Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:55, 21 July 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

	Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 5, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Columbia UniversityPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Template:BannerShell

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior: Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted. On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance. New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

Administrators have identified this article as being problematic with regard to our biographies of living persons policy. In order to avoid placing special enforcement sanctions, which may include blocks, deletions, page protections, topic/article bans, and "any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy.", users are asked to take special care in editing this article to ensure it stays within compliance with policy. If you violate our biographies of living persons policy you may receive a warning and explanation on your talk page. If you again violate our biographies of living persons policy, you may be blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned with limited rights of appeal. Misplaced Pages articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (2007-09-17). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-12). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "one of two pieces aired". WCBS Newsradio 880.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Rezko Again

Apropos this addition, are we done with Rezko or not? I've reverted for now because additions like this need to be discussed on the talk page per the steps we took to calm last month's trouble. I thought we had moved on. Is there any need to re-open it now? If we re-open the question of revamping the Rezko material we can consider this new change but we should put cards are on the table, including the possibility of scaling back existing coverage. I also wonder if it's a good idea to consider two contentious matters at the same time. Wikidemo (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit looks out of process to me. After a month of discussion, virtually every editor strongly opposed such long and POV description. The addition is brand new, long, contentious, and poorly written paragraph. Maximally oppose adding this material. LotLE×talk 06:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lulu, your I'm sure sincere critique sounds like sloganeering to me. Short and sweet I'd just referenced the embarrassment that an early Obama contributor had later been convicted for corruption unrelated to Obama. But if it was too long you could suggest how to recast it more economically, if it's too yuckily written you could suggest how to wordsmith and phrasesmith it aright. And as for your hyperbole of its contentiousness----although it's never been my goal to imply anything negative about Obama whatsoever (I like O, support him, will vote for him), I think the basic circumstance of the Rezco matter deserves brief mention since it's obviously considered important by the serious sources that go into B's early years in politics.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

no reaqson not to consider more than one at a time. I suppose if we wait every time, the rate of addition will be eclipsed by the general election --Die4Dixie (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with LotLE that this material should not have been added - and agree with Wikidemo's revert. We've already considered this to death, Die4 - you might want to spend some time reading the talk archives - but be sure you're in a comfortable chair. Tvoz/talk 06:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The amount of talk generated is indeed impressive. Consensus can change and I for one am willing to go back and work though these things again.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the bruising debate literally just ended, I doubt consensus has changed since the weekend. Barring new developments surrounding the issue, I doubt you'll find many people willing to take up the matter again. --Clubjuggle /C 16:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Not I", said the little red hen. Tvoz/talk 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid if long-time contributors can't see how zero mention anywhere of Rezco mars WP's coverage and don't notice that the guidelines' suggest the inclusion of reasonably balanced and well-sourced contributions, only later to refine them and worry about their most proper placement, this doesn't speak well to the effectiveness of these editors' self-supposed neutrality.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"zero mention anywhere"? See Barack Obama#Family and personal life (2nd paragraph). Then click the link in the 2nd sentence. There's an entire article about Rezko here, with a convenient link to it from this article. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the talkpage Rezko commentary was so convoluted I never really read any of it; then when I did finally read Lizza's New Yorker mention of Rezko in context of B's initial foray into politics, I made my suggested contribution, but only after skimming the article and somehow getting the impression that mention of him had been excised still pending an elusive compromise among the talk page War and Peacers. But the long and the short of it is that I have to apologize here for my brain lock.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

JMHN, you can surely be forgiven for that. A lot of good editors were driven off. Even Noroton was driven off in the end. By the time Rick Block called the question on a drastically shortened version, the only editors left were the ones who have been fighting the inclusion of any criticism all along. Minus one of their number of course, who was afraid of beng outed, I suspect, as a Democratic Party operative. Inevitably Rezko must come up again, if only because the conservative 527s are going to inevitably use any controversy to Swiftboat Obama. Hopefully the group of editors who discuss the future editing of the Rezko bit and other avenues of criticism will be more balanced and less acrimonous. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Polling data

I've just removed this from the last part of the "Cultural and political image" section:

Although Obama is Christian, polls have shown that some Americans believe incorrectly that he was sworn in to the Senate on a Quran (12% in a Newsweek poll), is Muslim (12% in a Pew poll), or was raised Muslim (26% in a Newsweek poll).

