Talk:Dreams from My Father: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:16, 21 May 2012 edit207.29.40.2 (talk) →This Article Does Not Discuss the Actual Book ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:41, 21 May 2012 edit undoWikidemon (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →This Article Does Not Discuss the Actual Book: cheersNext edit →
Line 112:		Line 112:
	::The article is not going to be speedily deleted. As with many Misplaced Pages articles about books, it is not fully cited and could use considerable improvement. If you see any specific parts that disagree with the citations or could use better citations, please feel free to propose changes here or make reasonable incremental changes in the article per ]. Note that articles ''about'' the book are considered far better sources than the book itself, as it is our role to present findings published by other ] sources that are ]. If the source does not talk about the book or doesn't say what it's purported to say, then that is a sourcing error. Further, a source that talks about Obama should generally talk about him in the context of the book so as to avoid ], a form of ], by which Misplaced Pages editors rather than the sources are making connections between two things. Hope this helps. - ] (]) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC).		::The article is not going to be speedily deleted. As with many Misplaced Pages articles about books, it is not fully cited and could use considerable improvement. If you see any specific parts that disagree with the citations or could use better citations, please feel free to propose changes here or make reasonable incremental changes in the article per ]. Note that articles ''about'' the book are considered far better sources than the book itself, as it is our role to present findings published by other ] sources that are ]. If the source does not talk about the book or doesn't say what it's purported to say, then that is a sourcing error. Further, a source that talks about Obama should generally talk about him in the context of the book so as to avoid ], a form of ], by which Misplaced Pages editors rather than the sources are making connections between two things. Hope this helps. - ] (]) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

	::Again, it would be helpful if you read my comment (carefully!), the Misplaced Pages article (carefully!) and the WaPo source (carefully!) before citing a bunch of rules that have no application to the issues under discussion. I'm rather aghast that you're defending this article and acting as if there's merely been some minor citation or sourcing error. This article is a review of a WaPo piece called "The Ghost of a Father," not Obama's "Dreams" book. The "Ghost" article does not mention "Dreams" (and thus is not a secondary source) and many of the "facts" mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article (including the Manoa claim) do not even appear in the "Ghost" article it cites. In short, the entire article is merely made up, or its author's original research or opinion. So, speedy delete! And please don't bother responding again unless you've properly reviewed the relevant materials -- it's highly discourteous to prolong a Talk discussion in such a manner. Hope this helps.		::Again, it would be helpful if you read my comment (carefully!), the Misplaced Pages article (carefully!) and the WaPo source (carefully!) before citing a bunch of rules that have no application to the issues under discussion. I'm rather aghast that you're defending this article and acting as if there's merely been some minor citation or sourcing error. This article is a review of a WaPo piece called "The Ghost of a Father," not Obama's "Dreams" book. The "Ghost" article does not mention "Dreams" (and thus is not a secondary source) and many of the "facts" mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article (including the Manoa claim) do not even appear in the "Ghost" article it cites. In short, the entire article is merely made up, or its author's original research or opinion. So, speedy delete! And please don't bother responding again unless you've properly reviewed the relevant materials -- it's highly discourteous to prolong a Talk discussion in such a manner. Hope this helps.{{unsigned\|207.29.40.2}}
			:::Sorry, your request is not stated in a way that is intelligible or actionable by the standards of Misplaced Pages article editing. Are you saying that the first paragraph under "Narrative", the only material sourced to the Washington Post news feature, should more closely follow the gist of what is actually in the news story or the book? Well then, feel free to propose a different version. If anyone else feels like doing it they're welcome too, of course, but we're all volunteers here so berating the community for not understanding you or following your dictates isn't a terribly effective way of asking for help. Cheers, - ] (]) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:41, 21 May 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dreams from My Father 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dreams from My Father 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Theatre Reference

At the end of Chapter Ten, Obama spends two pages describing and quoting from an unattributed play. I thought I recognised the play, but came to Misplaced Pages to check, and was suprised to find there was mention of it here. I used Google to confirm the play is For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf. I think it would be helpful to mention this, though I'm not sure where it would go given the current format of the page. Aknyra (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Reader drama critic Albert Williams has now identified the play as appearing in the memoir. Is this a WP:RELIABLE source? Aknyra (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2004 Crown (Random House) edition of the book acknowledges that it excerpts the play. So that confirms the reference, but I guess it also obviates the need for Misplaced Pages to mention it. Aknyra (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Drugs?

