Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 15

Link change request: Lobbying in the United States to Israel lobby in the United States
In the "political advocacy" section on Barack Obama's page there is a sentence in the 8th paragraph that reads:


 * In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that while the U.S. "should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

Currently, it is the term "lobby" in the above sentence that is linked to the article "Lobbying in the United States." I would recommend that it is better to link the whole phrase "pro-Israel lobby" to the better developed and more appropriate article "Israel lobby in the United States." The end result would then read and look like:


 * In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that while the U.S. "should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

--Lucretius (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to make this change if Andyvphil doesn't think it would be a "misuse of protected status" (see discussion above). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good Josiah. I appreciate the attention as there really is a lot going on here on this particular talk page.  --Lucretius (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Am going to demur on the merits here. The AIPAC link will already take you into the subject of the pro-Israel lobby, i.e. the application level of the term. I think the "lobby" link is better used to link to the definintional level, Lobbying or Advocacy group. Or maybe three links, with "pro-Israel" linking to Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States. Andyvphil (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. "In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, ..." might work, but it might be overlinking.  Anyone else have an opinion on this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I attempted to make the change as I would have if the page wasn't locked as it was earlier. This change makes sense to me because it is linking the main term in this articles embedded short description of AIPAC, "a pro-Israel lobby."  But now that I've said my piece and tried to be WP:BOLD, I'll back off now.  This is a minor issue anyhow.  --Lucretius (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Professor-level title"
Describing his position as "professor-level" is deceptive, at best, and in well in line with the heavily pro-Obama stance of this article that edits out his many negatives and sends them off to obscure articles that people are less likely to read.

If you look at the wikipedia article on professors, in the US, then it is clear that he doesn't qualify since he lacks not only a PhD, but a Masters as well. His JD is a professional degree, not an academic one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

"Professor-level" needs to be removed from this biased article. Thegoodlocust (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the basics of how Wikipedia works - we strive to keep articles at a manageable size, and big topics such as this biography will always have daughter articles that go into more detail than the main article can. This is just as true for Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain,  so stop accusing the hard-working editors here of bias, or of being deceptive or  pro-anything. It is insulting, uncalled for, and against a prime tenet of our collaborative editing, which is to assume good faith.  But I am finding it hard, myself, to apply that principle to your comments, I must admit.  (By the way, many law school professors do not have PhDs. But don't be distracted by facts.)  Tvoz | talk 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [ec]:And, by the way, rather than looking at the Wikipedia article on professors, try reading what the University of Chicago Law School has to say about Obama's status in their school - here. Your apology for the above will be forthcoming I'm sure. Tvoz | talk 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The facts are that most Law professors have an advanced degree in law or substantial experience as a lawyer - Barack's 3 years of part-time work as a lawyer do not qualify him. UoC is being polite in calling him a professor and trying to kill the controversy, but it is clear he is in no way qualified to be a professor. More to the point, there is no reason to call his position "professor-level" other than to pander to his campaign which has come under fire for the "liberal" use of the term when refering to Barack. Thegoodlocust (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it isn't for you to decide how the Unversity names their faculty. Next time, I'll make sure they call you beforehand.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 04:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Locust, do you have a reliable source indicating something contrary to what the University of Chicago says about its own faculty positions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * UoC refering to him as a professor in a press release isn't reliable. You may as well ask a wife to testify against her husband for murder - sure she can, but she doesn't have to and she may have a strong bias to protect her husband.


 * The article you cite doesn't refer to his position as "professor-level" it said it "signifies adjunct status", but if that was the case then why didn't he HAVE adjunct status? The term can be confusing since "professor" is sometimes used as a term of respect.


 * However, the main point is this, there is NO REASON to put "professor-level" in there, especially when you guys are saying the article needs to be limited in length. It inserts bias, and it is controversial. It is really quite simple - just use his official title at the time. Anything else is simply pro-Obama propaganda. Thegoodlocust (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there's no reason to put "professor-level" when they do in fact say he was a professor. I'm continuted amazed at the anti-Obama crowd that think replacing what they allege is POV with their POV suddenly makes in neutral.  Grsz   11  04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are rewriting history and taking their definition of professor, which is at odds with the unbiased definition hopefully provided by wikipedia. You are ignoring the argument and adding necessary and controversial adjectives to describe his former job.
 * Professor - "Someone who does not have a permanent position at the academic institution. This may be someone with a job outside the academic institution teaching courses in a specialized field; or it may refer to persons hired to teach courses on a contractual basis (frequently renewable contracts). It is generally a part-time position..."  Grsz  ' 11 ' 06:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All across the internet the Obama crowd is in full force. I joined a couple of discussions on IMDB, and on their Barack Obama board they would delete all news articles or polls that cast Obama in a negative light. You are too biased to even admit there is no reason to add such unnecessary descriptors.


 * If we feel the need to add such unnecessary descriptors, then why don't we add the fact that he was a PART-TIME senior lecturer (as shown by the article you provided)? Why don't we mention that he worked less than 2 months a year as a state senator? Why don't we mention that he never went to trial as a lawyer? Why is there no reference in this article to how he knocked off every name on the ballot to get elected (unopposed) when he first ran as State Senator? Aren't those things more important than grasping onto the "professor-level" descriptor? Of course not, because that information doesn't cast him in a positive light.
 * How is what is written now any more unnecessary than what you would want? I'm sorry that you have a problem with reliable sources, but I'm fairly certain we can categorize the University as such, and provide what they title him as here.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The funny thing is, when you look at the history, people were asking where the "controversy" section for this article was, and the response was that there was no controversy. Now, the bar has been moved, the criteria have changed, and all controversy is shuffled off to other areas because there is "no room" here. Bull.
 * That's not true and you know it. You twist other's words to fit your own POV. The Wright issue has been sufficiently addressed.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article should have a NPOV tag, but it has obviously been taken over by his fanatical followers or workers at his campaign office like nearly every other site on the internet.Thegoodlocust (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, replacing what you call a POV with another biased POV does not make it neutral, sorry to dissappoint.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wanting to remove an unnecessary and controversial adjective isn't POV. Your argument is identical to those that say atheist is a religion. Removing the descriptor removes the POV, it doesn't add one.Thegoodlocust (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * More to the point, the University of Chicago Law School has said explicitly that "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track" and noted that "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." (Emphasis added.) "Professor-level" was an attempt to reflect this succinctly.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very easy for you to throw out your criticism with no supporting evidence (as your first edit, if I might add) and run away. Instead of insulting other editors, why don't you come back and try to provide your argument with some substinence. If not, you're just another POV-troll and/or sockpuppet.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 03:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I brought this question up in the first place (March 28), came back to check the status - and found this 'discussion' minus my post. Great "assume good faith" work, guys - no wonder this page is always locked. Whatever you do (as I have neither the time nor inclination to check this page every five minutes), I expect you to include this as a footnote: Univerity of Chicago Statement Regarding Professor Barack Obama Surely the U of C should be considered the expert when it comes to their own academic terms! I would expect you to either use his official title (Senior Lecturer, with caps) or his informal title (a professor, without caps). I consider 'professor-level' to be a swoose. Flatterworld (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What does "swooze" mean? It's not in my dictionary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (By the way, Flatterworld, the previous discussion you made was deleted last night by MiszaBot: . I'm not sure why it wasn't moved to the latest archive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A swoose is "not a swan and not a goose". iow, a meaningless thing. Obama was "a professor" or he was a "Senior Lecturer", but there's no such thing as a "professor-level" person. While you're at it, you may want to reflect that in a short article, the most important point is the subject we was teaching: Constitutional Law (for ten years) - not what his precise title was or wasn't, and whether or not each and every law school uses the same definition. Relevancy first! In the lead paragraph, use "university lecturer in constitutional law". Then in the Early life paragraph, perhaps replace "He was also a lecturer of constitutional law..." with "He taught constitutional law" because you provide his Senior Lecturer title afterwards. Flatterworld (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. That makes some sense.  (Although my understanding is that he taught at the Law School, and to American ears "university lecturer" could be interpreted as an undergraduate instructor.)  I was the one who inserted the term "professor-level", and I did it in an effort to summarize the Law School's statement:"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as 'Senior Lecturer.' From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
 * I thought that "professor-level" was equivalent to "regarded as professors". If in my attempt to introduce precision and accuracy I instead introduced confusion, I apologize.  Unfortunately, although as an administrator I have the capability to edit the page while it's protected, I'm refraining from doing so at the moment because the last significant edit I made was challenged.  So we'll have to wait until either the page is unprotected or another administrator comes along before we can introduce a more felicitous phrasing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the wiki article on professors, it says that sometimes it is used as a "polite form of address" for lecturers. I think when they said, "regarded as professors" then they may have been refering to this meaning of the word. Thegoodlocust (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Except we aren't saying he was a professor. The article says professor-level. And you point out the Unversity's statement, which says: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." . . . "He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year." If teaching three courses doesn't make him a professor, pray tell me what does!  Grsz  ' 11 ' 03:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also: "The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status." - meaning adjunct professor. A professor that doesn't hold a full-time position. It's clear you didn't even read the article.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Grsz11, please take a deep breath and then read what I wrote, as opposed to what you apparently expected to read.Flatterworld (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the grizza is probably just having a hard time figuring out who is flaming and who is serious, considering that the five million dollar loan seems to have gone directly to spamming this talk page... anyways flatterworld, you seem to be the only outside editor who seems to have an legitimate opinion on this. You seem to advocate simple accuracy, whether it be "lecturer" or "professor"- and I think some of the problem is that "professor" has two definitions. like someone said before, upper case (someone with a PhD) and lower case (someone who teaches at a US college or a University). So you're right we need to choose one and stick with it. I think the problem centers round the extremely loose UC press release which the editors are (and should) be using to generate this text. Personally I think lecturer is fine, although I understand the view that this maybe does not give adequate weight to someone who taught for 12 years and was offered tenure track repeatedly. So that's where "professor-level" comes from which I think is getting a bit overly-maligned right about now. Because UC itself calls him a professor, and all the hordes of pro-Obama zombies could conceivably close ranks around that perhaps less-accurate, but totally sourced term, if they existed lol. However instead we see the regular editors using less-praiseful language specifically to present the most clear version (one extra word BTW)- so the post and run crowd needs to stop throwing around the letters POV like its their first day in alphabet class please. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * UC is using the term professor, but they are only using it now after Obama received negative press on the subject. It is pretty easy to look up other professors of law and their qualifications - Obama doesn't have an advanced degree in law, nor does he have any great or lengthy experience as a lawyer to make up for that deficiency. He has either no or very few academic writings - which is a main component of academia, regardless of your field. Calling a part-time lecturer "professor-level" is unnecessary and a misleading boost to his credentials. Thegoodlocust (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you're welcome to provide a reliable source that indicates he received this title whereas others in an equivalent position did not. Otherwise, you saying he isn't is original research.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me to provide. You keep on making the claim he is "professor-level" but this phrase appears nowhere in any source you have mentioned. You provided this claim - you provide the proof. Showing the respectful use of the term "professor" does not mean or imply he is "professor-level" - this term is non-existent. Thegoodlocust (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the U of C: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Professor-level is implying even less than they claim.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep ignoring what I'm saying - in that instance they are using "professor" as a respectful way of referring to a lecturer. This is STATED as a use in the wiki article on professors. His actual title though, was Senior Lecturer, and he doesn't have the advanced degree or experience necessary to be considered a professor or "professor-level" - just read the article on professors and their requirements instead of ignoring what I'm writing and being obtuse. Thegoodlocust (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? The Wikipedia article says: Professor - "Someone who does not have a permanent position at the academic institution. This may be someone with a job outside the academic institution teaching courses in a specialized field; or it may refer to persons hired to teach courses on a contractual basis (frequently renewable contracts). It is generally a part-time position..."  Grsz  ' 11 ' 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude just read the article it says, "individuals often use the term professor as a polite form of address for any lecturer." Even that biased press release only had enough balls to "signify" his adjunct status. Signify means to imply and implying something is different than stating something. Shouldn't this article be as accurate as possible? If we wrote down everything that was "implied" then we'd have his listed as a Nation of Islam.Thegoodlocust (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For this summary section, how about we try:

He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.[21]

There's a whole other article for including any further specifics that are deemed notable. --HailFire (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There shouldn't be an argument over removed such unnecessary and controversial descriptors. Thegoodlocust (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As the editor who introduced the phrase "professor-level title", I'm happy to go with HailFire's suggestion of leaving the details to Early life and career of Barack Obama. I still don't think that the phrase should be controversial, but the "Early life" article has more room, and we can go into details there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. Tvoz | talk 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, another alternative is to use the wording of UofC press release and say that from 1992 to 2004 Obama was a non-tenured professor and leave it up to the early life and career article to detail that from 1992 to 1996 he was a Lecturer and from 1996 to 2004 he was a Senior Lecturer. I have no idea why we're giving into what is obviously a POV pushing sockpuppet on this. We have a reliable source that supports calling Obama a professor and he's got a pile of POV BS that is not supported by any reliable sources. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It says he was "regarded" as a professor it doesn't say he was a "non-tenured Professor" - you keep reading and adding into it. It is simple enough for a child to understand - refer to him by his official title - no more and no less. And quit insulting me as a new user - all my sources are well-regarded.Thegoodlocust (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not provided a single reliable source (follow the link and read what qualifies) that says that Barack Obama was anything but a non-tenured professor at UofC. As for what UofC said, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." I think that is pretty clear on Obama's status according to UofC. The addition of non-tenured was an attempt on my attempt to dodge what I was sure you would counter with. But if you'd prefer, we can stick directly with that the UofC says and just say that from 1992 to 2004 he was a professor at the UofC. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bobblehead, remain civil and assume good faith. Thegoodlocust, you're clearly familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices, so you should understand why some users are suspicious of a new account who dives into a fractious talk page debate already knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia.  It's not appropriate for Bobblehead to call you a sockpuppet, but since you clearly have Wikipedia experience it would be easier to trust your intentions if you edited from an established account or IP.


