This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 28 May 2008 (→What this article ain't: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:33, 28 May 2008 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) (→What this article ain't: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Columbia University Template:WPCD-PeoplePlease add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
| A third Featured Article Review was commenced on this article on 2008-03-26 and closed as neither Keep nor Remove on 2008-04-15. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Political positions
The political positions section now begins by saying that Obama's position are "collectivist and socialist." While Obama is hardly a libertarian capitalist, that characterization is obviously false. It is also directly contradicted by the material that immediately follows. As a new user (I logged in to delete that sentence), I can't fix that — it looks like vandalism or, at best, a smear. Can someone fix it?
Hi all, I'm writing to inquire why this revision I made was reverted by User:Scjessey. The small paragraph I added read:
Critics of the Illinois Senator have noted what they argue are contradictions within his positions. Fred Siegel of National Review wrote, "Obama is the internationalist opposed to free trade. He is the friend of race baiters who thinks Don Imus deserved to be fired... He is the post-racialist supporter of affirmative action."
Scjessey called the paragraph "POV cherry-picking"; I call it legitimate criticisms of Obama's political record. If I did any cherry picking, it was in Obama's favor, as the full paragraph in National Review read:
"Obama is the internationalist opposed to free trade. He is the friend of race baiters who thinks Don Imus deserved to be fired. He is proponent of courage in the face of powerful interests who lacked the courage to break with Reverend Wright. He is the man who would lead our efforts against terrorism, yet was friendly with Bill Ayres, an unrepentent 1960s terrorist. He is the post-racialist supporter of affirmative action. He is the enemy of Big Oil who takes money from executives at Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and British Petroleum."
So as you can see, out of six legitimate criticisms, I picked the ones that I thought were the most appropriate and the least controversial. I even wrote a nice introduction sentence, specifically detailing that they are the views of Obama's critics and it is only they that argue that there are contradictions. These are part of Obama's political positions, like it or not, and their story needs to be told as well. Happyme22 (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Let give Scjessey a chance to explain his revert. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 01:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted the addition because there was no point to it, other than to offer another platform for Siegel's neo-conservative point of view. How, for example, can you justify adding a mention (and a blue link) to Don Imus in a BLP of Barack Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well this article is already a platform for obamas click of loyalists(as in liberal jornalisitic sources), maybe some opposing views are not such a bad thing, although some of those lines arent necassary or relevant. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Scjessey, thanks for the response. I understand that you had a reason to remove the edit, but I'm not sure where you are coming from. I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate to link to Don Imus. And Realist2, I'm in favor of implementing the first paragraph, not the second, because I agree that some mentioned in the second paragraph are irrelevant. Happyme22 (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well this article is already a platform for obamas click of loyalists(as in liberal jornalisitic sources), maybe some opposing views are not such a bad thing, although some of those lines arent necassary or relevant. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that most of the first paragraph should be included, there are some good points there, the Don imus part isnt important though. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rather than being a "platform for a obamas click of loyalists," I would argue that this article is an excellent example of how Misplaced Pages should be written. It is factually-accurate and neutrally-presented, with a nice balance of detail and necessary brevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that this article is POV; let's try to get back on topic. I am asking you, Scjessey, why you feel that mentioning Don Imus is inappropriate. It was specifically part of the quote as an example where Sen. Obama was demonstrating inconsistency with his positions. Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would've thought it was obvious, but I guess not. You don't see anything wrong in evoking (and linking to) the name of a highly-controversial, arguably racist, talk show host who has no connection whatsoever with Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that this article is POV; let's try to get back on topic. I am asking you, Scjessey, why you feel that mentioning Don Imus is inappropriate. It was specifically part of the quote as an example where Sen. Obama was demonstrating inconsistency with his positions. Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, mocking my spelling (im tired and english isnt my first language) and going off topic isnt going to resolve this. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 01:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not mocking you. See Sic. Your comment about this being a "platform" et al was what took us off topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Im fully aware of what sic is for, i just believe its rude. Now please address the point at hand, cheers. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I see A critic that is making a claim that that there are contradictions within his positions, which makes me wonder if this is a extreme minority view and that inclusion of this theory would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. It also makes me wonder if assigning that single critics opinion to all of his critics is appropriate and is actually an incorrect attribution to claim that it is a view of Obama's critics. Based on that one source, it is only apparent that Fred Seigel finds the contradiction. Just because someone is critical of Obama's position does not mean that we have to run to Misplaced Pages and add it to his article in order to "balance out the positive POV". --Bobblehead 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree on that point, more sources should be used to back up these ideas, if more are found ...Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 01:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point Bobblehead. Here's some more: , , ; Sen. Clinton has also attacked his "inconsistent record": , . Happyme22 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a particular reason why this can't be interleaved with the existing prose in this article and on the political positions article? Every politician has inconsistencies in their record which should be pointed out with the weight that they are due, but it seems to me that dedicating an entire paragraph to just the inconsistencies has the same problem that a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section would have. I'm also not seeing where the comments by Siegel are supported by anyone other than himself and is applying definitions that are purely his own construct. Obama has never characterized himself as an "internationalist" and his views are more in line with Cosmopolitanism than they are Internationalism. Now, the criticism of Obama's opposition to the Iraq War seem to have merit and should be included in this article as that position is actually mentioned in this article. I'm also concerned on the over-reliance upon opinion pieces which have a history of being rather loose with the facts. As an example, The Kitsap Sun piece seems to be conflating Obama's positions on income tax, social security taxes, and the overarching "payroll taxes" that covers income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, unemployment taxes, etc. --Bobblehead 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem weaving criticisms into the text. And you are correct in saying that just about every politician has inconsistencies, including Barack Obama. I think that his platform as a post-racial boundaries candidate who supports affirmative action deserves mention, as well the criticism of his views on the Iraq War. Happyme22 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- The iraq war less so, but the affirmative action point is rather interesting actually, it is a contradiction in some respects, i would support adding that but it must be worded carefully. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem weaving criticisms into the text. And you are correct in saying that just about every politician has inconsistencies, including Barack Obama. I think that his platform as a post-racial boundaries candidate who supports affirmative action deserves mention, as well the criticism of his views on the Iraq War. Happyme22 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also find that one interesting. How should we go about wording it, and where in the political positions section should it go? I'm just not sure where it should be added because I think we are now all in favor of weaving it into the text. Any proposals? Happyme22 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Ill give others a chance to comment, if not ill look into adding it. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 20:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have a hard time seeing why either would warrant mention in his BLP. Inconsistencies are something that gets pointed out to any candidate...not sure why there's a big push to get stuff like this in the article if it's not particularly notable over any other criticism that's been directed towards him. --Ubiq (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm bringing them up because they are legitimate inconsistencies. Of course every politician is going to have inconsistencies in their records, but Obama is opposed to racism and racial descrimination yet supports affirmative action, which can be argued is a form of racial discrimination against whites. What's more, he is no longer an average politician, for he is running for president of the United States and all his views need to be written about. John McCain's article mentions his temper, and the Cultural and political image of John McCain devotes a very long section entirely to it. Just because the article is a BLP does not mean that criticisms of his record or of him cannot be included. I'm not in any way suggesting that we rewrite the political positions section or anything such as that; I am suggesting that we incorporate these legitimate inconsistencies (right now there's two: affirmation action and Iraq War) of Obama's record into the political position section. I think we are all in favor of incorporating them into the text and not devoting a paragraph to them. It is only NPOV. Happyme22 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Just because the article is a BLP does not mean that criticisms of his record or of him cannot be included." I didn't even make this argument...I said I don't think the criticism in question is particularly notable over any other criticism he's received. Concerning McCain's anger, I'd expect John McCain's article to mention something like that if it's been a part of his life and he's received enough criticism/note about it. If it hasn't been, I would expect and push for it to be removed from that article.
