Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

11 states or 12?

"After Super Tuesday, Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses.[85] Obama and Clinton split delegates and states nearly equally in Vermont, Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island.[86]"

I know it says he had an 11 state straight win before hillary stopped it with Ohio. But isnt it 12 wins? Vermont was called in Obamas favour just before she got Ohio. Can this be checked please. Also I like all the trimming down, its much better. I has concerns about that second line though, its nothing major, but that was perceieved as a good night for Hillary, more so than Obama. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

VT and OH were on the same day, right? Conventionally, contests held the same day are considered "simultaneous", which seems reasonable enough. There's no one moment in time when a "win" occurs: usually the media call contests first (but different networks in different orders), then the SoS releases tentative results (sometimes the next day or so), then a couple days later, the "final official" results are released by the SoS. I don't know the exact order of these events between VT and OH, but I'm pretty sure you could construct either order by cherry-picking the "true result" method. It's really not very important to the biography whether there were 11 or 12 "wins" in a row, it barely makes a trivia question. Moreover, this thing with "wins" is silly anyway... 51/49 is a "win," but it's more different from a 65/35 win than from a 49/51 "loss"). LotLE×talk 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure they were the same day, though why say 11 at all if it doesnt matter, people here seem to think its noteworthy, if it is noteworthy we should try to make sure its accurate. I believe he won Vermont by a long mile so the minute it was announced it was official he had won. If we ARE going to have a number lets make sure it right. I still have an issue with the neutrality of the second line. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not official when a large margin is reported in the popular press (based on exit polls or partial county results). Legally, it's official when the Secretary of State releases "certified final results." Exactly when and how that happens varies by jurisdiction (and in principle might be delayed for errors, challenges, etc). I'm not attached to th 11 as anything in particular, if you have some other more generic phrase (especially if it is more concise), great... maybe "A string of wins" or something? LotLE×talk 21:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This was raised at the HRC article too. I agree completely with LotLE: it's impossible to determine an order that primary or caucus wins "occur on" when they are held on the same day. Certainly a network "calling" a race has no effect in and of itself, witness the number of times such calls have ended up being retracted. The streak should only cover primaries and caucuses held on prior days and weeks. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Delegates counted

The delegates from F and M have been counted, with a few mathematical adjustments to ensure Obama keeps the delegate lead. Clinton gets quite a lot more delegates than obama but it wont be enough. That means however she now takes the lead in the popular vote. We can get the sources together and decide how to word it all. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also raised at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Delegates counted, where some complexities in trying to calculate the popular vote lead are listed in response. But in any case, this is immaterial to this article, which only describes primary results in terms of delegates. For example, this article says New Hampshire was a draw and Nevada was an Obama win, when Hillary won the popular vote in both states. So by extension, the total popular vote is completely irrelevant here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So if she wins the total popular vote are you suggesting it not be mentioned? Dont you realise how huge it will be played if she has the popular vote yet he wins. It will be similar to that thing where it looked like she could win off the superdelegates. Not mentioning it in the article seems like a convenient cover up, still we have to wait for the figures. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be huge if the popular vote had anything to do with the delegate count, which has always been the way the nomination would be decided... and also, the section is named... Lyellin (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Astonishing POV push redux

As I write, User:Andyvphil and User:Kossack4Truth are adding their POV material to the article, violating several policies and ignoring a number of guidelines and essays. There has been no attempt by Andy to discuss the matter on this talk page, despite the fact he is just emerged from a week-long block for this kind of tendentious editing. The discussion on the Admin board includes a comment from an administrator that argues how inappropriate this stuff is, yet this has been ignored. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted their edits and included a comment to the admins that these are exactly the same POV edits as before, plus it looks to be same style as Kossack4 had been doing, as in someone else adding the content and then he came in to finish it up. Brothejr (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(@ word "astonishing" in the section title): Not so shocking, really, that folks see holes and fill em. Per Meta on "Wikifaith":

Wikifaith is a faith in the wiki model of web development -- itself simply a technology based on a faith and trust in the positive balance of human nature. Those who tend to be exclusionist demand hard controls and limits to wiki do so because their wikifaith is weak, or they are in fact unbelievers in wiki -- a paradoxical contradiction considering that many such people are active Wikipedians.----WIKIMEDIA: META WIKI — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream news media attention to Rezko, Wright and Ayers, and the results from multiple surveys proving that Wright has affected how people view Obama's candidacy, mean that Rezko, Wright and Ayers belong in this article. Readers deserve to know, by reading this article, why these three men belong in this article. It is their own less than admirable activity that has made them controversial and notable. An admin's comments about content carry no more nor less weight than comments about content by any other editor. Hysteria about "astonishing POV push" is a mischaracterization, claims of sockpuppetry are a lie, and claims of racism are a lie. Refactor your lies, Scjessey, and apologize. Brothejr is trying to say is that Andyvphil is my sockpuppet. That is a lie as well. Brothejr, refactor your lies and apologize. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

@Brothejr - To be fair, I am completely convinced that Andy and Kossack are different people; however, that does not mean that they don't dance to the same tune.

@Kossack - There are already articles that cover the specifics of Obama's associations with these men, and the actual specifics of what these men have said/done are not required (or appropriate) for this biography about Obama. This is a biography about Barack Obama, not about other people. Your failure to understand this simple fact borders on the astounding. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What is astonishing is that you Obama apologists actually believe that anyone in their right mind is going to buy off on taking anything that you find to be negative and putting it off to another article, in hopes that it not be read. I understand, that's the best you can come up with, however it's just not going to fly. You look at existing rules and willfully misinterpret them to say that ANY comment you don't like is 'POV' and undue weight, then want to be 'astounded' that we don't see it your way - well, be astounded. We aren't fooled. Right now, I'm watching David Bonior making the exact same argument you are - at least we know where you're getting your marching orders.Fovean Author (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between, e.g., saying (a) that Ayers is a former "radical activist" who once held a fundraiser for Obama and (b) that Ayers is an unrepentant former bomber who hosted the announcement of Obama's first run for office and whom Obama later hired as a fellow well-paid sinecurist on the BOD of the Woods Foundation is not that the latter is "specific" information about someone not the subject of the article. The difference is that (a) is misleadingly jejune. Andyvphil (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it would be better if we simply left out any mention of Ayers in the article whatsoever, as I have argued for previously. There is, in fact, no case for any type of Ayers inclusion. Obama's association with Ayers has only been negative from a campaign standpoint, and only because right-wing apologists who are desperate for their party to cling to power have tried to make it so. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to decide, so let's just do it completely your way. If nothing else, you're predictable, talk. You need to recognize that 'consensus' doesn't mean 'completely your way,' and that you and your compatriot User:Brothejr aren't going to be able to keep Wright, Ayers and Rezco off of the profile. It is ludicrous to assert that Obama has no other factors in his life or personality outside of Obama. These persons are major factors in Obama's life and they WILL appear in the article. Fovean Author (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[exdent]In the game of basketball, what Brothejr and Scjessey are doing is called a full court press. They are monitoring the article on a full-time basis, relying on the idea that during any 24-hour period, the two of them have more reverts available under WP:3RR than any people like us who may happen to show up and believe in WP:NPOV. They make false accusations, they never ever apologize, they take it to WP:ANI and WP:3RR whenever they are able, and they have generally made this article into a full-time job for themselves, hoping the rest of us don't have the time or the will to resist. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's association with Ayers has only been negative from a campaign standpoint, and only because right-wing apologists who are desperate for their party to cling to power have tried to make it so. There you go again, Scjessey, trying to dismiss George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, former press secretary for Democratic president Bill Clinton, as a "right-wing apologist who is desperate for his party [the Republicans] to cling to power." Stephanopoulos is, without a doubt, a Democrat.

This is just the latest example of the distortion and spin-doctoring coming from Obama fanboys on this article. I repeat, it isn't just right-wing partisans and crazy sites like Newsmax that focus on Wright, Ayers and Rezko. It's Stephanopoulos and the rest of the mainstream media as well. It's Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who support her. It's also Michael Barone of National Review and other highly respected, credible conservatives. Scjessey pretends that it's only "Republican tools" who are interested in this story. He pretends that any WP editor who wants this article to be NPOV is also an "Obama hater," even "racist."

I want WP:NPOV in this article, including all significant points of view, including Obama's many critics.

And I want Scjessey and Brothejr to refactor their lies and apologize to me. End your edit warring, end your personal attacks and lies, and accept this consensus. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephanopoulos is, without a doubt, a Democrat.

He's a Clintonite. Clinton supporters, as evidenced by their disgraceful behavior in yesterday's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, can barely be called Democrats anymore - in fact, they have done more for a McCain victory than his own party has. Stephanopoulos' debate question was a disgrace to the "mainstream" media, and the entire debate received universal condemnation for being amateurish and biased against Obama. Again, you state that the National Review is "highly respected", but that's only among Republicans. The rest of the world regards it as a publication biased toward Republican interests. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing about that actual content dispute, because you are clearly unable to follow Wikipedia rules, or even show a little bit of common sense. As for refactoring my comments, absolutely no chance whatsoever - I stand by what I said, which was based on the evidence before me. Your silly posturing about it will not change anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Plan and simple, POV is seeing any stuff non-apologetic as venom. While I am (possibly other contributors are) Chomskyist, according to what distortions of reality are produced by the lenses of folks whose coverage tends toward hagiography, apparently any coverage given to the Dohrn/Ayers affair (...even by Michael Kinsley!) is only Buckleyism. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, what has happened over night, I added that little bit about Obama leaving Trinity - which was reasonably neutral I thought - I come back and the controversy stuff has taken center stage. While I agree more needed to be made of it, I was only talking lines, not paragraphs, this is OTT. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agree it's OTT. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

However, dig the assertion above that the PA debate was universally panned as unfair to Obama. Wouldn't a simple test to the believability of such an assertion be to simply imagine we're submitting it to a WP article on the PA debate and sense if it'd pass NPOV muster? Histrionics often buttress the very weakest point of a belief; e/g somebody says "INDISPUTABLY!!" about the part of their argument at the very heart of the actual, well, dispute.

