Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 24

Mulatto
After User:Loremaster added the term mulatto, I looked it up- had never heard it before. On the article it said it could be considered offensive to English-speakers, and as this is en-wiki, I think it might be best to use a different term? Larklight (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm stunned that anyone could have never heard the word "mulatto" before... --Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But he appears to have solved the problem himself :) Larklight (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. :) --Loremaster (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the term is a bit rude, to say the least. We probably wouldn't want to call him that. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, there's a discussion a couple of sections up about whether to refer to Obama as "the first biracial..." or "the first African-American...". At this point, Obama is only being called the "first African-American..." Until we can get verifiability that he is the first biracial person/African-American, it's probably best if we don't whip out the original research that he is. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

From [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html Is Obama Black Enough? - TIME]: "Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa."

Courtland Milloy - Obama and the Old Racial Bind - washingtonpost.com: "According to a recent survey by Zogby International, a majority of whites, 55 percent, classified Obama as "biracial," and 66 percent of blacks classified him as black."

[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080305121144AA3pUvt Obama is biracial, yet he insists on referring to himself as an African-American. Couldn't he do more to stop]: "racism by running as just an American instead of choosing to label himself according to one side of his genetics?"

There many reliable sources which identify Barack Obama as "biracial". Describing him in a Wikipedia article as a "biracial African American" is one of the best compromises. --Loremaster (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama self-identifies as an African-American, and I can so reason why that designation isn't sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious that it doesn't matter how Obama self-identifies: If Obama lost his mind and suddenly decided to self-identify as "ethnically Asian" despite the fact that he isn't, should all encyclopedia articles on Barack Obama be edited to reflect his whim? --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is whether racial identification is an objective reality, in which case self-identification would be irrelevant, or a subjective matter, in which case self-identification matters a great deal. Our article race (classification of human beings) acknowledges this uncertainty.  Self-identification is not the sole determinant, but it matters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of the issues you raised. I'm not arguing that self-identification doesn't matter. It does to the extent it would be important to mention how Obama self-identifies. However, my point still stands. --Loremaster (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing or agreeing that Obama is bi-racial, just that we can't say he's "the first biracial..." without a multiple reliable source to outweigh the reliable sources that are saying he's "the first African-American". --Bobblehead (rants) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll work on that. --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Before some here disagree with the sources, consider: Thanks to folks like Thomas Jefferson, African Americans aren't 100% of African descent either. Over the course of a dozen or more generations in a white-majority country it's fairly sure some mixing has occurred for most.  As to the offensiveness of "mulatto", a well-written article gives a clear "maybe", bordering on "no".  But I'd be a little wary about what the meaning of the word truly is.  Nowadays Spanish is familiar enough that I'd be prone to interpret "mulatto" and "mulatta" more strictly in terms of black combined with partially Hispanic (or native American) ancestry.  When I was a child I had had a strange impression that the term was distinct from simply mixed-ancestry and referred specifically to people with a slightly mottled skin color or otherwise having a particularly attractive combination of black and white features, but I don't know if that is actually rooted in any identifiable American cultural notion.  I have a feeling there are a lot more funny ideas floating around for that word, simply because of this country's pathological history. Wnt (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just say first biracial and African-American? The guy saying, "until we can get verifiability" is just splitting hairs because it is a well known fact that each of our past presidents has been at the least majority white. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever the decision is, "mulatto" is horrifyingly unencyclopedic. Use something else, please.  Fishal (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the interest of pursuing this absurd topic, I must point out that we should also consider classifying Senator Obama as an octaroon or maybe a quadroon. I, personally, do not favor the terms, but some editors seem to be dealing in certain interesting mechanisms for classifying race. It's been done before. -- Quartermaster (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're smart enough to hyperlink the octaroon and quadroon articles, you should be smart enough to differentiate between mulatto, octaroon, and quadroon. The latter two of which Barack Obama is not.  Further, we shouldn't be classifying race at all, and if we must it should be done accurately.  Barack Obama is biracial/mulatto; half-black, half-white.  71.195.153.149 (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Has no other user considered the shadow of Blooming Grove? It's still not absolutely certain that a mixed-race American hasn't already served as president. Firstorm (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost all African-Americans have some white ancestors, so they're all biracial to one degree or another. So are those with Native American and/or Asian ancestors. So...what you're really asking is to set some exact standard of when someone becomes 'biracial'. What's next - a specific label for his daughters' race? The exercise is pointless, similar to arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Let's move on. Flatterworld (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, do you even know what biracial means? It means two. Most African-Americans don't have one white and one black parent. You move on: because you can't even understand the meaning of the prefix "bi." 71.195.153.149 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Biracial means literally "two races." There is nothing in that definition concerning having one black parent and one white parent (or parents of two "pure" races). What about people who are born of parents who were both of mixed parentage, like the actor "Terrence Howard"? If you want to truly look at the idea of having "two races" in their DNA, most African-Americans (and even some Caucasian-Americans) have at least two races in their blood to varying degrees. Biracial is often constructed as a clear term, but in reality it is not as clear as some like it to be. Marinabreeze (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to split hairs, you know very well that when someone says biracial they are referring to a person in the diametric sense. Also, if you looked at the heading of this part of the discussion you would know that we were talking about the biracial group mulatto.  While you "may" be right about most African-Americans having varying degrees of admixture that isn't sub-Saharan, it is nowhere near how dichotomous Barack Obama's admixture is. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't presume to tell someone whether he should or shouldn't be offended by the term mulatto, but in my experience it has never been used as an insult or derogatory manner. It is not used as much in the U.S., but since I speak Spanish, I'm probably more familiar with the Spanish caste system terms. Some people, even in the U.S. do identify as mulatto rather than just black or just white. The term is usually used to exactly describe someone's racial mixture: mulatto (1/2 black, 1/2 white), mestizo (1/2 Amerindian, 1/2 white). Hispanic countries can be very racially diverse, so sometimes these terms are used to describe multiracial or biracial people. Biracial is generally just 2 races, multiracial can be 2 or more. As for what to call Barack Obama:  I'm not sure it's important to specify his race in the article by saying he is black/African American, mulatto, or biracial. As most articles, just stating his parents ancestry should be fine, and the reader can use whatever term he thinks of.  As for the first this or the first that quotes, whatever the sources say is what should be used regardless of what we think; for example, Obama has been described as the first African American...or something like that. Kman543210 (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for "first mixed-race nominee"
In this Salon article, Gary Kamiya (who is of mixed race himself) refers to Obama as "both black and biracial" and refers to him as "the first mixed-race nominee". I'll let others determine how best to incorporate this into the article, but now that there's a reliable source I agree that the introduction should acknowledge Obama's mixed racial heritage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a word: preponderance. In other words, is this what the majority of sources for the existing cites are saying? I think it's kinda unwieldy to shoehorn that into the article if it's a minority of sources with that label. I'm not saying that the existing term is necessarily the best term; I have my own personal opinions. But since one of the pillars of WP is verifiability, along with implicit assumptions of greater weight, this brings us back to what the majority of well-sourced existing sources are saying, for right or for wrong. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you support the WP:NPOV policy, or do you oppose it?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the push poll. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 


 * The result was speedy nonadmin close per WP:NOT.

Another simple poll, ladies and gentlemen. WP:NPOV demands the inclusion of all significant POVs, including the POV that is questioning and criticizing Obama about his relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers. This is not a fringe POV. It is shared by mainstream journalists, by Hillary Clinton supporters in the Democratic Party, and by respected, credible conservatives. Do you support the inclusion of this POV, or do you oppose WP:NPOV and prefer to leave the article as it is - expressing only the POV of Obama's campaign manager?

Certain editors find that including the questioning/critical POV is not acceptable from their POV. These proponents have fallen prey to a number of failings, including perceiving their own bias as neutrality, misinterpreting and distorting WP:BLP to justify the deletion of any negative material at all about anyone associated with Obama, ascribing motives, and claiming that opposition to their proposed edits equates to support for the questioning/critical POV. Most editors are able to rise above this, but some are unable to work in a collaborative and collegial manner, and the worst of these may end up being excluded under Wikipedia's banning policy.

