| Revision as of 00:50, 7 July 2007 editTurtlescrubber (talk | contribs)2,351 edits →Islam: deleting trolling..hayden see archive..other editors see hayden's talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:43, 7 July 2007 edit undoFeddhicks (talk | contribs)200 edits SteveDufour proves small print is a problem, he didn't see it so he made his edit.Next edit → | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
| '''Comment''' - I am satisfied with the footnote mention of the Rezko relationship. My understanding from previous discussions (see Bobblehead's list above) was that most editors agreed that the controversy/relationship was notable but to give it more than a sentence or footnote mention would give it undue weight (compared to other more significant topics in this article). Other political candidate articles have used similar techniques (footnote mention of notable but minor controversies) such as ]. I hope this helps. Best regards. ] 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | '''Comment''' - I am satisfied with the footnote mention of the Rezko relationship. My understanding from previous discussions (see Bobblehead's list above) was that most editors agreed that the controversy/relationship was notable but to give it more than a sentence or footnote mention would give it undue weight (compared to other more significant topics in this article). Other political candidate articles have used similar techniques (footnote mention of notable but minor controversies) such as ]. I hope this helps. Best regards. ] 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| SteveDufour removed the POV tag because he said "no topic was added to talk page to discuss possible problems" This shows how bad the small print in the footnote is. Steve read the personal life section and then looked at the talk page and didn't see any personal life discussion. However, the footnote is part of the personal life discussion. It is so hidden that a veteral editor, one who has edited Barack Obama more than hundreds and is in the top few editors as far as number of Barack Obama edits, did not even see it. '''This proves that the small print is a problem. ''' ] 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Congressional box == | == Congressional box == | ||
Revision as of 16:43, 7 July 2007
This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.
| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| 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: 10 days  |
 | 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | |||||||||||||
| 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.
| |||||||||||
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I removed the book cover
I have removed the image of The Audacity of Hope book cover from this article; the only mention is "The first, The Audacity of Hope, was published in October 2006. An Italian translation was published in April 2007, and a Spanish translation will be published in June 2007. It has remained on the New York Times Best Seller list for the 30 weeks since publication." While it identifies the book, it adds no significant content to the article that words could not alone. Note that my statements are not impugning the article's editors, but I strongly feel that the use of the image is not a fair use but is instead simple copyright infringement. --Iamunknown 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's also clear to me that this book cover, while perhaps nice to have here, does not meet agreed standards for use of non-free images on Misplaced Pages. Policing fair use is a thankless, but necessary job, and I think Iamunknown's contribution deserves (at minimum) some kind of counterpoint. I've also requested comment at Misplaced Pages:Fair use review. --HailFire 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- My counter-point was very simple, stated in the edit summary: I agree with User:Tvoz's rationale as provided on the image's page. Where is the line drawn with regard to authors? Italiavivi 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- In the real world this would certainly be accepted as fair use. I think the Misplaced Pages policy is out of control and excessively restrictive, which is a frequent problem here (e.g., the you tube hysteria of some months ago). This is a good example of an the appropriate use of an image to illustrate a section - it is not gratuitous. Common sense and the real world ought to hold some sway in the formulation of Misplaced Pages policy. Tvoz |talk 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Take this up on the policy talkpage, then. Until the policy is changed, the image cannot be used in this way. nadav (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- In the real world this would certainly be accepted as fair use. I think the Misplaced Pages policy is out of control and excessively restrictive, which is a frequent problem here (e.g., the you tube hysteria of some months ago). This is a good example of an the appropriate use of an image to illustrate a section - it is not gratuitous. Common sense and the real world ought to hold some sway in the formulation of Misplaced Pages policy. Tvoz |talk 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- My counter-point was very simple, stated in the edit summary: I agree with User:Tvoz's rationale as provided on the image's page. Where is the line drawn with regard to authors? Italiavivi 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Text