Although technically correct, I think it a snapshot of public opinion that isn't particularly biographical and has WP:RECENT issues. It may be more suited to the campaign article. I'm not a big fan of parentheses in articles, but that's just my opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Misperceptions about Obama's religious background have been a persistent issue for months now; it's not just a fad in this week's news, so WP:RECENT does not seem to apply. And widespread misperceptions about someone's background seems to me like an obvious issue to be addressed in a biographical summary of the person. This is not a campaign question per se, as it has nothing to do with Obama's political platform - it's simply an item about his biography that is widely misunderstood. Moreover, it goes well with other items discussed in that section of the article, e.g. I'm not sure why you think it's good to discuss perceptions about his cultural background in connection with the African-American community, but not in connection with the Christian community. And once we say in the article that it is widely misunderstood, it immediately follows that we need to back up that statement with quantitative polling data - we can't just say "some Americans" (see WP:WEASEL). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that any such 'discussion' would fit better in the campaign article (or a separate article, or one about campaign tactics) than in this main article. Let's just stick to the facts and not get sidetracked about who said what when to whom and where. We've all seen the photos of the school on CNN, we know it was and is a secular school in a predominantly Muslim country, and we all understand the concept of WP:WEIGHT. Flatterworld (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, precisely, with your reference to WP:WEIGHT. Here, we're talking about one sentence in a a long article, describing misperceptions about someones biography held by 10–25% of Americans, perceptions which have been a persistent issue in the public discourse for months now. How is that giving undue weight to minority views? How is this not sticking to the facts or getting sidetracked? And what do photos of the school have to do with this one sentence? I'm confused...does your comment belong in the previous discussion section about Muslim schools? —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is written from a historical perspective. Adding details that are justified by snapshot polling data presents problems, particularly when these numbers are constantly changing (the recentism issue). We already fully explain Obama's past, and that should be sufficient. You are suggesting we tailor the article to allow for the lowest comment denominator, the so-called "low information voters" who prefer to believe gossip over factual evidence. That isn't a very encyclopedic approach. It is the responsibility of Obama and his campaign to educate these people, not Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey that snapshot polling suffers from WP:RECENTism. However, per Stevenj, the general prevalence of a misconception of Obama's religion or religious background seems like a notable biographical feature (it's not really about Obama so much as about a probably deliberate attempt by opponents to engineer a perception, I admit). If we could mention the widespread misconception without going so far into poll-of-the-week, that would be ideal. I don't care whether is is 12% in one poll and 18% in another (with questions phrased slightly differently), nor whether it jumped 2% between certain months, nor whatever false specificity... still, this has been a longtime and widespread thing. LotLE×talk 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that these numbers are changing rapidly over time or vary a lot between polls, which would be the only reason to make a big stink about quoting a specific polling number. If I recall correctly, a couple months ago a poll showed 10% of Americans thought he was Muslim, which is pretty close to the 12% in the recent Pew poll. This has been a persistent phenomenon since Obama became a presidential contender, and has been a major issue in his "cultural and political image" (to quote the title of the section we are discussing); it is very far from a "poll of the week" kind of thing. The article doesn't quote zillions of polls and compare margins of error over time or anything like that; it just quotes representative recent numbers on typical issues (whether people think he is a Muslim, or was raised Muslim); I really think the supposed "recentism" is being blown out of proportion. You have to quote some hard statistics, or you are left only with vague weasel words like "some Americans think".

In any other Misplaced Pages article, there would be no debate about the article directly addressing a major misconception among a significant fraction of the public about the subject of the article; I don't know why there is so much resistance here to a single uncontroversial factual sentence on the topic in a section on his "cultural and political image". To say that a single sentence on a widespread misconception is "tailoring the article for the lowest common denominator" is gross hyperbole, and hence unpersuasive. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not share Scjessey's concern about "low information voters", nor think the mention of the misconception about Obama's religion is "tailoring for lowest common denominator". My only concern with the level of detail, really, is that the current sentence presents three separate figures for "is muslim", "sworn in on Quran" and "raised muslim". While I obviously realize that those beliefs are logically independent, they all seem to fall under the same general misconception; reading them myself, my mind goes off in mostly superfluous directions to try to figure out who falls in the N% gap between the one misconception and the other, what is the overlap, etc. I recognize StevenJ's point that we need to cite something for support, but I'm not sure the concrete figures in the body text really add anything. We might be able to use some more general phrase like "widespread misconception", and let readers consult the footnotes for the numeric specifics. LotLE×talk 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with just saying "widespread misconception" is that it is a weasel phrase. How widespread? There's no reason not to make it quantitative, and it much more informative with an actual number in the text, rather than buried in the references. It's not like we are inundating the reader in numbers; we're talking (ad nauseam) about a single sentence here. (At the very least, we should keep the numbers for both whether he is Muslim or was raised Muslim, as the latter misconception seems vastly more common according to the statistics and is quite distinct from the former misconception. I can agree with removing the statistic about being sworn in on the Quran, as that doesn't seem to add much beyond the number of people who think he is Muslim now.) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any point in saying anything like "widespread misconception", "falsehood", etc. We state that he converted to Christianity and speaks of it regularly (once this gets its own article, the greater elaboration on accounts of his church activity can be restored), and then we say that xyz people still believe he is a Muslim. Anything more than that is redundant and spoonfeeding. Trilemma (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is still a mistake to quote specific poll numbers, because these numbers are utterly irrelevant when viewed from a historical perspective. These numbers can (and will) change, so having the article reflect a particular point in time is a mistake. Moreover, I am right about the "low information voter" problem. The article already documents the true nature of Obama's background, and it does not need to be repeated in another section to allow for those people who don't read the article properly. Snapshot data is better presented in the related campaign article, because it is polling data that is directly connected to the campaign itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous - even when talking "from a historical perspective", you still talk about events and statistics at particular points in time. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to attach a year to the poll numbers. And if the numbers change drastically in the future it should be updated --- but even in that case the widespread false impression in 2008 that Obama is a Muslim is a major part of his image in this pivotal campaign year for him, and it's hard to imagine that a historian writing 10 years from now would not mention it when talking about his public image. How can we have a section on his cultural and political image and not mention in that section a misperception of his religious background that has played a major role in that image to date? —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think Stevenj make a good point to distinguish the description of Obama's actual background from a description of his perception. Those things really can be distinct from each other, even at odds. Let's try to move this to something less specific for a moment: Some prominent politician (not Obama for now) might be perceived as being a "bold leader", or being "inept", or being "a womanizer". None of those characteristics are ones we can simply state about the politician as a biographical fact; however, each of them may be significant aspects of the public perception of a given politician. Given evidence of such belief being widespread, I think the belief can be encyclopedic to characterize (especially if citable to specific polls). Even unfair or inaccurate reputations can be biographically important. LotLE×talk 00:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, particularly given that this is a section (and eventually, article) on his image ;) Trilemma (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear what article it is that you anticipate will eventually exist, but for now let's work with the articles that actually do exist. If you create some new, encyclopedic article, we can take that into account in terms of what to link, summarize, whatever. LotLE×talk 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a tad bit busy to be creating a fairly significant full length article right now, and when I do get more time, I want to concentrate on some Rwandan figures, but basically what I think is necessary is a full length article as the Cultural and political image of John McCain exists. Trilemma (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Back to "polling data

