Talk:Obama (disambiguation)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Straw poll

This is a non-binding straw poll. Feel free to vote. Certainly, polls are not a substitute for discussion. This is why this is a non-binding poll. Further discussion to work toward consensus is encouraged to continue above (in the various discussion sections, to avoid cluttering up this straw poll). Since I know some people will request it, I have also included a third choice, public abstention from the poll. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A caution to avoid interpreting these polling results by simple head counts. Barack Obama has been heavily visited by sockpuppetry, and there is no reason to assume that this talk page is immune. When in doubt, check the user contribution histories. Also, kindly include brief rationales with your polling answers so we can also use this exercise as a summary of views.--HailFire 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Choice A

"Obama" should redirect to "Barack Obama", with a redirect template ("'Obama' redirects here. For other uses, see 'Obama (disambiguation)'.") to "Obama (disambiguation)" at the top of the "Barack Obama" page.

  1. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. —Turtlescrubber 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. — I do not like polls, but this choice reflects the position I've stated repeatedly. Tvoz |talk 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    My reasons are per Lowellian regarding notability and Wikipedia practice of using the most common use of the name, and most likely search result sought and per HailFire's pointer to Wikichart statistics which show that Barack Obama has been among the most viewed pages in the encyclopedia in recent months. The situation has drastically changed since December 2006, making the redirect to Barack Obama more logical in order to increase efficiency for readers - one step instead of two - as per common practice. If the situation changes in the future, of course this can be revisited. But the other entries on the disambiguation page are either without articles at all, or much less likely to be what is searched for at present. Barack Obama should continue to have a pointer to the dab page, of course. Tvoz |talk 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. — It's a useful aid to user navigation on a frequently visited article, per my previous comment citing Wikicharts statistics. --HailFire 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. — By notability, frequency of visits (per HailFire), and the fact that the Prime Minister of Equatorial Guinea is referred to as "Prime Minister Nfubea," not "Obama." Italiavivi 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. — I think the vast (super?) majority of people are looking for the potential democratic presidential candidate (of the USA, I know -it's not American bias, it has worldwide significance) rather than anything else. I think worldwide, people are way more likely to interested in the candidate. But on the off chance they are trying to find the city, or another person, the link to the DAB page at the top of the article will get them to their topic of interest with little trouble. R. Baley 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Choice B

"Obama" should be a disambiguation page.

