Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Tony Rezko discussion

I know this kind of thing has been tried before for the Ayers issue and perhaps others, but I think this is a good point at which to centralize the discussion on Rezko. I think we've made some good progress on this question above and there is proposed language from different people with which multiple editors have expressed at least some agreement. As often happens though the discussion is kind of all over the place now and perhaps too unwieldy to be effective. I propose we centralize discussion here and avoid new subsections that take us off track. I most certainly don't want to impose this approach if others disagree with it and see a better route, it's just my personal view that we need to try to zero in and discuss this in one place.

If folks agree, let's have a two step process: 1) Editors can propose language to discuss Obama's ties to Rezko, while explaining where they want it in the article (don't editorialize, just word it as you want it worded and put links to your sources); 2) We discuss, not vote on, the various proposals, probably ending up with something slightly different from anything proposed, but keeping our eyes on the prize at all times, which is coming to some sort of rough consensus and ending the debate over Rezko.

Let's try to keep the focus on specific wording and avoid philosophizing or general statements. In the scheme of things this is not a major issue and we should come to some agreement soon, knowing we can always make adjustments later. I would also propose we set a bit of a time limit on discussion (maybe five days or a week) and bring it to a close at the end, making every effort to arrive at some form of consensus even if not everyone is happy.

Let's think of this not just as a way to discuss and put to rest the Rezko issue, but also as a model (if it actually works!) for future discussions on difficult topics.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Rezko language

Let's try to keep this to about four or five proposals AT MOST, bearing in mind that this is not a vote for a certain version and we can tweak anything proposed here (i.e., if someone has proposed something close to what you want, just discuss differences you have with it in the discussion section below). If you add new proposed language, start your own subsection and make sure you point out which section or sections of the article you want the proposed language to live in.

Implicit and Explicit comments

I prefer #1, but I believe that #2 softens the "criticism" to the point where it is acceptable. It does so by implying that it was the criticism that prompted Obama's comments and donation to charity, which I believe is supported by the sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Between these two I'd "vote" # 1, since to my ears they're identical except for number 1's being two-words tighter and hence better. — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I could go with either one, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns with the second. Obama's acknowledgement was not that criticism existed ("Obama acknowledged criticism that..."). He acknowledged the appearance created by the transactions. I'm still thinking about the first. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, let me try. If it's brevity you want, this one is shorter than either one of those:

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.65 million home in Kenwood. The wife of developer Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to Obama in January 2006. The transactions drew criticism from political rivals and others because they occurred while Rezko, Obama's friend and a key fundraiser, was under investigation for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged it was "a boneheaded move" to create an appearance of impropriety, and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity.

There you go. I'll trade you a "simultaneously" for a "criticism" and a "boneheaded move." What do you say? Is it a deal? WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry WB74, but we have moved on considerably in your absence. There are numerous problems in your version that have already been discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry SCJ, but several days ago I cautioned you against pretending that you could ignore the opinions of editors who are temporarily absent because they inevitably return. I don't see any problem with that version as a compromise. What's the problem? Don't complain about weight because it isn't a fringe POV. Don't complain about BLP because it's notable and the number of reliable sources Noroton and I produced is overwhelming. What's the problem? WorkerBee74 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WB74's proposal is a non-starter given the state of discussions. I have filed a new AN/I report here on this editor's post-block behavior, which I believe is disruptive and likely to derail attempts to reach consensus here. Accusing editors of "pretending", invoking support of blocked editors (including some socks likely operated by this editor), etc., is going to be a problem unless it is curbed. Wikidemo (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no one else supports it. Sorry you've missed the last 3 days' discussion, but you don't get a do-over. If you break the rules, you don't get to play. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is no one else supports it. I support it. If WB74 wasn't constantly being shouted down by a handful of editors here, there would probably be others supporting it as well. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

July 4 Clubjuggle proposal

How about this?

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

In this version fact that "the relationship" was criticized is balanced directly against the fact that he was not accused of wrongdoing on the one side, and Obama's acknowledgment of the appearance on the other. Anyone has my permission to cut and paste this version into the section above if appropriate. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it! This version has my full support. I like it even more than the version without criticism because I believe it is a fair representation of what has transpired. Excellent work! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

W00t! It's amazing what a good night's sleep can do. If we can bring Shem and Noroton on board, we may have it. I'll make the pitch to Noroton on his talk page. Would you mind doing the same for Shem? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little problem: the words "although" and "nonetheless" create a strong impression that in the judgment of Wikipedia, the criticism isn't justified. By saying it was a "boneheaded move," Obama himself admitted that criticism was completely justified. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, K4T. ClubJuggle tried to explain this before. Obama did not admit the criticism was justified, but he admitted the transactions had the appearance of impropriety. Saying otherwise would be conjecture. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to skip 'nonetheless', it probably even reads better without it. 'Although'... well, I suppose 'While' would be OK also. Generally the wording is very nice. It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. LotLE×talk 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeat removal of comments

These comments are extremely unhelpful. They would reasonably be described as "baiting" or "taunting." They poison the well, as several well-established editors have observed. They are violations of WP:CIV and WP:AGF. User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, stop making these remarks immediately, or I will report this misconduct to admins and ask them to block you for it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your interpreteation of Obama's meaning, Wikipedia shouldn't appear to be making judgments about whether such criticism is justified. It's as bad as the word "incredibly" describing criticism in the Nancy Reagan bio cited above. Wikipedia cannot appear to be taking sides. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Obama only admitted that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety. While the construct is intended to specify that the transaction drew criticism despite no accusation of wrongdoing in the transactions, there's a bigger picture. The construct is also intended to more directly show that the criticism was justified by the relationship as well as appearance the transactions created. I'll be out for the day, checking in periodically if at all. I know this is not a social board but have a happy 4th, all. Whatever your views, go out and celebrate our right to debate them openly. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle, I notice that you've overcome your aversion and agreed with me on the propriety of using the word "criticism" in this article, and you did it in exactly the way I recommended: you reviewed Wikipedia biographies about similarly situated persons, and you observed an established practice that represents the consensus of thousands of veteran editors and admins. Well done. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree to this. K4T, I don't think it deprecates the criticism. I'd like to suggest to the other editors who haven't commented on this yet that if you have an objection, think about whether it is a small, medium or large one and ignore any but the biggest. Noroton (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a very large objection. K4T is correct. Wording it this way makes Wikipedia appear to take sides. It's almost the only thing allowed on the page that is clearly critical of Obama. We have sourcing that is as good as it gets, and the people who are criticizing Obama are just about as notable as people get. But the wording appears to be an attempt (deliberate or not) to delegitimize this criticism. It is as though Wikipedia itself has adopted the beliefs of Scjessey: that any criticism of St. Barack, no matter how well-founded in the facts and impeccably sourced, no matter how notable and neutral the sources, is a "campaign smear tactic" [18][19] and not worthy of inclusion in this biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording chosen by ClubJuggle does not attempt to quantify the amount of criticism, which earlier versions did. Furthermore, it ensures that we correctly describe that the criticism was not aimed at Obama's specific actions, but rather his relationship with Rezko (which some would consider of deeper concern). This harsh characterization is balanced by putting it in the "no wrongdoing" sentence, which also has the effect of making sure the timeline of events is more accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the concern that K4T has raised, and that I've repeated. It is this: the wording makes Wikipedia appear to take sides by delegitimizing criticism. What is your response to this concern? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My answer is that I don't think it delegitimizes anything. It correctly presents the facts in a neutral manner, which should always be Wikipedia's goal. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I don't want to be the one person left standing in the way of consensus. As long as we understand that this is an interim version (thus explicitly rejecting an unreasonable precondition demanded by WD), and further discussion and likely further tweaking is called for here, I will agree to posting this version in the mainspace. You get Shem on board, I'll try to get Noroton and K4T on board, and we'll be able to say that we moved the ball downfieldn even if it isn't quite in the net yet. Agreed? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This is not a proposed "interim" version. We are not creating a new baseline from which people can argue for more or less details. We are trying to create something that will be relatively stable until beyond election day. That is why this discussion has gone on as long as it has. Once the article is changed to reflect the new text, it would require an entirely new consensus-building process to get any future changes. Also, I think you will find that Noroton is already more or less on board with ClubJuggle's proposed text (see his most recent comment). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It is true that Obama was not accused of wrongdoing. "Nonetheless" does not at all necessarily deprecate the criticism or mean we don't take it seriously because the criticism never was that Obama was involved in the serious things that "wrongdoing" is about -- it helps show just that; "the appearance of an ethical conflict", as the next sentence indicates, is what it was about. This is a very small problem involving possible interpretations (that I seriously doubt readers will make) about an accurate way of considering what the "criticism" was about. There are so many more important improvements to make in this article. Please give in and let's get on to the next issues -- Wright and Ayers. Now I'm a bit reluctant to defend this language because we haven't heard from many of the other editors who have participated in this discussion. I think it's time they weighed in before I spin my wheels any further. Noroton (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T wrote above, By saying it was a "boneheaded move," Obama himself admitted that criticism was completely justified. No, actually, he had his own way of describing it, which was a bit less harsh than his stronger critics, but he seemed to admit most of what they were criticizing him about, and nearly all critics focused on how dumb it was to be so close to Rezko that it created the appearance of impropriety. With the set of public facts that we have, that's really just about all that critics could do, because there isn't evidence to accuse Obama of more than that. This language really does give a good, concise, sharply enough focused description of the Rezko matter that doesn't mislead readers. Readers will get a good idea of what the important points are about and anyone interested can click on the Rezko blue link for a more detailed version there. I've had big problems with earlier versions, they've now been met and I have no problem with editors tweaking so that they're comfortable with it. But when it gets down to which sentence some phrase should go into and what connecting words to use ("although", "nevertheless", "and", "but"), I wonder whether we're moving the ball more than a few inches on the field. Believe me, no one reading this article is going to be misinformed by reading this version, and to the extent that they might be misinformed, it will be in such a small way that they will never form a firm opinion about the Rezko-Obama relationship from that misinformation. Think about it: If you knew nothing about this and read that passage, took "nonetheless" and "although" to mean what WP74 and K4T are concerned you might infer, and then read that Obama himself said it created the appearance of a conflict of interest and gave $150,000 to charity, would you wind up thinking there was nothing to the criticism? Conversely, if Obama himself says that it created the appearance of a conflict of interest, the preceding mention of "criticism" and no-wrongdoing-known would indicate he got some heat for a relatively small issue, did something wrong and made a move to make it right -- and that would be accurate. If it mattered to you, you'd click on that blue link. If it didn't matter to you, your mind would still be open the next time you heard something about Rezko and Obama. That's why this is a small thing and we should get behind this language and put this matter to bed. Noroton (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The text has now been refined to such an extent, with clever use of nuance and balance, that it has reached a stage where it is essentially all things to all people. ClubJuggle should be congratulated for this version, and we probably all deserve a little pat on the back. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no objection to putting this version in the mainspace for today, but we haven't heard from Shem, Wikidemo or several other editors recently. I think it's just a bit premature to claim that this should stay this way until after the election. It is certain that the conservative side is going to make a lot of noise about Obama and Rezko in the coming months, so there will be further developments to be added, and this language will seem remarkably mild and neutered by October. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(comment relocated) I've said several times that all the versions within the range of discussion are agreeable and I'll repeat that here - this version (the July 4 Clubjuggle proposal) is fine. I can support it if the body of established editors on this page get behind it as a complete and final resolution of the matter, to stand until and unless there is a significant new development out in the world that renders it obsolete. I'm not going to say in advance what I would consider a development that is of sufficient weight to shed new light on Obama's biography - we can deal with that if we come to it. Obviously, as an agreed-to consensus it is a package deal and not a mix-and-match collection of phrases to use as a negotiating position in an ongoing debate to further change the language. I think that leaves Shem as the last one we need to hear from.Wikidemo (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the possible range of wordings and slants, this one seems very middle of the road. The Although ..., nonetheless ... wording seems pretty close to halfway between:

• (anti-Obama spin) Obama was not charged with any criminal offenses, but this admittedly "boneheaded" lapse of judgment was criticized by good government groups and others.

• (pro-Obama spin) Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing and neither was asked for or did any favors for Rezko, the relationship drew criticism from political rivals and others.

I would expect it to last until the election unless there's some significant new revelation. If it becomes a major campaign theme it might warrant mention in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (it's not mentioned there at all yet) which could lead to some summary of it in the section on the campaign in this article—but predicting the future is notoriously difficult. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(The following comment was entered before I labeled the deliberate spin of the above wordings. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)) Obama was not charged with any criminal offenses, but this admittedly "boneheaded" lapse of judgment was criticized by good government groups and others. I like this version the best. It has the "boneheaded" quote and the word "criticized." It doesn't ambiguate the criticism either. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that strays too far from the versions being discussed into territory that's unacceptable to several - Wikipedia calling it a "lapse of judgment" and "boneheaded", and "good government groups and others" are unlikely to meet approval. I'd suggest we stick with the current proposal (at the top of this subheading for now, with "although" and "nevertheless" replaced by a single connecting preposition) as the basis for discussion. It seems to have approval as a final, complete description of the matter from everyone but K4T and possibly WB74, and we have not heard lately from Shem. If Shem is onboard but K4T and/or WB74 simply refuse to accept it or propose something that the other editors can all live with, then we'll have to decide if that's consensus or not. Wikidemo (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant it to be obvious that the two versions above were not suggestions for wording to be included but examples of highly POV variants on both ends of the spectrum. I think the "although ... nonetheless" wording is essentially without any spin. In particular, including "nonetheless" avoids an implied editorial rebuke of the criticism (rebuking the criticism seems to be K4T's and WB74's problem with it). Compare with and without this word:

• Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.

• Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship drew criticism.

Without "nonetheless" the "although" clause seems to be stronger (at least as I read it). It might be possible to find some rephrasing that makes this even more neutral sounding (perhaps Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.), but as Noroton says above if we're in the realm of quibbling about which connecting words to use we're past the point of diminishing returns. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From a neutrality point of view, there's not a huge difference between these:

1. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.
2. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism.