To give it a timeline I would like to add something like this:

After widespread rumors early in the primaries xx % still believe....etc"

Any objection/inputs out there? --Floridianed (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(rings handbell) Hear ye, last chance to comment

@ Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Obama family (2nd nomination)!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Superfluous information

The discussion on the fact that Obama is not a Muslim keeps growing out of proportion. Some editors (mostly one) keep finding material that is "interesting", and expanding the discussion to include each new cite and quote. I do not even disagree that the material is interesting, nor that it's properly cited, but try to remember that this is a main biography. This and that ancillary person concurring that Obama is a Christian, or more-and-more trivia about the fact, doesn't convey anything further about the minimal encyclopedic point.

In particular, this sentence was recently added (repeatedly) without discussion by a certain editor:

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute expressed in a news report (reacting in part to a satirical New Yorker cover) that ethnic caricature involving faulty depiction of Obama's faith harms Muslim Americans, impeding their "opportunity to participate in the political process."

Zogby's a good guy, and makes an intelligent comment. The New Yorker cover is notable over at Wikinews. All of it adds up to material that has no relevance to a main biography. It's pure WP:RECENTism, and brings the tone down to chatty discussion of issues rather than encyclopedic presentation of facts. Moreover, the real topic of the sentence only uses Obama as a vague touchstone, while actually being about the other (interesting) topic of the position of Muslim communities in the US political process, or something along those lines. This material just doesn't belong in this article. LotLE×talk 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Setting actual positions aside for a sec, Lulu----let's talk "m.o." When an article is watched by a crowd, if a Wikicontributor makes a deletion that raises a controversy with a Wikicolleague, proper Wikietiquette says, "Wait and see if another Wikicontributor steps in who agrees with ya and if not, just let it be."

Wikiwatchers will murmur, "Whoah! Two casual bystanders in agreement. Powerful"----or else, "Hmm! Noone else around agrees. Must not reflect much consensus, or at least for the moment."

Of course, hovering and multi-deleting is OK----it just makes the person sticking hi/r neck out there into a lightening rod. Which is fine if that's what you want.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 07:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your misunderstanding. Take a look at the "proper" flow at WP:BRD. If an addition is contentious (as yours have been), it is the responsibility of the proposing editor to take it to the talk page. It is bad wikiquette to try to edit war to force an addition that (so far) only a single editor has supported. Event though it is your job as editor proposing addition to discuss it, in a fullness of WP:AGF, I have brought it here on your behalf. LotLE×talk 08:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as they say, Lulu, concerning our respective styles of contributing. Still, take my feedback FWIW. I see somebody who rides herd on things you just don't like, even when they're not obviously improper; so, you play the Label Game. That is, you so convince yourself of Zogby's Controversiality, you think it a slam dunk to revert-and-rerevert with no need for others' input, even on a page with a history of warring----with you as a not-incidental participant! (Your right to do.) Then you begin the verbal onslaught to color your actions as merely expedient against somebody you label The Other, the Opponent of Virtue, of some kind, eg by coming to "Talk" and saying that my plural contributions are "controversial," but only bringing to this page the example of Zogby. Which generalizing, in my belief, is an m.o. of a controversialist. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's the rep you desire.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood, I am afraid, Justmeherenow. I have no claim about Zogby being controversial. The edits you made adding his comments are controversial. This controversy is self-proven by the sentiment of another editor (me) that the material is not proper for inclusion in the article. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any external politics of whether the inclusion is left or right, pro- or con-, or whatever; it simply a matter of whether there is lack of dispute for the new material's encyclopedic value. The burden for addition of new material is always on the editor proposing addition. LotLE×talk 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

To clear up some dispute here, and for better organization, I've created a new article, Cultural and political image of Barack Obama. That parallels the Cultural and Political image of John McCain article, which seems to be functioning well. If people agree that this is the right thing to do, then we can go ahead and condense the treatment here and expand that other article. The new article clearly needs a better lead but my creative energies are low. What do you think? - Wikidemo (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop blocking criticism of Obama

I remember when we had a lot more editors actively taking part on this page. Many good editors have been driven off. We have also seen one of the editors who were blocking all criticism of Obama, abandoning a long-term account of many years because he was concerned that he would be outed. I suspect the information that would have been revealed was that he was linked in some manner to the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party.