  1. — The current arrangement seems to work just fine. DAJF 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This is not, and was not since December 2006, the "current" arrangement. Italiavivi 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    The "current arrangement" is the situation that exists right now (i.e. currently). I don't see what is difficult to understand about the concept. DAJF 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. — Obama, Fukui has always been notable. Barack Obama is just a recent phenomenom (for a limited time only) soon to be forgotten, much like Michael Dukakis has. They are equally notable, and so it is best to disambiguate Obama.--Endroit 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Endroit, your user page makes it clear that you have a particular point of view in support of Presidents Reagan and Bush and that's certainly your right and you're free to comment here, but I think your political assessment of whether or not Barack Obama is soon to be forgotten is misplaced here. I don't think anyone has predicted the outcome of the election here, and I don't think it's appropriate for this discussion. Tvoz |talk 02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. — I also think the current arrangement is best. Certainly I think it's wrong for one guy to take precedence - he's not even the Democrat candidate, let alone President. John Smith's 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This is not, and was not since December 2006, the "current" arrangement. Italiavivi 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Endroit. Obama may be today only a tiny city, but several centuries ago it was a rather major port. I may be in the minority, but I would be looking for things about the city more often than the politician. Besides, looking at the current status of the disambig page, there are far more items listed here than just the politician and the city. Two Obama cities, the castle, the station, the surnames, the train line, the samurai clan, are all notable topics in their own ways, along with Barak Obama and the other individuals listed here. LordAmeth 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Most of the items on the disambiguation page apparently are not even notable enough to warrant articles - it would be curious if they drew more search requests than Barack Obama. And of course the dab pointer has been correctly on Barack Obama, and would continue to be, in case someone was in fact looking for the train atation and typed in Obama. Tvoz |talk 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Endroit and LordAmeth. I don't really have anything else to add to what they've already said. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep the disamb. Barack Obama is only of local interest to Americans. Kill the systemic bias. Kyaa the Catlord 07:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep the dab page to avoid recentism and American bias. But if Barrack Obama becomes the designated candidate or the president, this should change. — AjaxSmack 05:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    Accusations of "American bias" and "systemic bias" seem to be speaking more about the bias of the commenters than the logic of the redirect. No one in support of the redirect to Barack Obama has suggested that because he is American he is more important. The simple fact that no one in this column has addressed is that Barack Obama receives far and away the most hits of all of the other Obama pages, probably all of them combined, by a large margin. In August so far it ranks as the 316th most viewed page on Wikipedia. It is reasonable to assume that most people who come here now to search on "Obama" because they too do not know how to spell his first name (it's "Barack"), will be looking for the candidate. Either he will get the nomination or he won't: if he does, interest in him will likely skyrocket; if he does not, and if he is not the Vice Presidential nominee, likely interest in him will decrease - but no one here can say by how much. So I think we should now be looking at the situation as it now is - this has nothing to do with recentism, and that's actually not what recentism means - it is a fact that his page gets thousands of hits and the others do not; it is a fact that if his popularity significantly drops, making his page comparable to the page about the city in Japan, etc, then we can change the redirect. We are supposed to make it easier for readers and searchers - that's all we're trying to do. Not promote him because he is American. AGF, friends. And try responding to the points raised, as Neier did below. Tvoz |talk 05:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    Since this keeps being brought up, is there any way to determine how many people are searching for "Obama" only, rather than "Barack Obama"? Just because Barack Obama receives more page views doesn't necessarily mean that people got there by searching first for "Obama". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    Don't know, Joe - it's just a logical extrapolation, especially since it's an unfamiliar name to many, and spelling may be an issue - Obama may be easier to remember on its own. And of course the press often refers to a person by surname alone. Tvoz |talk 08:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    Putting on my devil's advocate hat, I'm actually more curious as to why the redirect could theoretically be reinstated without an American bias just because he won a nomination? At any rate, I've already backpedalled on my bias claim above (below) given the ambiguity of the Prime Minister's name. But, the bias issue may still be being perceived in this case, because Obama articles encompass both Asia and Africa. So far as I've seen, the counterexamples on this page (Chirac, Yeltsin, Trudeau, Reagan, and Beckham) all point to one white guy, and the DAB pages list other white guys or places in said white guy's home country. Trudeau and Beckham are slightly different, since there are articles ref'd in Canada, England, and the US; but, WP does not have much trouble with bias between those countries. Neier 06:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    Not sure I understand how Barack Obama, an African-American, would fit into a race argument then - do we strike a blow against white bias by pointing the redirect to him? It's just not a matter of bias, racial or geographical. Tvoz |talk
    • Bias etc. aside... there are two answers as far as I can see. Either "Obama" goes to a DAB page with everything listed OR it goes to "Barack Obama" and that "Barack Obama" page has a DAB link at the top to the Obama DAB. My preference is that "Obama" goes to the DAB with Barack and Michelle listed prominently rather than Barack Obama's page getting a DAB link at the top. Its not really a matter of Americanism or anything of that nature. It is simply what makes most sense for random wikipedians. If you are looking for a non Barack page with Obama you have to have a link to the DAB somewhere. To me it makes more sense to have "Obama" link there (to the DAB) rather than a link on the "Barack Obama" page. Does that make sense... or am I just whistling Dixie? --Rtrev 07:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    Rev, I don't think anyone is saying it is illogical or wrong to go to the Dab page, just saying that many more random wikipedians are looking for Barack Obama than any of the other Obama references, so the commonsense approach here is generally to go directly to the most likely page that is being searched for, to make it easier for readers. We've provided statistics about the popularity of the page (by the way, many more hits than Hillary CLinton, even though she is the frontrunner - presumably because Obama is the newcomer and people want to know more about him) and quite frankly have not seen any substantive reasons given as to why adding the dab step first is preferable. Especially if we discount the "American bias" claim which I think in this context is wrong. This is not the end of the world either way , and we're spending far too much time on it - it just is a matter of efficiency. The non-American, non- English speaking precedents are there (Chirac, Yeltsin, even Trudeau) for those who care about such distinctions, and it simply seems to me to make more sense. There don't seem to be any real arguments given on the other side, so I don't get it. Tvoz |talk 07:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. The number of reverts and changes is a clear statement that there is no primary use so that dab page should be a at the main name space. Lacking a clear consensus for something other then a dab page, the only choice is to use the dab page. If consensus develops in the future it can be changed. I'd also suggest that the page be move protected. Vegaswikian 23:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    The number of reverts are a clear statement of Neier's willingness to engage in edit-warring, nothing more. Italiavivi 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. I had never heard of the man Barack Obama before reading this article. I am in England. Anthony Appleyard 05:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    And you had heard of Obama the small town in Japan? Italiavivi 14:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per each of the excellent points raised by Endroit, Lord Ameth and other editors. The port of Obama, Fukui and much of the other articles named Obama (including the castle and clan), have been famous and notable for hundreds of years. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 08:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - To redirect to a (as yet) small-scale politician unknown outside the US, to the exclusion of preexisting, arguably more significant topics, is not what Wikipedia's about. -Amake 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Choice C

Abstain on basis of dislike of polls.

  1. Nil Einne I'm leaning to B but I'm fairly new to this discussion so would like to see the arguments from those who support choice A as to what evidence they have that Barack Obama is significantly more likely to be what someone is looking for when looking for Obama before saying for sure Nil Einne 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's Barack Obama article ranked number 263 on the Wikicharts for July 2007. It is the only "Obama" article in the Wikicharts top 1000 for that month. --HailFire 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As another measure of user interest, Barack Obama has over 1300 Wikipedia links, all others listed on the dab have less than 50. --HailFire 06:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The evidence is all above on this talk page. Start at the top of the page and start reading down. A large amount of evidence has already been given. Summary: Michelle Obama is notable only as Barack Obama's wife. The Prime Minister of Equatorial Guinea is Ricardo Nfubea; Obama is just one of his middle names. Obama, Japan, is a tiny city of 32,000. By comparison to these other meanings, Barack Obama is a major American politician, both a sitting US Senator and a leading candidate for the United States presidency. —Lowellian (reply) 07:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Appreciate your asking, Nil Einne. My reasons stated several times above are pretty much as Lowellian and HailFire have summmarized, plus I would add that of the 14 pages listed on the disambiguation page, 2 are Barack Obama and his wife who would be easily found via his page, and of the remaining 12, only 5 even have pages, and 3 of those are short stubs (including the stub about the PM of Equatorial Guinea who is not commonly referred to as Obama), leaving only 2 actual articles that are not about Barack Obama - Obama, Fukui and Obama Domain. It just does not seem likely that most people searching on Obama would be in fact looking for the hot spring or the train station or the surname or even the small city or feudal domain - whereas Barack Obama is a major contender for the presidency and his article was in the top 300 Wikipedia articles read in the month of July, the only Obama article in the top 1000 - an important statistic for these types of discussions. We want to make the encyclopedia as accessible as possible to the largest number of readers, and the redirect of Obama directly to Barack Obama seems, at this time in history, to be the most sensible one, with clear pointer to the dab page. The decision can always be revisited if Endroit is right and Barack Obama is soon forgotten. But since we can't predict the future, we should look at the current state of afairs which are that Senator Obama is a leading contender for the US Presidency whose article is viewed by thousands of many readers every day month. Tvoz |talk 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions from Italiavivi