- "I'm bringing them up because they are legitimate inconsistencies. Of course every politician is going to have inconsistencies in their records, but Obama is opposed to racism and racial descrimination yet supports affirmative action, which can be argued is a form of racial discrimination against whites." So it's wikipedia's responsibility to bring to light what you think people should know? Sorry, but as I said earlier, I can't see how this is particularly notable over other criticism he's received, and I certainly can't see a presidential candidate's views on affirmative action as somehow life defining/altering, or even campaign defining/altering. He's going to be criticized for a lot of things. I could go out and find plenty of articles that have distinct or repeated criticism of a candidate to put into his/her encyclopedia articles. Not sure how or why criticism over alleged inconsistencies in policy/rhetoric would prevail among all of them.
- "he is running for president of the United States and all his views need to be written about" All his views? What about his views on which bubble gum flavor is the best? Obviously, some sort of criteria needs to be used here...
- "I think we are all in favor of incorporating them into the text and not devoting a paragraph to them. It is only NPOV." Are we? That's news to me. I'll certainly have to remind myself that I completely changed my mind about this at some point. I'll be clear about this. I don't think this merits mention in his BLP or his campaign article. There's pretty much nothing to distinguish it from other criticism such that we would be able to include this and not others.
- A side note about affirmative action...presumably there are gobs of politicians who support some form of affirmative action yet strive for racial equality. The beef about affirmative action possibly discriminating against whites is a criticism of affirmative action. I don't think it necessarily means there's an inconsistency, or "legitimate inconsistency" as you call it, so much as an inherent conflict between the two ideas/positions. --Ubiq (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The opposing argument is very sketchy. Presumably, means that we presume that and it is not necessarily fact, while it is a fact that Obama is an anti-racial candidate (which is great!) but he has supported affirmative action (which is also fine, but it just contradictory).
- I have great respect for the editors of this page; I know what it is like to work on a biography where many different views are presented. This is tough, too, because the article becomes unstable frequently. But his views on political, social, economic, and foreign policy issues (in reference to the 'bubble gum' gibe above) need to be presented in a fair, NPOV manner. When I spoke about favoring integrating into the text, I was talking about a proposal by Bobblehead, suggested above. Again, I am in no way suggesting that the section be rewritten, large paragraphs added, or critical pieces of every aspect of his record be covered. That would be foolish. I am suggesting a phrase be added regarding this issue (ex: "As a part of Obama's presidential run, he announced himself to be the post-racial candidate, although he has supported affirmative action."). That's short, sweet, to the point, and surely doesn't violate any core policies/guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Happy, the fact that only one person is saying this is probably enough evidence that it shouldn't be included in this article. Including the "post-racial" crap appears to come down to "Oooo, someone said something bad about Obama! Let's put it in his article." Whether or not you find this to be "interesting" is immaterial, it's still one person complaining in an opinion piece. This does not make it worthy of inclusion in this article. Heck, the whole he's post-racial therefore should be opposed to affirmative action is specious. Obama's use of "post-racial" is not a political positions stance, but more about his appeal to voters. --Bobblehead 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well then all the more reason to include it in my opinion. But I guess it wasn't meant to be. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction between being "anti-racial" and being in favor of affirmative action. Remember that affirmative action applies to any non-dominant socio-political group, including (but not limited to) people with disabilities. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well then all the more reason to include it in my opinion. But I guess it wasn't meant to be. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Happy, the fact that only one person is saying this is probably enough evidence that it shouldn't be included in this article. Including the "post-racial" crap appears to come down to "Oooo, someone said something bad about Obama! Let's put it in his article." Whether or not you find this to be "interesting" is immaterial, it's still one person complaining in an opinion piece. This does not make it worthy of inclusion in this article. Heck, the whole he's post-racial therefore should be opposed to affirmative action is specious. Obama's use of "post-racial" is not a political positions stance, but more about his appeal to voters. --Bobblehead 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have great respect for the editors of this page; I know what it is like to work on a biography where many different views are presented. This is tough, too, because the article becomes unstable frequently. But his views on political, social, economic, and foreign policy issues (in reference to the 'bubble gum' gibe above) need to be presented in a fair, NPOV manner. When I spoke about favoring integrating into the text, I was talking about a proposal by Bobblehead, suggested above. Again, I am in no way suggesting that the section be rewritten, large paragraphs added, or critical pieces of every aspect of his record be covered. That would be foolish. I am suggesting a phrase be added regarding this issue (ex: "As a part of Obama's presidential run, he announced himself to be the post-racial candidate, although he has supported affirmative action."). That's short, sweet, to the point, and surely doesn't violate any core policies/guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue of "political positions" is a hard question for wikipedia. Who is defining this. Is Obama, himself, the definer. That is, is it the issues that he chooses? If so, then the Hitler article needs a political positions sections that says how bad the Jews are.
If it's "what are the issues of the day, according the newspapers" then it becomes a question of if WP is a newspaper (NO).
The Hillary Clinton article has an interesting solution. It lists no issues, just ratings by different organizations. I'd like to consider this for this article. Even better is the Jimmy Carter article. It's very stately and presidential without a positions section. I think this is the most dignified way of article writing - let's do it here. DianeFinn (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the strengths of Misplaced Pages is that as the political views of each candidate develop they can be incorporated into the political views. As Obama is a relatively young candidate as his views evolve the article should be updated. Statements like "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. should be included to demonstrate what's important to him. 65.102.177.181 (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama ignoring gay media
Throughout his campaign he has ignored the gay media. None of the twelve member newspapers of the National Gay Newspaper Guild had been granted an interview with Obama, even though all of them had asked. He has only recently talked to a few gay media sources, and even then has been reluctant. And you’ll notice that he only started talking to gay news sources after he has been called out for not doing so by the Philadelphia Gay News in Pennsylvania. They have an article about it. Why is this not included here or in his positions? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that he stated some of his positions (no pun intended) with respect to LBGT issues during the Hardball College Tour. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think obamas position is quite clear from the link scjessey just gave, i suggest it is added to the article if not already. I would also advise Quirky to remain civil. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- His views with respect to LBGT issues are given coverage at Political positions of Barack Obama#LGBT issues, although probably a little inadequately. Personally, I don't think his positions are outside the mainstream enough to warrant a specific mention in his BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah your right, i was expecting him to lean slightly more to the left on that issue though. Still its nohing worth discussing. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- His views with respect to LBGT issues are given coverage at Political positions of Barack Obama#LGBT issues, although probably a little inadequately. Personally, I don't think his positions are outside the mainstream enough to warrant a specific mention in his BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think obamas position is quite clear from the link scjessey just gave, i suggest it is added to the article if not already. I would also advise Quirky to remain civil. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of people ignore the gay media so it is hard to write about. It's also hard to write about what people didn't do. Easier to write about what they did do, even if it was a gaff. Clist08 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- he just doesnt want it to sink his campaign, he might address them after and if he becomes president tho, just be patient —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.47.71 (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Wright (again)
It seems that there has been another minor flare up on the content of the paragraph about Wright in the Presidential campaign section. The "consensus" version of the wording that was agreed upon last month was:
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.
Today's little dust-up seems to be around reducing the size of the paragraph to:
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 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.