 * Incidentally, I don't think you've introduced any sources opposing the account given by the University of Chicago. I've put a more detailed account of Obama's teaching career at Early life and career of Barack Obama; given that, I support HailFire's suggestion that we can leave the wording for this article as "taught".  Anti-Obama editors will object to the term "professor" (even though it's supported by the University's statement), and pro-Obama editors may object to its absence (as calling him solely "lecturer" might be read as supporting the claim that he wasn't really a professor).  What's wrong with leaving the details in the spin-out article, where there's room for them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've provided a source - the wikipedia articles on lecturers and professors. They say professor can be used as a respectful way of refering to a lecturer. This is what UC did. Those articles also clearly state the requirements for being a professor - Phd or occasionally a Masters. Barack doesn't have the equivalent degrees for Law, and he doesn't have a prior extensive legal career that would otherwise justify the title (he only practiced law for 3 years and never even went to trial). If you want to put the details in the spin out article then fine, but I object to "professor-level" which is a misunderstanding or misrepresentaion of a short press release from a biased source. Thegoodlocust (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Like I said.. A reliable source. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is a self-published source. The Truth, unfortunately, is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The only things that matter are verifiability, No original research, and neutral point of view. Your opinion of what is required to be a professor and using articles on Wikipedia to support these claims violates at a minimum the verifiability and no original research policies. Seriously, mate, you're just being disruptive here. Until you can find a source that meets Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable source criteria, you simply don't have a leg to stand on here. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professor "a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education." Barack Obama, while faculty, didn't have the highest academic rank (PhD or equivalent). Also, YOU are making the case that he is a professor, but you have only provided a biased source and you've misinterpreted and misrepresented what it says. You need to provide proof that he is "professor-level" in a formal sense, not just a respectful title.Thegoodlocust (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay... That would be a synthesis of published material to further a point. You can't do an "A+B=C" on Wikipedia, you actually have to find a source more reliable than Obama's employer that he was not a professor... --Bobblehead (rants) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I was providing a definition for "professor" - it is quite clear he doesn't meet that definition nor the ambiguous "professor-level." A press report from his alma mater is a biased source - you may has well ask his campaign press secretary if he'd make a good president. If you look at the other senior lecturers at Chicago ( http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/index.html ) then it is clear that most of them have advanced degrees in law, numerous academic writing on law or extensive experience in the field of law - Barack has neither of these things. In fact, if you look at the regular lecturers, then you'll find his experience more in line with those non-senior faculty. Thegoodlocust (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your assertion that the University of Chicago Law School is a biased source on a simple matter of fact such as who is and is not a professor at that institution, I think that HailFire's simple "taught" is sufficient for the summary in this article. Early life and career of Barack Obama has the details now. (I trust that nobody objects to the wording there, which simply says the titles he held and notes what the University says about them.) Can we drop this rather pedantic parsing of definitions and move on to more substantive issues, please? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any objection to adding "taught part-time" to his statement? TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for saying "part-time"? Not an interpretation of a definition, an actual source referring to Barack Obama's position as part-time? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun Times, and that press release people have been using from the university clearly states he didn't teach full time. If he didn't teach full time, then I can only assume he taught part-time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So were are talking about an implicit inference that he taught part-time, rather than some explicit factual data, correct? On that basis, I think it should be left as it is until such time the "part-time" status can be properly sourced. I'm not sure it's all that important anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude did you even read my sources? I took the time to find them so you could at least look at them before being dismissive. Both of my sources flat out say he worked part-time - they are both from respectable newspapers. I only mentioned the press release everyone ELSE had been using as a side note. If someone doesn't work full-time then they work part-time that part is pretty easy to understand. And yes I do think its important, I think there has been a strong bias to portray him as some great academic, and it is frankly offensive since he only worked part-time, didn't have an advanced degree and has never produced any academic writings TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Part-time
I would like to endorse the suggestion of TheGoodLocust that the term "part-time" be prepended to his description as a "lecturer of constitutional law". Therefore, the sentence in the "early life and career" section should read as follows:
 * "He was also a part-time lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, holding the professor-level title of Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004. "

-- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the sources provided by Thegoodlocust, I'll endorse adding "part-time" to either the existing version or HailFire's shorter version, which would then read:
 * "He also taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.  "
 * The three citations might seem like overkill, but I think that in this case it makes sense to show the different sources' viewpoints. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fool's joke

 * I've been waiting for that one.... but the problem is, sometimes it's hard to tell on this page. Tvoz | talk 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * may I suggest "Barack Obama, PhD"... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wny not "President Barack Obama". It'll save a rename later in the year. :-) DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, now, let's not be premature — Inauguration Day isn't until January 20, 2009. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgent! NPR wants to speak to the most prolific contributors here!
I'm handling an OTRS ticket from NPR and they're looking to get to speak to someone who has been involved with keeping this article reasonably professional and within project guidelines. I've no response from their first choice, an editor who seems to be taking a break from the stress right now. So, are there any other candidates - preferably US based - who'd be interested in talking to them? This would be Tomorrow morning US time. Short notice, I know, but if you're happy to share a phone number and email address I'll forward them on. Either email me via the "mail this user" link or at presswikimedia.org with the subject "RE: [Ticket#2008033110016646] NPR media request: editors info." --Brian McNeil /talk 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * *cough* User:HailFire *cough* --Bobblehead (rants) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I nominate Andy.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Though obsessively prolific, I don't think that anyone could reasonably argue that Andy has "has been involved with keeping this article reasonably professional and within project guidelines." Quite the opposite in fact.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm..am I the only one who thinks this is an April 1st joke? You guys aren't really taking this seriously are you? Thegoodlocust (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which part, the interview or suggesting Andy for it? Tvoz | talk 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NPR also contacted me but I can't do it (other commitments). They're specifically looking for someone who is allowing their obsession with Wikipedia to interfere with their real job. And they said that when you contact NPR, you should provide a password to be patched right through to the people working on this matter. The password is: "Afghanistan Bananistan."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * andy is already famous in another national interview, so who knows? I could be joke but then wikinews is in on it...

72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I turned down the radio interview on the basis that is was going to be at 7:00am (when I am barely functioning) and I thought my British accent might be an impediment to clear understanding. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My wiki-obsession is interfering with my schoolwork, well, more like school is interfering with Wiki.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've talked to the researcher, who contacted me without the ticket mumbo-jumbo. She said something about Thursday... She asked me if I thought of Tvoz as pro-Obama (she's obviously talked to Tvoz) and I had to say I wasn't much aware of Tvoz, but thought so. Asked me about interference with my life, but didn't pursue it that much. Maybe she got the quote she wanted early. Andyvphil (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm .... If you're not much aware of me, what gave you the idea that you should comment on whether I'm pro-Obama, whatever that means? Here's a suggestion:  next time say  "I don't know".  Tvoz | talk 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion: stifle any impulse you may have to suggest how I answer questions. I don't need or want your input. I said, accurately, that you hadn't made much of an impression, but the impression I did have is that is that you are sympathetic to the claque. Had I been online at the time and been able to review your contributions to this page I would have said it without reservation. Your censoring the POV-dispute-in-progress tag tells me all I need to know. Andyvphil (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * probably wouldn't worry what NPR hears third hand from andy about your political beliefs. PS- what page do you edit so much that NPR is wondering if you support Obama or not? Because I don't see you here or on BO 2008 a whole lot... since I have been watching at least. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[out] Nice to meet you - I've stayed out of some of the arguing lately, but I've been a contributor here since the end of 2006. Look at the page stats. And I wasn't worried, I was just pointing out that an acceptable answer to a question one doesn't have the answer to is "I don't know". Which he doesn't. Tvoz | talk 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, do we know when the story is likely to air, and on which NPR program? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Enjoy --Bobblehead (rants) 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool beans. Well done, Tvoz!  (And my apologies if I referred to you as "he" at some point!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (And if you did, I didn't notice.) Tvoz | talk 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving State Senate Section
The State Senate career of Barack Obama is woefully lacking. After all, it constitutes the majority of his political career (8 years), while his US Senate career, while more prestigious, has only been active since 2005. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Additions:

Barack Obama hired a lawyer, Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of all other candidates for the State Senate seat. They were knocked off the ballot, and he was therefore elected unopposed. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) A full mainstream story about how he won his State Senate seat in 1996 is referenced below the simple statement of fact. As with stories of other politicians' election results.

His legislative record should include a footnote that he was unable to get most of his sponsored legislation passed until the democrats took control of the state senate. In other words, most of his accomplishments were not bipartisan and the vast majority of his State Senate career was without significant accomplishment. Most of his major accomplishments were all completed in one year. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Statements of any politician's legislation in wikipedia can be cross-referenced with all information about the representation by parties in the poltician's political career. Links here contain many opinions of Mr. Obama's bipartisanship, or lack of it.

Maybe include a footnote about how the Majority Leader "made" or "groomed" Barack into a US Senator by buffing up his resume. He made him the sponsor of good-looking legislation that others had been working on for years. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) "buffing up a resume" is an unsourced potential defamation.67.163.141.14 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

May want to include the fact that it was a part-time job and didn't really require much of a commitment. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no necessary relationship between 'part-time' teaching and lack of commitment.67.163.141.14 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true in a mental sense, but I was meant "time commitment." Illinois State Senators have 52 scheduled work days for this year (08) - US Senate has around 215-230 workdays scheduled per year. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Modifications:

The wikipedia article states:

"As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws"

But the referenced source says:

"Along the way, he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform."