Is it true that obama admits to using cocaine and pot in this novel? 204.184.80.26 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like he was quite a drug fiend for a time:

“

I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.... Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man...

”

Kauffner (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ayers takes credit again

Bill Ayers has taken credit for this book again, this time on videotape:

AYERS: Did you know I wrote it?

QUESTIONER: What’s that?

AYERS: I wrote “Dreams From My Father.”

CROWD: We know that.

QUESTIONER: You wrote that?

Kauffner (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's out of context, and a primary non-reliable source. Ayers joking about the subject belongs if anywhere on the Ayers article, if reliable secondary sourcing can be found that these jokes are biographically relevant. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Discussion of the claim that Bill Ayers ghostwrote Obama's book has been rejected before from this article as an unsupported WP:FRINGE theory with currency only among anti-Obama political operatives that were at the time advancing the "Obama pals with terrorists" argument as part of the election cycle. A consensus was established by WP:RfC in 2008 to exclude the material (see above on this page), and nothing has changed in the sources then. If anything, the issue withered on its own as the election politics receded. The material currently proposed is based almost entirely on opinion pieces and advocacy journalism from two unreliable publications, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker, and is in large part Jack Cashill advancing his own claims. As such it is a WP:BLP violation with respect to both Obama and Ayers. The one reliable source there, a Washington Post book review, basically says in a mocking (and therefore not fully reliable) tone that Cashill is nuts. There isn't much of a real dispute there, but to the extent it is a political matter coverage belongs in Bill Ayers presidential election controversy (where it's already mentioned). Covering Cashill and his antics is best done in the Jack Cashill artcile and, indeed it is covered (from an unduly sympathetic perspective) there. I'm removing this again - one last time before taking this to dispute resolution. Please discuss any disputed material on the talk page rather than edit warring, particularly material that has been rejected before and has a WP:BLP objection. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Several of the sources that the IP used are pretty low quality stuff. But if the problem was really just the sources, we could use either ~~Christopher Anderson~~ Christopher Andersen's Barack and Michelle (2009) or to David Remnick's The Bridge (2010). These are both widely reviewed mainstream bios. But of course you have consistently opposed including material that could interpreted as critical of Obama in any article, so I don't expect sourcing arguments to persuade you. Kauffner (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice nonsequitur personal attack there, not to mention an outright falsity. Please, if you have anything you'd like to contribute to the article please stay focused on article content. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Especially since the Christopher Anderson he linked to died in the middle of the 19th Century. Details, Bob (no, that's not outing, it's a movie quote). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that material from the article again, in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Kauffner: Do you have a suggestion for a change to the article? Do you understand that Ayers is sick and tired of people asking him whether he wrote Obama's book, and has chosen to joke about it for at least the last couple of years because his initial serious comments only resulted in more and more absurd requests for his time? Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, y'all, it's time to drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. The article has been fully protected for a time, the sourcing won't change, and (most importantly) there's an ArbCom decision in place regarding all this. And, first and foremost, WP:BLP holds precedence. If there's ANY question about the accuracy of the material or the reliability or verifiability of the source, the material's going to get pulled, end of story. Now can we please find something more constructive to do? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to interpret BLP as meaning that no negative material concerning Obama can appear in Wiki. I mean the guy is president and all, you know. Remnick has several pages about this issue and his book is a general biography of Obama: "This is a charge that if ever true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy" (p. 253); "The true author of Obama's book, Jack Cashill suggested, was likely Bill Ayers" (p. 253); "A writer for National Review's popular blog The Corner declared Cashill writings "thorough, thoughtful and alarming." (p. 254). As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that a politician's memoir is ghostwritten is an ordinary claim. JFK, Malcolm X, Hillary...you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find an American politician who wrote his own stuff. Obama's second book is rather more obviously ghostwritten. But as Ayers says in the video, that one is just a hack job, so who cares who wrote it? Obama has even claimed that writes his own speeches, but I don't anyone takes that seriously.