So, rather than the endless rounds of reverts that usually occurs on this article, I figured I'd start a discussion going. So, what's the reasoning behind the reduction in size? --Bobblehead 19:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- To me, what you guys had reduced it to was appropriate and the right wording to keep the NPOV. However, there seems to be one person (Andy) who keeps on trying to bring it back. To me, it seems as if he is continually trying to steer the article towards this issue. It seemed as if everyone had agreed upon this, yet he continues to bring this disruptive subject back up. I think if this person keeps on reverting, subverting, or trying to insert this subject more into the article, then something need to be done. Brothejr (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the shorter version does the initial Wright "event" justice, but it may work like that if the more recent developments are also incorporated. Andy's BLT/TUCC obsession is a separate issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Brothejr, as Scjessey said, this isn't related to Andy's attempts to get BLT/TUCC included in this article, it's not even related to Andy trying to get the Wright issue into it's own section that includes Ayers. Andy just happened to be the one that returned the wording back to the "consensus" wording after User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's removal of the wording. So, is the removal of the content from the "consensus" wording a result of a shoot the messenger, or is there actually disagreement about the "consensus" wording? --Bobblehead 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then can we start writing something here and if everyone is happy with it, then we can put it up in the article. My thinking is that we shouldn't put too much weight to this issue because it was more of a controversy surrounding his pastor and church then him. It has been his opponents that are trying to tie it to his view points. Looking from a NPOV I would say that a couple lines and a link would be all that is needed. Also, I see what you mean Scjessey and Bobblehead about Andy's obsession. Brothejr (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Brothejr, as Scjessey said, this isn't related to Andy's attempts to get BLT/TUCC included in this article, it's not even related to Andy trying to get the Wright issue into it's own section that includes Ayers. Andy just happened to be the one that returned the wording back to the "consensus" wording after User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's removal of the wording. So, is the removal of the content from the "consensus" wording a result of a shoot the messenger, or is there actually disagreement about the "consensus" wording? --Bobblehead 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the shorter version does the initial Wright "event" justice, but it may work like that if the more recent developments are also incorporated. Andy's BLT/TUCC obsession is a separate issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Beyond neutrality of tone and adequate citation, there is an issue of balance, just in the sense of length devoted to various topics. The discussion of Wright (and Ayers in some versions) was just much longer than is merited in the overall biography. I agree that the version I found was fine in tone and WP:FACT, but it only merits a brief mention in the general biography. Longer discussion can (and does) happen in the Presidential Campaign article (and the one on the More Perfect Union speech). I know that whoever was working on the article a month ago was trying to reach neutral language, but the result of looking for balance was enough "on-the-one-hand/on-the-other" stuff as to give the topic undue weight. I believe that the reduction I did keeps the neutrality of tone, and directs readers with Wikilinks to the right place to find a more fleshed out discussion.
Obviously, the Wright issues (which are, after all, something someone else said than the bio subject, and only indirectly related to the bio'd person) are more current than e.g. his law practice, or 2004 Dem primary speech, but they are not so overshadowing of a general biography as to merit the length they had a couple days ago. Moreover, there will be lots more side issues in a campaign, especially if he gets the Democratic nomination. I think it's a month later, and time to let the then-current events fade into background discussion (and make room for whatever is "the new thing" next). LotLE×talk 02:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- There was a huge argument then compromise on this, changing it months later without consensus is not good. Andy have every right to keeo it to the consensus. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, consensus just doesn't mean what you think it does on a fast-moving subject area. If this were about William the Conquerer, a month of change doesn't mean much. In a discussion of a politician currently active in a political campaign, a month is a huge time frame. Obviously, we're not going to change his birth date or childhood discussion because of campaign changes, but "consensus" on a campaign debate issue is ancient after a month of news events (not automatically wrong, but not any "sacred text" either). LotLE×talk 05:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, i know for the sake of peace that it should at least be discussed, considering how heated it all got. Rather than altering it months later hoping no1 would notice/care/remember. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never read this article until recently, so I have no idea of what the sides or hotness was (I can kinda guess). Nonetheless, as it stood when I read it, it definitely had a WP:Coatrack feel to it, certainly an imbalance. That said, I think the explanation I provide above for why only a short characterization of the Wright comments/controversy is appropriate to a general bio is pretty clear, so that seems like discussion to me. Convince me (or rather, the consensus of current editors of this article) that more words are needed to point users in the right direction than are in the trimmed version of the paragraph. LotLE×talk 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont need to convince you, read the previous 3/4 archives on the topic aswell as the review on wether or not this article was still worthy of a FA states. You will soon realise its not worth the stress, pain, edit wars etc etc all to cut the section by two lines. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 05:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am coming around to LotLE's way of thinking here, but only if the more recent Wright-related events are added to this shortened version. Wright's recent blow-up, and Obama's subsequent repudiation, should get a couple of lines. I'll be working on adding these a bit later (once I've shaken the cobwebs out of my head). -- Scjessey (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, lets keep all the paragraphs safe so that they dont get lost. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)We certainly need to add Wright's blow-up and subsequent distancing by Obama. Enough time has passed since our last discussion to pretty much know the impact of that distancing (blunted the blow-up, added a bullet point to the narrative, but not much else). --Bobblehead 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I've had a stab at adding the more recent material. Please chip in with ideas, comments, critique. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Its good, i still dont think it explains sufficiently how controversial it is though. Secondly there doesnt appear to be any mention in the article about his inability to get working class white votes. Something changed after iowa and the article doesnt explained that. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The sources don't characterize the "level" of controversy, so neither does the paragraph. Partly this is because some people feel it was more controversial than others, and Misplaced Pages cannot make its own judgment. I'm not sure what you are getting at in terms of "working class white votes" (a characterization I find rather distasteful). What has that got to do with Wright, exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- They are two separate things, Scjessey. "Working class" is generally a code for people making less than $50k per year and/or with less than a college degree education. The addition of "white" is to differentiate "working class" whites from "working class" blacks that overwhelmingly vote for Obama. As for why it's not mentioned here, that's a level of detail that is more appropriate for the sub-article than it is here. Including Obama's performance in one demographic would also require us to include his performance in all demographics, ie Clinton outperforms Obama in "working class whites", "female voters", and "Hispanic voters", "etc.", but outperforms her among "educated voters", "more affluent white voters", "blacks", "liberal voters", "independent voters", "conservative voters", etc. --Bobblehead 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with wright it was an observation that should have had its own heading i suppose. We should at least try to give the level of controversy some context, otherwise the reader wont see the point to its inclusion. The term "White working class" is rather distasteful yes, but thats how its being described. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am completely opposed to any suggestion of additional headings to highlight perceived controversy, and I am also opposed to the inclusion of any statements that claim that Obama has an "inability to get working class white votes," particularly given that this would be (a) factually inaccurate and (b) arguably racist original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh come on, you know full well it is controversial, we could at least mention that the media have played it so much. Im not going to go into the racism thing.... I get quite tired of this race baiting, as a person of color myself, i find it rather odd. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Scjessey, dial it back a bit, man. he's talking about a new heading for the working whites on the discussion page, not in the article itself.;) Realist2, the fact that it is controversial is mentioned in the opening sentence of the paragraph and that it received negative press and was accompanied with a drop in the polls.... --Bobblehead 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite right. I had misread the comment about the heading. I would like to add that that some people regard the events surround Wright's comments to be more controversial than others. It is not for Misplaced Pages to assign a value to the level of controversy. The word "controversial" is used, and links to a fully-developed article about the issue. No further characterization is necessary in the summary style of this BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Scjessey, dial it back a bit, man. he's talking about a new heading for the working whites on the discussion page, not in the article itself.;) Realist2, the fact that it is controversial is mentioned in the opening sentence of the paragraph and that it received negative press and was accompanied with a drop in the polls.... --Bobblehead 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh come on, you know full well it is controversial, we could at least mention that the media have played it so much. Im not going to go into the racism thing.... I get quite tired of this race baiting, as a person of color myself, i find it rather odd. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Im just going to leave this lynch mob, its not worth it, dont have to put up with those sort of accusations, good day. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Wright is a major issue so people will come here to read about it. Clist08 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO how "Wright" should have gone down, in this WP bio of Obama:
- From the 1st, we mention how it was Wright introduced BHO to the Christianity (/Protestantism/whatever and its life within BHO's Chicago community).
- When commentatators began to chatter about Wright's tendency for indulgence some in conspiracy theories and so on, we also mention that briefly.