  • I ask in sincerity: How has the town in Japan ever been notable on even a Japanese national, no less international, scale? Its entire article seems to be ripped from one website. Italiavivi 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I cannot speak to the content on Obama, Fukui, but the Obama Domain article I wrote, along the Monumenta Nipponica article cited there, may serve to illuminate somewhat the significance of the port city. It was (according to the WP article) "a prosperous port city throughout much of the 15th-17th centuries" and "an important link in the domestic sea routes between Ezo and the Sea of Japan coast." Certainly, in the widest sense, there are many sites in Japan and abroad with more overall historical significance, but if one were researching Japanese medieval sea trade, or regional history of the Japanese domains along the coast of the Sea of Japan, Obama would be one of the significant sites within that topic. LordAmeth 02:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are editors in support of "Obama" being a DAB page trying to refer to their preference as the "current arrangement"? I thought we agreed to drop pretenses of past versions and revert wars holding any authority. Italiavivi 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How many times will Neier try to enforce his preference of the Obama redirect via edit warring despite his lack of comments in this discussion? Italiavivi 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where I need to comment anymore, until there is a request to move the article. The current majority prefers a DAB page; multiple admins have warned against moving away from a DAB; etc. The course seems clear to me. Neier 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to interupt, but I call bullshit. Turtlescrubber 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"Multiple admins have warned against moving away from a DAB": Beg your pardon? Do respond with links, please. Italiavivi 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Both Nihonjoe and Nil Einne above. I wish you would realize that we were having a reasonable discussion here in the past couple of days while you were away. Maybe it is a coincidence? But, the level of whining and rhetoric has seemed to grow in the last couple of hours, to say the least. Neier 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Nil Einne is not an administrator, as far as I can see. And how exactly do you count a majority? Tvoz |talk 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I had assumed that from his/her response at AN/I. As for majority, please see the section above, where Lowellian claims to have a majority; although the opposite is/was true. Two more people not on that list have since added comments to the DAB straw poll since then. Neier 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So it's not "multiple admins" warning against anything, right? Lowellian is an admin too, by the way, and is trying here to move this discussion along with a clearer request for people to state their opinionsthan what was posted earlier. I do not think you should be counting support from people who have not weighed in on this latest attempt at reaching consensus. The now-closed discussion above was poorly framed, and unclear what people were commenting on or supporting or not - as several users said. We pretty much agreed to start fresh on this, and I think HailFire's caveat about sockpuppetry is also worth keeping in mind. And, of course, "majority" is irrelevant - this is not a vote, it is merely an expression of where people stand on this and why. I'm also somewhat curious about the interest shown in this obscure discussion by people who haven't been parties to any of it before, or editors of relevant pages, but of course any legitimate editor is free to do so. Tvoz |talk 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If I had to guess, some of the new-to-the-discussion editors probably saw the note on my talk page left by Italiavivi and decided to come here to see what the fuss was about. As for the previous poll, I think at one point or another, everyone made their individual opinions known even though the poll was confusing. For example, Chris!'s oppose vote actually made it clear that he supported the Obama-as-DAB. Regarding sock puppetry, I don't think that's a problem here, as most contributors (with an exception tagged below) have been around for quite some time. Neier 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not really clear on what the controversy really is. The wiki policy is pretty cut and dry.

For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to several different things, including: an element, a planet, an automobile brand, a record label, a NASA manned-spaceflight project, a plant, and a Roman god. Since only one Wikipedia page can have the generic name "Mercury", unambiguous article titles must be used for each of these topics: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), Mercury Records, Project Mercury, Mercury (plant), Mercury (mythology). There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation.

"Obama" can mean many things as have been previously discussed "Barack Obama" can mean only one as far as I can tell. Obama goes to a DAB page so people can choose from the different meanings of Obama. What is the problem with that (using wiki policy)? --Rtrev 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I do not work for Fox news corp. My view: Make Obama the disamb page. --Multipleidentitynumberthree 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC) — Multipleidentitynumberthree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • There is certainly disagreement on whether the Obama page should redirect to American politician Barack Obama or to a neutral disambiguation page. In case of a genuine disagreement, the neutral approach of having a disambiguation page is the preferred, unbiased approach. It appears that many editors have expressed legitimate reasons for the neutral approach. PalestineRemembered 07:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I object to the characterization of either preference as the "neutral" approach. I could just as quickly accuse Nihonjoe and Neier of Japanese bias (one has his signature in Japanese for Christssakes), as those of us who support Obama piping to Barack with an arrow are accused of American bias. Neither side is the "neutral" side, and we are debating the merits of the redirects based upon policy and precedent. Italiavivi 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Neier

For starters, my absence in the straw poll above is not due to dislike of polls, or anything else. Much of my original rationale was based on claims regarding the prime minister, who (as it turns out) may or may not ever be referred to as PM Obama. With a sitting PM Obama, it was an open/shut case in my mind. Since then, I have been thinking the situation over in more detail.

So far, WP:DAB#Primary topic has been used to justify both styles of disambiguation. Like most WP policies, the amount of may and should contained within that passage makes any wiki-lawyering easy to do regardless of one's stance; but, we're not here to wiki-lawyer.