@Johnuniq: Once he tried to murder people with bombs, and now poor Ayers has to deal with questions! But I would say that he is quite obviously enjoying himself....making Obama squirm? ...jerking the liberal news media around? Well, whatever it is he is doing. My suggestion is that the article needs some statement somewhere, which acknowledges that a controversy exists. Ideally, this should be in the lede and it should include a link or inline citation that leads to a more detailed discussion. After all, I suspect this issue is one of the top reasons people come to this article. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, you've also demonstrated that including the Ayers material would violate WP:NPOV. Another reason to exclude it. But there still isn't a viable reason shown here to push the edits through in contravention of WP:BLP...which is why ArbCom placed the limits on these articles as they did. Now, if you feel you have a strong enough case to take to ArbCom and convince them to change their decision, feel free to do so. In the meantime, though, you'd do much better to just walk away from the horse. And that's as far as I go on this. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What edit would supposedly be in violation of BLP, and of which guideline? You write in an authoritative tone and link to various guidelines. But if you made any substantive point, I missed it. And if you believed the advise about horses, you would follow it yourself. From the way you use "NPOV" above, I have to wonder if you understand what the term means. Is this the ArbCom decision you've been referring to? It says nothing about article content. Kauffner (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:General sanctions/Obama article probation outlines conditions that apply to this article. You may want to review a page linked from there, namely the sanctions log which shows that the matter is taken seriously. Returning to this article, the situation is simple: all reliable sources agree the book was written by Obama, so that is what belongs in this article. Yes, some websites and news outlets report the gossip concerning Ayers—a mention of that may belong in some article on Ayers. However, WP:ONEWAY requires that such fringe material not be mentioned here. The only reason anyone would have to continue this discussion would be to produce a reliable source with due information that is not already in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You might try reading the discussion in this section before responding to it. Christopher Andersen's Barack and Michelle (2009), published by William Morrow, and David Remnick's The Bridge (2010), published by Vintage, both discuss this issue and either one could be used as an RS under Wiki guidelines. These were both hugely publicized books, reviewed everywhere. The point of Wiki is to create articles that are interesting or useful to the reader, which is not how I would describe this article at the moment. Kauffner (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Full circle. I'm going out on a limb and saying you're being insistent about the Andersen and Remnick books out of good faith, and not deliberately ignoring what's been pointed out by several other editors. Looking at all the discussions above, though, it does appear that consensus is to NOT include the statements by Ayers, based on WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. So, unless that consensus changes, you can expect to have any reference to Ayers' claims regarding ghostwriting removed as fast as it's added...unless, of course, something happens to sway that consensus. So it's time to put this to bed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Remnick is cited as a source in the Barack Obama article, even though he is still apparently way too fringe for this article. Kauffner (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Remnick's book The Bridge is used at Barack Obama among a flock of other sources to support three uncontroversial statements about Obama's early life. That book was well regarded, so it seems reasonable though perhaps unnecessary to list it as a source. Remnick seems like a serious careful journalist, he won a Pulitzer prize and has worked at major mainstream publications, so as a starting position I would assume any book by him is reliable as long as it sticks with journalism rather than opinion. If he says that the ghostwriting claims had a significant effect, I think that's enough to mention them here in exactly that context - that the claims were made and that they could have had an effect on the election. It might make some sense to have a section here on the history of the claims but it might make more sense to keep them where they are on Cashill's bio page and just link to that here. See, I don't object if we have good sources and they're presented neutrally. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and per my original comment Remnick's book is a new source that was not considered during the RfC so it's reasonable to take a fresh look. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No mention of William Ayers is Orwellian