Others were helping him, however, and using tactics that were not in WP's best traditions or best interests: and by the time Rick Block called the question after offering a drastically shortened version of the Rezko material, they were the only ones left to vote.

Please stop blocking material that may cause Obama to be criticized. You know that compared to George W. Bush, Tony Blair on the day it became a Featured Article, and other WP biographies about similarly situated politicians, this article contains a severe shortage of anything that resembles criticism, but you continue to employ every trick and stratagem in the book to block its introduction.

I am inviting Scjessey, LotLE and Noroton to join me in mediation.

If you are blocking criticism solely for the sake of blocking criticism:

Please stop. Examine your motives. Compare this biography to other biographies about similar people, and allow this article to reflect WP:WELLKNOWN: if it is notable and well-sourced, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't "call the question". I suggested a shortened version, a variant of which was introduced by this edit, not made by me. I actually didn't notice this edit until several days later. I'll also note that the reason the long term editor left is not precisely known and your supposition about the reason has no basis in fact. Some editors here make no particular effort to hide their real world identities. Some editors apparently go to great lengths such as creating a WP:SPA and using it only from what they know are untraceable IP addresses. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting this section is an auspicious audacious way to return to the article after a week-long block for incivility and wikigaming. I suggest we either ignore it, or close it as incitement not reasonably directed to improving the article, and ask editors not to incite things by using the talk pages to complain about other editors. Wikidemo (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

... your supposition about the reason has no basis in fact. Well, he was fighting like hell to keep anything that resembled criticism out of an article about a very prominent Democratic politician, using false accusations as a primary method of debate; and then someone did a search and discovered that he had a COI. Very abruptly, he stopped fighting like hell and went into hiding (WP equivalent). That's a pretty good basis in fact. Actions speak louder than words. It's likely that he was a Democratic Party operative, and it's possible that he differed from other Democratic Party operatives on this page only in his lack of discretion about covering his tracks.

... an auspicious way to return to this article ... I'm asking for mediation. Let's see whether anyone would like to resolve this through mediation, Wikidemo. Would you be interested in that? Or do you like the way things have been going on this page? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think mediation would be productive. That seems like yet more wikigaming and prolonging an already-resolved issue, and by opening the matter with the above statement attacking other editors you're pretty much guaranteeing that the process will be contentious. Your contributions to this page have been disruptive in the long term. It would go far to improve conditions on the page were you to stop editing here, as has been proposed a number of times at AN/I. Wikidemo (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) - I'm not clear on exactly what you are seeking mediation on. I was not aware of any existing content dispute that you have been involved with. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

... already-resolved issue ... If you think this is resolved, you've got another think coming. We haven't even started talking about Ayers yet, the ACORN material is following the same tired pattern of disagree/ provoke/ report, and the Rezko paragraph will inevitably be reopened no later than September 3, when he gets sentenced and the 527s start Swiftboating Obama for it. I'd like to resolve all of these content disputes amicably, under the supervision of a large group of people experienced in dispute resolution; so that they can see for themselves who's really gaming the system, and who's really got the best interests of the WP project as their only agenda. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "disagree / provoke / report" pattern - that accusation is just more of the rancor you're bringing to the article. I trust the "another think coming" isn't going to be from you. If one or more seasoned editors / administrators were willing to moderate this article and its talk page that might help. However, to date they all seem to think conditions here are too contentious for them to do any good. A formal mediation process removed from this discussion page, with the contentious editors at the table who should have been topic banned already, seems unlikely to do any good either. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The disagree/ provoke/ report pattern is well established here; and now everyone can see who is offering mediation, who is refusing it, and who is claiming that others "should have been topic banned already." WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, there does not appear to be an ongoing content dispute with anything you have previously been involved with. The Rezko issue has been dealt with, and you would have to begin a new consensus-building process to even get to a point where mediation might be necessary. Mention of Bill Ayers has no place in this article, because Obama's tenuous relationship with Ayers is an insignificant detail with respect to his entire life (and vice versa). It received a tiny bit of attention during the primaries, so it might warrant a brief mention in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, I'm filing an AN/I report on this disruption. Perhaps the nth time is the charm and this can be dealt with in some lasting way. Wikidemo (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So once again the stability of this article is being threatened by Worker Bee's clear partisanship. Ayers does not belong in here, and Rezko has appropriate weight. Rezko's sentencing should not change anything in this article; if Swiftboating occurs, it would at most belong as a mention in the campaign article. The point about relevance to the man's entire life is, of course, exactly on target - this is not a campaign piece, it is a biography. I wonder how many times that has to be said. And I agree with Wikidemo's comment about topic banning of contentious editors - should have happened long ago. And I further agree that this section should be closed - its title and intro proves the point. Tvoz/talk 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All of this must be covered in an WP essay somewhere that rouses contributors to pick up rhetorical swords and silence anybody holding a minority position or viewpoint (which by its nature involves controversy as to whether it's to be reflected in mainspace and how). Could somebody point me to it? 'Cause this telling of another contributor essentially "F/u, you ought to have been banned" etc. feels out of order to me.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no attempt to silence minority opinions, and please don't jump into the discussion with that kind of reflexive accusation of bad faith. This is a long-term disruptive editor and proven WP:SOCK who has been dragging this article and its editors through the mud for nearly two months now. There's an AN/I report right now, so if you wish to comment more on the subject please direct your efforts there. This page is for discussions related to improving the article. Wikidemo (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if think your comment was in bad faith as much as it's my impression it didn't address how to edit this article so much as it was letting your a/n/i type commentary leak out onto this talkpage.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC) However I'm not gonna to look at diffs or comment at the an/i. I'd warned WB74 before (ie patronizingly scolded) to at minumum work on demeanor so as to try and avoid heat from Wiki powers that be.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're off base. There's no picking up swords, no silencing, no telling anyone off. There's simply an attempt to deal with an editor who has ruined the editing environment here through long-term disruption. AN/I is for raising issues that need administrative intervention. It was not until his last comment here, where he turns his disingenuous appeal for mediation into a way of attacking me, that I thought the issue was ripe for AN/I. I don't need to be scolded or patronized over that, and it's unhelpful because it only enables him and prolongs the trouble when you take his side. He's already picked up on your "fuck you" language and he's berating me via a sock account over at AN/I. Because it is there now, so there is not much more to be said here. Wikidemo (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to understand it from this perspective. A single-purpose account user, who has contributed nothing but disruption, edit warring and a lack of civility, has returned from a week-long behavioral block and immediately "requested mediation" on a long-since resolved content dispute. His first post upon returning to this talk page is an accusatory, inflammatory diatribe against perceived censorship that features claims of conflict of interest and "driving off" other editors. How exactly are we supposed to respond to that? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