I'd be perfectly happy with either. I like the way #1 reads and I like that #2 is marginally more neutral. Whichever version is chosen, I feel we have reached the point where it is time to update the article and move on. Consensus does not require unanimous agreement, and this version seems to have the support of most editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Is there any regular contributor we haven't heard from on this? I think as soon as Shem sounds in we will have heard from everyone. At that point we can determine consensus, and move on, no? Should we just give Shem another day or so to respond or does anyone want to prompt him / her? Wikidemo (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem had an aversion to the word "criticism", but I think ClubJuggle has addressed that. Just as a reminder, there are two, very similar versions currently being discussed (difference in bold):

1. Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.
2. Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

We'll need to pick which one we think is best. After that, we will need to have some discussion about the references for the text. A recent attempt (by WorkerBee74) to slot in a different version of the text included an alarming number of sources, many of which seemed completely unnecessary. It is not unreasonable for me to say that having multiple references (that say the same thing) is a way of reinforcing a point of view. We need enough references to support the text - no more, no less. If a choice is available, we should select references that reflect the widest audience (such as picking a national newspaper over a local one). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What are the two versions? If there are two versions I guess that's okay - we can restate them and ask people to sound in. But I'm reluctant to re-open the floor to open-ended proposals. That's just an invitation to restart the whole discussion for the umpteenth time when it seems like we've reached consensus finally. No point delaying implementation while we figure out sources - surely we haven't sunk to such a stalemate that sourcing becomes an issue. Let's just implement the language we agree to and count on normal editing process to add or refine citations. Wikidemo (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to discuss this more, bringing up new points or points that haven't been addressed, I think we are just about at consensus here. I can go with either version Scjessey just put on the page (14:57 7 July). We need to think about footnotes. As I recall, Scjessey and I were both OK with having two citations in a footnote for the word "criticism". I'd be willing to put the mostly supportive Chicago Tribune editorial from March 2008 and an article which I'll find from National Review Online. Those were the two best opinion pieces I saw, and I think that's fair. Someone should check if the footnotes already in the article at that spot cover the information we're adding. If not, we should add reliable newspaper articles -- I think we've got several already linked to from this talk page. I think the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times are two of the largest-circulation newspapers and among the most respected in the country, and they're likely to be more accurate even than the national papers, but any reliable source is good enough for me. It would be good to move on this and get it off the table today, wouldn't it? I think we can do that. It would be nice if Clubjuggle were to do the actual addition. Noroton (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for "criticism"" One footnote with:

"Obama's Rezko narrative", editorial, Chicago Tribune, March 16, 2008; Spruiell, Stephen, "Rezko: Guilty", National Review Online, June 5, 2008, retrieved July 7, 2008 -- OK? -- Noroton (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, each piece of information needs only a single reference, so sentences should rarely need more than one or two sources. Stuffing the text full of sources will not be acceptable. I would, for the most part, expect to see reliable sources from the websites of national newspapers and television media, and perhaps from the two Chicago newspapers mentioned by Noroton. Sources must be used to verify facts, and not to add opinion or "color commentary". Sources like The National Review should only be used when wishing to offer a conservative/right-leaning point of view (just as "The Nation" would offer a liberal/left-leaning POV), and it is difficult to see why a biased view of any kind would be necessary with such contentious material. I agree that it would be good if ClubJuggle, or another administrator, would actually add the relevant text. I would be happy with either version above. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That National Review source would not be acceptable. The very first words ("Talk about bad timing...") expose the article as a conservative-leaning opinion piece. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. It's criticism. What do you think the Chicago Trib editorial is? WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN support judicious use of differing opinions. What is the policy basis or reasoning for keeping out opinion pieces from a footnote supporting the fact that there was criticism? Criticism is opinion. Noroton (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To be completely fair, the proposed Tribune op-ed is very pro-Obama. The two probably balance each other quite well, but I would not at all be opposed to dropping both of them in favor of a single, more neutral source. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think 2 references is okay, and that reasonably sane / tame examples are fine to illustrate criticism (they're allowed per WP:V), though not as good as a link to a reliable source that says there is criticism or goes over the criticism. Almost by definition an article that criticizes is not a reliable source. Anyway, let's go ahead and implement the language with the sources we now have, add a "fact" or "cite" or dummy reference where we think it needs referencing, then work through that calmly. I don't want to add any preconditions or telescope that discussion. As long as we understand that we're done on the content side, the citations are a minor work-throughWikidemo (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

'Clubjuggle and Wikidemo: We need as few sources as possible to substantiate each and every fact. If we can get one single source that does the whole thing, fine, but I never found one. I never found one saying "there was criticism from several sources", so we provide a footnote going directly to at least two sources, the minimum necessary to show it didn't come from just one spot. These two sources I'm proposing would only cite the word "criticism" (and the footnote would appear immediately after it in the text). WP:RS finds sources are perfectly acceptable for reporting their own opinion. WP:NPOV has no problem citing different opinions. I don't get your objection. Noroton (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) - There is a significant difference between opinion based on drawing conclusions from the facts (the Tribune piece) and opinion based on biased preconceptions (the Review piece). The latter reads almost like an "I told you so" piece. I have no problem with the criticism being referenced by conclusions drawn from traditional investigative journalism, but "The National Review" piece is just color commentary based on facts discovered by others and a generous helping of bias. You have never had trouble finding literally dozens and dozens of sources in the past, so why not come up with something a little more respectable? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

National Review, including its online version, is as respectiable as it gets in terms of opinion journalism in this country. It is impossible for me or anyone else to come up with something more respectable than the gold standard, recognizable across the ideological spectrum. Markos Moulitsas, who runs the left-wing Daily Kos Web site, told reporters in August 2007 that he doesn't read conservative blogs, with the exception of those on NRO: "I do like the blogs at the National Review — I do think their writers are the best in the [conservative] blogosphere," he said.[Begin Footnote]: [20]Ben Smith blog at the Web site of The Politico, "Markos speaks" post, August 2, 2007, accessed same day[End Footnote] You are the only person I have ever heard call NR or NRO not respectable. That hasn't been done since about the 1960s. You said earlier that you moved to the U.S. in 2000, so are you completely unfamiliar with opinion journalism in the United States? Your distinction between "opinion based on drawing conclusions from the facts" and the NRO piece is contradicted by commentary based on facts, and Scjessey, don't argue based on what you think is "biased". It's an opinion piece. It's supposed to be biased. I think I've gone out and found enough sources. Noroton (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is that The National Review is no more respected than The Nation. They are less respectable than MSM sources, but they are better than blogs, etc. Use of such publications as references should be when specifically seeking conservative or liberal commentary - especially when far less contentious sources are in abundance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Scjessey, that's incorrect, and the purpose of footnoting "criticism" was precisely to seek commentary. Criticism is a type of commentary. The Nation isn't respected. It has barely stopped pushing the line that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were innocent, even after the Soviet archives were opened. Actually it's probably more respected than it was 10 years ago. If you want a respectable magazine that's definitely on the left, try The American Prospect, possibly Harper's. Any of these magazines, including The Nation are expected to get facts correct, and they are held accountable if they don't. In any event, I've been thinking about it and I think these two sources would actually be better ones to use, and they can be used for much of the rest of the passags as well, possibly all of it:

• Washington Post article, March 4, 2008, page 3: Ethics watchdogs in Chicago accept Obama's account, noting that he was instrumental in passing the strongest state ethics law in 25 years as a freshman state senator. But they have called the real estate deal and his failure to distance himself from Rezko a lapse in judgment.
• Los Angeles Times article, January 23, 2008: “Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble,” said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. “When he got indicted, there wasn’t a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming… . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you’re planning to run for president?”

Yes, these would be much better sources. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

With great reluctance, I would like to gauge opinion of active participants in this discussion. This is not a vote. Editors are reminded to discuss issues on their merits, and not to use "majority/minority" arguments in future discussion. Editors who have actively participated in this discussion to date are asked to indicate their support or opposition (and the strength thereof) to each of the three proposed versions, and to indicate your reasons for support or opposition. Please do not simply indicate a position without an explanation.

The purpose of this straw poll is to identify the degree of convergence of opinion, as well as what issues other than sourcing remain to be resolved. The two versions are below, with differences in bold.

Clubjuggle version 1

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

• Support. I believe this version adequately balances the fact that no wrongdoing was alleged on the transactions with the fact that it was the relationship that was criticized. The direct and immediate follow-up to that statement with Obama's acknowledgment negates any dismissal of the criticism and provides the necessary balance. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - will not reiterate earlier arguments but they're around in case anyone cares to find them. Wikidemo (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - Perfectly fine with me, but use of "although" and "nonetheless" make the sentence sound a little weak. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. Weak support a bit too complex; simple is better. Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle version 2

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the relationship nonetheless drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

• Very weak support. Besides not reading well, I find the "but the relationship nonetheless..." actually does seem to almost completely de-legitimize the criticism. I do not believe this version provides the necessary balance. Although I am not at all enthused about this version, I will reluctantly support it, if necessary in the interest of consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Virtually identical to #1 but not worded as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - Less weak, but more clunky that #1. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. Weak support Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle version 3

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship drew criticism. Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

• Strong support. I believe this version adequately balances the fact that no wrongdoing was alleged on the transactions with the fact that it was the relationship that was criticized. The direct and immediate follow-up to that statement with Obama's acknowledgment negates any dismissal of the criticism and provides the necessary balance. Although I originally proposed it, I believe the word "nonetheless" is superfluous (not harmful, just superfluous), so this version has my strong support in the interest of brevity. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - virtually identical to #1 but flows better. Wikidemo (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Neither weak, nor clunky. Could be tighter (see below). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• First preference I think this is the most neutral, but I support any of these four versions. Noroton (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Best of a bad lot. Least unacceptable and pathetic. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• OpposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The version proposed below in table form reads better than this one. "Drew criticism" is an unnecessary phrase. LotLE×talk 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Probably the best possible. I gotta say though, this talk page is terrible to follow. It's hard to even make myself come back here anymore. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle/Scjessey remix edition (version 4)

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Obama was not accused of wrongdoing, but the relationship drew criticism. He acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

• Support - Strong wording, tighter language. Loses "although", "any" and "nonetheless". Swaps an "Obama" for "he". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Stylistically, I prefer "although" to "but". That's a really minor point though. I'm fine with swapping "he" for Obama in the last sentence in any version above. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could also say, "Obama was not accused of wrongdoing, although the relationship drew criticism." -- Scjessey (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose because Version 3 is better, but I'd support any of Clubjuggle's versions. I'm changing my vote to make my preference more clear, but I'd still support any of Clubjuggle's versions. Weak support my second preference. Noroton (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• This one is fine too - Wikidemo (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Criticism" is less encompassing than "scrutiny," nor was Obama criticized by everyone who looked into the matter. This matter was never resolved correctly and completely disregards the input of both Tvoz and myself; Noroton and Clubjuggle claiming "our arguments were better" doesn't make that the case. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• OPposePlease see my comment below under Re-cap. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-cap

Sorry, just got back from the 4th weekend. Could someone briefly re-cap what's taken place since Friday? Shem^(talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Read or skim down from Talk:Barack Obama#Implicit and Explicit: A tale of two versions for the really important stuff. Really short version is we've found a fairly balanced version that has a really good shot and consensus, and the above straw poll is to gauge preference on a relatively minor point of wording. With your help we may be able to draw this matter to a close. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a real olive-branch effort there, making every single straw poll option use the word "criticism." Where I'm from, that's called "pissing on someone and telling them it's raining." Shem^(talk) 21:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion in detail (and the note SCJ left on your talk page) to determine how we got there. Except for you, it appears all editors fully support the change. The background discussion may be helpful in determining why the change is so broadly supported. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, at what point did Tvoz's input quit counting here? 'Cause I mentioned her objection above, and you ignored it outright. I'm well aware of Jessey's decision to back the change, and the (frankly) lousy reasoning behind it: His desire to just get this over with. I don't find that a persuasive reasoning at all. Shem^(talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe your understanding of his reasoning is outdated: "I like it! This version has my full support. I like it even more than the version without criticism because I believe it is a fair representation of what has transpired. Excellent work! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)"

See also his notes on my userpage. He likes these versions on their merits and fully supports them. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, If we can make this end, I'm perfectly happy with any of the several Clubjuggle versions. LotLE×talk 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the sort of comment I'm talking about. People've reached the point where they're consenting to "whatever" just for the sake of getting this over with. Shem^(talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes I want to be done with this discussion. But I did read all the latest Clubjuggle, and unlike many past suggestions, none of them raised red flags in my mind. I have slight preferences among these, but I'm not about "oppose" because one uses a period where I think a semicolon is better. LotLE×talk 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A willingness to compromise and move on in the name of consensus is nothing to be ashamed of, particularly when one sees the point as a minor one. In any event, I normally don't like to do this but I've left a note on User:Tvoz's page asking if he/she will offer an opinion. Wikidemo (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a few editors compromise simply in the name of moving on, but certainly not in the name of consensus. I've made it clear that I'll happily sign on to any compromise so long as it keeps "scrutiny" (which has been the stable version for quite some time); if that's not acceptable, find a new compromise that'll work. Any insinuation that I haven't worked to compromise here is pretty empty; I signed on for allowing material within the paragraph on their home purchase, and later drafted the interim compromise that put down last month's edit warring. Tvoz and Bobblehead had a few drafts which allowed the reader to make up their mind without using "scrutiny" or "criticism," which I found an excellent proposal. Shem^(talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Wikidemo - I haven't looked at this yet, but will get back to it later tonight. Tvoz/talk 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What of the direct quote to the contrary that I've posted above, and the one on my user page? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What of it? I'd point you to Scjessey's more recent comments today where he acknowledges "I have only agreed to using the word itself 'to get it over with' (as Shem correctly pointed out)." Shem^(talk) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] I am not trying to be obstructionist, and I don't think this is the most crucial thing at all that this article has to deal with. But Rezko has been discussed for a very long time here, long before most of the current editors were working on this article at all. We had consensus language with what I think was reasonable weight for this main article, with a long subarticle and long disquisition in the presidential campaign article. This is his overall biography, and Rezko has yet to become as big a deal to the public or even the mainstream media as some people suggest it was or expected it to become to rate so much space in the main bio. And I think entirely too much time has been spent here arguing after we reached consensus, and then again after we reached another consensus, and maybe there was a third or fourth round. Unfortunately others were not content with any of the consensus versions that were long in the article - and have stretched this out ad infinitum, in what has felt to me like a filibuster at times. I have not and am not going to edit war over it, but nor am I going to pretend that I agree with something I don't agree with just for the sake of ending it. I will keep thinking about it, but I am troubled that both the "scrutiny" option and the compromise version(s) that Bobblehead and I proposed (and Scjessey's July 4 00:07 UTC version which I also support) without using either "criticism" or "scrutiny" have disappeared - I think any of those were the best options that have been recently proposed. I too am willing to compromise - as should be clear I am compromising already by accepting this overly long paragraph which I have consistently said is giving too much weight for this matter in the main article. HailFire's use of footnote for this was exactly right, and I would guess we'll eventually be back to it when we're back to writing an encyclopedia article that isn't influenced by an election. Tvoz/talk 05:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz makes some good points here. I would still prefer to go the "implicit" route as far as "criticism" is concerned, and I have only agreed to using the word itself "to get it over with" (as Shem correctly pointed out). It could be argued that assuming Wikipedia readers will not be aware of the criticism, unless it is spelled-out to them explicitly, insults their intelligence. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that specifically use the word "criticism"? I know Arkon was going to look into whether or not something existed that used "widespread criticism" (or something similar). If a reliable source can be found that uses "criticism", I'd like to ask Shem if he would switch to supporting its use in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it follows that if nobody can find a reliable source that uses "criticism" (or "scrutiny", for that matter), it may be necessary to consider alternatives. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is abundant, very reliable sourcing for the word "criticism" and it is a well-established practice of Wikipedia biographies (including, specifically, Featured Articles) to use that word, as Noroton and I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Of course, there are also dozens of reliable sources for using the phrase "questions about his judgment." WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please post a few that we can select from for citation? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's this one in the Boston Globe: "Critics said Obama's links with Chicago powerbrokers, including Rezko ..." There's also this one by the CBS News affiliate in Chicago, under the headline, "Obama Rejecting Criticism On Work With Tony Rezko." Then there's this one from ABC News with the subheader, "Candidate Faces Criticism Over Ties to Radical Pastor and Indicted Businessman." WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, matters not one bit if the word is in one source or a thousand. If it's criticism, it's recognizable as such. Wikipedians summarize all the time. We're actually supposed to reword what the sources say. Noroton (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - we all know there was criticism. My personal hesitation had been a question of weight and relevance, not verifiability or POV. Considering it's obviously true and a relatively small impact on the article to note there had been criticism I accept the point. If finding good secondary sources that talk about the fact there was criticism is going to convince those yet unconvinced, fine. But having done so I see nothing wrong with choosing a good, solid, fair example of criticism to cite as a case in point. Surely we can trust our readers with a link to the New York Times or some equally august publication here so they can see for themselves.Wikidemo (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to repost this for the third time:

• Washington Post article, March 4, 2008, page 3: Ethics watchdogs in Chicago accept Obama's account, noting that he was instrumental in passing the strongest state ethics law in 25 years as a freshman state senator. But they have called the real estate deal and his failure to distance himself from Rezko a lapse in judgment.
• Los Angeles Times article, January 23, 2008: “Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble,” said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. “When he got indicted, there wasn’t a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming… . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you’re planning to run for president?”