It seems to me that the ethics legislation was bipartisan, while the health-care reform was not. This is made more clear when you realize that the health care legislation he sponsored was when there was a democratic majority in the State Senate. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare." I'd like a better source for this sentence. The source states it, but it is vague. I'd like to know when, and specifically how he "negotiated" and "promoted." Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact when it said he sponsored the law for "low-income workers" my source says he "helped pass" it - not sponsor. In that same source it usually says he either sponsored or voted for specific legislation and I'd like to see what bill this was, when it was, and if he actually sponsored it. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-0704030881apr04,1,5477449.story http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you have a real ax to grind with Obama. The additions you are proposing are ridiculously POV and you seem to be seeking to add them, not to improve the article, but simply to support your views. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry the information doesn't please you but it is accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you have any problem with the information, or you think underhanded election tactics in his first foray into politics are unimportant then feel free to make the case. Facts aren't POV.Thegoodlocust (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but the selective emphasis of them can be. I don't have time to go over these sources right now, but you might want to wait until other disputes are resolved before suggesting major and controversial changes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. There is a strong and selective emphasis on Barack's accomplishments in state senate, but it doesn't mention how, why and when these were passed - I think that is quite relevant since it is the majority of his political experience. I was initially going to wait, but when I realized how long it was going to take for simple word changes to get resolved, then I figured I might as well get started on the major omissions in his record and hope his record can be accurately portrayed in a decent amount of time.Thegoodlocust (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * as usual with you: SPECIFICS PLEASE... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifics on what? It is plain to see that the vast majority of the article talks about his accomplishments, but omitts the controversy, at the time, of how he was really made the sponsor of those bills. Many of his fellow legislators were annoyed with what he did. This statements are sourced if you'd care to read the articles. It is disingenuous of the article to list a bunch of accomplishments when there is a real question about how much he actually contributed. I suggest you cool off and read the articles without the emotion that seems to be coming off you. Thegoodlocust (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * if you expect to be taken seriously (and I'm not sure you do right now) you need to put together some sort of draft- or make an actual edit on one of the un-protected sub-pages. Show your sources and your text, either here or there, because otherwise this is getting really old. people want specifics on what you are talking about- because it seems like you just want to change individual words in several individual sentences, a borderline POV problem itself. So if you care about getting this text added, and not just talk-page spam, then nut up. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I showed my sources and the general additions/modifications I'd like made. I separated them by my signature so people could discuss each claim individually. If you have a problem with a specific statement then say so there. All my information is in the sources provided. My hope was that after each point was discussed then the process of modifying the entire section could begin.Thegoodlocust (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that each of your proposed additions appear to be negatively-biased and unreferenced. It is like you made a wish list of bad things you want included, but without references to back them up. That's not the way we do things here. We like to present a neutral point of view with factual information of due weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposed additions have the references at the end - the only problem is that you have historically and repeatedly refused to read my sources. Everything I said was accurate and sourced, but this PROTECTED article has no problem including pointless praise like this, "An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world," the only politician included on the list."TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you are not understanding what I am saying, so let me make it more clear. If you want to make changes and additions the best way to do it is to put them on this talk page in the form you think they should be in, with the relevant references already in situ. You can see examples of this earlier in these comments. Once you have done that, people will be able to comment on your words, help you refine them or give you reasons why they think they are not appropriate. Respectfully, you must do your own muck raking. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By your own words, the number of "scheduled work days" for a State Senator is less than 25% of the scheduled work days of a US Senator.........So, by one measure you stress, his time as a State Senator is NOT the majority of his political career. (Although I think this is not an adequate way to measure the "work' of a State Senator---and irrelevant) 67.163.141.14 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are forgetting that is PER YEAR - he worked for about 8 years as a state senator. His US Senate career, or Presidential Campaign, whichever you want to call it, has been active since 2005. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not forgetting. less than 25% working time per year still means that 8 times State Senator career is less time, measured in work days, than his time as a US Senator.67.163.141.14 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it was actually 7 years not 8, but the point still stands. Apparently I was mentally reducing his US Senate term since he appears to have spent the majority of it campaigning. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is my rough draft for the new State Legislature Section:

State legislature Draft 1
Obama was elected unopposed to the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. His first foray into politics divided longtime political activists in Chicago when he challenged the nominating petitions of every other candidate, removing their names from the ballot, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, who was a veteran progressive activist in the area. [] [] In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002 (when the 13th District was redrawn to span Chicago lakefront neighborhoods from the Gold Coast south to South Chicago). In January 2003, Obama was appointed chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate. The new majority leader Emil Jones angered other, more senior legislators, when he appointed Obama the sponsor of important legislation they had been working on for years – substantially boosting his record in a single year. [] [] He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate. As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. Criticism of Obama voting “present” and pushing the wrong button when voting is generally flawed – such techniques are commonly employed in the Illinois State Senate and for a variety of reasons. []

TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the term "unopposed" should be added in the first sentence; however, I would object to the explanation of this that you added later because I believe the details of the nominating petition system of the Illinois State Senate are too specific for this biography, particularly when the wording implies Obama somehow gamed the system. Nor is it for a BLP to provide specifics about the incumbent (like the fact she was "popular" and a "veteran progressive activist") - such things would be for a biography of Alice Palmer (if such a thing existed). I also think the substitution of the final sentence on parental notification and late-term abortions in favor of an ambiguous sentence using the phrase "for a variety of reasons" is a bit strange, and I cannot imagine it would win much support in that form. So in summary, the only thing I would change from the existing section is the addition of "unopposed" to the text. I agree that this section probably needs more discussion though. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the nominating petition sentence is well-within the scope of this article. After all, his US Senate election has a very large section dedicated to it in this very article - explaining how he got elected unopposed is really small in comparison. It may sound like he "gamed" the system, but that is entirely the impression I got from reading the sourced articles and I could've expanded on it immensely instead of the blurb I used. I removed the last two sentences because they referred to his 2004 US Senate campaign - and I thought it was odd to include the fact that he was endorsed by a certain entity. Who endorsed him throughout his entire career, and why, is pretty irrelevant - especially since it wasn't for his state career. I accept that the last sentence can be improved and I am willing to briefly explain the "variety of reasons." TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, because his US Senate election actually had a campaign to describe, whereas his election to the State Senate was unopposed due to procedural maneuvering - there isn't really anything to talk about. If anything the US Senate campaign section needs to be cut down, or folded into the Senate career section. I imagine that this will probably happen in the future anyway, and perhaps be pushed into Early life and career of Barack Obama as details about his inevitable Presidency begin to take precedence. I agree that the penultimate sentence about the Fraternal Order of Police appears completely misplaced. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * His initial state senate campaign was quite interesting - my description of it was the essence of succinctness. The "procedural maneuvering" as you call it was initiated by Barack Obama, and it allowed him to get elected without anyone else on the ballot - this annoyed a lot of people in Chicago politics at the time. And yes, I do agree that the US Senate campaign should be cut down - especially since it links directly to the main article. I also think the giant promo for him, the 2004 keynote speech, should be drastically cut down to a sentence or two. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources do make clear that Barack obama initiated the petition challenges, but potential candidates would not have been eliminated had there not been real legal reasons. A lawyer was used, as you, thegoodlocust, have said and everything was done legallywhich must be conveyed in the article. Otherwise it would be like implying George Bush was elected for reasons that were not legal, despite the Supreme Court's decision. (judging that event is a separate article, for sure). 67.163.141.14 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the sources most of the candidates had twice the required signatures, but when Barack challenged the nominations, he used a very up-to-date list that knocked off many names. Many of those knocked off were only done so by about 50 signatures. I'm not sure why the legality needs to be conveyed, I didn't accuse him of doing anything illegal. I just said he challenged the nominating petitions - doesn't sound like a criminal accusation to me. I'm open to being convinced, but it seems unnecessary and a bit pandering to say, "well, he did such and such, but its okay to do it because its legal." The Church of Scientology has used the law as a weapon against people without the resources to defends themselves - just because it is legal doesn't make it right (which is what the implication would be if we added the "legal sidenote). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that your redone article has much in it that would improve the Obama article. There are facts that can be succinctly stated with no POV that matter to the start of his elected political career, which is very important in a wikipedia bio for more than the hours literally paid for "working" as a State Senator..... My point above on the "legality" I did not envision as a sidenote but just as a truth that needed to be buried in the phrasing about his campaign. As Scjessey wrote, what you wrote does give the impression that he gamed the system. The article can not convey that. For example, Obama did not "remove" names from the nominating process; the process he initiated did that legally and inevitably. Objectively, the reader has to be able to understand the option that Obama might not have started the process unless he felt that the situation as it existed with other wannabe candidates was flawed. But, then he did run unopposed. 67.163.141.14 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll take another look at it and see what I can to do. I need to rest my eyes for a bit though.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

State legislature Draft 2
Obama was elected unopposed to the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. His first foray into politics divided longtime political activists in Chicago when he made a legal challenge aganist the nominating petitions of every other candidate, which led to the removal of their names from the ballot, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, who was a veteran progressive activist in the area. In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002 (when the 13th District was redrawn to span Chicago lakefront neighborhoods from the Gold Coast south to South Chicago). In January 2003, Obama was appointed chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate. The new majority leader Emil Jones angered other, more senior legislators, when he also appointed Obama the sponsor of important legislation they had been working on for years – substantially boosting his record in a single year. He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate. As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. Criticism of Obama voting “present” and pushing the wrong button when voting, specifically on the issue of abortion, is generally flawed – such techniques are commonly employed in the Illinois State Senate to not only mitigate potential political fallout, but, as stated by Obama, as a way of protesting the specifics of legislation while agreeing with the general principles. While still in the State Senate, Obama was first introduced to most Americans when he gave his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which was both well-received by the attendees and covered by the national media. 


 * In this draft I tried to address some of the previous criticisms, and I also added an appropriate mention of his keynote speech, which should entirely replace the huge section that is currently devoted to it since such huge quotations are in obvious violation of WP: NPS.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree this should be in early life or campaign 08 page- also you need to make clear in your text that Obama was challenging irregular petitions, not all of them. And the "present-vote" section is far too editorial and POV. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama was not "unopposed" in the 1996 general election:
 * Illinois Senate endorsements (October 16, 1996) Chicago Tribune, p. 22:"13th District (South Side): Democrat Barack Obama, an attorney, law professor and community activist, is a worthy successor to retiring Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama has potential as a political leader and is endorsed over Republican Rosette Peyton and the Harold Washington Party's David Whitehead."
 * Our endorsements for Illinois Senate (October 27, 1996) Chicago Sun-Times, p. 39:"13th District (South and Southwest sides): Democrat Barack Obama, a lawyer and community activist, is the clear choice over Republican Rosette Caldwell Peyton and Harold Washington candidate David Whitehead."
 * Todd Spivak's inaccurate and biased story "Obama and Me" in the the February 28, 2008 Dallas Observer and Houston Press is not an appropriate source for this WP:BLP (see: Texas alternative papers publish hit job on Obama).
 * Newross (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The quotes you list aren't in the links you provide - I couldn't find any mention of Obama or his supposed opponent. You say the articles I showed are hack jobs, but you try to prove this with a well-known liberal blog? You sources and argument are entirely unconvincing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Newross's links are to the newspapers' paid archive. If you pay for the article, you'll find the quotations he mentions.  Obama was unopposed in the Democratic primary (due to procedural maneuvering), but faced opponents in the general election.  Now, it's probably true that in that particular district gaining the Democratic nomination is tantamount to winning the election, but if the article says he "was elected unopposed", that still creates a false impression. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I find it interesting that these facts are unavailable to me, since I am unwilling to spend money to confirm, or more likely debunk his claims. Here is an article from the New York Times that says essentially the same as my other articles. My sources however, are free for all to see, and credible, rather than some unsubtatiated claims with unavailable sources. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the Chicago Tribune clearly states he had no opponents on the ballot. In fact, it clearly quotes Obama stating this - whoever this "Newross" guy is, he is just trying to bring doubt to well-established claims. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're misreading your Chicago Tribune source. It says, "Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he routed token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete in the primary if necessary."  The comment "we weren't going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody" is in reference to the primary, not the general election.
 * Once again: Obama was unopposed in the Democratic primary (due to procedural maneuvering), but faced opponents in the general election. The Tribune characterizes those opponents as "token opposition", but if we say he "was elected unopposed" we're introducing a falsehood.  We can decide whether it's appropriate to go into further detail about Obama's election to the state senate, but it's important that we remain accurate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obama said in that article, "We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren't going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody," Obama said. "I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm." Your quote about "token opposition" could mean anything - opposition doesn't necessarily mean he had a specific opponent, nor that they appeared on the ballot. Obama said nobody else appeared on the ballot. Nevertheless, if you feel "essentially unopposed" would be better phrasing then I am fine with that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote about nobody else appearing on the ballot is in reference to the primary. Obama ran unopposed in the primary election to determine the Democratic Party's nominee for the state senate seat.  In the general election, he was opposed by a Republican and a representative of the Harold Washington Party, as evidenced by the articles in the paid archives.  Even if the other two candidates in the general election stood only a ghost of a chance, we can't conflate the primary with the general election. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that is a good argument, but I want to actually see some sources - not some paid crap that I can't confirm with my own eyes.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot say "essentially unopposed" because "essentially" constitutes an unsubstantiated characterization. It needs to be factually accurate and free of characterization. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine let's use the phrasing of the article then - token opposition. While we are at it, we might as well that phrasing to his election against Alan Keyes - right now it sounds like Obama won some fantastic victory over him because he was just such a great candidate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Token" is just as bad. It is better just to exclude terms like that and only have the facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be easier to take what you had to say seriously if you didn't say you wish you had a "can of raid" to use on me. "Essentially unopposed" or "token opposition" is descriptive,accurate and well-sourced.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't care whether you take me seriously or not, to be brutally honest; however, "essentially" and "token" are characterizations that are not appropriate or encyclopedic. The only way you could use those words would be in an actual quote. Therefore, it is better to exclude such characterizations completely. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not characterization - the only inaccuracy is potraying a sham of an election as something it wasn't. Elections imply real choices and options - what he did took away those options and this should be made clear. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Like it should be made clear that Hillary Clinton wants to break party rules and seat the delegates of two states who decided to ignore Democratic Party rules? That kind of clear? You want to add your point-of-view, that's what is clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand - I have previously stated my bias, but I try not to let it affect what should go into or stay out of this article. Please try to stay on topic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Photograph
I know this page is edit protected, but I can't help but noticing that for all the claims that the article is too pro-Obama, the photograph of Obama at the top of the article is not a good one. In some photographs Obama looks good but I don't think that he looks good in this photograph. In any event I thought I would add this opinion of mine to the various edit wars that are swirling around. JonErber (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that photo is his official Senate portrait. At least, it was taken from the U.S. Senate website.  Would you prefer this one, from the same source? ;-) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

overseas viewpoint - article is biased and too pro-Obama, also has misleading information
As a person not in the America, I find this article hopelessly bias and pro-Obama. I am neutral, not for or against the man. Bias suggests that NPOV controls at wikipedia are not working.