round and round in circles, no conclusion Tvoz/talk 06:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is totally ridiculous that this Misplaced Pages article doesn't mention that Bill Ayers wrote dreams from my father. It is Orwellian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC) That, of course, is not what is under consideration. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC) It is sad that the truth is not under consideration yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I suggest adding something sourced to David Remnick's book that dismisses the Ayers claim. He mentions Cashill by name, so there can be a link. Kauffner (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I agree with Kauffner's suggestion. I, personally, think Obama could have easily written it himself (based upon some of his exquisite and profound discourse as far back as high school), but to leave out all mention of the Ayers claim leaves this article incomplete. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC) See WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE: articles should not unduly mention fringe claims as that gives them a false credibility. There is zero evidence that Ayers had anything to do with this book (and yes, I am aware that Ayers has made statements which confuse some people, however those statements are simply jokes arising from the frustration with being repeatedly asked inane questions). Note that I do not need reliable sources to make my comment, but reliable sources would be needed to add text to the article (something where a reliable secondary source has performed an analysis of the situation and has concluded that there is a possibility of the claim being anything other than political propaganda). Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Christopher Andersen's Barack and Michelle looked into the allegations and concluded there was something to them, so yes, an RS secondary source has, "performed an analysis of the situation and has concluded that there is a possibility of the claim being anything other than political propaganda." But this standard would seem to be your own creation. Wiki is supposed to be a summary of the secondary sources and Remnick thought these allegations were worth spending several pages rebutting. "Undue" implies that there are other more notable aspects of this book and the would be shortchanged if the authorship issue was mentioned. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Here's the thing: if there were the slightest possibility that the claim about Ayers had some merit, there would not be just a mention in a book that is apparently a quick rehash of already published material—there would be several gold-plated investigations by major media outlets with published evidence. See WP:REDFLAG: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and repeating gossip in this article would violate WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC) What major media outlet investigated Profiles in Courage? JFK got a Pulitzer out of that, you know. A modern U.S. politician who could actually write would be more extraordinary than one with a ghostwriter. Whether the claim is extraordinary or plausible is irrelevant anyway. Remnick is used as a source in the Barack Obama article. Here is what he had to say: "This was a charge that, if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy." (Remnick, p. 253) Kauffner (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Just an observation. It seems to me that both arguments are based upon Editors' opinions of the validity of the issue rather than what the Reliable Sources are saying. There seems to be no dispute that some Reliable Sources are mentioning the issue over a long period of time so to leave it out 100% would reflect obvious Editorial bias. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC) It's clearly not a valid issue so yes of course, how we cover an untruth, fringe theory or campaign smear is different than how we would cover a viable question of fact. Beyond that, though, a number of sources do occasionally mention it so it may be of due weight to include, but they all dismiss it so we would have to be careful to avoid giving it credence. These days the sources seem to be lumping the "Obama pals around with terrorists" crowd into the same camp as the "secret Muslim" and birther movement, basically analyzing it as out of politically motivated mainstream paranoia. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I have not followed it but what I do see in today's news from the RSs is exactly as you say. However, you and Kauffner seem acquainted with some books and authors which might have something worth including, maybe? I heard about the claim way back during the election and it was getting a lot of airtime then even though it seemed like just another "guilt by association" attack that was being hurled at Obama. But, maybe I'm wrong(again), isn't it just plain weird to have the issue in another article about a broader topic and not here about the specific topic? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC) While it appears weird at first glance, in fact not mentioning fringe claims in a main article is standard practice (see WP:ONEWAY). There are thousands of nutty claims on the Internet, and many of them are covered in an article about the claim. However, they are usually not mentioned in main articles because that would give a false credibility to the claim. There is no reason to believe Ayers wrote this book, so mentioning the speculation here would unduly inject doubts—exactly the reward that the fringe proponents are seeking. Anyone wondering whether there might be something to the claims about ghostwriting should think hard: Would Obama's well-financed and highly motivated opponents fail to pursue any faint possibility that Obama's authorship of this and The Audacity of Hope may not be valid? If any faint evidence were available, would it have been loudly trumpeted? The fact that the only commentary is blogosphere speculation shows that no evidence is available. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC) So you think that Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope himself? He was a busy U.S. senator then. Unlike when Dreams was written, he had plenty of money to hire a professional at that time. Hope is just standard hack output, so any number of people could have written it. Obama has also claimed that he writes his own speeches. The man must just be writing all the time. Kauffner (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Kauffner, what Johnuniq thinks, or what you think, or what I think about whether Obama wrote his books is completely irrelevant and out of place in this discussion. What is relevant is that no valid evidence has been presented supporting this fringe theory, and it therefore does not have any place in this article. Please keep your personal opinions out of it. Tvoz/talk 09:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC) It is very simple: Ayers wrote "Dreams", so quit ignoring evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to do your research for you, just point out the truth and you can take it from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk • contribs) Right. I think this conversation is over. Tvoz/talk 06:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

