Misplaced Pages

It's a slip of the tongue easily done when one is tired. Obviously he meant 47. If he does it again, then there's real cause for concern. Tom3605 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We are making a lot of assumptions...slip of the tongue, that he is tired (ok, what time was the statement made?), etc. He did say it but is it among the top 500 facts about him? If not, it is not for this article. Only about the top 500 facts should be in this article...that's a NPOV way to consider what is important. Is his birthdate among the top 500 facts? Of course. Then it comes to gray area. Is a particular scandal one of the 500 or so top facts? In some cases, yes, in some cases, no. Maybe this thought could help in deciding what stays (is notable) and what goes. DianeFinn (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Get a life. So he said 57 instead of 47. Everyone knows that it was a slip of the tongue that happened one time. And everyone knows that Obama is aware of how many states there are. Also, there is no "frenzy" around it. Paisan30 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Obama was mentally adjusting the 50 United States into the 47 he'd visited, but absentmindedly forgot to voice the "forty-" part. (Goes like this: He said "...Fifty- <pauses> um seven, ," exhaustedly thinking he'd said "...Fifty------um forty-seven, .)" Major gaffe? Doubtful. — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When you make a slip of the tongue, it's easy to realize your mistake and correct it. Obama did not. (65.4.227.97 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

RFC name

Please see this below.Tvoz/talk 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I start this RFC (I thought it could be resolved without a RFC but it keeps getting reverted). The RFC question is whether Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, should have her full legal name mentioned in the first instance of the article, where it mentions that Obama was son of father (Barack) and mother (Stanley Ann).

*for full name of mother - This gives her dignity, is encyclopedic, and very much like an obituary/encyclopedia/etc. It is ok to mention her informal name, Ann, in subsequent mentions of the lady. Richard Nixon's article refers to the father as Francis Nixon (Frank). Please support giving the article and the lady dignity by listing her legal name at least the first time it is used. I didn't think this would be so controversial but it has been reverted several times. I seek a nice and stately article (and to avoid edit wars) which is why I started this RFC.DianeFinn (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are advocating against using "full name", and instead substituting "birth name". God only knows why. LotLE×talk

• Oppose. This is a ridiculous argument to be having - Misplaced Pages uses common names for links. Please do not accuse others of edit-warring for disagreeing with you or insisting on discussion before making changes. Thanks. Harro5 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::Others have made changes without discussion, not me. Also edit warring is when there is reverting back and forth, which is happening. Actually, it's not happening as I keep suggesting different changes while someone else insists on the same change. Also, I am not the only one who has changed it to the full legal name. Also, dignity and encyclopedic appearance is what WP is for so if the links don't follow it, it's time for us to follow it. DianeFinn (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. We should not violate WP:NAMES for absolutely no reason. Style guides assure consistent presentation of information, and the non-title name variant for the link to Ann Dunham's article has no motivation other than one editor apparently thinking it "sounds nicer" (it doesn't). Moreover, neither DianeFinn nor Nunh-huh has provided one single example of any other article that follows the rule rather than WP:STYLE (not even one for the "special case" Nunh-huh alleges of "parents names" (i.e. see above examples whaere rule is followed: Darwin, GWB, Nixon, etc). The only "example" provide is that of Francis A. Nixon that exactly contradicts DianeFinn's point (i.e. all links are to exact spelling of article title). LotLE×talk 23:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nothing wrong with including her full name the first time it appears. Of course, in the spirit of avoiding redirects when possible, the link should go to her common name.Ngchen (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless there's a compelling reason to mention Ann's birth-versus-preferred names in Barack's article it needn't be included. As, dignified or not, a rule going the other way would bog ledes into such, um, unwieldinesses as

Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France (19 December 1778 – 19 October 1851) was the eldest child of King Louis XVI of France and his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette.

Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte de France (19 December 1778 – 19 October 1851) was the eldest child of Louis-Auguste (King Louis XVI of France) and his wife, Queen Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna von Habsburg-Lothringen.

• Strongly oppose She was known as Ann Dunham - the details of her name are already properly in her article as required by encyclopedia standards; there is absolutely no reason to use her birth name here, and the zeal with which this is being pursued raises some questions in my mind about motivation. Somehow, concern about the "dignity" of the late Ms. Dunham doesn't ring true. But my opposition is on the basis of Misplaced Pages policies on names. Tvoz/talk 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What purpose, Tvoz's worn-on-sleeve partisanship and Wiki-tribalism/ not "assuming good faith"? — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you really don't know what, if any, my "partisanship" is, so please don't make assumptions or accusations. I edit here neutrally, and the reason I was skeptical about assuming good faith by DianeFinn (talk · contribs · logs) was borne out by this below. Tvoz/talk 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, nooow I get it. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose for reasons stated above by Tvoz and others. The "dignity" argument is bizarre and irrelevant to WP:NAMES and the Nixon example simply falls into the realm of WP:OTHERCRAP. There is no reason not to use her common name which is also the name of the linked article. In fact there is really no reason for this RfC, as consensus on this issue is already pretty clear with the initiator being the only dissenter (and the chief instigator of this low-grade edit war). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose for reasons already stated. It is normal form to use a person's common name, and I see no compelling reason to deviate from that. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• support. Of course we should use her real name. One's mother's name is a vital statistic; what matters is her legal name, not what she chose as a nickname. To pretend that this is a "violation" of WP:NAMES is bizarre to the degree of misrepresentation. As for examples: as I've pointed out to Lulu elsewhere, pick nearly any titled person: the name linked won't correspond to the article name (e.g, the mother of King George I of Great Britain). - Nunh-huh 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• opposeStrongly oppose. This is not the place to introduce a new convention (either formally or as a de facto convention) regarding the use of parents' full names. In accordance with WP:NAMES, biographies do begin with the subjects' full names whether they are the persons' birth names or subsequent legal names. With the example given, there is no convention to use Nixon's father's full name, Francis Anthony "Frank" Nixon, nor is it used in the president's biography. As the evidence presented shows, the consensus on Misplaced Pages is to use the established common names, such as with Nixon's father, and I agree with the other editors that there is absolutely no compelling reason here to do otherwise. Modocc (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "new convention": the conventions used for a name of a person at the beginning of an article about that person have no application to names used elsewhere. I really wish people would stop misrepresenting this- Nunh-huh 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarified my statement. Modocc (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

*full name that's the sensible way. the other reasons given seem bureaucratic, citing a wikipedia rule. what is wikipedia, just a website. it's suppose to be an encyclopedia. Clist08 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am again striking out comments that were made by two confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user. As he well knows, when you're banned, you're banned and you're not allowed to edit from any account. It has nothing to do with whether a comment is radical. Please don't undo the strike outs. Tvoz/talk 05:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

DianeFinn blocked as sock

Just as an FYI, DianeFinn (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs). --Bobblehead 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that should make things easier for a few days or so. We still have a lot of work undoing the damage of the last week. Also, I invite regular editors to weigh in on the AfD discussion of an article created by this banned sockpuppet that is similar to other articles created by the same sock. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article should probably be speedied per WP:BAN unless someone else wants to claim ownership of the article. --Bobblehead 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am an established user. I've read what DianeFinn has edited here and I can't see anything that is radical. It's not "Obama is a Muslim" type of comments. However, this attacking of DianeFinn seems to be based on her opinions (not pro-Obama) so I'm not going to identify myself except to a certain group of trusted users. After all, why get blocked while trying to defuse a situation. (I am going to uncross out the passages that don't seem radical). CDCD5 (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. Banned users are banned - they are not allowed to edit under socks, whether their edits are radical or not. It is irrelevant. I've re-struck out the comments. Tvoz/talk 05:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

!That's an admission of guilt! You can disagree with Finn but her comments were calm and had some logic to it. Finn also claimed that opponents called people sock to get rid of their opinions. This seems plausible. Looney's comments calling Finn's comments as damage when a normal person reading it wouldn't agree shows partisanship. Bamarack (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of DianeFinn's edits, banned editors are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages and there edits should be reverted on sight, unless an established editor wishes to "claim" the edits. --Bobblehead 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The above user is yet another sock puppet of Derek and has already been banned. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering I'm the above user, I hope you mean Bamarack (talk · contribs · logs). :)--Bobblehead 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't think anyone would mistake you for him. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you'd be surprised ....... cheerio Tvoz/talk 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, you didn't link to the dozens of other times Dereks1x socks have accused me of being his sockpuppet. Heh. :) --Bobblehead 22:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not alone in that... Tvoz/talk 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Add CDCD5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to the list. seicer | talk | contribs 06:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove Categories

Obama does not belong in Irish-American writers or Irish-American politicans categories. Even if Obama has some Irish roots, that does not make him an Irish-American. If you are going to put Obama in the Irish-American categories, you'll have to put Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge in African-American categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.113.218 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't explain Harding or Coolidge. As far as Irish, isn't his mother Irish? CDCD5 (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the IP doesn't have a point. A distantly removed Irish lineage is a stretch, why Irish over any other nationalities (I'm sure there are other European nationalities to which he pertains). 05:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We all know Ronald Reagan's dad was Irish-Yank but how many of us know (this according to here) that John Lennon (O Leannain's) dad was Irish-Brit as was Che Guevara (Lynch's) Irish-Argy? — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone in the Irish-American politicians category is at least half-Irish and has publicly identified with the Irish-American community. Barack Obama seems to be unaware that there is even such a group as Irish-Americans. Barack Obama's Irish heritage is no more than Warren G. Harding or Calvin Coolidge's African heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.113.218 (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

For all the things Obama is famous for, I am not sure the fact that he has authored 2 books belongs in the first paragraph, per WP:LEAD. It is notable, but certainly ought not be there. He has many other notable accomplishments which surpass this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think an abridgment rather than an elimination of the book authorship from the lead is better. After all, it is significant enough to get its own large section in the article, so some mention in lead seems reasonable. The fact these books are best-sellers makes it seem more notable than had they been academic or special titles in narrow fields. However, listing the titles and links of the books is better left for that lower section. LotLE×talk 04:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a problems in the first few paragraphs of the lead; the book is notable, though not that notable (even how much its readers might like it). But the third sentence and first paragraph seems a bit overboard. Compare this with other major presidential candidates and presidents. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to see where else in the lead the comments would best go. "Author" is basically one of his several current jobs (along with Senator and Candidate), and listing them all together flows nicely. Hillary Clinton wrote It Takes a Village, which also was a best-seller, but that was in 1996 while Obama's books are still current sellers. Moreover, I think with a longer Senate career as well as being First Lady, she's just better known for other stuff, while Obama's book is comparatively high in his notoriety. As far as I know, McCain has not written a book. I haven't looked through all the past presidents (or past candidates). LotLE×talk 09:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Barack's New Name: "Barack Black Eagle"

The WashingtonPost.com reported on May 19, 2008:

Sen. Barack Obama became the first American presidential candidate to visit the reservation of the Crow Nation, and in doing so was adopted into the nation under the Crow name "One Who Helps People Throughout the Land."

