This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Josiah Rowe (talk | contribs) at 06:27, 1 May 2008 (→Head of State: wrong why). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:27, 1 May 2008 by Josiah Rowe (talk | contribs) (→Head of State: wrong why)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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: 5 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 multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Columbia University Template:WPCD-PeoplePlease add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
| A third Featured Article Review was commenced on this article on 2008-03-26. It was closed without a specific result on 2008-04-15. Discussion is ongoing as to the result of the FAR. |
| 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: 5 days |
Wright compromise at last?
It seems that we may, finally have reached a compromise over the wording in the paragraph concerning Jeremiah Wright. Let me summarize the three positions:
- "Pro-Obama" text
- In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race.
- "Anti-Obama" text
- Also in March, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Videos surfaced of some of Wright's sermons (in which he claimed, for example, that the government invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color, and attributed the 9/11 attacks to American faults ranging from taking the country from the Indian tribes by terror, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libya, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and supporting state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa). Following negative media coverage and a drop in the polls, Obama responded by condemning some of Wright's remarks and cutting Wright's connections to his Presidential campaign. He also delivered a speech devoted to the subject, which he sought to put it in the context of racial and other political divides in America. Although the speech was generally well-received, critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.
- Compromise text
- In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's longterm relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. ABC News found several racially and politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright, a former member of the US Marines and Navy, including his suggestion that the U.S. bore some responsibility for the September 11 attacks due to past policies, and his questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS. Some of Wright's statements were widely interpreted as anti-American, though one report found precedents in an essay by Fredrick Douglass. Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but refused to disown the man himself. Although the speech, which attempted to explain and contextualize the comments, was generally well-received, some continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.
Have we now reached a satisfactory compromise that means we can put this issue to bed (unless it flares up again with new revelations, etc.) and move on to other things? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I may have spoken too soon (see above) -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- also even though the redirect works fine- frederick douglass is the proper spelling... if we end up keeping... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should be mentioned that Obama went to this guy's church for 20 years.thezirk (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. Grsz11 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- The "compromise" is an improvement, but is in one respect completely unacceptable. Wright didn't engage in "questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS". Yes, the anonymous FOXNews writer (not Goldblatt despite the template, which needs to be fixed -- Goldblatt merely "contributed") wrote "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks." but supplies the quote he's referring to: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.” Wright isn't "questioning" anything. He makes an assertion. Twice. And it's about the invention, not the spread. Hard to understand how FOX got it so wrong, but we don't have to repeat it. The source for the Douglass reference, e.g., says: "...he has a weakness for theories that match his sense of outrage but not the facts, as when he repeated the popular conspiracy theory that “the government lied about inventing the H.I.V. virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”" ((...and the msnbc.com reference says "Wright can be heard arguing"(sic; another RS falsehood)"that HIV-AIDS was a U.S. government plot to wipe out 'people of color'".))
- Speaking of the Douglass reference, it is based on this, by Kelefa Sanneh:
Frederick Douglass, in an appendix to his “Narrative,” earnestly assures readers that he is not an atheist, then redoubles his attack on the theology of slaveholding America: “Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked.” (Or, rendered into cable-news crawl: “CONTROVERSIAL MEMOIRIST ATTACKS RELIGION. DOUGLASS: AMERICAN VALUES ‘WICKED.’ ”)
- ...which is a pretty weak reed with which to support "one report found precedents(sic) in an essay by Fredrick Douglass". It's only in Sanneh's mind that Douglass' comment about the Christianity of the white churches of the South (given what he - unlike Sanneh apparently - knew about the evangelical roots of abolitionism I cannot credit the notion that Douglass was speaking about all of America when he says "this land") has some meaningful parallel with Wright's ravings. "DOUGLASS: AMERICAN VALUES ‘WICKED.’" is false in a way in which "WRIGHT: 9/11 AMERICA'S FAULT" isn't.
- And the business about Wright's military service, presumably inserted to offset the suggestion that Wright's remarks were "anti-American", really looks odd. It's questionable logic (there are other reasons to join the military than patriotism -- FancyCat's original RS says "But disenchanted by what he felt was an inadequate Christian response to the civil rights movement, he abruptly ended his pastoral pursuits and joined the U.S. Navy", which is not like marching down to the recruiting office after 9/11), and the charge it answers is equally non-specific (most blame-America-firsters claim a patriotic loyalty to some vision of America). Note that there's nothing in the "anti-Obama" text about "anti-Americanism". One nice thing about a quote is it lets the reader supply the characterizations, so we don't have to argue about them.
- But I've left both Douglass and the Navy in. Bad writing, but off my main point, which is that this recitation of this first storm over Wright be told in such a way as to not obscure why Wright is a problem for Obama. Andyvphil (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for rejoining the conversation in a civil and productive manner, Andy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have added the quote from the New York Times and a section header. It would be nice to have at least one quote in this article from someone who isn't singing hallelujah about Obama in four-part harmony. I hope the New York Times is sufficiently notable and reliable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- This sort of sarcasm and uncooperative attitude is not helpful, Kossack. Most of the editors here are trying to reach a compromise wording for the paragraph (and there does seem to be a real consensus that Wright deserves only one paragraph, and no section heading). Ignoring the discussion and jumping in with sarcastic remarks is disruptive. Try harder to remain civil. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's just awesome. You two have all but completely ignored the discussion and put your totally non-neutral wording back into the article without even paying lip service to consensus-building or anything difficult like that. Kossack's pathetic excuse was that the article sounded too positive, so he added all this negative stuff, in direct violation of Misplaced Pages policies, just to make it sound more negative. Everyone is trying really hard to make this work except you two, and I am now considering lending my support to mediation because anyone in their right mind will see your edits for what they truly are - a coordinated smear campaign designed to introduce negative bias to influence the democratic process. I'm so incensed by this that I'm going to turn my computer off for a few hours and find some inanimate object to destroy or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think its time for you to take a few steps back. Arkon (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Scjessey, I understand your frustration, but Arkon is right — reacting emotionally isn't going to help us get anywhere. As it happens, I think that Andy actually is trying to work with other editors here. Kossack's addition was less cooperative and less respectful of the consensus-building process, but it's not helpful to lump Andy and Kossack together. Let's all try to remain cool, OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel that the part about him being in the US Marines and Navy should be in there. Why is it there? It has nothing to do with anything, it's just there. I felt the compromise was good, just that one thing should be changed since it doesn't serve a purpose.QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, it probably shouldn't be. Looks just like a way of trying to justify his remarks. But this article isn't about Jeremiah Wright. thezirk (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The mention of Wright's military service is placed in the context of Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech — and indeed, Obama did mention Wright's service as a Marine in that speech. Previous edits had included a mention of Wright's military service earlier in the paragraph, where it was less appropriate. You're right that the article isn't about Jeremiah Wright, and that details of his life aren't relevant — except insofar as they became issues in Obama's campaign and life. Since Obama, in explaining his decision not to disown Jeremiah Wright, pointed to his service to the poor and his country, I think that it's appropriate that we do the same. It's not a justification of Wright's remarks, it's important context for Obama's decision not to denounce the man. (The remarks, of course, have been denounced, a point which critics seem to want to ignore.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Relationship with William Ayers
Much as the Obama pundits have been deleting this, it's unavoidable that we include Obama's relationship with Ayers, which is going to be a talking point for the rest of his candidacy. Especially considering how poorly he handled the questions about Ayers, and Ayers past, there is no way there won't be questions about it, and people with questions about that will logically come here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs)
- Regarding, "which is going to be a talking point", please note that Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Grsz11 01:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- And regarding "pundit", I do not think that word means what you think it means. --jpgordon 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- A pundit (sometimes mispronounced pundant) is someone who offers mass-media opinion, analysis or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport), on which they are presumed to be knowledgeable. As the term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities lacking special expertise, however, it can be used in a derogative manner. Pundit is also a slang term for politically biased people attempting to be neutral.
- Pretty much nailed it, I believe. You two clearly have no intention of allowing Obama's Misplaced Pages page to be anything but a pro-Obama puff piece. --Fovean Author
- Rather, can you state what relevance this has to his biography? Grsz11 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- And regarding "pundit", I do not think that word means what you think it means. --jpgordon 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It probably more appropriate for the campaign article, unless it becomes more noteworthy. Obama's campaign has acknowledged they are "friendly", but Obama appears friendly with many people, to many to mention in a biography. It is me i think (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's probably only appropriate if it becomes noteworthy at all. Politicians know lots of people. It's a simple guilt by association tactic that, according to policy, should be deleted. Grsz11 01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It probably more appropriate for the campaign article, unless it becomes more noteworthy. Obama's campaign has acknowledged they are "friendly", but Obama appears friendly with many people, to many to mention in a biography. It is me i think (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Or it could be more appropriate in the IL state senate article, since they know each other from IL, but I am not sure when the relationship fits, but it has been talked about in context of the presidential campaign. It is me i think (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Guilt by association is not sufficient to send someone to jail, but it's a useful and appropriate way to measure a man's character. If you associate with mafioso, you might not be mafia, but we know a little more about your character. If John McCain's 20 year pastor was a racist like David Duke and another long term friend was the Oklahoma bomber it would be newsworthy (at the least).
I don't know why anyone other than an Obama campaign volunteer like Grsz would actively try to hide Obama's associations with a racist (Wright) and a terrorist (Ayers). These two characters (and Obama's wife who is finally proud of America) give important insight into a man which we barely know. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and your point of view is oh so neutral. Was I the only one who argued against it? No. Thanks, Grsz11 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder if Grsz admits these issues are important now that his candidate got handily spanked in Pennsylvania. 72.205.37.144 (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
We need to include all relevant information, his associations are a huge part of his public persona and the media has noted this many times. Include this information, it's relevant and it's notable. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the Ayers information to the article. Clearly we have consensus - even Grsz's criteria of 'if it proves noteworthy.' There isn't anyone in the old or new news media who aren't 'noting it' now. Fovean Author (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. You don't have a consensus. Notability is not the only criteria for inclusion in a BLP. --Ubiq (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I DO have a consensus, and 'making Obama look good' is also not a criteria for inclusion. I don't care if this rattles you guys at Obama Campaign Headqarters, but in fact this is a relevant reference to Obama's life, it is WELL documented, and it is pertinant.Fovean Author (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, really. Did Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and John McCain get a Misplaced Pages account that we don't know about? Grsz 03:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I DO have a consensus, and 'making Obama look good' is also not a criteria for inclusion. I don't care if this rattles you guys at Obama Campaign Headqarters, but in fact this is a relevant reference to Obama's life, it is WELL documented, and it is pertinant.Fovean Author (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like 3 editors have stated objections, 2 of which contribute to this article on a normal basis, and 3 editors want it to be included, none of which contribute to this article on a regular basis. You can fling accusations about who you think is an Obama supporter ad nauseam, but it doesn't really help your arguments. The edits in question are not pertinent to his life, are not about events that have had a significant influence about any aspect of his life, and they would only serve to perpetuate an association fallacy, something that an encyclopedia's role does not entail. If you want people to know about it so badly, go write about it in your blog or make a YouTube video or something. It doesn't belong in his biography. --Ubiq (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, the IPs are the same editor. Grsz 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like 3 editors have stated objections, 2 of which contribute to this article on a normal basis, and 3 editors want it to be included, none of which contribute to this article on a regular basis. You can fling accusations about who you think is an Obama supporter ad nauseam, but it doesn't really help your arguments. The edits in question are not pertinent to his life, are not about events that have had a significant influence about any aspect of his life, and they would only serve to perpetuate an association fallacy, something that an encyclopedia's role does not entail. If you want people to know about it so badly, go write about it in your blog or make a YouTube video or something. It doesn't belong in his biography. --Ubiq (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was counting fovean, quirky and the IP as a total of 3. Either way 3 to 3 is not the consensus he claims. --Ubiq (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the heading about William Ayers because the topic does not deserve its own heading. Whatever verifiable information there is, of course, ought to be included, NPOV as possible, possibly under a heading entitled "controversies," or some other such grouping that could cover other topics as well in such a long article. The point is not to give undue weight to a singular issue for which journalistic coverage and the information generally known to be available do not represent it as equally important as, for instance, the other topics which are given their own headings in the article. - Aratuk (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is mentioned - in the article about his campaign, because that's where it's relevant. Grsz 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake to omit the information about Ayers from this article. The #1 reason I cite is the disparity in the ratio of included controversial material in the B. Obama article and the H. Clinton article. Certainly, if we under-report Obama's controversies (even in brief) from this article, we are putting our thumb on the scale in favor of him. That favoring occurs because naturally, Mr. Obama, being newer to the national political scene, will have less information reported about him. However, it's not the qty of the subject matter reporting that ought to be measured, but rather, how fully in the inclusion or exclusion of the information, informs the reader of the total picture of the person. Obama is now a national figure. Serious allegations and controversies must be mentioned (at least in brief) in the main article. Frankly, it is unprecedented that a leading US Presidential candidate freely associate(s)/(d) with a unrepentant domestic bomber. William Ayers is on recent record as an admitted criminal bomber. Omitting any pointers to that relationship from this article is a gross abdication of perspective and balance. 