Scjessey believes that "Stephanopoulos' debate question was a disgrace to the "mainstream" media, and the entire debate received universal condemnation...." So, we apply who, what, where, how, when and test the belief in this emphatic universality. Only those condemning exist? Ah, Grasshopper, note the very essence of the dispute of how to edit this page. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, I am eager to reach an accommodation with you and any other editor who agrees that this negative material about Obama's political allies should be included. I am glad you agree that the article should not be the whitewash that Scjessey wants. You differ with Fovean Author, Andyvphil and I only regarding the amount of space (a little vs. more) that should be devoted to it. Please make whatever edits you feel are necessary for you to fully support this consensus. I trust your judgment. Thanks.

Scjessey, since you stand behind your false accusation of racism, I'm also glad to know exactly how dishonest you're willing to be, in order to win the edit war you're waging. You refuse to apologize for these lies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think he is Whitewashing, he has said for himself in the past that he simply doesn't see these issues as a big deal. Hes not hiding them away, he just honestly doesnt think their a big deal. You see them as a big deal so you want more inclusion. AGF everyone. Personally Im not interested in doing it. I could probably write it somewhere in the middle but then I would upset both camps. I dont think its wise though to start slinging mud at Clinton supporters, its not productive here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't trust him, Realist2. He's a liar and he refuses to apologize for his lies. He claims that he doesn't think Wright, Rezko and Ayers are a big deal. What he thinks, like what I think, matters no more than flatulence in a hurricane. But what George Stephanopoulos and other notable mainstream news media people think about it? That matters. And they think it's a big deal. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please please please watch civility, if you want to contribute you have to ensure your not blocked first ok. Need to stay calm folks. Both sides need to meet somewhere in the middle, otherwise this article is going to become unstable and could lose its FA star, something that should be avoided at all costs. Both sides are going to have to make some compromises if they truly care about this articles future. Frankly 6 lines for all thats happened isnt enough, but 4 paragraphs is a joke, an embarrassement. A third party that cares about the article itself, not the man Obama needs to take action quickly. Talk page chatter isnt enough. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Realist2. I'll cut down the length. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There you go. I've cut it down to two paragraphs, a total of 16 lines. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well any cut will bring us closer to a consensus so it is an improvement. I advise all parties to discuss before we make edits, not just me and you, we still need the pro obama people here too. We should build something on the talk page or another page and bring it over here, please dont break 3RR. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please explain how Obama's campaign staff took control of his Wikipedia biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Its not THAT bad. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If Obama's professional staff was in control of this, it wouldn't be so obvious and OTT. This is the clumsy and embarassing work of amateur volunteers for the Obama campaign. They just cut everything out that sounds discouraging. Clinton just won Puerto Rico which has 55 more delegates, in case anyone's wondering. This means that since Wright became an issue in the campaign, Obama has lost five out of seven primaries. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I added that 5 losses to the article. I will also be adding the popular vote thing if she takes him in that at the end. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New source material on Obama/Rezko

Investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle has published a six-part series on the intimate, intricate, intertwined relationship between Obama and Rezko. Lest anyone claim that she is a paid Republican Party operative employed by the evil Karl Rove, she also has some very harsh words for George Ryan, former Republican governor of Illinois. Among other gems from Pringle: "Obama was Rezko's inside man in the Illinois Senate" and "Rezko was Obama's political Godfather."

Pringle points out that in the Illinois Senate in the spring of 2003, Obama pushed through legislation that would enable Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich to pack a state hospital planning board with his political allies. This planning board controls hundreds of millions of dollars intended for the construction of hospitals and nursing homes and now Blago's political allies control all that cash. Within weeks after Obama ramrodded that new law through the Illinois legislature, the very same political allies Blago appointed to that planning board (and their wives) were pouring thousands and thousands of dollars into Obama's US Senate campaign. The mastermind of the entire scheme was Tony Rezko. All of this is exquisitely documented in the Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune, the Illinois legislative record and OpenSecrets.org, the public record of political donations to presidential, Senate and House campaigns.

Evelyn Pringle's Introduction: [1]

Part 1: [2]

Part 2: [3]

Part 3: [4]

Part 4: [5]

Part 5: [6]

Part 6: [7]

This series of articles is being syndicated across the Internet on such websites as Scoop.co.nz and Countercurrents.org. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Friendly warning re Lulu's 3Rs

Lulu 3R'd on the page within the last 24 hour period going OTT via her removal of the article's "Controversies" section. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

To quote from WP:BLP:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mm hmm, in general. (In the BHO 2008 campaign article, viewpoints from the National Review to Limbaugh have been deleted with the comment that their sources aren't neutral. That's like covering Irish nationalism during World War I but denying commentary from proponents 'cause it's "slanted" against policies of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas. Duh.) [ps I'm going to vote for Obama even if he promises both of his "uncles" Jeramiah Wright and Bill Ayers he's going to convert the rec area in the White House basement into studio apartments for them.] — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EC)Kossack, please provide evidence that there is consensus for your longer version. As far as I have seen, your edit has been reverted almost as soon as it has been added, which pretty much means that there is no consensus for it... There seems to be more agreement on the shorter version than there is the longer version. In looking through the history on this talk page, the last version that has a clear consensus is[8]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see where consensus was reached in regards to Obama, Rezko, and Ayers in the section you linked to. I see Scjessey proposing a compromise, followed by a discussion of the compromise (including an alternative proposal by myself), and then the discussion petered out with most people saying the Ayers relationship is more appropriate for the sub-article. It should be noted that Scjessey's compromise wording is still located in the article in the Early life and career section and that as far as I can tell, Ayers wasn't added to the Presidential campaign section until you started edit warring it there on May 12[9].[10][11] The fact that it took 4 days to get on the page and was not added by a person that was actually involved in the discussion would seem to indicate that consensus was never reached to include the information in the campaign section. I certainly don't see consensus being reached on sections being added to the campaign article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong, again. I've never written anything in this article about Ryan. Andyvphil (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Strongly Oppose. Floorsheim (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I was asked to comment here by Kossack4Truth. As an Obama supporter myself, I remain of the view that this article shows a deliberate intent to avoid facts and information that could be construed as critical of Mr. Obama. The changes made and editing practices reported by Kossack4Truth seem to make the problem even worse than before. If I were coming to this article to get my information about Obama, I would want much more information about the Wright issue, especially what was and has been said that folks found so offensive. I would also want the details of the connection to Ayers and Rezko and why so many folks find them so disconcerting. I would also want to know about the role of Islam in Obama's upbringing. Obviously these are very important and notable issues for many people. The facts should be sorted out here in an unbiased and straightforward fashion allowing folks to make their own conclusions about them, not swept under the rug. I would also want some statement of the things Obama said regarding race in his response to the Wright controversy. To me, those were outstanding and revolutionary things for a mainstream politician to say. I know there's a separate article about the speech, but it seems to me there should be at least some statement here concerning what was said. It's as if this article has taken all the important and dynamic things about this campaign and just wished them all away. I used to think Wikipedia was a place to come if you wanted to get your facts straight regarding important issues of past and present. This article has changed my mind about that.

• I guess I should unequivocally state here I also oppose, pretty much for the reasons eloquently given stated above. Note that I tend to be a lefty and strongly support Obama ('though McCain's one of the very few Rupublicans I sorta like...). — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - This is an article, not a pro-Obama ad. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, the choice you are opposing is not the choice of anybody. It is a figment of Kossack's imagination. Also, "consensus" has nothing to do with voting. You cannot build consensus with black and white arguments, because that creates division. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That Ayers crap

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

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

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

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

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

It's odd that Wikipedia has an article on something that never happened:

The Brink's robbery of 1981 (October 20, 1981) was an armed robbery carried out by Black Liberation Army members Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon), Samuel Smith and Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), Cecilio "Chui" Ferguson, Samuel Brown (aka Solomon Bouines), several members of the Weather Underground (David Gilbert, Samuel Brown, Judith Alice Clark, Kathy Boudin, and Marilyn Buck), and an unknown number of accomplices. They stole $1.6 million from a Brink's armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York, killing two police officers, Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and a Brinks guard, Peter Paige.

Andyvphil (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote your source's lede, "a leader of a Leninist group called the Weather Underground that carried out bombings...," and its 17th paragraph, "an admitted American terrorist." But, [my not wanting to engage in, uh, WP:Original research <wink>], I've added the famous piece on Ayers memoirs (ironically published in 2001 on the same day as the September 11 attacks), which generalizes, "Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a 'whirlpool of violence,'" before the article goes into some of the specifics. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

There has been no consensus

I would like to point out to you guys that there never has been any consensus to your edits and even if there is one person who speaks up against them, then there is no consensus. Plus also your edits are breaking all sorts of wiki rules too numerous to name. Lastly, this is an article about Obama, not Write, Rezco, or Ayers.

I feel it is about time that an admin(s) step in to resolve this dispute.Brothejr (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely past time for some admin involvement. But I'm not sure how best to solicit that. A checkuser on Kossack4Truth might help, but having sockpuppets is not per-se a blockable matter. It looks like he's also been just skirting the edge of 3RR, while introducing worse-and-worse additions at each round (both longer and less-relevant to bio subject, and also more POV/soapbox). But even so, it's below the threshold of outright vandalism.

Article RfCs are an absolute nightmare in my experience. They take forever, and only result in improvement inasmuch as pugilists eventually get exhausted. User RfCs are rarely that much more effective. Any thoughts on best approach to Kossack4Truth's disruptions? LotLE×talk 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Brotherjr has posted a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit War/Continual Ayers/Rezco/Write Debate. I suppose someone could also post a complaint at WP:3RR noticeboard. I agree the edit warring should stop. I think those who are edit warring should be warned now by administrators. Some of this would be reduced if more editors would try harder to reach compromise on some of these issues, but I don't expect that. I'm waiting for Floorsheim to come up with definite wording for proposed changes in the Campaign section so that we can then post a request for more participation at Village Pump and at other pages. Then, with a larger number of editors, perhaps some kind of consensus can be reached. Personally, I'd rather see a consensus against what I want than all this edit warring and endless debate, but I don't want to give up before trying to get more editors involved. Noroton (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's been no consensus, and editors shouldn't be changing the article on contested subjects before there is one. That isn't going to get us anywhere. Noroton (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Newsflash! Continual edit warring at a political the article, involving a constantly evolving cast of visitors. Unlikely fix: sanction an entire, amorphous class of inclusionists. A more usual one: a cadre hovers and throws out any stuff they don't like. An even better one? When conflicts can be solved by a slightly more inclusive order of contributing, do so. E/g when readers are reading a summary-style main article they'll every so often come to a few phrases or sentences that explain a minimal context of a daughter article; then, if they want, they can click over to this other article for more detail. But when exclusionists too-stringently filter out recentism----incorrectly crystalballing (as guided, ironically, by whatever their particular POVs) what's likely to be encyclopedically notable nine, ten years from now----in the process sometimes they leave the reader no clue as to why there even IS a daughter article in some cases. "Obama started his campaign. After awhile there was controversy regarding William Ayers"----full stop. No clue as to its nature; but with blue text indicating there's an embedded link at the word /controvery/. Result? (A) A boatload of potential contributors think they see a whole in the text and try to fill it in. (B) Queue [or is it cue?] the hovering cadre.