"I want to thank my new parents," he said. "The nicest parents you could ever want to know. I like my new name. Barack Black Eagle. That is a good name!" -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrupp10799 (talk • contribs) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but not really notable enough for this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not buying it. Mainly because the "black eagle" part sounds so stereotypical to many of the Barrack Obama rumours that have been started. But if you have a source and higher rating Wikipedians say you can I don't see why it can't be on the article. Kobb (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough for this bio, but it seems to be verifiable:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23728392-12377,00.html; http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obamas-new-name.html; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124498372105711.html; http://www.nationaljournal.com/hotline/hl_20080520_3816.php.

LotLE×talk 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see whether you really have a "new consensus"

I have been asking the Obama campaign volunteers to prove that they do indeed have the "new consensus" that they are claiming. They instead trotted off to get me blocked for 24 hours for a "3RR violation" even though I hadn't violated 3RR. So I'm going to force the issue. Let's see whether they really do have consensus.

Please indicate below whether you Support or Oppose the following version of this article:

(1) No quotations from Obama's admitted spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, are allowed. Despite the fact that the presidential campaign is the only thing that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester, another freshman senator who merits only a few hundred words, the major controversy about Wright during the campaign that has caused Obama himself to admit that he was "shaken" is to be treated as a speed bump. One short paragraph, and any quotations from Wright are to be reverted on sight.

(2) Never, ever allow a quotation from anyone who is actually criticizing Obama. Let alone a notable conservative like Fred Siegel in a notable conservative journal like National Review. (Horrors.) And Gaia forbid that such a quotation would mention Don Imus. (Oh, the humanity!) Any such quotation is to be reverted on sight. Two mild words about "Senate clubbiness" might be allowed if they come from a progressive.

(3) Never mention that Obama's friend, neighbor and political sponsor William Ayers is anything other than a bland, boring professor at UIC. Any mention of his bomb-tossing, unrepentant terrorist past is to be reverted on sight.

(4) Never, ever suggest the fact that Tony Rezko is under any criminal suspicion at all, even though the jury is currently deliberating on 24 felony counts against him based on political fund raising abuses, and Rezko raised $250,000 for Obama's political campaigns dating back to the first day of fund raising for Obama's first political campaign. Any mention of any suspicions against Tony Rezko are to be reverted on sight.

(5) It is unnecessary to discuss such reversions on the Talk page, or to demonstrate that you have consensus for your edit. Just revert these forbidden items the moment you see them. If you feel like verbally abusing the person who put them there and making accusations against him, go right ahead.

(6) Any material that might violate any of these enumerated points is to be banished to a satellite article that no one will ever read. This article is to be maintained as 100% pure Obama campaign literature.

• Strongly Oppose. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please rewrite your poll in a neutral and actionable manner. The way it is currently written comes off as basically being a tirade about you being blocked for edit warring and includes a number of personal attacks and outright falsehoods that can not be supported or opposed by anyone. If you have concerns about specific content that is not being included, provide the content you wish to have included and your reasoning for including them and do so in a civil manner. --Bobblehead 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support following WP:SUMMARY style on this article, and oppose WP:SOAPBOX tirades against the bio subject :-). LotLE×talk 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see whether you really have a "new consensus" (version 2)

All those supporting the current version, which has forbidden all quotations from Obama spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright that were included by previous consensus, any mention of William Ayers' unrepentant bomb-tossing past, any mention of the felony charges against Tony Rezko related to political fund raising, any mention of $250,000 in fund raising that Rezko has done for Obama, any mention of the $20,000 from straw donors that was steered to Obama by Rezko, any word of criticism against Obama from any conservative or moderate no matter how notable, and any word of criticism directed at Obama that comes from a progressive except "Senate clubbiness," please indicate your support below.

• Strongly Oppose. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote from WP:BLP:

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. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

By overstating the significance of Obama's "relationships" with Ayers and Rezko, and conflating them with Wright, you are essentially breaking the "do no harm" inclusion test by violating WP:WEIGHT. You are trying to include details about other people in a biography about Obama. Those are just a couple of reasons why your persistently disruptive edits are being reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about their relationships with Obama in the article mainspace that hadn't already being said there by previous editors. Nor do I seek to change a word about those relationships as currently expressed. I just want to clearly identify who these people are: with the quotations from Wright that were supported by consensus, with a mention of the fund raising related federal charges against Rezko and his fund raising efforts for Obama, and with a mention of Ayers' starring role in the Weather Underground. I would also like to include one quotation from someone who is actually criticizing Obama, and Siegel looks like a good choice. Right now, this article looks like it was written by Obama's campaign manager. This will do no harm because the material is already out there in multiple notable, reliable, mainstream sources. I am not relying on Newsmax.com or World Net Daily for this. I am relying on mainstream sources such as the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal. It doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT because right now, this is a hagiography. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

None of that matters. This is the wrong place to be putting details about other people down. There was a case for including more of these details when they were current events (although only to appease Obama-haters, because such detail was violating WP:RECENT) but now that time has passed. It is clear your motivation for including that information is to push your personal, anti-Obama POV. Guilt-by-association details do not belong in a BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Then state your support for forbidding any criticism of Obama and any balanced description of his associates. There have been abundant details about other people if they make Obama look good, or if they make his political opponents (such as Blair Hull and Jack Ryan) look bad. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I consider any classification of me as an "Obama hater" as a personal attack. I voted for Obama in the primary and, unless he is indicted, I will vote for him in November if he is the nominee, because he is better than the alternative (four more years of Bush). People who read Misplaced Pages deserve to know the whole truth (in summary form) from this article, not from tracking down a half-dozen satellite articles. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are giving me a choice between (a) excluding all criticism from the article, or (b) supporting the inclusion of guilt-by-association smear tactics. That's a Morton's Fork false dichotomy because either choice is ridiculous. That fact that you are raving about hiding details in sub articles is a clear indication that you don't understand Misplaced Pages or basic human nature. You don't overwhelm people with irrelevant minutiae, but rather you present them with basic information with links they can choose to follow if they wish to know more. It is in the best spirit of the Internet, cross-referencing, and online encyclopedic material. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus yet. And because you and your allies here have reverted every word of criticism except "Senate clubbiness" from a progressive, you are the one creating this choice, not me. I fully understand basic human nature. Basic human nature led me to this article before I cast my vote in the primary, and I didn't see one word about Wright's "God damn America" sermon, Bill Ayers and his bomb-tossing past, or Tony Rezko and his 24 felony charges for fund raising violations. So I voted for Obama. I'm sure millions of other voters, because they were unaware of all these unsavory characters in Obama's inner circle, made a similar choice.

Now that I've found out about them, basic human nature makes me feel deeply disappointed, and even betrayed.

By Misplaced Pages.

Now that the rest of the country has found out about them, Obama is no longer the unstoppable juggernaut that he appeared to be in February. Readers of Misplaced Pages deserve to know both halves of the truth in one article. It needs to be summarized, to be sure. But it all needs to be here, both the bad and the good. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"I didn't see one word about Wright's "God damn America" sermon, Bill Ayers and his bomb-tossing past, or Tony Rezko and his 24 felony charges for fund raising violations" - that's because these details are about other people, and adding them to this article is implying that Obama is somehow complicit in these events. It's called guilt-by-association. How many times do you have to be told the same thing? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You describe this as "guilt by association." But there are other ways to describe it. "A man is known by the company he keeps." "You can't choose your family, but friends are the family you choose to have." Compared to many other presidential candidates, Obama's record in government is extremely brief and unremarkable. He has no military experience. There is little to learn about him, except by the company he keeps.

If it was just me bringing up these close friendships of Obama's, you would be absolutely right. But it isn't just me. And it isn't just the "right-wing press" and the "right-wing loonies." It's mainstream, notable, extremely reliable news media with enormous circulations. Including these associations, and the true nature of the unsavory people Obama has associated with, along with all of the accolades that this article is stuffed with is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say WP:NPOV. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If Obama lacks "Washington experience", that is being considered as a plus by the electorate in this campaign. And in the only decision that mattered, going into Iraq, Obama voted against it. Your new argument is based on adages and proverbs, rather than reality. And if Obama truly is this inexperienced dude that hangs out with evil men, why on Earth did you (claim) to vote for him? And if by "mainstream" you mean the National Review and FOX News, you are just peddling Republican spin. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The lack of Washington experience, the shortage of government experience of any kind, and the absence of military experience all lead us to explore other areas of his life that would give us a window into the mind and heart of this man. He wants to become the most powerful man in the world. Readers deserve to know as much as possible about him as we can tell them.

In one article. Summarized of course, but everything, both the bad and the good.

Obama's choice of friends and political sponsors illustrates the quality of his judgment. He has shown poor judgment in selecting Rezko, Ayers and Wright. And if Obama truly is this inexperienced dude that hangs out with evil men, why on Earth did you (claim) to vote for him? I did vote for him, and it was because I didn't know about them or their true nature from reading this Misplaced Pages article.

And in the only decision that mattered, going into Iraq, Obama voted against it. There are many other decisions that matter, Scjessey, and now we're starting to get a window into your mind and heart. Remarks like this tell me that you will defend this man in spite of anything he might of done, any other decision he made in life no matter how stupid, regrettable or even vicious, because of this one issue. Obama has made errors in judgment. Readers deserve to know that he has made these errors.

You mentioned basic human nature earlier, Scjessey. Basic human nature, in many cases, causes people to accept the information that is at their fingertips. In many cases they are just too busy, or in too much of a hurry, or just too lazy to click on all the dozens of links that appear in an article like this one. And then when they find out elsewhere, basic human nature makes them feel betrayed by Misplaced Pages. Basic human nature is an excellent argument for defeating you in this debate. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well fortunately, nobody agrees with your point-of-view. A consensus for not re-adding your POV was reached before you started commenting in this thread, as evidenced by the fact that a number of different editors reverted your edits. Misplaced Pages cannot sustain massive biographies laden with details about other people. If you feel that you have been "duped" into voting for Obama because you weren't aware of the "facts" (spin) then you can vote for John McBush in the general. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have presented your version for statements of support and opposition here. I still don't see any consensus in your favor. If nobody agrees with my point of view and everyone agrees with yours, then they will express their support for yours here, won't they?