{§ I remember when Shem had just been doing mostly the odd edits here and there to Barack Obama mainspace before he first made his splash onto the talk page to advocate heavily re the original Ayers "vote." I remember reading something he'd written somewhere, not on the article, that had led me to imagine even way back then that he was involved in the campaign somehow, obviously something completely independent from WB74's speculation to that effect now. Is such speculation pointless? Sure. But so is, I think, decrying the situation that lead to Shem's taking leave from us. He spoke his piece here and then he decided to go. Life goes on.}
Surfing Misplaced Pages, I come across the tidbit that in 2002 a congressman in Peru, Eittel Ramos, challenged the country's Vice President, David Waisman to a duel; these guys are priviledged with contemporary versions of title and nobility (immunity from petty prosecutions, their views generally given no small weight, etc.) Look folks, King Jimbo's empowered the whole lot of us in this wiki to contribute here----so, Your Excellencies, let's pull the huge feathers out of our three-pointed hats and quit wanting to push our sword through the gut of some fellow when we feel our honor's been impugned and go back to our desks and channel all such disagreements through WP's version of Parliamentary procedure, shan't we?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that serious mediation, entered into in good faith by all parties to the content dispute (and let's not pretend there isn't one) would be very constructive. Someone here claims he wants more senior editors and admins involved? Well, the Mediation Cabal is packed with them. Anyone trying to game the system will be quickly found out. But here I am, suggesting mediation. And there Wikidemo is, refusing mediation. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop these games? Wikidemo (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to mediate. This article has moved on since you were blocked for your disruptive behavior, and the content dispute was resolved (in large part due to the absence of your disruptive influence). All you are trying to do is re-ignite an old argument because the resolution doesn't fit your point of view. If you have new content concerns, express them here and try to build a consensus for changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of things to mediate, not the least of which are your conduct and LotLE's. This conduct was the topic of WP:ANI threads by respected, well-established, trusted, non-SPA editor Noroton, so it's not something I'm making up; there are others who have noticed that you're not exactly a pair of angels. This goes hand in hand with the illegitimate resolution of the Rezko content dispute. At the start, there were 15 editors participating and the ones who wanted to include more criticism had a 9-6 majority. At the end, there were only three: Tvoz, LotLE and SCJ. The rest had been driven off, or prevented from participating because they were IP editors, or baited and tormented into conduct that was then reported at ANI with demands for a block. Even Noroton had been driven off. There's also the following Ayers question, which is already undeniably an unresolved content dispute. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my conduct, file a report. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Directed to all, let's in general keep the an/i page completely separate from this one somehow. Discipline ourselves from harping on past stuff. Cut down somewhat on the repetetiveness of our arguements arguments. (Can't spell.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to talk about William Ayers