1. The state legislature section is biased with misleading information. The man is known for voting "present" instead of yes or no, probably because he wanted to avoid taking a stand.

2. The state legislature section states that he got bipartisan support then mentions his police endorsement. That is outright propaganda. The accurate statement would be to say that the police endorsed his OPPONENT then only supported the winning Democrat (Obama) because he won the primary. Very different from an initial endorsement.

3. Convention speech. Is this an ad? Mention that the speech was his first exposure to America but given text of the speech makes the article an advertisement.

4. Reverend Wright is very controversial so it should refer to him as the controversial Revenrend Wright.

5. There is no mention of his continued opposition of the occupation of Iraq in the senate section (ok, political advocacy but a little misplaced). This is a key point of the man so there should be mention of it.

5/6. He is very different than others as he wants increased soliders in Afghanistan and is willing to invade Pakistan. This needs to be mentioned.

7. Rezko controversy is very, very significant but it is hidden (intentionally according to previous talk pages). There is no mention that he keeps on returning more money. More important was that he had a deal to buy his house. Since he called it boneheaded that makes him actually look good.

8. There could be mention that the primaries have been very contentious with he advocating steps to help his campaign, such as denying the florida and michgan voters a voice. Thats not defamation as all candidates do this.

overall, keep a questionable eye on the article and you can improve it.121.246.24.167 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to sign in. I'm KVS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.24.167 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Every point you make has already been exhaustively discussed on this talk page (see the extensive archive). There are plenty of neutral editors (like myself) who have carefully examined the article for bias (both for and against) and done our best to eliminate it. We have carefully checked citations to make sure the article reflects the references and we have (in some cases) compared the article to the articles of the other candidates to try to get some level of consistency. Obviously the article is very detailed with a significant body of references, so it constantly evolves as sections are updated and refined. I think you will find that the bulk of the regular editors will disagree with your findings because, and you'll have to forgive me for this, they seem far from your claim of "I am neutral" to be honest; nevertheless, I am sure your comments will be taken into consideration as the article develops further. By the way, I could not find a user called "KVS", so perhaps you would like to login and re-sign your comment? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because the "regular" editors, if they don't have a bias towards Obama, then they appear to have bias towards keeping this article static. I thought several points he made were quite valid. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would recommend waiting until the article is unprotected to bring up questionale phrases; that is what I will be doing as well. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ACTUALLY PLEASE DO IT NOW- the reason this damn page is always protected, is exactly because people misinterpret be bold and edit without effectively using talk. Being forced to use talk is good for the page AND good for the editors. Advocating NOT using talk, in any sense, really bothers me, even in a "not now" sense. If you can show me an editor who thinks his neutral writing skills and neutral citation skills are better when pages are unprotected or semi protected- I can show you an edit war waiting to happen lol.

Anything minor involving the campaign (such as the things you pointed out) should be covered in the campaign article. And specifically regarding #8, you might want to take that up with the Democratic National Convention and Howard Dean. Accusations that Obama is solely responsible for the failed revotes in Florida and Michigan is laughable. Maybe they should have listened to the DNC and not moved their primary in the first place.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't as laughable as you may think - Howard Dean said the only way a revote would occur is if both campaigns agreed on the terms. Hillary has said Barack is holding up the negotiations (so shocker there). [] [] TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's also said he wants the campaign to end...but Hillary seems to be holding that up. Expecting Obama just to say "Okay that's fine even though I wasn't on the ballot," however, is laughable. But we digress.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny I read an article about how he conspired with the other campaigns to take his name off the ballot, of the deadline to do so, in an effort to make Hillary look bad and to give him a boost in the traditional early state (e.g. New Hampshire). Also, it is well-documented that he campaigned in Michigan, through surrogate radio and paper ads, to get people to vote uncommitted so the uncommitted delegates could chose to vote for him at the convention. He has blocked attempts at revotes in both places (his name was on the ballot in Florida) - this is consistent with his pattern of undermining the democratic process. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you have the gall to criticize my "moral decency" regarding my bias.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which part do you disagree with? I'm only trying to insert part of that into the article and it is well-sourced. You may not like it, but it is the truth, it is relevant, and it is far more important than a lot of the fluff in this article. If there is any bias then it is your refusal to openly look at the facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, your claims are much more relevant when you provide reliable citations to back them up. Happyme22 (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, but I'm not trying to insert this information into the article, except for how he hired a lawyer to knock off all the candidates off the ballot when he first ran for state senate and I provided good documentation for those assertions. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a bit of advice. Editors are likely not going to take you very seriously with lines like "this is consistent with his pattern of undermining the democratic process." --Ubiq (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and there goes any chance of goodlocust's edits not getting reverted lol. next time at least mention that both sides "campaigned in michigan" according to the other campaign, if you're going for clarity (that IS what you're going for, right?)
 * More to the point- I hope everyone noticed the switch from fake accent to relatively perfect written english in approx. the third sentence of the OP. fyi...72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, I reread it carefully after reading this, and I came to two conlcusions. First, the guy made a few typos and second, you are paranoid. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If that can't take that fact seriously then I don't expect them to take me seriously. He knocked off 4 people from the ballot so he could get elected unopposed. He opposes revotes in Michigan and Florida and proposes they be seated "50/50" - which makes their elections and voice essentially worthless. His record is clearly anti-democratic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those that support 50/50 in Michgan and Florida should also support a 50/50 split for the other 48 states. If there is a reliable source for "anti-democratic", this could be a good  fact for the campaign article of obama.122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)  Oh !@#%, forgot to sign in again, I am KVS, a neutral (not for or against Obama) person and an observer of American politics.  I am from India.122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding #8 and the accusations that TheGoodLocust has been making against Obama: Where's the proof? Where are the reputable sources? Obama was repeatedly asked about whether the Florida and Michigan votes should count, and his response was always that he would abide by the DNC's decision. He did point out that he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, but rather that some conspiracy like TheGoodLocust suggests, it was simply because Michigan's votes weren't supposed to count. Regarding revotes, again Obama simply said that he'd abide by what the states decided. The notion that it couldn't happen without Obama's approval is absurd, because it was up to the individual states to hold revotes. Florida has a Republican controlled legislature that wasn't about to do any favors for the Democrats, and the revote proposal fell apart in the Michigan legislature. But to suggest that Obama was behind-the-scenes pulling all the strings requires some sort of proof, especially when he consistently stated that he would abide by whatever the DNC and states decided to do. -Eisnel (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Point #2 is in the archives. POV pushers refused to listen than banned the person with the sock excuse. This is proof of POV pushing at this article. 122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you know, the user who insisted on the police union edit was banned because he was abusing Wikipedia with multiple sock puppets. As he has continued to do - but don't worry, he will be stopped again.  Tvoz | talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not threaten me. This is proof that POV pushers are trying to censor.  I am KVS and I am from India.  I can prove my identity.  My name is Kumar.  a non-POV pusher would just look at the content of the edit, not try to ban people.  I do not know who Derk Benedict is but if he said what I am saying (don't know if he did) then the thought and idea is correct.  Thank you.122.164.134.73 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but how is that a threat to you? I said that Dereks1x was not banned because of his content ideas but was banned because he was abusing sock puppets and has continued to do so - likely including User:Archtransit for example - and would be found out again and stopped. I have not commented here on your content suggestions, just on your incorrect analysis of what happened with  the socks User:KMCtoday and/or User:Local667forOb and/or User:Oprahwasontv. And your bringing this to AN twice:  and  is rather odd. Tvoz | talk 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is some proof for you - the Obama camp wants to split Michigan and Florida 50/50, which makes all the votes there worthess. If you want proof about his past anti-democratic behavior (his pattern) then look in at my proposed state legislature changes. He took his name off the ballot - he wasn't asked to do this. Hillary was polling well-ahead of every other candidate in Michigan - which is why they all pulled out on the last day to do so. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you seem to have conveniently forgotten is that Florida and Michigan broke Democratic party rules. Whether or not you consider their situation to be undemocratic is entirely irrelevant. Why should Obama's camp approve of the bending of party rules if it would hinder his candidacy in any way? He is perfectly within his rights to object to any such fudge that may do harm to his campaign, and just because Hillary Clinton now thinks that breaking the rules she agreed to is okay does not mean Obama is suddenly being anti-democratic. Any suggestion that your comments offer a neutral point of view in this regard are ludicrous, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they "broke the rules" - so did black people who couldn't vote because they didn't pay their poll tax. Rules don't equal morality. Obama feels well within his rights trying to make superdelegates vote for him, even though they aren't obligated to - guess it is only when the rules suite him. The guy has run on a ticket of unifying the country and giving people a voice - but he has historically suppressed people's right to choose during elections. And, for the record, I don't think I ever claimed to be neutral. My measured bias is a needed counterweight to the reckless bias of the regular editors here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making a lot of accusations despite calling yourself "neutral".  Grsz  11  15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding #2, the proposed rewording tries to suggest that the police endorsement was insignificant and meaningless. It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret whether or not an endorsement has significance. Wording it like that would be an obvious attempt to downplay the endorsement. It would be like going to a Republican candidate's page, finding a mention of an endorsement, and appending it with: "but those guys always endorse the Republican nominee, so it's no big deal". -Eisnel (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That endorsement doesn't even belong here. Politicians get hundreds of endorsements, and highlighting this one is merely another example of the POV issues of this article. This "police endorsement" mention is merely an attempt to strengthen his rather weak image - he comes off as a wuss. Hell, I propose we mention his endorsement by the New Black Panther Party and Louis Farrakhan - it is about as relevant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding #1: This article does mention his "present" votes for two abortion-related bills. I'm not sure if more about his "present" votes warrant mention, but if they do, it shouldn't be used as an attempt to portray the man as "known for voting present". First, it seems that the "present" vote is common in the Illinois legislature, so we'd need a reliable source to suggest that Obama did it a lot more than his fellow legislators. Second, it would need to be pointed out that he voted present 129 times (is that the number?) out of a total of around 4000 votes. Without citing the total number of times Obama voted in Illinois, this is just an obvious ploy to convince readers that "he wanted to avoid taking a stand". There are people out there who would like to suggest to uninformed readers that Obama was a serial "present" voter, when in fact he voted "present" 3% of the time. Is 3% a remarkably high number? I don't know, but that's not up to us to decide. I think the notable part is the controversy (from reliable sources) over his "present" votes on two abortion-related bills, and that's already in the article. -Eisnel (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, he is "known for voting present", but it isn't really a valid criticism. I mention this in my proposed edit for the State Legislature section (even though it can be improved a bit). Since he is known for this, it should be mentioned, but also it should be explained that this is a common practice in Chicago politics. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not clear on this: If voting "present" is a common practice in Illinois politics, then what did Obama do to get a reputation for voting "present"? Did he vote "present" more than other legislators? Do we have sources that say he had such a reputation at the time? If so, that might warrant inclusion in his Illinois Senate article (and if it was a defining feature of his Illinois Senate career, it might warrant mention in the corresponding section on this article). Any such assertion would require reliable sources. But instead, this might be something that only came up during his presidential bid, as a negative attack by his opponents. If the 2008 media coverage of his "present" votes was notable, then that media criticism could be noted, but we can't portray the facts incorrectly: If this article were to imply that Obama cast a remarkably high number of "present" votes, when it turns out that his voting pattern was in line with all other legislators, then we'd effectively be lying (I don't know if that's the case, which is why I want to see sources). And keep in mind: his controversial "present" votes on two abortion-related bills is already covered in this article. Also, if the "present" vote thing is only notable in the context of criticisms made in 2008, then it belongs in the 2008 campaign article -Eisnel (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Add Category:DADT
Since this article is apparently locked to editing, I'm writing to request that Category:DADT be added.--Robapalooza (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why?, looking through the article there is no mention of the policy anywhere. Jons63 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Barack Obama is mentioned in an article on the subject, along with the other candidates. Does WP:WEIGHT apply to categorization? I am not at all familiar with category guidelines concerning people, but it seems like this doesn't seem significant enough for any of the candidate biographies. Anyone else got any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add something else, it seems like Category:DADT is a brand new and rapidly-growing category. Frankly I doubt it will have longevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first issue I see with the category is that it's an acronym (I had no idea what DADT was until I followed the link), but there's a move request, so that won't be an issue for long. The second point is that,, except that he has apparently said it should be repealed, it doesn't really have anything to do with Barack Obama. We really shouldn't have a category for every political position he has on this article (especially a generic one) or else the category section will be longer than the article itself. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it should be nixed from the articles of other candidates as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the category stays, perhaps it should be moved to the political positions articles. They at least mention the candidates political positions, rather than the main article? Granted, in the cas of Obama, his wanting to repeal it isn't even mentioned there... --Bobblehead (rants) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 things here: 1, its hilarious that ten years ago being "pro DADT" (sounds like a fancy breadmaker btw) was considered PRO gay rights! and now here we are, ten whole years later, and the word is being thrown around like a half-baked political slash. 2- I suggest the regular editor get ready for more claims in this vein. At the last rally I attended, someone was holding up a (very homemade) "homos for hillary" sign so I think there is some pressure coming from the top on this general subject. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

HailFire's commitment
--HailFire (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I will oppose page protection.
 * 2) I will not edit war.
 * 3) I will be bold and I will discuss.
 * 4) I will be civil, and I will never confuse "claque" with community.