All those who support Scjessey's version of this article, with zero quotations from Obama's spiritual mentor, zero criticisms from anyone except "Senate clubbiness" from a fellow progressive, and zero details about any of his unsavory associates (but plenty of unsavory details about his political opponents such as Blair Hull and Jack Ryan), please state your support below. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way consensus works. Your edits have been consistently reverted, and the current version has not. This is an example of WP:SILENCE, whereby the lack of edits to the material in question indicates a consensus for the current version. - Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have consistently reverted your edits as well, such as Fovean Author and Andyvphil. Please don't claim that I'm all alone in seeking to make this article obey WP:NPOV. Perhaps the problem that Fovean Author, Andyvphil and I face is a lack of your 24/7 diligence in attempting to WP:OWN this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that you are alone. I am simply saying that you can take the lack of support for your POV as an implicit consensus against your edits. Perhaps the problem you face is a lack of neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I disagree with the inclusion of those details about Jack Ryan, etc., as well. I will take another look at that section now. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the hypocrisy of seeking to exclude negative details about Obama's friends and include negative details about his political rivals has been exposed, you seek to draw the curtain over this hypocrisy again. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiss, boo, bah deletionism! Enough hovering of padded and masked defenders diving to bodyblock adversarial "slant" from marring their ideosyncratic view (ah the irony!) of "The Neutral Point Of View net." Encyclopedic coverage of a political campaign, an endeavor all about folks' opinions and making a choice among a group of candidates, is gonna feature opinion, slant, commentary, personal viewpoint. An article about a raging campaign's only meriting an occasional new swish in the netting? Booooring! (In my opinion, of course.) Everything about politics is slanted. Editors should cover a war of opinion through concisely stating the play by play of its arguments and sourcing them. WP should stop being hockey and start being basketball. So that, if the following quote from another WP article were a subject of current controversy, watching editors should promote any sense of balance by inclusion of ingredients of savory detail instead of their deletion into blandness.

Bryan's participation in the highly publicized 1925 Scopes Trial served as a capstone to his career. He was asked by William Bell Riley to represent the World Christian Fundamentals Association as counsel at the trial. During the trial Bryan took the stand and was questioned by defense lawyer Clarence Darrow about his views on the Bible. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould has speculated that Bryan's antievolution views were a result of his Populist idealism and suggests that Bryan's fight was really against Social Darwinism. Others, such as biographer Michael Kazin, reject that conclusion based on Bryan's failure during the trial to attack the eugenics in the textbook, Civic Biology.(hummh?) The national media reported the trial in great detail, with H. L. Mencken using Bryan as a symbol of Southern ignorance and anti-intellectualism.(What does this muckraker Mencken know?) The trial concluded with a directed verdict of guilty, which the defense encouraged, as their aim was to take the law itself to a higher court in order to challenge its constitutionality.

Equals more boring. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you support more opinions in this article, including opinions critical of Obama? And therefore you Oppose Scjessey's opinion-free version? That's what I thought. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mm hmm, in general. (In the BHO 2008 campaign article, viewpoints from the National Review to Limbaugh have been deleted with the comment that their sources aren't neutral. That's like covering Irish nationalism during World War I but denying commentary from proponents 'cause it's "slanted" against policies of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas. Duh.)  — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

From here: " might also omit rather than modify material they feel is contrary to their own POV about how an article should be, although it should be noted that this itself is a POV-driven action." — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As we speak, Andyvphil is reverting Lulu's edits in the article mainspace. Actions speak louder than words. Andy obviously also Opposes Scjessey's version. Sorry, but I just don't see any consensus for Scjessey's version here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have the mistaken idea that you and Andy working in tandem to insert your POV is some sort of "consensus." That's not really how wikipedia works. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My claims of "consensus" would be as bogus as yours, if I made any. I only claim that there is a pro-hagiographic claque that will agree to the NPOV when Hell freezes over. Andyvphil (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Wright paragraph, I only claim that there was a consensus for the longer version that includes quotes from Wright, and that there has been no demonstration of any consensus for the new, abbreviated version that Lulu and Scjessey keep trying to resurrect. It is dead until a new consensus has been clearly demonstrated on this page. Lulu and Scjessey, please show that you have a new consensus or stop reverting. Thank you.

Now let's talk about that quotation from Fred Siegel in the National Review. He's notable and the publication is notable and reliable. There are abundant quotations and trivial facts galore about Obama, all of which make him seem absolutely wonderful and completely perfect. They come from fellow progressives. But there is another significant body of opinion out there. Let's not pretend that conservatives don't exist. Let's not pretend that critics of Obama do not exist. Let's include at least one quotation from one fairly representative conservative critic. That's what WP:NPOV means to me in this context.

It seems to me that Andyvphil, Fovean Author, Justmeherenow, and Kossack4Truth have formed consensus supporting the version that includes Wright quotations, includes a Siegel quotation, and clearly states the negative information about Ayers and Rezko, just as the negative information about Obama's political rivals Blair Hull and Jack Ryan has stayed undisturbed in this article for so many months. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Kossack, please provide evidence that there is consensus for your longer version. As far as I have seen, your edit has been reverted almost as soon as it has been added, which pretty much means that there is no consensus for it... There seems to be more agreement on the shorter version than there is the longer version. In looking through the history on this talk page, the last version that has a clear consensus is:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. ABC News found and excerpted racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright, including his assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "state terrorism" and his assertion that, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Some of Wright's statements were widely criticized as anti-American. Following negative media coverage and a drop in the polls, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, ending his relationship with the campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected some of Wright's comments, but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine. The speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was well-received by many liberals and some conservatives, but others, including various supporters of Hillary Clinton, continued to question the implications of Obama's long relationship with Wright.

If you wish to actually discuss a longer version you will have to do so on this talk page and not on the article. If you would prefer, we can revert to the last version that had a clear consensus and begin the discussion from there, but until then, re-adding your version is edit warring. --Bobblehead 22:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't even have a majority of editors in favor of your longer version Kossack. In scrolling through the various discussions on this topic, I see Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Scjessey, Modocc, and Brothejr that are opposed to your longer version... You should also be aware that a simple majority is not consensus. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy... --Bobblehead 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at this properly, shall we? Originally the longer version of the Wright paragraph was supported by consensus. No one is disputing that. Now you have four editors supporting the newer, shorter version, and four editors opposing it. So there is no consensus for your newer, shorter version. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a link to the discussion that established consensus on the longer section? I've looked through the discussion page and I can't seem to find it. Thanks! --Bobblehead 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that a longer version had a consensus (see Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 18#Wright compromise at last.3F) but it differs from the version that Kossack is pushing (which features inflammatory and unnecessary sub-headings). However, that version was written to cover the events as they were a month ago. Recent events with Wright, coupled with the failed attempts to exploit Wright by the Republicans, have reduced the importance of Obama's relationship with Wright in the context of a biography. The need to cover the new material, but not give the section undue weight, necessitated a bit of pruning (in keeping with summary style. That's why the shorter version exists. Consensus for this shorter version can be implied by the lack of edits to it, or at least it could have been until the Andy/Kossack/Fovean "Trinity" (pun totally intended) started screwing around with it. Wright-related information is given in exhaustive detail in related (and linked) articles, so the extra details that are being push by the "trinity" are not required. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

References to "consensus" should be banned from Misplaced Pages as essentially meaningless. All they are is a fancy way of saying, "You haven't convinced me of your argument yet." Which says nothing. What says "something" is to instead say, "I don't agree with this part of your argument, because...," explaining why. Suggesting editors "seek consensus" is like telling swimmers to tread water, its only meaning being that whatever is left in mainspace at the end of the day after interested editors and admins are done with suggested contributions of text has achieved this mystical "consensus." Whoopdidoo. When editors have a rigid certainty about the correctness of a certain viewpoint (the sun revolves around the earth), for a minority to propose the addition of an alternate view (Galileo's heliocentric model----with the suggestion to let the readers decide for themselves between the two conceptions), how is the cause of truth, justice or the American Way of Life advanced by blathering on about "consensus"? (...When, alas, such consensus for the inclusion of alternate views is theoretically impossible among those motivated only with the ideal to protect the status quo?)

The worst ignorance is to think to know what one does not....if I should say that I am wiser than another, it would be that in not having competent knowledge of all things, I also think that I have not such knowledge.----SOCRATES

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright-related information is given in exhaustive detail in related (and linked) articles You mean banished to related (and linked) articles, don't you Scjessey? There are hundreds of links in this article. No one has the time to click on all of them. Finding any negative information at all about Obama's close friends is therefore a hit-or-miss proposition. I have said this repeatedly and it bears repeating again: readers of this one article deserve to know the whole truth about the whole man, including the unsavory characters he has closely associated with for so many years. It should be in summary form of course, but all of it should be here, both the good and the bad. This version is carefully sanitized and leaves the impression that Obama has never made an error in judgment. Negative details about Barack Obama's political rivals, Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, have stayed in this article unmolested for months. Therefore the argument against including negative details about Obama's dear friends and political allies collapses.

The so called "inflammatory and unnecessary sub-headings" are "Early primary victories" (again pointing to the greatness and glory that is Barack Obama) and "Wright, Ayers and later primaries." Hardly inflammatory. Not inflammatory at all, in fact rather bland, and necessary to break up the long swath of gray text. Opponents of this version can't show consensus for their version. They have stooped to misrepresenting this version and every detail about it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to a discussion where consensus was established for your preferred version, Kossack? --Bobblehead 04:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here about the link between Obama, Rezko and Ayers. Consensus on the longer version of the Wright paragraph was reached here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where consensus was reached in regards to Obama, Rezko, and Ayers in the section you linked to. I see Scjessey proposing a compromise, followed by a discussion of the compromise (including an alternative proposal by myself), and then the discussion petered out with most people saying the Ayers relationship is more appropriate for the sub-article. It should be noted that Scjessey's compromise wording is still located in the article in the Early life and career section and that as far as I can tell, Ayers wasn't added to the Presidential campaign section until you started edit warring it there on May 12. The fact that it took 4 days to get on the page and was not added by a person that was actually involved in the discussion would seem to indicate that consensus was never reached to include the information in the campaign section. I certainly don't see consensus being reached on sections being added to the campaign article. --Bobblehead 05:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see where consensus was reached in regard to removing the quotations from Wright. But somehow, that is now described as the new consensus. I suggest that we formalize this discussion into statements of Support or Opposition.

All those who support Scjessey's version, by preserving negative details about Obama's political rivals Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, reverting any mention of Ayers and Dohrn's unrepentant terrorist past, reverting even one word of quotations from Jeremiah Wright, reverting any mention of the 24 federal felony charges for campaign fund raising violations that Tony Rezko is now on trial for, reverting any mention of the $250,000 in campaign fund raising Rezko did for Obama, and turning in anybody who tries to introduce such material for 3RR/sockpuppet violations, please state your support below.

