing the first paragraph, not the second, because I agree that some mentioned in the second paragraph are irrelevant. Happyme22 (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of the first paragraph should be included, there are some good points there, the Don imus part isnt important though. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than being a "platform for a obamas[sic] click[sic] of loyalists," I would argue that this article is an excellent example of how Wikipedia should be written. It is factually-accurate and neutrally-presented, with a nice balance of detail and necessary brevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that this article is POV; let's try to get back on topic. I am asking you, Scjessey, why you feel that mentioning Don Imus is inappropriate. It was specifically part of the quote as an example where Sen. Obama was demonstrating inconsistency with his positions. Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I would've thought it was obvious, but I guess not. You don't see anything wrong in evoking (and linking to) the name of a highly-controversial, arguably racist, talk show host who has no connection whatsoever with Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mocking my spelling (im tired and english isnt my first language) and going off topic isnt going to resolve this. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not mocking you. See Sic. Your comment about this being a "platform" et al was what took us off topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Im fully aware of what sic is for, i just believe its rude. Now please address the point at hand, cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see A critic that is making a claim that that there are contradictions within his positions, which makes me wonder if this is a extreme minority view and that inclusion of this theory would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. It also makes me wonder if assigning that single critics opinion to all of his critics is appropriate and is actually an incorrect attribution to claim that it is a view of Obama's critics. Based on that one source, it is only apparent that Fred Seigel finds the contradiction. Just because someone is critical of Obama's position does not mean that we have to run to Wikipedia and add it to his article in order to "balance out the positive POV". --Bobblehead (rants) 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree on that point, more sources should be used to back up these ideas, if more are found ...Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point Bobblehead. Here's some more: [30], [31], [32]; Sen. Clinton has also attacked his "inconsistent record": [33], [34]. Happyme22 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why this can't be interleaved with the existing prose in this article and on the political positions article? Every politician has inconsistencies in their record which should be pointed out with the weight that they are due, but it seems to me that dedicating an entire paragraph to just the inconsistencies has the same problem that a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section would have. I'm also not seeing where the comments by Siegel are supported by anyone other than himself and is applying definitions that are purely his own construct. Obama has never characterized himself as an "internationalist" and his views are more in line with Cosmopolitanism than they are Internationalism. Now, the criticism of Obama's opposition to the Iraq War seem to have merit and should be included in this article as that position is actually mentioned in this article. I'm also concerned on the over-reliance upon opinion pieces which have a history of being rather loose with the facts. As an example, The Kitsap Sun piece seems to be conflating Obama's positions on income tax, social security taxes, and the overarching "payroll taxes" that covers income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, unemployment taxes, etc. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem weaving criticisms into the text. And you are correct in saying that just about every politician has inconsistencies, including Barack Obama. I think that his platform as a post-racial boundaries candidate who supports affirmative action deserves mention, as well the criticism of his views on the Iraq War. Happyme22 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The iraq war less so, but the affirmative action point is rather interesting actually, it is a contradiction in some respects, i would support adding that but it must be worded carefully. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I also find that one interesting. How should we go about wording it, and where in the political positions section should it go? I'm just not sure where it should be added because I think we are now all in favor of weaving it into the text. Any proposals? Happyme22 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill give others a chance to comment, if not ill look into adding it. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing why either would warrant mention in his BLP. Inconsistencies are something that gets pointed out to any candidate...not sure why there's a big push to get stuff like this in the article if it's not particularly notable over any other criticism that's been directed towards him. --Ubiq (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm bringing them up because they are legitimate inconsistencies. Of course every politician is going to have inconsistencies in their records, but Obama is opposed to racism and racial descrimination yet supports affirmative action, which can be argued is a form of racial discrimination against whites. What's more, he is no longer an average politician, for he is running for president of the United States and all his views need to be written about. John McCain's article mentions his temper, and the Cultural and political image of John McCain devotes a very long section entirely to it. Just because the article is a BLP does not mean that criticisms of his record or of him cannot be included. I'm not in any way suggesting that we rewrite the political positions section or anything such as that; I am suggesting that we incorporate these legitimate inconsistencies (right now there's two: affirmation action and Iraq War) of Obama's record into the political position section. I think we are all in favor of incorporating them into the text and not devoting a paragraph to them. It is only NPOV. Happyme22 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"Just because the article is a BLP does not mean that criticisms of his record or of him cannot be included." I didn't even make this argument...I said I don't think the criticism in question is particularly notable over any other criticism he's received. Concerning McCain's anger, I'd expect John McCain's article to mention something like that if it's been a part of his life and he's received enough criticism/note about it. If it hasn't been, I would expect and push for it to be removed from that article.
"I'm bringing them up because they are legitimate inconsistencies. Of course every politician is going to have inconsistencies in their records, but Obama is opposed to racism and racial descrimination yet supports affirmative action, which can be argued is a form of racial discrimination against whites." So it's wikipedia's responsibility to bring to light what you think people should know? Sorry, but as I said earlier, I can't see how this is particularly notable over other criticism he's received, and I certainly can't see a presidential candidate's views on affirmative action as somehow life defining/altering, or even campaign defining/altering. He's going to be criticized for a lot of things. I could go out and find plenty of articles that have distinct or repeated criticism of a candidate to put into his/her encyclopedia articles. Not sure how or why criticism over alleged inconsistencies in policy/rhetoric would prevail among all of them.