- And, when Hillary grandstands, blah blah, how she had long ago have disowned such a mentor and we'd suppose have quit the only congregation she'd ever belonged to if he was such a reprobate rabblerouser as Wright, we mention that (albeit more from her point of view than I just did). — Justmeherenow ( ) 02:03, 25 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)
- 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)
- 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)
!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)
- 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)
- Oh, you'd be surprised ....... cheerio Tvoz/talk 21:56, 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)
- Considering I'm the above user, I hope you mean Bamarack (talk · contribs · logs). :)--Bobblehead 20:49, 19 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)
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)
- 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".
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
Equals more boring. — Justmeherenow ( ) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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?)
— Justmeherenow ( ) 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)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
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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, 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)
- 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)
- Strongly Oppose. Floorsheim (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I was asked to comment here by Kossack4Truth. As an Obama supporter myself, I remain of the view that this article shows a deliberate intent to avoid facts and information that could be construed as critical of Mr. Obama. The changes made and editing practices reported by Kossack4Truth seem to make the problem even worse than before. If I were coming to this article to get my information about Obama, I would want much more information about the Wright issue, especially what was and has been said that folks found so offensive. I would also want the details of the connection to Ayers and Rezko and why so many folks find them so disconcerting. I would also want to know about the role of Islam in Obama's upbringing. Obviously these are very important and notable issues for many people. The facts should be sorted out here in an unbiased and straightforward fashion allowing folks to make their own conclusions about them, not swept under the rug. I would also want some statement of the things Obama said regarding race in his response to the Wright controversy. To me, those were outstanding and revolutionary things for a mainstream politician to say. I know there's a separate article about the speech, but it seems to me there should be at least some statement here concerning what was said. It's as if this article has taken all the important and dynamic things about this campaign and just wished them all away. I used to think Misplaced Pages was a place to come if you wanted to get your facts straight regarding important issues of past and present. This article has changed my mind about that.
- I guess I should unequivocally state here I also oppose, pretty much for the reasons eloquently given stated above. Note that I tend to be a lefty and strongly support Obama ('though McCain's one of the very few Rupublicans I sorta like...). — Justmeherenow ( ) 02:29, 28 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.
- How can you call that a reliable source?!? </kidding> UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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.):
— Justmeherenow ( ) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)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)
- 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.):
- Interesting biographical details, if true, but what does any of that have to do with Obama? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:50, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Okay, let's try this in bold:
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)
- A successful propoganda campaign labelling a candidate as a serial flip-flopper: possibly notable (depending... )
- Concisely documenting criticisms of inconsistency on some specific issue: perhaps notable (again, depending... )
- 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
----withObama'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 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)Obama's association with former radical activist Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
- 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)
- 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:
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?
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Bill Ayers long ago settled into a life of quiet respectability asa much-published activist for better schools unquiet past as a leader of the violent Weathermen He has never apologized for his violent past.--THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE (17Apr2008)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Scjessey, consider the relevant section of WP:BLP:
- Oh that's very witty. Fortunately, my understanding of WP:BLP appears to eclipse yours. Again, I find myself forced to quote from it:
- 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)
- Response to Loonymonkey: ""I don't regret setting bombs." Bill Ayers quoted in
- (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"
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
Anyway, as far as WP:BLP goes, is the suggested assertion about AyersThere 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)- Sensationalistic? Not if our refering to Ayer's former militancy is not within the nature of an emotional expose but merely factual reporting.
- 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).
- Doing harm to Dr. Ayers? ...Dude wrote a book! — Justmeherenow ( ) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed language on Obama and Ayers
Currently, the "Early life and career" section of the article reads:
- Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. 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.
The sentence I suggest changing is the one in italics. In it, (1) Ayers should be adequately identified so that readers know why Obama's association with him is so controversial. Simply being a "former radical activist" is not enough. Plenty of former radical activists have changed their politics and, for instance, have been elected to Congress. We need to accurately label Ayers so the reader understands what's so controversial about him. (2) There should be a link within this sentence to the article about Obama and Ayers. (3) There is no 3. The first two are the only changes I want. My proposed language change (in italics and the new blue link to Bill Ayers election controversy):
- Obama's association with Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
Can we come to a consensus around this? Noroton (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- (As probably most contributors know, Bobby Rush, founder in '67 of the initial Chicago chapter of the Black Panther, is a member of the House of Representatives from Illinois' 1st U.S. Congressional district.) — Justmeherenow ( ) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you'll ever achieve consensus for such a clearly tendentious edit. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how explaining why the association was controversial is tendentious. Being absolutely factual is one point in its favor. A constructive approach on your part would be to try to suggest language that meets the reasonable objections of other editors. I think wanting to tell readers why an association is controversial -- in a phrase or even a sentence -- is a reasonable concern and not inherently tendentious.Noroton (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll assume good faith here, Noroton, since you've just joined this discussion. But we may not violate WP:BLP and WP:NOR by introducing our own, possibly libelous, characterizations of Ayers. "Former radical (activist)" is what his article and the cited source describe him as. Of course, there also wasn't ever anything "so controversial" here... there was one idiotic question, in one debate, that never got any real traction, despite attempts to smear Obama with a vague association. I can't read Stephenopolos' mind about how he imagined Ayers characterization (and neither can you). That said, the link seems fine, I'll add it.
- Personally, however, I think even the number of words we currently have on Ayers is too many for this article. And I 'definitely don't think this talk page is the right forum for writing long essays on 1960s leftist groups, as Justmeherenow seems to imagine. Y'know, many blog sites are free... maybe you should get an account. LotLE×talk 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Folks tell me to source stuff, I do and report back----then they kvetch I oughtta get my own blog. Point taken, but, sheesh! — Justmeherenow ( ) 00:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I've been reading through the sources cited in the Ayers article. If you scroll up a bit you'll see my comments that link to them. If you haven't read them, then please do, because they show there is nothing unfair in the characterization. I also explained in detail why it is no violation of WP:BLP at all to reference the legitimate public scrutiny of a presidential candidate and, for that matter, to accurately describe a public figure such as Bill Ayers. It isn't a "characterization of Bill Ayers" to accurately describe why he is controversial. He is controversial for specific reasons that can be described briefly and only in the context of describing Obama. "Former radical activist" is whitewashing. WP:BLP tells us to follow what the responsible sources say, and they go well beyond "former radical activist", and therefore there is nothing libelous at all in the statement. Please don't exaggerate. You are also inaccurate on "one idiotic question, in one debate". It's been more than that, and it deserves an accurate mention in this article. There was no original research in this proposed half-sentence at all. Have you read the sources?Noroton (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the reason Ayers is "controversial" is actually at all the reasons some editors are trying to stick in this article (nor, of course, is this the right article for it, in any case). The controversy, in as much as there is any, isn't about some Weatherman actions that Ayers may or may not have had any involvement in; it's actually about the fact that someone who has remained a radical activist through the present has been successful in Chicago politics (appointed to a board by Mayor Daley, for example, or serving on the Woods board). However, I'm not going to put my own opinions on WP articles, in violation of WP:NOR. The only characterization that is acceptable is the one in the cited source (in it's title, not something buried in the 17th paragraph that is actually about someone else), and that is given in the lead of Ayers own article. It's not your place to speculate about the "specific reasons" behind the "controversy". LotLE×talk 00:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the sentence as it currently exists is fair and accurate: "In 1999, former radical activist Bill Ayers, who had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996, joined the board;; this association would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign." The reference to Ayers is wikilinked, so anybody wanting to know more about him can research at their leisure and draw their own conclusions. An encylopedia should help people draw their own conclusions, not push them to have any particular opinion. Life.temp (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The existing paragraph is just fine, and I see little chance of achieving consensus on a version that includes details about Ayers that are unrelated to Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since they are only "details" that relate to why the Ayers connection was controversial, they are not, in this context, details about Ayers but the inclusion of necessary context for the reader to understand an episode in the subject's life that has become controversial. Compare:
- Alan Keyes is described in the article as A long-time resident of Maryland,,
- Pete Rouse, a 30-year veteran of national politics and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle
- Karen Kornbluh, former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, as his policy director
- Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions,
- So how is it that the proposed phrase about Ayers is a set of "unrelated" "details" instead of the necessary information that puts the Ayers controversy into enough context for the reader to actually understand why the matter is controversial? These "details" are no more detailed than what this very article provides elsewhere. Noroton (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since they are only "details" that relate to why the Ayers connection was controversial, they are not, in this context, details about Ayers but the inclusion of necessary context for the reader to understand an episode in the subject's life that has become controversial. Compare:
- Alan Keyes is so described to indicate the difficulties he had when being drafted to run against Obama. Pete Rouse and Karen Kornbluh are so described because they are job titles. These differ significantly from characterizations of the ilk you are hoping for with Bill Ayers. Also, it is worth noting that there is no "controversy" to speak of, despite what some inappropriately-created and titled Misplaced Pages article might suggest. The association between Ayers and Obama has been known for some time, and has only drawn scrutiny because Sean Hannity prompted George Stephanopoulos to ask about the association in that travesty of a "debate" last month. Trying to include details about Ayers's radical past that are unrelated to his relationship with Obama implies that the candidate is somehow participatory, or at the very least supportive, of that radicalism. That is, of course, completely inappropriate for a biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What the Obama campaign volunteers are trying to do here is called "hiding the ugly." Models are taught to do this when preparing their portfolios for modeling agencies. If your butt is too big but you have really nice legs, include photos that show off your legs and conceal your butt. It's the same with the details about other people. If they make Obama look good, they're included. If they make Obama look bad, they're "completely inappropriate" or "irrelevant." Rezko's criminal charges are directly related to political fund raising. His relationship to Obama is all about political fund raising. But somehow, any mention of either one of these two facts is "completely inappropriate." Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Siblings
I don't think my trimmed version of Obama's siblings is too much for a general bio. The longer version that listed all the names, and trivia about each was definitely over-long, but I don't think this is:
- Obama has eight half-siblings; he only grew up with the daughter his mother had with her second husband. Obama's father had six other children, one lived in Kenya, one lives in China, the remainder live or lived in Britain and the United States.