 * That's very noble, I approve! I have a question though: If someone promises not to edit war, how can that person defend this page against those who are perfectly willing to ignore discussion and engage in edit wars? -Eisnel (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can answer that, because I have faced the same dilemma. The answer is simply to let someone else fight the battle. People who don't get involved in edit wars (and I am ashamed to say I have done so in the past) find themselves commanding more respect from fellow editors. The really good and well-respected editors may eventually get to become administrators, at which point they can squash the warring scumbags like the little bugs they are! -- Scjessey (trying hard to sound like Invader Zim) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, I actually did re-read that while trying to do a subvocal Zim impression. :) --Eisnel (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub pages
It's interesting to see the argument has developed on this page. I wondered when it would come. One thing the full time editors should do with this page is to make every section link to a main page. To my mind this is not only good practice, it's common sense with big subjects. So, every section must have a main page where the details can be fleshed/thrashed out. At the moment this isn't the case for the sections: state legislature, keynote address (shouldn't this be a subsection of the Illinois senate career section?), personal life, cultural and political image. Why not?

I think I can't put it in when it's protected, but a subpage is dead easy for the books section. Please do it for the rest. Also, why is there a section devoted to recognitions and honours? It's pretty mundane information, and well worthy of a subpage which I'm talking about. I mean, the man will probably be the President, and the list is really insignificant.

The main advantage of all this is that when you have a proper system of subpages, your main page is more likely to stay FA, and can stay unchanged (without 'recentism' problems, etc). That's because if there's vandalism, people trying to shove in the latest scandal from 1994 or whatever, you just say, "well it's not relevant enough for the main page. Take it to the sub page."  Wik idea  13:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I should add, this page is of course very good indeed, and it's a real credit to the original authors that it's one of very few politicians that is starred. Sort of like Obama himself. Everything gleams.  Wik idea  14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see the wisdom of this suggestion, and I am sure that the article will eventually evolve into a summary and "hub" for sub pages in the manner that you describe. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's already evolved. That's the point of writing the above. It needs them now. Everything on this page is necessarily a summary.  Wik idea  09:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the page has opened up from full protection, I've done what I've said. As I said above, the point is that when there are skirmishes about what to include or not, it can be taken to the sub pages. I think that whatever was here when the article was featured should stay as it was for the sections that do not cover something recent (and that includes "new revelations" about his past, e.g. the Jeremiah Wright controversy, whatever shady Chicago socialist law the Republicans dig up or whatever). All that stuff can be taken to the sub pages. Somebody removed the quotes from the Keynote address. I don't agree with that is necessary, but I'm not changing it back. I've put up the full quotes on the Illinois page. I'm not sure what to do about the personal life/cultural image sections. The latter is really complete waffle and media speculation. The former, I'm not sure it should have a whole page devoted to it - because I personally do not care what politicians do in their private lives (Americans, sadly, seem to I suppose). For recognitions and honours, seeing as that was previously in the Senate section but has been separated, I put it on the sub page for his Senate career. I think it's probably something that should be axed from this page altogether. Again, waffle, and it's media driven. How many Americans actually know the New Statesman anyway!?  Wik idea  10:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rezko and Wright
A user called Kossack something added some rubbish about these two hopeless points of "controversy". I've deleted them, and given reasons in the edits. I would remind other editors (a) the sub pages are there for a reason (b) pointing stuff out on the main page of Wikipedia is not going to influence the course of the election. This page, in the grand scheme of things is pretty unimportant. And what's even less important than this page is silly attempts to shove in some partisan rubbish that the user happens at 2 o'clock on a Thursday to decide people really need to know. I think I'd better "unwatch" this page, because it'll get too frustrating. Again, my credit to those who have been maintaining the page up till now.  Wik idea  13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rezko and Wright should be easily accesible and discussed briefly. After all, they are at least as important as his 2004 keynote speech - and that has far too much space dedicated to it and it is linked in the contents as well. Of all the people coming here, I doubt they really care more about a speech than his 20 years at a controversial church. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Rezko and Wright have their own articles for exploring their particular issues. They should only be mentioned in this article where their circumstances specifically and significantly intersect with Barack Obama's. The speech was orders of magnitude more important to Obama's life than (for example) how much money Rezko raised for Obama's Senate campaign once. You are just trying to introduce your personal opinion, as usual. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I disagree - his speech made him famous and that's it. He went to that church for 20 years - and took his children there. I think it has had a very large impact on his life, and it may very well him the general election. It should be linked in the contents since people are more interested in that aspect of his life than a silly speech. Again, I could take you more seriously if you didn't say you wanted a "can of raid" to deal with me.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had the same hairstyle for 20 years, and even though people have said some bad things about it I can no more repudiate it than I can my own fingers and toes. It has had a very large impact on my life and it may very well cost me some future job interview. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He chose, as an adult, to go to that church, he chose to continue going to that church after hearing some nasty things by that man. He chose to give that church thousands of dollars. He chose to take his children there. He chose to defend that man. This is not guilt by association - this is guilt by participation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well so what? Oprah Winfrey chooses to go to that church as well, but I don't hear anyone questioning her judgment. We are talking about a good church that does good things for the community, for charities and the needy. So what if some wack-job pastor threw out a few dumb comments over his 30-year position. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Oprah had the sense to quit going to that church - but she didn't have enough sense to not get pregnant at the age of 14. Yes it is a "good" church they help the "needy" and the "homeless" - do they help the white needy? Or is it just the black needy? Gee those questions never get asked. That church is based off the racist writings James Hal Cone and his "Black Liberation Theology" - it is a complete joke TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your dreadful comment above: I've noted the evolution of your comment above (diff1, diff2, diff3) and I am disgusted. I thought about putting some kind of warning on your talk page but I realized from your choice of image (diff) that it wouldn't do any good. Any shred of credibility you may have been clinging to has now gone. What an appallingly unpleasant thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Really nice how you included my "minor edit" there as a "version" - if you have any problem with the facts that I stated above then say something substantial. This faux outrage of yours is just more proof of your prejudice towards me and adds nothing to the discussion.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to avoid being prejudice when you act the way you do.  Grsz  11  03:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't feel much sympathy for you either since you seem to think I hurt your chances for adminship - your bias is quite clear as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the bias that personally messaged Andy to give my approval of his Wright addition, that bias? Please. You've lost a lot of respect because of your hostility towards other editors and unwillingness to play by the rules.  Grsz  11  03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if I broke any rules then I'm sure you could help me out as a new user in learning them. And yeah, I think its obvious that you are biased, but that's not the problem, the problem is you seem unable to prevent your bias from affecting your behavior in a professional manner. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Earlier I challenged you to show me where I made an edit without a valid reason. You failed to do so. I think it's highly inappropriate for you to criticize mine and others bias when you sit here on your high horse like your POV is the word of God himself.  Grsz  11  03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall you "challenging" me to find some edit of yours - you were likely being overemotional and I was giving you a chance to cool off. Regardless, your bias has been plain from your blanket rejections of my reasoned attempts at adding some much needed counterweight to this article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna step away from this one before it gets worse.  Grsz  11  03:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and I regret the "can of raid" joke I made on someone else's talk page. I should have said "flame thrower" or something. Are you monitoring my contributions, or Grsz11's talk page? Either way it seems a bit creepy, like a stalker or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Charming. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I thought this page was edit protected. JonErber (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay I see now the edit protection has been taken off. Back to the edit wars which I'm sure will continue.JonErber (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if Kossack's edit is any indicator, yes, they will.. Kossack even accepted (didn't agree with it, mind you, just accepted) the wording that's out there, but still went ahead and added his preferred wording. Heh. --Bobblehead (rants) 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection and FAR
I respectfully submit that this article should not be locked down while the current featured article review is still in progress. Instability during the FAR process is as expected, and if full protection is applied, I will (again, respectfully) request its removal. --HailFire (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between instability and edit warring. The article getting a number of edits during FAR is okay, but if those edits are basically people reverting each other, then that isn't acceptable. --Bobblehead (rants) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Two hours to destroy it
I've been away from my computer for just two hours. In that time, hordes of right-wing lunatics and their sock puppet friends have all but destroyed this article. Improperly cited right-wing or anti-Obama bias now soils every section. I'm so demoralized, I'm just going to leave it alone for a bit and hope some of those who are more dedicated than I can restore this article to something approaching the quality and neutrality it had earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense
Regarding this edit by Bobblehead: (a) The controversy is about Obama's relationship with Wright. No one would care about what Wright said if that weren't the question. (b) "...suggesting the U.S.'s foreign policy led to the September 11 attacks..." doesn't quite catch the flavor, and is any way false. Terrorizing the Indians wasn't "foreign policy" (the US mostly bought or claimed the land first) and he's mosdtly talking about actions, not policy. (c) "questioning the role the government played in the spread of HIV/AIDS"?????? ""The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color" is an assertion, not a question. Sheesh. Weasel, weasel, weasel. And not even "true" weasels. Andyvphil (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * *sigh* Andy, the wording is from the sources you provided. The FOXNews article says "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks." Although, I did just reword it to more align with the sources. Better? --Bobblehead (rants) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course not. FOX News’ Jeff Goldblatt is peculiarly gentle in describing Wright's sermons, but he supplies enough actual text (e.g., “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”) so the result is not in the end misleading. Your version is simply a falsehood. Wright's clear meaning is "the government...invent[ed] the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." You simply can't seriously contest this and maintain any plausible pretense of good faith. Andyvphil (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And this one. Bobblehead: "Rezko's charges are not related to political contribution, they are corruption charges for demanding kickbacks to do business with the state." False distinction. "The criminal case against Rezko appears to center in part on his efforts to provide contributions to Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions. The federal investigation, dubbed Operation Board Game, produced allegations that Rezko and others sought to squeeze kickbacks from firms doing business before state boards. One oversees public schoolteacher pension investments. Another authorizes permits for hospitals." Andyvphil (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But what does that have to do with Obama? Nobody has suggested that Obama was in any way involved in any of those allegations. You're basically trying to a) establish a connection between the two (which does exist) and then b) list all of the allegations against Rezko in order to imply a connection between those allegations and Obama (which does NOT exist). This article is about Obama, not Rezko. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's actually a new claim that I hadn't heard of before (and I've read way too much on Rezko and the like). All of the press I've seen on Rezko seem to be more inline with this article by the Washington Post, which indicates that Rezko's charges are related to getting kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with the state. At this point, there aren't any charges related to Rezko using his contributions to get Blagojevich to let him appoint people to boards and commissions. If you want, we can reword the political corruption to better reflect the actual charges if you'd like, but his political contributions are not one of the charges. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not Rezko's contributions - it's the contributions he bundled that were in part extorted.(e.g.,"Rezko, 51, is also accused of trying to squeeze a company seeking to do business with the state for a $1.5 million contribution "to a certain public official.") And it is not true that no one has suggested that he probably did for Obama the same kind of thing he did for Blagovich. It's unreasonable to assert that he would be squeaky clean for Obama if he's willing to break the law for Blagovich. The only real question is what he got in return. "...it is not clear what Mr. Rezko got from the relationship..." We can't and shouldn't say that there is any proof that Rezko got anything back for putting Obama in his debt, but it is unacceptable not to mention that Obama is significantly in his debt and that he has a history of collecting on that kind of debt. Let the reader decide what he wants to believe. But don't withold the facts. Andyvphil (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * when you're using words like "It's unreasonable to assert" you know you're OR andy. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fancy cats seems to favor reducing the number of details pertaining to the Rezko land swap, citing WP:RECENT. I have no idea what he means by that, and replacing concrete details of the incident (including the information that Obama hasn't been accused of anything illegal/unethical) with a vague, un-sourced allegation that the transaction was "ill-timed" seems improper. If you have an explanation for why mentioning the incident, but leaving out the details somehow better-complies with WP:RECENT, please let me know. johnpseudo 04:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, John, I agree that "ill-timed" is inappropriate, and that it's important to keep the sentence indicating that Obama has not been accused of breaking any laws or committing any ethics violations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just mean burdening the section with boilerplate about how he's NOT under investigation actually gives MORE weight to the issue than just not mentioning it at all. I mean, obviously if he was, it would get more than one sentence, so the whole bit strikes me as uneccessary and possibly redundant. I think there should only be one sentence no matter what. The details of rezko need to go on the rezko page. Its undue weight, on a BIO page, to give rezko more than the standard level of explanation- and considering he has yet to be convicted, I agree with others that it is a violation of wp:crystal to ascribe him too much weight. "Ill-timed" was simply an attempt to convey the controversy without assessing any blame, but I can see thats an argument for a different crowd... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FAQ
I object to the FAQ being removed from this talk page without discussion, and then removed again after it was reverted. No one is prevented from commenting here on talk, but it is unreasonable and unnecessary to expect the editors to write up responses to the same questions asked over and over again, when answers can be pointed to in a FAQ. Tvoz | talk 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. FAQ's are not at all uncommon in articles that get a lot of traffic (there is also one on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, among many others. It was removed unilaterally by one editor without discussion, and has since been restored.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The FAQ has the appearance of neutral authority and must in fact be neutral as to the issues between the editors of this page if it is to stay. So far I've tried to change it when it took positions on contentious issues (such as alleging that the article is unlikely to have POV problems, or that material missing from the bio shouldn't be added until "consensus" is reached here, ignoring the fact that the "consensus" process has been routinely reduced to a joke by withholding agreement to necessary changes on ludicrous grounds or no grounds whatsoever). But if it continues to be used to advance partisan positions I will join in deleting it. Andyvphil (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely on the "consensus" process here - I've had perfectly sourced and valid facts removed from the article, while bunk about his name meaning "blessed" is somehow more important to this article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Political Advocacy
This section includes several examples of his "advocacy" which are really just campaign speeches. This is pretty obvious for the ones cited in late '07 and if you look at those sources then it becomes glaringly apparent.