With no doubt, Barack Obama is currently the most popular article of any article listed on Obama; just as Hillary Clinton is the most popular article on Hillary, or Britney Spears is the most popular article on Britney, or Dick Cheney is the most popular article on Cheney, or Rush Limbaugh is the most popular article on Limbaugh (and, maybe Rush too – no disrepect to Neil Peart), etc. Arguing that there is one form of disambiguation or another on one page is just a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the examples above do demonstrate that wikipedia consensus still does not give a slam-dunk to the most popular article in the cases of redirects from partial names. Sometimes it goes that way (Trudeau, Chirac, and (since yesterday) Beckham), and sometimes it doesn't. That's why even DABs have talk pages.

It is not just that his is the most popular, it's that half the other articles on this DAB are red-links, stubs, or rips from other web pages. There were countless domains in Japanese history, and the one person used in this argument turned out to not go by "Obama" at all. Italiavivi 19:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So, although I'm closer to the middle than before, I'm still not convinced that Obama should not be a disambiguation page. And, lest you think my opinion is clouded by Japan-bias, I would feel the same if someone were to question the redirect from Barack, even though I'm not a brandy drinker. Neier 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Interim tally

A clear trend has emerged, at 12 to 6, in favor of disambiguating "Obama".

  • Those who prefer Obama to be a Disambiguation page or leaning towards it: 12
    (Neier, DAJF, Endroit, John Smith's, LordAmeth, Nihonjoe, Kyaa the Catlord, AjaxSmack, Rtrev, Vegaswikian, Nil Einne, PalestineRemembered)
  • Those who prefer to redirect Obama to Barack Obama: 6
    (Lowellian, Turtlescrubber, Tvoz, HailFire, Italiavivi, R. Baley)

--Endroit 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would note that User:Endroit was the one who first started canvassing this survey. This non-binding poll has been rendered completely moot by your canvassing at WikiProject Japan, Endroit. Italiavivi 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Italiavivi, you're in violation of WP:NPA here, as well as WP:POINT throughout this talk page and through your revert-warring. I'm not guilty of canvassing, but if you believe otherwise, ask for a third opinion, and formally follow through with WP:DR.--Endroit 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your false invocation of policy is positively laughable. If you feel "personally attacked" that someone would point out your recruitment at WikiProject Japan and the bloc voting of those who came here as a result, so be it. The only violation of WP:POINT here has been certain WikiProject Japan members' revert-warring and harassment of those who disagree with them. Italiavivi 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
All our edit histories speak for themselves.--Endroit 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yours [1] [2], in addition to Neier's edit history and Nihonjoe's protection log, certainly do. Time for you to go read WP:POT, Endroit. Italiavivi 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Good for you. Read WP:DR carefully, and follow it, if you believe you have a case. It's obvious your commenting here is not helping resolve any disputes. Use the proper forum for it.--Endroit 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
My commenting here has helped keep things legit. The previous RFM was bogus, and the current non-binding survey has been flooded by WikiProject Japan members voting as a bloc. Then there's you, the loudly partisan Republican Party supporter and Wikiproject Japan member; clearly a neutral observer. I am pointing out the obvious, like it or not. I will continue our work here, thank you though. Italiavivi 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Like it or not, I believe you're just trying to throw out votes and opinions of others by accusing them, rather than build any consensus here. You should really learn to work with others.--Endroit 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between "consensus" and democracy, which Wikipedia is not. Flooding a survey with a bloc of voters recruited from WikiProject Japan is not an indicator of any consensus. Italiavivi 23:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What you are trying to do is to exclude editors from WP:JA by citing WP:IAR, which you most definitely cannot because of its relevance to Obama (disambiguation). If you disagree, ask for a third opinion.--Endroit 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have never cited WP:IAR, ever, in any discussion on Wikipedia. If you can't address my actual arguments due to the weakness of yours, don't address them at all. Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy; your constant fixation on "votes" and tallies from those you recruited from your message at WikiProject Japan makes your confusion about Wikipedia and democracy clear. Italiavivi 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You have suggested invalidating this WP:RM request due to your belief that it has been "flooded" by WP:JA editors. In other words, you are requesting this WP:RM process to be ignored, am I not right?--Endroit 23:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You again show your confusion. This particular survey was disclaimed as non-binding from its start, and I am simply affirming its non-binding nature in light of your canvassing at WikiProject Japan (and the subsequent bloc voting). There is no invalidating a survey which was identified as non-binding from the beginning, and voting-fixated/vote-canvassing persons like yourself are precisely why Wikipedia is not a democracy. Italiavivi 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The other rule you appear to be ignoring is WP:CON. You must work with the editors from WP:JA who believe Obama, Fukui and other "Obamas" to be significant. You must work with non-affiliated editors who believe Barack Obama's Google hits are still due to WP:RECENTISM. You must reconcile with all those editors rather than ignore them. WP:RM has been successful in attaining comments from 18 individuals as tallied above. Now we need to work out a reasonable consensus based on those comments.--Endroit 00:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(Indent break) You have again confused democracy with consensus, and falsely listed this non-binding survey as an uncontroversial move request at WP:RM. By the way -- your "recentism" essay is not a Wikipedia policy, and directly contradicts Wikipedia's notability guidelines which clearly assert that notability is permanent. Are you even capable of making coherent policy arguments? Italiavivi 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