Hey, but what if Wikipedia were allowed to excel where it's at its best? giving recent events stringently neutral, encyclopedic coverage? Editors work toward a super-tight compromise. At its very least: "Obama's association with education activist William Ayers caused [blue linked:] /controversy/ because of Ayers' past involvement with the Weather Underground." Result? Maybe a larger percentage of potential contributors would perceive their "holes" to be filled and would be satisfied. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama campaign volunteers who have taken control of this article are being unreasonable. There should be some mention of the "unrepentant terrorist" past of Bill Ayers and the felony trial of Tony Rezko, particularly since the trial is about political fundraising, and Rezko's link to Obama is his political fundraising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying No to Controversies Section.

I strongly oppose the repeated attempts to add a controversies section to the article. Granted, different controversies have been and are going to be in the media. But highlighting any of them, yet alone sectioning them together, is undue weight; a synthesis of highlighting, defining, characterizing and framing the 2008 campaign; a partisan tactic that should not be mimicked in the structure of this article's mainspace. Modocc (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT section just removed from this bio's being reincluded. — Justmeherenow (   )

Justmeherenow, I was not referring to that text, since inclusion of any or all of that text is not at issue here, I am opposed to any controversies section, no matter how well-written, period.Modocc (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've slightly rephrased my comment above. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Modocc (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Re Scjessey (in next section): Not gonna argue wid the esteemed Mr. Wales. — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow, don't allow Scjessey to mislead you about WP:CRIT and what Jimmy Wales said. See my comments below. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE if it's a separate section and not included in some other section. I'd prefer omitting the Quentin Young sentence because I see no reason to give it any more prominence than any other quote about this. I think something a bit more generic would work better, but I'd switch to support if it isn't in its own section. I think we should try to be flexible to get a consensus, although the Obama supporters here are not showing open minds or an ability to compromise or, frankly, an NPOV attitude. I think we're ultimately going to change this over their adamant opposition. It's pretty sad that in an important Wikapedia article we have so many editors who won't try to follow WP:CONSENSUS, but that appears to be the case. The arguments for not including at least some more information on these ongoing, roiling controversies are transparently POV pushing.Noroton (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your chronological argument also is convincing, Kos. ("Lib" enough not to be offended by this one-time nick?) Anywho I'm sold on this ideal of not having (as Jimbo terms them) troll magnet criticisms sections. Encorporating both views and events into the same bodies of text facilitates editorial evenhandedness. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maximally Oppose. Absolutely, totally against "controversies" section in any biography on Wikipedia. These are definitionally un-encyclopedic, and never amount to anything but coatracking and soapboxing. LotLE×talk 01:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm sure you'll support weaving the controversies into other sections of the article rather than gathering them into a "Controversies" section, as Jimmy Wales recommended in WP:CRIT. Thanks for your support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose As mentioned in a myriad of posts, this is an article on Obama, the majority of the earlier edits were mainly about other people. Also, as mentioned down below within WP:Crit a Controversy has been highly discouraged. Brothejr (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT. According to Jimmy Wales, as a general rule editors should spread any criticism through the article, not delete it. But WP:CRIT also includes examples of why criticism, in some cases, could be included in a single section. Here, we were dealing with events of the presidential campaign in chronological order. And conveniently enough, in the long hiatus in the primaries before Pennsylvania, all of these controversies boiled up. Since the rest of the section is in chronological order, the controversies about Wright, Rezko and Ayers should be briefly described in chronological order in that section. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about a chronological approach, that further attests to the fact that these should be in the campaign article and not the BLP, because these are campaign-related controversies. That being said, I have begun a process to build a new consensus below. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying Yes to Weaving Controversies Throughout the Article ...

... regarding Wright, Ayers and Rezko. Per Jimmy Wales' admonition in WP:CRIT. It isn't Jimbo's position that all criticism and controversy should be deleted on sight by Scjessey and his friends. Jimbo's position is that the criticism should stay in the article, but be spread throughout the article rather than being concentrated in one "troll magnet" section. Jimbo says that any criticism and controversy should be woven into the entire fabric of the article, not deleted. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• MAXIMALLY SUPPORT. WP:NPOV demands fair representation of all significant POVs, including the POV that is questioning Obama. "Neutral point of view" does not mean "no point of view" and, most relevant to this article, it does not mean "Obama's campaign manager's point of view, and exclude all others." This questioning of Obama concerning his associations with Wright, Ayers and Rezko is not a fringe POV. It is a very substantial POV, shared by many prominent, notable mainstream media sources, Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the Democratic Party, and respected, credible conservative voices such as Michael Barone and Fred Siegel in National Review. Editors have an unavoidable duty to fairly and proportionally represent this POV in this article under WP:NPOV. The only POV previously represented in this article was the POV of Obama's campaign manager. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed text championed by several of this WP:BLP's current WP:inclusionists:

---

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served with William Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. media attention has been drawn to Obama's association with university professors Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were co-founders of the Weather Underground, a radical anti-war group that bombed several locations in the United States in the early 1970s. Ayers has admitted deploying explosives. Ayers and Dohrn hosted the announcement of Obama's first run for office in 1996. Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician, remembered being present at this introductory meeting, and described Ayers and Obama's relationship as "casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation." Obama's association with Bill Ayers was also questioned in an ABC debate. Former radical activist Bill Ayers had joined Obama on the Woods Foundation board in 1999 and had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996.
[... ...]
Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp. which is co-owned by his long-time political supporter Tony Rezko. Obama has also faced media scrutiny concerning his relationship with Tony Rezko, a land developer on trial for 24 felony charges, most related to political fundraising. On the first day of fundraising for Obama's first political campaign, more than half the money came from companies controlled by Rezko. Rezko raised over $250,000 for Obama's political campaigns; recently, Obama donated about $160,000 of this money to charity. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.

---

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• SUPPORT modest mention, throughout. :^)  — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a biography about Barack Obama. We cannot have stuff like "...William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were co-founders of the Weather Underground, which bombed several locations in the United States in the 1970s. Ayers has admitted deploying explosives," in the article because those details are not related to Obama at all, and would therefore violate WP:BLP and other related policies. And many of the other statements in the paragraph, while ultimately true, are given undue weight. Also, conflating such "controversies" under a single section heading is inappropriate. The act is highly discouraged by Wikipedia (Jimmy Wales himself weighs in on this at WP:CRIT#Criticism in a "Criticism" section), in this case creating a coatrack section. I do not expect this proposed paragraph to achieve any kind of consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

@User:Justmeherenow - can you please stop moving things around the talk page? It makes it very difficult to follow a conversation thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken yet note that I'd quickly excercised a perogative to reposition solely my own comment, not others'. Peace out:^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a biography about Barack Obama. We cannot have stuff like ... Yes we can. Because the mainstream news media focused on it as part of their coverage of the presidential campaign, we have a duty to report it as part of this article's section on the presidential campaign.

Also, conflating such "controversies" under a single section heading is inappropriate. The act is highly discouraged by Wikipedia (Jimmy Wales himself weighs in on this ... Another highly skilled and deceptive Scjessey distortion. I see that you've deceived Justmeherenow into opposing this paragraph. Jimmy Wales is not the god of Wikipedia. Policy is the god of Wikipedia. WP:CRIT is an essay. It is not policy. It is not even a guideline.

Here's what Jimmy Wales said: "It isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." So the solution is not to delete all criticism from the article as Scjessey has been trying so very hard to do. The solution is to spread it out throughout the article ... just like I was trying to do in the beginning. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Titling of "Obama 2008 presidential election" article's daughter articles re controversies

I invite comment both here and here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to build consensus on the details

Endless edit warring is getting us nowhere. What we need is a reasonable, civil discussion about each of the specific details that the self-styled "inclusionists" want to include. Once we have achieved a reasonable consensus on an item, we can integrate it into an appropriate place in the the article and move on to the next item. There are three specific associations that are being warred over at the moment. These are:

1. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church
2. Tony Rezko
3. Bill Ayers (and to a lesser extent, his wife)

There is no doubt in my mind that some mention of all three of these associations should be made. What needs to be agreed upon is the weight of each inclusion.

Comments

See liberal comments above and these comments. I believe that the article should focus mainly on Obama. But relevant links from past to present, as he is an elected offical and running for President of the US should strongly be considered.

Bill Ayers

As a first example, I would like to initiate a meaningful discussion on how much Ayers-related text there should be. Consider these options (and these are bare-bones examples that do not necessarily reflect how I think they should be written):

1. No mention at all.
2. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
3. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
4. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Weatherman founder Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
5. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who during the 1970s were co-founders of the Weather Underground (a militant activist organization), would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
6. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by unrepentant terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who during the 1970s were co-founders of the Weather Underground (a militant activist organization), would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
7. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
   

And so on....

---

8. In campaign section, "Commentators such as X criticized Obama for his ties with Bill Ayers..." then a description of Ayers, then a description of the associations, then a description of Obama's statements on the matter.

You can see we have a sliding scale of increasing detail and negativity. What we need to do is to come to some sort of agreement about how far along that scale we want to go, and then duplicate the process with the other "controversies". The second example above was the original text agreed upon by an earlier consensus (see talk page archive), but now we have a push to include more details that are not part of Obama's biography. My personal preference would be for option 1 on the scale above, because I think this is a campaign only issue and should be in the campaign article; however, I have already agreed to the text of option 2. I'd like to get civil opinions on what the best option would be (bearing in mind these are only example texts, and could be rewritten). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wright, Rezko, Ayers relevancy debate

"Nothing that doesn't matter in a biography of Nicholas II of Russia matters any more in this biography..."

I've taken a closer look at the arguments of those who feel so strongly that the details of the Rezko, Ayers, and Wright stuff be left out. I think I understand this debate a little bit better now. Fundamentally, this is not a debate between pro-Obamist and anti-Obamist POV pushers. This is a debate between those who feel the article should present politically relevant information about Senator Obama and those who feel it should be limited to a biographical account of Obama's life.