These campaign speeches should be removed from the political advocacy section or moved to the presidential campaign section.

"Meeting with Google employees in November 2007, Obama pledged to appoint a Chief Technology Officer to oversee the U.S. government's management of IT resources and promote wider access to government information and decision making.[115] Reaffirming his commitment to net neutrality legislation, Obama said "once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose."[116] Campaigning in New Hampshire, he announced an $18 billion plan for investments in early childhood education, math and science education, and expanded summer learning opportunities.[117] Obama's campaign distinguished his proposals to reward teachers for performance from traditional merit pay systems, assuring unions that changes would be pursued through the collective bargaining process.[118]"

"At the Tax Policy Center in September 2007, he blamed special interests for distorting the U.S. tax code. "We are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," Obama said. "We've lost the balance between work and wealth."[119] His plan would eliminate taxes for senior citizens with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, repeal tax cuts said to favor the wealthy, close corporate tax loopholes and restrict offshore tax havens, and simplify filing of income tax returns by pre-filling wage and bank information already collected by the IRS.[120] Announcing his presidential campaign's energy plan in October 2007, Obama said: "Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution." He proposed a cap and trade auction system to restrict carbon emissions and a ten-year program of investments in new energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.[121]"

"In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that while the U.S. "should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."[132] Detailing his strategy for fighting global terrorism in August 2007, Obama said "it was a terrible mistake to fail to act" against a 2005 meeting of al-Qaeda leaders that U.S. intelligence had confirmed to be taking place in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. He said that as president he would not miss a similar opportunity, even without the support of the Pakistani government"

Again, his "political advocacy" should be evidenced by more than mere campaign speeches.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it make any difference if the section were titled "Political positions", as its daughter article is?


 * (Incidentally, I think the bit about appointing a chief technology officer and net neutrality can be moved to the daughter article — they're not the issues that are getting the top coverage.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is a precedent for titling it "Political positions" then I support such a re-titling. Also, if I recall properly, some of those were sourced with direct articles from Barack Obama (maybe I'm getting this confused with other sections of the article though), and so better sources should be found, rather than summarizing his direct writings. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

intl opinion
Mr. Obama's aggressive stance in considering the invasion of Pakistan and sending more troops to Afganistan should be added to his Senate career section. Go get 'em, Obama. 122.164.121.238 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Positions in presidential run
What are the political positions that Obama has advocated during his presidential run? Why is he running for president? What does he seek to do as president? While I understand that there is a separete article for the major details, I think a brief mention on all of these should be in the "presidential campaign" section because they give more insight to Barack Obama. It says in the section that he criticized Clinton for not being clear on her views; well, we seem to be slacking because his platform and goals as president aren't well established in the article. Happyme22 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate to bloat the article with all the different positions he's taken, as we've got two daughter articles where this is more applicable, but I've got no problem weeding out the stuff about Clinton. I think the section should focus on basically how he performed in the primaries, his money and how it was so significant, and the end result.  Grsz  11  18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I can see that, but I do think just a sentence on why he is running for president is relevant. Happyme22 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have to disagree with you on this one. I'm open to being convinced, but the reasons someone runs from president are never obvious and difficult to prove. Usually, people run from being highly ambitious, power hungry, desire for fame/recognition, or a desire for public service - but people always claim they are running because they desire to serve the public. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Socialist?
It bothered me that Obama's socialist views were not even hinted at in this article. It seems like the editors are trying to avoid negative information about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.84.60 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like you need to research some things before you bring it up.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 16:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * l

First of all, I would not call Obama's views "socialist." Liberal and socialist are not the same thing. And second, I also would not agree with your characterization of "socialist" as "negative." Kathy (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * His "socialist" views are not mentioned here because they do not exist.  Yahel  Guhan  04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Obama have any views? I wasn't aware of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.208.165 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The word socialist doesn't fit Obama. Segolene Royal, Hugo Chavez, Jack LAyton and Dennis Kucinich are socialists. Socialists comprise a tiny minority in the US. Only in the US could Obama's views be defined as socialist, because it is a center right country and in comparison his views may seem socialist. But they aren't. His politics are liberal.

If only he were socialist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

His only views seem to be those the public is willing to support. Koalorka (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTIt seem to me that political

Please remember that this is not a forum for discussing your views on Barack Obama. Unless anyone has specific article-related comments to make, let's close this (obviously trolling) topic. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Children in infobox
Should his children be mentioned in the infobox as they are with John McCain and Hillary Clinton? Just wondering for the sake of consistency, it doesn't really matter. -Mansley (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that they are named in the personal life section, it's probably alright if they are included in the infobox.--Bobblehead (rants) 03:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. If someone wants to do it that's fine, but again, it's no big deal. --Mansley (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable; added. Incidentally, the online cited source in the "Personal life" section gave ages for Malia and Sasha, but didn't mention their birth years.  I don't have copies of Obama's books to hand, to see if their birth years were mentioned in them, as the citation would suggest.  I put the years in the infobox on the assumption that the "Personal life" section was correct, but couldn't verify without the books at hand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Josiah, thanks for doing that, and regarding Malia's birth year, there seems to be some dispute. According to Michelle Obama's page, Malia was born in 1999, and a Google search seems to lean toward 1999 as well. I have also seen her age listed as 8 in 2007 and 9 in 2008, making it 1999. Either way, she will probably be mentioned in the media more and more often if Obama is the nominee, so it should be easier to clear up as time goes on. --Mansley (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that most sources say Malia Obama was born in 1999, so if it is alright with everyone I will change it. --Mansley (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Malia Obama was born on July 4, 1998 (according to Obama's community blog). Must be cool to have a whole nation celebrate your birthday with fireworks and parades! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed Michelle Obama's page to 1998 to reflect that. --Mansley (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to police endorsement, the misleading information part
I proposed changing the police union endorsement part because it is factually inaccurate and misleading. The goodlucust agrees with me that the current version is no good. There is consensus for this. There is no consensus for the current version except from Tvoz who opposes wikipedia users and vows to ban anyone who supports this reasonable change. Please, NPOV! We can work together! 122.164.134.73 (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have not commented here on your suggestions. I "vow" only that people who create socks and edit with them to avoid their community ban will be blocked. If you are in that category, then you are warned. If  not, then try arguing the merits of your position about the police union endorsement rather than making accusations, such as you did twice on AN yesterday and today.  Tvoz | talk 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * However, I now have reviewed this change and see that it is utterly unsupported by either source in the footnote. The original wording, now reinstated, is specifically stated in the first source in the footnote.  Please do not make this change again without a reliable source, and if you have one, the text should be added to, not replaced.  And, for the record, there was no consensus for your change. Tvoz | talk 07:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias showing in Reverts
I added the line, "with a steep decline in his workload after 1996" to Barack's legal career, and it was reverted once with a claim that it wasn't source. I reverted this because it was indeed quite plainly sourced from the reference that was already in use. Ubiq again removed my comment stating that it "wasn't relevant" - this is again an example of moving the bar that I've noticed many times.

Right now the article states that he worked from 1993 to 2002, but the reality is that he worked full-time for the first 3 years, and after that he was Of counsel for the law firm (secondary source).