round and round in circles, no conclusion Tvoz/talk 06:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is totally ridiculous that this Misplaced Pages article doesn't mention that Bill Ayers wrote dreams from my father. It is Orwellian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, is not what is under consideration. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is sad that the truth is not under consideration yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding something sourced to David Remnick's book that dismisses the Ayers claim. He mentions Cashill by name, so there can be a link. Kauffner (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kauffner's suggestion. I, personally, think Obama could have easily written it himself (based upon some of his exquisite and profound discourse as far back as high school), but to leave out all mention of the Ayers claim leaves this article incomplete. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE: articles should not unduly mention fringe claims as that gives them a false credibility. There is zero evidence that Ayers had anything to do with this book (and yes, I am aware that Ayers has made statements which confuse some people, however those statements are simply jokes arising from the frustration with being repeatedly asked inane questions). Note that I do not need reliable sources to make my comment, but reliable sources would be needed to add text to the article (something where a reliable secondary source has performed an analysis of the situation and has concluded that there is a possibility of the claim being anything other than political propaganda). Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Andersen's Barack and Michelle looked into the allegations and concluded there was something to them, so yes, an RS secondary source has, "performed an analysis of the situation and has concluded that there is a possibility of the claim being anything other than political propaganda." But this standard would seem to be your own creation. Wiki is supposed to be a summary of the secondary sources and Remnick thought these allegations were worth spending several pages rebutting. "Undue" implies that there are other more notable aspects of this book and the would be shortchanged if the authorship issue was mentioned. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing: if there were the slightest possibility that the claim about Ayers had some merit, there would not be just a mention in a book that is apparently a quick rehash of already published material—there would be several gold-plated investigations by major media outlets with published evidence. See WP:REDFLAG: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and repeating gossip in this article would violate WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What major media outlet investigated Profiles in Courage? JFK got a Pulitzer out of that, you know. A modern U.S. politician who could actually write would be more extraordinary than one with a ghostwriter. Whether the claim is extraordinary or plausible is irrelevant anyway. Remnick is used as a source in the Barack Obama article. Here is what he had to say: "This was a charge that, if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy." (Remnick, p. 253) Kauffner (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation. It seems to me that both arguments are based upon Editors' opinions of the validity of the issue rather than what the Reliable Sources are saying. There seems to be no dispute that some Reliable Sources are mentioning the issue over a long period of time so to leave it out 100% would reflect obvious Editorial bias. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly not a valid issue so yes of course, how we cover an untruth, fringe theory or campaign smear is different than how we would cover a viable question of fact. Beyond that, though, a number of sources do occasionally mention it so it may be of due weight to include, but they all dismiss it so we would have to be careful to avoid giving it credence. These days the sources seem to be lumping the "Obama pals around with terrorists" crowd into the same camp as the "secret Muslim" and birther movement, basically analyzing it as out of politically motivated mainstream paranoia. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not followed it but what I do see in today's news from the RSs is exactly as you say. However, you and Kauffner seem acquainted with some books and authors which might have something worth including, maybe? I heard about the claim way back during the election and it was getting a lot of airtime then even though it seemed like just another "guilt by association" attack that was being hurled at Obama. But, maybe I'm wrong(again), isn't it just plain weird to have the issue in another article about a broader topic and not here about the specific topic? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