I'll agree that the about.com link is no strong, but the others look fine to me. LotLE×talk 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, from Hillary Rodham Clinton: She has two younger brothers, Hugh and Tony. From John McCain: His family (including his older sister Sandy and younger brother Joe) followed his father to various naval postings in the United States and the Pacific. Those seem about in line with the above possible Obama paragraph (the greater number of siblings, and half-sibling status probably takes a few more words to state). LotLE×talk 03:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- My problem with that information is that it describes details specific to Obama's father, rather than Obama himself - especially information about where they all live. It would be one thing if they were actually siblings, rather than "half-siblings" (which for some reason, makes me thing of the "halflings" in Lord of the Rings). Wouldn't Barack Obama, Sr. be a more appropriate location? -- Scjessey (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- A half-sibling went missing in all that. :-) How about simply:
- Obama grew up with his half-sister Maya Kassandra Soetoro, the daughter his mother had with her second husband.
- Since the inclusion of his close sister is certainly important to his biography. Still, its possible (?) that his other half-siblings are important too, for blood can compel closer relations, at least with some family gatherings, so we might go with a longer version, either now or later:
- Obama grew up with his half-sister Maya Kassandra Soetoro, the daughter his mother had with her second husband. Obama also has seven other half-siblings; his father had six other sons and one daughter.
- Sourced of course. Modocc (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think this version is excellent. Doesn't belabor the matter, but doesn't omit any mention of siblings (i.e. same as with Clinton and McCain's articles... and presumably other public figures, but I haven't checked others so much). Having an actual wikilink to the sister he actually grew up with is helpful as well. LotLE×talk 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Noting religion
So the question: how to indicate Obama's religion in the infobox?
My opinion is that only denomination should be listed. This is the usage in place for the articles on Nixon, Ford, Carter, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB, for example. I didn't go back farther in presidents, and I don't have a good survey on other politicians than presidents. However, I found it striking that there was no variation in the way the last six presidents are listed (obviously, different denominations, but no formal difference in what is presented).
Moreover, the exact characterization of a particular denomination is more detail than can be contained in an infobox. For example, various denominations are claimed to be Christian (or Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever) by some folks, while other folks think that denomination is outside the purview of the larger category. Some of this issue arose in the back and forth of changing the broad category for United Church of Christ between Christian and Protestant. I don't think the editors had this matter in mind, but there is quite a bit of theological contention (in various circles) over whether Catholics or Protestants (or both, or neither) are "really" Christians. Along the same lines, where do Mormons, or Unitarians, or Branch Davidians, etc. fall in those broader categories? (I'm not trying to argue a position, I just know that there are differing ones).
Rather than stake some theological position on what denomination is really in some broad category, let's just let readers follow the link to the denomination (which is what some figure concretely belongs to), and read about any such issues in that relevant full article. LotLE×talk 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Lets keep with Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(identity)#Self-identification here. Whatever Obama states his religion is what matters most. It might be that only his wife is more in tuned with the church doctrine, but perhaps not. For many reasons, the church he has attended is not by itself a testament to his religion. Rather than make a presumptive error or speculate we need to follow policy. If he has said he is a Protestant, then that would be fine. If he says he is a "United Church of Christ Christian" it would make sense to use only that denomination. To my knowledge, he has self-identified as a Christian and we should go with that. I am pretty sure that whatever is placed in other biographies is irrelevant to the applicable policy. The recent solution of bracketing the denomination is unsatisfactory (redundancy and lack of clarity), so the box needs optional fields to display "Church" and/or "Religion". Modocc (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Modocc (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
More evidence along the same lines: Richard Durbin, senior Senator from IL has listed denomination-only; Peter Fitzgerald, Obama's Senate predecessor has denomination-only; Fitzgerald's predecessor, Carol Moseley Braun has denomination-only. I think this is a pretty strong and consistent pattern to how religion is listed (always as "religion", never as "church"). LotLE×talk 01:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that what is typically meant by "religion" by well-intentioned editors is "church affiliation". Politicians are noted for adhering to their affiliations, but if religion was put on a similar box for all non-politicians, my point would be made more clear, because counter-examples would be more forthcoming. Modocc (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, what your claiming is that we should follow a different rule on this article than on all the other politician articles because... well, non-politicians might be listed differently?! Actually, I can't really think of any bios on non-politicians that list religious affiliation at all (well, except for people who are notable as clergy, founders of religion, and stuff like that). This seems like a bad pattern to follow; it would be one thing if there was an obvious split in what other articles did, but in fact they all seem to use the simple denomination-only form. LotLE×talk 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there is a tendency to "look at what the others have done" and create a de facto rule. By your own reasoning too! This "rule" probably got started along time ago and has not stopped. Still, we have a conflicting policy that says to use self-identifiers that the biographical subject uses and I doubt many editors want to wade into a thorny issue to figure out what the self-identifier(s) are. Yet, the policy I have brought up couldn't be more clear. Thus, to reconcile past mistakes, perhaps there needs to be a project discussion to change most of the religion fields to
"Church Affiliation""Church" -affiliation- with "Religion" -belief- as an option. Modocc (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there is a tendency to "look at what the others have done" and create a de facto rule. By your own reasoning too! This "rule" probably got started along time ago and has not stopped. Still, we have a conflicting policy that says to use self-identifiers that the biographical subject uses and I doubt many editors want to wade into a thorny issue to figure out what the self-identifier(s) are. Yet, the policy I have brought up couldn't be more clear. Thus, to reconcile past mistakes, perhaps there needs to be a project discussion to change most of the religion fields to
- As far as I can see, what your claiming is that we should follow a different rule on this article than on all the other politician articles because... well, non-politicians might be listed differently?! Actually, I can't really think of any bios on non-politicians that list religious affiliation at all (well, except for people who are notable as clergy, founders of religion, and stuff like that). This seems like a bad pattern to follow; it would be one thing if there was an obvious split in what other articles did, but in fact they all seem to use the simple denomination-only form. LotLE×talk 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand what rule you think you brought up. Self-identifiers are by no means consistent; I'm sure Obama has said at different times "I belong to United Church of Christ", "I am a Christian" and "I am a Protestant". Picking and choosing whichever one you think sounds like is just a subjective accident... I assume that all the editors on every other politician article avoided this for exactly this reason, settling for the much more direct and verifiable denomination-only approach. LotLE×talk 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am in agreement on the sound reasoning of the editors, Religion (belief) is actually avoided. For instance, how many politicians say I'm a "name-of-church christian"? They don't. When pressed they typically say "I'm a Christian". In other words, their expressions tend to be nondenominational, but their affiliations are denominational. Thus, what is being asserted by the info box "Religion" field is denomination affiliation not expressed religious belief. Of course, if any and all expressed nondenominational rhetoric becomes used or preferred the religion field becomes virtually useless. However, "Church" -affiliation- is more appropriate and for some "Religion" -belief- is (for those that are unaffiliated). I think an affiliation label would explicitly help both readers and editors. Modocc (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand what rule you think you brought up. Self-identifiers are by no means consistent; I'm sure Obama has said at different times "I belong to United Church of Christ", "I am a Christian" and "I am a Protestant". Picking and choosing whichever one you think sounds like is just a subjective accident... I assume that all the editors on every other politician article avoided this for exactly this reason, settling for the much more direct and verifiable denomination-only approach. LotLE×talk 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Vice Presidential Canidates