Sorry but this is again evidence of the blatant pro-Obama bias and it is disingenuous to state that he worked for 9 years when, in reality, he did very little, if any work, for the last six years. I also fixed the dates which added an extra year to his legal experience which was plainly incorrect if the actual source was read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention in your edit that his workload fell off sharply in 199 7, because he moved to Springfield to be a Senator! It's hard to believe that you missed that in the source.  Grsz  11  21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss it, I didn't find it particularly relevant, but if you want to add that then go ahead. I'm not sure that he "moved to Springfield" though, he may have just been there when he had official work days (less than 2 months of the year).TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it's relevant! Seeing as he wasn't in Chicago where the firm was! Seeing as he was working as a senator! Seeing as it said he only worked during the summer when the Senate wasn't in session.  Grsz  11  23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then add it! I really could care less, I just didn't feel the need to provide some sort of strange excuse. The fact is that the current article misrepresents and exaggerates his legal experience - there is a huge difference between "working Summers" and working full time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You've refused to assume good faith countless times now and it's getting old. I removed it because it's just not relevant or that important to add. The article doesn't state that he worked tirelessly or anything, it states that he worked--that's it. You can continue to dispute and change every little bit of information you think shines Obama in a positive light, as well as add anything you think makes him look worse, but all you're doing is making this article more and more likely to become protected again. Also, you removed the entire Sudan paragraph without getting any sort of consensus or backing for doing that. --Ubiq (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of lacking good faith, but then you go right around and accuse me of making my edits for biased reasons - way to go. The article states he worked over a period of time when he may very well not have worked, which is what I tried to communicate with my well-documented sources - white-washing this simple fact is just boosting his resume on false grounds. And yeah I did remove the Sudan section, which I started a section about so people could understand my reasoning. If you have a problem with that, then address my arguments there instead of attacking me for being bold as wikipedia encourages. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Being bold is encouraged, but also is staying cool. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ^^ I didn't attack you or accuse you of making biased edits, I summarized the edits you've made since you started editing the article. As far as the "he may have very well not have worked", well he also may very well be a robot, that doesn't mean we should change the article to reflect this. The edit you made got the year wrong and failed to explain why his workload was reduced anyway. --Ubiq (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we know from the articles that his workload "dropped drastically" and we know he was "Of counsel" for the last 6 years, which could mean he didn't work at all. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and said his workload decreased sharply. And no, I didn't get the year wrong, the article said his workload decreased "in 1997", and I said "after 1996" since it flowed better - they mean the same thing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection?
Do editors here want this page to be protected from editing? Unless the edit war that is raging subdues, that, or editors losing their editing privileges will be the likely outcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I do not feel that full protection is needed at all. The article is undergoing an FAR, and many things will happen as a result of it. Happyme22 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article history of today shows otherwise, FAR or not. Protected for a couple of hours to afford editors to discuss these changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the only edit warring going on the one user adding back the Farrakan BLP vio over and over- which has a pretty quick solution other than increasing protection. All the other editors are regulars and seem to be working around each others edits (or I was until I got edit conflicted a hundred times and couldn't make my new edits, and now the page is protected and I still can't. Please unprotect it again, I don't think this is an edit war, it is just vigorous editing. For example the edit I am (was) trying to add was a compromise version of the Wright bio which gives increased length etc, not a revert this time- so again most of us are AGF and I really don't appreciate the page being locked. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * just realized it is a two hour lock and not a 24 hour, so I understand maybe a little more. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think full page protection is awesome, and I wish it was for a whole lot longer. We spent a lot more time discussing changes and building consensus, and then having an administrator applying those changes. We made excellent progress doing it that way, and for articles as contentious as this it may be the only way to go. Since PP expired, the article has become a battle ground with all sorts of POV crap being added to the article, as well as stuff being re-added that had previously been excluded by consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has improved tremendously since the protection was removed. Only POV pushing admins would want protection reinstated. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what page you are looking at,  this one is almost exactly the same as it was when the first block was lifted. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point! Much of the stupid trivia has been completely removed without affecting the integrity of the article. It still has improvements that need to be made, but I was started to get encouraged by the cutting of some of the sillier additions. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm against protection as a result of a single user. The only "edit warring" was from User:Womulee who kept adding his blatantly POV additions about Farrakhan, which has absolutely no relevance to this article. The only repeated edits were him adding, and others removing.  Grsz  11  23:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm for protection at the moment because of that user, along with thegoodlocust and kossak's edits. The sudan section is currently out of the article, a removal that I dispute as well. --Ubiq (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made very few edits and minor ones at that and I've been willing to discuss them all. It took you nearly 16 hours to join the conversation I started on the Sudanese section - instead you merely undid what I'd done without discussion. On topic though, I think the protection should be lifted and I think everybody, maybe even myself, should start growing some thicker skins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for overlooking the section earlier, but once you pointed it to me, I put it in a little queue and got to it when I could. That being said, the removal of that section was completely baseless and you incorrectly stated that it was in violation of WP:PSTS so the section will be reinserted once this gets unprotected. --Ubiq (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not completely baseless. If you look, I had two major complaints on the subject. Even if it is reinserted, it needs to be made clear the Iranian and Sudanese divestments are entirely unrelated. Hopefully, you'll read my more detailed defense of the PSTS allegations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "more detailed defense" reads like this: I think the section was added because of a pro-Obama bias designed to make him look good, therefore it is in violation of either WP:OR or WP:PSTS. I love the logic. --Ubiq (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Way to strawman. I'd love to hear the other logical fallacies that promote your stalking and deleting of my other edits. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only deleted one other edit from you, because it wasn't important/relevant, as well as being factually inaccurate and it left out information that put it into context. I'd hardly call this "stalking". Let's address your strawman accusation in regards to the sudan edit. Here's your exact argument: "The section describes his political positions, this shouldn't be done by cherry-picking from the hundreds of campaign speeches and articles he's written. His political positions should be summarized from a secondary source without a POV pushing agenda. In other words, his general positions are not served when wikipedia editors focus on certain issues that may, in reality, not be a significant measure of his general political positions. Everyone knows Darfur is bad, pushing this information, is merely a biased attempt at proppping up Obama. So yes, it is indeed in violation of either this or original research since it is painting a picuture of his general political positions without merit." I'll break your argument down:
 * 1) A section describing political positions should refrain from cherry-picking from the hundreds of campaign speeches and articles he's written.
 * 2) Rather, his political positions should be summarized from a secondary source without a POV pushing agenda.
 * 3) Everyone knows [the] Darfur [conflict] is bad, but presenting his policy on the conflict in the manner it is in this article is merely a biased attempt at propping up Obama.
 * 4) Therefore, this passage is in violation of either WP:PSTS or WP:OR because it paints a picture of his general political positions without merit.

So how exactly does 1, 2, or 3, support your conclusion in 4 that this passage is in violation of either WP:PSTS or WP:OR? --Ubiq (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread what I put up in the appropriate section. Also, if you think I should've added the reasons why he was working much, then you should added the reasons yourself instead of deleting what I'd written. I have no problem with that, but I thought it was irrelevant - people have lots of reasons or "context" for doing the things they do, but this isn't a murder trial, and so I thought the context was pretty irrelevant. I thought it was important to note that the vast majority of his legal career was part-time - at best.TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and I had a good NPOV wright summary ready go, removing WTA's but keeping content, however now lost to the wind. bla. On a sidenote- I would like to ask Jossi to perhaps keep note of which editors seem to be abusing process the most, because we are already having a tough time with admins being inconsistent in DR about these issues (more likely wanting to avoid it until topics are more stable understandably) but just please keep an eye out because I think you MAY find the the FAR and edit war issues are the result of a small minority, using talk to further their gains and benefitting from "one-time" editors. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Womulee's edit are POV and don't deserve any inclusion here. Happyme22 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice
This is a highly trafficked article, and as such, I am reluctant to protect for extended periods of time. Having said that, I will not hesitate to protect for several hours at a time if disruption continues. I would advice editors to cool it, take a break and come back in a few days, rather than escalate these discussions and rapid-fire edits to a point in which the article gets protected, or users get blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * it would be great if you would list who is at risk for being blocked, so that users might know where they stand. It has been said before, dispute resolution is not working for everyone, so your specific input and opinion as an admin, would be much more helpful than generalized warnings. As much as I understand your desire to "stay out of this" as much as possible. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is a good idea.  Grsz  11  03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those that are at risk, already know it. And if someone doesn't, he/she can self-assess their participation against WP:TE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course we know, if you aren't some sort of Obama fanatic then you get 3rred, despite what other people, who're pro-Obama reverting at a far greater rate. My 3rr was totally misplaced, I didn't even revert 3 times, I reverted twice, and one of those times I replaced what I'd written because it was sourced when the guy said he deleted it because it wasn't sourced. If you are going to 3rr people then apply the same standards to everyone involved. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A vast left-wing conspiracy, isn't it?  Grsz  11  04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say? I'm freaking left-wing, but I've done a lot of research on Obama and I think he is a horrible candidate. This guy is clearly anti-democratic and quite possibly racist. His experience is nearly non-existent and his entire campaign is based on rhetoric and fuzzy feelings. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is my last warning to you. Any further use of this talk page for advocacy of any kind, or for making comments unrelated to improving te encyclopedic article about this subject, will result in a block for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet you think you can edit more objectively than the rest of us?  Grsz  11  04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think thats exactly the problem, everyone know what is going on but nobody wants to deal with the RFCU or whatever else would come next. People just care about the page I'm sure. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on Illinois Senate

 * 

My version:

The new majority leader Emil Jones also appointed Obama the sponsor of important legislation, which other legislators had been working on for years - this enhanced his legislative record in a single year

Your version:

The new majority leader Emil Jones also appointed Obama the sponsor of important legislation.

I thought you didn't like the wording so I tried to make it even less controversial. However, it appears the information is just too much.

Your version makes it look like Emil Jones gave him the legislation because he thought he deserved it, or that such important legislation needed a Senator like Barack Obama. My version, especially the first, provides information that he angered other senior lawmakers by taking the legislation they'd worked on for years (getting the credit for it) - it also shows that most of his accomplishments occurred during a single year (when democrats had the majority).

Maybe I should look up some quotes about Emil Jones saying he was going to make Barack Obama a US Senator - I have lots of good sources for that. I wonder how that'll get altered...TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to look before you went of on a tirade, I fixed it. Thanks,  Grsz  11  05:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't show that he got the vast majority of his legislative record in a single year. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me where the source says that...and even so, what does it matter?  Grsz  11  05:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So I prove it and then it doesn't matter? Nice. It says, "But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year" in this source. And yeah it does matter, if a guy is in the State Senate for 8 years, but is only able to get significant accomplishments when his party finally gets the majority, and the new majority leader hands them to him on a platter which other people had done all the leg work on. Yeah, I'd say that matters. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in the Obama and me article, but it should be noted that the Illinois state senate was controlled by Republicans until 2003 and it seems that no Democrat was having much success getting bills passed until then.. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that information being added. I just don't like how objectionable content is being removed and I can't do anything about it. What are the steps for mediation or removal of administrative privileges? I might need help filling in the forms since I'm unfamiliar with them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * then look them up like every one else... and "objectionable content" is not being removed (or added). what is being removed is your "poorly sourced" claims (as yet) from this Bio of a Living Person, which is in fact what policy REQUIRES of us. You will need better than one underground weekly for your Emil Jones hypothesis, and even then I agree it is cutting close to OR maybe. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your incivility is a continuous problem. We talked about it, and I added the info back in. No need to continue to behave the way you do.  Grsz  11  05:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually talking about you, while you've grated on me a bit with your edits, they haven't been too bad for the most part. This time I was referring to "Ubiq" - he's completely removed passages that I added. The latest was my section on Alice Palmer, saying it wasn't sourced. He said the source didn't say it divided people but the Chicago Tribune plainly says, "His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists." This is at least the 3rd time he's completed deleted my edits today. And he knows I can't do anything about it with my 3rr - seems like he is stalking my edits and removing them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. I stalk your edits. I hit CTRL+R constantly while on your contributions page to ensure that your voice is not heard. I'm considering hiring some people to help me stalk you while I'm eating and sleeping too. It's deliciously amusing to me.
 * P.S. Stalking would probably mean following you around on wikipedia articles you edit. But since you've only edited one article, the BLP of a man you despise, I guess it's sort of impossible to have stalked you at this point huh? --Ubiq (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ubiq, could you tone it down a bit. It's rather apparent that TGL is a bit frustrated right now and jumping down his throat and being snarky isn't going to help with that. On another note, this removal of yours seems to be out of order. The "Bare knuckle" article says at the bottom of the first page that Obama's decision divided local political activists. While the wording of the sentence improperly applied that division to his legal challenges when it was more his decision to stay in the race that caused the division, it could have been rewritten in a manner that made it clear that it was his decision to stay in the race that divided the political activists and that the reason why the nomination petitions were rejected was because critical errors on the part of the candidates and that challenging signatures is relatively common in Chicago...--Bobblehead (rants) 06:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and I removed it for those reasons, so I wouldn't exactly call my edit "out of order". Also, note that I initially tried to add something in my edit about importance in respect to his BLP, but my edit summary was too long. I also wouldn't say I jumped down his throat. He said I was stalking him. I refuted his claim with a little sarcasm, maybe I could have done without it, but you know, I felt like being "snarky" in response to such a silly claim wouldn't have been such a big deal. --Ubiq (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * fyi most editors around here will give you 3 or four edits per topic before they even warn you, unless its an ongoing thing. Just because you got warned does not necessarily mean it would be upheld or anything. 3rr regs do say "3 conflicting edits in a 24 hour period" and some people will definitely try and convince you that means essentially 3 edits on any PAGE per day. However the political pages move FAST sometimes and I think most regulars recognize that at some level. More to the point, if you are even coming close to 3rr, you need to look at what you're doing wrong towards consensus, and not how technical the regulations are... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DR for dispute resolution. WP:RFA for requesting to be an admin. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I removed the bit on the seven years of Republican control. I just noticed that the sentence prior to that one establishes that the senate was controlled by Republicans for a decade prior to 2003. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, I hadn't noticed that either. Sorry for the repetition.  Grsz  11  06:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Such statements are starting to sound like a chant from certain quarters. "Oops, didn't notice I did that. Sorry. Oops, didn't notice I did that. Sorry ..." Meanwhile, there are people all around you who have noticed that this article fails WP:NPOV. It reads like a campaign brochure for ObamaForAmerica.com. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, well excuse me for missing the previous sentence because of all the cite news templates. Gosh. I'm not even sure how you're reply was relevant.  Grsz  11  17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Addition - He bowled a 37
I mean, it makes about as much sense to put in here as the fact that he likes "chili," is a "decent poker player," thinks "architect" is a good alternate career for him, has relatives that look like Bernie Mac, or is left-handed. Might as well fill it to the brim with vacuous and harmless nonsense so serious issues can't be put in here.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The chili, poker player, architect, and left-handedness are definitely candidates for deletion, but the Bernie Mac quote is applicable to the article because Obama's cultural diversity is an important part of his history, so that should probably stay.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bobble, I agree that left-handed isn't necessary, but let's not judge chili and architect too quickly. The cited source was written as a human interest story and earns its bytes, I think. If you still have doubts about keeping the chili another day, please check this (browse ½ way down the page). As for poker, I'd say that one is a definite hold. --HailFire (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have chopped-out the left-handed sentence (or should that be "I've chopped off his left hand"?), but I agree that the other stuff should probably stay since they are things he specifically mentioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just becaues "he specifically mentioned" something doesn't make it material for an encyclopedia. This article has well over 500 words of direct quotations from Barack Obama - the article on William Shakespeare, Master of the English Language, doesn't have anywhere near that. This crap is what makes this article look so unprofessional. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, if y'all want to keep it, go crazy. I was more looking at it in "importance" compared to the rest of the article, but I'm not attached to the other things staying or leaving. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bernie Mac quote was to highlight the fact that this article seems to have a preternatural fascination with quoting Barack Obama. His "cultural diversity" is highlighted just fine in the early life section and adjoining article. Not only that, you are making the assumption that it IS an important part of his history. Politicians say a lot of silly things, this article has a tendency to put essentially meaningless quotes in here - it looks lazy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That it looks lazy is merely your opinion though. Some people probably consider it a relief to have such tidbits in an article, especially one of this length that's replete with history/policy. --Ubiq (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry it is shoddy - this artcle has over 500 words of direct quotations from Barack. The articles of Clinton and McCain only have brief snippets. Quoting a politician, of all people, as examples of his personal beliefs or policy advocation is quite simply ridiculous. The "tidbits" of his rhetoric have crowded out other, more valid, information that should be included in this article, but is simply quite lacking.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I trust that you have a policy or guideline that says the subject of an article can be used as a reference for themselves, except if they are politician, then they are an unreliable source.. All of the policies and guidelines I've seen seem to indicate that the subject of an article is a reliable source regardless of their chosen profession. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:NPS - this article clearly fails under that criteria. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NPS is to include an entire primary source as an article, it does not mean that you can't not use short quotes, which is why it tells you to use Wikisource for that purpose. Suggest you re-read that guideline. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A further guideline about use of primary sources is here. It says that an example of a primary source is an eyewitness account of a traffic accident.  This would include a quoted sentence from an eyewitness, or an entire interview of an eyewitness.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misinterpreting WP:PSTS and its location within WP:NOR it is saying that we should not use a primary source to support an analysis, synthesis, etc. and is not applicable to the use of quotes.--Bobblehead (rants) 01:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS is applicable to quotes if the quote is from a primary source. It's fine to use them "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."  As you say, the main thing is not to use them to support an analysis, synthesis, etc.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great source, I didn't know about that policy, and it really helps to communicate what I was trying to get across. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that this is not a discussion forum. Since your "proposed addition" was clearly facetious and intended simply to make a point there isn't much point in continuing this topic. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as you keep in my that I'm just using MY communication style to highlight the fat that needs to be cut from this bloated article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is unfair, he only played 7 frames. Maybe if the game was finished...  Grsz  11  23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate the reasoning behind this deletion. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection, I'd like to restore the text and sources on his favorite recreational pastimes and alternate career choice. --HailFire (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't object as long as you think its reasonable for me to put a picture of him smoking in the article - otherwise most of that trivia has no place in the article. Only the high school basketball stuff seems remotely relevant to a biography. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, I was just trying to appeal to those above.  Grsz  11  02:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks! --HailFire (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Review consensus: This is a hagiography
Featured Article review is here. The consensus in this FAR is that in order to keep FA status, the article must be transformed from a hagiography into a true biography, that shows the flaws in Obama that his supporters are trying to hide. Josiah Rowe has agreed that quotes from Obama's critics should be included: "Rather than removing encyclopedic material about Obama using his own words, it's more productive to focus on adding encyclopedic material covering the viewpoints of notable critics."