• Strongly Oppose. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Fovean Author (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated above that I would prefer not to see details about any of these people in this BLP. Details about Jack Ryan and Blair Hull are just as misplaced as details about Ayers. This is a biography about Obama, not other people. Kossack should stop making false claims. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't remove any negative details about Blair Hull and Jack Ryan; negative details about these political rivals of Obama's remained undisturbed in this article for months while negative details about his close friends and political allies were reverted roughly 100 times, by you roughly 30 times. Actions speak louder than words. You reverted negative details about Obama's allies and friends roughly 30 times, while removing negative details about his rivals precisely zero times. And evidently you concede that the remainder of my description of your version is 100% accurate. Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the details about Hull and Ryan because I haven't had time. I've been away from my computer for most of the last 2 days. And I don't know why you insist on calling it "my" version. I didn't write it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't had time? It takes roughly 30 seconds to cut out two phrases and click on "Save page." Evidently, regarding your professed desire for the removal of negative material about Obama's political rivals, you lacked the courage of your convictions. But regarding the repeated deletion of negative material about his friends and political allies, you have never hesitated or flinched and you have always had plenty of time to get the job done. I hope you understand my skepticism about your sincerity. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not edit the Hull/Ryan section because I did not know anything about it. Unlike some, I don't make arbitrary edits about things I don't know about or understand. I have just removed the extraneous information about Blair Hull, and the Ryan material was already previously removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't know about it? I've been discussing it here on the Talk page for several days. But now that the blatant hypocrisy about other people has been exposed -- whether it's all right to post negative details about other people depends on whether they're Obama's friends or his rivals -- you seek to cover it up. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. I did not know anything about those campaigns. I did not edit that section because I have no knowledge of the events involved. I've only been living in the US since 2001, so my knowledge of the specific details of an obscure state election that took place 10 years ago is sadly lacking. In fact, I've never even been to Illinois. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. So you you were aware that I was objecting to clearly negative material about Obama's political rivals -- and anyone with a significant collection of operational brain cells could clearly see that the material was obviously negative, and obviously about other people but they happened to be Obama's political rivals -- and you chose to refrain from deleting it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Not knowing anything about those campaigns, I left those sections to editors better qualified than I. I did not make a conscious decision to refrain from editing them, I just concentrated on editing sections I felt adequately qualified to edit. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't monitor all your talk page comments to see what you are objecting or agreeing to. In fact, I see little reason to read anything you say from now on after all the childish BS you wrote above. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, Scjessey: since you don't feel qualified to remove negative material about Obama's political rivals, why do you feel so very eminently qualified to revert negative material about his close friends and political allies? Kossack4Truth (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I have taken to the trouble to read up on those associations and learn what I can about them. And, I didn't say "eminently". -- Scjessey (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but no one with a brain needs to "read up on" the single derogatory sentences that described the messy divorces of Blair Hull and Jack Ryan to realize that they were quite derogarory. Anyone who was truly interested in removing negative material about any and all other people would have removed both these phrases on sight. This is why I find your claims a bit disingenuous. You're really not objecting to negative material about other people, or you would have reverted both these phrases on sight. I believe your only true objection is to negative material about other people who are closely associated with Obama, because it makes Obama look bad. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole paragraph was written around the Jack Ryan divorce stuff (by Andy, if I remember correctly) and it would've needed a thorough understanding of what actually happened, together with appropriate references, to rewrite it in order to exclude the offending material. I had other areas to focus on, and trying to assert that any lack of attention to a particular section implies some kind of partisan editing is reaching into the realm of the ludicrous. It is worth pointing out that ALL of your edits to this article have involved the addition of negative and mostly inappropriate or irrelevant material. You have made no effort to edit with a neutral point of view, and your accusations toward my editing need to be take these facts into account. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what this is all about but we have to resist attempts to turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground for sophomoric debates and those who wish to cover the latest partisan hack piece or, worse yet, parrot its arguments -- not only in the article about the campaign but in articles about the candidate, about world events, and about people and things remotely connected. They want to scream from the rooftop, at every opportunity, that a candidate and everyone he knows is a terrorist, or corrupt, or hates America, lest someone not have heard. We all know the pattern. When they don't get their way they edit war, hurl abuse, call other editors "hypocrites" or whitewashers. They have contributed nothing to the Encyclopedia other than this partisan advocacy, and that is no contribution. This takes place everywhere, and on issues other than politics sometimes, but here we happen to be in an article about the presumptive Democratic nominee, so most who want to add junk to the article are those who want to discredit him. The McCain article has its own integrity to keep. Wikidemo (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This material is not "junk." It is from reliable mainstream news sources with huge circulations and formidable fact-checking departments. Enough mainstream commentary is out there that finds it notable and relevant. This isn't the National Enquirer I'm talking about here. It's the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of Last Line in First Section

I think this last line of the first section needs to be changed:

"Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized ending the war in Iraq, increasing energy independence, and providing universal health care as top national priorities."

He's definitely for ending the war, but I've heard him talk very little about increasing energy independence, and he is not at all made providing universal health care a top priority. His health care plan doesn't provide univeral health care. That last part should definitely be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiAccurate (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He talks about universal health care for all who want it and energy independence in every speech and town hall meeting he gives. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proseline in Barack Obama

This was left on my personal talk page, but it belongs here on the article talk page (LotLE×talk)

In response to your revert of my edit; Please see proseline for an explanation as to what proseline is.

Essentially, the paragraph my tag is in response to is this one:

On April 22, 2008 Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary to Hillary Clinton. On May 6, he won North Carolina's primary, and lost Indiana's primary. Obama continued to lead Clinton in the count of pledged delegates (1,584 to 1,413, according to a May 6 count by the Associated Press), and by May 12 he had also assumed the lead in committed superdelegates. On May 14, 2008, Obama lost the West Virginia primary by a 41 percent margin. On May 20, 2008, Obama lost the Democratic primary in Kentucky by 35% and won the Democratic primary in Oregon by 16%.

This is essentially a timeline, but written in the form of prose. It should be rewritten/modified so that it reads as prose like the rest of the article. Text such as "On XX date" should be replaced by "Soon after", "Following this", etc. Thanks - ARC Gritt 22:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What you suggest seems to read much worse, as well as containing less precise information. In any case, please either make the changes you think are appropriate (WP:BOLD), or discuss them first on the article talk page. LotLE×talk 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I generally disagree with the essay you point to. Whatever it's virtues or demerits, however, a big infobox linking to an essay has no place disrupting a featured article. LotLE×talk

The "proseline" essay is pretty poor advice, in my opinion. And certainly the use of the tag is inappropriate, since there is no violation of policy. That being said, the section in question is something of a mess. It contains a level of detail best left to the related campaign article, and it should only really feature a summary of events. "Obama won this and Obama lost that" isn't very good, is it? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessy that the presidential campaign section could stand to lose a whole lot of the niggling details of state-by-state votes. A general summary that said "Obama and Clinton have run a close race for the nomination, with some voting trends following demographic lines" would be fine (cited appropriately, of course). Maybe after that some general mention of the debates and overall areas of difference between the candidate positions. I suppose at this point, the fact that Obama leads the nomination contest, and is likely nominee, would be reasonable (again, cited). Microscopic detail of this primary and that primary, and this date and that date, belongs in a child article rather than in this summary-style biography. LotLE×talk 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Barrack Hussein Obama

This fake middle name has been added. Could someone get rid of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.82 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on his birth certificate, so, no. Andyvphil (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you call that a reliable source?!? </kidding> UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike Friedman (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Shouldn't his middle name be in the title? Hillary RODHAM Clinton's is in the title of her article.

Is this trolling? "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" is listed by her most common name. Just as is Obama, and every other bio'd figure on WP. LotLE×talk 07:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, though stretching the bounds of believeability, that someone, somewhere, still is unaware of Mr. Obama's middle name, and its similarity to a certain deceased former dictator might cause that person to think it a hoax. However, WP:AGF is not as elastic as all that, and can only stretch so far. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodham is Hillary's Maiden name not a middle name --Magnetawan (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayers again

Andy has reverted back to his earlier modus operandi of making tendentious edits. This time, he insists on adding details about Bill Ayers that do not belong in this biography, using unreliable sources like opinion pieces in The National Review as justification for what is essentially defamation. These details are not specifically relevant to Barack Obama, and by adding them they are not in the spirit of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV or WP:HARM. Andy requests discussion about the section on this talk page, yet does not deign to do so himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We had a nice break from the POV-pushing and the article was actually stable for a brief time but now he's back in full "flood the article and see what I can get away with" mode. It's really getting tiresome as undoing his damage requires so much work by so many editors who could be spending their time otherwise, but then I suspect that's his goal. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "request discussion of this section", I demanded that Ultraexactzz defend his substitution of "Ayers" for "former Weather Underground bomb maker" on this page. Since he didn't there was nothing for me to "deign" to respond to.

As I write the the pro-hagiographic claque has restored the following text as a supposedly complete treatment of Obama's relationship with Ayers:

In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with former radical activist Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Obviously, this is simply stupid, since it can do nothing other than puzzle the uninformed. It's stated that the relationship received scrutiny, but why would it happen? Some guy who used to be a radical, whatever that means (Tom Hayden, maybe?) once raised some money for him and later joined him on some board? It's only when you at least give some clue that Ayers is an unrepent terrorist who led a group which killed people in the course of armored car robberies and multiple bombings that you've informed your reader why Obama's blase attitude towards associating with him is controversial. And it wasn't some random fundraiser -- it was the very first time he announced he was running for any public office. You clearly want any reader who is uninformed to stay uninformed. Andyvphil (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is really stupid, Andy, since that is the word you are using, is the fact that this is an issue at all. Obama knows Ayers because they are both important civic figures in Chicago, and it would've been almost impossible for them to be not be associated unless one of them specifically went out of their way to avoid the other. Nobody ever bats an eyelid at anyone who associates with warmongering, torturing, economy-wrecking, rights-suspending, law-breaking sons of bitches like Bush and Cheney. Their acts are far more heinous than anything Bill Ayers ever did. So let's get a sense of perspective here and stop trying to make something out of nothing, which is what this is. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this material. National Review is a notabvle, reliable source, None of us agree with its conservative political perspective, but there are millions of people out there who do. And it is not the only source in Andy's version of the paragraph. The Nation, which is as progressive as National Review is conservative, is also used as a source, as well as MSNBC. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't really given any reason for inclusion here other than the fact that you like it. Why does that opinion piece need to be placed in the article? What is its reason for inclusion? Your edit made no sense whatsoever. You dropped a weasly "Some have criticized..." paragraph in the middle of an unrelated section for no reason other than you wanted something negative in there. Notability is the secondary issue. Yes the National Review is notable, but you're confusing the notability of NR itself with the notability of that particular opinion piece to this article. I'm glad, at least, that you're actually discussing it instead of continuing to falsely claim in the edit summary that you already have consensus for adding it, but I really see no reason to include it and no valid argument to do so has been made. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are honestly dumb enough to believe that Obama has no relationship with William Ayers, then there is no point in trying to convince you - you won't understand the argument. Seriously, you as an Obama appologist and left-wing-liberal are making for this article to descend into gibberish, and you should consider taking a step back, as I did over the last few weeks, barely contributing to this at all.-- Fovean Author (talk) 1:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask a question to these three editors: Fovean Author, Kossack4Truth, and Andyvphil Why are you three obsessed over Bill Ayers? Isn't it enough that there is a separate page just on the man, but yet you three seem to need to include wording that is blatantly POV. In any other article in wikipedia, a link to the man's name would be enough, but because Obama is a presidential candidate you need to turn this link into some kind of political statement. As I mentoned above, what is your obsession with Bill Ayers? Brothejr (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's lotsa convincing arguments not to mention Ayers name in this article AT ALL, HOWEVER, once contributors pass the threshold by deciding to mention him, we've gotta splain why he's of note. So that if a theoretic candidate had Patricia Soltysik as her Brownie leader, who'd tried to convince her to write as a theme in elementary school, "Why Student ID is Fascist," (lol) maybe "radical" as a descriptor wouldn't quite be explanatory enough, but if she'd been babysat by Mary Travers (and her first words had been "puff dragon"... ) maybe it WOULD be. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just glanced at the arguments here and read through Andy's text and yes, it would be better a bit shorter and slightly reworked, if Ayers is to be included. But actually, for us to get too involved in arguing whether Ayer's minor association with Obama "means" anything is outside of our perview. We should encapsulate what each factions is saying. ("Militant lover!" and "You guys are mud slingin' bogus charges here!") — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph that describes Ayers as a Weather Underground member. Nothing at all libelous about that. Since there has been zero effort to remove negative information about other people who are Obama's political rivals, there's no excuse to revert negative material about other people who are Obama's close friends and political allies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it really too much to expect the editors on this page to discuss things civilly? In reading the above comments I see several instances of editors questioning the intelligence of other editors and several accusations of disagreeing parties being fanboys/haters of Obama. Please try and discus the content and not fling accusations/personal attacks at each other. --Bobblehead 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Ayers blogged last month, "I've never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it." — Justmeherenow</spanstyle> (   ) 17:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attacks. The cited source refers to him as a "former" radical activist (in reference to his Weatherman days). I consider his politics to be rather extreme, even radical, by modern American standards, but that's not what is meant by the "radical" label. It refers solely to his past. As for your description of Ayers, the POV was a bit over the top and unsupported by any sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Add VP search, please