Honestly, I think it's too early to put a list of VP canidates page considoring he has yet to secure the nomination, ughhh.. perhaps they should wait until we find out what the DNC plans to do with Florida and Michigan(WE WE'RE ROBBED!)... so.. yeah. It is quite possible Hillary can get more delegates after May 31st if they deciede to count our votes! Well, anyways, that is just me but.. you know ;) CIAO! --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. This idiot is going to give away the general election to McCain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.171.79 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't use Misplaced Pages as a discussion forum. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
From an article standpoint, any encyclopedic material about the search for and choice of a Vice Presidential Candidate should probably go to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think a section on possible VP nominees would be a good thing in the campaign articles for each candidate. This is something people will be looking to WP for info on. The choices have to be cited possibilities of course, not just our suggestions. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, even on the campaign article it gets into crystal ball and WP:NOTNEWS issues. Substituting the speculation of others for our own, doesn't change the fact that it's still just speculation. Considering that any such section will be moot and need to be removed in a month or two, we should probably just leave it alone. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Trim the fat
Certain editors are pushing for huge, extraneous digressions about third parties, which they insist are of urgent importance to readers of this biography. To defend this idea, they sometimes claim that such digressions exist about third parties where it is "favorable" to Obama.
Before I got to this article, I think there was a small correct point in that regard. There was more said about Ryan and Hull than was necessary for Obama's biography. As soon as I noticed those extra clauses, I removed or reduced them. Having read the article a few more times, I don't see anything remaining that digresses into third-party biographies (unless the edit-of-the-second has added a long biography of Ayers). However, if anyone notices something remaining, please be ruthless with the scissors... or let me know the issue on the talk page, and I'll cut aggressively. LotLE×talk 14:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement with this. Over the last couple of years, this article has evolved into using a strict summary style in order to accommodate all the biographical details necessary to give an overview of Obama's life. The article has a growing number of sub articles and related articles that expand on each summary, and although some editors have expressed disapproval of this system (with claims that this "hides" details) it is perfectly suited to notable figures with extensive biographies like Obama. I still think that there is some scope for trimming - I believe some sections are over-referenced, for example - but it is looking pretty good at the moment. I imagine that as the campaign develops from the nomination fight to the general election, the section on the campaign will evolved to reflect this (rather than simply being made longer). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to be specific here. Words are a very precious resource in a summary article: no word should be here without earning its keep. It is far easier to be verbose than concise, and wars of "include every side" aggravate this trend. Long doesn't necessarily mean inaccurate, but it does mean undue weight.
So, for example, excluding words in references, we spend 443 words discussing Obama's "Early life and career". Which is to say, about the first 35 years of his life. In the current version, 30 of those words are devoted to discussing Bill Ayers. Do we really think that Ayers made up 6.7% of Obama's life? So that's too much. In the monstrous expansion that I recently trimmed, that expanded to 44 words about Ayers... 10% of Obama's first 35 years! Events can have significances other than mere duration; obviously, some brief experiences can be life-changing or pivotal... but does anyone really fantasize that 10% of the "significance" of Obama's first 35 years of life was his acquaintance with Ayers?! More important than his mother to his life? More important than going to law school? Etc. LotLE×talk 15:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
More candidates for the fat farm
So, LuLu, you want the article to go on a diet, eh? And wanting to keep down or remove information on why Ayers was actually controversial for Obama has nothing to do with it? And the addition of a dozen words or so on Ayers is now one of a number of "huge, extraneous digressions" a/k/a "fat" that our bulging biography just cannot afford? Is this really a simple weight-loss program for good article health or is there a slender possibility here that this has something to do with "hiding the ugly" as Kossak4Truth (02:13, 28 May) so helpfully puts it back at the "Proposed language" subsection? Your sudden concern with "fat" in the article is amusing. Perhaps we can recruit some more biographies into the fat farm:
- Franklin Roosevelt has this "extraneous" information on Alfred E. Smith: "While Smith lost the Presidency in a landslide, and was even defeated in his home state, Roosevelt was narrowly elected governor -- fat! fat! sixteen words!
- From the same article, six more unnecessary words: Al Smith was supported by some city bosses, but had lost control of the New York Democratic party to Roosevelt.
- From the same article, I'm not sure how much fat is here, but surely there's at least another half dozen words (the last two items already total more than Ayers). It wouldn't have been the "boisterous rhetoric" of a prominent Democrat who "let Roosevelt isolate his opponents and identify them with the wealthy vested interests". I'm sure you can find more words to cut here:
- Conservative Democrats, led by Al Smith, fought back with the American Liberty League, savagely attacking Roosevelt and equating him with Marx and Lenin. But Smith overplayed his hand, and his boisterous rhetoric let Roosevelt isolate his opponents and identify them with the wealthy vested interests that opposed the New Deal, setting Roosevelt up for the 1936 landslide
- The alternative to cutting would be adding words to put Smith's opposition in perspective, but I'm sure you wouldn't want that in the article, would you? Anyway, we already have 21 fatty words on Smith that can be cut.
- Harry Truman has tons of information on Tom Pendergast. Too much for me to even cite here. Just run a search for the word Prendergast on that page. But let me just mention one paragraph where Pendergast is mentioned. Surely you would want to excise the last sentence here (in italics):
- In 1930 Truman coordinated the "Ten Year Plan," which transformed Jackson County and the Kansas City skyline with new public works projects, including an extensive series of roads, construction of a new Wight and Wight-designed County Court building, and the dedication of a series of 12 Madonna of the Trail monuments honoring pioneer women. Much of the building was done with Pendergast Ready Mixed concrete.
- I mean, after all, how extraneous...
- Oh, let's excise this one from the Harry Truman article as well: "The appointment confirmed Pendergast's control over federal patronage jobs in Missouri and marked the zenith of his power." I mean, it's about Pendergast, not Truman. Truman was just the guy who was appointed, and we mention that in an earlier sentence. Eighteen words of fat for you!
- We'd probably want to keep this sentence in the Truman article: "Truman assumed office under a cloud as 'the senator from Pendergast'." But of course we need to keep down the other mentions of Pendergast, whether or not they explain what this sentence is about and why it mattered to anyone to call Truman the "senator from Pendergast" because, after all, we're on a mission to reduce fat here, and we know what's more important.