So my message to the Obama supporters is this: when you see one of us adding a quotation from a notable critic, or a mention of one of Obama's less than storybook-perfect associates such a Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright, please don't exercise your usual revert reflex. We are not trying to attack Obama or tear him down. We are trying to restore NPOV to this article and serve the interests of the Wikipedia project, rather than the Obama campaign, with this article. This is a last-ditch effort to preserve Featured Article status, which will be lost unless it achieves NPOV, and I encourage you to support this effort. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Kossack said it pretty well. I wouldn't exactly call it a true hagiography, but the praise far outweighs any criticism. Instead of voting against the article in the FAR (which I was going to do), I provided a list of quotes that I *know* to be POV above; most were just tossed out or left the way they are because of some crazy undue weight and "BLP concerns". After that experience, knowing that I can't get too much done, I had to vote to remove the article at the FAR, because I am a NPOV editor, and my simple attempt to help this article retain its status was anything but helpful. The main editors need to be willing to have an open mind about these issues; as Kossack said, we are not crazy partisans out to slander Obama in any way, but rather improve this weak article bogged down with compliments and overlooking criticism. Happyme22 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so fond of the "crazy undue weight and 'BLP concerns'" and "weak article" lines, or Kossak's characterization of editors here as "Obama supporters". These things make it hard to take your concerns seriously. And as far as I know, there's not quite been a "consensus" on the FAR yet. --Ubiq (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I should have distinguished myself from the pro-Obama editor comments; I do not feel that all the editors of the page have pro-Obama bias, but a good number do. Happyme22 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This alleged "consensus" is just right-wing BS. Kossack, Locust, Andy and Happyme all agree this article is a hagiography. That's a consensus of the anti-Obama crowd. I almost cried with laughter when I read this. You guys are funny. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny I'm left-wing, but I favor improving this article by removing the self-serving praise scattered throughout it.TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on Obama either way, so I rebuke your comment that I am "anti-Obama". I am a NPOV editor who has noticed flaws in the article and has tried to fix them. Please don't lump me into that category. Happyme22 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your claims of neutrality aren't backed up by your editing history. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * agreed. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's the most neutral editor here - by far and I commend him for it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< It is very simple, really, unless editors collaborate and pursue dispute resolution as in any other article, or the article will be kept protected. There is no reason to use threats of "losing the FA status", or to describe editors as "pro Obama", or "right-wing crowd", or any other such comments. There is no reason to edit war either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * tendentious editing definitely applies however. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been nice and respectful to all editors of this page, and here I am being labeled as "anti-Obama". Why? Is it because the Rev. Wright controversy was misrepresented and I clarified Wright's actual statements? I do not support Kossack's Wright revision of the page because it is giving too much undue weight, and I do not favor adding many of the claims that GoodLocust has proposed. I have no problem giving praise to Obama in this article; I do have a problem when it becomes largely only praise. I had only read this article only once before a few days ago. As an outsider, I noticed problems with the page, was going to vote to remove it's FA status but didn't in the hope that I could help editors to remove some of the POV, and introcued a list above. My list was largely rejected, and here I am being labeled as anti-Obama. I'm shocked to say the least. If you think I'm so POV, please read this dispatch report. Happyme22 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the criticism of Obama in this article? Where? Can someone link it here please? I can't find a bit of it. Every word is praise. Help me out here. I can't find one word of criticism in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is criticism Kossack. Happyme22 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and its on the page as well boys- coverage of the Wright CRITICISM has been there since before either one of you showed up. We added coverage of the Rezko CRITICISM. what else do you really think is out there? and don't say voting record please. Contrary to your numerous hyperbolic claims, the RS criticism IS in the page, following due weight guidelines. deal with it... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It mentions Rezko's name. It doesn't mention that he's currently on trial unless I put it there. Then it gets removed two minutes later. What I'm asking, Happyme, is this: where is the criticism from notable sources? The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and National Review are all notable sources that have published extensive and scathing criticisms of Obama. But not a word finds its way here. Where are the quotations from the critics? Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * well that clearly explains why when you check the page history, I am the one who kept trying to add the indictment mention, and I made it stick too. still, great npov summary of events kossak, I appreciate the humor. surely Yermak Timofeyevich is rolling in his grave as we speak. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am confused. What has the fact that Rezko's on trial have to do with Barack Obama's BLP? It would violate WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT, WP:BLP and probably WP:NPOV to include such information. These are matters for Rezko's BLP. There are no links between Obama and any alleged illegality on Rezko's part. It's one thing to take donations and have associations with someone who has previously been involved in something illegal, but you're saying Obama is guilty by association of something that happened after his associations with Rezko, as if Obama had some sort of crystal ball he could gaze into. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

An opinion from an unbiased non-American
I see that there is a comment from someone editing from India that this article is biased. I agree. I also agree that there is some common sense in trying to get rid of the bias by re-inserting neutral/sometimes negative information. As long as the negative information is sourced and presented in a balanced manner, then it's ok.

I agree with the invasion of Pakistan favored by Obama is an important thing to add.

I disagree with accusations of calling people socks just as an excuse to ban them as someone threatened above. I don't want to be banned so I will sign out with my IP to show that I am a non-American located in Southeast Asia who is only observing the election and has no opinion on who someone should vote for. 116.12.165.227 (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — 116.12.165.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here's a good quote Barack Obama has said he would use military force if necessary against al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without Pakistan's consent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm 116.12.165.227 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — 116.12.165.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Pakistan has it's own section in the article Political positions of Barack Obama, here. Other than that, it isn't notable enough to mention here, per the policies at WP:SS.  Grsz  11  04:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever your intentions are, I will leave it unsaid. But, hiding it there could be POV.  What's there to hide.  His desire to get tough with Pakistan is unique.  It should be there.  116.12.165.227 (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — 116.12.165.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not about hiding anything, as it's plain to see. It's about the fact that this article is a biography, and it really isn't proper to put such information here, when there is a much more appropriate place for it to go. It really isn't discussed by the media here, which apparantly is the determing factor in deciding what is notable.  Grsz  11  02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvement today, some worsening / tactics that POV pushers use
This article is so sick that I am pretty fed up with it. Why waste my time with POV pushers? That's there tactic, I think. Chase people away. Ban those who don't leave. Stalin did that - force you to leave Russia and kill the rest.

Where's the passage about his state senate career where he is imfamous for voting "present"? This is very important cuz it's unique.116.12.165.227 (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — 116.12.165.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Barack Obama: "He was criticized by rival pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues.[36]"
 * Before you go off calling everybody a "POV pusher"..read the whole damn article.  Grsz  11  19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
Since myself and several other editors believe this article is too POV the the tag should placed up top. I think this should be for the entire article since, while the effusive self-serving praise tends to be later in the article, the POV for the earlier sections are due omission. The only people who seem to think this article is fair and balanced are those who like Obama. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wright issue was resolved. What else is there?  Grsz  11  20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no no - YOU say the Wright issue is resolved. I disagree completely. Plus, this article has self-serving and unsubstantiated quotes of Obama all over the place (especially at the end) instead of relying on secondary sources. The state senate section omitts how he legally strong-arms all his opponents off the ballot. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The current paragraph on Wright was added by Andy.  Grsz  11  20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am responsible for splitting the Wright material from the paragraph that preceeds it, but I am not responsible for the "current paragraph" as of 20:15 on 4 April, which I describe in the section below, "Nonsense". Andyvphil (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't notice the new section - it should be linked in the contents as a section of his presidential campaign. Nevertheless, my other points still stand until they are also resolved. Mainly, the overuse of self-serving quotes needs to be drastically cut down. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should the Wright affair have a sub-section header? It was an important event in the campaign, but I'm not clear on why it should be considered more important than, say, Obama's victories in Iowa or Super Tuesday.  Putting a sub-section header on the Wright business would be recentism.  Indeed, it seems to me to be a case of exactly the kind of thing noted in the list of examples: "A political candidate's biography article may become bloated with specific details related to a particular election season despite that politician having a career outside that election."  I have no serious problem with the Wright section as it now stands (save the small quibble below), but I would oppose an effort to give it its own header. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right, maybe I'm letting my bias guide me too much in this matter. Seems like it should be in a seperate criticism section, since this article has an "honors and awards" section - which includes some ridiculous praise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

TGL wrote: this article has an "honors and awards" section. It did, but it doesn't now. I've removed that section following integration of its most notable elements elsewhere in the article. "10 people who could change the world" was dropped; Joe Klein (TIME 100) gets to sing praises once in the Books section, together there with the two spoken word Grammys; academic honors were moved to top of Senate Career section. What do others think? Any better? --HailFire (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To avoid two parallel discussions on the same edit, please post any comments re the section's removal here. --HailFire (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)