7390r0g (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm open to a brief (probably one-sentence) mention of the Ayers matter, if we can source it to unimpeachable sources. However, it's worth remembering that the BLP policy will encourage underreporting of any controversy, for any person, because most such "controversies" are pushed by sources which don't meet the high standards of reliability which BLP requires. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any justification for mentioning "the Ayers matter", as you put it. Such a thing would be only be appropriate in the campaign article, insofar as it has been given sensationalist media exposure, but in the context of Obama's life it lacks any significance whatsoever. If a consensus forms to include anything about Ayers, any mention of the whole "weatherman" thing would violate the Misplaced Pages "do no harm" policy. His association with Obama is based on their shared experience with the Woods Fund of Chicago, and not with anything in Ayers' distant past. I believe that the association has been given a more than sufficient treatment here, and I would regard any attempt to add information to this article as a POV push. - Scjessey (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"I would regard any attempt to add information to this article as a POV push"... interesting. Let me posit a question to you. Are you saying that the mere inclusion of any mention of Ayers is by definition POV? If so, how did you come to that conclusion? As I see it, if your premise is true 'this is inherently POV stuff', then isn't the reciprocal of that premise also true, ie: unilateral exclusion of it is also POV?. Personally, my view is that any United States Senator, by virtue of holding that office, is an extremely notable person, about whom many people are interested to learn more. Senator Obama's relationship/friendhip is not notable because Obama is a Presidential candidate in 2008. No, it's notable because it's illustrative of Obama's comfort level regarding whom he is willing to associate. I remember when Nixon was still alive and close with BeBe Reboza. Suffice it to say, Reboza had some unsavory elements to his background and it was very reasonable that people wanted to know: "Wow - Nixon is pals with Reboza". Likewise, Ayers has a very high profile and unsavory past. The fact that Obama is friends with him does not become exclusive to 2008 campaign. Think about it, if Obama was not running, how would you justify excluding the Ayers connection from this article? The answer is that you couldn't. Ayers is notable and controversial. Obama is close to him. That connection deserves a mention. BTW: If César Chávez were still alive and he were also friends with Obama, would you exclude that fact too - simply because some in the media might be clucking about it? We are letting the tail wag the dog if we let muckrackers/bloggers, etc. force us into capricious limits on fact inclusion - simply because some elements of the media are pronse to hysteria. Ayers is on record as saying "I don't regret setting bombs," Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough." . As I see it, that makes Ayers very notable and by extention, his friendship with Obama is notable. Also, as per this Boston Globe article from April 18, 2008 it's reasonably clear that the connection between Obama and Ayers is notable, (albeit controversial as well). Here too is another article, but one which points out Ayers details in another light. LA Times puts their perspective on Obama/Ayers. This link On Hot Air has what I feel is possibly an illuminating quote from a poster "The whole Bill Ayers situation says more about the the left-wing Democrat mob-church that runs Chicago and forgives sins though social action than any social climber that comes though there." Also, Powerline has some readable (if not overwrought) details that add light. Anyway, as I see it, it's this quote ""Like many other tenured and well-heeled radicals, Ayers keeps hoping for a revolutionary upheaval that will finally bring down American capitalism and imperialism," wrote Stern. "But now, instead of planting bombs in bathrooms, has been planting the seeds of resistance and rebellion in America's future teachers, who will then pass on the lesson to the students in their classrooms." from this article which makes clear that Ayers is notable enough that his friendship Obama ought to be mentioned and it shuld be mentioned here, in this article. Ayers, as an unrpentant doer of criminal deeds, because he now has some influence, while still persuing a path of radicalism, is a notable person. And, the fact that the Ayers home was the location which held Obama's very 1st state senate election meeting, makes clear that the Ayers connection predates election 2008. Ayers, a dyed-in-the-wool radical, has been very helpful to and is close to Obama. Omitting that connection is, of itself, a form of POV. I leave it to others to see how it can be mentioned, but mentioned it should be. 7390r0g (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Ayers content is included in relevant articles about the 2008 presidential campaign. Please do not continue to re-insert references in this biography with the justification that "omission" is POV. Every event of Obama's political campaigns cannot be included in what is a summary article of his life. Thanks. Harro5 05:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For the records, I HAVE NOT "inserted" ANY referrences to Ayers into this article. Rather, I am attempting to discuss WHY a modest one SHOULD BE inserted. I ask that yuo cease merely reiterating a routine "NO! It's campaign related" EXCUSE and instead ACTUALLY DISCUSS the pros/cons of inclusion. Here again are the pros:
- 1) Obama is a senator - this makes him notable - regardless of being a pres. candidate.
- 2) Bill Ayers is notable and controversial on his own accord - if you don't believe that read his wiki page!
- 3) Obama's Chicago political career initiated his 1st campaign at a meeting in Ayers home!
- 4) This Ayers help pre-dates by far, election 2008
- 5) Obama has many connections to Ayers going back many years.
Attempting to sweep this away into some other article is blatant manipulation and POV.
I recommend the inclusion of a single sentence in the "Cultural and political image" section of this article:
- In recent times, as his public profile has risen, some of Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko have been the subject of increased scrutiny.
This sentence states indisputable notable facts and is appropriate because the "Cultural and political image" section is a virtual puff-piece for Obama. You can't open the door to personal criticism by having a section called "Cultural and political image" and then refuse to allow any negatives into that section - only positives. Such editng is absurd!
Forcing any and all negatives about Obama's "Cultural and political image" out of the article on the basis of "campaign" makes me question why we even HAVE a section called "Cultural and political image" if we are going to purposefully exclude all unflattering detail from that section... Who's kidding who here? 7390r0g (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no evidence to suggest Obama's relationship with Ayers can be characterized as "close", or "a friendship". What little "relationship" there is can be safely regarded as insignificant. It is true that both individuals are notable, but their relationship to one another is not, except in the minds of the FOX News-watching sheep. Furthermore, a sentence beginning with, "In recent times" is almost certainly going to violate WP:RECENT. This is a clear attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, and it is laughably transparent. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The only thin "laughably transparent" around here, is the obvious schemes by whitewash minded editors who seek to put 'we love Obama' spin on this article. And for your information, the solution to you complaint is to strike "In recent times", leaving us with:
- "As his public profile has risen, some of Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko have been the subject of increased scrutiny.
Now, with that correction made, does anyone here dare dispute that the above sentence is 100% true? Does anyone DENY that Senator Obama's associations with those two have been the subject of increased scrutiny?
I will wait one day and if no honest-broker reasons for keeping my suggested sentence out appear, I am inserting it. It's a true fact. It's a notable fact. It's germane to the section I intend to put it in and it's written in strictly non-pov manner. Does anyone deny this? 7390r0g (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say that wording was true, neutral and appropriate. It's not appropriate to go into details of Obama's relationship with Ayers (or lack thereof), but it has been the subject of media scrutiny. I haven't checked the sources mentioned above, so I'm not sure which (if any) of them would be best to use as a reference for this proposed sentence. Ideally, it should be something from a highly reliable source (not an opinion column or editorial — but analysis is OK) noting the scrutiny and possibly mentioning its effect on Obama's public image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Where are you intending to insert this sentence? Why are we mentioning Rezko yet again? Only the right wing loonies are "scrutinizing" Obama's connection with Ayers, and filling the sentence out by mentioning Rezko in the same breath may make it seem "true" and "neutral", but it is certainly not appropriate. It is just another guilt-by-association wrap that is best dealt with by the campaign article. There is nothing sinister about Obama's connection with Ayers (who has never been convicted of anything, has become a distinguished professor, and only knows Obama through a connection with a now defunct charity). Why don't we just let Sean Hannity maintain this article by himself? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey, to answer your question "Where are you intending to insert this sentence?": As I stated, the sentence which I intend to insert into this article is:
- "As his public profile has risen, some of Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko have been the subject of increased scrutiny.
and I intend to insert it in the section titled "Cultural and political image". As I see it, that section title and the current content of it, opens the door to the sentence which I wish to put in.
It is simply preposterous to suggest that my sentence is POV in any way - it's not. There is no slander, no slight, no negative in that sentence. My sentence does nothing more than allow the reader to comprehend three 100% true, neutral, germane, salient facts pertaining to Obama's "Cultural and Political image" - those facts being:
- 1) Obama's been associated with these two people.
- 2) Those two people are controversial.
- 3) Obama's association with them has been subject to increased scrutiny.
Frankly, I am not impressed at all with Scjessey arguments on this point. As I see it, he's got WP:OWN problems here and needs to back off. 7390r0g (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Er, no. What you are doing, by mentioning Ayers and Rezko (who are unrelated) in the same sentence is creating a conflation. This is a sum-greater-than-parts approach, and the result is negative POV. This is a common tactic, as evidenced by Andy's comments below. And I'm not sure who you think you are telling me to back off. I am simply trying to ensure the article remains neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey, I applaud your pure motives, but I suggest that your vision is clouded here. There is no "conflation" in my suggested sentence. The subject of the sentence is the "increased scrutiny" of "controversial association(s)". My sentence allows a readers to read for themselves - at the corresponding linked articles, who those people are and what they are all about. Scjessey, you presume that a reader of my sentence MUST come away with some adverse conclusion about Obama - because of my sentence. That reasoning is not grounded in the facts at hand, but is based on the negative spin you impute into my sentence. The sentence I am sugegsting, in no way is negative for Obama. Those other individuals stand or fall on their own merits - and the wiki pages for them will reflect that. However, to exclude from this article the truth that Obama's association with those two has come under increased scrutiny - merely because you conjecture that it's a negative (and you do conjecture that - you've been saying POV! POV!), does not make my desired edit fail wiki standards. I ask that you volunteer to put this point of discussion up for a request for comment. I've made my views clear - as have you. Let's not argue. Let's seek wider consensus from the community. 7390r0g (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you don't see the problem with your proposal, but the problem still exists. Your reason for introducing this conflation, as you have already stated is, "the disparity in the ratio of included controversial material in the B. Obama article and the H. Clinton article," which is not an appropriate justification at all. Yes, there has been scrutiny, but that has been a result of the Presidential campaign. The Ayers association motivated by a guilt-by-association agenda, and the conflation with Rezko adds more weight to what would otherwise be a non-story. Furthermore, the actual details of Obama's association with Ayers are already covered in a sub-article where they can be given the appropriate exposure. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You entirely miss the point of the sentence, which is: to alert the reader that there has been increased scrutiny of controversial associations. You can't have an entire section about a Senator's "Cultural and Political image" but then screen out factual data points merely because that information might be interpreted as a negative. Our readers are not fools - they can decide for themselves if Ayers and/or Rezko are "bad" (as you seem to suggest our readers will conclude). If as you say, the things with Ayers are all the the past, well then where's the beef? On the other hand, Resko is likely more of a controversy for himself and for Obama as the association there is close and many people are troubled by the charges against Resko (hence the increased scutiny). Also, I see that you did not respond to my suggestion. I think we should open up a request for comment. I want my sentence included in the section I have mentioned and you are opposed to that. We are at an impasse. If you won't agree to seeking wider comment, then I feel that you do indeed have WP:OWN issues here. Yes or no, will you agree to a request for comment? I seek your agreement to go forward on that as I prefer consensus to confrontation. Please reply on this point today. I will look for your answer later on this evening. 7390r0g (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is not Misplaced Pages's job to "alert the reader that there has been increased scrutiny of controversial associations," as you put it, as it would violate WP:RECENT. First of all, the Rezko-related material has already been given a treatment in the article so further mentions would violate WP:WEIGHT. Secondly, there is only increased scrutiny on the trivial association with Bill Ayers because Obama is in the middle of a campaign, and because Hannity made a big deal out of it on the radio. There is a case for including it in the campaign article on that basis, but even that is tenuous at best. Thirdly, there is no reason to mention the two associations together other than to conflate the separate issues to push a negative agenda. Fourthly, you do not need my permission or consent to seek a request for comment, as it seems you are extremely fond of doing. Finally, I resent you implication that I somehow claim ownership of the article. There is no evidence in my edit history to support your claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's evident that you are combatively closed-minded and are not interested in reaching common ground. And frankly, I resent your mocking tone and your wiki-lawyering. I am inserting the sentence as per above. If you don't like it, you can start an RFC - I offered that to you. 7390r0g (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Try to be a bit more civil if you can. Scjessey raises some good points. BLPs don't serve as a news source, and it isn't our job in this article to "alert the reader that there has been increased scrutiny of controversial associations" so much as to inform the reader about Barack Obama's life. Criteria for inclusion in a BLP isn't merely: 1. fact 2. sourced. It has to be demonstrated that this holds particular relevance to his life, and as Scjessey alluded to, it might be quite a bit too early to show that it does. Obama has also been criticized and drawn scrutiny for a vast number of things due to the territory that comes with being a presidential candidate. We can't list them all in his BLP just because they happen to facts. --Ubiq (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ubiq, your personal attack against me ("Try to be a bit more civil if you can") reeks of snideness and is unwarranted, please withdraw it. Further, I am be fully civil, 100%. Now, as to the sentence under discussion, are you saying we are not the "alert the reader" to things? Frankly, if that's the case, why are we telling the readers what (for example) Andrew Sullivan and other commentators think? Why is that relevant and the sentence I advance here, not? Further, you are attempting to twist my dialog on this page so as to impeach the merit of my edit. The merit of my edit speaks for itself. I've added many reasons here, but why I get in return is wiki-lawyering and insults. Frankly, I think this page is well overdue for some RFC input - we could use some fresh insight. Also, there is no BLP violation with my sentence and it's false to say that there is. I will tell you though, now that I see the retorts my sincere efforts have been slapped with, I understand why this article is such a squsihy blob of puffery. Just look what happens on the talk page - try to add A SINGLE SENTENCE and you get reams and reams of legalistic justifications to block it. My word, I amazed that there is so much WP:OWN vigor on this page. 7390r0g (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you have actually read WP:OWN, which has no relevancy to this. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey, please stop leaping to conclusions and hurling insults. How can you say "I don't think you have actually read..." without asking me first? That's very insulting - and evidently, intentionally so. Frankly, if you keep this up, I feel that I should report you for user conduct. Now for your informationm, you can find this "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." at WP:OWN and it's EXACTLY what I am suggesting you are doing - and you are doing it in violation of the spirit (and guidelines of this wiki) so please stop!. I am going to ask you again: yes or no, will you agree to a content RFC regarding this disagreement? I believe we can benefit ffrom outside input? Will you agree to that? 7390r0g (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look. I'm only going to say this one more time because it is clear you are just ignoring all common sense here. The sentence you are trying to add is not appropriate in this article for the following reasons:
- It violates WP:BLP with respect to WP:HARM#TEST because you are trying to use guilt-by-association by drawing attention to Obama's tenuous relationship to Bill Ayers because of something Obama has nothing to do with.