- I mean, for instance, just look at all this extraneous, fatty material in the Truman article. It's not about Truman at all. It's only about Pendergast. I don't know about you, LuLu, but I smell a plot:
- The 1936 election of Pendergast-backed Governor Lloyd C. Stark revealed even bigger voter irregularities in Missouri than had been uncovered in 1934. Milligan prosecuted 278 defendants in vote fraud cases; he convicted 259. Stark turned on Pendergast, urged prosecution, and was able to wrest federal patronage from the Pendergast machine.
- Ultimately Milligan discovered that Pendergast had not paid federal taxes between 1927 and 1937 and had conducted a fraudulent insurance scam. In 1939, Pendergast pled guilty and received a $10,000 fine and a 15-month sentence at Leavenworth Federal Prison. No charges were filed against Truman.
- William McKinley do we really need to know that his friend and campaign manager, Marcus Hanna was "a wealthy industrialist"? There's a bit of fat for you.
- Thomas Jefferson. I invite you to look over the subsection of Thomas Jefferson#Jefferson and slavery titled "The Sally Hemmings controversy". Does a Misplaced Pages article on our founding father really have space enough for four paragraphs on whether or not Jefferson had children with one of his slaves? Paragraphs about 1998 DNA studies, what Haplogroup Jefferson belonged to, 2001 studies, etc. etc. etc. Surely you'd want to excise about three fourths of that section, because we can give the main points in a sentence at the end of the first paragraph.
After all Words are a very precious resource in a summary article: no word should be here without earning its keep.Noroton (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be a bunch of excerpts from other articles, I guess all on presidents, that Noroton mentions. As with all Misplaced Pages articles, if some of that information is extraneous, I encourage him/her to "omit unnecessary words". I haven't looked at each of those to see if they all use WP:SUMMARY style; a somewhat different standard applies if they don't, but digressions are still bad.
However, I have not edited any of the articles mentioned, so have no specific opinion on the importance of a particular excerpt. If I do decide to edit them, I'll certainly work for conciseness of language. LotLE×talk 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at Thomas Jefferson, I think four paragraphs really is too much for the Sally Hemmings matter. It looks unbalanced to me relative to the length of the article. However, there does not seem to be a separate sub-article on the topic, which makes trimming somewhat more difficult, and Jefferson's article is not in summary style. Ideally, the issue of Jefferson's (possible) children with Hemmings, and the nature of their relationship, could have its own article, and the general biography should just have a sentence or two that pointed to that child article. However, this is the talk page for the Obama article, not the Jefferson one. The ranting about the Truman article and the McKinley one seem to be completely vacuous rhetoric though. LotLE×talk 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you might want to refrain from calling other editors' comments "vacuous ranting" so that we can keep the discussion on a less emotional level. I thought just a little humor was appropriate, however, since what I was responding to was already so humorous. Let me spell out the strong logical connection for you: The examples are all on point. They demonstrate how Misplaced Pages already balances concerns of conciseness with concerns for explaining the context in which the subject of the article actually existed, very particularly, with regard to how much information these articles have on other people. As is obvious from the examples given, it is Misplaced Pages practice to show how the actions of other people help us understand the subject of the article. Information on Pendergast gives us some insight into Truman; information on any of these people gives us some insight into the subject of the article, just as information on Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers gives us some insight into Obama. While I wouldn't want as much on Ayers as the Truman article has on Pendergast (which is actually a bit too much), or even as much as the McKinley article has on Hanna, a bit of information on Ayers, putting that relationship into proper context, cannot be left out for reasons of "conciseness" because that's clearly going overboard. As I've just demonstrated. Noroton (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, information on Ayers doesn't give us any insight into Obama. During the time Ayers was doing his thing, Obama was a boy living in Jakarta. As I have repeatedly said before, Obama has only known Ayers as an influential civic leader, as a professor, and as a fellow member of a philanthropist organization dedicated to helping the same communities Obama worked with as a lawyer. So actually, banging on about Ayers' radical past would be a distortion of the truth. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two or three sentences in the article is "banging on about Ayers' radical past"? And, um, in your sentence Obama has only known Ayers as an influential civic leader, as a professor, and as a fellow member of a philanthropist organization dedicated to helping the same communities Obama worked with as a lawyer. You could just as well have added, as a famous former violent radical involved in bombing public buildings. In fact, wasn't Ayers more famous than Obama was when Obama knew him? I'm not sure, but was that foundation the one that brought Obama to Chicago for community organizing? (I thought I'd heard that, but I'm not sure.) "information on Ayers doesn't give us any insight into Obama". Well, the controversy is about whether it does. If we're going to follow what mainstream sources say about Obama, then we're going to include it. Anything else would be a distortion of the truth. Noroton (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong about this. Ayers' "radical past" has nothing to do with Barack Obama, who was 9-years-old and the opposite side of the world at the time. Only the right-wing lunatic fringe (and Hillary Clinton, apparently) think there is anything significant about their relationship, and that is just a transparent bit of guilt-by-association electioneering. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your political opinion. Do you consider the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, ABC News, TIME and The Nation part of the right-wing lunatic fringe? If they all had coverage of this would you say it would be worth mentioning in the article? And worth enough mention so that we understand just what the reason is that makes it so controversial? Tell me, what's your opinion as a fellow encyclopedist? Noroton (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong about this. Ayers' "radical past" has nothing to do with Barack Obama, who was 9-years-old and the opposite side of the world at the time. Only the right-wing lunatic fringe (and Hillary Clinton, apparently) think there is anything significant about their relationship, and that is just a transparent bit of guilt-by-association electioneering. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two or three sentences in the article is "banging on about Ayers' radical past"? And, um, in your sentence Obama has only known Ayers as an influential civic leader, as a professor, and as a fellow member of a philanthropist organization dedicated to helping the same communities Obama worked with as a lawyer. You could just as well have added, as a famous former violent radical involved in bombing public buildings. In fact, wasn't Ayers more famous than Obama was when Obama knew him? I'm not sure, but was that foundation the one that brought Obama to Chicago for community organizing? (I thought I'd heard that, but I'm not sure.) "information on Ayers doesn't give us any insight into Obama". Well, the controversy is about whether it does. If we're going to follow what mainstream sources say about Obama, then we're going to include it. Anything else would be a distortion of the truth. Noroton (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, information on Ayers doesn't give us any insight into Obama. During the time Ayers was doing his thing, Obama was a boy living in Jakarta. As I have repeatedly said before, Obama has only known Ayers as an influential civic leader, as a professor, and as a fellow member of a philanthropist organization dedicated to helping the same communities Obama worked with as a lawyer. So actually, banging on about Ayers' radical past would be a distortion of the truth. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your bellicose comment. The sources you have mentioned do indeed talk about Ayers and Obama, but none of them link Obama to Ayers' "radical past". Putting details of that nature into this BLP would imply Obama was somehow involved. Obviously that would not be true or appropriate, so obviously it those details should not be included. Blue links make it possible, however, for us to link to Bill Ayers and go into exhaustive detail about his life there. Perhaps these examples will help you understand:
- Would it be appropriate to talk about Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright in the Bill Ayers article?
- Would it be appropriate to talk about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers in the Jeremiah Wright article?