The Times is reporting that the VP search is underway, headed by James A. Johnson (businessman). I added it to that page but this one is protected. Thank you. 140.247.45.7 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that would go under Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that this probably falls under WP:NOTNEWS. We would be better off avoiding the speculation and waiting until there is something encyclopedic to add. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg Craig

There was a link created from Greg Craig to Barack Obama that I verified and found false. However, there is a continual spread of news based off the link with wikipedia cited as the source. Here is the change I made for your reference. It is noted on the Obama's fact page that such link is not true. Craig is not listed as staff. Heads up about link attempt on digg. — Dzonatas 01:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama rallies 75,000 in Portland, Oregon

Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the article? I mean, it is likely the second largest political rally in American history, and by far the largest for any primary. Just some thoughts anyways. --75.175.75.207 (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, remember a large amount of them were just there for a music concert, and he was a side-note for them. It would be a bit of a misrepresentation. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the drew that crowd is poorly founded. Here's an article debunking the "big Portland crowd didn't come for Obama" meme: Katsam (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The presidential campaign is (and justifiably) too short to allow it now. There is already a note at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also notice that whatever the relative draw of Obama's speech and the concert accompanying it, 75k is by no means the "largest political rally in American history". It's not in the top ten, and quite possibly not in the top 100, just in terms of number of attendees. Many famous events (e.g. the March on Washington with MLK, or numerous Vietnam-era anti-war rallies, or 1930s labor marches, or V-E day rallies, etc. have attracted an order of magnitude more participants, historically). It might be the largest in the current Democratic Primary campaign, but still hardly ascends to great significance in the general biography. LotLE×talk 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Name origins

I added the detail that Barack Hussein Obama Sr's middle name is after Barack's grandfather, which was flip-of-the-wrist deleted with the explanation (or, at least, this is what was in deletionist's edit summary) that my edit had been an attack on Barack. Oops, apparently this deletion was an accident. Sorry (thanks). — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This bit on family names is just too far afield for inclusion in the main biography. Apparently, both mom and dad got names from their own parents ('Stanley' for mom, 'Hussein' for dad). That seems true enough, and not hard to cite, but it's also pretty irrelevant to a main biography (probably fine for biographies of parents themselves, or maybe in "early-life" sub-article). I'm not sure if the digression on the "Hussein" middle name is meant to try to insinuate some religious or ethnic angle.

Yes, Hussein is a name of Arabic origin, and the name of a famous dictator... it's also the name of millions of non-Arab, non-political people in the world. And similarly, Adolph L. Reed, Jr. is an academic who is neither German nor has anything to do with another famous dictator (I assume his "Jr." means his dad had the same name, also). Let's not vaguely allude to non-connections. LotLE×talk 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if Barack's middle name was Stanley (or even Ann), it would be of note that he had been named after his mom. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lulu: Also Queen Noor's late husband. But while the vast majority of encycopedia readers know that Hussein is Arabic, some may come to Misplaced Pages to find a concise explanation of how Obama got this name. But editors who think in all instances the reading public has to be "lead," I personally believe are contributing in the wrong venue. (Maybe The Weekly Reader has some openings. Joke.) But, seriously now, when you substantively mentioned in your edit summary only something about "residence" and "secular" yet took out a phrase that didn't mention either, how in the world am I to conclude you are editing soberly, let alone in good faith? — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I mentioned, there are lots of Hussein's in the world. Was it Obama's grandfather's first name, or a middle/last name there? (not that it matters, I'm just curious). While name origins are interesting bits of trivia, I just don't see them as important enough for main biography in most cases. We had that funny dust-up where one sockpuppet editor thought it was urgent to let readers know that Obama's mom's dad was named Stanley, which seems equally far afield. And I also don't think it's important enough for main bio to let readers know that 'Barack' is a name of Hebrew origin (probably some great, great, great- something of his was Jewish; or so I'd guess). So what.

I apologize for my incorrect edit summary, as I did on my own talk page. I was looking through edits one by one, and failed to notice that a more recent one had removed the "secular and from Nairobi" part. LotLE×talk 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. (As for BHO's grandfather, a source I trust (to wit, Misplaced Pages, lol) says he adopted Hussein as his first name upon his conversion to Islam from Christianity----but then he sent his own son (Barack's dad) to a Christian missionary school. Barack, an Arabic word that has entered Swahili as barak(a), is cognate to the Hebrew beracha and means "a blessing." And Barack once told reporters his given name in Swahili means "blessed of God." ) — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Any word-origin on "Hillary"? If you can find something similar, we can be guaranteed that God will be on the side of the next president... well, I guess you'd have to work on "Ralph" too, just to be safe :-). LotLE×talk 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(From here): Ralph: "fame wolf" (Germanic). Hillary: "cheerful" (Latin from Greek. But could have alternate etymology from a Germanic word meaning "protector," too.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Hillary" comes from the Slavic hill-hairy, meaning "courage in the face of sniper fire." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This pleasant chitchat aside, I now assume that the provenance of Obama's middle name is only too obviously encyclopedically of note (noting widespread curiosity about this aspect of our subject), so I propose the same compromised with you, Lulu, that Moddoc accepted, to wit our adding the detail that BHO's middle name is after his grandpa but exclude the perhaps less notable detail about (Onyango's) religion/place of residence. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree if his name was not "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.". The "Jr." part gives the full fact that he is named directly after his father. So the question turns to "why was his father named such?"... but at that point, we're a step too far from this biography (put it in dad's article, definitely).

If contrary to fact, it were that case that: "Barack Stanley Obama is the son of Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama". It might be notable enough to add "His middle name Stanley is his mother's birth first name". Or likewise, if dad was named "Barack Ali Obama" instead, and the Hussein came from granddad, that might be notable. However, the "Jr." really just closes that avenue by reaching too far into other people's bios. LotLE×talk 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, now your "anti" argument is now much more cogent. (Than the one before, essentially that any discussion of Barack's middle name is POV. That is, taking text substantially unchallenged as to neutrality and removing it towards the furtherance of an editorial slant, would itself be pov) — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All that said, if one other editor agrees with Justmeherenow that a clause mentioning grandad's name (minus religion and city of residence) is really helpful, I won't delete it again. LotLE×talk 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hand over heart issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=214396775&oldid=214392914

This was removed by Modocc.

Restoring it...

A simple gesture for our country

Why is it Mr Obama does not put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem? It's a sign of respect. The military does the position of attention when not in uniform and salutes when in uniform, men take off their hats, and everyone else in America puts their hands over their hearts. Why not him? What makes him special that he doesn't need to do that?

67.10.177.108 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)...67.10.177.108 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a suggestion, not a general comment I take it! If there are references to this, such as a news website, then it may be a suitable addition to this article.Nanhaha (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/obama.patriotism/index.html The reporter cited the fact that Obama once failed to put his hand over his heart while singing the national anthem.

Obama replied that his choice not to put his hand on his heart is a behavior that "would disqualify about three-quarters of the people who have ever gone to a football game or baseball game."

The reporter also noted that the Illinois senator does not wear an American flag lapel pin, has met with former members of the radical anti-Vietnam War group, Weather Underground, and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23315711/ - - There's a right and wrong way to put this in Misplaced Pages. Wrong way is to say Obama is unpatriotic. Right way is to say that others have questioned Obama's patriotism citing his stance during the national anthem and failure to wear flag pins. Obama replied that his choice not to put his hand on his heart is a behavior that "would disqualify about three-quarters of the people who have ever gone to a football game or baseball game."

The fact that CNN and NBC covers it means it's a worthy subject about the man but that he addressed it. Obama didn't say that he forgot to hold his hand over his heart or wear a flag pin. Maybe he prefers an attention stance, not a heart salute.

A shorter version could be that News organizations, including CNN and NBC, have reported Obama's stance during the national anthem and his not wearing an American flag pin which Obama defended his actions. Sceapo (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a biographically irrelevant issue. America is supposed to be "the land of the free" where you can do anything you want, within reason. Obama can put his hand wherever he likes, and we should feel proud that we don't live in some lame-ass nation where some tin-pot dictator would decree that the offending hand should be hacked off with a machete. The nation doesn't need another politician who obsesses about flag pins and nationalist rhetoric. Thousands of Americans have been killed in Iraq, or drowned in Louisiana, or lost their lives because of poor health care. Do you think any of them would care about whether or not Obama put his hand on his heart during a song? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Note: The conversation above was originally started by IP 67.10.177.108, and presumably Sceapo is an account registered with that IP address.) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not that IP. I also disagree with the IP's injection of the military into the issue. However, if you are calling me the IP then I cannot be Nanhaha. Even if I were the IP, that is not illegal to forget to log in and write. But your disagreement should be about the content of character, not the color of skin or any other diversion. Sceapo (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... I don't know what you are talking about. Where do I mention skin color? I think you are just trolling, like the IP user was doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a forum for discussing personal views, pro or con, of Obama. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Obama shaking hands uploaded

I have uploaded a picture I took of Obama shaking hands with an impromptu crowd in Portland, Oregon as he was leaving his hotel last Saturday afternoon and going to an event. It's at Image:Barack Obama shaking hands, Portland, Oregon.jpg --Jason McHuff (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may want to upload it to WP:COMMONS and add it to the Barack Obama category there. Other than that, this article already has plenty of pictures of Obama, so not really necessary here. --Bobblehead 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand and am fine with not having it in the article. I don't have a commons account or else I would consider uploading it there (I also have some diagrams in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon that could go there, too) --Jason McHuff (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That Ayers crap

Apart from the fact that the digression is clearly not relevant to this article, the insertions of rants against Ayers by User:Fovean Author would be a gross violation of WP:BLP even if put into Ayer's own article. The nonsense s/he inserted was:

Obama's relationship with former fugitive Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers also drew scrutiny. In the 1970's the Weathermen had conducted numerous bombings and a murderous armored car robbery, and Ayers had spent years as a fugitive.