One one hand, folks don't want the article to exit the bounds of what belongs in a BLP. They know a lot of thought and hard work has been put into defining the standards for what goes into the different types of Wikipedia articles, and they want to make sure those standards are followed.

Other folks know people will be coming to this article to inform themselves about Senator Obama and to aid in their decision about whether or not to vote for him. They know Wikipedia is one of the only places in this world where people expect to find unbiased and non-exclusive facts without spin or sensationalized accounts. Thus, they want to make sure all the facts relevant to Obama's electability get in so that no one walks away with a distorted view when they were counting on getting something else.

I'd like to offer a reconciliation of these perspectives on the grounds that the facts relevant to Obama's electability are within the bounds set up by Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.

While I'm no expert on Wikipedia policy, from what I understand the fundamental criterion for what belongs in an article is notability. Wikipedicity of facts is by definition their level of relevance to the subject of an article's notability.

To contrast with Nicholas II of Russia, Senator Obama's primary notability is by far his status as a presidential candidate, participant in one of the tightest and most dynamic democratic primaries in history, and person who a vast number of people are deciding whether or not they would vote for as president. Any facts that reflect in a significant way on Obama's status as electable (for a significant number of people) are thus relevant to his notability and belong in the article. This would include the nominal details (enough to get a picture of what the issue is and why people care about it) of the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues.

Floorsheim (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I applaud your effort to look for a way forward, but I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more with your solution. You are talking about second-guessing what a particular reader wants, and that isn't Wikipedia's job. You are correct when you say that the current campaign is important - so important, in fact, that it gets an article all to itself. Stuffing this article with transient, campaign-related tidbits is not appropriate for a BLP, and doesn't fit in well with the summary style we have adopted here. The article already notes what is important about the individuals you mention above with respect to Barack Obama's life, but we have (properly) left out details only tangentially-related (or not related at all) in order not to burden the article with undue weight concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey is entirely right. There's just no position of compromise where we introduce "some" of the information that "voters need to know" (or at least not because they need to know it). Giving an analogy with a dead politician (and one who never faced elections, moreover) was quite deliberate. What we write in biographies should be, as close as is possible, a "view from the distant future." Obviously, new information is going to become relevant to this bio, even in the scale of just weeks and months. But as much as possible, all the words that we put in today should be ones that will be just as relevant a decade or a century from now. As soon as November of this year (whatever the outcome), no one is going to care about Wright, Ayers and all that (or at least not as readers of this article); and that much less so a year after that. We are not here to judge (and still less advocate) a position on his "electability"... when we know that as an actual fact in a few months, the article will certainly be updated to reflect it. LotLE×talk 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you has addressed my fundamental argument. I am not saying we should judge or advocate a position on Obama's electability. Nor am I saying we should second guess anything. I'm simply saying we should include facts that adhere to Wikipedia's fundamental rules for inclusion: relevance to the subject's notability. Rules and policies and notions concerning what is to be included in a particular type of article are all created to make sure that all and only facts that are verifiable and relevant to the subject's notability get included. Using them to keep something that is verifiable and relevant to the subject's notability out would be an instance of legalism and defeating the purpose the rules and policies were created for. I think there's even a policy against doing that, although I can't seem to find it right now.

In this case, Obama's status as a democratic primary frontrunner and petitioner for presidential votes is his primary notability. Clearly the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues play a dominant role in the minds of those he is petitioning for votes and are thus highly relevant to his notability. Therefore, the article should provide readers with enough facts to form a clear picture of what those issues are and why they are found to be so important (by those that find them that way) so that they can then decide whether to read more about them. This would be in keeping with summary style. What would not be effective summary would be to mention the issues more or less in passing as the current article does without providing any clear pictures.

Floorsheim (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Dominant role"?! Huh?! It's hard to argue against something that is so far beyond absurd. While I realize that the plural of anecdote is not "data", but I mentioned the insertion of nonsense to a couple friends/colleagues of mine, ones who are pretty well politically informed. On mentioning the excess material on Wright and Ayers, none of them remembered who either of them was without some background explanation... after a bit of description, they generally vaguely remembered having heard of those issues.

In any case, WP:RECENT really is an excellent discussion to look at. Things that there is no chance in hell that anyone will care about in a year don't belong in the article today. Trying to shoehorn pro- and con- campaigning under it's "short walk" closeness to notability just isn't acceptable on WP. It's a really bad and forced analogy, for which I cannot see any very good motivation. LotLE×talk 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes----but isn't pretty well politically informed kind of a subjective measure when applid to folks whom you say didn't remember who Wright is? (P.S. The lede of Kinsley's piece in yesterday's Time starts out

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, best known recently as friends of Barack Obama, disappeared in 1969 after two of their colleagues in the Weather Underground died while building a bomb. Ayers and Dohrn spent 11 years setting off bombs and putting out statements threatening violent revolution. They promised to kill innocent Americans and praised the lunatic murderer Charles Manson....----TIME

) — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Lulu) Thank you, Floorsheim. I agree completely, and you put it better than I did. I think we have an impasse here on an article that is important for Wikipedia to get right. I'd only note that we have a pretty good sized section here on Obama's stance on the issues, and we already do mention various controversies, so it's not as if there's some kind of policy in place to keep out election information. That being the case, the important, relevant issues that have received significant coverage -- both "political issues" and character questions -- should be given summary treatment in this article since that is what an election is about. Noroton (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Obama's status as a democratic primary frontrunner and petitioner for presidential votes is his primary notability. Clearly the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues play a dominant role in the minds of those he is petitioning for votes and are thus highly relevant to his notability.

Actually I'd like to point out that these issue are not playing a dominant role in those he is petitioning for votes, only those are looking for controversies. If anything the majority of the people, news media, and the candidates themselves have moved on. A simple blue link and a statement like "the controversy over so and so" is best and if the reader is so enthused to find out what the controversy is, they can click the link. As stated before this is a biography of Obama and not Ayers, Rezco, or Wright. This endless circular debate is getting tiring! Brothejr (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to point out that these issue are not playing a dominant role in those he is petitioning for votes, only those are looking for controversies. In your opinion. The polls say otherwise. [12] CBS News/New York Times poll, May 1-3. Among Democrats, 56% have an unfavorable opinion of Wright; 22% of Democrats said that Wright's statements have made them feel less favorable toward Obama; 18% of Democrats said Wright's statements made themless likely to support Obama; and 47% of Democrats said that Obama renounced Wright because it would help him politically, not because he actually disagreed with anything Wright said. So it's obvious that Wright is having an effect on the primaries, and on the election in November. Should we wait until there are similar polling results regarding Rezko and Ayers, after Rezko is convicted they might run a survey about him. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not American, republican, democrat, black, white, Muslim, Christian or Jew, and I was born and reside 8000 something miles from Illinois. Therefore, consider me neutral. Kossack, it is true as you say "Wright is having an effect on the primaries, and on the election in November", but doesn't that require only a brief mention here in Obama, and link/s to extrapolation in Wright/primaries/election articles? How would Wikipedia suffer if the article concentrated more on Obama and less on Wright? Seems to me politics is overpowering biography.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All it takes, and I believe all that's being argued for here, is just enough information to tell the reader briefly that there is a public controversy involving Barack Obama's life and to link to the articles where each controversy is expanded upon. That's all. The counterargument is that we should have nothing or we should have something so short that the reader won't know why there is even a controversy. It doesn't take much space to describe why something is controversial, but some editors here think that even 100 words in a 121K article is extraordinary. That's the difference of opinion here as I see it. Noroton (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'd agree with that, which would better balance the article. Where I asked whether only a brief mention should be made, I didn't mean inadequate mention. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that you , me, Kossack4Truth and Floorsheim are substantially in agreement. Well, then if we look at the specific language on Wright, I see the need for a phrase or two describing just what it is that's controversial about Obama's association with him, and as for Ayers, just what it is that's controversial about him. There should be adequate mention of Rezko's relationship with Obama, although I don't have definite ideas on whether or not that's already adequate. I think we could probably do all of this with a few phrases, possibly sentences. Noroton (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that you, me, Kossack4Truth and Floorsheim are substantially in agreement. There are also Fovean Author, Justmeherenow and Andyvphil. A total of seven editors. That is consensus. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It isn't just seven editors. It's eight, now that QuirkyAndSuch has joined us. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I've also noticed, is that people are looking back to past articles to base their opinions on this issue. Before you add anything more, go and take a look at current political shows and web sites (not including blogs which are basically overgrown editorials!). Do not type in any of the names in the search engines, but just take a look at what articles and issues the web sites are running there. If you do, you will notice that none of the mainstream political web sites cover this "controversy" anymore and if anything these issues only lasted for a couple weeks before the candidates moved on. I would like to remind those who are planning on making more edits on this issue then what have already been done, that your edits will be reverted as many other people have already agreed that what has been written is fine and that this is Obama's article not Ayers, Rezco's, or Wright's! A blue link and the words "the controversy over so and so" is more then enough and conveys the right tone. Brothejr (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is another ludicrous argument. We have already covered the relationships that Obama has with these three individuals in the article. Now you are saying that we should essentially add tangential or unrelated information as well. If it isn't directly related to Obama, it should not be in his biography. And just to be absolutely clear on this, there is no consensus for adding (or in some cases, re-adding) any of this tendentious crap. A circular argument does not a decision make. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not tangential or unrelated, Scjessey, and you know that perfectly well. For Tony Rezko the jury is still deliberating on 24 felony charges related to political fund raising. And what did he do for Obama for so many years? Why, it was political fund raising.

William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are proud and unrepentant about their past as bomb-tossing terrorists. Terrorists use violence for political goals. And when Obama started his own political career, it was in Bernardine and Bill's living room. They launched his career, just as surely as Madison Avenue launches a new product.

Enormously popular, mainstream news sources with formidable fact-checking departments have found these relationships with Obama and their unsavory nature to be worthy of abundant news coverage. So the unpleasant facts about the politically-related histories of these other people must be in this article.