-- a reposting of a reposting -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WB74 did what I was asking for, actually. I was looking for reliable sources that specifically used the word "criticism" when referring to Obama's ties with Rezko. This link, in particular, does that. This was not for my benefit (I have accepted the use of the word per Noroton's rationale above), but more for the likes of Shem and Tvoz who still have misgivings. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey-preferred version

This version eschews the word "criticism" because, to be frank, there really isn't much of it to be found in all the sources we have been looking at. This is the same version I proposed at 00:07 UTC on July 4th, and it already has the support of several editors (including Shem and Tvoz):

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

It contains all the necessary information about what actually happened in a completely neutral manner, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Although WP:WELLKNOWN indicates that including an element of criticism is permitted, WP:NPOV indicates that such an inclusion should be balanced. Simply stating that Obama was not accused of wrongdoing is not sufficient to provide this balance. The only fair solution would be to leave it out, especially since mainstream media coverage has been so minimal. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unqualified support. Here's a real compromise. Shem^(talk) 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as well I'm totally willing to accept this version, which is a compromise for me regarding the matter's undue weight for this main article. I don't think there can be any other interpretation of "although...acknowledged", other than that the acknowledgment came in response to questions that were raised. I would footnote the word "acknowledged" with this editorial and/or this transcript of his meeting with the Tribune editorial board, or this one with the Sun-Times - or any other neutral, (that is probably not National Review or The Nation) article(s) that report on his acknowledgment of the appearance of impropriety. Some here are focused on including the word "criticism" and have said so - I think we do better by sidestepping the POV implications. The only tiny suggestion I'd make is to insert the word "that" after "acknowledged" which to my ear would read slightly better, but that's cosmetic. Tvoz/talk 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Tvoz's comments. My English teachers always told me that most instances of "that" aren't really necessary, although I would concede that it sounds better with that word in. And that's all I have to say about that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - er... obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I'm done with Wikipedia, but the use of the word "criticism" permeates the biographies of famous politicians at Wikipedia. It is everywhere else, it belongs here, and WorkerBee74 and Noroton have proved it beyond any reasonable expectation of proof. Keeping that word out of the Rezko section is an edit that pretends this politician has never been criticized for his relationship with Rezko. That edit is stupid. That edit is partisan. That edit is biased. That edit is everything that Wikipedia claims not to be. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. For reasons given below. Noroton (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What is supposed to be going on here? At 14:02 8 July, Scjessey posted the following (it's just above, but given the lack of attention some editors sometimes give this long discussion, it's worth repeating -- emphases added):

I was looking for reliable sources that specifically used the word "criticism" when referring to Obama's ties with Rezko. This link, in particular, does that. This was not for my benefit (I have accepted the use of the word per Noroton's rationale above), but more for the likes of Shem and Tvoz who still have misgivings. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly 30 minutes later we have an about-face and Scjessey is thumping for bumping the word again. I do want to concentrate on, and "comment on the edits rather than the editors", and anyone can change his mind, but I get the impression from this about-face, along with the reluctance of Shem and Tvoz to discuss and their preference for voting and shutting off discussion, that there's a move afoot to circumvent discussion and reasoning -- that is, to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS policy and WP:TALK guidelines when WorkerBee74 has been blocked and Kossack4Truth had announced he was retiring. I readily acknowledge that a group of editors can overrule me and others in forming a consensus on a question, whether or not that consensus enforces a strong POV on even a prominent article. But no group of editors is capable of doing it in simply a vote. You will have to discuss it. In a reasonable way (that is, citing facts and policies & guidelines and using logic in a reasonable way). I don't have all day to do it, but I can find time today and in upcoming days if necessary to go over your arguments and present mine again, but it might save time if you could point out to me where you've countered the following points, which essentially repeat what I've said before, or provide new arguments or facts or citations to policies & guidelines, because I don't see a good case for your bumping "criticism":

• WP:WEIGHT needs an awfully strong reason to bump a single word from a long article.
• WP:NPOV at the section WP:WELLKNOWN strongly favors including critical information, and adding the word "criticism" is the briefest of negative mentions in a very long article that is very, very, very positive toward its subject, who is, after all, in the midst of a contentious political race. If ever there was a controversial subject, it is the biography of someone whose life story is just now becoming better known to the public of the nation where half of all native English speakers come from. For Wikipedia, it is vitally important to at least come close to having a neutral article. Whether or not my position is in a minority here, it is certainly not insignificant in terms of readers -- Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters, voters who have made up their minds or have not and foreign people who want to find out about the person who may be the most powerful individual on the face of the earth come January 2009 -- coming to this article looking for a balanced treatment. Even the most fervent supporters of Obama are going to want to know what is being said against him. The most prominent criticisms of him pertaining to his life belong in this article.
• Evidence I have produced a ton of quotes and links still at the top of this page showing that criticism of Obama was widespread, given attention by the most influential news organizations in the United States, and the criticism extended so far as to make critics out of commentators who supported him, along with liberal commentators who could be expected to be sympathetic to him. It also includes good government organizations in Illinois, at least one of which worked closely with Obama. I haven't bothered to list all the Republican and conservative criticisms only because it doesn't seem necessary -- we can assume them, and nobody has said they doubt that those criticisms are there. The fact is, and it is a proven fact, that Obama received widespread, sustained, even harsh criticism which was widely reported, and there is evidence of it and it is on this page. What is the reasonable justification for ignoring this in an NPOV article?
• Scjessey's reasons are inadequate Scjessey has asserted, not reasoned. Where he cites NPOV policy, I've already rebutted his argument in my second bullet just above. Although he says mainstream media coverage has been so minimal, it's not true, as shown by the evidence (long list of quotes and links I provided at the top of the page). He has said before that either his own memory of coverage or the number of google hits he can round up mean that this has not received much coverage. But the quotes/links evidence I provided for this one word shows that it is the best-covered, most prominently sourced single word in the entire article. Where is the evidence backing up removal? Weeks ago, I asked Tvoz and Shem (and Scjessey and other editors) to give me reasons why the phrase "questioned his judgment" (an earlier, more elaborate alternative to the compromise word "criticism") should not go in the article. Scjessey has given his faulty argument, Shem and Tvoz have been reluctant to give more than minimal reasons. We need better reasons. Editors without a reasonable argument are without a consensus under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. I think we've reached the point where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT kicks in. Noroton (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn my support for versions that include the word "criticism". I have merely reiterated my strong support for this version that does not include it. I still believe, in the strongest possible terms, that any language that uses "criticism" is an example of Wikipedia expressing a point of view. I totally reject your ill-conceived rebuttal for many reasons, but I see no point in arguing about it for the eleventy-billionth time. We must simply agree to disagree. One thing I will say is that in all your "ton of quotes and links... showing that criticism of Obama was widespread" there are none that actually say there has been "widespread criticism", or a phrase like it. That is your characterization. I have just been bludgeoned into reluctantly accepting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, you seem to believe that argument length by virtue of repetition makes your statements more "adequate." This is not the case. You may disagree on certain semantics, but that doesn't make those in disagreement "inadequate." Shem^(talk) 20:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, Noroton. You've twice (at least) characterized me as not being willing to discuss and preferring voting - I ignored it the first time, but now I'm answering it. If you look back in the archives you'll discover that I frequently have chosen to not participate in these faux votes, in fact. I have made my points here, and I don't see the need to repeat them over and over. If someone else has said what I essentially think, I don't have to say more than that I agree with it unless I have something to add - that's not a vote, that's just not wasting mine and everyone's time with endless repetition of arguments - which seems not to be a problem for you, and which has driven away several long time contributors who couldn't take the huge volume of repetition here. The onus is on the people who want to change consensus to convince those who support it. There were several versions in the article that were a result of consensus - there has been something about Rezko for a very, very long time in this article, and having this overly long paragraph is giving it a great deal of weight vis-a-vis his entire life and career. But a new consensus was reached to include what is currently in the article, and I've gone along with it, even though I believe it belongs as a footnote to this article. Not content with that thorough and cited description, several editors have been pushing for more and more. Two or three of them have been blocked and/or "left", because they do not edit in a neutral or collegial way and say it's their way or no way - they have only themselves to thank for that, so don't turn that around and say that others are capitalizing on it. As far as I'm concerned the blocked/departed editors and some others have been disruptive, rude, and disrespectful of others' opinions, so I am happy to see them go. If the only way you can have what you think is consensus is by having those editors supporting you, then maybe you don't have the consensus you claim to have. And finally - I have worked for a year and a half, since December 2006, making almost 400 edits to this article and over 540 comments on this Talk page to keep this as a neutral and balanced article which doesn't over-emphasize some things that are pushed for political reasons - including encouraging semiprotection so that thousands of readers don't read lies and racist smears when they are posted for a few minutes at a time. You've been working on this article since the end of May and have made 2 edits to it and 360 comments on Talk - so please don't lecture me on discussion and POV and the need for balanced treatment. I know that and have worked for that on all of the hundreds and hundreds of articles I edit - most especially the many political ones. I have never even come close to being blocked for anything, so please keep me out of your accusatory comments. Where I grew up this drowning talk page pressure on editors who have expressed their views would be called bullying, and I'm not going to play your game. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Scjessey, who has argued every single step of the way since April (at least) that any negative information at all in the article must either not go in or must be minimized, down to arguing that the single nine-letter word "criticism" is "undue weight", and has fought tooth and nail every step of the way, is now asserting that he's being "bludgeoned". Now Scjessey is demanding that we provide sources that spoon-feed him what normal content decision-making should be able to chew on pretty easily: There was a good amount of widespread, serious criticism on this topic, so it's worth adding the word "criticism" to the article. It ain't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to recognize the reality staring you in the face. And if "any language that uses "criticism" is an example of Wikipedia expressing a point of view" then Wikipedia would never be able to mention "criticism" at all, and yet, as Clubjuggle previously demonstrated, we do it all the time. Is Scjessey right and all the rest of Wikipedia wrong? 2. Shem, where's your argument? I've been asking you for it since June 21. Same with you, Tvoz. 3. Tvoz, that's a lot of verbiage to complain about verbiage. I think you should have been able to answer my arguments in all these weeks, and you could do it in less space than you just used. It isn't bullying -- and it is hardly my "game" as you impolitely put it -- to ask you or anyone else to actually show us that you've got more than a personal preference to contribute here. That's not what "rationale" means in WP:TALK or WP:CONSENSUS. You can count up my edits, but you can't present reasons? Does that sound like consensus-building and encyclopedia-building? If you can't defend your reasons when I've shown they're unreasonable, how do you distinguish your position from POV pushing? Asking people to state their reasons, not just assert their opinions, is Wikipedia's "game". I think these are fair questions, not bullying. If you can't (or refuse to) defend your position, why shouldn't it be discounted? Noroton (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, I hope you don't think I actually counted edits. This tool does it for you. And my verbiage is too long? I don't think I've come anywhere close in the per K character count here. I did give my arguments - I just chose not to repeat them every time someone opened yet another section to discuss it again. I believe doing so is is a tactic to wear down opposition and get them to give up, as I said. I call it bullying - you can call it what you like. Last time, as I have said already: Rezko is being given too much weight for the main bio, and is properly handled in depth in the subarticles and as a footnote here, per HailFire and how we had it for a long time before you began editing here. Not the 9 letter word, Noroton - the whole story. But I agreed to a too-long version that is in the article in the interests of moving along. I do, however, prefer the latest July 7 Scjessey version which built on Bobblehead's and my version which clearly says that he acknowledged that there was an implication of impropriety and therefore took action. Footnoted with his long interview that spells it all out in detail and possibly a third party source or two who say it too. That version conveys exactly the information taht needs to be conveyed, but does not introduce the POV-laden word "criticism" which has us making a judgment about the scrutiny he received. Leave it to the sources and the readers. I'm sorry if you found my comment impolite - I find your characterization of my work here as avoiding discussion and wanting to vote - something I specifically don't like to do - impolite. So there you have it. I notice you didn't apologize for that, and in fact repeated your characterization. But that's par for the course around here, so I take no offense, just choose not to get embroiled in the constant demand for repeating of arguments. Clear now? Tvoz/talk 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, my point was that you want to close down debate before you -- or anyone else on your side -- has answered reasonable questions about your questionable assertions, and I have no reason to apologize for that, because it was part of pointing out the weakness of your position. If I made a mistake about talking about your position on "voting", I hope it didn't hurt you much, and please accept my apologies. Now try to keep your comments focused on the subject rather than using most of your verbiage to criticize an editor who has been trying to ... focus on the subject: Wikipedia using the word "criticism" implies only that it was prominent enough to be worth mentioning, it doesn't call for us to calibrate exactly how much. Editors "making a judgment about the scrutiny he received" -- the judgment that it was criticism and that it's worth mentioning that word to our readers -- is just exactly the kind of editorial decision that Wikipedia editors are called on to make. (WP:SYN: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing) I don't need to repeat what I just said one or two comments up about the criticism being so widespread that even those sympathetic to Obama engaged in it. You give no reason whatever for saying that our reporting that there was criticism (as WP:NPOV tells us is perfectly acceptable) is somehow, in and of itself, "POV-laden". You can repeat that as much as you want, but you haven't given anyone a reason to believe your assertion is correct. (WP:SUBSTANTIATE: Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. -- that's what using the word "criticism" does, together with a footnote substantiating it.) Clubjuggle gave Shem a slew of examples of biographical articles that have the word in it -- all "POV-laden"? All contrary to Wikipedia policy? Please point me to the edit on this huge page that answers these objection to your point. If this is all repetition, that should be no trouble for you. If it's never been responded to, we have some discussion to complete. Noroton (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, per Tvoz. This issue can be allowed to play too large a part of the article. Iit causes particular concerns with our policies regarding articles about living people if it's overplayed. S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It has become apparent...