- It violates WP:WEIGHT because it suggests an increase of scrutiny over Tony Rezko, where none exists, and because Rezko is already covered in the article.
- It violates WP:NPOV because the mention of Ayers and Rezko in the same sentence, whose controversies are not related, is a conflation that introduces a negative point-of-view, even if that is not your intention.
- It violates WP:RECENT because it draws attention to recent campaign events, and has no longevity in a biography of Obama's entire life.
- It violates WP:RS because... well.... you didn't actually provide any at all.
- It violates WP:OR because you made the sentence up yourself, without referring to, or including any, reliable sources.
- So can you understand why I would think this sentence would be inappropriate now? It violates five Misplaced Pages policies and two essays. Do you really think this article would have reached and maintained FA status if the editors had let folks throw in any old bit of unsourced original research? Please consider self-reverting your edit, for which you have no consensus for introducing. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are free to file an RFC any time you want and don't need the approval of others to do so. I don't think your behavior on this talk page is acceptable. Your notion that my suggestion for you to be a bit more civil somehow constitutes a personal attack (and subsequent demand for a retraction) is a prime example. I'm not going to engage in discussion with you unless I see you being nicer and less combative. I'd recommend Scjessey to do the same. As it stands, there is no consensus for inclusion of this disputed content and the edit has been reverted. Go for an RFC if you feel this still warrants inclusion. --Ubiq (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- For better or worse, right-wing loonies like Sean Hannity have an influence on our national discourse these days. We can't ignore that reality. Of course, we shouldn't pretend that they're reliable sources of factual information, but they do have an influence on public perceptions. I don't think it's appropriate to argue the details of how much Obama did or didn't have a relationship with Ayers here, but it is appropriate to note that some media sources have pushed the relationship as a story, and that it's had an impact in some quarters. If you can find a reliable source discussing the way that right-wing media have pushed the story, the one sentence could say something like ""As his public profile has risen, some conservative media outlets have scrutinized Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko.'" But again, I haven't checked the sources to see what they say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- My contention is that this issue does not seem to be biographically relevant. It is already covered in here, and that should be more than sufficient. Also, the attempt to conflate Ayers with Rezko is a clear POV-push. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- For better or worse, right-wing loonies like Sean Hannity have an influence on our national discourse these days. We can't ignore that reality. Of course, we shouldn't pretend that they're reliable sources of factual information, but they do have an influence on public perceptions. I don't think it's appropriate to argue the details of how much Obama did or didn't have a relationship with Ayers here, but it is appropriate to note that some media sources have pushed the relationship as a story, and that it's had an impact in some quarters. If you can find a reliable source discussing the way that right-wing media have pushed the story, the one sentence could say something like ""As his public profile has risen, some conservative media outlets have scrutinized Senator Obama's personal associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko.'" But again, I haven't checked the sources to see what they say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Woods Fund is defunct? The $1M Obama voted to invest with Davis is gone? What happened to the other $71M? Nah, it's just Scjessey being wrong again. Actually, what's really needed is a sentence in Early Life and Career about Ayers (not convicted, but an admitted and unrepentant bomber), then chairman of the WF BoD, naming Junior Associate Obama to a Directorship ($6,000/yr back when Obama needed it) and also hosting Obama's first meet-and-greet when he first ran for office, to which run Rezko was the first substantial contributor. Obama barely knows the guy's name of course. It's just wonderful how these guys he barely knows do so much for him. Only in America. Andyvphil (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another board. Joyce Foundation, 8 yr, $70,000. How many of these? Adds up to how much of what the guy was doing for a living? Andyvphil (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. This is the anti-gun foundation that his wife wanted him to quit politics, after the Rush defeat, to become president of. No mention in his bio, though. Andyvphil (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had incorrectly assumed that the charity had become defunct because their domain was no longer resolving. My bad. That being said, all the details you describe above are irrelevant, since in the context of this BLP we can regard the "weatherman" characterization as "inadmissible" per the policy to "do no harm". Ayers is a distinguished professor and a civic leader in Chicago, and it is hardly surprising that Obama has had some association with him - an association that was of a largely philanthropic nature. The controversies of Ayers' past have nothing to do with Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Davis. Nothing to do with Obama. "...in the context of this BLP we can regard the 'weatherman' characterization as 'inadmissible' per the policy to 'do no harm'"??? Good one! Can't mention that bomber business, or the dead people! ROFL!!! Andyvphil (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no. Obama didn't bomb anyone or kill anyone. And trying to conflate Wright, Ayers, Rezko and Davis is just a POV-push, Andy. They are unrelated. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Conflating Wright and Ayers may be a POV-push, but if so it's one shared by NBC and The Wall Street Journal, which asked voters in a recent poll to describe how concerned they were by the issue which they described as "It is hard to know Barack Obama’s values because he has friends like Reverend Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers." That sounds like push polling to me, but that's what they asked, and 32% of the people surveyed said they had "major concerns". Now, we can't tell from that how much of the concern stems from Ayers and how much from Wright, but it would seem to indicate that Ayers is being treated as an issue affecting Obama's image by reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no. Obama didn't bomb anyone or kill anyone. And trying to conflate Wright, Ayers, Rezko and Davis is just a POV-push, Andy. They are unrelated. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Davis. Nothing to do with Obama. "...in the context of this BLP we can regard the 'weatherman' characterization as 'inadmissible' per the policy to 'do no harm'"??? Good one! Can't mention that bomber business, or the dead people! ROFL!!! Andyvphil (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Lawyer days
"But it was not all civil rights work—he also appeared in court to defend a developer against charges it was failing to provide heat to tenants and another time to contest a demand that a healthcare corporation pay for baby-sitting (his client paid up)." is what andyvphil wanted to add to the early life and career section. In its current form, it just makes him look like a civil right activist. Clearly it wasn't all positive, though. I think this edit deserves consideration, so as to balance out that section. thezirk (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The source for that sentence, this article from the LA Times, says, "Obama spent about 70% of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits." The question I'd ask is whether the current wording is an accurate portrayal of Obama's work as a lawyer. I think it probably is, and that the details of the babysitting case and the landlord/tenant dispute are too trivial for the main article. They're appropriate for Early life and career of Barack Obama, but I don't really think they're noteworthy enough to merit inclusion here. To me it's not about balancing "positive" and "negative" cases, it's about including significant cases and leaving less significant cases for the daughter article. I'm open to arguments about why a babysitter suing for payment is as important as the implementation of the Motor Voter act. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence that andyvphil wanted to add, as you quoted it, is written in poor encyclopedic style. Aside from that, I agree with Josiah on the relative case notability. --DachannienContrib 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The lede currently reads "A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004." As the source notes this representation ("civil rights lawyer") of this part of Obama's history "is fundamental to his autobiography, displayed on his campaign website and woven into his appeals for votes." The whole point of the LA Times article is that this is misleading, that his work for Davis, Miner was "not all civil rights" and other do-goodism, and that sometimes his representation was against the interests of the poor and powerless. The alleged wider significance of the cases is beside the point. The subject is the parameters of Obama's claim that he was a "civil rights lawyer". And NPOV requires that we not merely echo Obama's spin. Andyvphil (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- We are talking about detailing minor cases that come up in the normal course of any defense attorney's workload, and they are simply not notable enough for this BLP. Just cut out "civil rights" from that sentence of the introduction and leave all this pointless detail out of the article, thus restoring your perceived neutrality. I'd be cool with that, because I think that Obama was a "lawyer chiefly concerned with civil rights cases" as opposed to a "civil rights lawyer" (which I agree is misleading). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I approve of Grsz's removal of "civil rights" from the lede. I think that should satisfy the POV concerns. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Scjessey's solution here, as well as the assertion that "civil rights lawyer" carries special meaning beyond that of a lawyer who sometimes worked on civil rights cases. --DachannienContrib 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thezirk added this sentence again. I repeat my opinion that these cases aren't important enough for this summary style article, although they're appropriate for Early life and career of Barack Obama. Also, since the lede no longer says "civil rights lawyer", there's no assertion to "balance" with negative-seeming court cases. If there were "negative" cases as important as the Motor Voter or making sure that the ward boundaries were in keeping with the Civil Rights Act, I'd support their inclusion — but these two cases (a babysitter suing for wages and a tenant/landlord dispute) just aren't significant enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I've already pointed out, the cases are important to place Obama's own claim that he was a "civil rights lawyer" in context. Someone encountering that claim and turning to this article to see if it is true ought to find an NPOV treatment of his career at Davis, Minor. Which we have RS stating was more than the work he did on the Motor Voter, Civil Rights and whistleblower termination cases, which is all you want to mention. None of those particular cases were of national importance, so far as I am aware, nor was his work of particular significance. That's not why we mention them. We mention them to describe this period in Obama's life. Which turns out to involve defending slumlords and benefit denials when it was the other side representing the poor against his firm's clients. Mentioning only his politically correct cases misrepresents this period in his life, and doing so in a way consistent with "his campaign website and... his appeals for votes" stinks of POV pushing. nb:WP:NPOV is not satisfied by mentioning neither of two points of view. "NPOV requires... the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence." Andyvphil (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- It would be fair to briefly include mentions of a variety of notable cases Obama worked on, so that readers can get an idea of the full scope of cases he worked on during his career as a lawyer. There are two problems with your specific edit, though: one, it's not clear that the cases you're mentioning truly are notable. In fact, the source actually categorizes the cases you mentioned as "routine legal matters" and "minor lawsuits". And two, the tone of the sentence at the top of this article is inappropriate. "But it was not all civil rights work" makes an unnecessary conclusion, especially since the context of the article doesn't maintain that Obama was a civil rights attorney; and "his client paid up" sounds particularly unprofessional in tone. --DachannienContrib 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Working as an associate lawyer, Obama would probably have been given his cases. Obama did what regular lawyers do (work for anyone who will pay), but some of those cases were notable because they involved civil rights. I don't think that is sufficient justification to call him a "civil rights lawyer" (as I have said previously), but neither do I think it is sufficient justification to add the cases that Andy has clearly selected to cast Obama's lawyering in a negative light. Blatant POV push, to my mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that Andy has, once again, ignored the ongoing discussion and gone and done his own thing again. His tortured "But... also" construct is back again. And like I said before, a blatant POV push. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, none of the work is mentioned because what Obama did was particularly notable. I've quoted Obama on what he did. I've followed the RS in providing a more nuanced description. NPOV is not the absence of POV. Reread the policy if you haven't grasped this yet. Andyvphil (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- As Dachannien points out, there are two problems with this addition: first, the way that the "But it was not all civil rights work" sentence seems to draw an editorial conclusion, and second, the focus on non-notable cases. Mentioning these specific cases here would be like talking about what style of hats Harry S. Truman sold in Independence, Missouri in Harry S. Truman, or listing episodes of General Electric Theater in Ronald Reagan. Personally, I don't think that the characterization "civil rights lawyer" necessarily implies that he worked solely or exclusively on civil rights cases, just that that was the focus of his work. But this version of the text indicates the sort of work he did, including an account of about how much was "civil rights"-related and how much was the sort of standard lawyering that pays the bills.