added giving critical commentary and political significance. WP:FUR now seem happy. Jheald 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Trying this edit, quoting critical commentaries by notable reviewers. I think the text now has the right weight and puts both works in an informative biographical context. Perhaps even the non-free image can now be justified. Thanks Iamunknown for flagging the issue, to the editors at Misplaced Pages:Fair use review for your comments, and to all who pitched in with rewrite ideas. --HailFire 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thats a great copyedit and content addition, HailFire. Thanks for your work. :) --Iamunknown 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, nice work. Italiavivi 02:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thats a great copyedit and content addition, HailFire. Thanks for your work. :) --Iamunknown 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
well, I don't know wich translations you guys wanna mention in the article but a German version is out now too. Just to let you know.. --217.235.39.246 20:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Intro, 2004 Illinois Senate race
The opening says (or seems to imply that) a "boost" from the 2004 convention speech allowed him to win the Senate election that fall. This gives a bit of a misleading impression because Obama was a lock to win after Ryan dropped out and Keyes came in. While the speech only could have helped, it was not the reason he won. I propose that the phrase "boosted by increased national standing" be reworded and maybe put in the next sentence.--Gloriamarie 23:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Infobox/religion
"United Church of Christ" is not Obama's religion. He is Christian. United Church of Christ is his denomination. How do we fix this? — goethean ॐ 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent point, I just changed it to Christian (United Church of Christ). Does that work for you? --Bobblehead 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks. — goethean ॐ 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Archive 9
Who did the last archive? What is the point in archiving just one line of text? JayKeaton 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was the auto-archiver. Archive 8 was full, so when Miszabot archived that section it moved it to archive 9. Never fear, though, the archive will start to fill up shortly. --Bobblehead 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I don't usually bother checking the edits on high traffic/controversial pages, so I wasn't familiar with auto archivers. Thanks for taking the time to tell me ^_^ JayKeaton 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Rezko house
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Tag placed because RFC in progress. POV tag should be removed at the end of the RFC, not later or earlier.Feddhicks 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The sentence about the Rezko house is moved (text unchanged) to the body of the article. This is to avoid the appearance of trying to hide information as the original information was in tiny print hidden in the footnotes.
Nothing bad is said about Senator Obama. In fact, mention of it clears him. Hiding it makes it look like campaign supporters are trying to hide information. It is a fact that Senator Obama has the most internet supporters that any candidate of either party. It is likely that, among the hundreds of thousands of his internet supporters, that at least 1 or 2 of them use wikipedia and write for it.
This is different from the Muslim school controversy, which is a non-issue and is in fine print hidden away. Feddhicks 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- As you well know, this has already been debated, discussed and consensus reached. Tvoz |talk 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Archive 8. There was no censensus. Some people want a whole lot about the Rezko controversy. So putting everything in fine print and hiding it is the extremist viewpoint. The other extremist viewpoint is to say that Senator Obama is a crook. The neutral point of view is a neutral statement which is not hidden. Feddhicks 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A REQUEST FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. Facts of case: Some say there has been a consensus, others say not. Some say that consensus can change. Facts of the case: Some want a detailed description of the Rezko affair. Some (me) want a brief, neutral statement. Some want the statement in very small print hidden away in the footnotes. Feddhicks 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
(To the others, this may be the best way instead of edit warring. Let's see what others say.)
- Here's some links to previous discussions on this topic.--Bobblehead 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- A "Why isn't there any criticism in this article" extended discussion that includes Rezko.
- A proposal to remove mention of Rezko from the article.
- A discussion on a criticism section that includes Rezko.
- Another discussion on the criticism section including Rezko.
- Another discussion on the topic.
- A tangentially related discussion.
- As part of an exhaustive survey on the inclusion of various topics in the article.
- Another extended discussion on the subject.
- The long discussion in response to another RFC.
- Yet another extended discussion on the subject.