In point of fact, there was never any "murderous armored car robbery" (neither with nor without Ayer's participation). Instead, from Weatherman (organization):

Apart from an apparently accidental premature detonation of a bomb in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion which claimed the lives of three of their own members, no one was ever harmed in their extensive bombing campaign, as they were always careful to issue warnings in advance to ensure a safe evacuation of the area prior to detonation

Libel is not WP's policy! (and neither is this biography a place to transclude the article that already exists on the Weather Underground). LotLE×talk 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I've added a paragraph that describes Ayers as a Weather Underground member. Nothing at all libelous about that. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Ayers' status as a member of the Weather Underground is not significant to Obama's biography. Details about other people do not belong in any biography. This is guilt-by-association, plain and simple - a transparent POV push. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why does this article contain negatrive details about Obama's political rivals, Blair Hull and Jack Ryan? It is pure, blatant hypocrisy to revert each and every negative detail about Obama's unsavory allies, while negative details about his rivals remain in this article undisturbed for months. Kossack4Truth (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the digression on Jack Ryan, of course; at least reducing it to the briefest mention I saw a way to. Tirades against any third parties have no place in this biography. LotLE×talk 06:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then let's reduce Ayers and Dohrn's unrepentant terrorist past, and Rezko's current trial on 24 federal felony charges related to campaign fund raising, and the $250,000 he raised for Obama's political campaigns (including $20,000 through straw donors), to the briefest mention I saw a way to -- but leave them in the article, the way you have done with Ryan's messy divorce, Lulu. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to better demonstrate the importance of William Ayers in Obama's life, I've included the well-founded Politico.com story of Obama being vetted by Alice Palmer to Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn in 1995. Note that Obama has NEVER denied that this happened, and fellow liberal Quentin Young testifies to it. So, you can see, Ayers was right there fo the beginning of Obama's political history. Fovean Author (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're truly following a neutral point-of-view, and if you think that including biographical information about the person in whose house his senate campaign started, then I supposed you'd support including biographical information on every other person who has been involved in Obama's political career to the same extent. For example, biographical information on the owner of the place where his U.S. Senate campaign started, biographies of his larger political donors (both good and bad associations), biographies of his campaign advisers, biographies of the people in whose houses he's held other important political gatherings... There must be hundreds of people with remarkably impressive (for good and bad reasons) lives who have been involved in Obama's life. But you don't want to include information on everyone, you just want to include information on the people with unsavory pasts. Why? Obama didn't bomb anyone. The topic probably never even came up on that day in Ayers' house. johnpseudo 14:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It ABSOLUTELY matters who vetted Obama before he started his political career, especially when that person is a former terrorist. In the past, biographies of larger donors who have been criminals HAS been a subject in the biographies for political figures. The bottom line: you Obama apologists demanded to know the relevance of adding Ayers to Obama's article. Now you have it, and of course now you claim it isn't fair to mention it. Fovean Author 15:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Barack Obama, the person. We already have an article for his senate career, and this information - if appropriate at all - is most appropriate there. While you may have a point, you've reverted four times now, and we do have rules about that sort of thing. Please stop. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fovean Author uses vetted, a curious choice of term. Alice Palmer had decided to run for higher office, and so introduced Obama to her past supporters in the Hyde Park-Kenwood area at a coffee held at the house of Bill Ayers. She thought he would be her best replacement - which obviously has much more to do with Palmer than Ayers. Ayers did not vet Obama. As Danial Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts." (I am posting here because Fovean Author added this same spin to the Bill Ayers article.) There is an article Bill Ayers election controversy which covers the (rather tenous) connection between Ayers and Obama. Flatterworld (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Even the source cited by Fovean Author (an opinion piece on a blog) does not make the claim that Ayers "vetted" Obama and "got him his job." That seems to be the opinion of Fovean Author alone. Such an opinion is irrelevant to this article and including it would violate pretty much every guideline on Misplaced Pages, from WP:BLP to WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and of course WP:NPOV. As a campaign issue, the Ayers meeting was the trivial issue of the day a couple of months ago and has long since faded after finding no traction (primarily due to the fact that the connection between the two, once examined by news sources, was extremely tenuous and boils down to them having been present at some of the same political functions). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Concise evenhandedness of its mention of Hyde Park would earn Misplaced Pages kudos, whereas the article's mention of Hyde Park (-Kenwood) in Obama's district with no encyclopedic reference to its famous party would give the impression (whether it's true or not) that WP considers itself the final arbiter of such issues' relevance, an impression I'd hope it would go out of its way to avoid. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC) ps Ayers has said he never was a terrorist. Also, why is Ayers mentioned but never his wife, Bernardine Dohrn? (Quoted by Manson's D.A. as having hyperbolized at the time, "Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson" (Bugliosi p296)). (Incidentally, the couple have raised the son of another (former-)Weatherman couple, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, who were in prison for murder.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting biographical details, if true, but what does any of that have to do with Obama? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's just that calling Ayers a "60s radicals," while true, is encyclopedically anemic----yet "terrorist" (also true) is not quite right either.... The most concisely accurate descriptor would be "former violent revolutionary". (Since his Weathermen did more than just rhetorically proclaim war against the U.S.):

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up "a gentleman named William Ayers," who "was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that." Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama's answer: "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George." Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers' Weathermen tried to murder me. In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings.... ----JOHN M. MURTAGH (from a few weeks ago in The New York Daily News)

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So let me try to understand this: Obama has met a couple people who were once charged with felonies, but had all charges against them dismissed before trial (i.e. Ayers and Dohrn) Moreover, those same people of Obama's acquaintance have both said unpopular things, and even had past friendships with people who were convicted of acts of violence.... and all of this has the slightest thread of a connection to a WP bio on Obama, how?! LotLE×talk 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A very good start. OK, let's take "Obama has met a couple people who were once charged with felonies, but had all charges against them dismissed before trial (i.e. Ayers and Dohrn) Moreover, those same people of Obama's acquaintance have both said unpopular things, and even had past friendships with people who were convicted of acts of violence"----shorten it a little, then add Obama's statement "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense";----then add it to the article and let other editors refine it. Good work! — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no!!! We don't put irrelevant crap in an article under the hope that someone will "refine" it into relevance. The "refinement" is already "in" the article: an omission of nonsense that has no encyclopedic value in a biographical article. In truth, the one sentence mentioning Ayers already probably constitutes WP:UNDUE weight, and one more word on it makes the violation worse. LotLE×talk 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At its very least, a sizable minority of present contributors feel Ayers would merit some measure of expanded mention. I suggest "Obama's association with radical activist Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign due to Ayer's one-time violent militancy." — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't (and didn't initially) include the word "former" in describing Ayers as a "radical activist". I think Ayers is still a radical activist (not violent, but yes, radical). However, the cited source uses that specific phrase "former radical"... it's not my place to engage in WP:OR to put in what I think is true. Still less is all that "one-time violent militancy" allowable; it's not even consistent with WP:BLP on Ayers' own article: he was never convicted of any violent act, nor ever "admitted" to committing any violent act. You and I can guess for ourselves what Ayers may or may not have done in the Weather Underground, but verifiable sources don't support any such speculation. LotLE×talk 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote your source's lede, "a leader of a Leninist group called the Weather Underground that carried out bombings...," and its 17th paragraph, "an admitted American terrorist." But, , I've added the famous piece on Ayers memoirs (ironically published in 2001 on the same day as the September 11 attacks), which generalizes, "Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a 'whirlpool of violence,'" before the article goes into some of the specifics. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this in bold:
We already have an article - Bill Ayers election controversy - which covers the (rather tenous) connection between Ayers and Obama.
What part of that do you not understand? Flatterworld (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A ridiculous attempt by you Obama apologists to move this controversy to a page that no one will see. That page you mention will be deleted before the month is over.Fovean Author (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what tendentiousness. Somebody needs a cup of tea, or something, I think. Wikidemo (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

This section does not seem to have much information about negative aspects of his image. For example, there's nothing about the elitist image (e.g. allegedly conveyed by his remarks about Pennsylvanians who cling to their religion and guns), or about his purported reliance on empty rhetoric (e.g. platitudes and slogans). I could find some reliable sources for this kind of stuff, but would it be welcome here? We ought to try to present a neutral balance, rather than just positive stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem with including negative views of him like the whole elitist thing in this section. While I think that particular criticism is beyond absurd given his background and that it's just a repeat of an attack on Kerry, I do think it would fit in the section because it did get considerable play from conservative columnists/journalists after the whole "bitter" comment. The platitudes criticism you're talking about has also been a pretty frequent one. I know I've seen something to that effect mentioned by a few columnists, as well as both his main rivals, Hillary and McCain.

I think we'll have to make sure to fit it in well into the existing prose though, probably would go after or replace the Senate clubbiness bit. I'm guessing it would look something like: Obama has been criticized (or is viewed) by some as elitist. Columnist A said, "quote". He's also been criticized by many conservatives for his speeches being rife with slogans and "empty rhetoric". --Ubiq (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What Ubiq said. — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. If I get a chance over the next few days, I'll see if I can come up with some decent sources. It's so nice and sunny outside, though.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not against a very concise mention of some of this, if it can be done in the right way. I confess, for example, that (off Misplaced Pages), I frequently joke/comment on my perception of Obama's vacuity in his speeches. (The Onion had a great bit on Obama's slogan "He supports both hopes and dreams"). But the jokes I make to my friends are hardly WP material. It's very easy to give undue weight to criticism of bio figures, out of a misguided notion of "balance" (sometimes similarly for praise of a biography topic, but far less often in my experience).

I would strongly oppose including any direct quotes, especially block quotes, since they almost instantly venture into WP:UNDUE weight (the point isn't specifically that Joe Blow of Washington Times wrote some specific words... it needs to be "widespread belief"). And I would also strongly oppose more than a sentence each on two or three common criticisms. However, if next to the Senate clubbiness bit, there was a sentence that said, "Commentators have frequently criticized his speeches as containing empty rhetoric" (with two very good non-partisan citations). Or likewise on the "elitist" thing (which seems silly to me, but same standard if cited). LotLE×talk 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit inconsistent in your opinion on this. On the John McCain article, which you edit very well and have done a very good job defending against vandalism and tendentious editing, you have repeatedly argued (correctly, I believe) that these sort of attacks and "inflated issues" should be mentioned only in the sub-articles if at all, but not in the biography. Why not apply the same reasoning here? Do you really feel that opinion pieces about Obama's elitist image and arugula are worthy of inclusion in a biographical article such as this? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey calls other editors tendentious. Then Loonymonkey then removes sourced content (in order, as Loony states, to restore "former" to the "radical activist" as applied to Ayers---- who's called an unrepenatant terrorist in a hundred sources). Alas, Loony could use some of Ayers' own self-awareness.