moves and reversions

I've reverted the most recent edits to Obama by Italiavivi again. The discussion is difficult enough to follow when the pages are stable, let alone if they are being moved all the time. Wait for the discussion to end before deciding whether Obama should contain the DAB page, or if it should redirect to Barack. Neier 00:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your change was the recent one, it can stay how it was since December 2006 and change if the discussion decides that. You will not get your preference through edit warring. This is all part of an attempt by editors who want to change the DAB format to frame their version as the "current" version and the old format as a "requested move," and I completely reject that disingenuous framing. Italiavivi 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you even read any of the comments above in response to your claims that the article was stable since December 2006? You are the only one who keeps trying to move this against the discussion, and against the wikipedia principles; and I am about resigned to the fact that you don't want to discuss this rationally, and are looking for a ban of some sort. Neier 02:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
"Move this against discussion" my ass, Neier. Like I said, this edit warring toward your preferred change is simply meant to frame the debate in your terms, and I reject it. I am resigned to the fact that you are hoping you can make your move without anyone contesting or reverting your change, and it's not going to happen. Make empty ban threats all you like, you're just as likely to catch a ban for edit warring as I am, trust me. :) Sounds like someone needs to read WP:POT to me. Italiavivi 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to get sucked into games of "no I didn't... he did!". If you have any insightful analysis as to why the redirect was more "current" than the DAB, please feel free to debunk the itemized list of revision histories above. I am not "framing" unless you equate "framing" to "using facts to support the position". Also, the discussion has a 7/6 split in the straw poll towards DAB, with others who support the DAB (including me) not in that tally. I'm still considering the opinions; but, the one thing I am not flexible on is the blatant childishness that you show by trying to move the page back to where you think it should be, when the discussion is still going on. Neier 02:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As I've said: Pot, kettle, black. Edit warrior, heal thyself. If you're the bigger man, quit reverting everyone, hm? Italiavivi 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, as for the 7/6 split in the non-binding survey? Funny how the two votes who put your preference over the line are both fellow members of WikiProject Japan, right? Not like what is essentially a canvassing notice placed at the Japan project [3] by advocates of your position is turning out editors with Japanese bias, or anything. Italiavivi 03:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This was also subject to a link on ANI, was that canvassing as well? (And it is common for related topics to be listed on wikiprojects such as it was on wp:japan) Kyaa the Catlord 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Kyaa, there is not much point in trying to make any rational or reasonable points on this page today. When Italiavivi was not around, the discussion stayed relevant and avoided rhetoric, name calling, and reversion wars while focussing on resolving the issues via discussion. Of course posting a notice to a related project in order to hear more discussion viewpoints from people who may actually care about some of the content would seem strange to such a user, who seems to avoid dialogue like that and actively goes out of the way to disrupt it (as in the first move request above). I fail to see how it is canvassing when the WP:RM was copied verbatim without any editorial content, nor any messages on the talk page of the project or the users. The rationale that we are all in the same club is so ridiculous that it doesn't warrant a response. I applaud Nihonjoe for extracting himself from this mess when he did. Although I'm a bit late, I am going to do the same thing. If y'all want to discuss the merits again like adults, give me a ring. Until then, I have no more interest in dealing with this. Bye bye (er, ciao, I guess). Neier 04:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This had nothing to do with finding "more discussion viewpoints from people who may actually care about the content" at WikiProject Japan (despite describing seeking input from AN/I as "inappropriate"), and color me shocked that you "applaud" someone who's been giving you Japan-based barnstars on your User page. Someone sounds unhappy that the "wrong version" was protected to me, and I am quite tired of being accused of "American bias" by an influx of editors who came here en masse from a nationally-based WikiProject. Addio (which would be more appropriate in this context), Neier! Italiavivi 04:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
All I am saying is that it is funny (especially being a citizen of Italy myself) to watch myself and others be accused of "systemic American bias" by a gaggle of editors from WikiProject Japan who are all trying to assert the notability of a tiny Japanese town over an internationally prominent figure whose article is among Wikipedia's most viewed. Italiavivi 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I would be a pretty stupid place to canvass, don't you think, blatantly out there in front of all those admins? My thought was that we needed to go to a neutral group to ask their opinions, not to a group whose opinions might be swayed by their own cultural biases. Neier and Nihonjoe didn't like that idea, and both tried to close the AN/I request down, saying it wasn't appropriate. Maybe if I had known that Wikiproject Japan was being notified I would have questioned the neutrality of those commenters, but nothing was posted here to let us know that they were being asked. Tvoz |talk 03:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You should have assumed that WikiProject Japan would have been notified about this whole dispute given the large number of Japan-related links on the page. It shouldn't come as any surprise. As for any cultural bias, please keep your culturally biased opinions to yourself. You have no idea where I'm from, so you have no standing to be questioning whether or not a cultural bias exists with me or anyone else at WP:JA. For all we know, you have an American-centric cultural bias, but you don't see me accusing you of that, do we? I encourage everyone to drop the "cultural bias" stones and just get back to the discussion at hand. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Two editors above from WikiProject Japan already accused disagreeing editors of American bias, with one also accusing us of "recentism." You act as if WikiProject Japan's members haven't been making accusations of "American bias" this entire time. Your group of Japan-centric editors, who appear to have been recruited here by Endroit's message at WikiProject Japan, shouldn't throw "nation bias" stones while living in very transparent glass houses. Italiavivi 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
So to Neier and Nihonjoe, AN/I is an "inappropriate" place to seek comment but WikiProject Japan was fine and dandy? All while accusing others of espousing bias? How funny. Italiavivi 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has everything to do with Japan since half (or more) of the items linked to from this disambig page have to do with Japan. If you read the top of the various admin boards, you'll notice that ALL of them state that content disputes do not belong there. That's basically all this is, so yes, I don't think that the discussion belongs there (though it may now on WP:AIV given the revert war you and Neier seem to be having today). I strongly suggest that no one move this page at all until it's determined exactly what should be done with it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The page has been protected by an uninvolved sysop (a lesson you could stand to learn). Neier appears to have withdrawn himself from the discussion shortly after the protection went into effect. It's completely moot now. Italiavivi 06:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Protection is not endorsement. The page will be unlocked after a while as per usual - in which case the problem will start again. John Smith's 19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If Neier and others truly abhor revert wars, they will keep their fingers off the "UNDO" button, plain and simple. Any other cries and complaints whilst they continue their revert warring is simply WP:POT. Italiavivi 19:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless you would want to claim you don't mind revert wars, the same would apply to you. John Smith's 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
They are the ones claiming a "higher road" and decrying edit wars whilst rapid-fire reverting. I've made no such claims of superiority. Their hypocrisy here has been blatant. Italiavivi 16:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Edit summaries like Nihonjoe's most recent "balistic" remark are precisely what I mean by hypocrisy. These veiled insults come from the same Nihonjoe who tried lecturing me on WP:CIVILITY for pointing out that Neier would be eating boiled crow over the RFCU he recently filed. I don't personally care whether they are civil or not, but watching these pots try to lecture the kettle is getting old. Italiavivi 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation suggested