And just to be absolutely clear on this, there is no consensus ... Kossack4Truth, Floorsheim, Fovean Author, Kaiwhakahaere, Noroton, Justmeherenow and Andyvphil support including the negative material, in summary form, regarding these unsavory people who are such dear friends of Barack Obama's. That's seven editors. That's a consensus, Scjessey. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of editors of this article. I am pretty sure you have no chance of pushing your tendentious POV into the article without attracting a storm of protest, particularly because such edits would violate a number of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of editors of this article. Currently participating, I count about 10 who have expressed an interest in this issue, and seven of the 10 oppose you, Scjessey. This consensus supports including negative material about Obama's associates in summary form. Including representative material from all significant POVs, including the POV that criticizes Obama for these unsavory friendships and alliances, is what WP:NPOV is all about. You have twisted and distorted Wikipedia policy to defend your pro-Obama bias long enough. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It isn't seven out of 10. It's eight out of 11, now that QuirkyAndSuch has joined us. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Brothejr, the fact that few news sources are covering these controversies right now is what's irrelevant. The fact is that before Wright hit the fan, Obama won 11 primaries in a row and seemed like an unstoppable juggernaut. After Wright hit the fan, he lost four out of six primaries, by wide margins. Encyclopedias don't limit themselves to what's happening right now. We read encyclopedias to learn about the ancient Egyptians, the Peloponnesian War and the Renaissance. Likewise, this article should not be limited to what the news media are covering right now. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is completely relevant in any election. Someone please add the fact that Obama, only one month before distancing himself from Rev. Wright, sayd that he could not dump Wright any more than his gandmother, or something like that. I don't have the quote handy, but I remember hearing it on the news. However, it shows how he is able to flip on a moments notice when political pressure demands it. This behavior suggests that either he has no moral convictions, or will say anything to please whoever is listening. Very relevant observations of character. 68.177.12.38 (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ted.

Lead section problem

Michelle Obama does not warrant a mention in the very first paragraph. Unlike Bill Clinton, who is crucially important in Hillary Clinton's article and therefore needs such a prominent mention, Michelle Obama is of secondary importance. It should either be moved to a later point in the lead section where his personal life is specifically being discussed (presumably the second paragraph), or removed from the lead section altogether. My personal recommendation is currently to simply remove it: there is no particularly smooth point in the current lead section where it could be placed, and Michelle Obama is about as important to Barack Obama as Laura Bush is to George W. Bush. Thus, for the same reason Laura Bush is nowhere mentioned in Bush's lead section, Michelle Obama need not be mentioned anywhere in Obama's lead section. -Silence (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that she is mentioned in the introduction because she is one of the most significant aspects of Barack Obama's life (this is, after all, a biography). Michelle Obama has become a nationally-known figure because of her vigorous campaigning during the 2008 Presidential election (Laura Bush was barely seen during the Bush campaigns). I don't see that the brief sentence in the introduction is doing the article any harm, and it was there when the article became Featured. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Scj, my recollection is it may have been in there for a time earlier (I remember something about his being "married to Mrs. Michelle Obama" at one point) but for quite a while after the article was featured the personal stuff was not in the intro. Seems to me not a big deal either way, but I don't see how the sentence that is there now in any way indicates that she is a nationally-known figure or a significant aspect of his life more so than Laura Bush or any of dozens of spouses, nor do I particularly agree that she is such. It's a rather bland sentence just saying they're married and have 2 kids which I don't think particularly fits in the first graf of the intro. On the other hand, I don't object to it that much so am not moved at the moment to re-write the intro. But I'd be interested in other opinions, and did want to say that it was not there for much of the time that the article has been featured, as far as I recall. Tvoz/talk 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the two sentences referring to Obama's family and his 2 books per this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee vs. a candidate

I did a bit of WP:BRD and reverted the lead back to referencing Obama as just "a candidate" for the Democratic presidential candidate. Neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough pledged delegates to cross the 2,108 delegate threshold after all the primaries/caucuses have been held and, as of now, Obama doesn't have enough superdelegates to push him over that threshold. Until one of the candidates drops out, or the other crosses that threshold, it is probably best to not say that Obama is the "presumptive nominee". Of course, if anyone wants to disagree with me, you're more than welcome to include your explanation of such here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are conflicting press reports on this issue. An announcement by Clinton appears imminent. Perhaps the article should be protected until an official announcement is made. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we edit for the long view, this back-and-forth over up-to-the-second accuracy concerning this obvious eventuality seems a little silly, at least to me. Anyway, after a hard-fought campaign, this WP'dian congradulates Barack and invites a rousing ovation for Hillary. Watch: (YouTube) — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Clinton campaign is vociferously denying that Hillary intends to concede defeat, although it seems likely that she will have to acknowledge that Obama will have an insurmountable lead in delegates. Once the magic number is passed, he will automatically become the presumptive nominee, but that doesn't mean she is out of the race. There is no hurry to change this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Miss Ann Thropie, the article doesn't need to be protected until an official announcement is made.;) There doesn't appear to be an edit war over this and discussion is in progress. As far as the conflicting reports... That's exactly why it should remain as "a candidate" for now. Wikipedia isn't a press organization, so we can afford to wait until something official is said about Clinton's campaign status and whether or not Obama really is the "presumptive nominee". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should follow a few steps (at least) behind the news of the day, not try to leap out in front of it. The press gets it wrong often in its rush to have the latest news. We can afford to wait. Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the latest story that is unleashing the "presumptive nominee" and "Clinton has dropped out" edits. Problem is if you go over to CNN, there's Clinton's advisors saying she's in for the long haul. Heh. All in all, still need to wait until Clinton makes it official. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AKA perhaps we might let the body get cold before we bury it? Tvoz/talk 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The official "clinch" number is now 2,118, according to the source we are using for delegate numbers (CNN), and Obama has 2,1022,106 delegates. Until he reaches 2,118, or he is widely reported as the presumptive nominee, we should hold off. johnpseudo 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It should also be noted that the "dozens of articles" that are out there are almost exclusively a result of the AP incorrectly announcing that Hillary Clinton is dropping out of the race and then news outlets repeating that article because they are on the AP newswire, or because they, like a majority of news outlets now adays, are too lazy to actually do any reporting and confirm the AP story with the Clinton campaign before running to the presses with a "AP: Clinton dropping out of race" story. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would use the second criterion, that it is widely reported that he is the presumptive candidate - rather than trying to interpret delegate counts here. That's going to be short-lived. I'll bet all you a free 3RR pass that Hillary Clinton is going to concede as soon as "presumptive" becomes real. What's the worst that can happen? That we report it three hours after CNN and USA Today instead of three hours before CNN and USA Today. Wikidemo (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In the "calling a trowel a 'trowel' dept.," if dusk comes and he's still not "presumed," let's source him at least as de facto nominee. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aak! After visiting the campaign article I feel like I'm putting my finger in the dike on this one. A lot of people want to update it to reflect Obama as the nominee-in-waiting and there's no stopping them. Maybe Hillary and I have to accept the inevitable. Thanks for giving it a little dignity and time, at least. Wikidemo (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Both CNN and NBC, and probably others, went to "presumptive nominee" as soon as the SD polls closed. The Hillary article has been changed to reflect this, and so it should be here too as well. And is ... but I gotta say, your lead's first paragraph is whack. Neither the two books nor the wife and daughters belong there. Never mind, I don't wanna go to rehab! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 90% of that. It's like a lede within the lede. But it's not my article, and you seem to be conducting original research or perhaps a self-published source with respect to your desire to go to rehab or alleged lack thereof :) Wikidemo (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Senate box

In comparison to some of the above debate, I think I have an uncontroversial issue. In the horizontal box at the bottom of the page entitled "United States Senate", the words "Served alongside: Richard Durbin" appear. But since Obama and Durbin are both senators at the moment, shouldn't this text be in the present tense? I don't know how to modify it. DO56 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change that, bring the discussion to Template:U.S._Senator_box. The same template is used for all US Senators for consistency. I have no specific opinion on the right display, but it must be consistent, as the template assures. LotLE×talk 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Two major parties?

The United States has had many influential/major political parties over the last two-hundred and some odd years, so why are we restricting it to just Democratic and Republican? I'd suggest rephrasing it to "the first African American candidate of any major American political party," or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arexkun (talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Unschool (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Unschool (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Define "major". E.g. Lenora Fulani (on the ballot in 50 states for the New Alliance Party).... yeah, they weren't going to win, but "major" seems like an unreasonable value judgment/WP:OR. LotLE×talk 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even with the most narrow definition, there have clearly been more than two major parties, in the history of the country - it's just that there have almost never been more than two at one time, as the Federalists gave way to the Whigs, and the Whigs gave way to the Republicans. Cogswobbletalk 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, the wording is directly from the reliable sources. NAP may have been the first to put an African-American on all 50-states, but it wouldn't make the list of "major political party" under any conceivable definition. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential issues should he be elected to the Presidency

May be a little early to say, but should Obama be elected, or even during his run for the presidency itself (he seems highly likely to be the democratic candidate) this article is going to see huge (near mammoth) attention, and issues that currently affect almost all major political leader articles will affect this one. As this is currently a FA, I worry that this may place it's star in danger, with the likelihood of FAR cropping up more as changes come and go with such great frequency.

Do the users who normally regulate this article have any thoughts/plans to help maintain the FA quality of this article during this time? SGGH ^speak! 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How about full protection for about 8 years? </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can try just four years, and play it by ear for any second term. LotLE×talk 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheney link

Since we're mentioning his family ties to Jefferson Davis, it's probably worth noting that Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins. 205.167.180.130 (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an extremely distant relation, so rather minor trivia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Obama probably inherited a minute fraction — one divided by two to the 11th power — of Mareen Duvall's genome, which would amount to less than one gene, assuming the Y chromosome was not inherited. Much the same would be true of Mr. Cheney."--NYT — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight for Tony Rezko.

Tony Rezko was covered with fair weight in Obama's "personal life" section. I have removed the second Rezko plug in the "early life" section. Shem^(talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Obama is the first African American to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party, and the first to be born in Hawaii.

In his victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, Obama said: "After 54 hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end. Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Because of you tonight I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America." Paying tribute to his rival Hillary Clinton, he said she had made him a "better candidate". He congratulated her on the race she had run "throughout this contest" and also praised former president Bill Clinton's economic policies. In her own speech in New York, Clinton showed no sign of suspending her presidential campaign. She told cheering supporters: "Now the question is, 'Where do we go from here?' And given how far we've come, and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight." Earlier, she had signaled her interest in joining Obama's ticket as a potential vice-president.