Fugitive Days does have moments of self-mockery, for instance when Mr. Ayers describes watching Underground, Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary about the Weathermen. He was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,' he writes. 'The rigidity and the narcissism.'"----THE NEW YORK TIMES (Sept. 11, 2001) — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attacks and I have no idea why you keep posted this in the wrong section (we have topic headers for a reason). The cited source refers to him as a "former" radical activist (in reference to his Weatherman days). I consider his politics to be rather extreme, even radical, by modern American standards, but that's not what is meant by the "radical" label. It refers solely to his past. As for your description of Ayers, the POV was a bit over the top and unsupported by any sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, I'm not sure what the word "arugula" refers to. Anyway, I am trying to apply the same reasoning here that has been applied at the McCain article. The corresponding section of the McCain article discusses his admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks, and also his image as an old guy who looks like "Frankenstein." That section discusses McCain's acknowledgement about being impatient, and mentions that he has been prone to tasteless and offensive jokes that were not even fit to print in newspapers. The corresponding section of the McCain article also says that he's prickly and hot-tempered with Senate colleagues, and that he has employed both profanity and shouting on occasion. The corresponding section in the McCain article even quotes Senator Thad Cochran as saying: "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." And, the corresponding section in the McCain article mentions that his father was an alchoholic, and that his current wife was addicted to painkillers. In contrast, this section of the Obama article has the following negative material: 0.

I haven't yet looked for sources that discuss Obama's alleged "elitist" image, or his alleged use of empty rhetoric, so I can't yet say whether it's worthy of inclusion here, but I very much suspect that there are plenty of reliable and notable sources on those subjects. As I mentioned above, we ought to try to present a neutral balance that reflects what's out there in the real world, rather than just positive stuff. Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between some self-acknowledged personality trait (such as "impatience" or profanity which are mentioned in McCain's article) and a larger political criticism about the candidate and their platforms ("purported reliance on empty rhetoric (e.g. platitudes and slogans)" as you put it). Would you support including editorial opinion that criticizes McCain for being a "flip-flopper with inconsistent positions?" Probably not, and I wouldn't either. How would this be any different? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

1. A successful propoganda campaign labelling a candidate as a serial flip-flopper: possibly notable (depending... )
2. Concisely documenting criticisms of inconsistency on some specific issue: perhaps notable (again, depending... )
3. Regarding fear that through WP's giving encylopedic coverage to #2 it might abet #1: WP doesn't edit fearful of how assertions affect points of view; instead it edits neutrally, fearlessly! — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would say anything about Obama's platform if this section of the Misplaced Pages article were to say that (according to source X) he often includes sentences in his speeches that are more motivational than informative, or that some of his remarks suggest (according to source Y) an elitist attitude.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The true meaning of tendentious

The existing source's lede described Weathermen as Leninist bombers and in a paragraph further on down it terms Ayers an admitted American terrorist. Then to be on the safe side, I add the famous Sept. 11, 2001 NYT piece that quotes Ayers' own vebiage about how the group were decending into a "whirlpool" of, yes, violence. Then Loonymonkey implies an edit I make is the disruptive one (one that more encyclopedically terms Ayers a one-time violent militant rather than simply a former radical "activist"----you know...sorta like Ghandi?)...but which edit Loonymonkey somehow asserts to be "unsupported." — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not tendentious, Loonymonkey and Lulu were correct to object to the removal of "former" given that MSNBC source characterized Ayers as such. Thanks for removing the redundancy, and its more balance now. Modocc (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten-den-tious. adj. not editing towards encyclopedic content but towards a partisan point of view. Lulu's edit was tendentious when she replaced

Obama's association with university professor Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign due to Ayer's one-time violent militancy.

----with

Obama's association with former radical activist Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

----with the explanation that that "violent militancy" doesn't occur in the citation given (viz., an 11 Sep 2001 piece in the NYT, which citation she also deleted). Of course if such a complaint were valid all of Misplaced Pages would need be scrapped since word-for-word plagiarism remains invalid. — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Get off your soapbox and stop posting this repeatedly in different sections. Your edits were clearly POV. When you accuse anyone who reverts your edits of tendentious editing and vandalism, you insult them needlessly while indicating that you don't really understand either of those terms. "Tendentious," in wikipedia terms refers to, well, your editing style. You really should re-read that page with a little self-reflection. In particular, note these Characteristics of problem editors:

You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others.

Content disputes are not vandalism. Misplaced Pages defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine.

You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.

Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all—to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as being a dick.

You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts”.

This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the Talk page in the first instance.

You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.

Misplaced Pages policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.

Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.

The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources.

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.

If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force it. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.

There isn't much more to say on this subject. If you feel the need to respond, do so here, but please don't create new sections on this or other talk pages to try to continue the same argument endlessly and don't leave long rambling diatribes on my talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet my sincere impression of your style is thay you tend to strike disharmonious chords by labeling other editors The Enemy then jump on any ad hoc rationales you can in order to obstruct their positive contributions to WP (eg such broad generalizations as in your lengthy soapbox-in-Hyde-Park-London remarks above) without actually examining actual specifics. If you sincerely believe this characterization can't possibly apply to you, don't worry about it. My contributing style? Let's see: I changed activism for militancy; somebody claimed I hadn't sourced this but I noted I had and so reverted their revert; but after I again was reverted (under the rationale that a change to of characterization of "militancy" was original research) I brought the question to Talk. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP policy superceded "consensus"

This posturing nonsense about Ryan, Hull etc. is really stale. I have no idea how those pejoratives got into the article (it was before I ever read it), but as soon as I noticed the unnecessary and irrelevant negative descriptions of them in the article, I removed those. If there's some other unnecessary digression into some "opponent" of Obama's in this article, I will immediately remove it; all the editors trying to insert extraneous soapboxing about figures other than this bio topic might do well instead to spend their time similarly removing non-relevant material.

It really doesn't matter what fantasies a few editors have about a consensus in their hatred of the bio subject. Here at WP, the rule is WP:BLP, and we don't violate it because "readers need to know" some allegedly unsavory association of the bio subject. (well, also WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, and a few other rules that they find inconvenient). LotLE×talk 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The claims of "consensus" are generally not true anyway. There are three or four very prolific, very vocal editors who work tirelessly to inject anti-Obama POV into the article and then claim "consensus" because they agree with each other. That's not consensus, it's not even a majority. It's just the noise of a few people (assuming they're all separate people) with an ax to grind. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Was Ayers militant?

Template:RFCpol

One editor after another defensively edits toward pov when they see the former actions of Bill Ayers when he was a Weatherman Underground bomber, distinctly described as violent militancy instead of by an expression such as radical activism that could just as accurately apply to someone who had been an advocate of passive resistance.

• One footnote goes to a source whose lede says Ayers had belonged to a Leninist group of bombers and in a further paragraph down describes him as an admitted American terrorist.
• An additional source quotes Ayers himself describing the Weatherman Underground as descending into a whirlwind of violence; and, while they are at it, these editors also remove this added source. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography about Barack Obama. How is the "militancy" of Bill Ayers of any importance to this article. Surely this should be discussed at Talk:Bill Ayers? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When we're worried about WP:BLP, wording matters. Calling someone violent is libelous if not properly cited (and it's not). Ayers is not identical to other members of Weatherman, no matter how much some editors would find it convenient to lump everything together in a big insinuation stew. The word "militant" does occur in the NYC source describing Ayers directly (while other people are described as committing violence in the source). While it would read slightly worse, I believe that the following would at least be consistent with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:V:

Obama's association with university professor Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's presidential campaign due to Ayer's one-time militancy

Of course, uglier language is still uglier, but at least that wouldn't be a per-se rules violation. LotLE×talk 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I was going to suggest the same. Modocc (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all the sources, Justmeherenow, but I cannot see the relevancy. I can provided a bunch of sources that say Boeing builds airplanes, but that wouldn't be relevant in a biography about Barack Obama either. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a general guideline that you should use the label the individual uses for himself; other labeling should be sourced and identified as an opinion. See Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(identity)#Self-identification. So, how does he currently identify himself? Life.temp (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• "I was a revolutionary anarcho-communist, intent on overthrowing the government, a worthy if immodest goal."----FUGITIVE DAYS: A MEMOIR — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  (27Jun2003): I chose to build a capacity to survive what I thougt was an impending American facism---the imperial project was already visiting a facist-like state of affairs in Indochina,Africa,parts of Latin America as well as the ghettos of our cites---to resist,make the cost of empire higher,fight back,and,yes,a bit immodestly,make a reolution that could prevent future wars,bring about racial and economic justice,restore some balance to the world.I was determined,despairing sometimes,hopeful other times,and a bit over the top....But then,who had it figured out right?And have that person write and tell us what to do now in this gathering darkness... (29Jun2003): There is work to be done,work that involves remaking ourselves and our culture in order to free the planet.....The questions we face are huge ehical and political and strategic questions,not little tactical ones.But I must object to a definition of terrorism that is both too large and too small.The use of violence by a non-govt.group....both lets the main perpetrators of terror thruout history off the hook,and conflates the actions of Bin Laden with the Berrigans,the Brownshirts with John Brown and Nat Turner,the Klan with the African National Congress.A firmer definition,which applies to all groups,is the killing of innocents to achieve a political end.We still have to figure out the question of a just cause,but terrorism is never really defensible,and in my book I try to show a group of young people flirting with the idea of answering official terror with a terror of our own,never pulling it off and finally renouncing it as an option....----BILL AYERS (from The Well, a Salon.com community) — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ayersa leader of the Weather Undergroundclandestine organizationa rabble-rouser and a saboteur.----JOHAH RASKIN (likewise a professor, who the NYT termed a "courier for the Weather Underground" and who has asserted he "knew most of members";from a bookreview in the 13-19Sep2001 Northern California Bohemian) — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is how he is labeled (he is identified as a 60's activist and radical in the lede of his article), because Justmeherenow and others would like to insert a description of his acts, nevertheless encapsulating the proposed description as opinion would be required by WP:NPOV. I agree with Lulu that the labeling of his acts as violent would need sourcing. Also, given the different POVs and usages of "violent", their inclusion to maintain NPOV would digress into a coatrack here. Modocc (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this discussion relevant to the Barack Obama article? The description of Bill Ayers is covered in the Bill Ayers article, where it belongs. (fwiw, Ayers has described himself in any number of ways, so choosing one is problematic.) The description of the Weathermen organization is covered in their article, where it belongs. The so-called 'connection' between Obama and Ayers is covered in that article, where it belongs. This labeling and libeling is getting way out of hand. This is an encyclopedia, not a red-top tabloid hot off the presses. Our goal is not to inflame our readers, but to educate them. Please keep this in mind. Flatterworld (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld is right, of course. All these quotes from Ayers show that he is a fairly interesting person, with a range of opinions that seem both nuanced, and that evolved over time (about violence and about other things). All of that might be of some relevance if this discussion were happening at Talk:Bill Ayers. It's not though... none of the hair-splitting over what Ayers really believed and when he really believed it has not a whit of relevance to this article on Obama. What is relevant continues to be WP:BLP, contentious pejoratives have no place here. LotLE×talk 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ayers is a militant. He is an unrepentant former terrorist. It is neither a violation of WP:BLP, nor irrelevant to Obama's Misplaced Pages biography, to briefly mention that fact in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. It would also go against WP:COAT, WP:HARM and WP:CON. Adding it would go against WP:DIS and make editors ask you to visit WP:DBAD. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention he was a militant is appropriate. Ad nauseum: the former saboteur's wife, friends, own autohagiography, and gajillion other sources all say Ayers turned from Socialist activism in the SDS to being a fugitive----until the federal charges were dropped----and an Anarchocommunist militant in the WUO (which the Chicago Sun-Times has said "the FBI labeled as a 'domestic terrorist group'"). — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong article for discussing Bill Ayers. Please take this to Talk:Bill Ayers instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Concur with militant, while willing to go without shading it as violently----which could be construed to imply intention to harm people.