- The answer would be no, to both questions, right? Do you see what I'm getting at now? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I "dissent" ((...does the present text really enjoy a plurality of supporters?!)) from former radical as our succinct descriptor for Ayers. Which was sourced from just the headline and not the article itself in a piece from MSNBC----whom, I guess, since I'm a lefty, I can't complain about for its being "Fox News of the left"----instead of a still-succinct-but-more-accurate label. Especially (to effect the least impression of WP's bias) as sourced from a more generally prestigeous source, maybe even one of the print media pieces talk) mentions. — Justmeherenow ( ) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your bellicose comment. The sources you have mentioned do indeed talk about Ayers and Obama, but none of them link Obama to Ayers' "radical past". Putting details of that nature into this BLP would imply Obama was somehow involved. Obviously that would not be true or appropriate, so obviously it those details should not be included. Blue links make it possible, however, for us to link to Bill Ayers and go into exhaustive detail about his life there. Perhaps these examples will help you understand:
(unindent)What was bellicose about my comment? Please calm down. If I understand you, you don't want this single additional phrase in the article at all, despite the fact that the subject of the article is a presidential candidate, that during his campaign this became a widely reported controversy, and that it's a controversy about Obama's own past actions -- which is the actual stuff of this article. Rather than us condensing what the reliable sources have to say about Obama, you want us to take a position that on this point what they say is so irrelevant to his life that we should not include it. Could this possibly have something to do with your hope that the Democratic presidential candidate will win in November, and therefore serves his interest not to have the information in, or is your opposition only on the grounds that it serves the interests of our readers to have the information omited? If so, how does omitting it serve their interest? (I've explained how this adding of a phrase serves their interest.) You mention a blue link, and that implies that you want something about Ayers in the article. Keep in mind that we're disputing whether or not to include a phrase here explaining just what it is about Ayers that actually makes the connection controversial. If the blue link is useful, so is the phrase. For you to repeatedly go on about "exhaustive detail" is confusing to me. Could you explain how about 20 words is "exhaustive detail"? Noroton (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have already explained this umpteen times in previous comments. If it was up to me, I would not include any mention about Bill Ayers in this article because I believe his relationship to Obama to be of no significance whatsoever, except where it impacts on Obama's election campaign. On that basis, it belongs in the campaign article. However, a consensus was reached earlier to include some mention of Ayers that included a blue link to his biography. I didn't agree with it, but I actually wrote the original consensus text. Now we have a small group of dedicated individuals who absolutely insist that Ayers' "radical past" be mentioned, with vivid descriptions like "unrepentant radical terrorist bomber" and the like. This kind of inflammatory text is inappropriate. If you need further elaboration of my opinion, please refer to my previous comments on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Appropriateness of an edit is judged by how that edit helps the reader understand the subject. Your judgment about what helps the reader understand the subject in this case doesn't match that of responsible sources, including the newspapers I mentioned above. Any matter concerning Obama's life that receives this much coverage is going to be worth mentioning in this article with just enough detail for people to understand it. a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions is not inflammatory, it's simply informative about inflammatory actions. For you to want to keep Bill Ayers name from readers of the article is to impose your judgment above that of mainstream judgment (from professional news people) about what is important, and it's the judgment of the mainstream sources that we're supposed to be following, not blocking. Noroton (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "this much coverage", to be honest. I've seen hardly any coverage since the brief flurry that followed ABC's disgraceful debate last month, with the possible exception of FOX News and Murdoch-owned newspapers. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Appropriateness of an edit is judged by how that edit helps the reader understand the subject. Your judgment about what helps the reader understand the subject in this case doesn't match that of responsible sources, including the newspapers I mentioned above. Any matter concerning Obama's life that receives this much coverage is going to be worth mentioning in this article with just enough detail for people to understand it. a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions is not inflammatory, it's simply informative about inflammatory actions. For you to want to keep Bill Ayers name from readers of the article is to impose your judgment above that of mainstream judgment (from professional news people) about what is important, and it's the judgment of the mainstream sources that we're supposed to be following, not blocking. Noroton (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Back to the discussion
Actually, I'd kind of favor transferring the tiny Ayers reference to the campaign section, where we should mention Obama's relationship with the former violent conspirator became controversial. And of course, we need to say why it was controversial. Just as we do with the Jeremiah Wright information. Only the Ayers explanation, even if we lengthen it more than I originally proposed, will still be considerably shorter. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What this article ain't
The bloody endless soapbox speeches on this talk page about how "readers need to know" all sorts of details on some guy Obama has a passing acquaintance with (and need to know it right here because a mouse click is far too difficult for readers to carry out) seems to come from a underlying misunderstanding.
This article is not here for the purpose of "letting readers decide" how to vote in a political race. We aren't trying to "inform voters on the pressing political questions that face them." We aren't trying to "reveal the truth about candidates." This is a biography of a person, and the only perspective that matters is that of describing the life and social significance of that person. Nothing that doesn't matter in a biography of Tsar Nicholas II matters any more in this biography (obviously, details vary vastly between the two persons, but not the biographical form)..
There are many fine publications in the world (and some not-so-good ones also) that advice on how voters should vote. There are sites that help voters determine whether political candidates share their values. There are campaign materials of candidates, their opponents, political action committees, and what not. I am glad all those sites exist, and invite interested voters/readers to visit them. Misplaced Pages ain't any of those things! LotLE×talk 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Siegel, Fred (May 5, 2008). "The Obama Way". National Review. LX (8): 46.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help); Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Brian Ross (March 13 2008). "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) See also: Sullivan, Andrew (March 16 2008). "For The Record". The Daily Dish. The Atlantic. Retrieved 2008-03-18.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Jeff Goldblatt (March 14 2008). "Obama's Pastor's Sermon: 'God Damn America'". FOXNews. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Dilanian, Ken (2008-03-18). "Defenders say Wright has love, righteous anger for USA". USA Today. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
- ^ Adubato, Steve (March 21, 2008). "Obama's reaction to Wright too little, too late". MSNBC.
- Reid, Tim (March 21, 2008). "Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright". Times Online. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Johnson, Alex (2008-03-14). "Controversial minister leaves Obama campaign". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-28.
- Barack Obama (March 18 2008). "Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Nedra Pickler, Matt Apuzzo (March 18, 2008). "Obama confronts racial division". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-19.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Noonan, Peggy (2008-03-21). "A Thinking Man's Speech". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-11. - ^ Kurtz, Howard (2008-03-20). "Obama's Speech, Sliced and Diced". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-19.
- "Mr. Obama's Profile in Courage". The New York Times. 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-03-19.
- Kristol, Bill (2008-03-24). "Let's Not, and Say We Did". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-25.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Davis, Lanny J. (April 9, 2008). "Obama's Minister Problem". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Jeff Goldblatt (March 14 2008). "Obama's Pastor's Sermon: 'God Damn America'". FOXNews. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Reid, Tim (March 21, 2008). "Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright". Times Online. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Johnson, Alex (2008-03-14). "Controversial minister leaves Obama campaign". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-28.
- Barack Obama (March 18 2008). "Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Jeff Goldblatt (March 14 2008). "Obama's Pastor's Sermon: 'God Damn America'". FOXNews. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Reid, Tim (March 21, 2008). "Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright". Times Online. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Johnson, Alex (2008-03-14). "Controversial minister leaves Obama campaign". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-28.
- Barack Obama (March 18 2008). "Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Mr. Obama's Profile in Courage". The New York Times. 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-03-19.
- Kristol, Bill (2008-03-24). "Let's Not, and Say We Did". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-25.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) See also: Davis, Lanny J. (April 9, 2008). "Obama's Minister Problem". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Cite error: The named reference
woodswas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Curry, Tom (April 18, 2008). "Ex-radical Ayers in eye of campaign storm". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-05-05.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
- Curry, Tom (April 18, 2008). "Ex-radical Ayers in eye of campaign storm". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-05-05.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Curry, Tom (April 18, 2008). "Ex-radical Ayers in eye of campaign storm". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-05-05.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Scott Fornek (2007-09-09). "AUMA OBAMA:Her restlessness, her independence". Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
{{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Roger Cohen (2008-03-17). "Obama's Brother in China". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
{{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- FA-Class Hawaii articles
- Mid-importance Hawaii articles
- WikiProject Hawaii articles
- FA-Class Chicago articles
- Top-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- FA-Class African diaspora articles
- Low-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
- Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
- Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press