- The Motor Voter Act and the ward redistricting are notable because they represent local implementation of federal civil rights laws. (I'm less sure about the hospital whistleblower case, which is more of local interest.) The pre-Andy text already indicates that not all the work Obama did was civil rights-related: NPOV does not demand that we cherry-pick the least flattering (or most flattering) aspects of an individual's career and highlight them, regardless of importance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly why are cases that "represent local implementation of federal civil rights laws" more notable than his defense of slumlords to Obama's biography when none of the work he did on the former was significant? Obama's own characterization of this work is reported by multiple reliable sources and I can see no reason to omit it. Then NPOV requires that other characterizations of his work, as found in RS, be reported. "But it was not all civil rights work" is what a RS says, and seems uncontroversial to me. Are you contending that defending his client against the charge of not providing heat in winter was civil rights work? Andyvphil (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm claiming that it's already covered by the sentence "He also spent time on real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits." Giving details of those minor lawsuits is unnecessary detail in a summary style article. I'd say that implementation of civil rights laws is more notable because it has national implications, in a way that a landlord/tenant dispute doesn't. Should we also include the time he defended a nonprofit which owns low-rent housing against a slip-and-fall claim? That's just as trivial.
- Honestly, I'd rather have the specific civil rights cases removed from this article than have the trivial details of Obama's other lawyer work cluttering it up. (My preference, however, is to include at least the ACORN case and the ward boundaries.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think andy's addition is a fair balance to the obviously positive description of his lawyer work in the sentence before it. And I don't think it's right for us to determine if that's a minor lawsuit. It would be important to a lot of people, especially the tenants he was defending his client against.thezirk (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. Andy's "fair balance" addition is just a POV push, and I've restored the original text. You have to ask yourself if a minor piece of lawyering is significant in the context of Obama's entire life to Misplaced Pages's readership. Moreover, this information is presented in full in the sub-article, and there is no way we can go into so much detail following the summary style of the main article. Better to cut it all out than burden it with irrelevant, insignificant details. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think he meant the addition was "fair and balanced", which we all know to signify undisputed neutrality. --Ubiq (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're trying to mock me with vague comparisons to Fox News, but I don't have anything to gain from editing this article with POV. Scjessey and Grsz are the self-pronounced liberal democrats. What I meant was, if we're going to have vague pro-Obama lawyer information that nobody cares about, we need to be including the equally, if not moreso significant, not-so-pro-Obama lawyer information that casts him in a different light.thezirk (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care what Scjessey and Grsz identify as politically. If they contribute to the encyclopedia and understand what it takes to maintain the integrity of a BLP, their contributions and input as editors are wanted. You're just kind of spouting opinion statements as if they're truth that everybody sees and agrees with. I certainly don't see the lawyer information as "pro-Obama" information that "nobody cares about". Obviously you care enough about it to raise issue with it on his wikipedia article. As far as your suggestion that "we need to be including the equally, if not moreso significant, not-so-pro-Obama lawyer information that casts him in a different light," our job is not to cast him in contrasting lights or to cast him in a light at all. Our job is to summarize his life, and that doesn't include going into insignificant detail about minor events/periods. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a magazine or a blog or a Newsweek article. This is not a platform for Obama supporters or detractors to paint a picture about Obama for potential voters to read. Biographies are for people who are interested in knowing about someone's life, so in consideration of this, we are to follow the standards set in the BLP guidelines. --Ubiq (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
A glance at Britannica's treatment of this period of Obama's life may be illuminating. They've got one sentence, "He also worked as an attorney on civil rights issues." Clearly their editors think that Obama's work on civil rights cases is noteworthy, but his other lawyering isn't. Can anyone find a reliable source which includes this sort of detail in a summary of Obama's life? Because I can't. Again, I'd think it more appropriate to remove the details of the civil rights cases than to add details of less important but "negative"-seeming cases. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that the Britannica author is oblivious to the fact that he is repeating Obama's POV does not entitle us to do the same. Misplaced Pages has higher standards for NPOV. The author of LA Times article that we are using as a source for this section thought that the cases we are arguing over were noteworthy precisely because they contrast with Obama's own (and the Britannica's) account. And I agree with the RS, not you. And NPOV policy, again, requires that we report the POV on this issue as found in the RS, not just echo Obama's spin, which is what the version you prefer does. You may well prefer deleting all POV in preference to allowing non-pro-Obama POV to see the light of day, but that is counter to policy and is not an option you will be given. Andyvphil (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently you have absolutely no problem with the information that presents a pro-Obama POV, until someone wants to counter that with a different, equally significant POV about the same subject, and then suddenly all that information should be suppressed. While I don't have as much time to edit this article as I'd like, or to do research, I have to commend Andy on the effort he continues to put into bringing this article back up to FA and NPOV status. thezirk (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Moving non-essential information to a daughter article is not the same as suppressing it. This article is a summary, and as such should summarize rather than give details. It's true that I've been reacting to brushfires rather than evaluating each sentence in the article on the whole. That's because my time is limited and I do have real-life concerns to deal with. But when I see someone adding non-vital information in a misguided effort at NPOV, I'm going to respond in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy.
- In this case, there are two questions: is the article neutral in its point of view, and does it give appropriate weight to events in the subject's life? In response to the first question, my initial opinion was that it was neutral, but if there is a consensus or a convincing argument otherwise I'm willing to go with that. If there is a consensus that the section is non-neutral, we have to decide how to resolve the imbalance, in which case the second question must be considered.
- To take an absurd example: it would be possible to find reliable sources discussing Obama's face scratching. It would be possible for the article to become imbalanced by quoting such sources either suggesting that he was "giving Hillary the finger" or not. However, the proper resolution of such an imbalance on such a trivial matter would not be to go into the details I mentioned at #New addition proposed, but to delete the mention of this episode entirely. Now, obviously the details of Obama's work as a lawyer are more important than that. But in terms of interpretation of NPOV, the matter is the same. Not every perceived imbalance should be addressed by adding more material. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obama's campaign bio says "...he returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer and teach constitutional law." That's the Obama POV. This article says "Obama worked on cases where the firm represented community organizers, pursued discrimination claims, and on voting rights cases" and supports that assertion with examples. That's also the Obama POV, basically copied from where it was stenographed by the AP. But I found another source for this period. The LA Times says it was "not all civil rights" and mentions several cases which call into question the intended implication of Obama's assertion that he was "a civil rights lawyer" and the assertion in the AP article that the former Davis, Miner is "a real do-good firm". Sometimes "nonprofits" and "good government" suits and other enterprises are just a really good way for everyone involved to do really well financially, and sometimes they chisel the people they're supposed to help in order to keep the insiders on the gravy train. The LA Times article supplies evidence that Obama's practice wasn't the pure Knight-in-shining-White-Armor business Obama would have you believe. That POV needs to be in the article as well. I don't see anything particularly disreputable in being a hired gun for a nonprofit that may have intended to do good while doing well, but fell somehow into not keeping the heat in good repair all the time. But we need to report accurately that period of Obama's life in this article, not thinking that exiling inconvenient truths to a sub article is good enough. It's not. Andyvphil (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's clear that the fears Josiah expressed above have come to fruition. If we have to load the article with unnecessary details about insignificant cases, then it is better to simply cut all the specifics in favor of a straightforward summary. It is sad that we have to lose relevant information because you insist on pushing irrelevant information, but there it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy is correct when he says, "But we need to report accurately that period of Obama's life in this article." I think that's what the following text does:
Obama worked on cases where the firm represented community organizers, pursued discrimination claims, and on voting rights cases. He also spent time on real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits. Mostly he drew up briefs, contracts, and other legal documents as a junior associate on legal teams.
Now, I still feel that there's no contradiction between describing someone as a "civil rights lawyer" and noting that he or she also worked on non-civil rights cases — but since the characterization "civil rights lawyer" is disputed, I think it's fine for us to simply and briefly describe the kind of work he did. And I agree that it's better to remove all the specific case details than to include utterly trivial matters like the babysitting case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
WWE
Should the fact he and his presidential candidate rivals were on Monday Night Raw as part of their campaign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.41.225 (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not that notable for this article. Maybe for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 article, but even that is pushing it. --Bobblehead 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- You'd have to mention candidate appearances on The View, Ellen, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, The Today Show, and a whole bunch of others if you were going to include this "joke" appearance. Not notable in any article, to be frank. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong again. Appearing on a wrestling show is a new and notable low in candidate dignity, a step beyond talk shows. Certainly belongs in the campaign article. But unless it become iconic (like Bill's sax playing) not here, yet. Andyvphil (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it probably shouldn't be mentioned, but it's more notable than those other appearances in that they all appeared on the same night, and presidential candidates really don't go on WWE. thezirk (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- You'd have to mention candidate appearances on The View, Ellen, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, The Today Show, and a whole bunch of others if you were going to include this "joke" appearance. Not notable in any article, to be frank. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can't be surprised that you two are pushing for inclusion of this. I love Andy's logic: If it is a "new and notable low in candidate dignity", it "certainly belongs in the campaign article". Nevermind if it's actually true. It takes all of 10 seconds to figure out that they didn't actually go on WWE, but were merely parodied by what I'm assuming to be wrestlers. --Ubiq (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- If it really has to be mentioned anywhere, it should probably belong on the WWE Raw page. It is indeed a new arena (so to speak) that the candidates have reached out to. The novelty alone is rather significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.72.156 (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually McCain, Obama and Clinton all appeared on the show through video messages specifically addressing the fans- just look the video up if you want proof- it was on various news shows and all over the media in general.
- Ah, OK. I was eventually able to find the videos you're talking about. I was referring to this, where they guy playing Barack has the goofiest fake ears I've ever seen. --Ubiq (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious that it deserves zero mention, honestly, on of the three candidates' articles or campaign articles. Wizardman 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Ubiq (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
State Legislature weight issues
Andy's current text:
In 1995 Alice Palmer, Illinois State Senator for Chicago's 13th District, ran for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives seat then held by Mel Reynolds, who had been indicted for sexual abuse of an underage campaign worker. With a degree of formality that is disputed, she anointed Obama as her chosen successor to represent the areas of Chicago's South Side, including Hyde Park-Kenwood and South Shore, that constituted the 13th District. After she was defeated by Jesse Jackson, Jr. in a special election held November 2005 she filed to retain the Democratic nomination for her Senate seat. Obama challenged her petitions, and that of the other three candidates, and disqualified enough signatures so that he was unopposed in the March 1996 primary election. In the heavily Democratic 13th District the general election was a formality.
Surely this is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT, given that it is mostly about Alice J. Palmer and her time in the Illinois State Senate. What was wrong with the previous version? And what has the Mel Reynolds sex abuse case got to do with Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing, as far as I can tell. As for the larger question, I'd think this material would be useful context for Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, but excessive detail here. The same goes for the detail about Obama's unsuccessful House race against Bobby Rush — I don't see how the death of Bobby Rush's son is important enough to merit inclusion here. All this should go in Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a WP:WEIGHT problem, since it's presenting (mostly) facts rather than viewpoints. Still, as Josiah said, it does go into depth that is far beyond the scope of this article, including the detail concerning Mel Reynolds and the detailed info on what neighborhoods constitute the 13th district. There are also potential POV issues regarding the "anointing" of Obama and the "formality" of the general election, both of which are loaded terms not appropriate in this context. On a side note, was "2005" meant to be "1995"? --DachannienContrib 16:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The current text is
In July 1995, Obama announced plans to run for the Illinois Senate from Chicago's 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's South Side, including Hyde Park-Kenwood and South Shore. Following the surprise return of incumbent Alice Palmer to the contest in late 1995, Obama's campaign raised legal challenges to the nominations of Palmer and three other Democratic candidates, each of whose names were removed from the primary ballot due to petition irregularities. In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush, receiving 30% of the vote to Rush's 61%. Rush and another rival candidate had charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns.
I am attempting, as a first step, to replace this with:
In 1995 Alice Palmer, Illinois State Senator for Chicago's 13th District, ran for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives seat then held by Mel Reynolds, who had been indicted for sexual abuse of an underage campaign worker. With a degree of formality that is disputed, she anointed Obama as her chosen successor to represent the areas of Chicago's South Side, including Hyde Park-Kenwood and South Shore, that constituted the 13th District. After she was defeated by Jesse Jackson, Jr. in a special election held November 1995 she filed to retain the Democratic nomination for her Senate seat. Obama challenged her petitions, and that of the other three candidates, and disqualified enough signatures so that he was unopposed in the March 1996 primary election. In the heavily Democratic 13th District the general election was a formality.
In 2000, Obama made a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Rush had been badly defeated in the February 1999 Chicago Mayoral election by Richard M. Daley and was thought to be vulnerable. Rush charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns, and also benefitted from an outpouring of sympathy when his son was shot to death shortly before the election. Obama, who started with just a 10% name recognition, got only 31% of the votes, losing by a more than 2-to-1 margin despite winning among white voters.
First, Palmer's return was not a "surprise". She was the incumbent and had evinced no desire to retire from politics if she didn't win, so it could have been a surprise only if her loss had been a surprise. But she was facing both the Jesse Jackson and Emil Jones political machines and could be expected to and did finish third, and once the election was decided and filing for renomination was no longer a premature admission of loss she could be expected to and did so file. The idea that the seat was "vacant" and that her deciding to run for her own seat was a "suprise" is pro-Obama Kool-Aid designed to minimize the degree to which he is perceived to have stabbed her in the back.
Second, the idea that devoting more than two sentences apiece to Obama's first two runs for office is, in the biography of a politician, undue weight is absurd. The real problem is that the two paragraphs I've expanded to are as yet inadequate. No mention, e.g., of his wife's desire after the defeat that he retire and take up a foundation job instead.