OK, someone added all this to the bottom of the campaign section while I was asleep. Currently the bottom paragraph was well trimmed and to the point. This seems too detailed and needs a copyedit/trim, it doesnt add much for the number of bytes it takes up. Thoughts — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Way too much detail about the victory speech for this article. It might be good in the campaign article, but certainly not here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall I trim it? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If by trim you mean delete the whole paragraph about the speech... I'd say go ahead. Better yet, if it's not already in the campaign article, remove it from this article and put it into the campaign article? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill remove it leaving a sentance, it should be elsewhere. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I took some out, you can remove more if you think its nessary. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On drugs

Why does the spoken version of the article include statements about drug abuse when the actual article contains no such thing?Rallefar (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A brief reprieve

I just noticed that Kossack4Truth has been, rightly, blocked for repeated 3RR. That's a relief. When that 48 hours ends, let's report the next violation promptly, which will hopefully result in a longer block than 48 hours. Admins tend to escalate these periods in a sensible way (it's a mixed bag, but mostly).

FWIW, I'd really appreciate it, Justmeherenow, if you don't rant about some false equivalence between Kossack4Truth's edit-warring, and the efforts of some responsible editors (like myself) to remove vandalistic POV additions... and still more, don't put in the unencyclopedic stuff yourself either. LotLE×talk 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm sorry that K4T has been blocked for edit warring, but I certainly do not think it is appropriate to encourage people to report 3RR violations in an article talk namespace. Furthermore, I would like to request that we allow sufficient time for K4T to have a chance to contribute to the discussion above (on building consensus, et al) before moving toward the next step. Within reason, all concerned editors must have a chance to weigh-in or we risk building a lopsided consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your constant use of language like "rant" and "vandalistic", as well as charging POV violations even when sincere editors are doing their best to try for fair treatment of an important issue is not helpful, LotLE. You've pretty much lumped in irresponsible with responsible efforts to change the article, and your efforts overall haven't helped to get us anywhere near consensus. Pot. Kettle. Black. Noroton (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI. [13][14] You can plug in your, or my, name, if you want. Andyvphil (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey I agree, Kossack4Truth should have his chance too when hes returned, we should give him a chance, we dont want any decision to be accused of bias, all sides must speak. Is his talk page locked? He could express his wish from his talk page if that doesnt breach any policy regarding blocks. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, I would rather simply wait for the block to expire and continue the discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, good point, I will leave a neutral message informing him of the consensus building task. To uphold transparency further. Here is a link to show he HAS been notified, no accusations of unfair practice can be made against the pro Obama people. See here — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Any editor should be given the opportunity to use this discussion page to discuss controversial edits, but they should not be given the opportunity to edit war in main space. This is true if the participants in the edit war discussing the changes on the discussion page or not. Additionally, if any editor's first actions after coming off a block for edit warring is to continue that edit war, then they can be reported on AN/I or AN/3RR for another preventative block, regardless of the number of reverts they have done since the block ended, as it is apparent the block did not prevent them from continuing their edit warring. The theory behind preventative blocks is not only to stop the immediate edit war, but to also encourage editors to use the discussion pages rather than edit war in main space. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion to find consensus should not be held up because of Kossack's block. If Kossack wishes to be involved in the discussion prior to his block ending, he can leave responses on his talk page and one of the other participants in the discussion can copy his response here (with an indicator that they are copying it from Kossack's talk page, of course). This is a fairly common practice on Wikipedia as the intent is to stop the edit warring and not necessarily the discussion process. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever everyone else thinks is necessary, but I still think K4T's opinion is important to this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as he gets a say, whether it be here or his talk page, I dont mind. We shouldnt move onto the next stage until his thoughts are known. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you three, Realist2, Bobblehead, and Scjessey have just bent over backwards for Kossack, who obviously has no right to participate for the next 48 hours. I hope the courtesy is appreciated. Noroton (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Everyone's opinion is important. The only difference here is that Kossack will have to make his opinion known on his talk page and someone else will need to transfer it to this discussion page until his block ends. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill add further comments to his talk page and ill put it on my watchlist. I have also emailed him to check his talk page, because of the block he might just be staying away and not know about all this. See here. Cheers — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to chime in to say that I completely agree with Realist2, Bobblehead, and Scjessey that we need to allow K4T a say in this. That way we can all get our opinions and concerns voiced and work towards an agreement. I also want to thank Norton for his comments and I hope that all of us can come to an understanding and work out a way to get this page back on track and into the Feature Status that it had been before the election campaign. I think that if we can keep level heads and work through this without a flurry of edit wars and accusations, then this can be done with little problems. Let's take what Scjessey has started and use it to work towards a consensus. Brothejr (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the editers vote providing a link from his talk page. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording Correction

"He is the first African American to win the nomination of any major American political party. "

Technically, he hasn't won it yet (as even stated in the prior sentence). Perhaps rephrase this to "He will be... "

How about... 'He is the first African-American presumptive presidential nominee'...? 'Presumptive presidential nominee' is what the mainstream media is currently calling Mr. McCain, prior to the official Republican political party convention coming up soon. It's probably not prudent to say 'win the nomination' yet in Mr. Obama's case, since the Democratic political convention has not yet taken place, so the results are not yet official at this time. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The media is also now referring to him as the presumptive nominee, until made official at the respective conventions. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another wording problem

We're calling him African-American. Except, he's half African-American and half white. I see this as erroneous reporting both here and in the press. It's like calling Tiger Woods African American (which he strongly protests). Maybe it might be proper to say "the first multiracial candidate to win..." It's certainly more correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to emulate the available reliable sources rather than undergoing a bit of WP:OR of our own and assuming that the reliable sources actually meant to say he's the first multiracial candidate...--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not OR. It's fact. The papers reporting him as african american have it wrong. Blindly following something that is factually incorrect leads to the encyclopedia being wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can do it next to a reliable, mainstream citation, I'd also rather call him "the first multiracial candidate". However, as it goes in American discourse, "African-American" is already a word for "multiracial" (almost all African-Americans, unless they are first-generation immigrant, have European ancestors too). But Obama is an especially clear case of the poverty of the discourse, since he has one parent actually born in Africa, and another who was of predominantly European ancestry (as opposed to a broad mixture at many generations back). LotLE×talk 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article shouldn't really try to undertake the faulty discourse of race within the US. That being said we are bound by verifiability and at this point, the only thing I've seen is that Obama is the "first African-American", not the "first multi-racial" so to claim that he is such is the very definition of WP:OR, because in order to reach that conclusion we must research that he is indeed, the first multi-racial candidate. Without a reliable source to back this up it is not verifiable. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's innumerable sources that note he had a white mother and a black father. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural perception etc.

The last section is rather glowing. Where's all the negative baggage associated with him? The article shouldn't dwell on the inane criticisms that others have lobbed Obama's way, but neither should it kick back and parrot the praise of his supporters. The section currently consists of unqualified praise, without pointing out that there are many, many people who don't like Obama precisely because of his "cultural image." Fishal (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

isnt not liking him because of his "cultural image" just a posh term for racism? 92.21.85.57 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For some, perhaps. But some also say that, since Barack's closest friends said to be academics and professionals (usually of the non-profit foundation type), he occasionally strikes a false chord when he's trying to appeal to Middle America common man types. David Paul Clune, author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma, writes, "Last year he responded to an Iowa farmers concerns about crop prices by asking if 'anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?'" — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fishal. The Cultural and Political Perception section does not at all portray a realistic picture. Possibly for the simple reason that it's outdated. Everything referenced in there comes from 2007 or earlier. Much has changed since then. To me, facts pertaining to the Wright, etc. controversies and reactions thereto by the public should, logically, be presented in that section. There should also be information concerning Obama's apparent lack of appeal to white working class males along with notably-sourced opinions concerning what might be the reason for that. Furthermore, there should be mention of and an expansion on the reactions to his "A More Perfect Union" speech. Perhaps by including these in this section, we could aid the consensus building process concerning how the Campaign and Personal/Early Life sections should be written.

Also, sorry for being MIA for the past few days. Am in the middle of moving. Should be on again Sunday. --Floorsheim (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was refering to the (IMO unfair but definitely real) perception of him as an "elitist liberal"-- the "arugula" comment, the "bitter" comment, and similar gaffes have cemented that image among plenty of Americans. The cover story of Time or Newsweek or one of those magazines was about exactly that a couple of weeks ago. If anyone has that, it could be used as a source. Fishal (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Presidential campaign section, paragraph 5

The fifth paragraph of this article's "Presidential campaign" section does a good & fair job of summarizing the evolution of Obama's relationship with Trinity United Church of Christ, but the Ayers plug in the middle of it was a ham-fisted insertion of a one-night debate mini-controversy the likes of which are far better suited for the campaign's sub-article. No one can argue that Stephanopoulos' Ayers question has come even remotely close to the coverage of Wright, Pflager, TUCC, etc -- one is a twenty-year card-carrying-member association which has had pervasive effects upon Obama and his campaign (certainly worthy of inclusion in Obama's biography), while the other barely lasted one news cycle. This is a POV weighting problem, and needs to be treated as such. Shem^(talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tally

There is a tally of votes. This is not accurate. Look at Ron Paul. 90% support him on the internet, 5% in reality. So we should use judgement, not voting. Tack69 (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

image

This section is not complete. Many images are not listed.

Positive: change, very good speaker, very smart in political strategy, very good when speaking from a podium, that he's wrongly called a Muslim.

Negative: elitest, limited foreign policy experience, relies on a teleprompter or gets flustered, not as good in a town hall format.

All these have reliable sources. Administrators wrote elsewhere that political commentary is ok if reliable sources are used.

So include all of these and more or consider not having any of it. Is there a concensus for including all images or just to include positive images. Tack69 (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Election to Senate, November 2004

The article should state, "He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote, opposed by a relatively weak candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2004)." 68.40.88.242 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It already states the margin of victory (see Barack Obama#U.S. Senate campaign), but eschews the POV "relatively weak candidate" language, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's mother race

I think it should be in the intro. His diversity is one of his defining characteristics. What does everyone think? JackWilliams (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would generally rather not mark race in first mention of mom and dad (actually, no one did so for dad, only nationality). I like the White Americans article well enough, but we don't generally do that for other politicians or bio subjects. However, I can see arguments both ways, so it's a weak disinclination in my mind. LotLE×talk 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, if we could introduce that link very concisely in "Early Life", but not in lead, I think that would be the right thing. LotLE×talk 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be in the intro. It wasn't noted anywhere in the article that Obama is half white. Xioyux (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a summary of Ann Dunham's ancestry in the early life section without mentioning the 'w' word. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My question would be why mention it all. His father's race is never mentioned, then why mention her race? Brothejr (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because, he's labeled African-American in the very onset of this travesty of an article. A myriad of people read just the first paragraph of this article and get misinformation. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He self-identifies as an African-American, so the introduction is correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because he self-identifies as it doesn't make it correct. If he called himself Asian, there would be some asterisk explaining it away. This has been worn throughout the discussion pages and you people still don't get it. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. How Obama describes himself or how the media describes him should not have precedence over the most accurate word to describe him in an encyclopedic article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP places a strong emphasis on verifiability, correct? And there's WP:OR, also. Given that, by logic, we are obligated to accept whatever the well-sourced sources are publishing, if we choose to accept their word. Thus, it is less about what I (or you or anyone) thinks is the best, most accurate word to describe Mr. Obama's ethnicity than it is about what has actually been widely published by reliable and verifiable sources.