That we cannot reach a consensus that will include the full range of opinions on this discussion. That the recent departure of User:Kossack4Truth and the (well-deserved) block of User:WorkerBee74 have magnified the sampling bias already inherent in any discussion of this type. While a commitment to neutrality and true consensus would require that editors make extra effort to treat opponents with respect and to hear and accomodate minority opinions, and for those in the minority to take great care to state their opinions clearly and carefully, making extra effort to avoid engaging in attacks that would overshadow any legitimacy in their arguments. Neither has happened to anywhere near the full extent it needs to, and I do not see this changing in the foreseeable future. As long as both sides draw lines in the sand, no progress is possible. I believe the only chance for resolution of this matter, if there is a chance at all, is to seek outside opinions via a request for comments. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We're at that point. But in order for it not to be a mess of multiple options, as we had last time, let's vote up or down on one or two. I suggest taking one of the options from the four you proposed earlier, since editors who voted nearly all seemed ready to accept any one of them; and the Scjessey-Schem-Tvoz language and asking outside editors to choose one or the other. The question is so narrow that editors can pretty easily figure out the issue. If we structure it in a way that gives all sorts of options, we'll get no consensus whatever. We might even simply ask, since I think this is the real difference, Do you want the word "criticism" to appear in this passage or not? We should present the question and start a discussion section under the tally, if we're going to present it in that form. I'll accept the result. Will other editors? Noroton (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm open to bringing in outside opinions via the usual channels, but Wikipedia works through consensus-building, not "up-or-down voting." Shem^(talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that voting is not the answer. As for "lines in the sand" - it is about the consensus word "scrutiny" vs the word "criticism". In order to break the logjam, versions were proposed which eliminated both words, yet retained the meaning and neutrality. Without going through the whole page above, my recollection is that the "scrutiny" people have accepted the no-word version (apologies if I have mis-remembered) - but the "criticism" people have said that they can't accept anything less than their word. I say this not in attack, but in frustration. Again, the version that is now in the article got there because the people editing compromised and reached consensus, and that wasn't easy. To overturn it should put the onus on those who wish to make changes to convince those who accepted the consensus. So, to be clear, I will accept the existing text, I will accept the original text in footnote that was here for a long time, and I will accept Scjessey's July 4 no-"scrutiny"-no-"criticism" approach. Three versions, two of which were consensus versions, are ok with me. I don't think that's me drawing a line in the sand - I think that's compromise. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring in other editors. Let's see how well the idea that using the single word "criticism" in the article makes it POV. Let's point other editors to the overwhelming evidence that there was enough criticism to make it worth mentioning, the clarity of WP:WELLKNOWN and the relevant parts of WP:NPOV, the clear common practice throughout the rest of Wikipedia and the pretty obvious summarizing that the word "criticism" does and compare it to whatever Tvoz, Shem and Scjessey can come up with to defend their position and let Wikipedia editors compare the two. Let good sense prevail. Let's see who's extending this discussion unnecessarily. Let's see how other Wikipedia editors define "reasonable". You don't need a consensus to request comments, Clubjuggle. Just do it. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there was a much debate over the fine wording of the United States Bill of Rights as whether Obama's land dealings with the Rezkos was criticized, scrutinized, neither, or both. Anyway, I'm fine with any of these versions. As to process, I don't think anyone's doing this on purpose but this is going awfully slow - at this pace we won't have the article ready in time for the election, perhaps not the next ice age. Sure you don't want to flip for it? Wikidemo (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept any version that takes away the pain. I have presented good arguments to explain why "criticism" is inappropriate. I've proposed a version which sidesteps this problem, but I've got to the point where I no longer care. The scary thing about all this is that this argument is nothing compared to the one we are going to have about Bill Ayers! I urge everyone concerned to view this video to gain an understanding of what I think of all this pointless bickering. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it is apparent that we have a consensus for Clubjuggle Version 3. It is the first preference of Clubjuggle, Noroton, WorkerBee74 and has the support of Scjessey, Wikidemo and LotLE -- six editors -- and is opposed by Tvoz and Shem. If Tvoz and Shem want to continue discussion, I'm fine with addressing any new points (new arguments, new information, new citations of Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines). If there are no new objections that have not been answered, let's implement Version 3 and be done with it. If no new points come up, we have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation that that policy calls disruptive and should not impede us from adding that to the article. I invite Clubjuggle to add it. We'll need to source it, but we can fix the citations later. There is no WP:BLP violation involved if we have the sourcing, and we do. I suggest adding the LA Times or Washington Post source that I provided above to make absolutely sure no BLP objections come up, and we can change the footnotes later if someone objects. Sound good?Noroton (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "apparent consensus" for the ClubJuggle "3" version, Noroton. There is considerable discontent. None of the facts in my version are contentious, correct? Not a single editor has objected to the details, or how they have been written (although Tvoz would prefer less, due to weight concerns). Am I right? So it follows that it would make more sense to implement my preferred version, which accurately presents the details and timeline of the Obama/Rezko relationship, and then continue the discussion about whether or not to include the "criticism" characterization. It is the only logical approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the question is whether or not we have consensus, then we have consensus with Clubjuggle's Version 3. I would declare consensus when it seems reasonable that the discussion has died down. If you would like to continue discussion of your version, feel free. I'm willing. Noroton (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Noroton. We do not have a consensus for that version. Simply stating it again does not make it so. I am contending we do have consensus for my preferred version, and we should implement it. There is no need to discuss my preferred version any further because everyone agrees to every detail of it. The only contentious item remaining is the inclusion of the "criticism" phrasing. It is the "criticism" phrasing that requires further debate. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's stopping you from debating it in the subsection just above, where Tvoz and I have already been discussing it? Feel free to chime in. Noroton (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that this version should be implemented immediately, with discussion on the "criticism" phrase continuing? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I always seem to have to repeat myself, even when I've been quite clear: We have consensus already for Clubjuggle's Version 3, although it would be prudent to wait a bit to see if other editors will support it or something else within the next 12 or maybe 18 hours. But if you have additional, new arguments to bring up, we are obligated to consider them. Yet you haven't brought any new ones up. Therefore, after a short while, we can recognize the consensus, add Clubjuggle's Version 3 and move on. That's the way consensus works. I have absolutely no idea what your reference table is supposed to show. Perhaps you could explain it. Noroton (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] I don;'t know how you define consensus, Noroton, but Scj's version has the support of Lulu, Shem, Scjessey, Wikidemo, and me as of now, and Clubjuggle's has Clubjuggle, you and Wikidemo, with Scjessey saying he prefers his own version although hasn't withdrawn his support for Club's. WorkerBee74 is blocked for his behavior, so I don't see how we count him anywhere since he can't change his mind or comment. Bobblehead hasn't been here for this last round, but Scjessey's version was similar to what he proposed regarding leaving off both criticism and scrutiny; perhaps he'll come back. Other editors haven't spoken, assuming I haven't missed anyone. So it's not clear to me at all that Club's has the consensus you assert. Tvoz/talk 05:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Add S. Dean and Bobblehead to those who appear to support Scjessey's version, and Arkon to those who prefer Club3. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We use consensus, not voting. As I've pointed out previously, there is a sampling bias inherent in these discussions, in that an article about any political candidate is bound to attract supporters of that candidate in disproportionate numbers. While this creates a natural tendency to railroad through changes over the objections of the minority, the only way to achieve true consensus is for those in the majority to make an extra effort to hear and understand the minority point of view. To be sure, the situation has been compounded by individuals in the minority who have behaved less-than-admirably, but when individuals like myself, who have been sometimes on the side of the majority and sometimes on the side of the minority, feel that our legitimate questions and concerns are being flat-out ignored (not just "not accepted", but "ignored"), that's indicative of a problem. When just under half of the editors active in the discussion do not support the purported consensus, it's not a consensus, and in light of that, I am somewhat angered by the fact that my attempt to place the interim "scrutiny" language back in place pending resolution of that issue has been reverted. If those opposed to "criticism" get what they want before negotiations can take place, what's their incentive to negotiate at all? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 06:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I really object to that comment, Clubjuggle. First you are making assumptions about who supports which candidate if any, and for the millionth time, we're here to write a biography of an individual's entire life and career, not a piece about a candidate and candidate issues., pro or con. I object to your use of the word "railroading" - it is unjustified. If some concerns were ignored, you might consider that folks you call the "minority" have drowned this page in paragraph after paragraph, new section after new section, and a whole lot of abuse, making it all but impossible to read or comment on most of it, and chasing away dedicated editors. As has been pointed out several times now, the so-called majority has bent over backward to accommodate the so-called minority point of view by including a long paragraph when a much shorter one would be what some think is the proper weight, with a footnote for a few details, citations, and links to other places that go into more detail. What was "railroaded", if anything, was this overly long text that you seem to think is the norm for this section - Newross' painstaking evidence proves that it was not the norm at all. And finally, I posted the names of those who supported your version 3 and those who supported Scj's to indicate that Noroton's claim that your version 3 had consensus was just not true. So your anger ought to be directed as well at his assertion that your version 3 had consensus - was it? I thanked you below (or above?) for trying to mediate, because I think you were trying to help here, but your comment above has me wondering. (And please remember that I've already said I can go along with "scrutiny" although prefer leaving both off and even more prefer getting this back into proper weight for the biography.) Tvoz/talk 06:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I always though we were supposed to ignore suggestions which violate multiple WP policies or guidelines. In view of current sources and structure, there is no way use of the word "criticism" will happen anytime soon, so don't be surprised if suggestions along those lines get ignored. It seems you are ready to take a break, which looks like a good idea to me considering the late history of the page, and if you come back please keep in mind the more reasonable your suggestions are the more likely they are to be treated reasonably, especially considering the continued failure of your arguments to overcome "rough consensus." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference table

This will help to make it obvious that we already have consensus for my preferred version, but not for the "criticism" phrase in other versions:

Sentence	Accurate?	Sourced?	Contentious?
Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood.	Yes	Yes	No
The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year.	Yes	Yes	No
Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama.	Yes	Yes	No
The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted.	Yes	Yes	No
Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.	Yes	Yes	No
Alternate language: Although Obama was not accused of any wrongdoing, the relationship drew criticism.	Arguably	Questionably	Definitely

-- Scjessey (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• The version presented in this table (in the base version, not the "alternate language") is better than previously proposed versions. Avoiding the unnecessary (and apparently contentious) terms "criticism" and "scrutiny" is cleaner and reads better. I currently "vote" for this version, and against all the others. LotLE×talk 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wow! And I have just been worried about the age old include or delete debate of a new article. You guys have been very busy with this Rezko stuff. I am very sorry if I've distracted any of you--and yes I confess there is a little sarcasm there. Yet I know all of the Rezko activists are acting in good faith. I always assume good faith. Still, what an epic discussion!--Utahredrock (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Rezko in this article

May I ask what the purpose is of this subsection and whether we can remove or archive it? It looks like something of a data dump and does not seem conducive to discussion. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this section is to show that single sentence treatment of Rezko has been the long-established norm for this article. (comment excerpted from User:Newross post

Okay then - then please leave it on the sub-page (link below) summarize and/or discuss here. Adding 50K of diffs makes this page unreadable, and hinders the ongoing consensus discussion. Plus, it's easier to look at that stuff if you care in a page of its own rather than inline in the middle of a 700K + talk page here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

/Historical diffs

Any change to this sentence is subsumed in the discussion of a rewrite to the Rezko material overall -- see the 30+ subsections above. Please review that discussion and feel free to comment. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the subpage is a good idea, but I think that Newross' entire comment on the purpose of this section should be here on the main talk page, not just the summary sentence. It's not that long:

The purpose of this section is to show that single sentence treatment of Rezko has been the long-established norm for this article.
Not the contentious, expanded treatment of Rezko, newly added, without consensus, to the Personal life section just one month ago by Wnt / Shem / Scjessey:

• for 3 years, 11 months (March 2004 – November 2006, February 2007 – May 2007) Rezko was not mentioned in this article
• for 6 months (May 2007 – November 2007) Rezko was mentioned in a single sentence footnote.
• for 6 months (November 2007 – April 2008, May 2008) Rezko was mentioned in a single sentence.
• in less than 24 hours on 4 April 2008, a series of edits by KVSTamilNAdu / Andyvphil / Johnpseudo / Fancycats-are-happy-cats (71.0.180.2) and Kossack4Truth / Andyvphil significantly expanded this article's treatment of Rezko with contentious edits that did not have consensus. Single sentence treatment of Rezko was subsequently restored in May and early June 2008.
• on 6 June 2008, a series of edits by Wnt again significantly expanded this article's treatment of Rezko with contentious edits that did not have consensus, which were then used as a basis for modifications by Shem and Scjessey, that were then inappropriately used as a baseline for a month-long discussion initiated by WorkerBee74 and dominated by Noroton arguing for yet further expansion this article's treatment of Rezko to be used as a WP:Coatrack for adding criticism.