Third, the idea that no details are important enough to mention -- he ran, he won, it was a long time ago, who cares -- is a view so idiotic that I would have thought only Scjessey was capable of expressing without embarassment. We should mention Rush's son getting shot for the same reason we mention Ryan's sex scandal: Obama's life was affected by these events. Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well first I'd like to thank you for the personal attack, Andy. I'd expect nothing less from you. Secondly, I must reiterate my comment above - in a biography of Barack Obama, why do you insist on trying to shoehorn details about other people into the text? First you want to tell us a bedtime story about Alice Palmer, then you want to regale us with details about her predecessor. What possible connection to Obama is the Mel Reynolds sex abuse stuff? Your justification for this is that the current text isn't long enough. So your solution is to add tangential (or completely unrelated) content as filler material? Maybe you should go back and read some of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've tightened-up the first paragraph, partly to address Andy's concerns about Palmer's "surprise return", but also to note that the 13th District is tilted heavily towards the Democrats, allowing the reader to imply that Obama's eventual election was a formality. Obviously the link to the sub-article provides all of Andy's other gory details if the reader desires them. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It might be appropriate to mention briefly that Palmer had planned to run for Congress but was defeated in the special election primary, and only then decided to petition for her old State Senate seat. However, the detail of the Mel Reynolds sex scandal is well outside the purview of this article — it would be like going into the details of the Lewinsky scandal in the main George W. Bush article. Similarly, I don't think we need to mention Rush's son here any more than the death of John Edwards' son is mentioned in Lauch Faircloth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- You don't know when Palmer decided to file. Presumably she intended to file all along if she lost, and she probably knew she was going to lose well before the special election. The point is that Obama had very little chance running against her but got into office by a neat bit of political assassination. Et tu, Obama. And I'd be ok with "...by Mel Reynolds, who had been indicted in a sex scandal..." but that's not the kind of change to the text that I'm seeing. My proposals are already "brief". Mentioning names and specifics is what enables the reader of different histories to tie them together, and is also the opportunity for helpful blue links. Andyvphil (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- The FAR indicated that the article had too many blue links, not too few. And the names and specifics which tie different histories together can and should be found in the daughter article. This article is about the big picture, and Mel Reynolds really isn't a significant part of that big picture.
- As for Dachannien's revert, you should take it as an indication that there is no consensus supporting the changes you want to make, and refrain from adding them again until after a consensus has been reached. See WP:BRD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- What WP:BRD calls "bold edits" are designed to attract attention (see the popup over the top lines of the flowchart). Yes, BRD (which is essay, not policy) suggests you get your reverter to make a compromise edit but it is silent on what to do if compromise is unreasonably witheld. There is no requirement in policy that you wait to repeat the process of trying to attract attention "until after a consensus has been reached" on the talk page, never mind that "Local consensus" (which "can change) "is currently opposed to making any changes whatsoever" and will obduately refuse NPOV forever. The speed limit is 3RR, and provided you obey it there is nothing disruptive about periodically repeating "bold edits" in an attempt to draw attention to an issue. Andyvphil (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are mistaken (or as you would say, "wrong again"). There are no Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines or essays that say it is okay to be a disruptive editor, which is what you are. You constantly ignore consensus, you constantly ignore compromise, you constantly ignore requests for meaningful discussions, you constantly use rude or insensitive language in edit summaries and you comment in a combative, bombastic manner. With very few exceptions, your edits to Barack Obama (and related articles) seek to add a negative point-of-view. You justifying this blatant "POV-pushing" by frankly ludicrous claims that you are trying to redress some balance and introduce a neutral POV. You employ various tactics to achieve this, including:
- Going into exhaustive detail on what you perceive to be negative events in Obama's life.
- Performing multiple reversions against many different editors, and against overwhelming consensus, but spread out enough to avoid (for the most part) 3RR issues
- Only making edits that enhance your negative POV, or decrease what you perceive to be positive POV - a clear sign that you are "agenda editing" rather than simply editing.
- Furthermore, I think that we are extremely lucky to have a calm, thoughtful, thorough and neutral editor with administrator privileges on hand. Other articles are not so lucky. To cast negative aspersions on Josiah simply because he (rightfully) doesn't always agree with your point of view, or your interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, is unfair and unreasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are mistaken (or as you would say, "wrong again"). There are no Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines or essays that say it is okay to be a disruptive editor, which is what you are. You constantly ignore consensus, you constantly ignore compromise, you constantly ignore requests for meaningful discussions, you constantly use rude or insensitive language in edit summaries and you comment in a combative, bombastic manner. With very few exceptions, your edits to Barack Obama (and related articles) seek to add a negative point-of-view. You justifying this blatant "POV-pushing" by frankly ludicrous claims that you are trying to redress some balance and introduce a neutral POV. You employ various tactics to achieve this, including:
- (edit conflict) Correction: local consensus is currently opposed to the changes you want to make, and is obdurately refusing your interpretation of NPOV. Duration of a dispute does not relieve anyone of the need for discussion. And the repetition of edits for which there is no consensus — even if you believe that your version is supported by policy — is disruptive.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, you are simply in error to assert that agreement to an edit must be obtained on the talk page before it can be repeated without being considered disruptive. 3RR represents the community consensus on what constitutes disruptive editing, and while it allows for exceptions any exception should be aconsidered a difficult case requiring fine judgement. As policy notes, "All editors and all sources have biases". That includes admins. In particular, you. As an involved party in the content dispute you have a conflict of interest. Leave the fine judgements to uninvolved parties.
- BTW, the reverts are themselves edits for which there is no consensus. WP:BRD:
* There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version.
* Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay.... - Andyvphil (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's obvious a lot of people disagree with these changes. It's written like it belongs in an exposé. Not good form for an encyclopedia. I've seen you put it back in on a daily basis, only to get reverted each time. If nobody's been receptive to it by now, I can't imagine they're going to be the next 10 times you try to put it back into the article. --Ubiq (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
State Legislature section changes
The current version of the section, after being butchered by Andy, is as follows:
In July 1995, Obama announced plans to run for the Illinois Senate from Chicago's heavily-Democratic 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's South Side, including Hyde Park-Kenwood and South Shore. Before the Democratic primary Obama's campaign raised legal challenges to the nominating petitions of incumbent Alice Palmer and three other candidates and succeeded in having all of his opponents stricken from the ballot.
In 2000, Obama made a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Rush had been badly defeated in the February 1999 Chicago Mayoral election by Richard M. Daley and was thought to be vulnerable. Rush charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns, and also benefitted from an outpouring of sympathy when his son was shot to death shortly before the election. Obama, who started with just a 10% name recognition, got 31% of the votes, losing by a more than 2-to-1 margin despite winning among white voters.
Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority. The new majority leader, Emil Jones, named him as the sponsor of important legislation that had been developed by others as a way of boosting Obama's intended run for the U.S. Senate. Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to that body.
As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms. He was criticized by rival pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues.
So in a section entitled "State Legislature" we only mention Obama's activity in the State Legislature in the very last of four paragraphs. This is clearly a ridiculous situation that needs to be immediately redressed. May I suggest a revert back to this slightly earlier version of the article, followed by some meaningful discussion of how to proceed? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, except for his last year, Obama didn't do much in the IL Senate, but yes, much of what Andy added should be shifted into the sub-article (which most of it has been for days). I'd almost be tempted to eliminate the 2000 run from this article in general, because of how unimportant it really is. If it stays it's entry in this article could be reduced to a sentence at most "In 2000, Obama made a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush, but ended up receiving only 30% of the vote and losing to Rush, who received 61%, in the primary election.<ref>{{ cite web | publisher=Federal Election Commission | url=http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/ilh.htm | title=2000 U.S. House of Representatives Results | accessdate=2008-04-24}}</ref>" --Bobblehead 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- In addition to the problems of unnecessary detail, the section's chronology is confusing. It jumps from 1995 to 2000, detours to February 1999, then back to 1998 and forward to 2000, 2003 and 2004. The more election detail that's added, the less sense the structure makes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
New attempt
Taking into account the comments from Bobblehead and Josiah Rowe, here's my effort at a radical rewrite:
In July 1995, Obama announced plans to run for the Illinois Senate from Chicago's 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's South Side, including Hyde Park-Kenwood and South Shore. Obama's campaign raised legal challenges to the nominating petitions of incumbent Alice Palmer and the three other candidates, successfully removing their names from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary, virtually handing him victory in the heavily-Democratic district. Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.
Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, and again in 2002 after losing a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000 to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms. He was criticized by rival pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues. Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the US Senate.
- Brian Ross (March 13 2008). "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Andrew Sullivan. For The Record The Atlantic: The Daily Dish, March 16 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-18
- Barack Obama (March 18 2008). "Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Brian Ross (March 13 2008). "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Andrew Sullivan. For The Record The Atlantic: The Daily Dish, March 16 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-18
- Lapidos, Juliet (March 19, 2008). "The AIDS Conspiracy Handbook". Slate.com. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
- Jeff Goldblatt (March 14 2008). "Obama's Pastor's Sermon: 'God Damn America'". FOXNews. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
- Reid, Tim (March 21, 2008). "Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright". Times Newspapers, Ltd. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
- Barack Obama (March 18 2008). "Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Nedra Pickler, Matt Apuzzo (March 18, 2008). "Obama confronts racial division". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-04-06.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Mr. Obama's Profile in Courage". The New York Times. 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-03-19.
- "Obama's minister's remarks won't fade". The Associated Press. March 21, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-26.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "Obama's racial problems transcend Wright". The Politico. March 18 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
- Brian Ross (March 13 2008). "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Andrew Sullivan. For The Record The Atlantic: The Daily Dish, March 16 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-18
- Jeff Goldblatt (March 14 2008). "Obama's Pastor's Sermon: 'God Damn America'". FOXNews. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Project Trinity". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
- Reid, Tim (March 21, 2008). "Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright". Times Newspapers, Ltd. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
- Barack Obama (March 18 2008). "Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Mr. Obama's Profile in Courage". The New York Times. 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-03-19.