Since the Bill Ayers election controversy is sufficiently notable to have its own rather long WP article, and since it's only this election that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator with a 300-word biography, the Obama/Ayers relationship is notable enough to be included in this biography. All my previous observations about the prevalence of criticism in WP biographies about prominent politicians, including Tony Blair on the day it won Featured Article status, are still very appropriate. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not s'posed to argue what I'm about to, but here goes. In Lizza of the NYer's seminal, contextual narrative about B's political immersion before the milestone of his Illinois senate service, Ayers is mentioned in a couple of sentences. Now's the part where I gotta whole lotta splainin to do. Therefore, lol, we'd not be remiss if we ourselves only dedicate----whatever percentage a-few-mentions-out-of-a-half-score-pages is----of this preliminary period's coverage to user-of-flag-as-patio-mat Ayers (which preliminary period's entire narrative in B's WP bio, as chronologically dedicated to it, is thus far zero incidentally anyway. That is, about 1% of our article's at present zero mention of pre-Illiois-senate-service political activities: 1% x 0 being 0).  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet if we were to sandbox a short section about political activities prior Obama's legislative service, would it be reasonable to propose a sentence about Ayers that would fit into the context of that?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no mention of, for instance, John Hagee on John McCain's page.--The Bruce (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be. Was Hagee the co-founder of a terrorist organization that set off bombs on US soil? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a joke about Hagee's claim about terrorism by God in New Orleans? Just wondering. If so, maybe you should take up drawing cartoons for The New Yorker. (Hagee has also attacked Catholicism, Islam, homosexuality and Jews, according to his article. I don't believe he has been specific as to whether their death and destruction should come on or off US soil. There's also Rod Parsley and now Bud Day.) Flatterworld (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's a fairly strong argument that any mention of Ayers here would violate both the "Undue weight" and "Neutrality and verifiability" sections of the WP:NPOV policy. I think it's easier to talk about concrete rather than abstract suggestions, so what specific wording would you propose adding and where? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of Ayers violates WP:WEIGHT. Simple problem, fully solved. LotLE×talk 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, you don't WP:OWN the article, so dismissing the problem as "fully solved" exhibits a flippancy that, if I had exhibited it, Wikidemo would have raced over to WP:ANI to start a thread about. Please dial it down. Rick, I don't see any point in writing at any length about the controversy in this biography. But since the other article exists and no one here has nominated it for deletion, it is a significant event in Obama's life. I was thinking of something like this, in chronological order in the presidential campaign section:

The Bill Ayers election controversy made headlines after George Stephanopoulos, moderating a televised debate on April 19, started by asking Obama about his relationship with Ayers. As a co-founder of the 1970s anti-war group Weather Underground, William Ayers had set off bombs in the Pentagon and other US targets.

WP:FRINGE is inapplicable, WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPOV demand its inclusion, and WP:WEIGHT is rather vague. It has no specific, precise formula indicating how much material to include. I think two sentences is a little short but a reasonable compomise with folk like LotLE. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"...William Ayers had set off bombs in the Pentagon and other US targets."

The Ayers article seems to need an overhaul. It's states:

"Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot. The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway. The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and blown up again by Weatherman on October 6, 1970"

Mmmmh... --Floridianed (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with Obama? I could perhaps see a footnote-ish reference in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 but is there any evidence this had any impact on the campaign, let alone Obama's life? From WP:NPOV#Neutrality and verifiability: A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. This seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to connect Obama to Ayers's past. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DITO! My intention (regarding my comment above) was to show how misleading WB's proposal is, even in the facts about Ayers, (not to mention the non existing connection between Obama and Ayers radical past). It is a non-issue in my opinion as I similar stated quite some time ago. Let me state the basics here again. Ayers: If mentioned at all, just very very briefly. Rezko: To be mentioned but still pretty briefly. Wright: To be mentioned for sure, less briefly but w/o going over the top with to many details especially about Wright himself. For all those three: Make sure there is a WP-link within the text to lead to those individuals for readers looking for more information. Wright and Rezko is already covered (not the way I would have done it but I'm "ok" with it). So now we're stuck with Ayers and if we could agree on "not blowing this issue out of proportion" by staying on the facts while discussing, there might be a chance to get a result and consensus in a reasonable amount of time. --Floridianed (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayers issue is a non-starter

On the substance there doesn't seem to be any relevance or importance to Bill Ayers via-v-vis Barack Obama. It did not figure significantly in his life, and it did not affect either in any real way. As the New Yorker piece (Ryan Lizza (2008-07-21). "Making It:How Chicago shaped Obama". New Yorker.) describes, Obama was associated with dozens if not hundreds of politicians, fundraisers, businesspeople, and other and prominent community members in his rise to power. We cover only a few of the most important - Ayers was nowhere near being important, a footnote if even that in Chicago politics.

On the sources establishing weight / importance, Obama/Ayers gets 450 news hits, as compared to 175,000 for Obama overall Only 1 in 400 news pieces about Obama even mentions Ayers, and most of those are either not the focus of the article, or in blogs and editorials, or both. Nobody else seems to think it's important either.

On the weight issue I've I've looked at the weight we give various people and issues. See my new subpage, Talk:Barack Obama/weight. Of the 45 people we mention 10 are family members and 6 are people who simply commented about him. Of the 29 others, 17 are fellow politicians he ran against or sponsored legislation with (of all persuasions), and only 12 can be said to be friends, associates, or colleagues - of which 8 are his campaign or senate staffers. That leaves only four people we mention as being informal associates - the two pastors Pfleger and Wright, his close strategist Axelrod, and Rezko as a scandal / controversy and mid-level campaign supporter. I just don't see the room in there to start adding people he had a casual relationship with and who happen to be former terrorists - it's not balanced. The New Yorker piece, which is twice as long yet only covers about 1/4 of the territory as this article, devotes 2 sentences to Ayers (dividing up sentences that discuss multiple people). It covers 81 people in total, 34 to a greater degree than Ayers, 43 less than Ayers, and 3 get the same 2 sentences. Just by math that would suggest Ayers deserves 1/4 sentence here (i.e. zip)... but before even thinking about that we should consider some of the 34 more important people. Of them many of the ones most important to Obama's Chicago power base are simply not covered here: Toni Preckwinkle - 33.75 sentences there, not covered here; Will Burns - 27.75 sentences there, none here; Emil Jones - 27.5 sentences there, none here; Alice Palmer - 18.5 sentences there, 1/2 here; Bobby Rush - 16.5 sentences there, 1 here; and so on. In fact, of the 34 people who figure more prominently into the New Yorker article than Ayers, only 8 are mentioned at all in our article. And the New Yorker piece is on the very subject for which Ayers is supposedly notable, how Obama chose his friends and associates in his early political rise in Chicago.