Newross (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

reposted by Tvoz/talk 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. Noroton (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. My understanding of WP:TALK is that other editors' Talk comments shouldn't be edited - that would include when copying them in a situation like this. The detailed backup data may belong on the subpage so as to not drown this page any further than it's already been drowned, but the above is Newross' summary, making his point about the relative weight that the Rezko matter has had in the history of this article and how it got there, and I think this context is relevant for any editors coming here to help us through this. -Tvoz/talk 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Newross and others that there is currently far too much material on Rezko in the article (either before or after today's changes). This was worked out as a compromise, of sorts, mostly with editors who have been blocked or banned for sock-puppetry, incivility, edit-warring, 3RR, and so on. One remaining editor, Noroton, is still pushing for... something. Who knows what, it appears to be simply a matter of keeping this discussion going forever. On a minor point, the huge diff dump is quite disruptive on this main talk page; that's why I moved it to a linked child. I apologize if I lost some of the relevant summary commentary... but it was, y'know, a heroic effort to try to fix the disruption. I appreciate Tvoz' job of restoring that stuff here. LotLE×talk 20:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see my earlier edits are being used to (somehow I can't quite figure out...) represent a faction increasing the amount of Rezko text. While I have added Rezko text at some points in the past, in fact I do not support a "long-Rezko" version. The times I have added text on that subject it has been to support accuracy and developments, and it was always my explicit goal to keep Rezko text accurate but short. In my memory these edits were generally the result of insertion of entire Rezko paragraphs, which would then get rightly deleted, and then i would attempt some sense of neutrality. So please consider my edits a support of one-sentence Rezko "in the long term", sorry that they appear otherwise to some... the regular editors from the winter probably remember me... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Rick Block's excellent suggestion below at Talk: Barack Obama#Rick's opinion which may satisfy what Newross, Lulu, and Fancy have said here. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Speaking of subpages.. How about moving this entire discussion to a subpage say Talk:Barack Obama/Tony Rezko discussion and leaving a prominent pointer to the subpage. We could do a similar method as they do on WP:AN/I when a discussion reaches a certain length, which is to leave the section header (in this case the Tony Rezko discussion header) and an undated comment saying that an extended discussion about how to appropriately treat Obama's relationship to Tony Rezko has been moved to the subpage. This page has an edit byte size of almost 670,000 bytes and 90% of that size is the Rezko discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, let's end this thing by asking others to come in, review the recent discussion and then support either one of Clubjuggle's versions or the Scjessey-Shem-Tvoz-LotLE version and be done with it. Then let's archive it. Nothing new has come up for quite some time in the discussion -- no new information, no new arguments, no new, novel citations of policy. Nothing. That means discussion is ending. Let's ask people who have previously participated to make their opinions known. Then we'll either have a consensus or we won't and we can move on. It's time. Bobblehead, why don't you cast your lot with one of the versions and show us which you support? Noroton (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already expressed my preference, doing so again is a waste of my time and having to repeat myself over and over and over again is one of the reasons why I have only been nominally involved in this discussion. Seriously, we're talking about one word here and an unnecessary one at that. The volume of text that have been wasted over this one word is rather remarkable. I'm also of the opinion that whatever version is agreed upon will not end the edit warring over how Rezko is handled in the article. Whatever this discussion has been, it has not been a consensus discussion, it has been a war of attrition that has virtually guaranteed continued edit warring over this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My feelings exactly - and, as usual, said more succinctly than I did. Tvoz/talk 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, if you don't help us get to consensus with a helpful comment in any of the poll lists, then I don't understand why you're complaining that we're not getting to consensus. How exactly do you think we actually get to consensus if we don't try to constructively discuss and help others understand where we are? Bobblehead, do you really want to force the people trying to reach consensus to go find your past comments in order to interpret which of the current proposals you support? Isn't that just making it more difficult? I just WP:CANVASSed all the user names who have contributed to the Rezko discussion and hopefully that will make it clearer. If there's anything you can do that would help us get closer to consensus, please do it. Same for you, Tvoz. Noroton (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like I said before, Noroton. There is already a consensus for the version I proposed. Only the "criticism" phrase in the versions you are advocating remains contentious. We should implement the consensus version and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is novel. You might want to lay out the reasons why you think this, because it doesn't make any sense to me so far. It would probably be helpful to explain it in a way that uninvolved administrators, trying to apply WP policy and guidelines, would understand. Noroton (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(after EC) - I've gone ahead and updated the text to reflect the uncontested language, seeing as what was there before wasn't technically accurate. I concede that it may be altered at a later date to include the "criticism" phrase, assuming a consensus forms for doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple, Noroton. A consensus exists for everything except the "criticism" phrase. Everyone agrees to everything except that one little bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about this, Noroton, I'll start working towards consensus when you do. This entire process has been a series of concessions made by the majority of editors on this page to a very vocal minority that has, unfortunately, responded to these concessions by whining like little <female dogs> by edit warring, name calling, and sockpuppetting to the point that most of them are now blocked from editing on Wikipedia, or retired in response to being told they have to start complying with Wikipedia's policies or they will be blocked. Now, I'm not saying you have behaved in this manner, Noroton, because except in a few situations where you were responding in kind to other editors out of frustration, you've been on rather good behavior. Unfortunately, the editors that have supported your position in the past have and, as a result, have lost the privilege of having their opinions heard on this matter. Now you are unnecessarily extending this discussion by planting your pole in the ground next to the word "criticism" and shouting "You shall not pass!!" in an attempt to force your minority opinion upon the majority. This article spent a year and a half either not mentioning Rezko at all, or mentioning him in a single sentence in a footnote. Now Rezko gets an entire paragraph and you want to stop consensus because of a single word instead of looking at the entire paragraph and thinking to yourself "Look at the good I've done"? Ridiculous. Suck it up, take your pole out of the ground, and move on. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. You're being uncivil in a very tense situation, Bobblehead. Please refactor. 2. Your very emotional, very inaccurate description of my position doesn't take into account that if editors agree with you they could easily state just that. I'm not forcing my opinion on anybody. I'm bringing up reasons which, for all the caterwauling about length of discussion, nobody seems able to simply answer. If you could answer my objections with something that could be interpreted as reasonable responses (not even correct responses, just enough so that uninvolved admins could say, "Well, I don't know if I agree with it, but it's not unreasonable"), then I'd have no reasonable objection. Notice that you, Tvoz, Shem, Scjessey, LotLE can't seem to come up with reasonable arguments to counter my points, as other editors have seen. Don't you think if other editors agreed with your assessment Scjessey's version would have a lot more votes? What is it with these objections that everything but rationale-giving, fact-citing, policy & guideline adhering is favored as a way of getting around the fact that my reasonable objections simply haven't been answered. All you have to do is find reasonable arguments to oppose mine -- I don't even get to decide what's reasonable and what isn't. What is it with you people that you can't decide do that? Is your position so lacking in reasonableness that you have to try every other means to impose your will on the page? Can't you simply follow what Wikipedia wants you to do on talk pages? I'm not the only one who's posted on this page. Most of my posts, I think, have been responding to Scjessey, who has run out of on-topic responses. Please refactor your name-calling. Noroton (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the attack language and belligerence, Noroton! Every single argument you have made have been addressed dozens, if not hundred, of times. At a certain point, it is true, other editors cannot be bothered to repeat the exact same obvious point in response to a hundredth repetition of the exact same argument by you. You don't "win" by writing more words than anyone else can possibly manage, especially when the last time anything even slightly new occurred in those words was weeks ago. There are only three categories of editors who have discussed this: (1) You; (2) Editors who want much, much more discussion of Rezko in this article, but who have been banned for edit warring, sock-puppetry, incivility, and so on; (3) Everyone else, all of whom want less material on Rezko, but who have mostly conceded to having as much as is there now. The train has left the station. LotLE×talk 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about Bobblehead's comment, and if this is a "tense" situation, it's because you have explicitly said it's all about one word. Scjessey's version that he posted on the article a few minutes ago and you promptly reverted could stand - there is nothing contentious in it and it is a good compromise - the one that was there has long been abandoned. But you won't have that. Tvoz/talk 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Get explicit consensus for your edit before making it, Scjessey. You have less support for your proposal, the one you just tried to add to the page without explicit consensus, than for Clubjuggle's versions. There is no explicit consensus for making some edits and not others, otherwise we'd have done it piecemeal all along. So I've reverted. This kind of thing could be interpreted as you gaming the system. I don't think it's good idea when we have a lot of difficult discussions ahead -- subjects like how to handle Ayers and Wright -- that we've put off but that we know we'll have a difficult time trying to come to consensus on. Please try to be helpful in reaching consensus. If you still want your version, continue the discussion if you have anything new to say. Noroton (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're putting us on notice that you plan to mount this kind of contentious debate on those subjects too? Good to know. Tvoz/talk 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We are done with this!

We have consensus. I updated the text with the new, non-contested version. Noroton reverted it with a misleading edit summary that claimed my edit was "disruptive" and that a consensus was still being built. We are done with building. It is time for doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

About the only difference between Scjessey's version and mine is that mine mentions criticism, and Scjessey's doesn't. That's a pretty important difference. This means that while we do have consensus on almost all of the language, we have no consensus on that specific issue. The default action in a no-consensus situation is to retain the existing language. In that spirit I've reverted to enact the consensus language. As to the one clause for which no consensus exists, I've inserted the "scrutiny" language that was accepted by all as an interim version pending discussion. I've also tagged the section for disputed neutrality and will seek input via WP:RFC and WP:NPOV/N. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a pretty important difference. It is the difference between Wikipedia adopting a neutral position and just reporting the facts, and Wikipedia offering a characterization under the guise of "a summary". I continue to offer my weak support for the "criticism" phrase, but my recent edit to the article (with a carefully written edit summary) reflected current feelings. Everyone was just sitting around waiting for something to happen, so I went ahead and put in what everyone had agreed on. Not unreasonable, wouldn't you say? Apparently not for Noroton, who has accused me of "lying, gaming the system, POV pushing" at AN/I. Disgraceful tactics. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your edit was unreasonable at all. Your edit was unquestionably in good faith but the criticism text remains an open question -- one person's characterization is another person's neutral, and one person's neutral is another person's whitewashing. Since there's still an open question on that phrase, I inserted the middle-ground "scrutiny" text that no one really liked, but that everyone at least agreed to put up with as an interim version. Giving one side everything they want kind of takes away any incentive for that side to discuss and negotiate -- <pov>kind of like Bush's demand that Iran give us everything we want before his administration will talk to them -- and you can see how well that's working</pov>. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 04:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Scjessey's edit removed both "scrutiny" and "criticism" and had no contentious wording, thereby admirably avoiding this debate entirely. And I recall his saying that discussion could continue about whether to add "scrutiny" or "criticism", but meanwhile the wording was neutral and noncontroversial. I haven't seen the An/I action yet, but if the characterization is correct I think it speaks volumes about why we have had so much trouble here in the last two months since Noroton and the cohort of now-blocked troublemakers arrived here. Tvoz/talk 05:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the intent of Scjessey's edit (and had even proposed a similar edit before the arguments swayed me to the other side on the mention of criticism), understand that from the perspective of someone who thinks there should be a mention of criticism, that edit is even worse. A mention of criticism indicates that there was at least a significant minority who thought the Rezko relationship was a Bad Thing™. Scrutiny means some people looked to see if it might have been a Bad Thing™. No mention at all suggests nobody cared, or to someone not familiar with US politics (remember, we're writing for a worldwide audience), that things like the Rezko situation are normal enough that no one pays attention to it. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please copy, move and spread my comment wherever it fits.

Revisiting the talk page history thanks to Newross reminded me of my very first stand on this issue when we tried to decide how much information to include regarding Ayers, Rezko and Wright. I realize now how much there is left of what I thought would be appropriate: Basically nothing after all those compromises. Does anyone realize that Rezko is now pretty much on the same level as Wright even so it was just a "no-brainer"? Since none of the proposed versions are fluent to read I'll not bother to discuss that part and just "take" it the way it is. I'd rather give my opinion about the last real consensus blocking "criticism". I prefer "scrutiny" over "critic", etc. because the reader, if interested, has to decide for himself (as I do too). That's all I have to say and feel free to use this in the future as a reference of my basic view point (in case this discussion goes on). --Floridianed (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer mediating

Effective immediately I will no longer attempt to mediate discussion, but will weigh in as an editor. Frankly, I am tired of the talk page messages and emails from certain individuals on both sides of the debate accusing my of bias for the other side. While my past experience has shown me that if you're getting comparable accusations from both sides are accusing you of bias for the other, that you're probably near the middle, I am frankly tired of getting beat up. I do intend to file a WP:RFC and open a discussion at WP:NPOV/N. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Clubjuggle. Tvoz/talk 05:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt, Clubjuggle. Rather than an RFC, do you think WP:RFM would be better? This article has had a number of RFCs and none of them have resulted in a successful result. Considering the RFCs that have been tried and your informal mediation attempt, RFM seems like the next step. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for your efforts and professionalism. LotLE×talk 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the above, both about Clubjuggle's fine work, and about it being high time for RFM. JJB 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer editing

I've received WP:OUTING-related emails, and am retiring (permanently, this time) from the project. I've had a pretty long run, but I'm leaving my torch in this discussion with Tvoz now; best wishes, all. Shem^(talk) 06:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on AN/I about this. Tvoz/talk 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View from JJB

1. If the only argument is about the word "criticism" in relation to Rezko, I don't have strong feelings on either side, so I will count myself among consensus on either version, rather than commenting in separate sections above.
2. If that summary is accurate, perhaps we can consider a comparison as to how many times a form of "critic" is used against an article subject in various cases, compared to how many times the name plus "criticism" yields megaghits (million Google hits). George W. Bush: 16, .95M; Hillary Clinton: 6, 8.14M; Rudy Giuliani: 10, 1.22M; John McCain: 2, 7.30M; Barack Obama: 0, 6.03M; Ron Paul: 0, 2.92M; Mitt Romney: 4, 1.62M. Seems like Obama and Paul (I'm a Ronpaulican) need the word added to their articles, period, no discussion necessary; and Bush and Giuliani seem overweighted and Clinton and McCain underweighted. Tabooing any form of "critic" against such an article subject is unequivocal POV. In Paul's case it may have been simple oversight, but not here.
3. Of Obama's, .40M include the word "Rezko". Speaks for itself. Perhaps a compromise might be, as I just suggested to Tvoz, something like use "scrutiny" instead for Rezko, but permit a form of "critic" for anything agreeably bigger than Rezko. I'm thinking of ....
4. Wright's paragraph is still thoroughly unacceptable on my reasons now archived, and given the Ayers and Rezko discussions it might easily be filibustered against until election day. This is very disappointing.
5. I may well resist further calls to contribute to this discussion.
6. Cheers to all, but ....
7. Article must be defeatured. Carthago delenda est. JJB 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I swear I'll scream the next time anyone suggests we should base articles on the number of Google hits certain search strings get. Please refer to Wikipedia:Search engine test where it says things like: "On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the "Google virus"... --Floridianed (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm to be referred to a "how-to" page, please refer to an essay, WP:CRIT: It should read "Bob has been criticized for doing such and such.", provided that Bob actually has been criticized for doing "such and such." JJB 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only do I scream when people want to base articles on google hit counts, I scream when people want to base articles on word counts in other articles. We're writing biographies here, not refereeing a political contest. Go into a bookstore and find the best real biography published about American political figure X and the best about American political figure Y. Those two books may well have nothing in common stylistically or structurally or in words used. I wrote most of the Hillary articles here and I wrote most of the McCain articles here, but very rarely did I try to make the two similar, and I never looked as to whether a particular word or phrase was used in both in the same frequency. Each set of articles was written to describe that person's life and career as best as possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right - this is a biography not a tool for political campaigns. Tvoz/talk 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick's opinion

As Noroton mentions above, he has asked previous participants in this thread to comment (actually, he's asked folks to pick one of the proposed wordings). My actual preference is something much shorter than what is currently being discussed, perhaps:

The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer and friend Tony Rezko attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and subsequent conviction on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama.

The full details are in the Rezko article, one click away. In my opinion including more than this brief summary here gives undue WP:WEIGHT to this. If this becomes a significant campaign issue it should be discussed in the campaign article, and perhaps summarized somewhat differently in the campaign section of this article - but for the "Personal and family life" section a 1-sentence summary seems like plenty. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, Rick. This is 100% fine with me. At this point I think the link to Tony Rezko is more than enough - there is an incredibly detailed section there about his relationship with Obama and anything more does give undue weight to this in the main biography. Tvoz/talk 07:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Far better than the longer version in the article. Contains everything that actually matters without all the extraneous details. LotLE×talk 07:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the weight, but that's about it. There are two major problems here:

1. A reader could imply from the sentence that it was Rezko's wife who was convicted.
2. Most of the media attention came before the conviction.

While brevity is preferred, it cannot come at the cost of accuracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Doesn't the second "Rezko" clearly refer to the earlier "Tony Rezko" rather than "the wife of ..."? I've changed subsequent conviction to indictment and conviction above. Is that sufficient for the other issue?

If folks are going to seriously consider putting this version in the article I'll explain why media attention rather than either media scrutiny or criticism as well. The bulk of the coverage has neither scrutinized or criticized, but simply repeated the facts - sometimes with some editorial slant thrown in with ominous words like "these transactions raise questions". Some of the earlier and most critical sources suggest a linkage between Rita Rezko paying the asking price for the lot and the $300,000 difference between Obama's purchase price and the asking price of the house. I believe this particular suggestion is now thought to be completely unfounded, which I think makes sourcing "criticism" to those articles at best dubious. With the current benefit of several years of hindsight, I think we see media coverage, several unfounded speculations (notably the falsehoods that Obama got a discount on the original price and that Rezko buying the lot next door somehow enabled Obama to buy the house), and arguably politically motivated criticism [21] that Obama should have known Rezko was a bad guy and distanced himself earlier. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Neutrality and verifiability: Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit makes it better, but it still doesn't address the accuracy problem. All this is probably moot though - I would think it would be difficult to achieve consensus over such an abbreviated version for at least a month or two, depending on how things turn out. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's try to be optimistic, Scj - what Rick said about NPOV is right, and consistent with the concerns that the article's editors have long held. I don't really think this is inaccurate but would it help to say "because of Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction" ? Tvoz/talk 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would do it. You will understand if I say my usual optimism has been dented recently. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "Keep hope alive", but this week that might not be the best choice of words, so I'll just say "hope springs eternal in the human breast" - or "beast" as I always preferred.... I changed Rick's words above to reflect it - Rick, that's ok with you? Tvoz/talk 17:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, although aren't convictions nearly always subsequent to indictments? -- Rick Block (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) One complaint I have is that the attention Obama received was by more than just the media. Sure the originator of the interest was the media (keep forgetting if it was the Tribune or the Sun-Times that broke it), but once it was put out there, more than just the media was paying attention to it. Heck, Clinton brought it up in the SC debate. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be easy to get around:

The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer and friend Tony Rezko attracted attention because of Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama.

Clinton's comments were, of course, campaign-related. They are on par with the "as far as I know" comment she made about Obama not being a Muslim. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer media attention. Clinton didn't specifically bring up the real estate transactions, but rather Rezko's fundraising for Obama and Obama's legal "representation" of Rezko [22]. This is attention to Obama's relationship with Rezko, not the purchase of the lot or the sale of part of it to Obama. We could say brought attention to Obama's relationship with Rezko or was publicized but I think attracted media attention is close enough for a summary (especially in this context in which we're talking about Obama's house purchase). The point of using the "media" qualifier is to avoid the implication that there was a criminal investigation (which I don't think anyone has suggested and is an important point in a sentence mentioning indictments and convictions). Anything that attracts media attention becomes public knowledge, and therefore becomes fodder for political purposes. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Welsh ancestry

I am bringing this to the talk page, seeing as people are clearly more interested in just revert warring and throwing around warning templates (seriously, what the hell is wrong with all the people who edit this page always doing that for the tiniest things: are you all 10 years old?). This edit is pure trivia, and has no place in this article, given that it is already way too long. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your charge of triviality for that edit is misplaced, The Evil Spartan, as you will see from the history? Yes, this single article is too long - thats why splitting has already been suggested. But I thought Obama himself valued his ancestry quite highly? I must have been imagining a future American President, with an ancestry spread across the globe, bringing nations together. Hmmmm, pure trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We already have the general idea of Obama's diverse ancestry well discussed without a little factoid about one specific distant ancestor. Moreover, you have already violated 3RR in the reinsertion of your favored trivia, Martinevans123. Please stop if you'd like to avoid being blocked. LotLE×talk 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So, Lulu, Reitwiesner's research work on Obama's ancestry is "a little factoid"? Did you actually look? Who else has mapped out that family tree so completely? But I imagine your insult was squarely aimed at me, not him. I altered my edits, in good faith, to try and accommodate the responses, but apparently that make a violator. Perhaps general ideas occasionally arise from facts, however small. Feel free to block. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well LotLE, at least I am not the only one you get personal with. Do you often threaten to block people or take even futher steps? It's a wiki-style that for the first time ever has made me wonder if I should waste my time on Wikipedia--which in general is a great resource and is often quite fun to edit.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple observations - I've left an edit warring caution on one of the editors pages[23], which I'll forego as moot in the case of User:Martinevans123 because MV123 is now on the talk page discussing. Please do not edit war, particularly on this article. Also, Evil Spartan, your frustration is understandable but please keep it calm. This is a mild issue that probably won't explode but there are lots of issues on this page that do get out of hand. With that in mind, ancestral background outside of the immediate family tree is generally not seen as important enough to include in a major politician's bio article, unless that politician makes it an issue. Some people call it "trivia" and it is a trivia-like factoid, in that it does not explain much about the person, their life and career, etc. People are more and more aware of genealogy given the online tools available and the scrutiny on major politicians. If we went down that path every bio article would have a "family tree tidbits" section and people just aren't going for that. Obama's family is unusually diverse, and that observation has come to define him to some extent. But there is a limit, obviously. As an example people have repeatedly rejected inserting the material about Obama being distant cousins with Dick Cheney. Wikidemo (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikidemo for your sensible mediation. I'd agree that ancestry beyond even two generations usually tells us nothing of the person. For those who are interested the link is http://www.wargs.com/political/obama.html. It's regrettable that a fact thought significant by Ieuan Wyn Jones should not deserve not even a word in the article. I have no political axe to grind, just a factual one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been a recent spate of editors adding insignificant genealogical details about Obama, so regular editors are probably a bit more "revert happy" than you might expect. That being said, it is unclear why you would think that the opinions of Ieuan Wyn Jones (not exactly a world-renowned politician, largely unknown beyond the Welsh border) are a significant enough detail to be included in a summary of Barack Obama's entire life. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, US Presidents, even their Deputies, tend to get known far beyond their own borders, don't they. Perhaps because they're so good? But Ieuan should certainly take none of the blame for my foolhardy edit. Maybe here in tiny Wales Reitwiesner's research is news only because of Wyn Jones' reaction. But to me that work looks somehow definitive, regardless of Welsh politicians, Welsh ancestry and any insignificances which may have preceeded it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Reitwiesner's research is (a) not a reliable source and (b) factually inaccurate (Obama's birth certificate says "Barack Hussein Obama II", not "Barack Hussein Obama Jr"). And like I said before, this is a summary of Obama's entire life, in which his Welsh ancestry is of little significance (ditto Irish, Dutch, German, et al). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(a) please outline why Reitwiesner's research is not reliable source and (b) although I don't know how or why a Jr should not also be a II for the purposes of genealogy, I think were are talking about the same person here, so your observation seems a little pedantic. And like I said before I am defending the addition of the genealogy link regardless of individual ancestors Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As with Scjessey, I cannot see any special importance of mentioning Jones. Obama has met lots of foreign politicians, and has many ancestors from different places. Singling out some particular one doesn't seem important, unless (hypothetically) Obama or someone around him (e.g. a political supporter or opponent) were to make some big point of a particular relative. Given that isn't the case, it's not main-bio level material. LotLE×talk 00:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I quite agree with that, Lulu. Forget about Ynys Mon, forget about Ieuan Wyn Jones but what about Reitwiesner? In any other bio article that kind of factual information would get a mention, or if not, at least an external link. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note the 23:08 comment on the 5th regarding Reitwiesner's research. The comment was removed by the racist IP vandal and somehow got missed in the restoration process. It would still be considered trivia, so an external link would be inappropriate even if it was accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Without speaking to the reliability of the specific source, I would not object to a footnote to a genealogy. Probably next to the quote about "our family looks like the United Nations". The footnote could use a short clause introducing the link (in the note, not in the article body), and have a URL for the external genealogy (assuming the source met WP:RS of course). LotLE×talk 20:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fair, Lulu, but we await any details from Scjessey of why the source does not meet WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfotunately, I have tried clicking on the URL you give a number of times, spaced out over hours. I always get a time-out error on that page. Since I can't get to the page, I can't make any judgment about its reliability (but if it stays a broken link, we can't really use the source anyway). LotLE×talk 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I guess sabottage though not impossible, is unlikely. I don't suppose anyone has actually asked Mr Reitwiesner if he wanted his research linking to this article, so it might be his idea. Googling "Reitwiesner Obama" still gives about 2,930 hits, so obviously some general interest has been created, not just in Anglesey. I must admit I could give no expert opinion on the material anyway, given that Genealogy is certainly not an exact science and having just assumed the author's integrity. Guess we'll just have to wait. At least ancestors can't ever disappear (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you are suggesting that the Reitwiesner page should be regarded as a reliable source because the author is a scholar of some kind (it does not fall under any of the other WP:RS categories), I am bound to point out that (a) scholarly material must be vetted by peers (no indication is given that this one has been), and (b) this text is labeled by the author as only a "draft" document. Therefore, it cannot be considered a reliable source. In fact, this source would not be acceptable for a footnote for the same reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was suggesting that. Seems the link is working again. So (a) we'll just have to wait for some "vetting" by a "fellow genealogist". Not sure how a family tree is completey "vetted" other than by checking all the links again from scratch, assuming all the source info is in public domain. Not many peer-reviewed Geneaology journals out there, are there. But (b), it seems strange that you'd attach more weight if the author simply removed his own "first draft" description. Although once it's not draft, wouldn't be likely to become copyrighted? Do all the existing ancestry facts pass on these criteria? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I can see the link again also, I'm inclined to think it doesn't meet WP:RS. The author states at the top: The following material on the immediate ancestry of Barack Obama should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft. Until or unless this is published somewhere more officially, I don't think we can use it. I'm happy to stipulate that Reitwiesner is a relevant expert, but he himself warns against putting too much weight on this particular informal publication. FWIW, the issue has nothing to do with copyright: under Berne, all works are copyrighted "at birth", so the material is already under copyright (but fair use and citation cannot be prohibited by copyright). LotLE×talk 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to interject something in there. While I think it is interesting that Obama has Welsh ancestry and is distantly related to Dick Cheney, I've got to ask is it really important to include in an article about Obama's Life? No. Is it even worth a mention in the article? No. I've got a variety of ancestors from around the world including French, Russian, German, Polish, English, Irish, Scottish, and even a small bit of Native American (I completely consider myself and American first and foremost with no ties to any other country then America!). Can I speak any of those languages other then English? No. Do I know any of my really distant relatives in any of those countries, no. Have anyone of them shaped my life, No. So would it be even worth making a comment about it or adding a category to an article about me, no. The same thing applies to Obama's page. He has made no mention of any Welsh descent, he has not mentioned that it has shaped his life, or even made mention that he even knew that he is distantly related to some Welsh person. I would like that there would be better more important things to discuss and add to the article then this. Brothejr (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wise words Brotherjr, with which I tend to agree. And thanks for the information. I suppose the real sugnificance of any `genetic contribution' is going to be controverial, although in general terms Obama himself seems to attach some importance to the variety of his own. Maybe those with more restricted ancestry attach more significance to unexpected discoveries. But I wholly agree that there should be more important issues to discuss. Before this toptic is concluded I'd still welcome assurance that the sources for the existing ancestral details pass the WP:RS criteria. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But so glad we can all trust The Press as a WP:RS - look where "The Baltimore Sun" got its info (in the extisting footnote)...! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the existing footnote we have quite a mixed bag. The Chicago Sun-Times cites "... interviews with family members and genealogists, a study of archives and records, and Obama's book...", The Washington Post cites "... Stephen Neill, a local Anglican rector... " and The Baltimore Sun cites only "... Reitwiesner's Web site [which] carries a disclaimer that it is a "first draft... ". Who are the "scholarly peers" here? Could you explain the WP:RS logic? And what exactly are the criteria for the "notabality" of ancestors"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that WP:RS states:

• "However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."

I had thought I was being more diligent by using the source "facts" but the concensus now seems to be that these facts are an unreliable and non-scholarly "first draft". But still reliable enough for The Washington Post? Could someone please explain? Perhaps one or more of the existing newspaper references should be removed (as "trivia"?) to save space in this article? But I fear I might get more threats of blocking if I did that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are still banging on about this. It has already been explained to you, several times, that Obama's "Welsh ancestry" is too insignificant a detail for a summary of his entire life. Not only is it insignificant, but its inclusion would also present problems because we would also have to document his ancestral ties to dozens of other countries for balance. Furthermore, it has already been argued that the source you wish to use does not pass WP:RS muster because it has not received any sort of scholarly review. Newspaper reporters are not scholars - "scholarly review" means a review by peers (other respectable genealogists and experts on ancestry). Any newspaper presenting "facts" based on a draft document that has not been either completed or verified is basically being extremely sloppy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC

Scjessey I am not "banging on", I am asking some serious questions - did you not read them? It was not I who entitled this section "Welsh ancestry". My questions are about that source in general. Why does the current article cite newspaper material which you describe as "extremely sloppy". But it's a relief that you won't be responding to me again, since the tone of your responses have been both offensive and patronising Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper, especially one of well-known repute, is generally a reliable source under WP's meaning of WP:RS (please read that guideline, since it already answers all your questions on this page). A personal publication that is explicitly described by the author as "not authoritative" just isn't WP:RS. The meaning of "reliable" for WP is not "true", which might be your confusion (again, read the guideline). If a respected source like Washington Post nonetheless does sloppy reporting, we might in our own minds have doubt about its truth, but that doesn't change the nature of the source for WP purposes (if other WP:RS's contradict the Post, then it becomes more complicated to weigh conflicting sources).

In terms of the narrow issue you ask about facts are not reliable or unreliable in the WP meaning (again, read WP:RS), sources are. If the Post reports that the moon is made of green cheese, and mentions a blog that makes the same claim we: (a) can cite the Post on WP, but not the blog; (b) do not make independent judgment or research about whether the moon really is made of green cheese; (c) assume that "behind the scene" the Post did fact checking beyond reading the blog mentioned. LotLE×talk 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lulu, for a clear and polite explanation. Yes, I seem to have confused reliabilty of "facts" with "sources". Am still a little puzzled, though, on the relative notability of different ancestors. Is this a reliable newpaper source: Western Mail article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Western Mail look like it meets WP:RS perfectly well. The issue the Scjessey has is primarily of relevance. It's not worth the words in this article to discuss one particular great-great-... whatever. We don't do that in relation to any other of his 2^8 great-(x6)-grandparents. However, the Western Mail article itself describes this relative with the same sort of "maybe/possibly" that Reitwiesner does, so that isn't WP:RS either. Still, even if a source said "with 100% certainty, Obama has this great-great-... ancestor, it wouldn't be relevant without additional motivating context. The general "diversity" covers the point perfectly well. LotLE×talk 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. Although fascinating to the individual, ANY ancestors that distant, unless famous, really are just names. But I'll keep an eye on Reitwiesner and maybe return when the new President eventually takes office, green or otherwise. (In retrospect, meats looks more appropriate). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First African-American

We claim Obama is the first African-American major party presidential candidate, yet Joel Augustus Rogers asserted there had been Five Negro Presidents (in the book of that name).[24] Perhaps we shouldn't jump the gun with such a racialised suggestion even if the MSN does, and at least not front with it in the introduction. Terjen (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are fringe theories and have no place in the Obama article. Even if one or all of those presidents had some black in their ancestry, it doesn't automatically make them black just because there used to be a one-drop rule. They didn't identify as black, and no one else saw them as such. Kman543210 (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, shouldn't Senator Obama be described as the first "bi-racial" candidate? To say he is African-American, negates half of his lineage. (Only half of his ancestry is from the Kenyan side.) Bi-racial is how Halle Berry refers to herself. Some others in that category are Alicia Keys, Bob Marley, Derek Jeter, Lenny Kravitz, and Tina Turner. Tiger Woods, who is multi-racial, makes a point not to ignore any of his lineage when he refers to himself as "Cablinasian". If we describe people with inaccurate descriptions based simply on appearance, like the Black website that refers to Eartha Kitt as an "American Negro" (even though her father was white and mother was Cherokee), it sends a message to people from diverse backgrounds that part of their family tree should be ignored, hidden, or minimized to gain acceptance from society. Yet isn't it the pioneers who proclaim their diversity even in the face of discrimination who have made it easier for future generations who follow? Here is a perfect candidate to help a large segment of multi-cultural Americans to gain acceptance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustCurious (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• For your answer please click on [show] at the Frequently Asked Questions (short FAQ) box above. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please see question 2 in the FAQ at the top of this page, as well as the extensive talk page archives on this issue. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A Pledge

I have been following the talk page for a while now, but I've been trying to stay out of it mainly due to the contentious nature of it. It is about time that the editors involved come to a basic agreement of how discussions and edits of the Barack Obama shall be from now on. I have been doing some thinking as to how editors can come to an agreement without causing even more ongoing arguments. I then came up with the idea of a simple pledge that everyone signs. If you do sign the pledge it means you are agreeing to a neutral point of view and that you are only working to better the article. Also, if you do sign the pledge you are also telling everyone else that you are willing to work with everyone else who signs the pledge to better the article.

Here is the pledge:

• I pledge to remain civil in all discussions, debates, and reviews of the Barack Obama article.
• I pledge to leave my personal political beliefs at the door when editing or discussing the Barack Obama article.
• I pledge to keep all discussions strictly about Barack Obama and take any discussion not directly about Barack Obama to the appropriate related article.
• I pledge not to use guilt by association, hearsay, web search (I.E. there are hundreds of articles on this controversy so it must be important!), or massive amount of rule citations to push a criticism. I instead will use only verifiable facts to back up the criticism. (Facts within an article/news report, not the article/news report by itself. If the article/news report is properly written then it will have verifiable facts and statements within it that can be cited in here.)
• I pledge to use as few words as possible to describe a controversy, to keep it strictly related to Barack Obama, and to remain as neutral as possible by ignoring all outside pressures no matter how numerous or famous.
• I pledge not to use voting, straw poles, or any similar methods to reach a consensuses or push a point.
• I pledge not to attack other editors by either calling them names or any other way to disparage them.
• I pledge to help each editor and to try to understand their viewpoints.
• I pledge that if I should break any of these pledges that I will take a break and not participant for at least twenty four hours or more.

By agreeing to these pledges, then you are saying you are willing to work with everyone to edit this article in a positive and neutral way. Also, if you are not willing to sign this pledge, then I'd like you to ask yourself why you are not able to edit neutrally and follow these simple guidelines.

If you are willing to sign then please sign here:

• Brothejr (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Won't per-se sign but will try and follow these ideals, anyway----or as best I interpret them  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

article looks good

I came back after a long break to tell you guys that the article looks better than it did in may/june, even with all the usual whining and BS talk page activity... nice.

[complaint about talk page semi-protection] 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pps- in the future if someone must delete the potty-mouth, please add your sig so others don't have to dick around with the page history. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this exchange - [25]. That's 12 insertions of the N word, with some monkeys and c*m s**king thrown in, from 5 different IP addresses, in the space of 6 hours. And it follows some earlier incidents of the same thing from the same editor. Anonymous IP is nice, but we do have to keep the hate speech out. Wikidemo (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WIkidemo beat me to it - I'll add that BLP concerns are being taken very seriously these days, after a recent Arbcom ruling, so short-term sprot on the the talk page was a prudent move. It's not permanent. Glad you like the article, Fancy.Tvoz/talk 07:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are against WP policy, no?

• so perhaps it follows we should avoid superfluous use of the word when possible. I refuse to read the heaping dark mass of the previous discussions on this matter because I can basically imagine it by looking at the sig lines.

scrutiny might be fine, like as in "media scrutiny." prolly the most accurate, though I think "media attention" might be even more neutral.

Some editors need to remember approx. 90% of the cites for not only this page but all the Obama subpages, are media cites. The media, generally, reports but does not criticize. And when they do criticize, they identify it as such, ie editorial. Many of those even are tv media cites, which is the least likely format to editorialize, with notable exceptions. But more to the point we have been minimizing the use of editorial cites. I don't know how many this page has, but the number could well be zero. The campaign page has a massive number of cites, and I'm sure a couple are editorial in nature, but again not a relatively high amount.

Simply put, not only is promotion of criticism/controversy sections frowned upon, but the cites we have do not come close to supporting such a statement, which I think is the more serious problem here. You need RS sources which actually criticize and not simply report criticism, and you need a bunch of them, to make such an argument. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not prohibited by Wikipedia policy, they are just discouraged. The closest policy gets to banning the sections is Wikipedia:NPOV#Article structure, but that's still not banning them. Mostly it's just a general agreement among many editors on Wikipedia that the sections are a bad thing and a sign of poor editing and whenever possible, they should be avoided. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

Given how there has been much criticism of Obama reported in the media, I find amazing that it is not represented here. I tried adding it twice, both times well-cited, from mainstream news publications and simply NPOV reporting what they say, and both times they got reverted.

I've better things to do than engage in edit wars but maybe other people would like to crusade for Truth. I just hope people continue to view Wikipedia as complementary to and not substitutes for other information sources.

gssq (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Simply put, Wikipedia is not a place to "crusade for Truth." It reall is as simple as that. S. Dean Jameson 13:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy I've always read about was to come to a version of an article that everyone can agree upon, and even supporters of Obama can agree that he has been criticised on many points, which are curiously absent from the article. Given that the Wikipedia guidelines play with semantics and advise the use of the word 'critique' instead of 'criticism', it is puzzling why edits were reverted instead of the section just being retitled.gssq (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And on one of the reverts, I was told that BLPs are not supposed to use the word 'criticism'. I looked in the BLP policy page but didn't see it. I looked harder and found it under the 'criticism' policy page. I've added that bit to the BLP page, but who knows - it might get reverted too (for some bizarre reason). All this given that I have seem 'criticism' sections in many other articles (albeit not as highly trafficked as this one). I'm going to try one last time, but I have no doubt that some other rule only dedicated Wikipedians know about will be thrown at me. Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, if they can read through long lists of policies and throw them back at those who revert their edits. <<<gssq 06:46>>>

added your sig which you... forgot on that last edit. please remember to use your sig for each edit so that you don't get accused of deceptive practices. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. gssq (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

yes god forbid we should use rules or something... if you truly do not understand the difference between editorials and news reports, then probably WP guidelines are the least of your worries. seriously. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• obviously sourced criticism is allowed, and is in fact present throughout the article. What should not be there, because the sources do not support it and because it is contrary to WP guidelines, is use of the word criticism. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just several months back was the first time that I started to edit Wikipedia, and to be honest, I was surprised that any encyclopedia would have a section devoted to "criticism" on someone or something. If there are appropriate and sourced points to be made, I see no reason why they couldn't fit into any of the other categories and not all lumped into one section. I don't object to sourced and notable criticism, just to an entire section devoted to and called this. Kman543210 (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, but I'm sure you'd have noticed that many articles have 'criticism' sections. Furthermore, the policy section doesn't object to a 'critique' section. gssq (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

unless- the sources are contrary to use of the word critique as well! as you have been told before- the fact that your proposal is contrary to WP guidelines (criticism/critique/angels on pin heads/etc) is less important than the fact that your proposal is a brazen violation of original research RULES, considering the sources we have... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I used? There were 5-6 and only 1 was an editorial. gssq (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

well then its doubtful they meet the definition of "criticism" as opposed to "reporting of criticism." Your best bet was probably to say you had more editorials that that, lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the material in question before making inapplicable comments. gssq (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] To me, the main argument against separate sections that are exclusively criticisms or controversies is that they easily can become dumping grounds for any negative thing that is said about an individual, giving them more weight than is appropriate. Integrating them into the appropriate section of a biography is better writing and forces editors to decide how significant each incident or item is in the context of a whole life before just dumping it in. It is felt to be less biased because it doesn't emphasize negative material unduly and allows for balanced, in context, presentation. It is also sometimes explained by saying consider what your reaction would be to an article that had a section called "Praise" - it wouldn't fly. This no-criticism-section argument has been made on biographies of people across political and other lines. But as Bobblehead said, it's a matter of general agreement among many editors, not an official policy. Tvoz/talk 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To expand upon this, late last year there was a concerted effort on the part of the editors involved with all the 2008 presidential candidates' articles (and there were a lot of candidates back then!) to rid them of separate "controversies" or "criticism" sections or subarticles, and to integrate that material (when it was legitimate) into the mainline of the article or articles about each candidate. You can see the discussions, and links to the separate Talk page discussions at the time, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages. As you can see, we successfully dismantled and disbursed all such sections and subarticles; some of the really big or prominent ones were those for Hillary, McCain, and Giuliani. Wikipedia has been a lot better for this action ever since, and now is not to time to backslide! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but for those not familiar with all this history, it is perplexing when edits get reverted when official policy doesn't say anything about it. gssq (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And while dismantling and disbursing is a good thing, reverting wholesale when there's material of worth isn't. gssq (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[out]There also is something in the FAQ for this article above - the revert probably should have pointed you to that in edit summary, but things sometimes move too quickly here for editors to notice that a new editor made an edit and may not know the background. The thing to do is to raise the issues you wanted added on Talk, and you'll find out quickly enough if it's something that has already been covered, or is in a sub article, or what. Tvoz/talk 18:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rev. Jesse Jackson Comments

Should Jesse Jackson's comments about Barack Obama talking down to black people be added to the article? I think so. If these are removed so should portions of the article regarding Rev. Wright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DePaul75 (talk • contribs)

The short answers would be "no" and "I disagree". Jackson's comments will be forgotten by tomorrow. Wright's comments (although not about, or related to, Obama) will be remembered for years to come, due to the way ABC cherry-picked all the worst stuff and replayed it in a loop over and over again. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that this has been covered in Jesse Jackson's BLP, but probably with way too much weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note, this is an encyclopedic entry, not a current events page, a presidential election page, or a criticism/gossip/whatever page. If it does not directly relate to Obama's life (I.E. he did it, or was part of it), then it should not be included here. Wikipedia is not an editorial column covering the latest gossip, controversies, etc of the presidential campaign, but an encyclopedic article coving his life and events he was directly involved in. Brothejr (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your comments about it not being a gossip page. But if that is the reason then the whole section regarding the presidential campaign should be removed. You can't just pick and choose what portions you would like to add. My argument is that if you are to remove the part about Jackson you should also remove the parts about Rev. Wright or re-write them to not reflect gossip. Also, Rev. Wright's comments have been forgotten just as fast as Rev. Jackson's will. DePaul75 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-event of the type that happens all the time. It's not even worthy of mention in the campaign article, let alone the main bio. It probably doesn't even warrant mention at Jesse Jackson. For context, consider it against the accidental broadcast of Reagan, during a sound check, joking, "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That hasn't prevented this from becoming a minor edit war at Jesse Jackson, where it has been given two whole paragraphs. Interested parties are welcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention of ACORN

A mention of ACORN was inserted, sourced only to a WSJ opinion piece. I've reverted it, and I'm opening a discussion related to the necessity of the mention. To me, it has a bit of a "guilt-by-association" feel to it. I'm open to other views, though, which is why I wanted to discuss it here. S. Dean Jameson 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The WSJ reference is [26] which includes:

In 1992, Acorn hired Mr. Obama to run a voter registration effort. He later became a trainer for the group, as well as its lawyer in election law cases.