- "Obama's minister's remarks won't fade". The Associated Press. March 21, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-26.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - David Jackson (April 4 2007). "Showing his bare knuckles". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-21.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Jackson, David (April 3 2007). "Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "Jackson20070403" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - Scott, Janny (September 9 2007). "A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - McClelland, Edward (February 12 2007). "How Obama Learned to Be a Natural". Salon. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Wolffe, Richard (July 16 2007). "Across the Divide". Newsweek. MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) Helman, Scott (October 12 2007). "Early Defeat Launched a Rapid Political Climb". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - David Jackson (April 4 2007). "Showing his bare knuckles". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-21.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Federal Election Commission, 2000 U.S. House of Representatives Results. See also: "Obama's Loss May Have Aided White House Bid". and Scott, Janny (September 9 2007). "A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ McClelland, Edward (February 12 2007). "How Obama Learned to Be a Natural". Salon. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Wolffe, Richard (July 16 2007). "Across the Divide". Newsweek. MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) Helman, Scott (October 12 2007). "Early Defeat Launched a Rapid Political Climb". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) and "Obama learned from failed Congress run". - Federal Election Commission, 2000 U.S. House of Representatives Results. See also: "Obama's Loss May Have Aided White House Bid". and Scott, Janny (September 9 2007). "A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. August 24 2000. Archived from the original (archive) on 2000-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. October 9 2004. Archived from the original (archive) on 2004-08-02. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Calmes, Jackie (February 23 2007). "Statehouse Yields Clues to Obama". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print
- "Political 'Godfather' Boosted Obama's Early Career". CNN. March 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Coffee, Melanie (November 6 2004). "Attorney Chosen to Fill Obama's State Senate Seat". Associated Press. HPKCC. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Slevin, Peter (February 9 2007). "Obama Forged Political Mettle in Illinois Capitol". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) Helman, Scott (September 23 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Dealt with Lobbyists". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine for Critics". Associated Press. CBS News. January 17 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) "In-Depth Look at Obama's Political Career" (video). CLTV. Chicago Tribune. February 9, 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Scott, Janny (July 30 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Pearson, Rick (May 3 2007). "Careful Steps, Looking Ahead". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Youngman, Sam (March 14 2007). "Obama's Crime Votes Are Fodder for Rivals". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) See also: "US Presidential Candidate Obama Cites Work on State Death Penalty Reforms". Associated Press. International Herald Tribune. November 12 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Zorn, Eric (March 9 2004). "Disparagement of Obama Votes Doesn't Hold Up". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2007-12-20. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) "Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views". Associated Press. MSNBC. August 9 2004. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Youngman, Sam (February 15 2007). "Abortion Foes Target Obama Because of His Vote Record on Illinois Legislation". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Slevin, Peter (February 9 2007). "Obama Forged Political Mettle in Illinois Capitol". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) Helman, Scott (September 23 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Dealt with Lobbyists". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine for Critics". Associated Press. CBS News. January 17 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) "In-Depth Look at Obama's Political Career" (video). CLTV. Chicago Tribune. February 9, 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Federal Elections 2000: U.S. House Results - Illinois". Federal Election Commission. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
- "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. August 24 2000. Archived from the original (archive) on 2000-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. October 9 2004. Archived from the original (archive) on 2004-08-02. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Calmes, Jackie (February 23 2007). "Statehouse Yields Clues to Obama". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Youngman, Sam (March 14 2007). "Obama's Crime Votes Are Fodder for Rivals". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) See also: "US Presidential Candidate Obama Cites Work on State Death Penalty Reforms". Associated Press. International Herald Tribune. November 12 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Zorn, Eric (March 9 2004). "Disparagement of Obama Votes Doesn't Hold Up". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2007-12-20. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) "Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views". Associated Press. MSNBC. August 9 2004. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Youngman, Sam (February 15 2007). "Abortion Foes Target Obama Because of His Vote Record on Illinois Legislation". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-20.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Coffee, Melanie (November 6 2004). "Attorney Chosen to Fill Obama's State Senate Seat". Associated Press. HPKCC. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
I'm pretty sure this fixes the chronology problem, and it also cuts out the details of the failed Congressional run (which is detailed in the sub-article). Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Two minor questions: wasn't there a question about the reliability of the Houston Press story (note 28)? And why not move the resignation sentence to the end of the paragraph, since he resigned after the 2004 election in which he got the police endorsement and was criticized for his abortion-related votes? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed on both counts. Changed. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- You may think I'm picking nits here (and maybe I am), but I'd recommend "increasing tax credits" instead of "enhancing", since "enhancing" implies that they were made not just bigger but also better. Also, the first of the two paragraphs seems to combine unrelated topics (getting elected versus what he did in office) and should probably be split into separate paragraphs, even though those paragraphs are so short. --DachannienContrib 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed on "increasing", but I disagree with splitting the first paragraph up. This is just a summary, remember, and I think we can afford to mix the campaign for the position with the position itself. Open to further discussion though! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- If we're going with chronological order, the remainder of the first paragraph from the sentence beginning with "As a state legislator..." should be after the Emil Jones sentence in the second paragraph. --Bobblehead 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense to me, because the Emil Jones event was later on. In fact, I'm going to just cut that sentence out and leave it to the sub-article, which means we don't have to mess with the order. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- If we're going with chronological order, the remainder of the first paragraph from the sentence beginning with "As a state legislator..." should be after the Emil Jones sentence in the second paragraph. --Bobblehead 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed on "increasing", but I disagree with splitting the first paragraph up. This is just a summary, remember, and I think we can afford to mix the campaign for the position with the position itself. Open to further discussion though! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just realized what the problem was - there's nothing to transition the flow of the first paragraph between Obama running for office (and the ballot petition stuff) and what he did while in office. I think if there's some mention of him actually winning the race (even though it's kind of obvious) it would fill in the gap. Maybe end that one sentence with this: "...successfully removing their names from the ballot and allowing him to win unopposed." --DachannienContrib 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've added "and allowing him to run unopposed", since there wasn't really any contest to "win" as such. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've also changed "As a State legislator" to "Once elected", which I feel eases the transition further. Are we getting there? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've added "and allowing him to run unopposed", since there wasn't really any contest to "win" as such. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just realized what the problem was - there's nothing to transition the flow of the first paragraph between Obama running for office (and the ballot petition stuff) and what he did while in office. I think if there's some mention of him actually winning the race (even though it's kind of obvious) it would fill in the gap. Maybe end that one sentence with this: "...successfully removing their names from the ballot and allowing him to win unopposed." --DachannienContrib 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is "...allowing him to run unopposed" misleading? He was unopposed in the Democratic primary, but there was token opposition from the Republicans (and, I believe, the Harold Washington Party) in the general election. It may well be the case that in that particular district winning the Democratic primary is tantamount to winning the seat, but tantamount isn't identical. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also a bit unsure about cutting the 2000 House run back quite so much. I'd think that the name of the incumbent he was running against should at least be mentioned. Perhaps "...after losing a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000 to incumbent Bobby Rush." Even that seems a bit anemic to me, to be honest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've reworded things to give a clearer account of his election, and I've changed it to mention Bobby Rush. I don't see any reason why additional details are necessary when they are adequately covered in the sub-article. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
How about starting over with:
Obama was elected to his first (two-year) term in the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. In 1998, he was reelected to a second (four-year) term in the Illinois Senate. In 2000, Obama finished second, ahead of fellow state Sen. Donne Trotter, in a three-way 1st Congressional District Democratic primary election, losing to four-term incumbent U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush. Obama was reelected in 2002 to his third (four-year) term in the Illinois Senate from a 13th District redrawn to span Chicago lakefront neighborhoods from the Gold Coast south to South Chicago. In January 2003, Obama, after having been minority spokesman for four years, became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate. He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.
Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reforms, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.
and in expanding the section, following WP:BLP policy by:
- not using poorly sourced contentious material
- remembering that biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively
- remembering that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives
- remembering that an important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"
Newross (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good, but I don't think it will get past the tiny (but extremely noisy) group of POV-pushing Obama haters. The evolving version above is an attempt to try to reach a compromise. In fact, since none of Andy's crowd has voiced a problem with "new attempt", I'd say it was ready for deployment. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The FOP issue
In another section of this talk page, Andy draws attention to the FOP endorsement in the State legislature section. I agree that this endorsement seems misplaced, since it seems to be related to the Senate campaign. If anything, I think it violates WP:WEIGHT and is probably best "relegated" to the sub article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Senate voting record needs rethink
A major source (ADA) has been "blacklisted", and the voting information is no longer available. Since it constitutes a large chunk of the paragraph, and acts as a complement to the National Journal numbers, I think we are going to have to do a bit of heavy-lifting to fix it. Any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, as far as the blacklisting of a source, or the paragraph. Can you point/link me to something? --Ubiq (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is the result of something that came up on the Hillary Clinton FAC. ADA is linked there and the link checker tool identified it as being "blacklisted". I was doing some cleanup and didn't want to worry about it at that point, so left a note on the FAC page and commented that it was "blacklisted", but I hadn't looked into it that far. Upon further investigation, it seems ADA changed to a php format, and as a result going to their "index.htm" page resulted in the blacklisting. Change the link to index.php and you're in. --Bobblehead 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you go to that website, you find that all the pages now point to a different, external website (looks like a freebie webhost or something). It might be "blacklisted" because of other sites hosted by the same service. Either way, I have been unable to dig up the cited information. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've already fixed it. The only thing that isn't "fixed" is that the sourced used to support "In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once." doesn't actually support that claim. It's a link to the ADA's home page. However, if you go through their 2005, 2006, and 2007 reports you can use the combination of those reports to surmise that Obama has only voted against ADA once. --Bobblehead 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Conclude" or "establish", not "surmise". Andyvphil (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've already fixed it. The only thing that isn't "fixed" is that the sourced used to support "In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once." doesn't actually support that claim. It's a link to the ADA's home page. However, if you go through their 2005, 2006, and 2007 reports you can use the combination of those reports to surmise that Obama has only voted against ADA once. --Bobblehead 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you go to that website, you find that all the pages now point to a different, external website (looks like a freebie webhost or something). It might be "blacklisted" because of other sites hosted by the same service. Either way, I have been unable to dig up the cited information. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is the result of something that came up on the Hillary Clinton FAC. ADA is linked there and the link checker tool identified it as being "blacklisted". I was doing some cleanup and didn't want to worry about it at that point, so left a note on the FAC page and commented that it was "blacklisted", but I hadn't looked into it that far. Upon further investigation, it seems ADA changed to a php format, and as a result going to their "index.htm" page resulted in the blacklisting. Change the link to index.php and you're in. --Bobblehead 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
With this edit, I advanced the split between between the section's two leading paragraphs and removed the ADA text that merely reasserted the National Journal's "liberal" characterization. --HailFire (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...which I've restored. I dug up the ADA results specifically in response to accusations on this page that the NJ results were the result of ideological hostility to Obama. The ADA cannot be accused of hostility to liberalism. Their results don't "reassert" the National Journal 's. They can be interpreted as reaching the same conclusion, but the organizations have differing biases and used a different selection of votes. Rather than being redundant, they reinforce each other. Andyvphil (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
HailFire's contribution
The following text was added offered here and immediately proposed for discussion here:
The Senate historian lists Obama as the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, and the third to have been popularly elected.<ref>"Breaking New Ground: African American Senators". U.S. Senate Historical Office. Retrieved 2008-04-27.</ref> He is the only Senate member of the Congressional Black Caucus.<ref>"Member Info". Congressional Black Caucus. Retrieved 2008-04-27. See also: Zeleny, Jeff (June 26 2005). "When It Comes to Race, Obama Makes His Point—With Subtlety". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on Senate votes cast in 2005 through 2007.<ref>Nather, David (January 14 2008). "The Space Between Clinton and Obama". CQ Weekly. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: Curry, Tom (February 21 2008). "What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> The National Journal, in its 27th annual vote ratings, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007, although he participated in only two-thirds of the rated votes.<ref>"Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.<ref>"Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>
Unfortunately, it was modified by Andyvphil to this version before any discussion could take place. I have reposted the text here to help determine if there is support from the community for this version as the Barack Obama#Senate Career section's 2nd paragraph. Let's hear comments from other active editors, please. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- What did you "add"? As far as I can see, your "addition" was actually a subtraction, since all of the above text was already present, plus the material on the ADA ratings of Obama, which I added back into your version since they were, as I noted above, NOT redundant of the NJ ratings. Then I rewote the NJ bit to better specify the basis for their description of Obama. Andyvphil (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
sneaking things against consensus
I am watching this article. Some things have been settled but then a few days or weeks later, the bias version sneaks up. I can see about 10 examples. I will do one at a time.
I don't need to argue for the point. It's already mentioned in the talk page or talk page archive.
Sneaking things in #1: As a state senator, Obama's OPPONENT received the police union endorsement. The rank and file hated Obama because he did things they thought was anti-police. Only after the opponent lost did they change the endorsement. Just saying that he got the endorsement is POV since it glosses over the fact.
After this is resolved, we can move to point #2 of about 10. Watchingobama (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that Obama didn't have the police endorsement that contradicts the source given, that says he did? Grsz 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "sneaking things against consensus." Grsz 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am a card carrying union member which is why the way the wikipedia article reads irks me. Just google it and near the top is...The union endorsement was not particularly surprising, since the FOP endorsed another Democrat, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes...http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0408130201aug13,1,7640082.story .