At least, that's how I interpret this particular situation. Please note that I understand where you are coming from, but I am finding your position difficult to fully reconcile with WP policies and major/historical thrust. Correction welcomed. Cheers, 64.209.16.204 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs faster or more archiving

Wasn't sure if the bot was working because Mirzabot seemed to have stopped operating in the Hilary Clinton article - but can we either archive manually more discussion or speed up the automatic archiving of the talk page so to reduce the size given it is well over 400k (and increasing very fast by the hour) in order to reduce lagging/slowdowns on this page. I think it least 50% of the discussion can be archived without problem if not more with some discussion inactive since 10 days. Given the situation right now, this talk page will have a huge size which could cause even more major slowdowns. Also, maybe some of the discussion should be at other related articles instead of here. --JForget 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The archiving was at 7 days, but I've decreased it to 5. If you think it should be decreased further, go ahead. I think Misza is still working though. It came by just after midnight yesterday (UTC) and archived about 20k of text.[15] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will wait and see before thinking about decreasing it to 4. Thanks! But I'm not sure if the bot had archived all threads that were inactive for more then 7 days during the last operation yesterday - because i've seen inactive threads since the 24-26 still there, don't know if it is a bug or something. --JForget 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, no idea why the bot left those two behind, but I'm sure they'll be picked off in the next round of archiving.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems nothing has been archived last night and size has increase by 25k more since my last comment. I'm reducing the number of days to 4 for inactive topics. If nothing, I will move all discussions that are inactive since May 31 or perhaps as early as June 3.--JForget 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot has been doing perfectly well on its own, so please leave the archiving of this talk page alone. With such a popular article, the length of the talk page is always going to be greater than is desirable. Almost all sections are still active discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, it just chopped out one-third of the size recently. --JForget 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wright/TUCC declared primary season's dominant story by PEnJ

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has named Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ the most dominant issue of this primary season's media coverage (worth taking the time to read). I'd say we can safely retire most of the Wright/TUCC debate to pasture. Shem^(talk) 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wright shouldn't be controversal to include but it has to be done very carefully to keep it within NPOV. That's the only problem and challenge I see. --Floridianed (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

IPA name pronunciation

Forgive me the X-SAMPA, or more accurately CXS, but I can't type IPA easily on this keyboard. Anyway, his first name is transcribed as [b@'ra:k], which looks outright wrong, as no major stabdard dialect of English afaik has [a:] (some British accents do, but they're not standard). From [16], assuming that the author has the father-bother merger, his first name should probably be transcribed [b@'rA:k] (which, incidentally, isn't now British newsreaders, and thus most British people, pronounce it; they always say [b@'rak]). His middle name seems to also have a rather different one than I'm used to ([h@sein]), but this could just be the subcontinental pronunciation. But the transcription of the last name definitely seems wrong too: it uses [a:], but also has final [a], which is impossible because /a/ is a lax consonant and can't be in an open syllable. From the linked reference, I can guess it should be [oU'bA:m@], but it's less clear. I use this transcription because that's also how all the newsreaders say it, so it has some currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.35.238 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

liberal views

Obama is noted in the media for his liberal leaning viewpoints. Other editors seem to have a problem with the use of "liberal" or "left" in noting Obama's political views. I believe that relevant adjectives that can be backed up or are common knowledge are fair game when describing a politician's views. Ronald Reagan was labled "right wing". I see no reason why the same would not apply to Obama as "left wing".

I'm not sure it's so simple, given that many conservatives use the term "liberal" as a pejorative rather than a simple descriptor. Depending on the connotation, this may not be NPOV. And I'm not confident that either "liberal" or "conservative" is well defined enough in American politics that we can say that Barack (or anyone else) is the most liberal (or conservative) member of any governmental body. If that's the case, the statement in question means whatever you want it to mean.

Regardless, I can't see where the MSNBC piece provides adequate support for any contention that Barack is the most liberal member of the 109th Congress. Misslauren (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The MSNBC piece was for his voting record in 2007, which is the first year of the 110th Congress. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In the openning section of the John McCain Wikipedia page it clear denotes him as being conservative. Why would it then not be fair to label Barak Obama as liberal? 207.114.206.48 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion in "Christian Converts" Category?

I removed Obama from the category "converts to Christianity" and it should not be replaced, unless someone can add a fully cited reference to this so-called conversion. I believe he is being included in that category specifically to try to categorize him as growing up something other than Christian, or as a non-christian. He has made many statements about his beliefs, but it's not fair to try to lump him into anyone's religious corner. A lot of non-supporters would likely want to paint Obama as a "former muslim"; in the same vein, a lot of Christian supporters might want to call him a "convert to their own faith". Then there's also the possibility of those who, for different motivation, want to categorize him as "not a true Christian, because he is from a Muslim background." Hence, I removed him - I don't think he fits into the category, and I think the category itself is extremely faulty. Dmodlin71 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Right - it is wrong and has been removed numerous times before. Thanks for catching it again. Tvoz/talk 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the category was being used to insinuate Obama was a "former Muslim" (a familiar subject of chain mail smears). Instead, I think it only refers to his statements that he did not grow up in a religious home, and that his parents were confirmed atheists. That fact is discussed in the bio already. I think it's a fairly silly category either way, but I assume good faith about its reason for placement, which seems supportable. LotLE×talk 18:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lulu, I didn't comment on the motivation of whoever added the category - I haven't taken the time to see who and how it got there this time - but I disagree with any assertion that he "converted" to Christianity. He was raised by his grandparents who were Christian, and his mother who was a Christian-born non-believer. It was apparently a non-religious home. His embrace of Christianity as an adult is not a conversion, it is merely an embrace of the religious background he already had. Changing from one religion to another would properly be called a conversion, not this - so including him in this category raises more questions than it answers and should not be there. Tvoz/talk 04:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Category:United Church of Christ members may need to be removed as per Obama's recent resignation from that congregation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast! I think the category reasonably includes former members, which is a more encyclopedic approach. I note, for example, that Hubert Humphrey is in the category and I'm pretty sure he's not on the membership rolls right now.Wikidemo (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Darn right not so fast! He left the congregation. That doesn't mean he left the denomination. Those are totally different decisions. Proof, please. Noroton (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Righto, it is very important to note that Sen. Obama has not left the Christian faith, nor the United Church of Christ denomination. He only did resign his membership from his former church amid all the controversy ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So first, I don't particularly care whether the article stays in the category or not. But I'd just point out that being in the UCC is not like being a Catholic, where your faith identity is tied to the denomination. The distinction between the UCC and the rest of mainline Protestantism is organizational, not doctrinal (in fact, strictly speaking, the UCC, as a "covenant church", has no doctrine at all -- at least, none that its members are required to accept). A UCC member who moves to another town might happily join, say, a Presbyterian or Methodist congregation, and not feel that he has changed his religious identity at all. So I'm not sure there's really any distinction between being a member of the UCC denomination and being a member of a UCC congregation. --Trovatore (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe in most Protestant denominations one doesn't become an actual, recognized Christian until one is confirmed (junior high school age) which happens after taking weekly classes for a year. Would you consider all those a type of 'convert'? I'd leave 'convert' to others. Flatterworld (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Doublespeak of equating bombing with activism offensive

Michael Kinsley ironically relates that Dohrn and Ayers "write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as 'activists' who have never abandoned their noble ideals." An encyclopedia can do better. I've boldly edited Ayers' mainspace description to read former radical activists Ayers. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Justme... Please do not edit the sentence(s) referring to Ayers until consensus is reached on the wording. If you have concerns about how Ayers is referred to in the article, the proper venue is to do so in the discussion about Bill Ayers. There are limits to WP:BOLD and one of those is that you shouldn't be editing a problematic area of an article while discussion about the area is in progress. I'd ask Andy to do the same, but I know that will fall on deaf ears. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you bobble your head back at Bobblehead, note that ALL mention of Ayers has been removed from the article, and not by me. Andyvphil (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Obama campaign volunteers are continuing their round the clock efforts to airbrush this biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments like that, and coining phrases like "Obama campaign volunteers" to describe editors who do not support your attacks on the candidate, are disruptive and unhelpful. If you are going to comment here could you please confine your comments to efforts to improve the article? That is, if you are not another user sockpuppeting in the first place. Wikidemo (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The people "attacking the candidate" are mainstream news media. We're just trying to be sure that it isn't whitewashed out of this article by the Obama fanboys. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama qualifies as a convert to Christianity

The fact that Obama did not belong to another religion prior to his becoming a Christian doesn't change the fact that he was not raised a Christian, but subsequently became one. And that seems to be the only requirement Wikipedia is using to determine who is a "convert": you needn't have "switched" from a different religion.

Obama was baptized in 1988, at age 27; he first began attending Church at around the same time. There is no indication that he ever had even an inkling of faith in the divinity of Jesus beforehand; we don't even know if he believed in God. His own writings and public statements prove beyond reasonable doubt that he became a Christian in his late 20s, which makes him a convert to Christianity.