Obama's connection with ACORN is a story rumbling around in conservative leaning sources, see for example this opinion piece from the National Review or this from Michelle Malkin. This article from the LA Times has an entirely different slant. It would appear Project Vote coordinated with ACORN, the ACORN folks were impressed with Obama, and ACORN then had him train some of their own folks (this is from the LA Times article). Although the WSJ claim that Acorn hired Obama to run a voter registration effort appears to be factually false (he worked for Project Vote [27], not ACORN), he did represent ACORN in at least one legal action [28]. All in all, it looks to me like this is an attempt to overstate Obama's relationship with ACORN. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my view as well. There seems to be a clear agenda in the sources that try to imply that Obama worked directly for ACORN, and didn't simply advise/train a few of their workers. S. Dean Jameson 17:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown that "In 1992, Acorn hired Mr. Obama to run a voter registration effort..." is "factually false". The ChicagoMag article you cite as saying that Obama did not work for ACORN is introduced as a chronicle of "a new political star" and is arguably as much "an opinion piece" that advances Obama's political ambitions as the WSJ cite retards them. If that article said Obama did not work for ACORN, you'd thereby have a conflict, not a refutation, but the article you cite makes no mention of ACORN, which proves nothing. For a conflict, you have to make the additional assumptions that the only voter registration effort Obama worked on in 1992 was the Project Vote! effort and, even if there was just the one, that Project Vote! and ACORN are not allied such that working for the former effectively means working for the latter. In any case, lawyers are "hired" by clients, and ACORN was an Obama client. If the WSJ should not be cited here, that's fine, but I disagree that a single brief mention of ACORN somewhere would "overstate" the relationship. I suggest that no mention of it at all is, in fact, an understatement.Bdell555 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PS This article makes it clear that Project Vote! was undertaken in direct partnership with ACORN.Bdell555 (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Those arguing that he did not work for ACORN do not bear the onus of proof here, Bdell. It's upon those who wish to include the material to reliably source it before inclusion. You have failed to do so. S. Dean Jameson 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that he did not work for ACORN is refuted by the Chicago Sun Times (amongst other sources) which indicate that Obama was a lawyer for ACORN. That means he worked for them. In any case, that's not the issue here. The issue is whether there should be any mention of a relationship or not. The criteria of WP:NOTABLE are satisfied here.Bdell555 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to show -- through reliable sources -- that he worked for ACORN, and not with ACORN, which is an important distinction. Thus far, you have simply sourced it to John Fund's WSJ opinion piece, which fails the reliability test. S. Dean Jameson 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do, do I? Says who, besides you? But we can have it your way, and just have something brief in the article to the effect that Obama worked "with" ACORN, and it could be sourced to the Chicago Reader article I mention below. How's that for a compromise?Bdell555 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)There's no need for anger. This would seem to demand a higher standard of inclusion. And no, I don't feel that the fact he once worked alongsid ACORN on a campaign is notable enough to require it be mentioned in the article. S. Dean Jameson 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I'm just asking you to quote specific words from WP:RS (and WP:NOTABLE) instead of just stating what you believe the rules are concerning reliable sources (and notability). I've already indicated that, in the interests of moving this towards a resolution, I'd substitute another source if you've got issues with reliability here. Whatever the rules are here, they ought to be applied uniformly. That means that if there should be no mention of ACORN on the grounds that it is unfavourable to Obama (which is the reason you gave initially), then all the "favourable" material in the article of comparable notability should also be removed in order to preserve WP:NPOV. WP:BLP does not override WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE and WP:NPOV.Bdell555 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These aren't the scales of justice. There's no quota of X number of positive mentions requires Y number of negative mentions. And just so you know our policy on biographies of living persons does take precedence over other policies. S. Dean Jameson 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP does NOT "take precedence". The policy says "biographical material about a living person ... must adhere strictly to ... all of our content policies, especially: Neutral Point of View...". WP:BLP also states, not once but twice, that "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" and does NOT indicate this paring back should discriminate in favour of what's favourable over what's unfavourable. Finally, the policy states that "Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show an excessive bias in their subject's favor". The WP:NPOV policy is described as "a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia." That language does not appear in WP:BLP. It's not clear that an association with ACORN is necessarily unflattering, anyway, since an association might simply reflect some sympathy for liberal or radical activism as opposed to questionable ethics.Bdell555 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute a contention that it is impossible to "mention" ACORN in a NPOV way. A Chicago Reader article from 1995 quotes the "lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization" as saying "Barack has proven himself among our members... we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer". It's possible that the Chicago Reader mentions ACORN in order to depict Obama more favourably, while the source I cited mentions ACORN in order to depict Obama less favourably. But that, in and of itself, would not automatically disqualify either source. The Chicago Reader could, in fact, clearly commit the "honour by association" fallacy while the source I cited commits the "guilt by association" fallacy and that would ultimately be of limited relevance because in neither case would the source's conclusion about Obama be cited, what's cited is rather a claim that is being used by both sources as a common starting point for their respective (valid or invalid) "arguments". Wikipedia needs to be NPOV, but its sources don't have have to be; they just have to be reliable. While I do not insist that my particular insertion remain, I do think the article would be more informative, and thereby improved, with a brief mention of Obama's work for this group. Keep in mind here that the assumption that a bad apple within ACORN spoils the whole bunch is itself a guilt by association error.Bdell555 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Add it back, sourced to the Chicago Reader. Noroton (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a helpful suggestion, since there's still significant disagreement on whether or not it belongs in the article. S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On first sight it looks like yet another anti-Obama attack issue. A quick trip to google shows it's almost if not entirely a matter of conservative bloggers and commentators trying to raise a stink. We have to be very careful about sourcing, and if it does turn out to be yet another trivial issue that gets blown up as a campaign issue, then put it in some part of the presidential campaign article or some special place devoted to these accusations. Wikidemo (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an existing article for these: /dev/null. (A joke for us Unix users; including OSX, of course). LotLE×talk 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you dragging Obama's 2008 presidential campaign into this? I merely suggest including a notable fact about the Obama of the 1990s without editorializing or otherwise implying that it is of particular relevance to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. If, with no small indulgence, we assume that material that "conservative bloggers" call attention to during a campaign is inadmissable by that fact alone, note that the Chicago Reader mentions ACORN in a 1995 article about Obama without any mention of Bill Ayers (a case you evidently consider analogous), and the Chicago Reader is not a presidential campaign conservative blogger. This isn't an issue whereby just contemporary "conservative bloggers and commentators" believe a mention of ACORN is relevant to Obama. Not every edit is an "accusation".Bdell555 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also note that an ACORN "endorsement" appears on barackobama.com. Is BarackObama.com amongst those "conservative bloggers" who are "raising a stink"?Bdell555 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a user blog, not an official campaign post. The site allows any user to create a blog. Domain name notwithstanding, that page bears no more importance than any other blog. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the party claiming that material from 2008 presidential campaign sources is relevant here. Recall that I'm "indulging" the assumption (in order to dispute Wikidemo's contention that it is exclusively "conservative bloggers" who are trying to draw a connection between ACORN and Obama). Anyway, I'm not sure why you wish to dissociate Obama with barackobama.com when Obama could surely dissociate himself. If Obama never said "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it..." I would think Obama would be inclined to get such a false claim removed from barackobama.com without any help, especially if "conservative bloggers" are "raising a stink" about it.Bdell555 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nail, meet Wikidemo. Wikidemo, meet nail. Seriously, you've hit the nail squarely on the head, and I'll leave you to this discussion with them now. I stumbled upon this in an RC perusal awhile back, and I have no desire to get drawn into the political fray here at WP. I have no preference for the presidency as yet, and I fear (because of positions I'm taking in this discussion) that I may be tarred with the pro-Obama brush. Good luck to you all. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Wikidemo, Obama was associated with ACORN, a prominent group nationwide. The Chicago Reader didn't write about it because it was an anti-Obama attack but to give it's readers a better understanding of Obama, which is supposed to be our goal. It's worth a line for that reason. You're bringing campaign issues into this is just as much a POV problem as the original sourcing to the Wall Street Journal editorial. A neutral perspective would be, I don't freaking care if it's a pro- or anti-Obama piece of information, give me the important information on Obama and I'll make up my own damn mind. Let the reader do that. And don't tell me you don't want to know about the associations a politician has. Everybody wants to know that. This one isn't huge, and the proposed addition reflects that. Noroton (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The ACORN detail is definitely irrelevant to this biography. Obama had many clients as a lawyer, and we're not about to compile his client list into a general biography. It does start to look like some kind of effort at guilt-by-association, but pretty strained if so (he once represented an organization that later had a member who <did-something-bad>). But whether or not the association actually make him seem guilty is irrelevant, since this just doesn't come close to main bio material in any event. On a side note though, I see that the ACORN article itself is vastly skewed toward criticism, in what really looks like coatracking... I'll have to look through the edit history to see if that imbalance is new. LotLE×talk 20:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Before expending a great deal of effort exposing "coatracking" and battling "efforts at guilt-by-association", I'd keep in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith. A number of media sources have mentioned Obama and ACORN in the same article without conspiratorial intent.Bdell555 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As I already wrote immediately above, whether or not your intention was to create a guilt-by-association is entirely irrelevant. The material is simply not significant for a main biography. Likewise, someone Obama once briefly had as a client, and who was completely above reproach (assuming there actually exists any person or organization above reproach), would not be appropriate to include either. A main bio of a prominent politician is not a place for a list of former clients. LotLE×talk 21:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Every new comment by Bdell555 makes the likelihood s/he's merely soapboxing seem higher. E.g. This article makes it clear that Project Vote! was undertaken in direct partnership with ACORN. Yep, Project Vote! once partnered with ACORN.. and with Demos, National Voting Rights Institute, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Fair Elections Legal Network, as well as other organizations. That's OK though, I'm sure someone associated with each of those organizations has at some point done something wrong... start digging. LotLE×talk 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If I inserted the quote "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career" cited to barackobama.com, would that be less objectionable to you and less undue weight on an ACORN connection than my insertation of the four words "on behalf of ACORN" to the section concerning his 1990s activities?Bdell555 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, more words on an irrelevant detail don't make it relevant (and claiming an ACORN press release as source seems dishonest too, but a better source wouldn't improve relevance). Obviously, Obama has said similar remarks about hundreds of organizations during his career. That's what politicians do: they claim sympathy and commonality with the people they speak to (hopefully within the bounds of accuracy, but still with a spin for the context). We also don't need the comments where Obama claimed to share goals with AARP, the Chamber of Commerce, the UAW, CORE, and everyone else he "has been fighting alongside with" during his career". LotLE×talk 22:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side. -- Chicago Reader, 1995. How is that a minor, lawyer-client relationship? He was teaching them about community organizing. Noroton (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this comment due to that I posted it out of anger. If I have offended anyone please accept my apologies. Brothejr (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Don't miss this anti-Obama report from that conservative rag, The New York Times ("Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side" May 11; I hope it's not behind their subscription wall):

Mr. Obama further expanded his list of allies by joining the boards of two well-known charities: the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. These memberships have allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants over the years to groups that championed the environment, campaign finance reform, gun control and other causes supported by the liberal network he was cultivating. Mr. Brazier’s group, the Woodlawn Organization, received money, for instance, as did antipoverty groups with ties to organized labor like Chicago Acorn, whose endorsement Mr. Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.

Nah, a group that involves itself with voter registration drives in Democratic neighborhoods, then has Obama for a lawyer, and which he helps by teaching classes for new leaders and who he gets money for and which endorses him early on in his career ... a relationship worth mentioning in a line in the article .... nah! It's all anti-Obama hype. -- Noroton (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And four words like "Obama worked with ACORN" in the 90s is something readers are best kept ignorant of but the fact the same work led "Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be" is a fact that must be noted?Bdell555 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an open mind but I see no evidence as yet that this satisfies WP:WEIGHT or relevancy to the subject of the article, and some evidence that it's a WP:POV issue. If we were to list every single client, association, endorsement, etc., the article would be hundreds of thousands of bytes long. Surely there are dozens if not hundreds of organizations that Obama has been a member of, represented as a lawyer, worked alongside, praised, and so on. Each one has one or two neutral reliable sources out there, or more, to say it happened. That's in the nature of being as famous as Obama. Why highlight this one? The only reason I can see that there is sudden interest in the matter is to impugn Obama by association. The bloggers got hold of this as the attack du jour, and then a few more neutral sources fact checked it. That's all. Nothing to see here. If it actually became a significant enough issue to mention we could do so, in the campaign article, because it's all about the Presidential campaign and not anything revealing about Obama's bio. Anyone who wants to claim otherwise needs to find a significant number of sources to say that it's relevant to Obama's life. A single mention or two in a reliable source just doesn't cut it here. Wikidemo (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

When did Obama work with ACORN? I can't find a reliable source that offers a timeline. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to be relevant because of the connection to Project Vote!. If the section regarding Project Vote! is going to be included as a positive aspect about Obama, then it should be mentioned that ACORN was a part of that. There are no POV issues here becuase there has been no attempt to link Obama with the criticism directed towards ACORN. If it is not to be included then the Project Vote! aspect should also go, as I don't see how you can mention one without the other. Arzel (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion. ACORN was one of many independent organizations that worked jointly with Project Vote! for common projects. This is not an article on Project Vote! (why isn't there one?!) Obama did legal work for ACORN, as he did for dozens of other clients, and he also tutored members of ACORN, but also many people outside of ACORN (probably from other groups as well). This is a contrived effort to shoe-horn ACORN into a connection with Obama, probably motivated by the idea that ACORN is itself subject to criticism (from what I can see, any wrong-doing associated with ACORN happened later than Obama's minor association with them). It is true that this slight association exists, but it's relevance is far below the level of main-bio material. LotLE×talk 02:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've wikilinked Project Vote! in the article. Interested parties can create the article and neutrally describe its association with ACORN, if they so choose. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up Clubjuggle's wikilink, I've created a stub article there. Please help to make the article better. Ideally, let's say a little bit about Project Vote! before we add, absent context, "is associated with ACORN". LotLE×talk 03:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, fellas. ACORN is a big, controversial organization and Obama has strong ties to it in Illinois, and it was influential in helping him in his political career, particularly at the beginning when it really counted Details about Obama's and ACORN's close, important relationship are in an article in Social Policy, [29] a quarterly periodical written sometime after March 2004, titled Case Study: Chicago - The Barack Obama Campaign. The article is online (but you have to go through their free registration to get it; I did and I urge everyone interested to go through the rigamarole and take a look). The article was written by Toni Foulkes, "a Chicago ACORN leader and a member of ACORN's National Association Board". The two paragraphs below the picture in the article show how close Obama and ACORN were:

1. ACORN picked him out to help with their lawsuit: ACORN noticed him when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois
2. Obama worked with Project VOTE in 1992: Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them).
3. Obama's work with Project Vote was done side-by-side with ACORN, according to Barack Obama: Senator Obama said, "I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” Source: [30]
4. Getting back to the article in Social Policy, every year since 1992 (at least up to late 2003), Obama has conducted "leadership training" sessions for ACORN, and in Obama's campaigns, ACORN members were volunteers: Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends. (Kurtz notes that the author has the year wrong -- the run for Congress was in 2000).
5. How close was Project Vote to ACORN? Well, ACORN founded Project Vote, according to this source, which seems to be a conservative Washington group [31]. I bet there's a source out there that could confirm this, if necessary.
6. How big is ACORN? ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, with over 350,000 member families organized into 800 neighborhood chapters in 104 cities across the country. Source: [32]

Since Obama and ACORN agree they have a close, important relationship, why don't we mention it? Noroton (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)