Even other internet encyclopedias (according to google) make the Hynes distinction. Sneaking things against concensus, you ask? Just look at the history. This article was correct then the bias version showed up a little while after the discussion had ended. This is one of many facts that are mentioned elsewhere on the internet as an example of wikipedia bias. This is wikipedia. Misplaced Pages should be for truth. Having a union support Hynes is not anti-Obama but is the truth. Watchingobama (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- There never was any consensus for this, and nothing was snuck in. Tvoz |talk 03:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the FOP endorsement is in the State Legislature section rather than Senate Campaign is pretty inexplicable. But "consensus" says that the FOP's president "credit Obama" (after Hynes was defeated) "for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms" is as significant to Obama's biography as the loss to Rush that RS tell us nearly caused him to quit politics to take up a foundation job. "Consensus" is so clever. If it didn't tell us things like this, who would guess? Andyvphil (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I must say that I'm not entirely sure what to do about the FOP endorsement myself. It was included in the article before I became an active editor. I assume it is there because of the information about death penalty reform, but if that is the only reason it probably violates WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the details of the FOP endorsement (initially endorsing Hynes in the primary, then endorsing Obama in the general) belong in United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004. I think the bit of information that's relevant to a summary of Obama's Illinois senate career is that he worked on death penalty reforms, in a way that gained the respect of police organizations (as indicated by the article). I would support removing mention of the endorsement, and instead saying something like "Police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms." That would properly include the praise offered by Laimutis Nargelenas (Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police) and Ted Street (FOP), but avoid the matter of who was endorsed at what time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree with that, Josiah. Tvoz |talk 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why am I not surprised that there is difficulty on the part of some editors in distingushing pro-Obama POV from fact? Oh. Long experience? There's that. Well, one interpretation of the historical record is that Obama had "gained the respect of police organizations". That's the pro-Obama POV. The other is that the FOP is a committed Democrat organization and when Obama was the last Democrat standing they held their noses and endorsed him, and therefor had to find something positive to say about someone they were really unenthusiastic about. If that view is found in the RS (and Watchingobama seems convinced it is true, so it ought to have been reported) NPOV requires it be mentioned as well. Andyvphil (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- We've got two reliable sources indicating that he gained the respect of police organizations. We can discuss alternate wording if you provide a reliable source indicating otherwise. The fact that Obama wasn't the union's first choice doesn't mean that he didn't gain their respect — just that they preferred someone else, for whatever reason (possibly policy, possibly personality, possibly patronage). We can't base our editorial decisions on what might be possible — only on what's recorded in reliable sources. Watchingobama's apparent conviction is not a reliable source. Neither is your inability to distinguish what reliable sources say from "pro-Obama POV". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why am I not surprised that there is difficulty on the part of some editors in distingushing pro-Obama POV from fact? Oh. Long experience? There's that. Well, one interpretation of the historical record is that Obama had "gained the respect of police organizations". That's the pro-Obama POV. The other is that the FOP is a committed Democrat organization and when Obama was the last Democrat standing they held their noses and endorsed him, and therefor had to find something positive to say about someone they were really unenthusiastic about. If that view is found in the RS (and Watchingobama seems convinced it is true, so it ought to have been reported) NPOV requires it be mentioned as well. Andyvphil (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Senate Career section changes
Lots of changes here. Comments welcome. --HailFire (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The reorganization makes sense to me, and I approve of the removal of some less-than-essential content such as the Senator Barack Obama Primary School in Kenya. (Details, as always, are in the relevant daughter article.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of "less-than-essential content", yet again Andy has decided to take it upon himself to expand the NJ and ADA ratings to include information that isn't necessary for a summary section of Obama's senate career. I've moved his additional information to Obama's senate career article and removed it from this article. I've also shifted Obama's response to the NJ's rating to the sentence following the rating's sentence. While I understand why his response was located where it was (to counter both the NJ and ADA ratings), since the response is specifically to the NJ's rating and not to the ADA rating, it just seems odd to me to have his response after the ADA's rating. --Bobblehead 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- And yet again, Andy has taken it upon himself to revert my moving of his detail to the sub-article without discussion. What is everyone else's opinion of having TNJ's and ADA's ratings to the detail that Andy would like them to have.. I'm of the opinion the detail is completely unnecessary for the main article and is better placed in the sub-article (where it already is). --Bobblehead 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of "less-than-essential content", yet again Andy has decided to take it upon himself to expand the NJ and ADA ratings to include information that isn't necessary for a summary section of Obama's senate career. I've moved his additional information to Obama's senate career article and removed it from this article. I've also shifted Obama's response to the NJ's rating to the sentence following the rating's sentence. While I understand why his response was located where it was (to counter both the NJ and ADA ratings), since the response is specifically to the NJ's rating and not to the ADA rating, it just seems odd to me to have his response after the ADA's rating. --Bobblehead 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've gotta say that I don't really have a huge opinion on this. I can do with either. I would suggest that it doesn't harm the article to include it here. So why not hold hands and sing kumbaya and include it to keep the tension down around here. (Or the other way around) Arkon (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is clearly wrong to include it because it goes into specific (and in some cases, slightly dubious) details that seem horribly out of place in the summary-style prose. Rolling over to the POV-pushers in the hope they will play nice doesn't work, because once they get their way on something they just start a new battle elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- That wasn't really helpful. Arkon (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- And a suggestion that we "hold hands and sing kumbaya" is? Suggesting that these changes would "keep the tension down around here" is not sufficient reason for inclusion. I'm not opposed to the votes being in the article, but they'd really need to be summarized. There's no reason to spend time going into excessive detail on them. --Ubiq (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, yeah, it is. Working together, keeping the heat down, is, very, helpful. Now excuse me while I go buy some more commas. Arkon (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well, obviously working together and keeping the heat down are helpful in reducing tension. But working together doesn't entail blindly accepting one version just to appease the person who wants it to be included. --Ubiq (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article history clearly demonstrates that POV-pushers (editors who do almost nothing but add or restore negative POV) will not accept compromise, and the result is that neutral editors just "give in" to try to restore stability. Such an approach is unacceptable. Bobblehead's edits are being continuously reverted by Andy, which is considered disruptive. Andy likes to burden the article with negative details of little or no significance in order to redress what he sees as an imbalance. If the neutral editors acquiesced to every POV-push by Andy, the article would be double the length and a distortion of reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) See I think this is part of the problem though. I give a rather bland 'meh' response about the inclusion of the materials after bobblehead asked for input and the next few responses are riddled with "POV-pusher" language. As if that is the only type of person who would disagree. Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning anything done by some legitimate pov pushers, but the reflexive fallback to that at every turn is not helping matters. Arkon (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Arkon, I don't think the "POV-pusher" language is being aimed at anyone that would disagree that the details are not necessary for this article, but rather at the specific editor that is adding them. Not that I agree with the usage of the language (I agree that isn't particularly helpful). --Bobblehead 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this is the version Bobblehead wanted:
The National Journal, which uses 99 roll call votes it sees as important and useful in drawing ideological distinctions, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007 after ranking him 16th most liberal in 2005 and 10th most liberal in 2004. Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving. Ratings of Obama's liberalism by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), based on 20 ADA-selected votes each year, declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007.
...and this is the version I replaced that with:
The National Journal, in its 27th annual vote ratings, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007 after ranking him 16th most liberal in 2005 and 10th most liberal in 2006. Of the Senate's 442 roll-call votes the publication chose 99 as important and useful in drawing ideological distinctions. Obama voted for the "liberal position" on 65 of 66 occasions, missing 33 of the votes. Ratings of Obama's liberalism by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), based on 20 ADA-selected votes each year, declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% (one vote the ADA counted as not-liberal) in 2006 and 75% (five missed votes) in 2007. Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.
Not too crazy about that last sentence, which half-regurgitates some incoherent Media Matters criticism of Politico 's characterization of Obama's response which we nonetheless repeat unmodified, meanwhile making the cite an indirect one, but I'm not responsible for it. I only moved it back to the end of the paragraph, since it's point is that Obama rejects the label "liberal" though somehow, if you read the transcript, "progressive" is fine. The sentence needs reconsideration and probably rollback to an earlier, simpler, version, but that's not what's at issue now.
Bobblehead's sentence on the ADA is simply misleading, as it implies Obama is becoming less "liberal", year by year. My version makes it clear that in 55 votes he voted the ADA-approved way 54 times.
It also shows that in 2007 Obama voted in the way a pure liberal would be expected to by the NJ 65 of 66 times, missing 33 of the 99 votes selected from 442 that year. Bobblehead gives the number 99 with no context whatsoever and gives no idea of why the NJ would conclude Obama was liberal other than bald assertion.
The second version is simply more informative. If ignorance is pro-Obama I guess that makes it anti-Obama. Andyvphil (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I pointed out below, what you see as being "more informative" others might call "original research". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Update ref for Obama outside references
new book out see Obama, Yes We can, Hope out March 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.52 (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Wright on Bill Moyers Journal
Recommended to anyone contributing to discussions about how details concerning Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ, or Black theology may merit (or not merit) inclusion in this article about Barack Obama:
"Rev. Jeremiah Wright" (interview, video and text). Bill Moyers Journal. PBS. April 25 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
--HailFire (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
New developments with Wright
Should we include in this article that Obama seems to be distancing himself from Wright following Wright's appearance at the national press club? Obviously it's a bit too soon to do it as Obama just had the press conference (Recentism and all that), but I figured I'd get the discussion going before we end up with a full scale edit war again. --Bobblehead 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah it seems to be taking an odd, even more sour turn. I think it's best to wait until any further developments. If it gets even uglier, we'd obviously have to change the summary paragraph to reflect any significant changes in the matter. --Ubiq (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that we need to wait and see what happens before trying to summarize it here. We're in the middle of the storm right now, and can't tell what the damage will be yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely think something will probably be needed eventually. We could add something like this to the existing Wright paragraph:
- Following a trio of public appearances by Jeremiah Wright in which he reiterated some of his controversial comments, Obama sought to distance himself further from his former pastor. He said he was "outraged" at what he described as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth," adding, "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks was somehow political posturing."
- That might be a bit too much, but I think you can see where I'm going with it. I haven't actually seen anything since Obama's press conference, so obviously it will need further work if there have been more developments. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good, but it is too much. In particular, the phrase ",Obama sought to distance himself further from his former pastor" repeats previous content and is not neutral enough. "Sought to distance" is too politic, as in the "political posturing" that Obama is denouncing. I think Wright's and Obama's falling out is actually good for Obama in the long run. Yet the measure of his success at this time is irrelevant. Suggest removing the phrase, perhaps writing "Following...,Obama said he was...". Modocc (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's probably a bit premature to be proposing material for this right now. --Ubiq (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but I think the idea was to head off the inevitable flood of additions/reversions regarding the press conference by getting a discussion going here. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. Just call it a pre-emptive strike on my part.. --Bobblehead 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but I think the idea was to head off the inevitable flood of additions/reversions regarding the press conference by getting a discussion going here. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's probably a bit premature to be proposing material for this right now. --Ubiq (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good, but it is too much. In particular, the phrase ",Obama sought to distance himself further from his former pastor" repeats previous content and is not neutral enough. "Sought to distance" is too politic, as in the "political posturing" that Obama is denouncing. I think Wright's and Obama's falling out is actually good for Obama in the long run. Yet the measure of his success at this time is irrelevant. Suggest removing the phrase, perhaps writing "Following...,Obama said he was...". Modocc (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely think something will probably be needed eventually. We could add something like this to the existing Wright paragraph:
In fairness to Wright, he also defended Obama at the NAACP dinner in Detroit "He also defended Obama and lashed out at the news media for running excerpts of his heated sermons, media pundits and those who have tried to connect him to Islam because of his full name — Barack Hussein Obama." -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by It is me i think (talk • contribs) sorry I forgot to sign It is me i think (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Malia was born in 1998
Malia was born on July 4, 1998:
- Sneed, Michael (July 7, 1998). Sneed. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 4:
Congrats to State Sen. Barack Obama and wife, Michelle, on the birth of their first child, Malia.
- Obama, Barack (2006). The Audacity of Hope New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0307237699, p. 339:
Then Malia was born, a Fourth of July baby, so calm and so beautiful, with big, hypnotic eyes that seemed to read the world the moment they opened.
- Kimball, Nick (July 4, 2007). Happy July 4th!, Nick Kimball's Blog, barackobama.com
Michelle introduced Barack, with their daughter Malia sitting next to her. It's Malia's birthday today!
"Malia Obama is now a young lady of nine. Isn't she gorgeous?"
Natasha (Sasha) was born in 2001:
- Kupcinet, Irv (June 24, 2001). Kup's column. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 16:
Congrats to Sen. Barack Obama and wife Michelle on the birth of daughter Natasha Marion.
Newross (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it. I went ahead and changed it to 1998. --Ubiq (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weird. I wonder why so many references say she was born in 1999 then? I wouldn't have expected that to be the sort of thing that was difficult to find out the truth of. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- See? I told you so. That's what happens when a source gets the facts wrong and then all the other sources regurgitate the error instead of checking themselves. I actually emailed the Obama campaign to get a clarification, but after 2 weeks I still haven't heard anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
More edit warring
There's more back-and-forth edit warring going on over this material. Let's discuss it piece by piece, see what the general view is and whether there's room for compromise. (I'm signing each section so that people can reply to the relevant bit without it being confusing who said what.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Details of ideological ranking
Version 1 (originated by HailFire, I think):
The National Journal, which uses 99 roll call votes it sees as important and useful in drawing ideological distinctions, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007 after ranking him 16th most liberal in 2005 and 10th most liberal in 2004. Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving. Ratings of Obama's liberalism by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), based on 20 ADA-selected votes each year, declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007.
Version 2 (originated by AndyvPhil):
The National Journal, in its 27th annual vote ratings, identified Obama as "the most liberal senator" in 2007. Of the Senate's 442 roll-call votes the publication chose 99 as important and useful in drawing ideological distinctions. Obama voted fot the "liberal position" on 65 of 66 occasions, missing 33 of the votes. Ratings of Obama's liberalism by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), based on 20 ADA-selected votes each year, declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% (one vote the ADA counted as not-liberal) in 2006 and 75% (five missed votes) in 2007. Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" categorization of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.
Some of the material in Version 2 seems like irrelevant detail to me (why would readers care that the 2007 ratings were the 27th annual?) Additionally, some of the wording ("one vote the ADA counted as not-liberal") is extraordinarily clumsy. But most important, I worry that analyzing the details of these ratings is original research. If we're going to include this sort of vote rating, we should either cite the score as reported by each organization, or (if we want to add analysis) cite a reliable third party which has analyzed the material. We can't dissect it ourselves. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've addressed the problems with Bobblehead's version above. The point of "27th annual" is to counter the idea, expressed on this page when someone first added mention of the NJ rating, that they just fell out of a tree and started doing this to trash Obama. I can live without it, and if you find "not-liberal" clumsy fell free to substitute something better, but that's not the kind of edit that this text is getting from the pro-Obama crewe. Your concerns about WP:OR are unfounded. Everything said about the NJ and the ADA ratings conforms to WP:PSTS, q.v. Andyvphil (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How about:
CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, has characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on analysis of all Senate votes cast in 2005–2007, and the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of 99 selected votes during 2007.<ref>Nather, David (January 14 2008). "The Space Between Clinton and Obama". CQ Weekly. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Curry, Tom (February 21 2008). "What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-27.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)</ref><ref>"Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)</ref> Asked about the Journal's characterization of his voting record, Obama expressed doubts about the survey's methodology and blamed "old politics" labeling of political positions as "conservative" or "liberal" for creating predispositions that prevent problem-solving.<ref>"Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Toner, Robin (March 23 2008). "Obama's Promise of a New Majority". International Herald Tribune. also NYT version (published 2008-03-25). Retrieved 2008-04-30.{{cite news}}: Check|first=value (help); Check date values in:|date=(help); External link in(help)</ref>|publisher=
--HailFire (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess Toner is better than Media Matters(except you don't use any of the content) but it otherwise looks just like Bobblehead, ADA-deletion, no-context "99", and corroded last sentence and all. We've got plenty of room. Take Toner and run with it. See what you can do to characterize Obama's record. The remnant you suggest is a non-starter. Andyvphil (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem here is that we are trying to square the circle. Andy is correct in that missing out some of the information he has been adding is going to give a misleading picture. But keeping all that information gives us a paragraph that contains too much detail for a BLP, and probably too much weight to the subject. It is hard to summarize statistics without conducting original research - that's just the way it is. I have long been in favor of removing all the numbers completely, mainly for these reasons:
- We have a good source that uses the term "loyal democrat" - a characterization that neutrally represents CQ's data.
- Statistics cannot be summarized without compromising their integrity.
- Liberal/conservative rankings based on votes are unreliable - many votes are cast based on objections to attached earmarks, or specific wording, rather than to the central issue.
- A campaigning candidate will always have a smaller voting sample, leading to inaccuracy.
- All that being said, I certainly think that Obama's voting record can be thoroughly explored in the Senate career article without the need to compromise. With that in mind, I think a one-sentence treatment can be added to Barack Obama#Political positions (along the lines of "Obama has been described as a 'loyal democrat.'") with the CQ reference attached. I don't think we are going to be able to create an acceptable summary paragraph without resorting to original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking the CQ one sentence summarization is a bit too short, if only because the most notable of the three ratings is the TNJ rating. I also don't think that not including the detail beyond the 95% is "compromising the integrity" of the statistics. It's very common in statistics to leave out the details and only report the percentages. Perhaps we could use wording more inline with the VoteSmart source on ADA and word it as "Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005, 95 percent 2006, and 75 percent in 2007." Or if including the word "Liberal" is so important, "The Americans for Democratic Action gave Obama a Liberal Quotient of 100% in 2005, 95% in 2006, and 75% in 2007," --130.76.32.182 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem here is that we are trying to square the circle. Andy is correct in that missing out some of the information he has been adding is going to give a misleading picture. But keeping all that information gives us a paragraph that contains too much detail for a BLP, and probably too much weight to the subject. It is hard to summarize statistics without conducting original research - that's just the way it is. I have long been in favor of removing all the numbers completely, mainly for these reasons:
"a practicing Muslim"
I'm of two minds whether this is relevant or not. The evidence of whether Lolo Soetoro was a practicing Muslim is somewhat equivocal. Certainly, he was a nominal Muslim and attended mosque on occasion. But we've also got reliable sources saying that he was "much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors", and "hardly the image of a pious Muslim". And Obama's sister has said, "My father saw Islam as a way to connect with the community. He never went to prayer services except for big communal events. I am absolutely certain that my father did not go to services every Friday. He was not religious." Now, you may question Maya Soetoro-Ng's veracity, but this shows that baldly describing Lolo Soetoro as "a practicing Muslim" isn't uncontroversial. Early life and career of Barack Obama goes into some of this detail, but I think that it's too tangential to include here. And without that detail, we'd be violating NPOV if we simply say that he was a practicing Muslim. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is absolutely uncontroversial that Lolo Soetero was a practicing Muslim. Not "devout" or "pious" or "fanatical" or "conservative" or "Wahabbi" , but "Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths." (Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama, emphasis added.) He went to the mosque, he prayed, he took Barry there, he practiced. I don't question his half-sister's veracity here, just the clarity of her vocabulary. She seems to be using "religious" as a synonym for "pious". But it's absolutely uncontroversial that Lolo Soetero practiced a faith and called it Islam. Describing him only as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful" is completely misleading. Andyvphil (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, guys? I can't believe that we are arguing over his father's religious practices. Is there mention in the articles of other public figures about their parents' church attendance? Should we mention how many church ceremonies John McCain's parents attended... or discuss whether John F. Kennedy (and the other Kennedys) truly believed/believe that the mother of Jesus was a virgin? Personally, I am an atheist, so I don't see any religion as more or less valid than another... but it seems that the edit warring here is only due to the fact that Islam is the religion in question and not Christianity. Let's try to get past it. Paisan30 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not just Lolo who went to the mosque for Friday prayer. Lolo took Barry. That's an unusual experience for an American presidential candidate. Anyway, your suggestion is we just delete the paragraph? Andyvphil (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I partially agree with Paisan30. There is currently too much detail on the religious beliefs of his family, and it appears that we are having difficulty verifying at least one of those details. If in doubt, leave it out is my mantra, when faced with a circumstance like this. A Republican smear campaign, stoked by Hillary's "as far as I know" comment, has made this an issue that really should be addressed. Perhaps we could say something like:
- ...and his Indonesian stepfather as a Muslim, "who saw religion as not particularly useful."
- That would take care of the difficulty in verifying his stepfather's Muslimness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from the typo should be "...and his Indonesian stepfather was a Muslim,...", I'm fine with Scjessey's proposal. --130.76.32.182 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- In the context of the paragraph, it should be "as" - " his Indonesian stepfather as a Muslim, 'who saw religion as not particularly useful.'" -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I have made this change in anticipation of agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The cited pages from Audacity, 202-208, contain no identification of Obama's stepfather as "a Muslim", practicing or otherwise. Also, this addition is entirely inappropriate here in the context of Obama's adult religious beliefs. I've removed it. Please do not make additions without verifying them first by checking the cited source. --HailFire (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I see what the problem is. In "The Audacity of Hope", Obama says his Indonesian stepfather was "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." In "Dreams from My Father", he wrote "ike many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths." If we are going to say that his stepfather was a Muslim (in any capacity), we would have to use both sources. That would mean the paragraph would need a complete rewrite. Perhaps this could be expanded upon in a footnote instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- How about adding a double reference after the quote, like this:
- <ref>Obama (2006), p. 204. Obama wrote in the '']'', "When my mother remarried, it was to an Indonesian with an equally skeptical bent, a man who saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one's way in the world, and who had grown up in a country that easily blended its Islamic faith with remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions."</ref><ref>Obama (1995), p. 77. Obama wrote in '']'', "Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths."</ref>
- Does that work? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not here. The paragraph is about how Obama has chosen to characterize his own spiritual path. The "his Indonesian stepfather as a Muslim" edit
that you and Andy are trying so hard to include here (and attribute to Obama's own statements)can't be verifiably sourced because it is a misreading of what Obama has written. --HailFire (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)- Excuse me? I am not "trying so hard" to include it. I'd be perfectly happy to exclude any mention of Islam (or Christianity, for that matter) because I believe faith (or the lack thereof) is a personal thing that should not be paraded in public or used to influence politics. The fact is, however, that the Republicans and the Clinton campaign have tried to use Obama's Muslim relatives to leverage their agendas, and it would be silly to ignore it completely - especially because Obama himself talks about his relatives in both books. The references I suggested above are direct quotes from his books that I have sourced from Obama's campaign website, and not a "misreading" of anything. I was suggesting putting these references in instead of the modified text (keeping the existing version). Thanks for lumping me in with Andy and making me laugh, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not here. The paragraph is about how Obama has chosen to characterize his own spiritual path. The "his Indonesian stepfather as a Muslim" edit
- How about adding a double reference after the quote, like this:
- Okay I see what the problem is. In "The Audacity of Hope", Obama says his Indonesian stepfather was "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." In "Dreams from My Father", he wrote "ike many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths." If we are going to say that his stepfather was a Muslim (in any capacity), we would have to use both sources. That would mean the paragraph would need a complete rewrite. Perhaps this could be expanded upon in a footnote instead? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The cited pages from Audacity, 202-208, contain no identification of Obama's stepfather as "a Muslim", practicing or otherwise. Also, this addition is entirely inappropriate here in the context of Obama's adult religious beliefs. I've removed it. Please do not make additions without verifying them first by checking the cited source. --HailFire (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I have made this change in anticipation of agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- In the context of the paragraph, it should be "as" - " his Indonesian stepfather as a Muslim, 'who saw religion as not particularly useful.'" -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from the typo should be "...and his Indonesian stepfather was a Muslim,...", I'm fine with Scjessey's proposal. --130.76.32.182 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I partially agree with Paisan30. There is currently too much detail on the religious beliefs of his family, and it appears that we are having difficulty verifying at least one of those details. If in doubt, leave it out is my mantra, when faced with a circumstance like this. A Republican smear campaign, stoked by Hillary's "as far as I know" comment, has made this an issue that really should be addressed. Perhaps we could say something like:
Details of Trinity UCC
Andy wants to include this in the "Personal life" section:
A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. The religious doctrine it teaches is black liberation theology.
I simply think this detail is unnecessary; readers can find more information about Trinity by following the link to Trinity United Church of Christ. George W. Bush doesn't go into details about his personal theology (surprisingly, even the daughter article Religious faith of George W. Bush doesn't talk about his being born-again). Trinity and Jeremiah Wright have become campaign issues, but that's not enough of a reason why we should have to discuss the details of the church's membership or theology. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You think Bush's articles ought not say he self-identifies as "born again"??? I think it's inexcusable that his articles don't say so. He says his Christianity is important, and I think we should take that seriously enough to identify what flavor of that faith it is. And similarly for Obama. Saying "Religion - Christian: (United Church of Christ)" doesn't mean much. If black liberation theology is an insignificant "detail" it's hard to see why we bother mentioning anything in this article. Andyvphil (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Andy is correct when he says that black liberation theology is a significant part of what Trinity is about - the church was founded in the '60s around that particular theology, and still continues to evoke it today. Black liberation theology is more about empowering blacks that feel put down by what they see as a ruling white class, and the church often evokes that theme - although not in an "anti-white" manner as some have been saying. All that said, Josiah is correct when he says that such details are not necessary in this particular article. There is no suggestion that Obama attends Trinity because he agrees with this particular theology (in fact, he pointedly has said he does not). Specifics about Trinity, such as what it is and how large its congregation is, belong in Trinity United Church of Christ. The reason we have blue links is so that we don't have to overstuff articles with detail, particularly when using the summary style we have here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Before this goes farther, is there a page on the church? If there is a page on the church, then include a link to the church and leave the description/ideas of that church to the related article. The information is not directly about Obama, but the church he attended. This information lends nothing to the article, but adds to the controversy. Brothejr (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - Trinity United Church of Christ. That is already linked in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Leave it as a link to TUCC without the details of what the church is.. This article isn't about TUCC, it's about Barack Obama. We don't include the "controversial" beliefs of the Catholic Church in the bios of Catholics, I don't see how this would be any different. --130.76.32.182 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - Trinity United Church of Christ. That is already linked in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Before this goes farther, is there a page on the church? If there is a page on the church, then include a link to the church and leave the description/ideas of that church to the related article. The information is not directly about Obama, but the church he attended. This information lends nothing to the article, but adds to the controversy. Brothejr (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Andy is correct when he says that black liberation theology is a significant part of what Trinity is about - the church was founded in the '60s around that particular theology, and still continues to evoke it today. Black liberation theology is more about empowering blacks that feel put down by what they see as a ruling white class, and the church often evokes that theme - although not in an "anti-white" manner as some have been saying. All that said, Josiah is correct when he says that such details are not necessary in this particular article. There is no suggestion that Obama attends Trinity because he agrees with this particular theology (in fact, he pointedly has said he does not). Specifics about Trinity, such as what it is and how large its congregation is, belong in Trinity United Church of Christ. The reason we have blue links is so that we don't have to overstuff articles with detail, particularly when using the summary style we have here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Per this discussion and Bobblehead's edit summary here, I have removed excessive detailing of TUCC from the Barack Obama#Personal life section of this article. --HailFire (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Head of State
it should be noted that his favorite film is Head of State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.36.77 (talk • contribs) 21:00, April 30, 2008
- Why? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be worse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was asking "why should it be noted?" rather than "why is it his favorite film?" I haven't seen Head of State, and have no opinion on it (although Chris Rock is generally hilarious). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be worse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Images
Should the article use images from his senate photo gallery at http://obama.senate.gov/photo/ ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "From The Editor". and "Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings". - "Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
- "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "From The Editor". and "Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings". - "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
- "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - "Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Bill Moyers' Journal". PBS. 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
- Nichols, Darren A. (April 27, 2008). "Wright delivers fiery, humorous speech at NAACP dinner". Detroit News. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - "Transcript of Wright's remarks, as provided by CQ Transcriptions". New York Times. April 28, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-28.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Obama denounces former pastor". The Associated Press. MSNBC.com. April 29, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/wright-discusses-public-crucifixion-at-sunday-services/
- "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "From The Editor". and "Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings". - "Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
- "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. January 31 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "From The Editor". and "Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings". - "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
- "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - "Obama Interview" (transcript). WJLA-TV. Politico. February 12 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: "Politico's Harris and VandeHei Misrepresented Harris' Own Interview with Obama". Media Matters for America. March 19 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
- "2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside" (PDF). ADA Today. Americans for Democratic Action. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - Keogh, Diana (2007-10-01). "Chicago's Trinity UCC prepares to welcome new pastor for new generation". United Church News. United Church of Christ. Retrieved 2008-04-30.
- Allen, Mike (March 16 2008). "Obama's Church Accuses Media of Character Assassination". Politico. Retrieved 2008-03-16.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Talev, Margaret (2008-03-20). "Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines". McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
- Wright, Jeremiah (2007-03-01). "Talking Points". Trinity United Church of Christ website. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
- 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
- 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
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press