There is a tendency for certain editors in particular to seek administrative sanction against those they perceive as opponents. In the case of this article, the definition of "opponent" has in several cases included those who enforce Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and resist their attempts to skew content to be more overtly favorable to Obama. Kossack4Truth (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONGLY SUPPORT establishing WP:NPOV as the governing policy in this article by including more material about Wright, Rezko and Ayers, and commentary from notable persons who are criticizing and questioning Obama about them. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY OPPOSE Look, the "context" that keeps getting advocated to be added is the very violation of NPOV, on the dubious ground that an NPOV description of the "controversy" will confuse people and dissuade them from clicking on the link to the "controversy" article. I (and, I think, others) reject that premise, which is I think the basis of the dispute here. The "context" material sought to be added isn't neutral. It may be sourced — there are plenty of folks out there editorializing against Wright and Ayers — but that doesn't make it neutral. I think the place to source those criticisms are in the linked articles, not this bio, as they're subjective opinions (regarding the relevance of, and the extent to which criticism of Wright and Ayers, should be "transferred" to Obama) rather than objective facts. Mfenger (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't say "material" must be "neutral". It says all POV found in RS must appear in proportion to its representation in RS. Saying Ayers is a "former radical activist" isn't an "NPOV" description -- it's a misleading description. So the real question is whether when the hagiographers say they support NPOV but laugably misrepresent it are they lying or deluded? AGF says we must speak as if we believe they are deluded. But then, what do we do about the fact that they appear to be ineducable? Andyvphil (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion topic is very unhelpful, as is the poll that looks like more of a rhetorical WP:POINT than any reasonable attempt to reach consensus Wikidemo (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have always supported WP:NPOV, but that policy is trumped by WP:BLP, which clearly states you cannot fill the biography with negative commentary, however well sourced, about individuals who are not the subject of the article (in this case, Ayers). Obama is not an unrepentant terrorist bomber/'60s radical/whatever, ergo, you cannot put that kind of material in the article. You can put it in the campaign article (not the campaign section of this article) because Ayers was briefly mentioned in the final debate, and then stoked-up by right-wing biased media. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is as much about relevance as NPOV. I tried to add a section with "back-and-forth" on the baseless allegations regarding Rezko, citing one partisan source and how another contradicted it.  But if you're going to cover stuff like this, that's how it has to be covered.  You should not write, "Rush Limbaugh said he slept with Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind of two World Trade Center bombings and the U.S.S. Cole attacks and..."  You should write "Rush Limbaugh said he slept with Osama bin Laden, after which Bill Maher lept to his defense by bending Rush over his knee and spanking him soundly with a wooden paddle".  See the difference?  In Version 1 you have a "fact" about Obama elaborated with a "fact" about someone else; in Version 2 you have a "fact" about Obama countered by another "fact" about Obama. Wnt (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The questions about Wright, Rezko and Ayers are very relevant, because they're being asked by the mainstream news media - not just Fox, but respected and unbiased reporters from respected, renowned news organizations. These questions have become issues in the presidential campaign. Stephanopoulos opened a nationally televised debate with a series of questions to Obama about Ayers. But the name of Ayers is nowhere to be found in this article. That is an NPOV violation. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are just repeating the same nonsense, Kossack. The issues concerning Wright and Rezko are indeed relevant, because they directly concern Obama. This is not at all true of Ayers, which has nothing to do with Obama whatsoever. Ayers was a minor campaign issue, so it is worthy of inclusion in the campaign article, but any mention of Ayers in this biography would be a direct violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: One can't claim to support WP:NPOV while totally disregarding WP:NPOV. That aside, such loaded section titles are extremely unhelpful and're a terrible way to make a point. Shem(talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, Kossack, but I am closing this approach because it baits digressions like the one below. Looking forward to your participation in the other discussions. JJB 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Push polls
OK, another one since it's so much fun:

Do you like puppies and butterflies, and therefore want encyclopedic articles; or do you kick children and want POV digressions here?


 * Like puppies and butterflies
 * Support Butterflies are pretty (and isn't actually the same as WP:POINT if it's only on talk pages). -User:Puppies and butterflies


 * Kick children
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legitamacy
Many still want to know where & when his parents were married. A photocopy of his birth certificate should suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A photocopy of his birth certificate? Huh? I think you're confusing Wikipedia with The Smoking Gun. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Downgrade of article protection
This site, as most of you know, is a wiki, which tries to allow as much freedom as possible in content management. Having an article indefinitely fully protected from editing is generally considered a sin against the spirit of the wiki, and this is doubly so when the article is as high profile as this one is. It's been a long-held view of mine that full protection should only be done in extraordinary cases where blocking will not suffice.

After years of dealing with biographies of living persons, the Wikipedia community has formulated a policy that states, in explicit terms, that unsourced negative information must be removed immediately, with prejudice. From the page history, it is clear that certain editors are not willing to abide by this, but on this site, it is non-negotiable. Anyone who tries to insert contentious, unsourced information will be blocked.

As to the issues of undue weight, it is incredibly important to remember that this article is about the life of Barack Obama, not just any controversies he may or may not have been in, not just his recent bid for the presidency, not just his time as a Senator. Please keep that in mind when adding information.

If you feel one section needs more substance than another, or if you feel that one section has far too much substance currently, discuss on the talk page first. It is what is done for nearly every other contentious article. You discuss any major changes before making them. Else, you risk being reverted and / or blocked.

Please remember that when you edit here, you do so as part of a greater community, a community with the goal of creating a free online encyclopedia. Please do not make that trying to achieve that goal unpleasant. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily an issue to be discussed here (a discussion might be better situated at WP:RFPP, e.g., of course), but I would wonder whether we might try un-s-protecting for a bit; it may well be that persistent vandalism and problematic editing (In include "problematic editing" because, even as semi-protection should almost never be used in mainspace except to prevent vandalism, lest registered users should be preferred to anonymous editors, but our semi-protection policy does provide&mdash;wrongly, IMHO&mdash;for the use of s-pro to protect against the insertion of BLP- and NPOV-violative material [in the context of content disputes, that is]) will require that indefinite semi-protection be restored straightaway, but it (almost) never hurts to give unprotection a go every few months, in order that one might adjudge whether the net effect of s-protection continues to be positive. Joe 06:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review the long and sometimes sordid history of this article before making such a decision - this article has been subject to vandalism of the worst kind - racist and vicious - and every single time semi protection has been lifted it has had to be replaced very quickly. The semi protection has been here long before the latest gang of POV pushers descended here, and was not at all put there or sustained there because of content disputes.  This is a highly viewed page, and having vile and disgusting racist words and images, as well as wildly inaccurate characterizations of the subject's religion and background - all having nothing at all to do with content disputes or POV/NPOV questions - is deeply damaging to Wikipedia and the editors who work here diligently to keep the article honest and fair. It is true that this page is on many, many watchlists, and vandalism gets reverted quickly, but every minute that vicious language  sits here it is seen  by hundreds, thousands, of readers who don't know that it is vandalism and either think it is accurate, or that Wikipedia is the unreliable wasteland that so many of the public think already.  This has nothing to do with protecting Obama's image - it has to do with protecting the encyclopedia.  I feel the same way about semiprotection on any article that is attacked in the way that this one has been consistently attacked. (I do not support full protection, however, except for very short term interruption of edit wars.) Tvoz / talk 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wright consensus build
The current text in the article is as follows:
 * In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. After ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" that addressed issues of race. After Wright reiterated some of his remarks in a speech at the National Press Club, Obama strongly denounced Wright, who he said "[presented] a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for." On May 31, 2008 Obama submitted in writing the resignation of his membership with Trinity after disparaging comments were made towards Hillary Clinton from the pulpit by visiting Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, and later explained, "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles." 

I think this existing text perfectly encapsulates the controversy surrounding Wright, and I cannot see any reason it should be changed. Thoughts, anyone? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one: I agree! --Floridianed (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs more specificity regarding what Jeremiah Wright said; fewer quotes from Obama trying to distance himself from his close personal friend and spiritual mentor of 23 years; and one quotation from a critic (not necessarily conservative, there are plenty out there who aren't). Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For god's sake. Let's name the whole Article "Mr. Obama's life with Mr Wright". --Floridianed (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. Jost one paragraph. ;) Right now the paragraph has two long, long quotations from Obama, and both are masterful spin from a master spin doctor. Cut one of them. Replace it with one quotation from one of his critics (in the Democratic Party or from the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or ABC News). Gaia forbid that we allow any Republican or other conservative to be heard in this article unless he's praising Obama. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, you'd be hard-pressed to find a source of the slant you desire. If you want Republican input, how about: Huckabee Joins McCain in Supporting Obama’s Wright Defense Shem(talk) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Good weight to a decidedly notable component of the 2008 primary season. Shem(talk) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

More or less right. Wikidemo (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about process. The question of whether to add more or less specificity is the wrong one to ask, and the process of trying to go down derogatory sections concerning Obama one by one to ask these questions seems problematic.  There are specific edits, and issues, with this section that cannot be captured so easily.  Overall I would refactor and recast the paragraph, and integrate it into the article rather than leave it as a stand-alone controversy. The presidential campaign section is too long as it is.  This is not the article to cover every in and out of the 2008 presidential election, nor is it a point-counterpoint forum for allies and foes of Obama to make their arguments.  The paragraph begins by saying that a controversy broke out in 2008.  If Christianity, Trinity Church, and Wright relevant to Obama they should be covered in that context as part of his life, not primarily part of the campaign.  That apparently started in the 1980s, not 2008.  This is supposed to be a biography of the man, not what people think of his former pastor.  However, I don't see any source to say that Wright is particularly important to Obama - at least not the source cited for it, it's not there.  I don't think the length or amount of detail are particularly bad, but the focus is off.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) note - after posting this, Norton pointed to plenty of info that clearly establishes that Wright and the church were important to Obama.  Based on that I think we should cover them more, in the personal life section, and reserve this section to describing the break-up as it relates to the campaign.  Wikidemo (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The presidential campaign section is too long as it is. It is the one event in his life that makes him more notable than any other freshman senator. If it's space you're trying to save, cut out the fluffy trivia like his chili cooking skills. Wright represents the one great controversy of the campaign (so far) and it deserves attention. If you need a source to clearly state that Wright is (or was) particularly important to Obama, then Obama's own book will do nicely. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We have an article about Obama's 2008 campaign, so no need to WP:FORK controversies here. If you believe it is improper to cover chili cooking skills feel free to suggest we do not.  If Wright is not important to Obama then that, like the chili skills, is not relevant to him.  To support coverage of Obama's relationship with Wright, we need reliable sources to say that there is a substantial relationship worth covering.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Kossak's aims, but as I pointed out earlier, the Project for Excellence in Journalism did identify the Wright controversy as the single most-covered element of the 2008 primary season. Shem(talk) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly there is no need to go into any specifics about what Wright actually said, because (like with Ayers' misdeeds) they are not directly related to Obama; however, I do believe that Obama's resignation from the TUCC was a pivotal moment in his life. The paragraph above neatly describes the series of events that led to Obama's resignation, and if it was to be sliced up and folded into the main content I do not believe it will be clear to readers what actually happened. I am beginning to think that this is more suited to the "personal life" section, since it concerns a very personal aspect of Obama's life. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly good. I think the description of Wright, and Obama's speech in response, has just the number of words. However, the recent addition on Pfleger seems longer than it should be in the story. Resigning from TUCC should be mentioned, which probably means something about the triggering reason; the longish direct quote from Obama explaining the reasons could be summarized in fewer words (and summary is better than direct quote, where possible). LotLE × talk 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflicts) - I agree that it could be trimmed a wee bit, but the overall tone seems to be just about right. What do you think of moving it to the "personal life" section? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not first or second choice. Would accept if it developed as a consensus, but it won't. It must first make the style correction of changing "Trinity" on first reference to "Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ". However, as it stands, first sentence is fluff (except for linking the controversy article, and yet the controversy article per sitewide consensus should be renamed). Remaining sentences do not quote any Obama critics at all! Their structure is a threefold repetition of "After something controversial happened, Obama spun it thus"-- including the word "after" all three times, and repeating even the accusation made by some of us editors that guilt by association will be used at every opportunity! (It sure helps a POV argument to quote the article subject making the same POV argument!) This raises a WP:REDFLAG because Obama himself is leaning towards bad-faith assumptions of imputation. All of this though is just to say that this structure is very flawed. A proper controversy structure is: 1. This controversial occurrence happened. 2. One side said this. 3. The other side said this. I'm going to make a very rough example just so people understand what NPOV writing is about; this is not an exemplar at all, simply an attempt to build consensus from the proposed text above:

In March 2008, a controversy began when ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright;[1][2] after an associated priest, Michael Pfleger, spoke disparagingly about Hillary Clinton at his church[3] and Wright continued to affirm his own remarks,[4] Obama resigned his church membership on May 31.[citation needed] Critics said Wright's comments, such as "etaoin (10 words)", indicated Obama had poor shrdlu (20 words).[citation needed] Obama repeatedly condemned Wright's remarks, ending Wright's relationship with the campaign,[5] stating his own race position in the speech "A More Perfect Union", and stating his belief that any authorized statements made within the church would be imputed to him.[6] Note that resignation goes in the "what" sentence #1 because it is an event, not a spin. Note that sentences #2 and #3 should be very close to the same length, and they're not because, um, the details have been purged and I'm not bothering to unearth right now. Like I said above, I won't be around to teach this class every day. JJB 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an impressive Wright rewrite, and I think that structure is the way to go. The first sentence is off a bit, factually. The controversy had been simmering on Fox News for a while, and I think it's difficult to say when it "began" (or perhaps someone can correct me about that with a link?). What if we said something like


 * In March 2008, a controversy began to receive widespread attention when ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Obama's 23-year pastor, Jeremiah Wright[1][2], whom Obama had previously called "a close confidant"[source to Chicago Sun-Times article] NEW SECOND SENTENCE: Video clips of Wright's sermons showed him making racially divisive statements, such as calling AIDS a U.S. government conspiracy to kill African Americans, as well as politically charged statements, including one in which the pastor called on God to condemn America After Wright reaffirmed such remarks[3] and the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting preacher who also had longstanding ties to Obama,[source to same Chicago Sun-Times article], spoke disparagingly about Hillary Clinton,[4] Obama resigned his church membership on May 31.[citation needed]


 * One of the top stories of the campaign season needs to be fleshed out a bit more than JJB does. Since Wright has such a longstanding, influential tie to Obama, we should mention that and give more detail about his sermons (with the new second sentence). Also, Pfleger is important enough to be mentioned by name, with a link to the Pfleger WP article. Obama's resignation did not happen close to the time Wright's statements first became public, or even after he repeated his views at the Detroit NAACP dinner or at the National Press Club, but only after the sermon by Father Pfleger, whose longstanding relationship with Obama should be sourceable (see my bulleted remarks further down on this page). Pfleger is influential in Chicago politics, with the current mayor announcing he would run for re-election at Pfleger's church. Noroton (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no justification for detailing the specifics of what Jeremiah Wright said, particularly as it implies that Obama was in some way associated with Wright's statements. Please remember that it is Jeremiah Wright who is controversial, not Obama. Once again, you are ignoring the rules about biographies found in WP:BLP. And the controversy "has been simmering on FOX News for a while" because the organization is essentially the media division of the GOP. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assertion is not backed up by the facts of the controversy, which is over how much Obama tolerated Wright's statements and Pfleger's attitudes and why that might be. If those questions weren't raised, there would be no controversy. We can't recap the whole thing in this article, but one of the very top stories of the primary season is worth having a sentence with a couple of short examples of what the problem was. That's the justification. Also, you say, the organization is essentially the media division of the GOP. Uh, your intolerance for other points of view is showing, and it's been one of the generators of the anger on this page. Casually throwing around your personal disgust with institutions you don't like doesn't exactly promote confidence that your goal is an NPOV article. My point had to do with a simple fact -- and was completely independent of anybody's view of Fox, which is irrelevant to this discussion. Noroton (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Noroton says: We can't recap the whole thing in this article, but one of the very top stories of the primary season is worth having a sentence with a couple of short examples of what the problem was. Precisely why this should appear in the CAMPAIGN article, rather than the BIOGRAPHY article. This is something that involves the process of running for President, and has nothing to do with the personal notability of Obama. Scjessey's points are supported by this repeated contention. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's value in the biography article is threefold: Wright has been important to Obama in Obama's coming into Christianity and into organized religion; Wright (and Trinity United church) has been politically valuable to Obama; Obama's attitude toward Wright's statements has been a big question that has affected Obama's public image. I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't think we have to explain all that in the Obama article (I think it's too complex to be treated adequately in this article). But I don't think a prominent aspect of the campaign can be kept out of the campaign section, and it's an aspect of Obama's biography beyond the campaign (more than two decades with Wright and close to two decades of knowing Michael Pfleger). The personal notability of Obama is not the only criterion for including information in the article. Information that helps the reader understand the essentials of the subject is the broad criterion. Noroton (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Noroton! My draft was deliberately imperfect, as advertised, because I haven't taken time to learn all the details and nuances. However, for additional guidance, the statement about AIDS is sufficient to exemplify both "racially and politically charged" statements without the statement about God condemning America (unless consensus grants it sufficient space). Sentences in the style of the first and third above should constitute part 1. The "new second sentence" should go after as part 2, and the space which Noroton occupies with "condeming America" should be occupied with a third-party critical commentary instead; and do not neglect part 3. The length can be increased if both parts 2 and 3 remain the same length and part 1 remains a description of the events only, not the responses. Scjessey, I might respond, "Please remember that it is Talk:FOX News that is the page for discussion about FOX's GOP ties, not Talk:Barack Obama." JJB 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I could go with one example. I think that one will work. Noroton (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with JJB and Norton on this point. Given that we're going to cover it, this should have some context as to why this is important to Obama and why Obama distanced himself when he did.  It would be best if we could summarize rather than quote or even paraphrase Wright's statements.  Just state that he made them.  Something along the lines that "after criticism arose over Wright's repeated condemnations of America and accusations of an American conspiracy to spread AIDS, among other controversial statements..." (I'm not precise on the detail because I don't actually know all that Wright said, only that it offended a lot of people).  I hope that comes with an expanded treatment of Obama's involvement in the church and relationship to Christianity, that part preferably in the personal life section. Wikidemo (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where matters of politics are concerned, FOX News cannot be regarded as "mainstream media". They are the only "news channel" to constantly refer to Obama's supposed "controversies", so it is clear they are biased toward the Republican agenda. Anyone who doubts this need only refer to incidents like when E.D. Hill referred to the Obamas' fist pump as a "terrorist fist jab" to see where they are coming from. Let's here no more of this FOX News propaganda, please. "Fair and balanced" my ass. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable The passage doesn't makes it less clear why Wright's remarks were found to be offensive than it could. This is against WP:ROC: The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed.  Exemplary quotes from the speech should be included. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight trimming
How about this for the last part ( LotLE × talk ):


 * Obama resigned from Trinity, on May 31, 2008, after a Catholic priest gave a guest oratory that disparaged Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid an impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church. 


 * Sounds good to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, despite the immediate belligerent reaction by K4T to my proposed shortened language (and simultaneous insertion of the exact language into the article by K4T?!!), I agree that the form currently in the article that puts in a wikilinked mention of Pfleger is better. Y'know, K4T, you might try a little less insult and outrage... I proposed some language on the talk page for discussion. Once that discussion happened, I realized the name and link were missing. LotLE × talk 05:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC) -
 * Oh, right. You don't want Michael Pfleger's name in the article so that people might click on it and learn more about him, is that it? And you don't want to say why Jeremiah Wright's comments were controversial, isn't that right? And the one thing you do want very precise and quoted is Obama's evasive comment about a man he knew and knew well, Michael Pfleger -- oh, that's right, the Catholic priest whose name you're censoring out. Great job, guys. Totally NPOV. How could anyone possibly have a problem with it. Why don't you just cut it down to a sentence:
 * After some religious figures delivered some sermons at a church Obama attended, he left the church, saying, "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles."
 * After all, as Wikidemo says, I don't see any source to say that Wright is particularly important to Obama. Why of course he isn't. It was someone else who brought Obama into Christianity, officiated at the marriage, baptised his children, and was just the kind of preacher that Obama said in his writings and interviews back in the 90s were the politically active, black-theology church leaders that the left needed more of. Oh, and where did that phrase, Audacity of Hope come from? No, information about these guys would provide no insight whatsoever into Barack Obama. Great job guys, great job. Noroton (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, it was Kossak4Truth who made the change you dislike, not Scjessey. Shem(talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. I'll put his name back. Sorry about that. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good for you, Kossack, for seeing the mistake. Now here are some inconvenient facts to make most of you uncomfortable:
 * Quote from Obama speech from 2006, from Obama's website: "And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone. And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope. link. Whose church do you think his turn to religion occurred at?
 * "Obama’s ties to the priest are clear. During his 2004 senate race, Cathleen Falsani of the Chicao Sun-Times interviewed Obama about his religious views (it is this article that revealed Obama’s as-often-as-possible attendance at Trinity, and called Wright a “close confidant”). According to Falsani, the future presidential candidate cited “the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn-Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years,” as a key source of spiritual guidance. The piece also includes words from Pfleger himself, praising Obama." -- Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online,, May 20, 2008, "Left in Church: Deep inside the Wright Trumpet."
 * From the same article: "As Obama himself notes in a 2004 newspaper interview, within the constraints of his schedule, he regularly attended weekly services at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. In that interview, Obama characterized his relationship with Wright as that of a “close confidant.” We know that the doctrines of “black-liberation theology” are included in new-member packets, and are taught in new-member classes, which Obama and his wife attended. It now emerges that over the years, Obama has worked closely with Wright on a number of political projects." Noroton (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're getting so tied up in things you're overlooking the obvious, which is that I might just mean exactly what I say when I say something, and I am not necessarily making a rhetorical argument. In this case I meant exactly what I said, that I saw no source, at least not the one cited for the proposition, to say that Wright was important to Obama.  If you're going to tie someone to his associate's scandal you have to say why it affects him and justify why it's important to his life.  If he is, he is...so then source it!  That's all.  Nothing "uncomfortable" about the truth.  Given that Obama apparently admired Wright, that Wright brought Obama to Christianity, oficiated the marriage, baptized the children, and supplied the title of his book, why isn't that in the article?  Frankly I did not know this.  I'm approaching this article from the point of view of following policy and honoring sources, not from predefined ideas of who Obama is.  I would say that if we're going to have an encyclopedia and not a scandal sheet, a biographical article like this should cover the relationship itself, not just the scandal surrounding the end of it. Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)You don't need to agree with Kurtz' opinions to get my point: Wright and Pfleger were acknowledged as close to Obama when Obama thought it was all right to say so, but not now that they've become radioactive. But the source Kurtz cites (and it would be nice to have a direct link) strongly indicates he was close to them. And there is plenty of information around that one thing Obama liked about Wright and Pflegler was that they were politically active. Kinda makes you wonder what Obama's relationship is not just to them, but to their ideas about politics. Not proof, but makes you wonder. Also, Obama knew precisely what kinds of radical statements these guys were making. But, why bother with all this. After all, why should we consider them important? Noroton (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're getting so tied up in things you're overlooking the obvious, which is that I might just mean exactly what I say when I say something -- you didn't see a source and I showed you one. You didn't see importance, I demonstrated importance. If you're going to tie someone to his associate's scandal you have to say why it affects him and justify why it's important to his life. Reread the quotes, they're close to him and he knows just how radical they are. Follow the link. I just demonstrated that it can be sourced. I didn't think you knew this, that's why I provided it. You're welcome. I would say that if we're going to have an encyclopedia and you're going to try to influence it's content, you might want to read a bit more. I didn't assert anything more than what I said, and that was encyclopedic information. Noroton (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did, you've convinced me. Thanks.  They can be sourced.  It is a simple question with a simple, encyclopedic answer. This article has 195 sources and I must admit I have not read them all to find sources for sentences that are not fully cited, nor can we expect every reader to do the same.  It will improve the article actually source the importance of Wright and the church to Obama somewhere, or better yet discuss and source (which logically takes us beyond the campaign section to a discussion in the "personal life" section on religion and the church in Obama's life).   Wikidemo (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I guess I am too irritated right now. I'll break off. Wikidemo, you know why I'm irritated, but I realize you're still pretty reasonable overall. I should explain what I think this language should look like: Basically the same type of thing I was looking for with Bill Ayers. And let's have none of this rhetoric that we're making some unfair "guilt by association" McCarthyite charge. Association with controversial characters naturally raises suspicion, just as his relationship with the disreputable Rezko does. Let readers make of it what they will and quoting Obama about it is just fine by me, although a quote from him in that Chicago source might be valuable if we can get it. We can describe briefly what the best sources say was his relationship to the two, and Wright was certainly far more importnt than Pflegler. I do think, as I thought with the Ayers info, we should give a good, brief description of just what was controversial about Wright, and the closeness of the relationship makes it more important and worth more space. It seems to me that racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright is an inadequate description. Better would be racially divisive sermons, such as one in which Wright called AIDS a U.S. government conspiracy to kill African Americans, as well as politically charged sermons, including one in which the pastor called on God to condemn America It's worth describing in another sentence or two just what Wright's relationship is to Obama. I'm not sure of the exact language for that. Noroton (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Noroton, JJB and Kossack make good points here. The paragraph belongs in the presidential campaign section. To provide the context required by Wikipedia policy, I suggest using three quotations: one from Wright, something like "God Damn America" or "The government is using AIDS to kill black people" to illustrate the outrageous nature of his remarks, one from Obama to tell his side of the story, and one from Hillary to show how it was used against him in the campaign. She said something like "If my pastor said something like that, he wouldn't be my pastor for long." WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need of "context", as you call it. There is no justification for repeating any of the Wright comments in this article because they were not said by, or directed to, Obama. They belong in the Jeremiah Wright BLP, which is blue-linked for those who wish to know more. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean quotes or descriptions? Noroton (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party endorsement

 * There is no information on this page regarding his association with the New Black Panther group (including a direct link from his website to theirs), an issue he took considerable criticism for during the early primary. This needs to be added, as it is an extremely relevant and important piece of information about his candidacy. 75.85.92.198 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (first edit by this account)


 * What link on his website? Nar Matteru (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After a controversy arose about it, the link was removed. Would you like to see a link to a Reliable Source? This is a screen shot of the page on Obama's campaign website before it was removed. Evidently anyone can start a Myspace-style page on Obama's website, endorsing him. When Fox News and the right-wing blogs made some noise about it, the page was removed.


 * In my opinion, it's not worth mentioning. It's one step removed from webpage vandalism. But Ayers, Rezko and Wright should not only be mentioned, but Obama's relationships with them should be explored in detail. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * screenshots of a webpage aren't reliable sources as they could so very easily be altered. (Not saying it isn't true, but I'd like a much better source before even thinking of including it, which I'm not sure if its even notable enough for that Nar Matteru (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree this is not worth mentioning. This is also nothing to do with Wright, so I'm making this a full section, which will be archived if no one touches it for a while, rather than a subsection of the Wright issue. Noroton (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't let him fool you with his fake screenshot. Obama refused the endorsment of the Black Panthers! --Floridianed (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Article on Presidential Campaign
I just noticed that there is an article exclusively for the Presidential campaign. . That's where all this stuff about Rezko and Ayers belongs. Even the people pushing for it here, are justifying it because it is allegedly a campaign issue. My new opinion is that the entire section should be turned into a stub summary, and any info not in the campaign article should be moved there. Life.temp (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Life.temp, you have deleted a substantial amount of material in the Barack Obama article without first establishing consensus on the article's Talk page, despite numerous warnings on the Talk page from administrators. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, why is this here on the general Obama talk page? Also, it seems to me he did bring it up on the talk page, did give reasons for it, and even had links to the article where all that information was located.  It also seems to me as if you're more angered by the fact that in trimming some of the excess words out of the article, he removed bits of information you have so passionately argued, edit warred, and what-not to get into this article.  So lastly, I see no reason for the warning.  Brothejr (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, it seems to me he did bring it up on the talk page, did give reasons for it ... Um, but he/she didn't get consensus for it. He/she didn't even get one voice in agreement before doing it. He/she just announced it, and did it. Admins have repeatedly placed warnings on this talk page against such conduct. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think half of your problem with it was because he removed information you have been fighting to get into the article. I have also noticed in the past and of quite recently (even when admin's have been warning against it) you adding and removing bits of information from the article without consensus.  As I mentioned before, I believe your outrage and revision is based upon your fight to include information you feel must be included to "inform" the reader.  Hey, before you comment back, I'm just making observations.  All a person has to do is look back to your previous edits/comments/wars/etc and see enough evidence of what your stance is.  You say one thing and then do something completely diffrent.  You have been warned repeatedly by admins not to edit war, but you continued to do so.  Then when someone moves information you fought so hard to get into the article, you revert the change and then slap a warning on the person.  As I mentioned before, I'm just making observations.  Brothejr (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [ec]... in trimming some of the excess words out of the article, he removed bits of information ... Nice distortion. He/she chainsawed out a total of 732 words, announcing in the Talk page message above that this "turned [it] into a stub." This conduct is indefensible. Don't even try to defend it. If I had added 732 words in the same fashion, I would be blocked instantly without the courtesy of this warning. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "conduct" is stipulated by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sections that cover the exact same topic as another article are supposed to contain a summary of that article, and a link. This article currently violates that policy, by containing considerably more than a summary. In addition, Wikipedia articles are supposed to have an upper limit of 30-50k or readable text (excluding references, footnotes, etc.). This article exceeds that guideline. So there are two reasons to remove that text, grounded in policy and common sense. Finally, while I removed material from the article, I didn't remove it from Wikipedia or from its proper place in Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, all that material is redundant, because it is already in the article properly named Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. If you feel there is important material on the campaign that is missing from the article on the campaign, please add it to that article. This is a life-story article, not a campaign article. Life.temp (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, warnings are generally for repeated problems. The edit you didn't like is the first significant edit I've made to this article. Life.temp (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop. Please just stop it. The edit warring must stop. WP:3RR is not a license to do three reversions in a 24-hour period. Life.temp is an experienced editor and familiar with the fact that not just the letter, but the spirit of the rules is enforced. The lower half of this Talk page was covered with warnings from administrators to not do exactly what Life.temp did. All editors must stop the edit war; discuss your proposed edits here and get consensus. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion FWIW is for folks refusing to compromise regarding their pov's of how text should read to state this recalcitrance once, leaving the floor to discussion of new proposals from folks who are willing to meet adversaries part way. With the last piece toward effecting article stability being to warn edit warriors indeed of whatever stripe that they will---be---blocked. — Justmeherenow  16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Obama's presidential campaign warrants more than just a brief summary simply because 90% of Obama's encyclopedic importance is tied into that campaign. Our Adolf Hitler article spends many, many pages on the section "Rise to power" even though we have a separate article on the topic, Hitler's rise to power. Every article must be able to stand on its own; daughter articles, being optional, should not be the sole location of any crucial datum. If Obama's campaign section gets too long (without trivial details creeping in), the solution is to start breaking it up into subsections--e.g., a subsection for the primary campaign and one for the general. If Obama's importance in areas other than the campaign grows in the future (e.g., if he becomes president), then we can shrink the campaign section down a bit to compensate. Until then, we do a disservice to our readers if we misinterpret "summary" to mean "blurb". A summary's length varies greatly based on the number of important and relevant facts, and the relative significance of the topic to the overall article. There is no policy that says "summaries must be two short paragraphs long". -Silence (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It doesn't warrant more than a summary: there is a guideline about it, and the reason for the guideline is obvious. There is an article for the topic. The comparison to the Hitler article merely begs the question of whether that article does the right thing; would you like to see the long list of articles that do comply with the guideline I mentioned? As for consensus, please show where there was a consensus to add that material (in violation of basic guidelines). Life.temp (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the presidential campaign section is way too long. We should trim it to match the approximate treatment that's generally used, and refer people to that article for the more in depth material.  I think a good exercise would be to imagine yourself reading this article 20 years from now, assuming he did (or did not) win the election.  Either way, about how much material would belong in the bio article about the campaign? Wikidemo (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Silence is right. 90% of Obama's encyclopedic importance [notability] is tied into that [presidential] campaign. "Personal life," "political beliefs" and "career in US Senate" have three separate articles. But combined, they add up to about 3,000 words in this article. The presidential campaign is the only thing that makes Obama more notable than any other freshman senator. I think the campaign merits at least 1,000 words, just like those other three sections that have their own articles. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The importance of the campaign has already been addressed: by having an entire article about it. This matter is addressed very clearly: Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Note the point is to move and replace the text, not merely copy it to somewhere else, which obviously doesn't address the size & style problems. 

From the Wikpedia page on summary style... And... Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles. What constitutes 'too long' is largely based on the topic, but '''generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof''' that extra text is needed to efficiently cover its topic and that the extra reading time is justified. 
 * Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place
 * Summary sections are linked to the detailed article ...

This article is well over 30k of readable prose. It is around double that. Are you telling me how he got his mortgage isn't a detail? Life.temp (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you that if it's really space considerations that you're worried about, rather than whitewashing the article, you'll move the trivial fluff about chili cooking, his alternate career as an architect, to Early life and career of Barack Obama. The series of real estate deals (it wasn't just one deal) with Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko, who was already under investigation for fundraising related crimes, isn't just a detail. It is part of a major controversy. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. There are other sections that need to be summarized, since they redundantly cover what is already covered in the article they link to. So deal with it. I picked one subtopic to work on, you're free to pick another. Life.temp (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The style of Wikipedia biographies about high-ranking politicians is well established. Look at George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, John Kerry and other articles like them. Controversial material is explored in detail. The editors dwell on controversies at some length. Critics who use these controversies to bash the politicians are quoted, and their lengthy rants are linked. There are bold section headers such as "Whitewater," "Keating Five" and "Iran-Contra affair" that announce these controversies. These articles represent the consensus of a large number of Wikipedia editors and administrators. They can't be ignored. Summary style, as it's being practiced here at this article, is wrong. There is a more appropriate practice of summary style, and it can be seen all around us, in similar Wikipedia biographies about similar politicians. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a difference and you showing it with leaving McCain out as an example: We're in mid-election and therefore outh to be very carefull. --Floridianed (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way. Since you mentioned the "Keating Five" scandal why don't you add it to the McCain article? Would it be to much detail? --Floridianed (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Floridianed, I suggest you go to the McCain article and do a search on Keating.. I'm counting 2 paragraphs including several mentions of Keating elsewhere in the article, including the lead. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, I missed the main one on this. Big ops --Floridianed (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Keating Five incident is a major event in McCain's career - it was a major, substantive issue, the subject of senate hearings, and almost cost him his position. The McCain article does not cover a bunch of little scandals. It has a few words about the "lobbyist" controversy (which is a few words too many, in my pinion).  So far the Keating Five matter has not become a big issue in this election and it may never be - old news, already dealt with.  So the information is mostly of biographical interest, not an election-related controversy. Wikidemo (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, the article on Kerry contains a two-paragraph summary for the presidential campaign, and a link to the article of that topic. The section on his the controversy about his military service contains a one-paragraph summary, and a link to the main article of that topic.  This article contains more text on Rezko than the Kerry article contains on the Swift Boats controversy, even though the Swift Boats controversy relates directly to a major part of Kerry's personal life and career. Life.temp (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles Problems
1. Barack Obama was not a Professor at the University of Chicago. He did not teach the necessary number of courses to qualify as a professor. He only qualified as a 'lecturer.' Source from Article "Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama" Note 1 http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/867973,CST-NWS-sweet30.article


 * There was a lot of discussion going on in the media about this and that cleared it up. --Floridianed (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The law school says that Obama "served as a professor", and the law school also has clarified that this is not the same thing as saying he "was a professor."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Ann Dunham's ancestry is relevant to her article. It should not be featured in someone else's biography.

3. Note 65 is dead, and the Library of Congress Database does not indicate any compromise bill that bears any resemblance to Senate Bill 2348 (Obama's legislation).


 * Wrong #. See here --Floridianed (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The original link was in reference to a bill that concerned the reporting of water leaks from nuclear power plants. It had nothing to do with relief for the Congo.  How does your reference factor in?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.239.189 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be other errors in the article. I will continue to examine it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.239.189 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor

 * Please see Was Barack Obama Really a Constitutional Law Professor?

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.


 * The "Obama was not a professor" canard comes directly, almost word for word, from mainly right-wing attack web sites and blogs. Please read the quote above which is coming from the institution that hired him itself. -- Quartermaster (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Sun Times does not seem to be a right-wing attack site. Moreover, factcheck.org appended this correction: "Update March 28: As originally written this item stated flatly that the law school 'confirms that Obama was a professor.' We have rewritten the item in parts to more accurately reflect the nuance in the law school's news release"  Perhaps this Wikipedia article ought to reflect the nuance as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are being astonishingly disingenuous here since the Sun Times source you are using is an op-ed column from an anti-Obama partisan, and not some sort of hard hitting piece of investigative journalism. Many of these canards and shibboleths eventually do find their way into reputable sources mostly by the power of repetition in large numbers of venues like this. This massive repetition of trivial information, amplified to a level to make it appear as if "something might really be there" is called The Mighty Wurlitzer. Well played, sir. -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not worth arguing. Only people who care about this shibboleth are those who politically run against him (and their supporters). If you think this is a critical element of the life of Barack Obama, go for it. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Sun Times thought it was important enough to publish an article about it. Factcheck.org thought it was important enough to publish a statement about it, along with an appended correction.  The University of Chicago Law School also thought it was important enough to publish a statement about it.  The people who wrote this Wikipedia article thought it was important enough to mention that he was a "professor."  And you, Quartermaster, have thought it important enough to repeatedly address in this comment thread (along with insulting accusations that anyone who wants this article to be factually correct must be running againhst him).  Since you say this is not worth arguing, I assume you won't bother to object if the matter is corrected in this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected to say he was a professor (at least according to his employer)? Last I checked, it already says he was. :) The school seems to be using the principle that there is a difference between Professor of Law (note the capitalized letters) and a professor. Professor of Law is an official job title, while UofC is using professor to mean anyone that non-student that teaches at the university. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't offended by Quartermasters' remarks. He just made a statement about how he thinks about it and gave a go ahead ("go for it") so I changed it. --Floridianed (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This Wikipedia article currently says in the lead paragraphs: “A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university professor[1][2], political activist, and lawyer before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.”

That sentence in the lead is problematic for a couple reasons. First, it gives the impression he taught undergraduates, when actually he taught law students. Second, it makes it sound as though he was a professor, whereas the University of Chicago Law School says that Obama carried out (or “served”) a function of a professor -- teaching a core curriculum course -- while at the same time not holding down that rank.

I also suggest that the later statement in the article should include the pertinent footnotes that are in the lead, plus a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article. I’ll do this if there are no objections.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and incl. it but also incl. a footnote to the statement from the University. Alright? --Floridianed (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made some changes. I think it's okay to say in the lead paragraphs that he "served" as a professor (which is how the University of Chicago Law School put it), as long as it's clarified later in the text that his title was technically "lecturer."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You said nothing about incl. that somehow silly sounding "(technically called a "lecturer")" besides that he was most of the time a "Senior Lecturer". --Floridianed (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any objection to mentioning that he was a senior lecturer, then? If not, I'd be glad to put that in the article, though as you say he was not a senior lecturer the whole time.  As I said above, we shouldn't make it sound as though he was a professor, given that the University of Chicago Law School says that Obama carried out (or “served”) a function of a professor -- teaching a core curriculum course -- while at the same time not holding down that rank.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it says "professor" w/o a capital "P" and having two footnotes I don't see a need for it besides it would look very funny as I mentioned before. Could you agree with that? --Floridianed (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Forget any micro-controversy, let's get the terminology to fairly say what he did. Capitalized or not, I think the term is misleading.  Reading it one would instantly jump to the conclusion that he was on faculty.  "Instructor" is more accurate per the common usage of the term..."Instructor of Constitutional Law" or something like that.  Technically he may be an "adjunct professor", which usually means a non-tenure-track part time member of the community who comes in to teach courses.  That's better than "Senior Lecturer" because titles given without explanation tend to be less clear than the common plain English wording.  I would take it out of the lede entirely (too many bios use the flowery term "educator" or "writer" for someone who barely did it professionally), except that it's quite a prestigious school and he taught there for ten years, so it is something of an honor, definitely something would put on a one-page resume.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraphs seem okay the way they are. As for the part later in the text, I guess it's true that we don't want to confuse people with all kinds of different titles like "adjunct" or "instructor", but on the other hand we want to be accurate and up-front with people.  I'd suggest this: "Obama served part-time as a professor (though his title was not technically "Professor Obama") at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. I'm waiting for your sugestion. --Floridianed (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest this: "Obama served part-time as a professor (though his title was not technically "Professor Obama") at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I ment Wikidemo but at least you react. Still, let's wait what he/she has to contribute. By the way, you forgot to sign your 2nd last post ;) --Floridianed (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[out] How about a simpler statement: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time from 1993 until his election..." We don't need to say he was a professor but he wasn't a professor - we don't need the footnote that answers that question if we don't raise the question in the first place. Tvoz / talk 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the separate statement in the lead paragraphs? If that statement in the lead paragraphs remains as-is (i.e. using the word "professor"), then we also ought to mention later in the text of the article that his title was not tecnically "Professor Obama", IMO.23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Ferrylodge (talk)


 * Then we have the same (doesen't sound smooth) as before. I start to tend to Tvoz solution even so I'm a little bit "unhappy" that some input comes after 4 hours of work here. Oh, and Wikidemo prefers to fight with Kossack after leaving a seemly smart comment. Nice. PS: And all I wanted in the first place was to give some info's. lol --Floridianed (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks Ferrylodge - I meant to include that too - I'd change the intro from "served as a law school professor" (which I find a bit awkward anyway) to "taught constitutional law"  as well as the change in the article text.  Tvoz / talk 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT "taught Constitutional law." Strunk & White maybe wudda preferred "Churchill often composed poignant commentary on human events and also enjoyed painting landcapes" to "Churchill was an oft commentator on human events and also a weekend landscape painter" anyway. — Justmeherenow  00:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I hope people are okay with (or at least can tolerate) keeping a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article. The entire article is devoted to the issue we've been discussing.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that the controversy is gone from the article what is it good for? If it belongs somewhere it would be here on the discussion page. Neither makes sense. --Floridianed (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason it's very useful in the article is to accompany the footnote to the Law School's statement. The news article discusses the meaning of the law school statement at great length.  If we're going to keep a footnote to the law school's statement, then we ought to include a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article discussing the law school's statement, IMO.  It's only a footnote, after all.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then leave it but one might read it and wants to include that "controversy" in the article and then.... there we go again. The law school statement by the way makes sense because someone with interrest might want to know more about his work there. --Floridianed (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll leave it in one more time, although OrangeMarlin seems to be around. Including the footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article will help someone to realize that it would be best not to again put "professor" into the text of this Wikipedia article.  If anyone tries to put in the text of this Wikipedia article that there's a controversy about whether he was a "professor", then I'll personally revert (and very severely chastise).  The point is, the article very much clarifies what the statement says.  Anyway, here goes....Ferrylodge (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm on OrangeMarlin's side and the editwar already started. Told you so :) --Floridianed (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, an editor of great perspicacity reverted for me. :-)  Nothing like an edit war about a footnote!Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Schools vary greatly in whom they call "Professor," "Distinguished Professor," "Adjunct Professor," "Junior Professor," "Lecturer," "Senior Lecturer," "Instructor" and several other variants along these lines. Even inside the USA, you can't always tell what it "really means" that someone had a certain formal title unless you know that specific school (and frequently even different schools in the same university have differences in how they give titles; U.Chicago Gradual Business School may well not follow the same pattern as the Law School). When you move beyond the USA, the use of these titles goes even farther afield, with lots of different national conventions, but lots of schools that don't quite follow the dominant conventions of their resident country.

Saying "Taught Constitutional Law" is perfectly factual, and a footnote explaining the exact names that particular school uses is extremely helpful. Not all of us did our law degrees in Chicago, after all... or even if in Chicago, it might have been at Layola instead. LotLE × talk 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Chicago Sun-Times political opinion columnist Lynn Sweet's misleading March 30, 2008 Chicago Sun-Times political opinion column No 'Professor' Obama at U. of C. is not an appropriate source for this article. It was Lynn Sweet's misleading August 8, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times political opinion column Obama's book: What's real, what's not that started this "controversy".
 * Newross (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting revelation. Is the op-ed column of a partisan who's been grinding this axe for years an appropriate source?  I'm of the opinion that if both the University and Obama himself use "professor," the opinion of Lynn Sweet is moot.  While we can speculate and share anecdote about how "professor" is used in other countries, Wikipedia articles're based upon appropriate, neutral, reliable sources (which it appears Lynn Sweet is not).  Trying to contradict the University of Chicago's usage (and they are the ultimate authority and source on who was and was not a professor at their institution) with nothing more than an op-ed column strikes me as bordering on original research.  Their wording, including "his 12 years as a professor in the Law School" (no "served as" qualifier) makes it clear -- Obama was a constitutional law professor at that institution. Shem(talk) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree - but I don't think including the words "professor" or "senior lecturer" is important - the important thing is that he taught constitutional law at an eminent law school - what they called him is not important, nor is the nitpicky debate about it that is attempting to make some kind of implication. I don't particularly think we need the Sweet opinion piece however, if we're not addressing this very minor matter as I think we should not be - the UChicagoLaw item covers it .  Tvoz / talk 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's that the underlying motivation behind the attack on and removal of the word "professor" is partisan on its face that bugs me.  If it's not important, why not let it stand, y'know? Shem(talk) 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not unaware of what they're trying to do - I was attempting a HailFire-esque sidestep to avoid this idiotic "controversy", but probably should have known better. Anyone who has been anywhere near a university knows that the only time the title really matters is when the paycheck is cut - people, including deans, colloquially refer to any college+ educator as "professor" including adjuncts (who are often more prominent than the staff faculty, in fact). And it doesn't make a bit of difference in Obama's biography if he is called a professor or it is described as having taught constitutional law. This is pathetic.  Tvoz / talk 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, there are two pieces by Lynn Sweet at issue here, from the Chicago Sun Times, one from 2004 and the other from 2008. The former was basically a book review, and is not cited in the Obama article.  The latter is a straight news article that is cited in this Obama article.  Is there any false or misleading statement in the 2008 piece?


 * Hears a snippet from the recent news article by Sweet: “'He did not hold the title of professor of law,' said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school....Nagorsky said Obama carried out, or served, a function of a professor -- teaching a core curriculum course -- while at the same time not holding down that rank." Are you claiming that Sweet made this up?  I don't see the harm in footnoting the Sweet news article, and letting readers decide for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a problem because Sweet appears to be twisting the University's words to attack Obama's record -- she removes a nine-word comment from its context to create the appearance of contradiction where none exists. No, he did not hold the title "Professor of Law" (which Sweet probably should have capitalized in her piece), but that doesn't contradict the University's prior statement that Obama "served as a professor" and was offered tenure during his "12 years as a professor in the Law School." Shem(talk) 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also going to have to disagree with the description of Sweet's op-ed column as a "straight news article." Shem(talk) 05:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You agree that Obama did not hold the title "Professor of Law." What's wrong with including a cite in this article that says so?  If you have a better cite for the same proposition, then that would be fine instead.  As far as I can tell, that's all Sweet was saying, and all Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky was saying.


 * Certainly, it would be very preferable not to describe him in the text of this article as a "professor", without also clarifying in the text that he did not have the title of "Professor". Alternatively, Tvoz's suggestion seems okay, i.e. to not refer to him in the text as a professor.  But I guarantee that the word "professor" will come back into this article, unless we cite a reliable source that Obama was not "Professor Obama."  Geesh, the guy has enough real accomplishments, without us having to puff up his teaching career.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, since there're clearly editors opposed to the change, could we discuss it more before implementing the change? The length of the discussion in this section tells me the change shouldn't be made lightly. Shem(talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay...but attack or no attack "professor" conveys something in common usage that isn't true, that he was a faculty member of the institution. I think the damage of creating that misimpression far outweights the damage of forsaking the school's designation for the common English term.  "Taught constitutional law" is a matter of fact description that does not seem biased and gets the precise point across.  Then in the article body you can say something like "taught constitutional law as a part-time non-tenure-track professor" or something like that.  It seems silly for this to be a dispute here, or in the wider world.  Top law schools all have comparable, and very high, standards for who can teach a constitutional law class.  Wikidemo (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumb argument
This really is an example of making a mountain out of a molehill. UC Law School refers to Obama as a "professor". The term is used both as a title and as a type of honorific. I was called "professor" by some of my students when I taught a few programming classes, but at best I should have been regarded as a "guest lecturer". It really doesn't matter whether the word is used in the article or not - all I know is that when we tried to remove it before, it kept on getting restored by other editors (mostly IP editors) all the time. In the end, it seemed better just to leave it because it wasn't a big deal. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Summarization

 * Obama refers to himself as having been a "professor."
 * The institution he worked at refers to him as a "professor."
 * Many other institutions commonly refer to those teaching classes as "professor" independent of more formal employment titles.
 * An op-ed column by an anti-Obama partisan in the Chicago Sun Times challenges Obama's use of the term "professor" and is referenced as a reputable source.

Next, a number of WP editors debate this extensively and conclude that the whole assertion should be "nuanced" in order to inform readers of Obama's biography of this incredibly important fact, followed by mutual pats on the back for neutrally engaging in the issue.

The reason to call him a "professor" can be sourced to Obama and the institution at which he worked. The reason to "nuance" these claims (i.e., either not use the term "professor" or explain the use of term in a number of different contexts) seems to serve the sole purpose of diminishing Obama's role at the University by diminishing his title. I'm betting that the next step is to consider not referring to him anywhere as a "teacher" since all he really did was "lecture." -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I sure hope you weren't including me in your "mutual pats on the back" - I think this whole thing is idiotic, and the people making an issue of it have lost sight of the fact that this is a biography of a whole life, not a means to promote or attack a presidential candidate. I came up with something that is factual  ("taught constitutional law") and avoids the nonsense of the implication that he is somehow exaggerating his status (which he is not, based on the university's own statement) and we're backing it up so that what- he gets elected president?  Because of this?  This is one of the stupider fights that this article has been subjected to, and it's still June.  I don't give a rat's ass about enhancing or diminishing his role at the university  and I frankly think any attempt to do so, either way, is pathetic. Tvoz / talk 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not very important. Tvoz' "taught constitutional law" avoids the whole issue, but I can go along with whatever most people want, because the only real issue is whether readers would be confused by "professor" in the American context, and I think hardly any will. Let's not spend a lot of effort on this one. Noroton (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is interested, Professor Ann Althouse wrote an interesting blog entry about this little controversy, here. Of course, we shouldn't link Althouse in this Wikipedia article, since it's just a blog entry, but readers of this discussion page might find her blog entry interesting nonetheless.


 * I have said all along that I have no problem whatsoever if this Wikipedia article refers to Obama as having been a "professor" in the lead paragraphs and elsewhere. However, if people want to do that (instead of merely saying that he taught constitutional law), then it should also be mentioned that he did not formally have the title of "Professor" Obama.  It's really a very simple matter of being straightforward.  However, I have better things to do than complain forever about this small example of puffery.  Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ferrylodge, Professor Obama is not a title. Obama never had the job title of Professor of Law, but chances are he was referred to as Professor Obama by his students (unless he was one of the profs that preferred to be referred to by their first or last name) and it seems the school would have referred to him as "Professor Obama" if it had call to do so. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The specific "Professor of Law" position at University of Chicago is irrelevant if they still counted him as a professor, which they did. Wikipedia being an encyclopedia based upon third-party sources and UofC being the authoritative source on the matter, that's what Wikipedia should refer to him as.  If we agree that this shouldn't change on account of a blog post or opinion column, let's move on. Shem(talk) 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Attack sites
Republicans have an attack site at “Change We Can’t Afford” (from the Republican National Committee). Is this appropriate in the external links of this article?

Likewise, Democrats have an attack site at McCainpedia. Is this appropriate in the external links of the John McCain article?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP is not a place for propaganda from either side! --Floridianed (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Get those sites out of both articles, if you haven't already! Fishal (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They're gone ;) --Floridianed (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If either of those links is added repeatedly, we can stick them on the spam blacklist. Neutral sources, they're not, though I can see a mention on the 2008 Election's main article, if things get really nasty. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's religion
His religion is listed as United Church of Christ. But he's recently split from his church. So should it be changed to just "Protestant" or "Christian"? Millancad (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He separated from that one church in Chicago but not the entire United Church of Christ which has lots of member churches all over the place. So I would keep it United Church of Christ. --8bitJake (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

United Church of Christ is not a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bop me two times (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a major Christian protestant church. As a member I don’t really appreciate your negative insults of my faith and my Presidential Nominee. --8bitJake (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8bitJake, settle down. The editor was just wondering why the religion field said UCC instead of Christian. What Bop me said is technically correct, UCC isn't a religion, it's a denomination of Christianity. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well considered the RNC is currently attacking his time teaching constitutional law and his religion there is no doubt that there is attempts to write it into the article. --8bitJake (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that The United Church of Christ is a denomination. So perhaps "Christian - United Church of Christ" would be better. 64.183.164.250 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Something like that would help. Imagine people who don't know nothing about Obama and his religion. For them it's probably somehow confusing. --Floridianed (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cousins
On this website, it showed that Obama and McCain are 22nd cousins twice removed.--Sli723 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And Obama also is a distant relation of Vice President Cheney. Interesting trivia, but WP:TRIVIA suggests we use trivia only when we can put it into some relevant context. I don't see a relevant context for it. It doesn't tell us anything more about Obama. So let's leave it out. Interesting, though. Also, I'm making this a full section because it has nothing to do with the Wright section. Noroton (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

22nd cousins twice removed. That's silly. That's like connecting the entire human race to each other and calling them a cousin. 64.183.164.250 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Astonishing POV push
Scjessey and Loonymonkey are now engaging in an astonishing POV push in the article mainspace. With no consensus established on the Talk page, they have gutted the paragraph about Rezko. Here is the POV-pushing excuse offered in the latest edit summary: NPOV means NON point of view, not "all non-fringe" points of view Here's what WP:NPOV has to say. It refutes your argument completely: WP:YESPOV

"''The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth', in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." "The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'. The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints."