While it appears weird at first glance, in fact not mentioning fringe claims in a main article is standard practice (see WP:ONEWAY). There are thousands of nutty claims on the Internet, and many of them are covered in an article about the claim. However, they are usually not mentioned in main articles because that would give a false credibility to the claim. There is no reason to believe Ayers wrote this book, so mentioning the speculation here would unduly inject doubts—exactly the reward that the fringe proponents are seeking. Anyone wondering whether there might be something to the claims about ghostwriting should think hard: Would Obama's well-financed and highly motivated opponents fail to pursue any faint possibility that Obama's authorship of this and The Audacity of Hope may not be valid? If any faint evidence were available, would it have been loudly trumpeted? The fact that the only commentary is blogosphere speculation shows that no evidence is available. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So you think that Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope himself? He was a busy U.S. senator then. Unlike when Dreams was written, he had plenty of money to hire a professional at that time. Hope is just standard hack output, so any number of people could have written it. Obama has also claimed that he writes his own speeches. The man must just be writing all the time. Kauffner (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner, what Johnuniq thinks, or what you think, or what I think about whether Obama wrote his books is completely irrelevant and out of place in this discussion. What is relevant is that no valid evidence has been presented supporting this fringe theory, and it therefore does not have any place in this article. Please keep your personal opinions out of it. Tvoz/talk 09:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is very simple: Ayers wrote "Dreams", so quit ignoring evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to do your research for you, just point out the truth and you can take it from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk • contribs)

Right. I think this conversation is over. Tvoz/talk 06:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This Article Does Not Discuss the Actual Book

This article largely cannibalizes a Washington Post article about Obama. It is certainly not about Obama's book. Inexcusably, this article presents as "narrative" facts that appear NOWHERE in "Dreams." Speedy deletion is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 20 May 2012

Please do more than give an opinion: give examples with sources for what you think is wrong with the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I did. Please read my comment again. I noted that the article is based on a WaPo article (see the footnotes) not the book.

It is the burden of the article's author, not me, to provide proper sources and insure that the article addresses its purported topic. However, to respond to your improper request (this once) the article states in the very first paragraph that Obama's parents met at the University of Manoa. That fact is not set forth in the book -- precisely why the author's failure to give citations is so egregious. Whether that fact is true or not is irrelevant. The article is a review of a specific book, not a general biography of Obama. So if you object to the wholesaler deletion of the article, go through it line-by-line and indicate on which page of "Dreams" each purported fact appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is not going to be speedily deleted. As with many Misplaced Pages articles about books, it is not fully cited and could use considerable improvement. If you see any specific parts that disagree with the citations or could use better citations, please feel free to propose changes here or make reasonable incremental changes in the article per WP:BRD. Note that articles about the book are considered far better sources than the book itself, as it is our role to present findings published by other secondary sources that are reliable. If the source does not talk about the book or doesn't say what it's purported to say, then that is a sourcing error. Further, a source that talks about Obama should generally talk about him in the context of the book so as to avoid "synthesis", a form of "original research", by which Misplaced Pages editors rather than the sources are making connections between two things. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

Again, it would be helpful if you read my comment (carefully!), the Misplaced Pages article (carefully!) and the WaPo source (carefully!) before citing a bunch of rules that have no application to the issues under discussion. I'm rather aghast that you're defending this article and acting as if there's merely been some minor citation or sourcing error. This article is a review of a WaPo piece called "The Ghost of a Father," not Obama's "Dreams" book. The "Ghost" article does not mention "Dreams" (and thus is not a secondary source) and many of the "facts" mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article (including the Manoa claim) do not even appear in the "Ghost" article it cites. In short, the entire article is merely made up, or its author's original research or opinion. So, speedy delete! And please don't bother responding again unless you've properly reviewed the relevant materials -- it's highly discourteous to prolong a Talk discussion in such a manner. Hope this helps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, your request is not stated in a way that is intelligible or actionable by the standards of Misplaced Pages article editing. Are you saying that the first paragraph under "Narrative", the only material sourced to the Washington Post news feature, should more closely follow the gist of what is actually in the news story or the book? Well then, feel free to propose a different version. If anyone else feels like doing it they're welcome too, of course, but we're all volunteers here so berating the community for not understanding you or following your dictates isn't a terribly effective way of asking for help. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories: