Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 17

wright aids conspiracy
why "not appropriate?" the aids conspiracy page exists and has numerous sources. wright was talking about AIDS conspiracy theories. where is the disconnect here? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Already commented here, but the short answer is that links should only be made from words that are associated with the links and MOSQUOTE only provides guidelines for linking within quotes, not outside. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 72 respond here, but moving the discussion here so others can join in.--Bobblehead (rants) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the additional context provided by the link to the conspiracy theory article is necessary to the understanding of Wright's quote, nor does any evidence need to be provided about other's making such claims. The quote pretty much speaks for itself. If there weren't quote marks around the sentence, then more than likely there would be a link to the conspiracy article (and there was one), but that's just because Wikipedia likes to interlink within itself. Breaking the "sanctity" of a quote by linking from within it needs to have a better reason than what is generally applied to wikilinking. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree. Or perhaps I misunderstand, but why wouldn't we link to AIDS conspiracy theories just because it's mentioned inside rather than outside a quote? Wikilinking does not affect the "sanctity" of a quote, because it's wiki-specific meta-issue that doesn't in any way alter the quote's content. The only reason not to link is if the page would not provide useful background information and context for readers, and the opposite seems to be the case here: any reader puzzled by Wright's comment (i.e., ones completely unfamiliar with the very notion that AIDS is a government conspiracy&mdash;or worse, ones who are completely unaware that AIDS wasn't created by the U.S. government!!) would benefit enormously from a wikilink explaining his view in detail. If we can wikilink chili con carne and Democratic Party (Italy) from Barack Obama, we can surely link to AIDS conspiracy theories. -Silence (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged elitism
I have reverted the creation of a new section focussing on Sen. Obama's recent controversial comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians. A new section for this material does not seem appropriate. Obama is being accused of "elitism" in response to those comments of his, and this seems like the kind of thing that would be better to put in the existing section on his image (or the section on his 2008 campaign). So, I'd like to propose that we include something like this....

"Senator Obama came in for heavy criticism during April of 2008 for alleged elitism, after he made the following remarks:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them....And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

"He made these remarks at a private fundraiser in San Francisco.

"[1]Bacon, Perry and Murray, Shailagh. "Opponents Paint Obama as an Elitist", Washington Post (2008-04-12)."

Does that seem okay? I would put it right before the sentence that begins, "Writing about Obama's political image in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion...." Alternatively, it could go at the end of the section on his presidential campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this an encyclopedia or a news magazine? "A candidate said something other candidates deplored" isn't particularly useful long-lasting information. (Not to mention that the "elitist" tag is quite amusing coming from supporters of the two multi-millionaires in the race.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it may be premature to add this info about his "elitist" image. Better to wait a few days, and see if this aspect of his image has staying power.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Speaking in general: If such a remark is part of a pattern that the political figure makes, one that's closely associated with his or her image, putting it in "Cultural and political image" can be appropriate. If such a remark is just a one-off blunder, no matter how stupid, offensive, or politically damaging, then the campaign section is likely more appropriate. In any case, creating a "controversial comments" or "controversies" section is not the way to go. A bunch of editors went through a lot of effort to get rid of such sections for all the candidates' articles in the 2008 presidential election (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections); let's not go backwards now. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with WTR, and that's why I reverted the creation of a controversies section. If this San Fancisco quote does resonate, and is inserted into this article, then it will not be unique.  This article already says that, "two rival candidates charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns."  The suggestion contained in the WaPo article is that the same may apply to all working-class folks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well regardless of how much attention it gets, it doesn't belong in a biography about his whole life.  Grsz  11  02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Grsz is 180-degrees wrong, as usual. "The comments... drew attention to a potential Obama weakness — the image some have that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof." - Associated Press Now, as it happens we have a section on "Cultural and political image" that talks about Obama's "neutral persona", his "everyman" image, his "magical Negro" image, his "personification of both-and", and his "youthful image". But nothing about an image as "arrogant and aloof" (not to mention "condescending"). Either the AP is talking about an image hald by an insignificant few (WP:FRINGE) or this article is failing to follow its duty in policy of "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources..." "...This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."(WP:NPOV) Andyvphil (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It could possibly merit inclusion in the campaign section if it becomes a "defining moment" (sort of like Kerry's "It voted for it before I voted against it", or GHWB's "No new taxes!"; note that the defining of such moments isn't always "fair"). To know this of course requires patience in seeing how things play out.  In the Hillary articles I've tried to delay inclusion of these "campaign kerfuffle of the day" items until there's a better sense of their lasting importance.  Needless to say, such delaying doesn't fit in well with the Wikipedia model, and I've been spectacularly unsuccessful :-)  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Though unsuccessful in that respect, you have gained considerable notoriety WTR, and I am in process of writing your Wikipedia article. :-) If this remark torpedoes his presidential campaign (unlikely), then surely it might warrant a brief mention here in this article, right Grsz?  Anyway, as I mentioned, this article already contains stuff like the following, which doesn't seem more notable than the elitism stuff: "two rival candidates charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns."  And, this article also already contains quite a bit of minutae on other topics that really aren't very revealing about the man (e.g. Obama saying his name means "blessed", Obama comparing himself to JFK, etc etc).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This belongs in the Obama presidential campaign section, not here. And the media describing it as a "blunder" shows media bias, imo. Obama said he stands by what he said although he could have phrased it better. He probably should not even gone that far, nothing wrong with what he said, it wasn't a blunder and wasn't elitist. JonErber (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It is clear to anyone with a moderate accumulation of brain cells that the McCain and Clinton party machines have taken Obama's words out of context and twisted them to gain political capital. Anyone hearing or reading the full text of what he said will realize that Obama meant no slight to the group he was describing, and that the MSM is merely parroting the McCain and Clinton press releases. It will be forgotten within a week, and it probably doesn't even warrant a mention in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, maybe if it ends his campaign it can be included. But the whole elitist bit is a crock. This is a guy who was raised in Indonesia right? Compared to the other one, who's already been in the White House. And surely Yale is less-"elitist" than Harvard? Andy would be strongly against the comments Obama later made on the subject.  Grsz  11  18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be turning into a real campaign issue. Anyway he discussed similar issues in 2004.
 * short clip of Interview with Charlie Rose
 * Full interview with Charlie Rose
 * short transcript of speech. in which he says the same stuff
 * Mpondopondo (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Andy would be strongly against the comments Obama later made on the subject. If by "strongly against" you mean I would be opposed to mentioning Obama's POV, you haven't been paying attention. Well, I knew that already. Actually, my take on this is not that Obama's elitist, but that the MSM's ingrained left-wing elitism is been such that it hasn't been much noticed when Obama's been condescending. He got all sorts of credit for allowing in his "More Perfect Union" speech that working class white folks might not feel they owed it to black folks to let the latter cut in line ahead of them, and it went unnoticed that he ended up being dismissive of their idea that they had a real grievance. This latest quote is of a piece with that. And the question on the table is how and to what extent we work this negative of view of Obama into the otherwise worshipful "Cultural and political image" section, as required by NPOV policy. Andyvphil (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the earliest, representative (ie more than just one or two editors had input) versions of this article, which would be about the time he addressed the 2004 Convention, about all it says in a short article about Obama's political stance is "staunch liberal". Today, "liberal" occurs only once in a very lengthy article, and even then it has the words "not a" in front of it. "staunch liberal" persisted in this article for AT LEAST 1500 edits and more than two years (I stopped checking after that). A rather interesting evolution! Bdell555 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What does it matter how such terms are used? His political views are expressed here, equally the same as if liberal was used more times.  Grsz  11  06:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you would not object if the article was changed to what you say is "equally the same"? He voted 66 times in 2007. The National Journal counted him as taking the liberal side of the issue being voted on 65 times out of those 66, which made for the more liberal record of anyone who voted enough to drawn a conclusion about, according to this non-partisan source.  Are all 66 votes discussed in the article?  Not from what I can see.  Not that they should be.  There ought to be some sort of summation that reflects what his general approach or philosophy was to all those other votes of his that are not discussed here.  It shouldn't be a space issue since there was room for it in a much shorter article!Bdell555 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a space issue. See the FAQ at the top of the page -- this article is well within size limits. We've got room in "Senate career" for a long list of meaningless honorary doctorates (give a speech, get a doctorate) and the equally meaningless "loyal Democrat" characterization from CQ ("Obama did vote with the party most of the time, but that was also because nearly every time it was majority Dems versus majority Republicans, it was a party-line divisive vote. If he had not voted with the party, it would have meant quite literally turning against roughly 95% of the Democrats.... CQ took his roll call votes and obfuscated the results to make it sound like Obama is “the same as Clinton”, ignoring the fact that by the same criteria, all of the Republicans are the same and all of the Democrats are the same with few exceptions."), but not for the National Journal or ADA rankings. Andyvphil (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

State legislature
I entered this edit:



Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's South Side. 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. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate. 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. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms. 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. 

Andy reverted most of it. Let's discuss. --HailFire (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of it might have been acceptable, particularly if you'd actually transferred the details to Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama first. But I noticed that all mention of how Obama went from being a loyal supporter and protege of Alice Palmer to suing to disqualify her and his other two opponents from the ballot had simply been disappeared. Not acceptable. What I didn't revert I meant to revert, pending discussion and amelioration. Andyvphil (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Soundbite
It seems there is a developing discussion here (and in the related talk page of the campaign article) about the use of the term "soundbites" when referring to comments by Jeremiah Wright. Let us be clear about this: a "soundbite" is defined as an accessible and short piece of speech lifted from a longer speech (or an interview). ABC News trawled through hours and hours of Wright sermon footage and lifted the most controversial soundbites they could find, edited them together and presented them for public consumption. There should be no question that "soundbite" is an appropriate term. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even the soundbite article suggests that the term may carry a negative connotation or call into question the integrity of journalists. My point is that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to reach the conclusion that ABC News's actions were either unprofessional on their own behalf or unfair to Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama.  The term "excerpt" serves the same function, describing the fact that the aired clips were taken from larger sermons, without reaching a POV conclusion, so it should be the preferred term.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I feel that "excerpt" carries POV connotations as well, because it implies that the "clips" (possible alternative?) of Wright were some kind of random sample, rather than the cherry-picked controversial statements that ABC News actually used. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Clips" seems neutral to me, so I would support using that term. -- Dachannien TalkContrib 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Criticisms/Controversy
Before saying this, let me make it clear that I am an Obama supporter and have every intention of voting for him in my upcoming state primary.

I strongly disagree with the decision to not include a consolidated criticisms/controversy section in the article. In response to a past comment of mine in similar vane, it was stated that criticisms and controversy are not encyclopedic. That strikes me as the opposite of the truth. As a candidate for the U.S. presidency, prevalent critical points of view concerning Senator Obama are among the MOST relevant pieces of information to his notability that there are, and they are what many users will come to the article seeking an unbiased presentation of.

In the FAQ above, the following statement is given for why there is no criticisms/controversy section in the article:

"Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article."

There is, however, a section dedicated solely to praises. It is called "Recognition and honors."

I find it interesting that authors decided that recognitions and honors for Senator Obama should not be "worked in" to the rest of the text but that criticisms and controversies should. In any case, the existence of such a section without a corresponding section for criticisms/controversies demonstrates a clear pro-Obama bias in the article.

In my own view, I strongly disagree with the "working in" notion of how the article should be written, both in the case of recognition/honors and criticisms/controversy. Many if not most users will come to the article looking for specific information without time or intention for reading it in its entirety. For these, organizing information into clearly marked sections is extremely useful. Burying specific information within over-homogenized text serves no purpose (other than one's political agenda, of course, which I assume no one here has).

--Floorsheim (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree with WP policy. considering the policy there is no precedent for inclusion of such sections. sorry. BTW- i am always interested when we get someone who immediately professes their support for Obama right on the talk page, so I was wondering what state you live in? It must be so exciting at this point... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "WP policy" has a very specific meaning. What "policy" do you think you are referring to? Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagine he is referring to WP:BLP, but essays like WP:COAT also offer useful insight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I oppose criticism sections, I agree with you that the current praise section is inappropriate. The book-related parts can be worked into the 'books' section, and the other praises/awards can be worked into the article wherever they fit chronologically, if they should be kept at all. johnpseudo 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you, specifically that this should not be a section at all. Johnpseudo's recommendations look to be pretty solid. Although if we fit it in chronologically, it may not necessarily flow like we hope, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to find a place for some of these parts, or perhaps lose some of them. --Ubiq (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I live in PA. I took a close look look at both WP:BLP and WP:COAT and didn't see any mention of a policy against consolidating criticisms or controversies into a so-titled section.  Also, the following is a list of articles, several of which are high profile BLP's that contain dedicated criticism and/or controversies sections, all of which are completely appropriate and valuable to their article in my own view:
 * Bill Clinton
 * McDonald's
 * Same-sex marriage
 * Larry Flynt
 * ISKCON
 * Jim Bakker (scandals)
 * Madonna
 * Paris Hilton
 * pornography (anti-pornography movement)
 * fundamentalism (criticism of fundamentalist positions)
 * Seven Years in Tibet
 * An Inconvenient Truth (controversy section AND criticism section)
 * At this point, I see very little justification for the claim that criticisms and controversies sections are against Wikipedia policy, and they are certainly not without precedent. That said, it's definitely an improvement to have the Honors and Recognition section removed in the absence of a Criticisms/Controversy section.  But again, in my estimation, it would be of great increase to the article's effectiveness and readability to have both sections present for reasons stated above.  I have yet to see a good reason for why such sections should be deemed inappropriate.
 * --Floorsheim (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This essay and this MOS guideline have something to say on criticism sections. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed they do. Thanks.  --Floorsheim (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats an intersting point I think. I can see the point of having a dedicated critisism section, would be okay in my view (granted its not Wikipedia's view). That said, due to the importance of this guy at the moment, I can see the section going waaay out of hand, and any little thing he does 'wrong' would be included... So i think it should continue to be worked in to the article... By the way, going quite a bit off topic, I find it increadibly strange the way US politics work. In the UK, we vote for the party, not the person. So I find it hard to understand how Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton can both be in the same party, but have different opinions? It really is quite funny when people write into papers etc and complain "I dont remember voting for Gordon Brown, so why is he in power." Because you voted for the   party  . &larr; &kappa;&epsilon;&eta;&eta;&epsilon;&part;&gamma; (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support putting in a controversy section or criticism section. I think it would help users that are looking for big issues that they think will be found in those sections, instead of having to look around the entire article, which is pretty long. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticisms are no bigger issues than anything else in the article. Can you explain to me why you are more interested in making negative information accessible than in making all of Obama's biographical information logically organized and accessible? johnpseudo 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is intersting that many Wikipedia articles on individuals pile on the praise, and have little criticism. It's very unbalanced.  Even the article on Adolf Hitler doesn't have a "criticisms" section.  Of course, it doesn't have a "priases" or "awards/honors" section, either.  I suppose that people just like to write good things about people---even evil, loathsome bastards.  Of course, maybe people are just worried about being sued for defamation or libel. Mas-wiki (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The goal is for criticism to be integrated into relevant sections of the article. A biography on Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a separate chapter on "criticisms" — it would integrate what an evil, loathsome bastard he was throughout, by referring to specific evil, loathsome acts and ideas for which he was resonsible.  With regard to this article, it's not just that "people like to write good things about people" — it's that Wikipedia has a very specific policy on how to handle biographies of living people.  That policy states:"The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.  Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."All edits to this article must be in keeping with that policy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review #3
User:Joelr31 decided to close the FA review of this article. Gimmetrow 06:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Archived at Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Guess I can't be surprised--it seemed like the FAR sort of served as a platform for more content disputes anyway. Thanks for the heads up. --Ubiq (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Inexcusable admin arrogance. . Andyvphil (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Way too much Rezko information
The following currently appears in the "Early life and private career" section: "Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., owned by Tony Rezko and Daniel Mahru. Rezko, who has raised up to $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns, is currently on trial in federal court on felony charges for money laundering, extortion, and fraud. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing." I believe there is far too much detail about Rezko in these sentences. The only significant pieces of information worthy of inclusion in the article are: The fact that Rezko is currently on trial should not be included because (a) he has not been convicted of anything yet and (b) it violates WP:BLP and WP:RECENT - the word "currently" should never appear in a BLP, should it? Details about what Rezko is on trial for certainly seem unrelated to Obama's BLP. And why is Daniel Mahru mentioned at all? And why is the amount of money raised significant (other fundraisers have raised equal or greater amounts, yet they are not mentioned)? I think these sentences need to be examined with a critical eye and completely rewritten with these extraneous details removed. I am not disputing the facts of what has been written, only that these facts shouldn't really be in a BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) One of Obama's clients was Tony Rezko
 * 2) Rezko has helped with fundraising for Obama's various campaigns


 * Of course the information should be in this BLP. Rezko is a seminal figure in Obama's career as a politician. Perhaps not at all in "Early life and PRIVATE career", and Rezko's involvement with Obama's house is no longer merely "Personal". But you need to find a place for it in this article before you delete it where it is. Rezko doesn't fit comfortably inside the current organization of "State legislature", "Senate campaign", etc. The solution is to change the structure to fit the material, or wait until the Rezko matter impacts the campaign big time. I already went through this with Wright, where it was argued that the fact that his church was Afrocentric and political wasn't appropriate for "Personal Life" either, and the preferred solution of the claque was to delete any mention of those facts. Not gonna happen this time either. Andyvphil (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I typed "private" there. Brain fade of some sort, I guess. My bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. That was the name of the section. Someone changed it. Might have been me. I don't remember doing it, but it was on my mental list. Andyvphil (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the charges against Rezko were completely unrelated to his relationship with Obama (drug-related charges, for example, or patronizing a prostitute as Eliot Spitzer did), I would agree that Scjessey is correct, and that any mention of those charges has no place here. But that is not the case. These charges allege crimes related to campaign fundraising, and that's what Rezko has done for Obama: campaign fundraising. A federal prosecutor has properly alleged, via the charging documents resulting in Rezko's indictment, that Rezko extorted money from campaign contributors that found its way into Obama's political campaign accounts. Other fundraisers may have raised more money for Obama, but since they are neither on trial nor under indictment nor even under investigation, they are not notable. Rezko was providing money for Obama's political ambitions from the very first day. If Rezko turns out to be guilty, Obama's entire career is the fruit of a poisonous tree. Notable? How could it not be notable? Appropriate for a BLP? Again, how could it not be? Particularly since we say straightaway, "Obama has not been implicated in any crimes"? Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Scjessey brought my attention to the sentences in "Early life..." that were duplicative of the "Personal life" material, and since I've learned quite a bit about Tony Rezko in the course of recently making substantial additions to that article, I've performed a rewrite to indicate how Obama became acquainted with Rezko before he ran for office, and to indicate the ultimate (so far) result."As an associate attorney with Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 2002, Obama represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. While Obama never took part in a trial, he worked on teams drawing up briefs, contracts, and other legal documents. This included being part of teams that represented Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a successful lawsuit that forced the state of Illinois to implement a federal law that was designed to make it easier for people to register to vote, an appeals brief on behalf of a whistleblower that was suing Cook County Hospital and the Hektoen Institute for Medical Research for wrongful termination, and on another team forced the city of Chicago to redraw ward boundaries that the city council drew up following the 1990 census. In 1997, following his election to the Illinois Senate, Obama's work for the firm diminished sharply and he let his license became inactive in 2002. The firm represented, and senior partner Allison S. Davis became a business partner with, Tony Rezko's Rezmar Corporation. Obama did some work representing Davis in his negotiations with Rezmar and also a small amount of work directly for Rezmar, and Rezko subsequently became the first substantial financial contributor to his political career and raised in the vicinity of $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns before becoming notorious for abusing minority set-asides, milking taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation programs, and other financial frauds. He is currently on trial in federal court for extorting kickbacks and political contributions (mostly for Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, but also for others including redirecting a kickback to $10,000 in contributions to Obama) as well as private financial frauds. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing." The claque is already out in force (Looneymonkey accuses me of turning the article into my blog, and Wordbuilder's revert deletes the additional information in the name of "balance") - the usual nonsense arguments for censorship. But I stand behind this text (except that I need to clarify why some sources say one and some say two $10,000 contribs were made to Obama; I think one was out of a $250K kickback, and the other was illegal only because Rezko reimbursed the giver, and the latter may not be at issue in this trial). Andyvphil (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In a clean-up of the Barack Obama section, I removed the Rezko text for reasons of WP:SS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:RECENT. It is not clear why this text belongs either in this summary section or in the associated subarticle. Consider this quote from Obama's interview with the Chicago Tribune:

I first met Tony Rezko when I was still at law school, or at least I had just graduated from law school. He had two partners, a guy named Dan Mahru and David Brint. They had started a real estate company called Rezmar. They contacted me while I was the president of the Harvard Law Review and asked if I was coming back to Chicago and was thinking about future employment, would I be interested in potentially getting involved in development.

And so when I was back in Chicago, and I don't recall whether it was during the summer between, you know, my second and third year [in law school], or whether it was after I had graduated, or whether it was just visiting Michelle, I met with them.

They were, didn't talk to me about a specific job but explained what they were doing in terms of development. Because I had been a community organizer, I think that's what part of what prompted their interest because they were doing a lot of affordable housing work and work with community development corporations.

I had a relatively brief conversation, maybe 45 minutes, and ultimately declined to go into development, but that was the first time I met Tony Rezko.

Fast-forward a little bit, I did not have a lot of interactions with Tony at that point. I was working as an associate at a law firm. There may have been interactions with my law firm and some of the development partners of Rezmar because they would often partner with not-for-profits and we had a small transactional practice in the law firm that specialized in representing not-for-profits—you know, church-based organizations that were doing community development.

I don't recall exactly how many times at that point I had met Tony Rezko, but I don't think at that point I would have considered him a friend. He was an acquaintance.

There is nothing here to suggest that Rezko was notable to Obama's life before his first run for public office, which is where this section ends. --HailFire (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * HailFire, the section covers Obama's entire private career at Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, which lasted until 2002. It goes into detail about all of his civil rights and voting rights cases in the late 1990s, while he was serving in the Illinois legislature. So no, it doesn't end with his first run for public office. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't bother mentioning the recruitment, and maybe it was just coincidence that Obama ended up at the "small Chicago law firm -- Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland -- that helped Rezmar get more than $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 of their 30 apartment buildings for the poor." If I recall correctly, it was the last 15 -- there was a switchover, not sharing, of the work. Anyway, the source I cite says Obama billed 32 hours just on the deal between Davis' Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp and Rezmar...and now he says "There may have been interactions with my law firm and some of the development partners of Rezmar..."??? He forgot his own work and the 14 other deals DMB&G worked on? Anyway, one thing that suggests that "Rezko was notable to Obama's life before his first run for public office" is that the first substantial donation to that first run came from Rezko. And he immediately he kept giving, at least another $1,000 to pay off campaign debts after Obama won, plus who knows how much bundling. What the text says is that Obama met Rezko at this time, and explains why that would prove consequential. Giving things that will prove significant greater emphasis in a biography than they might have seemed to at the time is perfectly appropriate. When you have the benefit of hindsight it's proper to use it. Andyvphil (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the paragraph to remove Mahru (he doesn't have anything to do with the issues, and is not notable. I have also removed reference to the Rezko indictment because we should really be discussing the current legal difficulties of a different person on someone's BLP, particularly as there has been no conviction as yet. If it turns out that Rezko is convicted of crimes directly related to fundraising for Obama, one can envisage giving the Rezko/Obama relationship a fuller treatment. Until such time, however, the indictment and charges should not be in there. Neither should there be Kossack's extra link to Tony Rezko. One blue link to his BLP is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's silly. Rezko's notoriety for abusing minority set-asides, milking taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation programs, and other financial frauds, as reported by multiple RS, isn't dependent of this particular conviction. There's little doubt he will be convicted, of some things anyway, but Wikipedia is not a government body and an OJ verdict won't mean that we will thenceforth have to ignore all the RS that reported he did notorious things. We'll report that it happened, in the unlikely event that he is found guilty of nothing, and we'll report anything relevant found in a range of RS. And we'll obey libel law. Which does not require us to write as if OJ really, really, didn't stab his wife to death. Andyvphil (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning Rezko's notoriety (which is undeniable), I am questioning the inclusion of Rezko-specific details here. Unless there is a direct connection to Obama (and the fundraising connection is indirect) these details are for not for this particular BLP. Additionally, saying "there's little doubt he will be convicted" is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Anyway, I thought OJ was found to be innocent? Not being an American I didn't pay much attention to that trial. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The are no "Rezko-specific details" in my edit beyond those necessary to explain how Obama came to know Rezko and why the connection later became important and then problematic FOR OBAMA, WHOSE BIO WE ARE WRITING. I do not for example talk about his defrauding GE Capital or other investors. This refusal to make elementary distinctions is typical of you, and is also present in your claim about WP:CRYSTAL, which is a policy about article content, not a restriction on the opinions I can express on a discussion page. Andyvphil (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Details about Rezko's indictment (such as a list of charges, which have no direct link to Obama) are indeed Rezko-specific, and have no place in this article. Furthermore, I am well aware of how WP:CRYSTAL works. You are trying to use his "probable conviction" as a justification that such details should be included in the article; therefore, if you add these details you are violating the policy. As far as your suggestion that I am unable to "make elementary distinctions", I refer you to this essay. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

New attempt at Rezko info
I agree that something extra needs to be added to the "early life and career" section about Rezko, but I'm not quite sure of the best way to phrase it. At the moment, positions between editors like Kossack4Truth and myself are obviously poles apart on this matter, but I would like to try and reach a compromise and build a consensus. Here's what I have come up with so far: "Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., half-owned by Tony Rezko, who has raised approximately $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns. In October 2006, Rezko was indicted for political corruption charges and the case was brought to trial in March 2008. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing." How does that sound? I think the indictment and trial are important enough to be mentioned, but I have used the umbrella term of "political corruption charges" (also used in the source) instead of the list of charges that have appeared previously. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe add a source for Obama not being implicated in any wrongdoing. I wouldn't be opposed to a bit more detail on the actual charges, but wrapping it up as "political corruption charges" is an attempt I made earlier (that Andy shot down), so I'm not opposed to that summarization. On a related note, perhaps we should come to an agreement on what to call the legal firm? It was called Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland when Obama was hired, but then changed its name to Davis Barnhill & Galland when Miner retired. Andy seems to be in favor of "Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland", while Scjessey seems to be in favor of Davis Barnhill & Galland (fka Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland). Aside from the italicizing (which probably shouldn't be used), either one is fine with me. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * why not "Davis miner barnhill & Galland (later changed to Davis Barnhill & Galland)"? Lyellin (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It may seem trivial, but the accurate name of the law firm is "Miner, Barnhill and Galland (fka Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland)". Please note the use of "and" instead of an ampersand, and also the commas. I would agree to "then known as" instead of "fka", although that breaks with the usual convention. I have edited the new version above to include a source that says Obama has not been accused of wrongdoing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're looking for the current "accurate" name of the firm, but rather the "historically accurate" name of the firm. Similar to how a person born in a country that changes its name during their lifetime is said to be born in, but from . So if that reasoning is accepted, in the context that the article is using the firm's name, it would probably be acceptable to use just Miner, Barnhill and Galland since that was the name of the company when Obama left it. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to complicate matters, the law firm now seems to be using "and" and "&" interchangeably, although the commas remain. I think "and" is the way to go because web browsers hate ampersands, as a rule. Did Obama leave the firm after the name change? If so, the version without "Davis" makes sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Davis left the firm 5 years (or so) after Obama, so in 98/99 time frame. So after Obama stopped being a full time employee, but before he left the firm completely. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's annoyingly complicated and awkward, isn't it? I suggest we just say "Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland" to put an end to the edit war. Arrr! What say ye? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, I don't care. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno why Sun-Times leaves out the commas, but I stand corrected on that. Ampersand appears most common -- isn't that what's in the picture Scjessey provided? It was "Davis, ..." when Obama joined it, so I'd relegate the name changes to a footnote, particularly since they merely drop names, and important names. If they'd added a partner who became relevant I'd go the other way, however. Might want to mention that former Senator Mosely-Braun worked there too. Andyvphil (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with it staying as it is (Davis, Commas & Ampersand LOL). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Mosely-Braun's employment at the firm is applicable to Obama. It might be good for an article on the firm (if there was one), but not this one. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to enter so late, it seems to meet the information about Rezco's indictment has nothing to do with Obama, and therefor should not be mentioned. The only reason I see mentioning the item is if people believed Obama was linked and there needed to be comments that a formal link of Obama to Rezco's indictment is false. But it appears to me that if someone linked to Obama (Rezco) has been indicted, that is most appropriate on Rezco's page unless Obama is directly linked (did Obama even testify at the trial?) and even if Obama testified at the trial, I am not sure it is noteworthy enough to mentioned here, unless Obama was in the business of being a professional witness at trials (which is not the case here, because he is a sitting US Senator). Now if Obama, had ever been (in a previous life), a professional witness at trials, that would be quiet interested and could be added under his biography. It is me i think (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obama's association to Rezko has been covered in great detail in several reliable sources and the nature of the charges against Rezko (political corruption) does at least create the appearance of impropriety which has also been covered in RS. The disagreement we seem to be having is to what level of detail Rezko's indictment/trial should have in this article. At this point in time, Obama's connection to Rezko's charges themselves seems to be only tangential, so there does seem to be some merit in the "undue weight" claims being thrown around due to the detail some users wish to add to the article. However, to not mention the charges at all seems problematic to me as well, because of the amount of coverage the connection between Rezko and Obama have gotten. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (After an edit conflict) - Although Obama is not directly related to the Rezko trial, there is an indirect relationship. Rezko was a key fundraising figure in the early part of Obama's political career, and some questions have been raised about whether or not donations received by the various Obama campaigns may have come from tainted money sources. My suggested version of the paragraph above attempts to acknowledge this indirect relationship without giving it undue weight. Although I am unhappy about any inclusion of these details (for the same reasons you gave above), I am trying desperately to forge a consensus that will put an end to a rather unseemly edit war. Thus far, there has been no interest in contributing to this discussion by the "Rezko should feature everywhere" crowd, so perhaps a complete removal of all things Rezko-related is in order. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You just started this specific discussion, Scjessey, give it some time. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest, if there is credible news coverage of the story, from real news sources NYT, Herald Tribune, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune (not blogs) that could make the story noteworthy and, I think, could justify being mentioned. But, I think, focus must be done on providing substantial citations (maybe at least 5 credible news stories), which would add credibility to the information.  We must be mindful that this be noteworthy information and not POV.  Including noteworthy information is helpful in strengthening the quality and content of the wiki article.  It is me i think (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made the edit using Scjessey's version. I suppose that will do until Rezko gets convicted. By the way, there was a great article in the Sun Times two days ago, about Obama's name coming up again during the Rezko trial. "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama was again drawn into Tony Rezko's corruption trial on Monday, when the prosecution's star witness placed Obama at a party for an Iraqi-born billionaire who was later barred entry to the United States. Stuart Levine testified under cross-examination that Obama and his wife, Michelle, attended the April 3, 2004, reception for Nadhmi Auchi. Auchi -- who lives in London -- had been convicted of fraud in France in 2003. After visiting Chicago and Detroit in 2004, he wasn't allowed back into this country in 2005, according to a prosecution filing in the Rezko case. The April 3, 2004, gathering for Auchi took place at Rezko's mansion in Wilmette, with about 100 people attending, Levine testified." Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill sponsorship and voting record - HailFire's effort
How about this for inclusion at the end of the first Barack Obama paragraph, just above the Barack Obama subsection:

Nonpartisan analyses of bill sponsorship and voting records have placed him as a "rank-and-file Democrat" and "Democratic Party loyalist." The U.S. Senate Historical Office lists him as the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, the third to have been popularly elected, and the only African American currently serving in the Senate. 

--HailFire (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on HailFire's effort

 * Agreed: I think that is an important addition, and it will certainly please Andy (who has been trying to get Obama's voting record in for ages). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * activate text insertion 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I also wouldn't object to a brief mention of the "most liberal" ranking as suggested by Yahel Guhan above under "Commentary by editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is ok, but I also agree with Wasted Time R above here) when he says that it's a good idea to include a variety of measurements over a career of votes - why would that be a problem here? Tvoz | talk 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with using a number of measurements, but on an aesthetic level I hope we could do better than this, which is just ugly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would object to the use of "most liberal" for the following reasons:
 * That ranking was based on a lack of voting due to campaigning
 * To some people (Republicans, mostly) the term is intended to be derogatory. It's meaning has been co-opted by the right wing to indicate some sort of negative factor
 * When plenty of other data sources exist, this one seems superfluous
 * Incidentally, this particular "metric" was originally suggested by Andy and has been featured in numerous edit wars (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5 et al ad infinitum) -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. The NJ was someone else's addition. I added the ADA and Obama's "old politics" response. Andyvphil (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I concede I may be wrong about who originally added this piece of non-neutral, biased reporting but I am not wrong about who has consistently edit-warred over its inclusion, am I? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than you and the rest of the claque? Andyvphil (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that (a) I think your use of the word "claque" is inappropriate, and (b) I am a neutral editor. I am not part of any group or conspiracy or anything like that. If I were, would I be saying things like this? I simply want the article to be the best it can be so that readers are presented with facts, informed opinion and an urge to click blue links to find out more. It is clear from your editing record that your desire is to mislead and misrepresent. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As one positive step toward possibly lifting full protection before it expires naturally, I suggest we tag the above proposed text with template:editprotected and request its inclusion as an uncontroversial edit supported by (hopefully, more than temporary) consensus. Is it OK? --HailFire (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed: I have no objection to the text in its current proposed form. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's an improvement to the article, and that its addition should be uncontroversial. (Again, I'm abstaining from editing the article while it's currently protected; another admin can make the edit if we agree that there's a consensus supporting it.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, rejecting ahead of time any notion that this is a consensus version (it's completely inadequate, consisting of a poorly documented co-sponsorship measure by Govtrack, which doesn't even seem to offer a table of scores, merely a rather unclear diagram, and a party unity measure so wildly skewed -- the average Dem score is circa 95-96% -- that it allows very little distinction between Dems, and with the underlying link to the CQ PDF dead it's not well documented either), I nonetheless don't mind this addition, even though it's clearly intended to sneak soothing characterizations of Obama ("rank-and-file" and "loyalist") into the article without much examination of what they might mean. More info is better (like what's at Clinton, never mind if it's "ugly") and I won't POINTily hold yours hostage. Andyvphil (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. That may be the least gracious acceptance of an edit proposal I've seen on Wikipedia.  Most edit proposal rejections have less vitriol than that.  I particularly like the way you managed to slip an accusation of bad faith in there.  Deftly done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry I gave the impression I was slipping anything in. It's to the National Journal that we have a response by Obama, and its the ADA rating that has long pedigree, so that in my response to highlighting the obscure and the useless while ignoring those I intended my accusation of bad faith to be front and center and illuminated in neon. Will do better next time. Andyvphil (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone really has any doubt about obvious disdain for virtually every editor involved with this article, Andy. As far as I can tell you actually assume bad faith, unless somebody unexpectedly agrees with you, whereupon you throttle back your contempt to just suspicion. -- Scjessey (talk)
 * It's not "assumption". It's experience. Check WP:AGF -- given enough evidence to the contrary you no longer have to play Pangloss. Andyvphil (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this?

The nonpartisan publication CQ Weekly characterized Obama as a "loyal Democrat", based on Senate votes cast in 2005 through 2007. 

--HailFire (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * HailFire, if you're trying to placate Andy, you probably won't succeed until you've included that the National Journal found Obama to be "The most liberal senator in 2007" vs. 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006 and several other of the "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" ratings.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he did wait until this discussion had expired, which suggests at least some progress, yes? --HailFire (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And no, I wasn't trying to placate. I thought this last version was an improvement on the one I offered previously, because it responded to a valid objection that Andy had made about citing GovTrack as a source. Pushback is OK by me, it's how this article got to be where it is today, and it is how this article will improve in the future. --HailFire (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your attitude and strategy towards editing are admirable, really. I think I have some things to learn from you. --Ubiq (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[out] Yes, CQ is non-partisan, so it's a better source to use. Tvoz | talk 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"rank and file Democrat" is not informative. So he generally votes with his party. For non-Americans like myself that is especially uninformative since in my country, for example, Members of Parliament generally get expelled from their respective parties if they vote in defiance of their party leader's directions even once. At a minimum this description of Obama's voting record should therefore be accompanied with a note indicating that moderate or centrist US Congressmen will often vote with the majority of the opposing party. This article said "staunch liberal" for YEARS and thousands of edits until it was taken out, presumably because either (A) a "staunch liberal" is unlikely to ever become President in the USA and a sizable group of editors want to assist this candidate's bid for that office, (B) Obama changed his political philosophy or (C) the initial characterization was wrong. If the answer is (C) a corollary is that Wikipedia is fundamentally unreliable since we are talking about an article about a sitting US Senator that was edited at least 1500 times and over at least two years if not more with that designation remaining. "Staunch liberal" apparently disappears about when he decides to run outside a blue state. Coincidence? If the answer is (B) there should be more evidence of such a transformation. The NJ had him more "liberal" than 99% of the Senate in 2007 and Mark Penn, a Democrat, has no problem with the National Journal as a source (page 4 of http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/17/080317fa_fact_lizza). The New York Times doesn't have a problem with it either, see the NYT article titled "Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25obama.html). Does the Wiki community seriously believe the NYT routinely refers to unreliable sources? Apparently so, because whereas the NYT says "Mr. Obama insists ... his proposals are solidly in the mainstream of Democratic thought", Wiki essentially drops the "Mr. Obama insists" part! Even the study by political science professors Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole at http://voteview.com/sen110.htm that I've seen offered up as a counter to the National Journal study has Obama to the left of 90% of the Senate.Bdell555 (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that "rank and file Democrat" is a rather US-centric designation, and this needs to be addressed. His actual liberal/conservative position varies considerably depending on which metrics are consulted. For example, this analysis puts him in a very centrist position. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Scjessey's electoral-vote.com "analysis": Note that Obama's ADA rating in the electoral-vote.com table is only 75% because he missed 5 of the 20 votes the ADA uses in his rankings and despite voting on the liberal side in all 15 of the votes he participated in. The "Votemaster" seems to have missed this in reaching his "among the least liberal" conclusion about both Clinton & Obama. Which is very odd, since he supplies a link to the 2005 rankings where the "most liberal" Senator is....oops...Obama. You'd think he'd have remembered that result. Andyvphil (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the CQ ranking: We've got room in "Senate career" for a long list of meaningless honorary doctorates (give a speech, get a doctorate) and the equally meaningless "loyal Democrat" characterization from CQ ("Obama did vote with the party most of the time, but that was also because nearly every time it was majority Dems versus majority Republicans, it was a party-line divisive vote. If he had not voted with the party, it would have meant quite literally turning against roughly 95% of the Democrats.... CQ took his roll call votes and obfuscated the results to make it sound like Obama is “the same as Clinton”, ignoring the fact that by the same criteria, all of the Republicans are the same and all of the Democrats are the same with few exceptions."), but not for the National Journal or ADA rankings. Andyvphil (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the "mainstream" quote! The claque is shameless. Andyvphil (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Jeffords article says that Jeffords' "voting record was moderate-to-liberal". POV?  Interestingly, if you consider that Jeffords caucuses with the Democrats, our supposedly "rank and file Democrat" voted AGAINST the majority of his caucus on the John G. Roberts nomination, a vote with 100% turnout (which says something about its importance).  Had Obama voted FOR Roberts he would have voted with the majority of Democrats (and all Republicans).  But he did not. Meanwhile, that "source" Scjessey cites says "when people say Obama and Clinton are liberals, that's not true; when people say McCain is a conservative, that is true."  Yet whose name is featured in the stories (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301169.html for an example) about the "Group of 14" bipartisan consensus on judicial nominations?Bdell555 (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that "staunch liberal" was an unsupported characterization in the "state legislature" section (Regarded as a staunch liberal during his tenure in the legislature, he helped to author a state Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to the working poor.) and it was removed in September 2006 as being POV. So there's a (D) option - it was an unsupported opinion that shouldn't be in the article.  Newer editors aren't responsible for what preceded them -  the removal of the obviously POV "staunch liberal"  was completely appropriate. (And  since September 2006 the article has been edited much more than it was prior to then.)  In any case, as I said earlier,  I think the approach we take on the Clinton page, as described here where rankings from a variety of organizations are presented, and the reader can decide on how to interpret them, works well.  As for your earlier concerns about aesthetics regarding that, Josiah, to me the NPOV  and  full protection labels  that get slapped onto the article do more damage. Tvoz | talk 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's the (C) option. Can you identify a clearly false fact that has persisted in a Wikipedia article for years and through more than 1500 article edits?  No?  So this is the first case?  What's changed is that new editors like yourself, who believe it is POV, are here and standing on guard to revert.  You are claiming that the consensus has changed, but in fact there is no evidence for that, because there have been recent edit wars over the "liberal" tag.  Are there 1500 different editors here reverting "liberal"?  It is far, far fewer than that.  A small number of highly motivated (ie partisan) editors can revert all attempts to bring it back in, but they cannot call their success the "consensus" when an equally plausible explanation is that these reverters represent an Obama claque.  Perhaps people that know better just aren't inclined to keep battling.  I haven't edited this article once (because I'm testing the water to see if its infested with partisans first so I don't waste my time).  Determining the consensus means looking at more than the page's last edit, and looking at what other sources say.  What's POV is having the article read more like what the Obama campaign wants it to read like instead of what most sources read like.  If it is POV to call someone a liberal (or, say, a neocon) then there must not be any liberals (or neocons) in the US.  Do you really believe that?  If the current article is such an improvement with respect to POV, then why are there no rankings to replace the supposedly POV "liberal" identification?  In any case, the NY Times, and a gazillion other sources, calls him "liberal", and in a headline yet.Bdell555 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re "clearly false fact" that persisted in high-profile article, yes, the Hillary article wrongly had her as valedictorian at Wellesley for two years, the mistake was called out in an MSNBC article, quite the embarrassment. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, if that was directed at me, I'm a new editor now? Take a look at the stats please. And where did I say something about consensus changing or that the statement was or was not true? I made a simple point in response to your accusations: saying "regarded as a staunch liberal" is POV if it's not backed up by sources; when those words were in the article there was no source pointing to who regarded him as a staunch liberal, or what the statement was based on, or how one defines "staunch". It was removed, properly, in September 2006 (three months before I started editing this article, so I'm not defending my own edit). You insinuated that it was removed back then for political reasons, but I don't agree. It was a gratuitous, unsupported statement, and it has remained out of the article for almost as long as it was in. Problematic wording, errors, POV comments sit in articles all the time - until someone notices it. So yes, there is an option (D) regarding the removal of "staunch liberal". Finally, I have no idea, nor do I care, "what the Obama campaign wants this article to read like" -I also don't care what the McCain or Clinton campaign wants it to be. I am interested only in it not being hijacked by people who descend on it and edit in a disruptive manner, insulting the other editors, pushing their POV onto it, edit warring and ignoring the idea of building consensus. Despite what you may think based on your very limited look at the history of this article, in fact the regular editors here don't always agree, but most of us have worked together, compromised, over a long period of time to develop what has been a reasonably balanced piece that is a biography of a whole individual, not a political weapon. Tvoz | talk 03:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "New" is only relevant here if it means "post-Sept 06". When the "staunch liberal" description persisted as long as this one did, that suggested to me that in the eyes of many early observers of this candidate's career the shoe fit, or at least was not "obviously POV" to them.  But it is "obviously POV" to YOU.  The point being here that "POV" is, in fact, more accurately applied to how the person calling for "building consensus" defines "consensus".  I stand corrected by "Wasted Time R" and accordingly concede that the Wikipedia consensus at any given time can be wrong, and that option (C) could therefore be correct.  Why you don't want to grant that as well remains unclear.  Returning to the issue at hand, however, I agree that the early characterization could have used a citation, although it did made reference to advocacy for the poor and gay rights activism.  The current issue, however, is that you evidently don't believe that more thorough referencing could possibly justify a return of the "liberal" label.  Why?  Because it is "obviously POV" to label someone liberal, according to you.  Furthmore, it is "gratuitous".  This is the view I wanted to confirm prior to making any sourced edits, in order to avoid an edit war.  Evidently, I would be wasting my time, because even if it is sourced, if it states that Obama was or is a "liberal", that's POV.  And even if it isn't POV, it'd nonetheless be "gratuitous" (as if an indication of a politician's political ideology is "not called for by the circumstances" of an article about that politician, to draw on Webster's definition of "gratuitous").  I just want to be sure I understand your view correctly here and am not mischaracterizing it.Bdell555 (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that whether Obama is a Marxist is an open (or at least "good") question for the Democratic nominee for Vice-President in 2000 but whether Obama is merely a "staunch liberal" is apparently a closed (or at least "obviously POV" and "gratuitous") question for the Wikipedia community (see http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=9c198710-dd4a-4800-bd94-2c4b58c2e1d5&sMPlaylistID=).Bdell555 (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's always good to see Joe Lieberman helping Fox News push their agenda. In any case, let's get to your concerns: "When the 'staunch liberal' description persisted as long as this one did, that suggested to me that in the eyes of many early observers of this candidate's career the shoe fit, or at least was not 'obviously POV' to them."


 * If we use this same argument with Wasted Time R's example of Hillary's incorrect valedictorian listing that persisted for two years, should we then suggest that those that kept an eye on Hillary's article agreed that this valedictorian tidbit was indeed true (and therefore warranted inclusion)? Or that perhaps that it was something they didn't notice or question in a sea of information to sort through?


 * "The current issue, however, is that you evidently don't believe that more thorough referencing could possibly justify a return of the 'liberal' label. Why? Because it is 'obviously POV' to label someone liberal, according to you. Furthmore, it is 'gratuitous'."


 * This, is definitely bordering on a strawman argument, as you seem to be using "liberal" and "staunch liberal" interchangeably in your characterization of Tvoz's views. Having read through your exchanges, it is not apparent to me that Tvoz necessarily opposes the use of the "liberal" label, as you seem to be suggesting. You might want to glance over again the stance above about using an approach "where rankings from a variety of organizations are presented." And, of course, if this were to be implemented somehow, your much desired use of the word "liberal" in this article would become inevitable.


 * Concerning the Marxist question for Lieberman, it's simply not in Wikipedia's place (or any encyclopedia's place IMO) to be entertaining such questions in the manner that a Fox News might (although I'm sure you weren't suggesting we do exactly this). As with any other information presented in a BLP, whatever we include should be well sourced, relevant, and NPOV. I can't see why an unsourced, and possibly POV (I'm not one to be throwing this acronym around) descriptor like "staunch liberal" should be included in this article. Before we think about decorating this article with the word "liberal", I think we'd have to consider some things. It would certainly help if he self-identifies as liberal, but I don't know if that's the case. The ratings from various groups/organizations categorizing his votes/stances would be a preferable source, at least considering the alternative of sourcing the opinion of a random agenda-driven political commentator in regards to his views. --Ubiq (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama self-identifies as a "progressive". Andyvphil (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a proposal I've already said I support. Andyvphil (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The electoral-vote.com thing isn't my analysis. It was actually suggested by Josiah Rowe, and I was only linking to it to demonstrate that the various ratings metrics have Obama's "liberal rating" all over the place. In fact, I think that the whole business of putting ratings is silly because they don't seem to be in any sort of agreement - I think it would be more useful to simply acknowledge voting records on key issues in the "political advocacy" section, with expansion in Political positions of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are pretty much in agreement. Obama is, unsurprisingly, quite liberal. The "electoral-vote.com thing" was advanced to disprove this... and on examination, failed spectacularly. If the ratings were not in agreement that would itself be a fact we should report. Andyvphil (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You explained away one element of the electoral-vote.com analysis (the ADA ranking). Do you know whether the rankings by the ACLU (88%), the Children's Defense Fund (60%) and the League of Conservation Voters (67%) can be explained by campaign-related absences as well?  Or did Obama actually vote against bills supported by these liberal advocacy groups?  I'm honestly asking here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I have no actual knowledge of why he has low rankings by those groups. But given that he was the highest ranked Democrat in the earlier table he presumably voted right on their issues before, and missed votes is a more likely explanation than ideological change. But there's no substitute for looking at their sites. I take a rather jaundiced view of electoral-vote.con, tho. Not only did the Votemaster miss the missed-votes effect and fail to compare his results this time with his earlier ones, but using an unnormalized mean is idiotic misuse of statistics. Someone said this guy is a respected Computer Science prof, I think. Well, back when I took Computer Science it was part of the math department. Not when this guy got his education, apparently. Andyvphil (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Put yourself in the position of a Democratic candidate out campaigning. If it is hard for you to get away from the campaign to go back to the Senate to vote, isn't it likely that you will make more of an effort to get back for Democrat-significant votes than for others? Any rating based on the 2007 voting record is going to be hopelessly skewed, so the whole "most-liberal" label is really quite ridiculous. Would Obama have built up a reputation as someone who can work with folks across the aisle if he was really the "most liberal" senator? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's laughable that anyone is trying to claim that Obama is a centrist, or even not a liberal. Whether or not some people think liberalism is a bad thing, Obama is a staunch liberal, and because that fact is well supported, it should be included in the section related to his senate career. thezirk (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikifying the lead
Why have all the links been removed to Wikipedia articles from the lead paragraphs? There appears to be a mini-edit war involving User:Andyvphil at present, so it is difficult to see when these edits to remove links took place. Harr o 5 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a request a couple days ago to remove certain links because it lead to confusion. Personally, as links are the whole basis of Wikipedia, I think it was wrong, but that's that.  Grsz  11  03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a lead without links would not qualify this article as an FA. Links are important to Wikipedia and standard to every article. Someone who is willing to restore these links should do so immediately. Thanks. Harr o 5 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. It was suggested that the links be removed to "clean-up" the article during the FAR.  Grsz  11  03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The links were removed by HailFire here. I believe the concern brought up during the FAR was that this article has a tendency to overlink and one way to combat that was to eliminate the links in the lede section and to instead "save" the linking to when they were actually useful in the remainder of the text. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to respond to Sandy's "sea of unnecessary blue" comment at FAR. I've also done more moderate delinking in other sections. I welcome suggestions on what should stay and what should go that are consistent with Sandy's guidance. Here's a list of all of the links (the currently restored ones are in bold) that were in the lead before I took them out:


 * August 4

junior
 * 1961


 * United States Senator


 * Illinois


 * Democratic


 * 2008 U.S. presidential election

Kenyan

American


 * Honolulu


 * Jakarta

Indonesian


 * Columbia University


 * Harvard Law School

community organizer

lecturer

civil rights


 * Illinois Senate


 * U.S. House of Representatives

state legislator

keynote address


 * 2004 Democratic National Convention


 * 109th Congress

bipartisan

conventional weapon

accountability

Eastern Europe

Middle East

Africa


 * 110th Congress


 * lobbying


 * electoral fraud


 * climate change


 * nuclear terrorism

U.S. military

presidential campaign


 * Iraq War


 * energy independence


 * universal health care


 * Dreams from My Father


 * The Audacity of Hope

It's mostly the issue and occupational links that have not been put back. Note also that most of the sources were also removed. My reading of WP:LEAD is that statements already fully sourced in the article don't need to be sourced in the lead section. An expert FA reviewer could help us out here. --HailFire (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that many of the individual words do not need linking, but to have no links in the lead whatsoever is not a sensible response. The lead at present seems to be linked quite well - perhaps it is unneeded to link to the continents he has travelled to. I would see that a lead summarising the article would include links to some relevant articles on the legislatures and institutions that Obama is associated with. Harr o 5 06:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken out links for countries and regions that would be known to most readers of English and restored some links providing background on U.S. issues highlighted through Obama's legislative initiatives or his presidential campaign, but not necessarily widely known. Hopefully not too much blue now. --HailFire (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the fact that Illinois is linked but Kenya and Indonesia are not. I updated the link guide above to the current edit.  Grsz  11  03:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

23-year or longterm?
"23-year" was recently added to the Wright paragraph to specify the length of Obama's relationship, but I restored it back to "longterm". I figure that specifying the length of the relationship either (a) dates the article, or (b) indicates the relationship is at an end. Although Wright is no longer Obama's pastor, I don't believe there are any sources to indicate their relationship has actually ended. That leaves us in a position where using "longterm" prevents us from having to come back and add a year to the length of the relationship. Besides, I think specifying the actual length of the relationship is an unnecessary detail (rather than being "informative" as was suggested). I entreat Andy and his fellow warriors to stop edit warring over this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I was the first to add "longterm" instead of "23-year" and I did it for the reasons you describe above. Another alternative would be to include the year that their "relationship" began. Something like "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's relationship, which began in 1985, with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright." Granted, I have no idea if that is the correct year, just subtracted 23 from the current year. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can find an RS for the actual year, that works for me (although I still think it is an unnecessary detail). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But not really worth edit warring over. Heh. Check out the fourth paragraph: I'm a little hesitant to use the Tribune though because their articles become non-free after a period of time (not sure how long). --Bobblehead (rants) 16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel like going into the details of exactly when Obama met Wright, when he joined Trinity, and so forth is heading a bit towards undue weight. This sort of detail, along with Wright performing Obama's wedding and baptizing his children, belongs in Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy. I see that article doesn't actually have any detail about Wright's relationship with Obama, which is important context for why the comments got as much play as they did — someone should add a section there summarizing the history of the relationship, including Obama's more recent distancing from Wright.

Speaking of that distancing, at the Compassion Forum last Sunday, Obama said, "Now, I have to say that, you know, in reports subsequently, there's been this notion that he was, by various terms, my spiritual adviser or my spiritual mentor. You know, he's been my pastor." Given Obama's apparent disputing of the term "mentor", we should either find a RS which describes Wright in those terms or find another phrasing to describe the relationship.

As for "longterm" versus "23-year" — I agree that "longterm" is better encyclopedic style, for the reasons mentioned by Scjessey, but I also agree that it's not worth edit warring over.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed it from longterm to 23-year. Otherwise, it seems as if their relationship began and ended with his attendance of the church, but that isn't the case. And it isn't dating the article, it's only dating the controversy. Controversy broke out regarding his 23-year relationship with Wright. Whether or not that relationship is ongoing, the criticism was about the 23-years prior moreso than the current relationship, since Obama has sort of distanced himself from Wright. 3 years is a long time, and justifies clarification. thezirk (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Updating external links
There are a couple of dead links and some problems with other external links which i'll try and get round to fixing asap. In the meantime here's a tool for updating external links and - after waiting about half a minute to load for all the Obama article's external links - this link enables you to fix the problems with the Obama article external links. You need to go through each suggested solution to make sure it works. cheers Tom (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Millionaire?
is he a millionaire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.102.112 (talk • contribs) 20:05, April 18, 2008


 * According to CNNMoney.com, Obama's net worth is $1.3 million. A lot of that came from recent sales of his books; he hasn't been a millionaire for long.  He's certainly nowhere near Clinton ($34.9 million, largely from Bill's speaking fees) or McCain ($40.4 million, a lot of which comes from his wife's beer inheritance). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PLEASE NOTE: THIS CNNMONEY.COM ARTICLE IS EXTREMELY OUTDATED FROM EARLY 2007, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALL OF THE MAJOR CANDIDATES HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE ITS PUBLICATION.--InaMaka (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, for accuracy sake, they estimate John and Cindy McCain's net worth as over $100 million. Tvoz | talk 00:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, Bill gets about 250 to 300K per speech. Of course, he spoke here on Wednesday for free. Cheney's worth between 30 and 100 million. It's estimated Al Gore is worth $100 million, up from $1 million in 2001.  Grsz  11  23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, for accuracy sake, Hillary Clinton just disclosed her tax returns and other financial documents and the Clinton's net worth was approximately $100 million also, not the $34.9 million that was reported above.--InaMaka (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For even more accuracy, it is important to point out that the Obama's earned over $4.2 million last year so the claim above by Josiah Rowe, quoting CNNMoney.com, is clearly incorrect. The Financial Times of London on April 18, 2008, indicated that the Obama's went way past $4 million USD in one year. That mag also indicates that the Clinton's have earned $109 million in the last ten years.  Also, Grsz11 claims that Clinton "spoke here" for free. I seriously doubt that claim.  I don't know what that is based upon.  I'm sure that he got a fee somewhere and he will disclosed it in due time--just dispelling typical Wikipedian rumours.--InaMaka (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here, meaning my university - for free, because he was campaigning. Please review WP:CIVIL.  Grsz  11  02:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. No need to review civil. Clinton did not speak for free.  He was there to get campaign contributions.--InaMaka (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He was there to get votes. He wasn't there lecturing, which is what he makes a lot of money for. No need for you to basically call every other user here a liar.  Grsz  11  03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info guys, i keep hearing them all referred to as millionaires and was just interested, but i couldn't find it in the article, you should probably pop his net worth there, and thanks again!


 * In case a current source is needed, here's one. -- Dachannien TalkContrib 12:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't everyone a millionaire nowadays? $1 million is barely enough to fill my gas tank. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias Problems
Despite the fact that other editors have agreed with my position and despite the fact that the very issues which I have raised were raised by George Stephanopolis and Charlie Gibson in the most recent debate, the Wiki-Gestapo have threatened to haul me away for disruptive edits. If my account is shut down it will stand as a testament to the bias problems with Wikipedia, rather than just the bias problems with this article. The big issue that this article currently ignores is the "clings to religion and guns" speech by Obama. Clearly, some people think this is a big issue because it was front and center in the most recent debate. And yet this article makes no mention of words which came directly from the candidate's own mouth.

Fine.

Can some please explain this sentence to me:


 * Although the speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was generally well-received,[111][112] conservative commentators and Lanny Davis continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.

Just exactly who generally well received this speech? Clearly it was not well received by Lanny Davis or conservative commentators? Who is left? The article references the NY Times, one of the most liberal papers in the country. I suppose that implies that it was generally well received by the liberal media, but poorly received by the conservative media and by some liberals such as Lanny Davis. If the speech was generally well received by Air America, Chris Matthews and the NY Times that does mean it was "generally well received". Here's a more fair statement:
 * Obama's speech sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context. Left-leaning and/or traditional media such as the NY Times and the Associated Press generally gave the speech good reviews and felt that the controversy was put to bed.[111][112] On the other hand, Fox News, conservative commentators and some liberals such as Lanny Davis continue to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright. Polling seemed to indicated a drop in popularity as the issue came to light, but the long-term effects of the Wright controversy are still unclear. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph has been carefully worked out over the last few weeks, and a consensus has been reached among the various editors. Everything is properly sourced. Your suggested version fails because it constitutes original research. You offer no sources for your statements, and you characterize certain groups and individuals as "left-leaning" or "conservative" without justification. This sort of thing would be fine in a blog or something like that, but not an encyclopedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the problem here is that the "generally well-received" statement is horribly sourced. The idea seems to be that the good reception was among Americans in general, not specific media outlets.  What we need is a source referring to polling data about the speech itself.  I know several editors around here are more familiar with the article about Obama's speech than I am, so if those editors already know of such a reference, I'd recommend including it here (and changing the text here to conform to any such source).  On a side note, the second half of the sentence is missing sources as well.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 12:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If a poll would be helpful, there's some data from Pew here — it doesn't refer specifically to the speech, but it shows that 51% of those who had been following the Wright matter closely called Obama's handling of the situation "excellent" or "good", while 42% called it "fair" or "poor". It looks as if there is some confirmation bias at work here: Republicans and Clinton supporters were generally dissatisfied, and Obama supporters were generally satisfied. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, a look at A More Perfect Union would seem to confirm the notion that the speech was "generally well received", although it would be a synthesis of opinion to say so in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested another possible wording, with better sourcing, above at. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax returns
I've just reverted Andy's addition of the Obamas' tax return information on the basis that (a) it is not noteworthy enough for a BLP, and (b) even if it were noteworthy, it would be a campaign-related issue and would, therefore, need to be in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, Andy has again reverted without any attempt at meaningful discussion. What do other, less contentious editors think? Should the Obamas' income be mentioned in his biography, and in the "personal life" section no less? Or is this information more suited to the campaign article, since it is only noteworthy from a campaign perspective? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have similarly proposed that tax details like this don't belong in Hillary Rodham Clinton either, for reasons of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Is this level of detail notable enough in the context of Obama's entire life? I think not. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree — I think that income is a relevant biographical datum, especially when it's been widely publicized. I agree that we don't want to give it too much weight, so it might be better stylistically to combine the income and net worth into a single sentence — but I don't have a problem with income being mentioned. I don't think Obama's income is primarily a campaign issue, since none of the campaigns have really made a big deal about it (understandably, since Clinton and McCain are both substantially wealthier than Obama). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It does belong in the HRC article, as I've stated at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. That article includes information about the Clintons' financial well-being throughout their marriage; it was her worries about their lack of wealth in the 1970s that led to the Whitewater investment and cattle futures trading episodes, for example.  And yes, wealth is a legit topic for public elected figures; how much do they have, where did it come from, what did they do to get it, etc.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Josiah. Income and wealth are most definitely biographical information if such information is made public in reliable sources.  Lots of bio articles have info on the subjects' wealth, and most of those people aren't running for President (or, for that matter, any public office), so I don't see how wealth is strictly a campaign issue.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it has been widely publicized, but this has only been the case recently, and only within the context of the campaign. It seems to me that the only reason that the tax returns are being mentioned here is because Clinton's and McCain's have also been discussed, which does indeed make it a campaign-related issue (rather than a "personal life" issue). I also think that it is important to ask oneself why we need to include the wealth/income information, rather than approach it from the perspective of why not. Surely it is an insignificant detail, and therefore potentially falls foul of WP:WEIGHT in what is already a pretty long article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? This is factual information with no agenda attached.  Including it doesn't provide undue weight to any POV.  In addition, being able to cite current sources for current data is a virtue.  When Bill Gates's fortune changes in girth, we don't neglect his article due to some specious claim of recentism - we update it.  Same thing applies here.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is that since this has only recently made the headlines, and in connection with the Presidential campaign, it may fall under the auspices of WP:RECENT and probably should been moved into the campaign section of the article. There is nothing specious about my "claim" at all. All I wanted was an open discussion about this recent addition to the article, which is a perfectly reasonable request. That being said, I think you are being a bit naïve if you think that this new information wasn't added as part of an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that the income info has only recently been made public, but the net worth was reported back in '07, and has been part of this article for some time. I'm not sure how you can say that net worth is relevant biographical info but income is solely campaign-driven.  They seem to me to fall into the same category of information. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think either are particularly relevant. I've been looking around at articles of other politicians (US and beyond), and so far I have noted only a minority of them cover net worth or income. In fact, details such as these only usually figure in the articles of politicians where these details are significant because of some other context (such as charges of corruption, etc.). Anyway, this is no big deal. If there is a consensus for inclusion that is fine with me, but I do think that it should be framed in the context of the campaign, since that is why the income has become notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned earlier, there are numerous bio articles of people who have never held or run for public office, but whose income and wealth are still mentioned in their articles, sometimes prominently. I would also conjecture that the reason that many articles about politicians lack such information is because either the info isn't readily available, or nobody has thought to add it yet.  As for your POV concerns and my supposed naivete, one could just as easily make the accusation that you're trying to censor this information because you think it makes Obama look bad.  That's one reason we're supposed to assume good faith, to prevent edit discussions from descending into a series of ad hominem attacks.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How to reach NPOV
I think that some participants on both sides of this debate are trying to reach NPOV in a way that's unproductive. If the overall tone or wording of a summary seems biased in one direction or another, you're trying to balance the text by adding a positive or negative statement as a sort of counterweight. Scjessey and 72 want mention of Jeremiah Wright's military service and the Frederick Douglass comparison as a counterbalance to the accusations of anti-Americanism. Kossack wants details of how Obama's support has softened in some quarters as a counterbalance to the article being in his view "too fluffy and sweet". Both are using the same horse-trading approach, which is not how NPOV is supposed to work. If we approach this like we're haggling in the marketplace, adding a negative for a positive and a positive for a negative, we're going to end up with excessive detail that violates WP:WEIGHT.

Instead, let's try to work together to find a succinct wording which acknowledges all the important elements of the controversy, describing it accurately without indicating who's right or wrong. (Or Wright.) I know that's not easy, but that's why I think that mediation would be helpful. I'm rather disappointed that Andy and Kossack haven't addressed the call for mediation above — if you really want to reach a neutrally worded version of the article, mediation is the way to go. But if you're just going to push for your version of the article, we're not going to get anywhere. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New attempt by Josiah
I've tweaked the Wright paragraph yet again, trying to bring in elements from contributors with different perspectives. I don't know how successful I've been, and on reflection I probably should have worked this out here on the talk page rather than in the live article, but I'd like opinions on this version from the editors who've been most vocal and active. Does this cover the important angles neutrally and fairly, and with appropriate weight?


 * In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's longterm relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. ABC News found and excerpted racially and politically charged soundbites from sermons by Rev. Wright, including his suggestion that past U.S. policies were partially responsible for the September 11 attacks and his assertion that "[t]he government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Some of  Wright's statements were widely criticized as anti-American.  Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine. Although the speech, which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was generally well-received, critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.

I've moved the bit about Wright's military service to the sentence about "A More Perfect Union", because that's where it was first mentioned in the mainstream coverage; I also added mention of his service to the poor, which Obama also mentioned in the speech. By the way, it's cited to commentary by conservative commentator and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who's not exactly an Obamabot.

I'd like to hear from as many regular contributors as possible about this version of the paragraph. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, question on the wording of the ABC News sentence.. Were the entire sermons racially and politically charged, or were just the excerpts that ABC News found? I haven't seen the speeches myself and haven't followed the whole controversy very closely, but I seem to remember that Wright's supporters were complaining that the excerpts and comments like them were just a small part of a fraction of Wright's sermons. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've changed "soundbites from racially and politically charged sermons" to "racially and politically charged soundbites from sermons". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it. It explains, in a very general nutshell, what happened: the media found these clips and played them; Obama temporarily dropped in the polls; Wright was cut off from the camp; he delivered a speech regarding race because of the controversy, where he denounced the comments but did not disown the pastor and tried to place the remarks in historical context; the speech was generally well received, but questions about his relationship with Wright still remain. I think it places a correct amount of weight in every aspect of the controversy. Good job Josiah. --Happyme22 (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, the word "critics" sounds a little weasely. It sort of implies that the only people who still have a problem with Obama/Wright are people who would be critical of Obama regardless of what he did. That may be the case, but it's better to try to be as specific as possible about who is still pressing those questions. johnpseudo 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay.. You didn't just see that edit I made. *whistles innocently* Totally misread your comment. What do you mean by "specific as possible about who is still pressing those questions"? I don't think there is any specific category of people that is pressing the issue that can be distilled into a one or two word grouping. It's a pretty broad spectrum of people as diverse as Hillary supporters, conservative pundits and radio show hosts, random editorial boards, etc. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * it reads really well. I like your use of the "soundbite" concept to contextualize the sermons. Also your method of using Obama's praise of Wright in order to balance the paragraph was very smart, keeping it very tight to BLP guidelines. I understand the douglass reference does not have consensus, but I would hope at some point we could use the Sanneh cite for something- its tertiary analysis (reporting on the reporting of the controversy) so I think at some point it might become valuable. So if we don't use Frederick Douglass that is fine, but are going to include any sense of precedent for the wright comments? many civil rights leaders, let alone other public figures, have made similar comments so I think it might also make sense "long-run" to consider a phrase to that effect.


 * but mostly I am glad someone produced such a bullet-proof paragraph. I can't see any way people can edit war over that. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The tertiary source is probably more appropriate for Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy than here. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with this point. Tvoz | talk 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right that simply removing the word "critics" would be a step in the wrong direction. Let's see... MNNBC uses "Reporters, talk-show hosts, and others", but they're referring to a prediction of who will continue to ask questions. And of the three sources given, that's the only one that really says anything about people continuing to question Obama's connection to Wright. If we can't find a better source for the statement, perhaps we should remove it entirely. I'm sure Andy or someone can come up with a source for "people are continuing to question Obama's relationship to Wright" so that we can specify which people they are and therefore establish their notability beyond simply being "critics". johnpseudo 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to oblige. Added another example, from a different category of critic, or "people... continuing to question Obama's relationship to Wright", than Kristol: Lanny Davis(Clintonista) in WSJ. Andyvphil (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the William Kristol piece (which should have a full citation, by the way) is an example of one of those critics continuing to press the issue. It's not the main thrust of that particular column, but he does say, "The real question, of course, is not why Obama joined Trinity, but why he stayed there for two decades, in the flock of a pastor who accused the U.S. government of “inventing the H.I.V. virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” and who suggested soon after 9/11 that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”" I think that can be fairly characterized as "questioning the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright". How about saying "critics and media representatives continued to question..."? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls,[126] Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign," - All the rest of the current paragraph on Wright seems to be very well-balanced, neutral, and accurate, but this one section is potentially misleading, as it suggests that Obama condemned Wright's remarks, which he'd previously been fine with, solely because of the poll drop and negative exposure: according to Obama himself, he was simply unaware of most of the remarks in question beforehand, and he had already condemned the remarks he admitted to knowing of back when they first received media attention (in 2007, I think). However, it is accurate to note that Wright retained his position in Obama's campaign until recently, despite Obama's earlier attempts to distance himself from the comments he admits he did know about. -Silence (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that that clause could be read that way. Any suggestions on how to reword it succinctly? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So we are saying that the current wording implies that Obama's actions were a reaction to negative media and polling, right? Well isn't that sort of true? I cannot imagine him condemning Wright's words and giving that speech, at that particular time, without some kind of an impetus. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama's actions may indeed have been a reaction to negative media and polling, but it is not Wikipedia's job to speculate about motivation: we should indeed report on the timing of his actions, but we should not fail to report on his own official explanation for why he waited so long to respond to Wright's more inflammatory comments (that being, he simply wasn't aware of them). We might personally be skeptical of how plausible his own explanation is, but it's not our job to weigh in on what we think a person's secret motives "really" were. For all we know, Obama would have removed Wright from his campaign years ago if he'd seen all the same clips that've been popularized nowadays. -Silence (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The official line seems to be that Obama knew that Wright went over the top occasionally, but hadn't seen or heard these particular sermons.  But again, I'm unsure how to convey that succinctly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked it a tiny bit (diff), but on the whole I am very happy with this new version. I'm going to read it through a few more times, but it looks good so far. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, an improvement. But I don't think the "U.S. policies" bit quite captures Wright's "rhetorically forceful flair". Wright taled about U.S. "terrorism" dating back to expulsion of the Indians and forward to suppoert of Israeli "state terrorism", and "U.S. policies were partially responsible" is unduly bloodless. And the unnecessary insertion of "temporary" in the "drop in the polls" sentence is misleading -- Obama lost at least some support permanently. No time to comment further now. Andyvphil (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's necessary for us to try to capture Wright's "rhetorically forceful flair" in this article. If we did so, in order to satisfy NPOV we'd have to go into detail about the rhetorical styles used in the black church, which is well outside the purview of this article.  We've already compromised quite a bit in admitting a direct quote from Wright in the AIDS conspiracy bit — part of me still says that it's silly to include comments made by someone else which Barack Obama wasn't even present for in the biographical article about Obama.  You made the case that it was necessary to include the details of Wright's comments in order to explain the controversy.  Are you now saying that we need to replicate Wright's style as well?  That seems ridiculous to me, akin to noting that someone's brother speaks with a lisp or someone's business partner has a tendency to raise his voice.  The style really isn't relevant — the content is what's important, and that's now given in plenty of detail.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anybody can say he permanently lost support. Hillary had a 30 point lead in PA before the Wright stuff...now Obama's only down by 6. If what you said is true, he certainly isn't reflecting that way.  Grsz  11  23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be among Democrats, Grsz, not the general populace, and are you sure about Hillary's previous lead? I don't recall 30 points - certainly not last month - which would be quite extraordinary. But I may not be remembering accurately. IN any case if we haven't yet learned that polls are unreliable this year we should have. Truth is, we can't say one way or the other about whether the support he lost is temporary or permanent, so I would agree with Andy on that. How about Following negative media coverage and an initial drop in the polls instead of Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls? Tvoz | talk 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC) For some reason  edit summaries aren't appearing - mine was: I'll assume the removal  of my comment  was accidental -  I am reinstating my reply to Grsz and my suggestion for improving that sentence Tvoz | talk 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hillary had a 30-point lead in Pennsylvania last year. In early March, before the Wright story broke, she had an 18-point lead; around the 16th that jumped to 26 points, and now it's down to about 7.  The national polls are similar. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It reads very well and summarizes the controversy about as accurately and neutrally as possible. Great work Josiah. --Ubiq (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not his drop in the polls was temporary is not our job to determine&mdash;Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps it was a temporary dip, or perhaps it was a "permanent" one and we're just seeing a temporarily rise in his poll numbers because of some of the recent criticisms of Clinton. Just note that his poll numbers dipped. That aside, I think the current wording is entirely accurate and clear. We can't quote every single inflammatory word choice Wright used in this one paragraph (that's what the daughter article is for). At most, perhaps changing "U.S. policies were" to "U.S. "terrorism" was" might help better capture the inflammatory language that Wright used; going into specific quotations in any more detail than that would come across as POVed in the opposite direction than this article usually suffers from. -Silence (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right - that's why I'm suggesting "Following negative media coverage and an initial drop" instead of "during a temporary drop". There was an initial drop, and it doesn't comment on whether it was temporary or permanent; also "during" suggests motivation  which we shouldn't speculate on. Tvoz | talk 03:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that initial is the best phrasing option. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't read "temporary" as saying that his poll numbers will never go down again; I see it as saying that they went down and then went back up again. Would "short-lived" be any better than "temporary"?  I'm not sure that "initial" is very clear.  Alternatively, perhaps we could just say "a drop in the polls" and avoid any suggestion about what happened after the speech.  After all, pretty soon we'll have the Pennsylvania results to add, and then North Carolina and Indiana.  The only reason to indicate "temporary" or "short-lived" is to say "the story isn't over yet", which is kind of unnecessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[out/ec with Ubiq] Overall, I think this is a very big improvement. I may have a couple of other comments, but one quick thought is that his refusal to disown the man himself was not only because of Wright's other good works and that he was a marine (I like that you worked this in where you did, by the way), but also that he has a personal connection to him - the "old uncle" or invocation of his grandmother. Might try something like but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine as well as their close, almost familial connection. or something like that. NOt sure, but I stumbled on that sentence a little bit as it didn't feel like it was telling the whole story about the refusal to disown. But again, overall I think this revised paragraph is very well balanced and a big improvement. Tvoz | talk 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, if it could be worded correctly. I'd be very cautious about it, though: Obama's close connection to Wright isn't really meant to justify his continued acceptance of the man, so much as it is meant simply to explain it. I'd also be very wary about paraphrasing such a thing&mdash;wording like "noting... their close, almost familial connection" comes across sounding like sentimentality-laden advocacy. Use Obama's own words if possible, e.g., "saying that Wright was "like family" to him". -Silence (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "almost familial" is the same as "like family", but have no problem at all with using his own words. My point is that he refused to disown the man himself not only by noting his service to community and country, but also, prominently, that he could not disown him because he was like family. I think we need that as well as what we have, that's all.  Tvoz | talk 03:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "...refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor, past service as a US Marine, and role in Obama's personal faith journey."? That would avoid the sentimentality that concerns Silence, and it also cuts both ways.  To some supporters, the fact that Obama refused to reject the man who brought him to Christ is a positive; to some opponents, the fact that Obama's faith is closely associated with this particular individual is a negative. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the point of saying longterm relationship instead of giving the actual number of years? Longterm could be 5, 6, 11, 23, or any number of years to different people. And maybe the "God damn America" quote should be added too. To someone reading the paragraph and finding this stuff out for the first time, it doesn't sound nearly as controversial as it was and is. I doubt I can edit this or anything else into the article without Grsz unleashing the revert within seconds, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezirk (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does say, in the "Personal life" section, that Obama joined Trinity UCC in 1988. As for the "God damn America" line, I thought about that but decided that there's no way to put that in succinctly that's both fair to the furore the phrase caused when played out of context and conveys the context of Wright's "God and Government" sermon.  Per Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we'd have to do both of those things if we mention it at all.  The wording prior to your edit says "including" the 9/11 remarks and the AIDS conspiracy — that allows for the fact that he said other offensive things too.  We can't go into every detail. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The very pro-Obama MSNBC puts it:"Wright can be heard arguing... that God should 'damn' the United States for its racist policies." Don't see the NPOV problem with this. Andyvphil (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but the article doesn't mention that Wright was the pastor of TUCC when he made those comments. Why should a person have to go down the page to a different section to find out how long he went to Wright's church, when you could replace a single word and make it less ambiguous. Also, Obama's relationship with Wright is longer than his attendance of that church.
 * Further, regarding the "God damn America" comment, the controversy wasn't the sermon, but that excerpt from it. The article isn't about Wright, why is it necessary to provide context to that comment? Plus, I think that comment by Wright was a lot more controversial than saying the government's policies might have caused 9/11; most people can agree with that to some degree. thezirk (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's 20 years in TUCC, 23 years knowing Wright... Saying that "past U.S. policies were partially responsible for the September 11 attacks" is barely controversial if you don't expand on the intended meaning of "responsible". Of course the hijackers had reasons in US policy to attack us -- Bin Laden was really upset by US support of the Saudi regime, and threw in support of Israel to get a wider response -- but Wright appeared to sympathize with the hijackers in asserting that what the hijackers were responding to were in fact really evil policies and part of a long tradition of evil policies dating back to the expropriation of the continent from the Indians. Now, there were white leftists too whose response to 9/11 was "Why do they hate us? We must be doing something wrong.", but that doesn't sell politically either. So, the "partially responsible" text obscures why the sermon was controversial. Maybe the way to go is just noting that one controversial sermon was Wright quoting Malcolm X on the Sunday after 9/11 to say the attack was "America's chickens coming home to roost", and leave it at that for the blame-America-first dimension. Andyvphil (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read through all the responses but your initial version seems fine. Thanks for including me in the discussion. It seems to cover all the major points on the issue, without any noticable attempt to whitewash. As I've said previously, this isn't a big issue for me since most people know about it and have made up their mind one way or the other. Although, if anyone is interested Monique Davis is also a politician who goes to Trinity, and she's recently been in the news for her bigotry too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing a relatively obscure metaphor and historical reference would hardly help illuminate the matter for the vast majority of our readers. The "America's chickens coming home to roost" is, if anything, the worst idea I've seen yet for how to concisely articulate the substance of the controversy for our readers, since it is less clear and to-the-point than the current wording. However, as I already noted above, if we want to make the inflammatory nature of his criticism of the U.S. more obvious, we should simply change "U.S. policies were" to "U.S. "terrorism" was" (with a citation to whichever comments of his refer to the U.S.'s acts as "terrorism") and thus satisfy both requirements.
 * As for why we can't specifically cite Wright's "God damn America" comment without providing context, even in a section about the controversy those comments stirred up rather than about Wright himself, it's because any encyclopedia's job is to inform and educate, not to parrot misleading information just because other sources have done the same. It would be misleading and POVed here to blindly repeat the media's out-of-context quote when doing so with context and doing so without context could have very different effects on readers' interpretations and understandings. This is not to say that the quote is any more acceptable or palatable when placed in context&mdash;nor is it to agree with Obama that this specific comment is unrepresentative of Wright's broader "message," whatever that might be. It simply isn't Wikipedia's job to weigh in on either of those issues itself. But it is Wikipedia's job to avoid out-of-context quoting of sources regardless of the situation. For biographies of living persons, it is good Wikipedia policy, when we must err at all, to always err on the side of being too restrained rather than too willy-nilly with potentially misleading or disputed out-of-context quotes. -Silence (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It would be necessary to provide context precisely because the comment was presented outside of its original context.  See Fallacy of quoting out of context.  If we incorporated "God damn America" without any further explanation, then we'd be feeding the emotional response to the out-of-context statement, rather than educating the public.  I agree that providing the context is not equivalent to saying that the context justifies the remark — but there's a difference between a reasoned rejection of an articulated position and a knee-jerk reaction to an inflammatory remark. Politics feeds on the latter, but Wikipedia shouldn't.
 * I'm similarly doubtful about us using Wright's "terrorism" language, both because its inflammatory nature would require further explication to satisfy NPOV and because in Wright's litany of American sins, he used "terrorism" to refer to some offenses (the extermination of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans) and called the treatment of the Palestinians "state terrorism", but he also listed many actions (e.g. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) without calling them "terrorism". Now, I don't know whether that was a deliberate distinction, but I think that it might be misrepresenting Wright's words if we imply that he blamed 9/11 on American "terrorism" alone. I think that we can go into that question at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy, but I don't see how we can do so here without introducing undue weight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seemed pretty clear to me that A-bombing Japan was in Wright's view a terroristic act. I'll take another look. Also, what is the "context" that shows MSNBC's "that God should 'damn' the United States for its racist policies" to be misleading? Just looks accurate to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Enlighten me. Andyvphil (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found it enlightening to read that MLK said "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive." ; []. even more context to the genocide claims, not surprisingly... don't think we should include it but people should know its there... the precedents of two civil-rights leaders now. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I'm a bit late to this party, but I didn't know it was going on until the changes here were transferred to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article. Anyway, I believe that the use of the term "soundbites" conveys hidden meaning that the term "excerpts" does not, namely that the term "soundbites" conveys unprofessionalism on the part of the reporter or unfair excerpting of the speaker's words.  (The same concept of conveyance of hidden meaning is discussed for other loaded terms in this guideline.)  In addition, the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" constitutes analysis that goes beyond the cited sources, and, therefore, is original research).  There may be a better way to fix this, but my initial suggestions would be to remove the term "soundbites" in favor of the term "excerpts", and simply to remove the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" altogether.  (On that second phrase, I would also suggest that that sort of analysis, even if properly sourced, would be extremely difficult to adequately summarize here, and it may be better to simply refer readers to the other article where the matter can be handled in greater depth.)  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 09:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My main concern when I transferred there the version found here was to get rid of the "AIDS questioned" falsehood. The pro-Obama POV that Wright's remarks would be better "understood" in context, and that Obama supplied such ameliorating context I left untouched. But you're right that "soundbites" is snide and ~"placed in historical context"~ is taking Obama at his own evaluation. Stick around. We could use more editors here that notice that that sort of thing isn't NPOV. Andyvphil (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a viewpoint from reliable sources which opposes the statement that Obama's speech "placed Wright's anger in historical context"? Voice of America News says, "Obama also sought to explain Wright's statements in the context of a generation where the memories of racial humiliation and fear remain fresh."  The conservative Dallas Morning News wrote in an editorial, "Mr. Obama explained that black anger has a historic context and cannot be denied." A ''New York Times' news blog says, "the controversial videos of Mr. Wright will probably haunt Mr. Obama’s campaign, despite his efforts earlier this week in his speech to put his relationship in a deeper context of race in America."  Other sources talking about how the speech placed Wright in a larger context include U.S. News and World Report, Nicholas Kristof in the NYT, columnist Roger Simon, and many others.  If adding one of these sources to the sentence would help avoid the appearance of OR, we can of course do so; but I'm really not sure that there is anything OR or POV about that wording.  It really seems to me like a factual description of the content of Obama's speech: he put Wright's anger in context.   People can differ on whether that context is sufficient to explain or justify the remarks and the anger underlying them, but I don't think that there should be any question about whether the speech provided context or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's missing is the qualifiers "sought", "efforts" and (Simon) "tried". It is Obama's argument that the offensiveness and stupidity of Wright's remarks is somehow excused by a historical justification of his anger. The alternative POV is that being angry is no excuse for being offensive and stupid in the way that Wright put on display, and that thge "context" is irrelevant to the issue and therefor not really "context" at all, properly speaking. The relevance of the "context" is assumed in the current wording, which is therefor POV. Andyvphil (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are right about that. I could swear it said "sought" before, in fact. I have changed the wording accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Using the qualifier "sought" keeps us from drawing a conclusion about the effectiveness of Obama's speech, but still lets us indicate what Obama's intentions were.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Scjessey. Just beat me to it, in the middle of our latest edit war. You need to leave undoing my last revert to someone else, btw. Andyvphil (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, and it appears you've already had 3 (even with consecutive edits accounted for), whereas I've only reverted twice (if you include the "Hamas" nonsense, which probably doesn't count). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, reverting the list of endorsements that included Hamas did indeed count. The rvv exemption only applies to clear cases of vandalism. The Hamas endorsement is real, and deciding whether to mention it is simply a content dispute. Then you reverted my addition and I reverted you, repeated thrice. Put me at three, you at four and into clear 3RR violation. In the future, count your reverts, don't assume any questionable exemptions, and stop at three. I don't want to waste my time reporting you again, but I will not allow you to sop up more of my edits than you are entitled to. Andyvphil (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, Andy, but you are quite wrong. The Hamas endorsement was reverted for a BLP violation (lack of reliable sources) and that doesn't count towards 3RR. Thereafter the staggeringly-difficult math involving counting to 2 has proved beyond your ability. Scrutinize my edits again, and you will see only 1 revert + the Hamas thing. The other edits were not reversions, but actual content edits involving formatting, sentence positioning and text corrections. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR:"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Including "actual content edits involving formatting, sentence positioning and text corrections" while simultaneously "undoing the actions of another editor" does not result in the revert not counting. You reverted my edit, I reverted you, you reverted my edit, I reverted you, you reverted my edit, I reverted you. Three each. But you also reverted the entire "endorsements" edit including the parts cited to, e.g., CNN, not just the poorly sourced parts. Strike four. Andyvphil (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can say whatever you like and quote whatever policies you wish, but I'm still going to disagree with your math because I think you are completely wrong. If you think I've broken the three-revert rule, report me, but stop wasting time and space with your childish posturing and threats. And stop pushing your biased POV while you're at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and don't forget the "endorsements" where ALL BLP violations. They don't belong in this article, and they never have done. The quality of their sources (one of which was somebody's blog) isn't significant. - Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that "sought to" is necessary, since I think that saying "placed in context" doesn't necessarily imply that the context was exculpatory. But I'll yield to the apparent consensus on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Critics continue to question"
I feel like I wasn't as clear as I could have been about this point. When we say that "critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright." and source that directly to the critics who are questioning the implications, that's original research. We don't have a source that says that critics continued to question the implications. It's similar to saying "YouTube users continued to post material about Ron Paul even after he had dropped out of the race" and linking that directly to the youtube videos. In this case, we can't link directly to the critics, we need a RS that talks about the critics. Or else we can simply say "Kristol continues to criticize..." or something like that. Generalizing a few articles into saying that "critics" are doing something is synthesis. johnpseudo 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure that Kristol cite passes WP:RS muster. Firstly, it's an op-ed piece instead of some actual journalism. Secondly, this is Bill Kristol we are talking about here - the same Bill Kristol who thinks the Iraq "war" is a good idea, who made false claims about Obama's church attendance, who praised Bush's second inaugural address without disclosing he was involved in writing it, and who is co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (evil bunch of empire-building, oil-grabbing, war-mongering folks). How is a guy like this ever expected to offer a fair criticism of Obama's relationship with Wright, may I ask? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not in the business of saying whether criticism is fair or not. We just need to report what reliable sources say.  Kristol isn't a neutral source, but he is a noteworthy opinion writer.  As such, I think that when he criticizes Obama he can be used as a source for us noting what critics of Obama say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is uncontroversial that critics continued to question Obama's relationship with Wright, and saying so doesn't "advance a position", merely reports a relevant fact. And the NYT is a RS that Kristol said it. Scjessey has a real problem getting his mind around the concept that it is necessary to report the existance of the POV of people he disagrees with. Andyvphil (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:RS: "When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." I'm not disputing that the parent website is from a reliable source, but I am suggesting that this cite is from an "opinion piece" (as Wikipedia defines it) from an extremely biased source. It is important to distinguish between critics of the Obama/Wright relationship and critics of Obama himself. It's not a big deal, but since the sentence of over-cited already, why not consider dropping it? Andy has a real problem getting his mind around the concept that the Kristol piece IS opinion, not reported opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say a guy like Kristol is more likely to offer a "fair criticism" of Obama's relationship with Wright than people like you are, Scjessey. There continues to be doubts about Obama's relationship with Wright, and Wright continues to defend Obama and speak out in sermons or at funerals or whatever opportunity presents itself against those who question Obama's relationship with him. To pretend like it has suddenly become a complete non-issue is misleading. thezirk (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: "he can be used as a source for us noting what critics of Obama say"- I think this is the key question here. We are trying to use Kristol's opinion piece to cite a broader trend: that "critics" are continuing to question Obama.  But Kristol doesn't even claim this!  So what is the source for this claim?  It's simply our synthesis of 1-2 critical sources.  The only way to sufficiently source this claim is to have a reliable source that makes a statement similar to our claim (e.g. if the MSNBC were making a current-events statement instead of a prediction, or if Kristol were to state that he is only one of many critics that are continuing to question Obama).  It might be possible to find this kind of source, since there are in fact critics that are continuing to question Obama, but in order to distinguish whether the remarks of those critics constitute a notable trend, we need a source. I'm making this statement Kristol-specific in the meantime. johnpseudo 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we say "...critics such as Bill Kristol and Lanny Davis continued to question..."? That would indicate that they're not alone (as evidenced by last night's debate) without saying more about whether they're part of a larger trend or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that these "critics" would be critical of Obama if Jesus Christ himself was his pastor. One is a strong McCain supporter and the other is a strong Clinton supporter. Aren't there any independent critics we can use? And as I said before, the Kristol piece is not journalism and arguably not a reliable source. It is an op-ed piece - opinion rather than reported opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kristol in't being used as a RS for any statement of fact. The NYTimes is being used as a RS for the fact that Kristol wrote it, and the info at his blue link justifies the notability of his criticism. The "truth" of his criticism is not at issue and the fact that the the two cites are to McCain and Clinton supporters is exactly why they are selected as examples. Further, a subject being reported in multiple RS is a criterion for article creation, not for inclusion of a fact. We have Kristol and Davis as examples, and dozens of others could be provided. At some point ordinary editorial discretion allows you to replace "A, B, C, D, E,....ZZ all criticized Obama for..." with "Critics criticized Obama for...". And the current "Kristol and Davis..." which makes it sound as if they were the only two is truly stupid. Plus it shouldn't be hard to find some RS mentioning on the fact that not everyone agrees that Obama put the subject to rest with his "context" argument, particularly since the statement is so uncontroversial (see last night's debate). johnpseudo is simply refusing to perform the idiotic task he wants to set us. Andyvphil (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found a column from last month by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz which summarizes media responses to the speech and the Wright issue. It could be used to support a more general "critics continued to question" wording, but it also indicates a more general liberal/conservative split over the reactions to the speech than our wording might seem to indicate. Specifically, Kurtz says, "Not surprisingly, most liberals loved the speech and many conservatives -- though not all -- lambasted it." Perhaps we should change the wording to something like this:"Although the speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was well-received by liberal sources and some conservatives, other conservative commentators and some Clinton supporters continued to question the implications of Obama's long relationship with Wright." (Sorry about the massive reflist — just wanted to show the sources as they would appear in the article.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any objection, I think I'll be bold and add this — the Kurtz article seems to me to remove the objections about characterizing groups of opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV regarding Obama's church beliefs, etc.
It is sad that biased POV is preventing proper desciptions and understanding of Candidate Obama's religious beliefs, in regard to his association to Rev. Wright, and his ethno-centric theology. Candidate Obama's church emphasis on Black liberation theology, and the themes of Social justice, "Praxis" (see Praxis school), and Precarity are significant. Also, the obvious links and historical roots of Marxism, Liberation theology, and Black liberation theology should be included. This is significant even without mentioning the current importance of Jeremiah Wright as mentor, Pastor, and friend to the large church congregation which includes Presidential Candidate Obama's family. The historical record should be clearly spelled out regarding these concepts and relationships. It would be best for all of us, for educational purposes if nothing else, to attempt NPOV and objectivity regarding these subjects. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll note that this article is about Barack Obama, and not a church's belief. Thank you.  Grsz  11  18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the article is about Barack Obama, who has been a member of his church for twenty years. Barach and Michelle were married, and their daughters were baptized by Rev. Wright.  This subject and it's ramifications are significant parts of Candidate Obama's bio. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, he went to the church. But the details of his church, many of which you don't seem to understand, are not important in the sense of a biography of his entire life. Please see WP:BLP for policy regarding biographies of living persons.  Grsz  11  21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama addresses this issue in his autobiography "Dreams of my Father" on book Page 293 (paperback edition):

 '[T]he pastor (Jeremiah Wright) described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope.

'' 'The painting depicts a harpist,' Reverend Wright explained, 'a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.''

 It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, 'where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world!' On which hope sits.' 

'' And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House.' ... [E.A.]'' It is me i think (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama has said his faith is very important to hims (I can get sources if you need them), he went to the church for twenty years and he named a book after one of Wrights sermons. Obama's faith according to him, is an important part of who he is and therefore should be included. It is me i think (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

search for Barack Obama
When you search for Barack Obama, you only reach the presidential candidate and current US Senator, however, on wikipedia, there are actually two Barak Obamas: 1. Barack Obama, Jr. (the US Senator and Presidential Candiate), and 2. Barack Obama, Sr. (father of Barack Obama, Jr.).

My question is: when you search for Barack Obama should you get to a page which list links to both? People who are search for the father, are going to have to go out of their way to find the father's profile. If you search for George Brett, you find four listings: A baseball player, a WWII American General, and 2 publishers (father and son).

If is is proper to list all Barack Obamas in the wiki search, how would we do this, or could a more experience user than me make this change?

thanks It is me i think (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, could Jr. be added to Barack Obama name so that this wiki page is distinguished from his father Barack Obama,Sr. It is me i think (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment below about this - both names come up on wiki search. Tvoz | talk 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Typically, this would be handled with a "for X, see Y" link at the top of the page, similar to the disambig links that are already present. I'm fairly ambivalent on whether to include an extra one of these, because both of the current disambig pages have links to both the Sr. and Jr. articles.  As for changing the name of the article by adding "Jr.", Barack Obama, Jr. already redirects to this page.  Since almost all people visiting the page will be interested in this Barack Obama rather than his father, it's probably appropriate to keep the article where it is.  (On a side note, a Google search for "barack obama site:en.wikipedia.org" returns both of them in the first page of results.)  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 02:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's no call for a name change, but a disambiguating hatnote would probably be appropriate. Something like this, perhaps:
 * —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the issue, when you search for Barack Obama, you only get Barack Obama, Jr., you should be able to search Barack Obama and get listing for al Barack Obamas, which is the case are 2 Barack Obamas, father and son. If you search for George Brett, you get 4 different people (even though you are probably looking for the baseball player).
 * Why do you get 4 George Brett listing on a wiki search, because there are 4 different people named George Brett who have articles on wiki. Being able to search Barack Obama and get all accurate listings, in this case 2 people, is a fair and reasonable request.  Unless, someone, thinks Obama, Sr. isn't noteworthy, and therefore shouldn't even have a wiki article, which is not what I am advocating at all.  I think if wiki articles exist, you should be able to find them when you search for the person by name. It is me i think (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama, Sr. is notable, but his notability comes almost completely from his son. (Correct me if there are other articles about Kenyan civil servants on Wikipedia.)  The vast majority of people searching for "Barack Obama" will be looking for Barack Obama, Jr.  In cases like this, the Wikipedia guideline is to leave the article at the primary topic, and have a hatnote at the top for the benefit of people looking for the secondary topic.  This is closer to the examples of Winston Churchill, Winston Churchill (1620-1688) and Winston Churchill (novelist) than the George Brett example.  (I don't follow baseball, and might have been as likely to look for the World War II general as the baseball player.)
 * The only question is whether the current hatnotes pointing to Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation) are sufficient for someone looking for the Kenyan economist, or if there should be an additional line directing people to Barack Obama, Sr.. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think their should should be a line added to direct people to Barack Obama, Sr., I just don't know how to created on. Could someone add this line?  It is me i think (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Josiah had already formulated the proper template above (thanks!), so I just went ahead and dropped it into place. -- Dachannien TalkContrib 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a useful edit. I've removed it. --HailFire (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * HailFire, what is an appropriate solution to find Barack Obama's father if someone searches for him on wikipedia? I suggested if you search for Barack Obama two results come up for father and son.  Dachannien suggested the solution of having a hat on Barack Obama Jr. profile.  If that is not a helpful edit, do you have another solution.  It seams a reasonable request that is someone has a wiki article you should be able to find them through wiki search.  Am I missing something?  I am a fairly new user, so I admit I do have a lot to learn.  I am indiffent to the solution, other then you should be any to find is article through a reasonable way, search, hat, or a good solution you may have.  thanks It is me i think (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There are four ways: (1+2) follow Barack (disambiguation) or Obama (disambiguation) at the top of the page, (3) click Barack Obama, Sr. in the early life and career section, or (4) use the navigation box at the bottom of the page. --HailFire (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (after invitation from the disambiguation talk page) There should also be no problem with an additional hatnote since there are two people named "Barack Obama". I'd suggest before or after the current redirect hatnote. See also William Shakespeare. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the one who asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, and the consensus there seemed to be that there should be two hatnotes (one to cover alternate meanings of "Barack" and "Obama", and another to cover the alternate meaning of "Barack Obama"). I've restored the hatnote. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Josiah, I disagree with your restoration of this hatnote during a pending discussion where concerns about its usefulness are still being expressed. Please compare John F. Kennedy, Jr. and reflect. For now, I have condensed it by removing "the Kenyan economist", as notability derives from Sr. being the Senator's father. Also not sure that the two full stops after Sr. are MoS compliant. This hatnote is not a useful edit and I ask that editors reconsider its addition here. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if the restoration was inappropriate; I thought that the matter was fairly unimportant and that the discussion on the disambiguation talk page would suffice to resolve your concerns about whether it was appropriate to have two hatnotes. I'm not sure what you were indicating by the reference to John F. Kennedy, Jr., which also has two hatnotes.  I'd think that example would support the idea of adding a line for Barack Obama, Sr.


 * I agree that the two full stops look ugly. I suppose we could type the hatnote out instead of using the template, which adds a period at the end.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the hatnote again. Please review the article at John F. Kennedy, where no hatnote has been included for John F. Kennedy, Jr., and discuss why this article does not merit similar treatment. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna go with WP:CONSENSUS as justification for this one, given the absence of other policies or guidelines in this case. You seem to be the only person opposed to inclusion of the hatnote.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[out] Not the only one - I was otherwise occupied the last 2 days and didn't see this discussion until now. I agree with HailFire that the JFK example is instructive. JFK Jr was far more notable than Barack Obama Sr, and the fact that even so, the JFK article does not have a hatnote  regarding JFK Jr, but instead relies on the disambiguation page and wikilinking JFK Jr,  is a very strong argument against the hatnote here. Obama Sr was not at all notable as an economist: his sole notability is as the senator's father, so the disambiguation page and the wikilinking within this article are more than enough. I'm removing it again, pending the outcome of this conversation, as is appropriate. Tvoz | talk 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Further comment The top of this section suggests that a search on "Barack Obama" only yields the Senator; I just searched on "Barack Obama" using the "Search" box in the left column of this page and  got this,  which clearly does give Barack Obama, Sr. right there under the presidential campaign hits. So I think the whole basis of this request was not particularly valid.  Tvoz | talk 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as Obama, Sr. can be found through the search, I am in favor of removing the hat. It is me i think (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really feel very strongly about this, but it's worth noting what Disambiguation says:"Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes 'Go', what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they expect to find information on comedians? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band? When there is risk of confusion, there should be a way to take the reader from an ambiguous page and title/term to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term; either the top of the page should have one or more disambiguation links, or the page itself should be a disambiguation page."Note that the guideline doesn't refer to the "Search" button, but the "Go" button. Now, I suppose that the John F. Kennedy example is relevant (please note that HailFire's earlier reference was to John F. Kennedy, Jr., which does have two different hatnotes), but there's still a small chance that someone looking for information on Obama the elder might not realize that they can reach that article by clicking through to Barack (disambiguation) or Obama (disambiguation).  Of course, if they read this article they'll find the link to Barack Obama, Sr. in the first line under "Early life and career", so I suppose that's OK.  As I said, I don't really care about this all that much, but still, I don't think the decision to include or exclude a hatnote linking to Barack Obama, Sr. is as clear-cut as some editors seem to be suggesting. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Josiah Rowe, it makes sense what you are saying about go versus search. I am ok either way.  It is me i think (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2004 Campaign
The New York Times has done some good reporting about Obama's 2004 US Senate campaign, and so maybe this stuff should go in this Wikipedia article:

"The Obama camp had worked aggressively behind the scenes to push the Chicago Tribune to publish the story about Blair Hull's divorce proceedings, which ended up destroying the Hull campaign.[1] Later, when the Chicago Tribune successfully sued to open child custody files from Jack Ryan's divorce, Obama made this public statement: 'Those are issues of personal morality. The issues I'm focused on are public morality.'[2]"

[1]Wallace-Wells, Ben. "Obama’s Narrator", New York Times (2007-04-01).

[2]Kinzer, Stephen; Napolitano, Jo. “Illinois Senate Campaign Thrown Into Prurient Turmoil”, New York Times (2004-06-23).

I'll be bold and insert this, and see what happens.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason to have it here rather just in the article about the 2004 campaign? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like Obama's recent comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians properly don't belong in this article, because it's not yet clear that those recent comments will actually affect any election outcome. In contrast, it's clear that publication of divorce records destroyed the campaigns of two of Obama's US Senate opponents, and Obama had a hand in that.  So, it seems very notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is whether this is at the core of a neutral summary of Obama's 2004 Senate campaign (in which case it belongs here), or a detail which belongs in the 2004 campaign article. Prior to this addition, the article already noted that the candidacies of Hull and Ryan collapsed after allegations from their respective ex-wives became public.  I'm not sure that saying the Obama team worked aggressively behind the scenes to push the story of Hull's allegations adds much of value — don't we expect politicians' campaign teams to push negative stories about their opponents?  And the juxtaposition of the "worked aggressively" re: Hull and the Obama quote re: Ryan seems a bit like we're pushing an agenda of our own, synthesizing two different points in the 2004 campaign to give an appearance of hypocrisy.  It's worth noting that the Hull allegation was of actual physical abuse, whereas the Ryan allegation was of a taste for kinky public sex — it's possible that one might feel that the former was fair game, but the latter was private, albeit tacky.  It's also worth noting that neither of the sources quoted (the Chris Hayes blog and the New York Times article) attribute Obama's victory over Hull solely to the divorce revelations — the NYT centers on Axelrod's advertising campaign and focused messaging, while the Chris Hayes blog (by the way, is that really a reliable source?) gives much of the credit to Obama's use of McCain-Feingold.


 * I'm concerned that the newly added sentences may place undue weight on these divorce revelations. What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Josiah, I'm not the one who inserted the Chris Hayes blog, but it seems legit. It merely reprints an article that was published on March 17, 2004 for The New Republic.  Anyway, you say that none of the cited sources attribute Obama's victory over Hull solely to the divorce revelations, but that's incorrect.  The NYT Magazine article says "the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory".Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a further reference from the Chicago Tribune confirming that Obama's campaign worked aggressively to get the Hull divorce material published. That Tribune article also makes the Hull-Ryan juxtaposition: “Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings.”  It seems very notable that Obama was a driving force behind the destruction of the Hull campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Revert poorly sourced, inaccurate and misleading edit that violates WP:BLP; see: Talk:United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004.
 * Newross (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pray tell, what is poorly sourced or inaccurate about the following?


 * Mendell, David. “Obama lets opponent do talking”, Chicago Tribune (2004-06-24): “Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings.”Ferrylodge (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of rewording FL's addition when Newross reverted, but I'm thinking that the amount of detail is a bit of undue weight for a summary of this article and better placed in the senate campaign article and I'm also concerned with the implication that is raised by including the Tribune's suing for Ryan's court proceedings as neither article seems to mention that Obama's campaign was involved in that. Including Ryan's court proceedings in the same article appears to give the impression that Obama's campaign was involved in that reveal as well. Perhaps a much smaller half sentence could be added on to the end of the existing sentence about Hull's ex-wife's domestic abuse allegations? Something along the lines of "which Obama's campaign worked behind the scenes to have reported on" at the end of the sentence or in the middle of the sentence? --Bobblehead (rants) 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, a much smaller half-sentence would be okay for now. Frankly, I was not aware of the Mendell article until after I already put all this stuff into this Wikipedia article.  The Mendell article (unlike the sources I was relying upon) clearly characterizes Obama as a bystander in the Tribune's (extremely sleazy) suit to unseal the Ryan files.  I'm not convinced that Mendell is correct about that, but I have no reliable source that says otherwise.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the clause "which Obama's campaign worked behind the scenes to have publicized." — it seems appropriate and not undue weight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm NOT fine with a false statement using a poor outdated second-hand source that violates WP:BLP and uses a clause: "which Obama's campaign worked behind the scenes to have publicized." that is not supported a reliable source.


 * David Mendell, the reporter who covered the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary campaigns and then Obama's 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate general election campaign for the Chicago Tribune and "revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection."
 * Mendell, David (February 15, 2004). Political novice Hull uneasy in spotlight Chicago Tribune, p. 1 (Metro)
 * devoted a dozen chapters (156 pages; pp. 147–302) in his 2007 biography of Obama to the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign.
 * Mendell, David (August 14, 2007). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins ISBN 0060858206 (hardcover):
 * Mendell, David (April 15, 2008). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins ISBN 0060858214 (paperback):
 * Chapter 15. Hull on Wheels, p. 209:"Most campaign strategists were aiming to get their candidate to 30 percent. With so many contenders, this thinking went, the first candidate to reach 30 would be hard to stop. It was increasingly looking as if only three candidates had a shot at getting to this point: Hynes, Hull and Obama.

But Hull's rapid ascent had put Hynes and his staff into a mild panic. The problem for Hynes: Hull was grabbing voters downstate and in other rural corners of Illinois, where life was slower and his television advertising was seeping into the public consciousness. In Chicago, his ads were more likely to get lost amid the urban frenzy. But Hull's name and message were gaining notice in these small towns even though he had never set foot in them. These were voters that Hynes was counting on. Obama would draw blacks in and around Chicago, lakefront liberals and perhaps college students. But if Hynes was to win, he needed rural voters on his side."
 * Chapter 15. Hull on Wheels, pp. 212–3:"Nevertheless, Hull's ads were working. And when Hynes quick hit of television had no effect, the Hynes brain trust began worrying even more about Hull. Hynes's campaign spokesperson, Chris Mather, stepped up her phone calls to me and other reporters in hopes of slowing the Hull momentum. However, the intense lobbying effort actually had the opposite effect with me. Hynes's obvious fear gave Hull even more credibility. At about this time, I met with a Hynes operative for lunch. When I had gone to meet Mather earlier in the campaign season, we convened near Hynes's office. But this operative wanted to come to me, so we gathered at a North Michigan Avenue restaurant just a couple of doors from the Tribune Tower. Before I had taken a bite of my grilled chicken sandwich, I was handed a folder of opposition research on Hull. Among the papers was a copy of the outside sheet of the filing of one of Hull's two divorces in Illinois. Hull, in fact, had been divorced three times. He was married to his first wife for nearly thirty years, raising three children with her. After moving to Chicago, he then twice married and divorced the same woman. The rest of the divorce file had been sealed, and this vague court order was the only document publicly available. The order contained only one salient fact: Hull's second wife, Brenda Sexton, had once been granted an order of protection against him.

As this was occurring behind the scenes, Hull continued ascending in the polls, cruising past Hynes and the rest of the field. Hull was nearing the 30 percent mark when I interviewed him for my Sunday profile of him and his candidacy.

He steadfastly refused to discuss the circumstances of his marriages, divorces or the court order, saying they were private matters. Because he had been reluctant to explain these issues, particularly the court order, I felt compelled to include this in my profile. I placed this nugget fairly deep inside the story, but it served the purpose of the other candidates--the behind-the-scenes gossip had now slipped into the largest circulation newspaper in the state. Other political reporters and pundits jumped at the tasty morsel."
 * Chapter 15. Hull on Wheels, p. 214:"It was not long before the Hulls' divorce story assumed a life of its own, dominating the headlines, leading newscasts and consuming public debates. At a televised candidates' forum on public television, Hull was peppered with questions about the sealed divorce files--and he stammered no-comments when prompted to talk about the issue."
 * In his April 1, 2007 New York Times Magazine profile of David Axelrod, Rolling Stone contributing editor Ben Wallace-Wells (who was not a reporter who covered the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign and does not demonstrate much knowledge about it), tried to make make Axelrod seem more Machiavellian by falsely (see above) insinuating that Axelrod leaked the publicly available information that Democratic candidate Blair Hull's second wife had obtained an order of protection against him, noting:"The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."
 * referring to a June 24, 2004 Chicago Tribune article Obama lets opponent do talking by David Mendell that was published three days after records from Republican candidate Jack Ryan's 2000 and 2001 California child custody battle with actress Jeri Ryan were unsealed:"In the Democratic primary, Obama found himself the overwhelming beneficiary when the campaign of former securities trader Blair Hull crashed in the aftermath of Hull's release of court files from a messy divorce. Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings."
 * as did the other six Democratic candidates: Dan Hynes, Gery Chico, Maria Pappas, Joyce Washington, Nancy Skinner; though only the three women publicly called on Hull to unseal his divorce records:
 * Fornek, Scott; Griffy, Leslie; Main, Frank (February 24, 2004). Hull says he's OK with releasing divorce record; But insists decision ultimately rests with ex-wife. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 6:"Joining Pappas in calling for Hull to seek to make the records public were radio personality Nancy Skinner and health care consultant Joyce Washington.

'This brings up an opportunity to talk about something that is so tragic in our society when you're talking about domestic violence,' Washington said. 'This should be eradicated. And every time there is an opportunity to bring it up over and over again, we need to deal with that straight on.'

Skinner said the Republicans will raise the issue in the general election if Hull wins the March 16 primary.

Two other candidates, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and state Sen. Barack Obama, said the decision is up to Hull. Former Chicago School Board president Gery Chico did not take a position but said, 'There's a very small range of issues that are off limits.'

'My own personal philosophy is that I think you have to answer all the questions put to you,' Chico said."


 * Re: Jack Ryan:
 * Fornek, Scott; Herrmann, Andrew (March 4, 2004). Senate rivals urge Ryan to unseal divorce records. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 9: The emotionally charged question of sealed divorce records moved into the Republican primary for U.S. Senate Wednesday as four [John Borling, Jim Oberweis, Steve Rauschenberger, Andy McKenna Jr.] of the GOP hopefuls called on front-runner Jack Ryan to make public all the documents from his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan.
 * editorial (March 5, 2004). Why Jack Ryan's divorce files should remain sealed. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 41:"In the game of politics, there is frequently an echo effect. When Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Blair Hull was forced to unseal court records of his divorce, you could bet another candidate in the primaries would be asked to do the same thing. Wednesday, that bet paid off, unfortunately, when Jack Ryan, front-runner in the Republican Senate primary, was pressured to unseal documents from his divorce.

In the case of Hull, there were reasons for demanding that the truth be revealed. The candidate had allegations of spousal abuse and a court order of protection spinning around him. Ultimately, it was revealed that his ex-wife, Brenda Sexton had accused him of calling her vile names and threatening to kill her -- and he acknowledges hitting her in the shin.

But there were no such allegations, no calls to police, arising from Ryan 's 1999 divorce from actress Jeri Ryan. The portions of the divorce papers that remained sealed after Ryan made available the rest of them pertained to custody issues involving the couple's son, now 9. Custody issues can be unpleasant. Ryan says he wants to keep that information private for his son's sake and to protect the boy from the creep sentenced for stalking Jeri Ryan with sexually explicit e-mails and threatening violence to the man she lived with."
 * Fornek, Scott; Herrmann, Andrew (March 12, 2004). Borling fires aide who leaked claims about Ryan; Former campaign chief says he thinks he saw divorce file documents. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 11:"Republican Senate candidate John Borling asked for and received the resignation of his campaign chief Thursday, hours after the aide issued a statement detailing embarrassing allegations he said were contained in hidden documents from the divorce file of front-runner Jack Ryan."
 * Fornek, Scott (April 3, 2004). Obama: Back off divorce files; Senate candidate asks Dems to lay off Ryan family records. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 4:"Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barack Obama reversed his position on Republican rival Jack Ryan 's divorce file Friday, calling on fellow Democrats to refrain from trying to inject it into the campaign.

'I don't think it's an appropriate topic for debate,' Obama said.

Obama has consistently said that his campaign would not focus on Ryan 's 1999 divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan.

But when he first made that pledge, Obama refused to call on other Democrats to follow his lead.

'It's going to be up to other people to determine what's appropriate and what's not,' Obama said the day after his March primary victory.

Since then, Mayor Daley called on Democrats and the news media to avoid delving into politicians' divorce records, and Ryan urged Obama to insist all Democrats lay off the matter.

Speaking at a taping of the WBBM-AM radio program 'At Issue' on Friday, Obama took that additional step and insisted he was not being inconsistent.

'I'm not the policeman for what the media and everybody else does,' Obama said. 'What I can take responsibility for is my campaign and those people who are supporting me. And to the extent that people who are supporting me, including the Democratic National Committee or the Democratic [Senatorial Campaign] Committee are engaging in these kinds of things, I would urge them not to do so because I think Illinois voters really want to focus on those issues that are going to help them in their lives.'"
 * Newross (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's very informative. Thanks Newross.  Do you think that any of this is notable or should be mentioned in the present article?  You've pasted news reports here that describe Obama's role regarding Hull. Obama publicly said "the decision is up to Hull" but actually Obama "worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings".  Is that correct?  And did Obama ever say whether the Chicago Tribune should continue with its lawsuit to unseal the Ryan divorce files?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see from these sources that Obama's campaign did not originate the demands to release Hull's divorce records, and that the behind-the-scenes maneuvering was not limited to his campaign. That doesn't make the clause "which Obama's campaign worked behind the scenes to have publicized" a false statement, though it might be considered a half-truth since it doesn't convey the whole picture.  That said, I think that the article is OK with or without the clause.  I do think that the matter is tangential enough that any indepth coverage would give it undue weight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've looked into this matter a bit more. It seems clear that Obama did work behind the scenes to publicize Hull's alleged abuse of his ex-wife. But I agree that this Hull matter is not as notable as the behind-the-scenes Democratic effort to inject Ryan's divorce records into the campaign, in order to boost Obama. Unlike in the Hull matter, there was no physical abuse alleged in the Ryan matter, and both Ryan and his ex-wife wanted the custody files to remain sealed.

Barack Obama eventually changed his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to stop injecting them into the campaign, and to stop emailing reporters about the Ryan divorce files. But that change of policy occurred shortly after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in convincing Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider that some of the Ryans' custody records could be released.  Talk about a well-timed policy-shift! Anyway, I'll be curious if anyone else views this Ryan matter as noteworthy enough to mention in this article. It seems much more notable than the similar Hull matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly would you want to say about the Ryan divorce records that's directly related to Barack Obama? Although Obama clearly benefited from the release of Ryan's divorce records (as the article currently indicates), I don't see any evidence that he played a role in the Chicago Tribune lawsuit, or the California judge's decision to release the records.  And you should re-read the passage Newross quoted above about exactly what the change in Obama's position was: he was consistent about saying that Ryan's divorce records shouldn't be a campaign issue.  What changed was his willingness to extend that opinion from himself to other Democrats.  At first he said that candidates should determine the boundaries of acceptable topics for themselves, but later he said, no, this really isn't an appropriate campaign issue.  I don't see that change in policy as particularly significant — certainly not significant enough to mention here.  It might have a place in United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004, but it seems too far from the central matter to be covered in this summary style article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for thinking about it. And please check out the first link I provided.  What Obama seems to have done is allow his Democratic operatives to stir up reporters' interest in the issue, and then  only after reporters got a favorable court opinion --- did Obama say he wouldn't do it anymore.  I've never heard of such an intrusion into a candidate's private life.  Obviously, I'm not an Obama backer, but I would think that even an Obama backer would acknowledge that something very unusual happened to Ryan.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. here's part of the article that Newross didn't quote. Fornek, Scott (April 3, 2004). Obama: Back off divorce files; Senate candidate asks Dems to lay off Ryan family records. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 4


 * "[E]arlier this week, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that a court 'referee' would determine if any more of the file should be made public. Obama pledged Friday that even if the media uncovers something embarrassing, he would not try to capitalize on it.  'I can say unequivocally that this is not something that we are going to be focused on in our campaign,' Obama said.  Ryan spokeswoman Kelli Phiel called Obama's remarks 'a bit hypocritical,' because the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has already e-mailed reporters copies of news media articles about the divorce controversy.  'But other than that, we agree voters do want to talk about issues,' she said.  A Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee official said they would have no problem adhering to Obama's request.  'It's my recollection that it was [Ryan's] Republican opponents that were enamored with his divorce files,' spokesman Brad Woodhouse said.  'Other than our standard procedure of forwarding stories around to talkers and politicos about some races, I don't believe we've engaged in any on-the-record commentary about his divorce files,' he said."


 * So, it seems Obama changed course only after his operatives had succeeded in stirring up this issue to the point where a judge agreed to release the records. Only then did Obama agree to back off.  But I won't press the issue if others don't think it's significant enough for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)