Thus, Ayers doesn't pass the test for weight or relevance, either logically, by looking at reliable sources, or by a detailed analysis of how much space we and others give to various events. It's a no brainer. I think it's very unlikely at this point that Ayers can be included here, or that there are sources out there at this point that can make a case that he should.

This whole discussion came up out of turn. I suggest we wrap this up and move on to something more productive. Wikidemo (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My best 2¢ is, ----What Wikidemo says.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you "squeeze-in" please make it notable. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Floridianed. It's just I'd mentioned analyzing the percentage of Ayers' being mentioned in Lizza's remarkable piece up above (did ya notice?) before Wikidemo wrote his amazing treatment of the same idea, hency my "Wish I'd said it that way" comment.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for "wrapping this up". I just made an edit above the same time you did here and could've spared my time for replying to your comment. Well, now I did and my first sentence says it all ;) --Floridianed (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to concerns

The Ayers article seems to need an overhaul. It says ... FE, what you seem to be saying is that I didn't represent the facts accurately. If you'd please read the Weatherman (organization) article, you would find this section: "On 19 May 1972, Ho Chi Minh's birthday, The Weather Underground placed a bomb in the women's bathroom in the Air Force wing of The Pentagon. The damage caused flooding that devastated vital classified information on computer tapes." Please don't base your decision on a misperception. I've represented the facts accurately. All this has bedrock solid sourcing.

And what does any of this have to do with Obama? Rick, the same question was asked about Wright and later about Rezko. Tempers flared and harsh words were posted here. I will answer the same way and hope tempers won't flare this time, and false accusations won't be made this time. The generic challenge that's always made is, "How does this Relationship X have anything to do with Obama?" The answer is, "The most notable news media in the English speaking world, and Obama's political rivals, have made Relationship X an issue in the presidential campaign. Since without the presidential campaign Obama would be as notable as Jon Tester, the controversy should be mentioned with a link to the article about it."

The New Yorker piece ... Isn't an encyclopedia biography, Wikidemo, and should not be used as a guide on how to write one. The guide on how to write a WP biography about a famous politician is, of course, all the other WP biographies about famous politicians, where controversies and scandals thrive. In those other WP biographies, scandal is called "scandal," controversy is called "controversy" and criticism, without hesitation, is called "criticism." These are dealt with in substantial length and detail, even when there is a separate article devoted to the controversy itself. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The most notable ..." - is this a quote (if so, from where)? Obama's political rivals have attempted to make his relationship with Ayers an issue in the presidential campaign (true fact, lots of sources). The most notable news media in the English speaking world have duly reported on this (true fact, lots of sources - note that these sources have not "made an issue in the presidential campaign", they've reported what the political opponents have said). However, mentioning it in a biographical article on Obama implies significance. But there really doesn't seem to be any. We don't include all news articles related to Obama (like, for example, his recent visits to Iraq and Afghanistan). There are simply too many. Mentioning this particular story gives it a non-zero WP:WEIGHT, implying either Obama has a significant relationship with Ayers (which I don't think anyone has claimed is the case) or that this story had some effect on the election. The fact that it was reported is simply not sufficient reason to include it. We similarly do not include McCain's relationship with Vicki Iseman in the main article on McCain, even though (in contrast to Obama's "relationship" with Ayers) McCain spent significant time with Iseman and supported her clients' interests on multiple occasions. Per WP:NOT, all content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nexis is an extremely powerful tool in circumstances such as this. A search can be structured with exquisite precision. I am finding a lot of prominent news media sources that discuss Obama's relationship with Ayers, without even mentioning McCain, Hillary or any other political rival of Obama's. The New Yorker article just cited by Wikidemo is an example of another type of noteworthy news media treatment: while (A) the Ayers relationship is explored and (B) McCain and/or Hillary get a mention, A is not directly linked to B. The article does not discuss any criticism from the political rivals regarding Ayers. So the media are not simply reporting attacks by political rivals as you claimed.

(By the way, that New Yorker article is a marvelous source for a few other tidbits that I'll be exploring in a couple of days.)

A comparison with McCain and Iseman is not valid, as we have previously discussed on my Talk page. Thanks for your response, but you've offered a false dichotomy here: mentioning Ayers in this article implies that either (A) the relationship was significant, or (B) the controversy had a provable impact on Obama's electability. I suggest that we have at least a (C) here: see WP:WELLKNOWN. If it's notable and well-sourced, it belongs in the article, even if it's negative and Obama dislikes all mention of it. The fact that there is a controversy, and that it's significant enough to have a very substantial and well-sourced WP article on it, indicates that it's notable enough to be mentioned here with a link.