Note that baptism varies between Christian groups - not all baptise at birth or regard it as particularly important. Conversion generally indicates a change in religious identity, not just a development or strengthening. The way I interpret the word Obama could convert to Christianity if he had been an avowed atheist as a child, but not if he was simply uninterested in religion. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I am both a non-Christian and an Obama-supporter, it seems clear to me that if not just people like Pocahontas and Cyprian, but also people like Gabriel Marcel and William J. Murray, are included in Category:Converts to Christianity and its subsategories, then Obama unambiguously belongs in the category as well. Besides, he's already listed on List of people who converted to Christianity. We should not be inconsistent in what we report, nor should we allow our political agendas (which seem to have motivated some of us to obscure Obama's nonreligious background in order to defend against ridiculous accusations of an Islamic upbringing) to cause us to hide the facts. -Silence (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. Please be WP:BOLD, and add back the cat. FWIW, I'm also certainly no Xtian... I'm not an Obama-supporter either (and actually think religion reflects badly on him); but neither am I one of the rabid Obama-haters who populate this talk page. I am pro-encyclopedia, and the cat matches. LotLE×talk 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That category would be over-inclusive, then, because it would probably mean half of all Christians in the United States. Moreover, it's inflammatory as applied to Barak Obama, whether intended as such or not, given attempts to disparage him for supposedly being Muslim. Wikidemo (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wikidemo here. In fact, since people are not born with religion (it is acquired, not inherited) you would have to include every Christian in that category, if you used the same rationale. That category should only apply to people who converted their religion to Christianity from something else. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is disingenuous, Scjessey. I'm an atheist like you, and I know perfectly well that people are not born with a religion. But there is a big difference between "converting to Xtianity (or whatever religion)" at 1-2 years old, and doing so at 27 y.o. By the criterion of "joined religion as an adult", certainly not half, nor even 2% of Americans are converts. The category clearly includes various people who joined the religion after having no religion previously.

Btw, to Wikidemo. I realize that there is an urban legend that circulates widely about Obama being or having been a Muslim. That fact is unfortunate, and shows either too much stupidity or too much credulity among too many people. At the same time, we can't make editorial decisions based on the chance (even likelihood) that a reader "might make the wrong assumptions" about an indicated fact. Our job isn't to give readers a kick in the direction of truth, but only to present information neutrally, and let them work out what it means. LotLE×talk 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the category shouldn't exist, because it is confusing and ambiguous. The word "convert" implies there has been a change from one form to another. In the case of Obama, this could misleadingly imply that he converted from Islam to Christianity - helping to perpetuate a myth. It would be safer to leave him out of this category. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to "present information neutrally", categorize him simply as a "Christian" and then let the text of the BLP offer up the additional details that one might be seeking. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not particularly fond of categories at all, but inasmuch as they are used, the converts thing does match. I agree that the main text does a good job already. But then, the main text also does a good job of explaining "African-American" (another niggly category subject to some discussion here), or "Irish-American", or "Senator", or "Presidential Candidate". Despite those things being discussed more fully in the main text, they still get categories; the value perceive in categories is not that they present information missing in body text, but perhaps that they point readers towards reading the main text for more information about that categorized attribute. LotLE×talk 18:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, every theist is a convert because nobody is born religious.--Svetovid (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read above discussion. LotLE×talk 18:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But Lulu, one cannot become a Christian (by evangelical standards) without repenting of one's sins and acknowledging Jesus Christ as one's savior (a.k.a. "getting saved"). The very act of accepting Christian salvation is a "conversion" for every single person who says the sinner's prayer. I find the category itself inherently dubious; what age of accepting Christ and "getting saved" is the cut-off for being a "normal" Christian versus a convert? Is someone who "gets saved" at age 14 a "normal" Christian or a convert? Age 16? Age 18? Shem^(talk) 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be three objections to including the category:

1. The category is inflammatory because people will misinterpret it as suggesting that Obama was a Muslim.
   • Nothing about the category implies what Obama converted from (in this case, nonreligion). If a handful of readers bring their own biases and prejudices to the matter—and I find it unlikely that many readers will go to such trouble to scour Obama's many categories who haven't also taken the trouble to skim the article and realize he's never been a Muslim—then it is their loss. Our job is to provide readers with information, not to hide valid information for fear of its consequences.
2. Nobody is born a Christian, so everybody could be classified as a "convert to Christianity".
   • Specious argument. Being brought up in a religion is not the same thing as making a conscious, deliberate decision to convert to one as an adult. The fact that neither is a "default state" does not justify equating the two. And it matters little in practice what age distinguishes the two, since regardless of the vagaries of age of maturity and the like, no one would argue that a 27- or 28-year-old doesn't meet that threshold. So the issue is moot.
3. Category:Converts to Christianity (and presumably List of people who converted to Christianity, which already lists Obama!) is a flawed category because of the ambiguity of the word "convert".
   • Nobody seems to have had a problem with it before. The term actually is quite clear: it means that someone chose to adopt a certain religion at some point in their life. The category's been around for over 2 years, and is quite valuable as a resource, without specifying what the members were before they became Christians.

If you think the category is inherently unusable, then nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, it belongs on Obama's page as much as anyone's. -Silence (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources I've read say that Obama was raised a Christian by a Christian mother. I have a quote here from Barack Obama saying "I've always been a Christian"[17] The talk discussion above said not to re-add this until someone produced a source for the 'conversion'. Anybody got a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama was campaigning in the Bible Belt (South Carolina) when he said that, and he was lying. See Ann Dunham, or the history thereof if someone's mucked with it since I last looked. Andyvphil (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

C'mon. The article itself explains well that Obama was raised non-religiously. I guess there's some room for argument that "convert" is supposed to mean "...from a different religion" (though that's not in the category description). But let's not invent a Xtian upbringing that didn't exist (and isn't suggested by the link you give). LotLE×talk 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I'd never seen the article Wnt just linked. Knowing that, I don't think we can include the "converts" category when Obama has gone on the record saying "My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married, and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So I’ve always been a Christian." Shem^(talk) 20:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Except Obama contradicts himself in his book when he says his mother was more of a spiritualist than anything and Maya has previously characterized her as agnostic.[18] Ann's parents were Christians and she was raised a Christian, but it is unclear if Ann was a Christian by the time she had and raised Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Agnosticism and theism aren't mutually exclusive. Shem^(talk) 21:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is an isolated and obscure blog that reports a casual offhand comment in a restaurant. You and I know perfectly well that the context was just Obama distinguishing himself from the rumors of a Muslim background. If this "shocking" new information actually meant Obama was raised Xtain, we should change the Early Life section to reflect the new information... but in reality, you know we shouldn't do that. I understand perfectly well that a number of editors don't want the category because of a possibility (likelihood) that someone will misunderstand it as asserting a Muslim background... but let's not be dishonest in spinning unreliable information. LotLE×talk 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Isolated and obscure blog"? You mean CNN? The article bears the byline "--–CNN Iowa Producer Chris Welch". It is dated December 23 2007. Now there's a difference between an offhand comment at a restaurant and an offhand comment at a restaurant in Iowa at the time of the first primary election in front of a CNN Iowa producer. Wnt (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say CNN's Political Ticker is obscure -- it's the official political blog of a major reliable news network, and all its stories are attributed to notable analysts or journalists. It's not an encyclopedia's job to determine what Obama's intent was when he said "I've always been a Christian," but that's what he said, and CNN's Chris Welch was apparently there to record it. Shem^(talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference is between "cultural" Christianity and actual faith in Christ in the evangelical sense. From the context, Barack was obviously saying that he was raised in a nominally Christian home. His mother was from a Christian family. They observed Christian observances. Then, at some point in his life, outside of the scope of the statement "I've always been a Christian," Barack Obama was led to give his heart to Christ. At that point, he became a Christian in the evangelical sense of the word (having a saving faith in Christ). That is a conversion. Every person who is a Christian (not the "cultural" sense of the world) has experienced a conversion because there was a time that they placed their faith in Christ. Now, that said, unless Obama describes his experience as a "conversion", there is no logical reason whatsoever for the article to say he was converted. There is nothing more offensive than someone telling you what you believe or telling you what your religion is. If Obama says that he "converted", then that's the terminology the article should use. If he does not, then we should not put words into his mouth. --B (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit convinced by Wnt's observation above about becoming Xtian after being more-or-less indifferent as a child/young-adult, and becoming one after being stridently atheist before that. I'm still not impressed by the offhand coffee shop comment (not even in Iowa before the primary). However, there's definitely a big difference between William J. Murray and Obama in this regard. In any case, I've never inserted the category on the article, and don't plan to myself (even while still leaning slightly towards its appropriateness).

As to B's comment about the evangelical stuff: that's pretty specific to a certain collection of denominations, Catholics and many non-evangelical Protestant groups pretty much just being born in the faith, and remaining there unless something specific is done to leave it. A Catholic, for example, is supposed to do various things (attend mass, confess, lay off the sins, etc), but someone who doesn't do that is still generally considered a Catholic if they don't get excommunicated or become Muslim (or become vocally athiest, etc). LotLE×talk 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was in the run up to South Carolina, and the article where I saw the comment didn't specify the state,[19], so I had assumed it was in SC, but the coffee shop was actually in Oskaloosa, Iowa. But Ann Dunham had been an outspoken atheist before Obama was born and there is no one who says she converted, so Obama was fibbing. Andyvphil (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just say no to dedicated "controversy" sections

His immediate resumption of edit warring aside, Kossak4Truth's recent alteration of the article's section titles pretty clearly constitutes an attempt at creating a dedicated "Controversy" section; this article's FA status rests partly upon its avoidance of such poorly written features, nor should we depart from that standard with a section titled "Wright, Ayers and later primaries." Shem^(talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to revert that, not only is the wording of it seriously NPOV, but some of the "details" he claims were deleted weren't mentioned in the source (asking price of rezkos home) and mention of the fact that the seller wanted to sell both at the same time was no where to be found. I'm not quite sure why people go on crusades to try and defame political candidates on wikipedia, its not like the average voter uses wikipedia as their only guide when looking up a candidate. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. His edit-warring is beyond tedious ((and this applies to the two or three other editors who have the same agenda). There is no majority, much less consensus, for what he wants to add but he now bizarrely claims that the lack of consensus means that his version gets to be put in there until consensus can be reached. This, coupled with the fact that he long ago decided never to assume good faith anymore and to refer to anyone who reverts his tendentious edits as an "Obama campaign worker" make him one of the most most disruptive editors of this article, just a few steps shy of a vandal. --Loonymonkey (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If your problem is with sourcing, I can easily find very reliable sources proving all that. I will direct everyone's attention to this portion of the Wikipedia essay cited by Floorsheim: Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Rezko belongs in the article, and additional context is needed. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

From the essay: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Shem^(talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[out] Strongly adding my voice against adding a controversy section - that battle has been fought and won many times over on many articles. It is poor writing and a POV playground. Tvoz/talk 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)