"he is running for president of the United States and all his views need to be written about" All his views? What about his views on which bubble gum flavor is the best? Obviously, some sort of criteria needs to be used here...
"I think we are all in favor of incorporating them into the text and not devoting a paragraph to them. It is only NPOV." Are we? That's news to me. I'll certainly have to remind myself that I completely changed my mind about this at some point. I'll be clear about this. I don't think this merits mention in his BLP or his campaign article. There's pretty much nothing to distinguish it from other criticism such that we would be able to include this and not others.
A side note about affirmative action...presumably there are gobs of politicians who support some form of affirmative action yet strive for racial equality. The beef about affirmative action possibly discriminating against whites is a criticism of affirmative action. I don't think it necessarily means there's an inconsistency, or "legitimate inconsistency" as you call it, so much as an inherent conflict between the two ideas/positions. --Ubiq (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The opposing argument is very sketchy. Presumably, means that we presume that and it is not necessarily fact, while it is a fact that Obama is an anti-racial candidate (which is great!) but he has supported affirmative action (which is also fine, but it just contradictory).
I have great respect for the editors of this page; I know what it is like to work on a biography where many different views are presented. This is tough, too, because the article becomes unstable frequently. But his views on political, social, economic, and foreign policy issues (in reference to the 'bubble gum' gibe above) need to be presented in a fair, NPOV manner. When I spoke about favoring integrating into the text, I was talking about a proposal by Bobblehead, suggested above. Again, I am in no way suggesting that the section be rewritten, large paragraphs added, or critical pieces of every aspect of his record be covered. That would be foolish. I am suggesting a phrase be added regarding this issue (ex: "As a part of Obama's presidential run, he announced himself to be the post-racial candidate, although he has supported affirmative action."). That's short, sweet, to the point, and surely doesn't violate any core policies/guidelines of Wikipedia. Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy, the fact that only one person is saying this is probably enough evidence that it shouldn't be included in this article. Including the "post-racial" crap appears to come down to "Oooo, someone said something bad about Obama! Let's put it in his article." Whether or not you find this to be "interesting" is immaterial, it's still one person complaining in an opinion piece. This does not make it worthy of inclusion in this article. Heck, the whole he's post-racial therefore should be opposed to affirmative action is specious. Obama's use of "post-racial" is not a political positions stance, but more about his appeal to voters. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then all the more reason to include it in my opinion. But I guess it wasn't meant to be. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no contradiction between being "anti-racial" and being in favor of affirmative action. Remember that affirmative action applies to any non-dominant socio-political group, including (but not limited to) people with disabilities. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of "political positions" is a hard question for wikipedia. Who is defining this. Is Obama, himself, the definer. That is, is it the issues that he chooses? If so, then the Hitler article needs a political positions sections that says how bad the Jews are.

If it's "what are the issues of the day, according the newspapers" then it becomes a question of if WP is a newspaper (NO).

The Hillary Clinton article has an interesting solution. It lists no issues, just ratings by different organizations. I'd like to consider this for this article. Even better is the Jimmy Carter article. It's very stately and presidential without a positions section. I think this is the most dignified way of article writing - let's do it here. DianeFinn (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that as the political views of each candidate develop they can be incorporated into the political views. As Obama is a relatively young candidate as his views evolve the article should be updated. Statements like "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. should be included to demonstrate what's important to him. 65.102.177.181 (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "From The Editor". and "Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings".
  2. ^ "Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  4. ^ "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "From The Editor". and "Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings".
  6. ^ "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  7. ^ "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. ^ "Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "From The Editor". and "Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings".
  10. ^ "Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  12. ^ "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  13. ^ "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "From The Editor". and "Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings".
  14. ^ "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  15. ^ "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  16. ^ "Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  18. ^ "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  19. ^ Keogh, Diana (2007-10-01). "Chicago's Trinity UCC prepares to welcome new pastor for new generation". United Church News. United Church of Christ. Retrieved 2008-04-30.
  20. ^ Allen, Mike (March 16 2008). "Obama's Church Accuses Media of Character Assassination". Politico. Retrieved 2008-03-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ Talev, Margaret (2008-03-20). "Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines". McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
  22. ^ Wright, Jeremiah (2007-03-01). "Talking Points". Trinity United Church of Christ website. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
  23. ^ a b Barman, Ari (May 1, 2008). "Obama Under the Weather". The Nation. Retrieved 2008-05-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ^ Curry, Tom (April 18, 2008). "Ex-radical Ayers in eye of campaign storm". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-05-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  25. ^ Curry, Tom (April 18, 2008). "Ex-radical Ayers in eye of campaign storm". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-05-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ Siegel, Fred (May 5, 2008). "The Obama Way". National Review. LX (8): 46. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_19&oldid=1049027168"