I duly note Flatterworld's and Scjessey's quasi-WP:forum shopping and their declining to respond to this RfC's basic question (along with their seeming preference to refer us to whatever descriptors are used for Ayers in his own WP bio), nonetheless, I believe this RfC is appropriate in this forum. And in order to bring this article in line with WP:SUMMARY's guidelines (to summarize within brief mention of a subject in one article, such as this one, the material given in more detail in another, such as the Bill Avery article), I concur with the remainder of commenters who do address this RfC's basic question to-date and observe our WP:consensus thus far is to change the article's text from indentifying Ayers as a former activist to more correctly identifying him as a former militant.

To everyone who has or will give your input, thanks. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayer's own article (as you know) uses the terms "radical" and "activist" in its lead. The word "militant" occurs nowhere in his own article. I do not believe "militant" to be pejorative, but unless or until Bill Ayers mentions that term in its lead, using that as the single adjective here is WP:OR. LotLE×talk 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lulu. Notice however that the guidelines say anything contoversial must be sourced independently; ya can't just point to a related article (ie, Misplaced Pages itself can't be used as a source). So, in order to satisfy sourcing guidelines for OUR article, we'd indeed put in a footnote an excellent source for the word's usage. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a completely bogus "RFC" No pejorative characterization of Bill Ayers, sourced or otherwise, has a place in this biography. There is no consensus for using the term "militant", and I would certainly not give my consent to do so. Details about Bill Ayers that are unrelated to Obama are not relevant. The only relevant details are (a) the fact that Ayers has held a fundraiser for Obama, and (b) at one point, they served on the Woods Fund together. Any attempt to use guilt-by-association by shoehorning unrelated details about Ayers into the article will be strenuously objected to, and probably reverted without delay. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, your belief that WP:BLP gives a blanket guideline discouraging any encylopedic content regarding a political subject that would be possibly construable as negative maybe shows you're not a good fit on this site. Maybe over at the wiki on some partisan site (where I'm sure its guideline WikiPartisanopedia:hagiography of a living person is written that way! ;^). — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's very witty. Fortunately, my understanding of WP:BLP appears to eclipse yours. Again, I find myself forced to quote from it:

"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. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'."

" should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."

By talking about the events of Ayers' distant past, which have nothing to do with Obama whatsoever, you are not following the policies outlined in WP:BLP. Obama's association with Ayers is based on the latter's role as a civic leader and a member of a philanthropist organization, and not because of events that took place 40 years ago. The policy is quite clear on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, consider the relevant section of WP:BLP:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

From Misplaced Pages:Biographies of Living Persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, subsection titled: "Well-known public figures" Noroton (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that refers to the subject of the article, rather than other people that may be mentioned within the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not matter. Bill Ayers is a well-known public figure and has been for decades. Nor does the policy only apply within the Bill Ayers article: BLP applies on any page in Misplaced Pages: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. (third regular paragraph, top section, WP:BLP) Noroton (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It does matter. It does not cover biographical details within the BLPs of other people. That's what blue links are for! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "detail" that there is a controversy about the Obama-Ayers relationship. That's what's known as an important, relevant fact about Obama. Blue links do not absolve us of the responsibility of giving a short summary of what the controversy is about the Obama-Ayers relationship. Blue links are for further information. Prose is the way we present the important information. The points I make just below also apply to your comments. We are required to present a summary of the important information on Obama. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the controversy about Ayers is worth mentioning in the article about Obama. Not if we're going to be neutral.Noroton (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with telling it like it is (was). Ayers was a self described Violent Revolutionary, and a U.S. domestic terrorist. Why not speak the truth? Dr. Ayers tells it like it is. Why shouldn't we? Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is an article about Barack Obama, not about Bill Ayers. Obama's association with Ayers is related to a shared time on a philanthropic organization, and has nothing to do with the events of 40-odd years ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above by Scjessey, none of this argument is directly related to Barack Obama. Barack Obama was not part of the Weatherman Organization and by this time neither is Bill Ayers. Also, as mentioned I took a look at the Bill Ayers page and it mentions nothing about him considering himself a terrorist. I have also read the articles continually cited and neither mentioned that Ayers considered himself a terrorist. (It has been third parties who have been labeling Ayers a Terrorist.) If anything, Ayers considers himself a college professor and has the concurrence of his peers as being a respectable professor. Everything people are arguing here happened over 40 years ago and the only people who bring up the idea of Ayers being a terrorist are people who are just trying to throw labels around as scare tactics. This article is about Barack Obama, not Bill Ayers. If you want to label Ayers a terrorist, please do so on the relevant article (I.E. the one on Bill Ayers) and please keep to the facts. Brothejr (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First, this is irrelevant to the biography of Barack Obama. Second, can you provide a reliable source in which Ayers describes himself as a "violent revolutionary" as you claim? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Loonymonkey: ""I don't regret setting bombs." Bill Ayers quoted in

That's a whole lot of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis that ignores the fact that there still isn't a reliable source that describes him as "violent." But it doesn't really matter. You can argue this out on the Bill Ayers article if you like, but none of it has anything to do with the biography of Barack Obama and everything to do with the stated desire of yourself and a few other editors to influence the opinion of readers of this article. As you said, your argument for wanting to include all this biographical detail on Ayers here is that you want Obama to "be judged by the company he keeps." That's POV-pushing, plain and simple. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Loonymonkey)Response to Brothejr: We're not required to accept Bill Ayers' self-description when reliable independent sources such as The New York Times tell us he was a violent militant. The vact that Ayers is weasily about his past activities and whether or not he now renounces his violent militancy against the U.S. government is evidence that he himself is not a reliable source about his embarassing past. When asked whether he renounced violence he equivocated in the famous New York Times article that happened to appear in 9/11. In a letter of protest he sent to the Times about the article, he didn't unequivocally renounce violence either. He has made plenty of other statements but no clear renunciation of violence that I've seen (please correct me if he has, and give me a link), although he is able to say simply and clearly that he renounces terrorism. When a U.S. presidential candidate is found out to be associated with someone with a past in violent political action (and we know the B.O./B.A. association went beyond simply seeing each other at board meetings), it becomes a matter of importance to voters trying to make up their minds. It is a necessary feature of an article on the subject of this presidential candidate. Leaving it out is whitewashing, and that's an obvious dereliction of our duty to our readers. Obvious whitewashing is harmful to Misplaced Pages's reputation. Noroton (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Leaving it out is whitewashing, and that's an obvious dereliction of our duty to our readers. Obvious whitewashing is harmful to Misplaced Pages's reputation"

Ok then include it in the Bill Ayers article where it belongs. His past actions do not belong on a page about Barack Obama. As I and a bunch of others have said, it does not matter what highly reputable news agency has said about Bill Ayers, this page is about Barack Obama, not Bill Ayers. Including it here in Barack Obama's article would mean you are implying he is also a terrorist or sympathizes with terrorists, which would be incorrect and libel. If you want to debate whether Bill Ayers is a terrorist, or what others have said about him or reported about him, then take it to the Bill Ayers page. Brothejr (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Justmehearnow) Perhaps I haven't been clear about what I want: I just want the situation with Ayers accurately presented with just enough detail that readers will get the gist of it and be able to follow a blue link or two to find out more. I think this can be done within a regular sized sentence, but it must actually involve no whitewashing. I think my proposal in the subsection just below is something we might all agree with if we can come to an NPOV consensus. Noroton (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe the whole Ayers brouhaha is the political version of a WP:coatrack. Still it'd be part of our encyclopedic coverage to mention something about it in Obama's bio.

There were those who failed to understand that it’s not red-baiting to point out that a person is a Communist—if that person really is a Communist. McCarthyism is a little more complicated. It wasn’t McCarthyism to deny a government worker who was a member of the Communist Party access to classified materials. It wasn’t McCarthyism for the A.C.L.U. to bar Communists from membership. It wasn’t McCarthyism to fire a person from a public-school teaching job for being a Communist if that person was using his or her position to propagandize to students. Similarly, it wasn’t McCarthyism to call somebody a “Communist sympathizer” if that somebody sympathized with the salient features of Communism, such as one-party rule, totalitarian repression of alternative opinions, the abolition of civil liberties, and murderous gulags. But it was, and is, McCarthyism to try to comprehensively ruin a person’s life solely because that person was once a Communist (or a Fascist, or a racist, or a radical Islamist)—or even if that person is still a whatever-ist but doesn’t actually do anything about it.
The central feature of McCarthyism, however, was accusing people of being Communists or Communist sympathizers who were not, in fact, either. And one of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s favorite evidentiary techniques for carrying out this particular form of character assassination was “guilt by association.”
Guilt by association is another tricky term. The Communist Party is an association, and being a member of that association does indeed makes you guilty of being a Communist. A garden club is also an association. But being in a garden club with a Communist doesn’t make you a Communist. And being in a garden club with an ex-Communist doesn’t even make you an ex-Communist.
McCarthyism is not a charge to be levelled lightly. Even so, I concludethat attacking Obama because of his “association with” Ayers constitutes McCarthyism.----HENDRIK HERTZBERG (22Apr2008 New Yorker)

Anyway, as far as WP:BLP goes, is the suggested assertion about Ayers

1. Sensationalistic? Not if our refering to Ayer's former militancy is not within the nature of an emotional expose but merely factual reporting.
2. A titillating claim? No, the established fact of Ayer's methods would be presented in the least tittilating way possible while destinguishing them as militantly revolutionary (not overstating it----inlight of his avoidance of human collateral).
3. Doing harm to Dr. Ayers? ...Dude wrote a book! — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)