Request for comment answer:
I am only partially commenting. Small print is hard to read. It should be regular print if in the body of the article or bold print if in the footnotes (otherwise nobody will see it). Which one, I have no opinion because there are too many links above for me to read and ponder. Plumbing 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that User:Plumbing's account was created on 22:38, 4 July 2007, shortly after the RfC that the user replied to was started, which seems curious especially since the argument given centers on the size of the type, as per this comment which was removed hours before this user posted the above. I suspect yet another sock. Tvoz |talk 06:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Tvoz, you are too suspicious. There is mention of the print size in the RFC. You are out of line about that. You are correct about socks. I strongly suspect Plumbing is a sock of DreamGuy, a POV pusher.Mikkke2 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it was removed before "Plumbing" could have read it, unless he wrote the RfC or carefully researched the RfC's edit history which really doesn't make a lot of sense. Thanks for giving us the names of more Derek socks, including, perhaps, your own. See this. Where have I seen this before? Tvoz |talk 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- And this is likely another one - smae argument, same language, same person. Tvoz |talk 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop discouraging RFC comments which you do by launching personal attacks on people, like User: Plumbing. See what someone wrote about User:Plumbing, reproduced as follows: it just seems to be an account that is popping through multiple RfCs and doing what is requested, offering comments. --Elonka 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Further retorts and arguing just discourages any further editors from RFC comments because they don't want to be attacked. I doubt you will listen, but please try. Feddhicks 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I am satisfied with the footnote mention of the Rezko relationship. My understanding from previous discussions (see Bobblehead's list above) was that most editors agreed that the controversy/relationship was notable but to give it more than a sentence or footnote mention would give it undue weight (compared to other more significant topics in this article). Other political candidate articles have used similar techniques (footnote mention of notable but minor controversies) such as Ron Paul. I hope this helps. Best regards. Jogurney 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
SteveDufour removed the POV tag because he said "no topic was added to talk page to discuss possible problems" This shows how bad the small print in the footnote is. Steve read the personal life section and then looked at the talk page and didn't see any personal life discussion. However, the footnote is part of the personal life discussion. It is so hidden that a veteral editor, one who has edited Barack Obama more than hundreds and is in the top few editors as far as number of Barack Obama edits, did not even see it. This proves that the small print is a problem. Feddhicks 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Congressional box
This is an article about Senator Obama. Why is there a huge infobox at the end listing all of the US Senators?????
It just waste room. If one is really, really cynical, they might say that it is there to show that Senator Obama is just one of many, many Senators and try to imply that being a Senator is nothing. I think it just wastes room. Feddhicks 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Project policy. Tvoz |talk 18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Navigational boxes like this are used in many articles, and I believe they are useful. Best regards. Jogurney 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
#2 after Clinton
A sentence has been changed mentioning Senator Clinton. This article is about Senator Obama, not Senator Clinton. So a sentence has been changed like this (see article for exact text)..Obama placed second in the polls after Clinton.. Feddhicks 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- The mention of Clinton was totally appropriate here. Tvoz |talk 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Correction made in the beginning part
Senator Obama is THE leading candidate, not among the leading candidates. At least in fundraising. Give the man credit where credit is due. This is only fair, whether or not you like the man or not. Feddhicks 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think we have the return of the sock here.Tvoz |talk 17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone who agrees with me is not a sock, everyone who disagrees with me is a sock???Feddhicks 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are certain aspects about your recent editing on this article that are similar to those of Dereks1x (talk · contribs). And then there is the whole trying to defend an obvious sock thing... But all in all, most of the edits, particularly the one about Rezko has been covered over and over again on this article and general consensus is that it is adequately covered. --Bobblehead 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
See archive 8. Show me where the consensus is? If you show me, I will agree. Tvoz called me a sock, I did not say the word. Feddhicks 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- An obvious sock. Even if the ban is in limbo at the moment, it's not appropriate to create multiple socks to avoid the scrutiny of other editors per WP:SOCK, and other currently active socks are known. Second, the user cannot legitimately claim to be keeping heated issues in one area as the policy allows, as the user has used multiple socks on this article. Because of my prior experience with this user, however, I have essentially exhausted any persuasiveness I had on point, so I will not block the sock myself. · jersyko talk 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Understandable. I hope that another admin will pick it up, however. See the Rfc respondent above as well. As far as I can see, the ban itself has not been contested - only one of the proven socks, for unclear reasons. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
more books?
I read in the German article that Obama has signed a contract to write three books after the success of "Dreams from My father" of which "audacity of hope" is the first one. The second one is going to be a children's book which he's going to write together with his wife and the third one is still unknown. Can you guys confirm that? Why is it not mentioned in the article? I'm guessing everything is put on hold as long as he's running for president... Anyways, can anyone confirm the information? And is there some kind of update to it? thx, --217.235.39.246 20:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories:- 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