I point out also that on the AfD, the consensus among the uninvolved editors is Keep. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep on mentioning WP:WELLKNOWN as if it's some kind of magic wand that makes your points valid, but that simply isn't the case. Although Obama is well known, his alleged relationship with Bill Ayers is not. What little of a relationship exists isn't even controversial - they have briefly worked together on the Woods Fund. What of it? The "relationship" was briefly notable when it came up in a TV debate, but beyond that it is all but non-existent (apart from by the right-wing propaganda machine, of course). So any mention of this so-called "relationship" in this BLP would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, any attempt to shoehorn it into the article would only be for the purposes of linking Obama to Ayers' alleged misdeeds, and guilt-by-association is expressly frowned upon in WP:BLP.

As far as the AFD is concerned, I will also point out that the discussion there has caused me to rethink my initial nomination. I still think it is a non-neutral piece of POV garbage, but I conceded it may have value. It definitely needs to be renamed though, as the current title is completely misleading. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy is indeed the magic wand here, SCJ. There's nothing "alleged" about the relationship. It is confirmed by many reliable sources. A prominent Chicago physician who advocates socialized medicine described Obama and Ayers as "friends." Three years in the lifespan of a man in his 40s cannot reasonably be described as "briefly" but they served together on the Woods Fund board for three years. They've also appeared together on at least two panel discussions and Ayers participated in the launching of Obama's career in politics in 1995. WP isn't attempting guilt by association, merely reporting the reactions of notable news media and notable politicians to this friendship of many years. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh come now, WB74, that's just incredibly misleading. Their connection has been correctly described as "tenuous". Let's drop this smear campaign now, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A mention of Ayers is not going to happen - no consensus to so at this point to include, well-founded objections from several that the information is POV and trivial/irrelevant, it's been discussed at length without resulting in consensus, and this new discussion isn't going anywhere. I don't see much point repeating myself but my own position until further notice is a firm "no." I'm not sure if there's anything else to talk about right now about the article but if there is we should move on to that. Wikidemo (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is not going to happen" implies ownership of this WP article, Wikidemo. Please stop. Your baiting and provocation isn't going to work either. "Discussed at length" appears to mean 16 hours in your lexicon. Rezko was discussed for a month. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing the least bit misleading about anything I have said here, SCJ. Nor am I engaged in a smear campaign and your baiting and provocation is not going to work. In your opinion, the Washington Post blogger's description of the relationship as "tenuous" is correct. But that's all it is: your opinion. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Visiting Service members in Combat Zone / War zone

Obama came to the combat and for some reason people are not allowing it. My personal opinion they are McCain supportors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, please be civil when talking to other Wikipedians. Your edits are being reverted because of Misplaced Pages policies, such as WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:WEIGHT. There is no political motivation involved. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict - addressed to Ronjohn) You seem to be a little inexperienced about Misplaced Pages. Please note the assume good faith and no personal attacks policies. Also, you've inserted the material 5 times in the last few minutes which means your account is subject to a block at any time - best to promise that you won't do it again if you want to avoid that. We don't know for sure how anyone is going to vote; few here have announced there political positions. But if it helps, if you look at the article history the three people who have objected to the material are citing value-neutral objections (trivial, not news), and have also objected to the inclusion of biased anti-Obama material in the article as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A US Senator visiting a combat zone where people die not notable Im confused as to how that is trival. if this is so trival why is there a picture of him up playing with deployed service members in 2006 when he visited us at Camp Arifjan before. There's not even a vote in process you guys just keep deleting it without even creating a discussion. --Ron John (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is an excellent place to work on user-editable descriptions of current events. I believe that with the unified login system, you should be able to access it using the same user account that you've established on WP. LotLE×talk 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed a non-free image (with an incorrectly cited reference) that is related to this news story. I recommend that Ron John seeks to build a consensus here before making any more changes to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:Ronjohn has been blocked for a short time for the 3RR/edit-warring. I believe that his contributions were initially made in good faith, but just with a lack of understanding of the focus of different Wikimedia projects and pages. After that, I think he got a bit too caught up in a desire for his specific additions to go in this specific location. Hopefully over the next day, he'll have the opportunity to read relevant WP policies and guidelines, and return as a productive editor. LotLE×talk 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

POV fork nominated for deletion

I urge all interested parties to visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy and consider Bill Ayers election controversy for deletion, due to the fact that it is an obvious POV fork to avoid WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

.....The whisker of advocacy just above is not a breech of most-proper canvassing, f'r sure; but even if it is, witchit innt, ppl would decide the case on the merits, anyway.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the general notification above is the only place I "colored" the notice with my personal thoughts on the matter. The notifications I sent out to individuals who had edited the article in question were unaltered, template-based AFD notices. I do not think this can be classified as canvassing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ Jonathan Darman, Glow Fading?, Newsweek online exclusive (11 July 2008).
2. Poll: Obama extends national lead over McCain, Associated Press (11 July 2008).
3. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.magazine15jul15,0,4906395.story

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Articles on BLP Special Enforcement Sanctions notice
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press