I think it would be a good idea if the involved parties submitted to mediation, informal or formal. It's silly for the page to be locked over an issue like this. Talk it over with an uninvolved third-party. John Smith's 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not accept any mediator who is active with WikiProject Japan. The nation-centric bloc voting of this group has been painfully obvious. Italiavivi 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, there are no mediators who are part of WP:JA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
As someone who is active at both WP:WPJ and WP:DPL, and who has worked with you before, and who remained quite neutral above, I am somewhat offended by this comment. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You are the exception, not the rule, in this particular case. Were we weighing Barack Obama against a small town in Nebraska or Manitoba named "Obama," this controversy would not have appeared. The bloc of WikiProject Japan voters who came here following Endroit's linking the discussion from WP:JA, combined with Nihonjoe's willingness to use his sysop tools on these articles, have left me generally skeptical of its membership's ability to set aside their nation-centric bias. Arguments based upon policy, exceptional page view statistics, and notability (or lack thereof) have been completely ignored by these voters, with no counter or reason offered whatsoever and one WP:JA editor now trying to declare "victory" based upon vote-counting. I hope you can find my skepticism understandable; I did not mean to offend you, and believe you can at least empathize with where I'm coming from. Italiavivi 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:AGF. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF doesn't require one to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Nor am I accusing you all of harmful motives; I've no doubt you have the best of intentions in promoting all things Japanese, but the priorities in this case are skewed to the point of Japan-centric bias. WikiProject Japan members came blazing in here after Endroit's recruitment, accusing everyone here of "American bias," but I think we have a case of projection here. You're welcome. Italiavivi 14:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Barack Obama is not dominant enough over the other meaning of "Obama". Obama should be redirected to Obama (disambiguation). Names of USA senators mean less to people in Europe etc than to USA citizens. Anthony Appleyard 10:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The article's page views would seem to indicate that it is plenty dominant enough. If anyone is seriously looking for the small town, there will be a link to the Obama DAB at the top of Barack Obama's article. Italiavivi 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What I would suggest, in all honesty, is consultation with editors at WP:DAB or its associated WikiProject. Yes, this is about Japan to a certain extent, and American politics to a certain extent, but the people who don't have a specific interest in these topics and still know what they're doing when it comes to disambiguation pages are at WP:DAB. Whether presenting valid comments or not, it's unhelpful to note majorities in straw polls when more than half of the respondents are from the same WikiProject and the subject concerns multiple projects. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The MoS is clear, Barack must be at the bottom of the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DAB#Given_names_or_surnames

So, if "Obama" is a DAB, Sen. Obama's listing must be at the bottom of the page according to the Manual of Style. Just one more reason to leave Obama piping to Barack, with a hatnote pointing back to this DAB at the top of Sen. Obama's page. If anyone is looking for the small town in Japan, they will still be able to find it very easily by following the hatnote. Italiavivi 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a very reasonable solution. The only two modes that are fair are a hatnote and a redirect to Barack or a redirect to a DAB page. At least for the time being I feel it is most convenient for Barack to go straight to Obama. --Rtrev 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I only changed it back because you'd been so particular about so many things here. Since you don't mind your favorite politician being at the bottom, it's fine with me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sen. Obama isn't really my favorite politician, but his article has been one of the most fun to edit on Wikipedia. I certainly handle matters related to my "favorite politician" better than you handle matters related to your favorite country, though. Italiavivi 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, favorite of the moment. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have actually found that the value of working on an article is usually determined by the article's other editors, not its subject. :) Italiavivi 01:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, your creation today of the article My.BarackObama.com shows how you seem to love the guy. You can deny all you want, but the edit history is there to prove that you are heavily involved with the articles related to Barrack Obama.--Endroit 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw an article on the web site while browsing Reuters this morning. You are wandering into personal attacks and grasping for straws, Endroit. Given your User_page is a shrine dedicated to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, I would advise you not to throw stones. It is interesting: I have been accused of hating and trolling Barack Obama by some of his article's editors for highlighting his cigarette smoking, drug use, and "blackness," but accused of "loving" him by you. Italiavivi 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You're no doubt obsessed by the guy, judging from the edit history at My.BarackObama.com, if not "loving" him. Anyways, it just goes to show you where your bias lies with respect to the WP:DAB issue here.--Endroit 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not the one whose userpage is a shrine to one of America's political parties; I suggest you drop this avenue of attack, it will certainly backfire on you. Cease your personal attacks. Italiavivi 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Look who's talking. You have already "backfired" against every single editor you disagree with in this talk page, Italiavivi, and in a rude way. And you have never ceased to bring up stuff which are irrelevant to this discussion, such as my past political orientations.--Endroit 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that if you are unable to make any arguments with actual merit, you take a break. While I'm flattered to have a Wikistalker, your posting here has added nothing to the content dispute at hand. Italiavivi 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe I speak for a few other editors as well, in saying that I am familiar with both Barack Obama and Obama, Fukui, and have objectively compared the various "Obama's". And we believe that Barack Obama is not the single most notable "Obama", worthy of having a redirect from Obama. Furthermore, Italiavivi, your reprisals against us are uncalled for, coming from a biased individual such as you... , biased enough to create an article called My.BarackObama.com. This shows your obsession towards Barack Obama alone, and making you unduly weigh in favor of redirecting Obama there. Consider this a response against your numerous reprisals spattered throughout this talk page.--Endroit 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I hardly need a lecture on bias toward Democratic politicians and a small town in Japan from someone who is both a Republican and a member of Wikiproject Japan. I again suggest that if you have nothing to add to the discussion at hand, you take a break. I sincerely doubt any editor here, even the ones with whom I disagree, would claim you as their spokesperson after this display of yours. Italiavivi 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I merely added by mentioning your bias here with respect to My.BarackObama.com, that's all. But you just wouldn't let it go without sideswiping against me personally, do you? Since you have chosen to continue, I felt it necessary to respond to your wild delusions, and point out the obvious here: If you didn't already know, this is NOT a Democat vs. Republican issue. This is the Talk:Obama (disambiguation). Keep to the topic, OK?--Endroit 23:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Your disingenuous attempt at sandbagging this discussion with personal attacks and an unrelated article is transparent, Endroit. Again, I do not need lectures on bias from someone whose Userpage is dedicated to the United States Republican Party. Italiavivi 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a bogus lie: I am NOT "dedicated" to the United States Republican Party. I consider that a personal attack against me.--Endroit 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider it what you like, your userpage is available for anyone to read. Italiavivi 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Try putting "Obama" into Google

That small city of 30,000 people pops right up. No, just kidding. It's pages about Barak Obama. Great POV pushing guys. I call bias on about half the editors on this page. That's why I put up the pov tag. The more I look at it the more I see the inherent bias pushed by editors on this page. Turtlescrubber 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Obama's in Japan get a respectable 1 million plus Google hits. Try this Google search.
A candidate who has lost elections gets around 950,000 Google hits.
See WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS--Endroit 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You sure do mention Michael Dukakis often, Endroit. Regardless WP:RECENTISM is not Wikipedia policy, it is an opinion essay which directly contradicts WP:N (a real policy) in some places. I would be careful accusing others of bias here if I were you -- a Republican member of WikiProject Japan would seem to have two stakes here. Italiavivi 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:N is not a policy, it's a guideline. WP:NPOV is a policy, and it talks about undue weight and bias.--Endroit 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You are truly grasping for straws when you try to split hairs between our guidelines and our policies. I would love to see you argue to disregard WP:N on grounds of "it's not a policy, it's a guideline." Seeing as Nihonjoe just reverted User:Turtlescrubber with the edit summary "a disambig page can't be POV since it just points people to other articles," you are going to be hard-pressed to use that line as well. Italiavivi 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the most relevant guideline here is WP:DAB. And people's perception of WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM (no doubt relating to WP:NPOV) have played an important role in determining whether to disambiguate or not, as cited by some people above. Also, I never said WP:N should be disregarded, I merely pointed out that it's technically categorized as a Wikipedia "guideline" rather than "policy".--Endroit 15:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell would I google : "Obama Japan -Barack -Clinton -Hilary -campaign -wikipedia" as a search term? Try googling "Obama" the name of this disambiguation article. Pages and pages of Barack and no mention of a town of 30,000 people or anything else. This is wikipedia. Wikipedia is for everyone. Barack obama is obviously the most searched after Obama in wikipedia and in all major search engines. This is not wikipedia Japan. The POV tag stays. Turtlescrubber 15:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there are over a million hidden hits for the "Obama's" in Japan. It all relates to WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS, and tells us whether or not to disambiguate per WP:DAB.--Endroit 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You keep linking to opinion essays, Endroit. Please stick to Wikipedia's actual policies, not random editorial essays. Italiavivi 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
They are important issues for WP:DAB.--Endroit 15:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:DAB is what's important for WP:DAB. The opinion essays are just random editorials with "WP" in front of their titles. Italiavivi 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
They help clarify WP:NPOV and WP:DAB for some people, not everyone though. I agree that WP:DAB is what ultimately counts for everyone discussing this issue.--Endroit 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:BIAS comes from ignoring this on the WP:DAB page:

Deciding to disambiguate

"Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? Turtlescrubber 15:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the United States, it's a draw. In the United States, it's Barack Obama for the time being. Go figure.--Endroit 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
As a European who has lived in plenty of other countries around the world I can assure you right now that most will not know of a tiny town of 30,000 over Barack Obama. Italiavivi 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard, who's also from Europe, disagrees with you. Like I said, it's a draw elsewhere.--Endroit 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
All Anthony said was that he "had never heard of Barack Obama." He didn't say he knew anything about the small Japanese town. It is not a notability draw at all. Italiavivi 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Anthony also said: "Barack Obama is not dominant enough over the other meaning of "Obama". Obama should be redirected to Obama (disambiguation). Names of USA senators mean less to people in Europe etc than to USA citizens."
--Endroit 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean for the time being? Do you think Obama Japan is going to somehow gain international prominence for having 30,000 people in the next 8 months? Obama is part of the american political culture, like it or not, and will be for decades to come. And outside of the U.S. it's not even close to a draw. Maybe in Japan it's a draw. I remember seeing Obama Japan on CNN international or the BBC 0 times in the past 3 years. Can you say the same for Barack Obama? Turtlescrubber 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Try searching the BBC for Obama [4]Turtlescrubber 16:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How about the International Herald Tribune? [5] Turtlescrubber 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Barrack Obama is worthy in recent news. How about searching for "Obama" in Britannica, here. I count 3 Britannica articles which mention 3 distinct "Obama's", including one in medieval Japan.--Endroit 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that you didn't expect to find 3 distinct obama's in an encyclopedia? Or where you looking for multiple encyclopedia entries? That's not an argument.We are talking about who a user is more likely to be searching for. It is clearly Barack Obama, try and prove otherwise. This goes back to the disambiguation page guidelines. Turtlescrubber 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; so what? Your newest links say nothing as to whether or not 1) Sen. Obama is most notable and 2) who most Wikipedians are looking for. Italiavivi 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Barrack Obama is a recent phenomenom, so of course the news articles tend to favor it.
If you search Google books: You will see a draw. There are plenty of Japanese "Obama" hits there, mind you.--Endroit 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean draw? 9 out of 10 on the first page are for Barack Obama. How does 10% equal draw? Turtlescrubber 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Why only look at the first page? Here, try this:
--Endroit 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody uses search terms like that when searching wikipedia. People search Obama expecting to find the Barack Obama page. 9 out of 10. Turtlescrubber 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I counted the first 50 pages, and it looks like 26 out of 50 for Barack. Looks like a draw to me.--Endroit 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Unsure of what the word "draw" means? Turtlescrubber 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This is your problem, you are treating the "recentism" essay as a policy. It doesn't matter if Barack Obama ("Barack," with one "r") has only been in public service for the last twenty years, he can still be more notable than a small town of 20,000. Older doesn't mean more notable. Italiavivi 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Newer doesn't mean more notable" either, and this is one of the points where the editors disagree in this discussion.--Endroit 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You are the one asserting that age has something to do with notability with your repeated and constant linking to the "recentism" opinion essay. The others here who support using the hatnote have made arguments strictly from notability and Wikipedia reader use. No one has ever said "newer means more notable," please avoid making straw man arguments. Italiavivi 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Now were getting into stuff "we didn't say" (explicitly I presume), and the discussion is no longer productive. 20 editors have commented in the above discussions, and it's all there for everybody to see.--Endroit 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Again: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and you have personally tainted this discussion with canvassing at WikiProject Japan. Italiavivi 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Now you're getting into unsubstantiated personal attacks.--Endroit 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You have no right to remark about personal attacks, WP:POT. I could provide diffs of your canvassing if you like? Italiavivi 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Your "Canvassing" accusal is unsubstantiated, nor backed by any admin.--Endroit 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sysops are fellow editors with janitorial tools, not arbiters of fact. Italiavivi 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So it's your word against mine then. WP:IAR? If you accuse me of canvassing, do so formally. Otherwise, it's just a personal attack.--Endroit 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a personal attack. Please don't just throw around accusations. They just lose their meaning.Turtlescrubber 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are articles being created to populate this page?

Are users purposefully creating new articles to try and dilute other arguments on this page and make Obama seem a lot more common and in use than it actually is. Yes, yes they are. That is called gaming the system and it's not the right thing to do. Turtlescrubber 15:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're complaining that more information is being added to Wikipedia? And that it is a bad thing? Maybe you need to step back from the fray and look at what you are saying. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you need to step back and read what I wrote before you go shooting your mouth off. Turtlescrubber 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, Turtle. --Ali'i 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
All the articles being created would have been created sooner or later anyway (especially the transportation articles). If no one else, I would have gotten to them eventually as I've already created over a hundred train/rail Japan-related articles. Sure, this whole discussion brought them to the front, but it's not as if people are pulling things out of thin air. All of the articles being created are legitimate articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, calm down there killer. We've made stubs for like every Japan location, but I'm sure that those hundreds or thousands of articles were all made to make it look non-intentional when the Obama ones were made. Just to make you mad. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just call me Ichi. Please stop pissing on my leg and telling me its raining. If you don't know what I am talking about then maybe you should just keep your mouth shut. If you want to pov and push a japan centric agenda, go for it. Just keep your little condescending baby comments to yourself. Turtlescrubber 15:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Obama, Ohama and Kohama

Which is the common spelling? Are many of these spellings interchangeable? Italiavivi 15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

They are each as common as the other. It just depends on where in Japan you are, and what you are talking about. All three can (and are) used as surnames. All three are used as place names, in business names, etc. The note on the page is to make sure people know they may need to search under all three if they aren't sure how the word is pronounced (in the instance they only have the Japanese characters, with no hint to the correct pronunciation in that context). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I should note that the "spelling" (小浜) is the same for all three in Japanese. It's the reading that is different. This is not an uncommon thing in Japanese (the same kanji having multiple readings). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nihonjoe can correct me, but I believe it would be accurate to say that the spellings are not interchangeable. Some people (and places, etc) are named Obama, some Kohama, some Ohama. Though these are all written the same way in kanji, they remain separate names. LordAmeth 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The readings are not interchangeable (the readings correspond to the English romanizations). The spelling (小浜) is the same for all three. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Obama_(disambiguation)/Archive_2&oldid=1137053522"