There is only one POV represented in the article: the POV of Obama's campaign manager. It's been like that, off and on, ever since I started editing it: a hagiography, where never is heard a discouraging word. You've just been shown that NPOV emphatically does not mean "no point of view," which is the rationale given for your edit. Revert your edit, please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, all that from a single reversion of one edit? Once again, remember that the burden for argument and consensus falls on the editor wanting to include the material (you) not editors who revert you.  As for the rest, there's not really any way to respond to your oft-repeated claim that Wikipedia is one big Obama-controlled conspiracy (and anyone who opposes you is an "Obama campaign worker") so I'll stick to the NPOV issue.  To refer to your quoted text, are you really trying to claim that your edits have been "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject?"  Really? --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) - From WP:BLP, the most important Wikipedia policy when it comes to biographies (I've added extra emphasis):
 * "[Content] should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."
 * In otherwords, you cannot use the misdeeds/mistakes/scandals/whatever of other people to provide negative color commentary within a biography. WP:NPOV is applied to the subject of the biography (if proper sources can be found). I applied those rules with a pair of edits (diff1, diff2) which Wikidemo then refined by adding a necessary soupçon of context. There was nothing disruptive, tendentious or astonishing about these edits, and they were supported by a trio of editors afterward. You cannot discard or ignore WP:BLP and seek solace in other policies, just because it handicaps your attempt to push your non-neutral POV. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why can't he - because you're doing that? I mean, seriously, you've almost taken this to sickness level with this fear you have that some negative information is going to make it onto his article.  You need to let some honesty drip down onto your messiah.  He's clearly had a relationship with people like Ayers and Rezko. He's OBVIOUSLY been influenced in his life by Wright.  Have you LISTENED to Wright?  How do you attend sermons by him for TWENTY YEARS and then not be influenced at all?  The purpose of the article is to define his life.  That includes the pastor who CLEARLY tried to tie himself to the candidate, the crooked land dealer who tried to get in on his success with a few early favors, and the former domestic terrorist who, as an integral member of the Chicago machine, had to give him the nod before the Democrat party got behind his first campaign.  As your hero Bill Clinton said, "He's running for President, not pope." Fovean Author (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FA, that was...I'll be polite...unhelpful. You are free to express your disdain for Obama (though ideally it would be in a way aimed at helping to edit the article).  However, I would like to request that you not accuse editors with whom you disagree "sickness", holding Obama out as their "messiah" or Bill Clinton as their "hero"?  This page is for discussing article content, not for complaining about other editors.  In the future will you please align your talk page contributions with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL?  Thanks,  Wikidemo (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This biography is being hijacked
All of the following are currently being discussed as hot topics on right wing blogs:


 * Obama: black, biracial, mulatto, or octaroon?
 * Why does Obama lie about being a college "professor"?
 * Why can't we include in his biography his association with known white terrorists?

I cite as evidence the astonishing amount of text (posted above) devoted to these (and other similar) non-issue topics for a biographical article on Barack Obama. You will often find the same editors who are so assiduously pursuing inclusion of these issues similarly contributing to the hagiography on John Mccain; that is those who post under an account name and not an IP address.

I suggest we start to focus on his use of a "terrorist fist jab" with his wife following a recent speech. That is obviously of similar import.

Agree or Disagree?

-70.230.180.50 (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit... If you have a problem with what is being discussed on this talk page, I suggest you join in the discussion and try to get it ended with consensus as quickly as possible. I also suggest you stop with the personal attacks and try to approach the discussions assuming good faith and in a civil manner. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Autooutica

 * Bigot
 * REP
 * DEM
 * Liberal
 * 1) In spirit, an Old Right individualist slash decentralist leftist (who most often votes Democratic, anyway) — Justmeherenow   06:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Leftist
 * 1) Its scary trust me. —  Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Other
 * 1) So very other.  LotLE × talk  03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) an indepentend liberal democrat republican. No joke. --Floridianed (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) all over the spectrum Nar Matteru (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm an independent conservative liberal republican democrat libertarian authoritarian socialist reactionary communist fascist. --Ubiq (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm just a normal human worm baby, and any attempt to label me as a member of the Mighty Irken Race shall meet with horrible doom! Lemony fresh victory shall be mine! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This list is so funny, I thought I would add to the joke. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe the various POV pushers here on Wikipedia, I'm a Democrat-sympathizer, Republican-lover, Obama-hater, Obama-fanboy, Clintonista, Anti-Clintonian, McCain-supporter, McCain-hater, Nazi, Communist, fascist, and, but I prefer to refer to myself as Bobblehead. So, how is this supposed to be a consensus building exercise? --Bobblehead (rants) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Bobblehead: The point here is that everyone can tell the truth or lie as they wish. I put this section in when I realized how much fun it might be (and in my mind it is). Besides, some give an honest answer if they're really proud of their believes (what they should, no matter where their are) and those who don't, well; read between the lines if you want. At least it gives some picture and when you compare their claim of NPOV with this "thread" here....! No one is forced to "out" him or herself and every one can lie as much as he or she wants. ;) --Floridianed (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: That shoud be in the "General remarks and other" section. --Floridianed (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading use of edit summaries
Edits like this are anathema to consensus-building, Kossack4Truth. You pretended to simply undo Life.temp's deletion back to the compromise text, but actually re-inserted your preferred version of the controversial material. Shem(talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And this blatant re-insertion of the controversial material by WorkerBee74, disguised as "restoring as closely as reasonably possible at the time of protection," makes the second use of misleading edit summaries on this article in 24 hours. Shem(talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What policy (including BLP) really says about the inclusion of negative material
I just made a post about this under "Consensus-building..." above. I feel it is so important, it deserves its own section.

In WP:BLP, we find the following
 * If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues are all notable and well-documented.

In Relevance of content, we find the following concerning content that belongs in an article:


 * Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed.

The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues have influenced Obama's public perception and primary noteworthy trait of person petitioning and being considered for election as president by way of the criticism they have drawn.

Thus policy in fact tells us, in a straightforward way, what many of us intuitively know: the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues need to be represented in this article, and they need to be explained to an extent that their effects on the subject (Obama) are plainly apparent.

--Floorsheim (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "negative material," it's about guilt by association and appropriate weight within Obama's biography. Wright and Rezko clearly pass this test, but the Ayers plug fails WP:BLP's admonition to Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.  Stephanopoulos' Ayers question and Obama's actual relationship with Ayers are both tenuous connections at best, and to treat them the same as Wright or Rezko is a pretty clear case of POV undue weight.  Trying to bundle three separate issues together (when only one's being contested to my knowledge) is counter-productive:  You don't see me objecting to Wright or Rezko material, and you're talking past me when you imply such.  Note that I actually expanded the TUCC paragraph yesterday, which has met no opposition whatsoever.


 * Bottom line? Bill Ayers is not notable enough (in relation to the article's subject) to be included in Obama's biography; Ayers is not Jeremiah Wright, nor is he Antoin Rezko.  The Ayers debate question received very minor media coverage compared with Rezko and Trinity, nor has anyone demonstrated that Bill Ayers played a role in Obama's biography even remotely comparable to Antoin Rezko or TUCC.  Rezko played a direct role in Obama's early private employment/public work/place of residence, TUCC was his church of 20+ years (and his recent departure from the church makes it all the more notable), but Bill Ayers played no such role in Obama's life.  The Ayers debate question "mini-controversy" played a minor role in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (where it is addressed), but doesn't belong in Obama's main biography. Shem(talk) 05:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Did not mean to talk past your particular perspective.  Many here do seem to think policy is to avoid negative material in BLP's specifically that involving the Wright and Rezko issues.  Wanted to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case.  --Floorsheim (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * guilt by association Shem, there's no dispute that Obama associated himself with people who admit to bombing buildings and say they aren't sorry about it. The phrase guilt by association means that so-and-so may have done what that other guy did because he was around him. No one alleges that Obama is a terrorist. The facts are not in dispute: He went to the couple's house, they did him a favor, he served on the board with Ayers and appeared on two discussion panels with him and praised an Ayers book on education in the Chicago Trib. The only thing in dispute is what to make of all that. Should Obama not have done it? Some say yes, some say no. There is also no dispute that there is a controversy about this and it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article of its own. Anything that notable, and there aren't a whole lot of them associated with the Obama campaign, should be linked in the article. The Obama campaign and its supporters are putting a special meaning on the phrase guilt by association to give it the meaning "you cannot criticize Obama for doing that". Well, sorry, people can and people will. And lots and lots of people, including reliable sources, have reported on it. Obama's campaign has already criticized McCain for associating with lobbyists, so even the Obama campaign sees associations as potentially a problem. Bill Ayers has been a notable person for a long time. There is an article on his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, there is an article on his organization, Weathermen, there is an article about a documentary about his organization, The Weather Underground, there is an article about one famous incident regarding his organization, Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. There are articles about the other famous people in the Weathermen. For crying out loud, it's got its own category. This whole subject reeks notability from every pore. News coverage and commentary has been continuous from February to the present. Look at the traffic stats for the Bill Ayers article. More page views in May than in February or March. It peaked on the night of the debate (or the next day). Those are very big numbers for a Wikipedia article. That kinda speaks to the notability of the relationship. Noroton (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)



These endlessly repeated pseudo-arguments passed asinine a long time ago. No matter how many thousands of words a few sock-puppets write about how very much they hate Ayers, it has never been remotely relevant to this article... which is, try to remember, about Barack Obama. Yes there are a bunch of article about Ayers and things he in turn has some connection with. None of that even comes within a stone's throw of relevance here. Likewise, Obama probably ate Kellogs corn flakes at some point... and there are articles on the notable Kellogs company, on corn flakes, on corn, on cereal, maybe he even had milk on top of it, and ate it with a spoon and bowl. No matter how many words of digression one might add about he great importance of those various other things, it doesn't even remotely suggest we need to include Obama's corn flake eating in this article.

None of this has ever been anything other than dissimulation by rabidly anti-Obama partisans who want to pollute a WP article with irrelevant crap. Policy remains in effect... they are welcome to all get their own MySpace pages, which would be relevant places for these rants.

I was thinking about whether the bad arguments of the Obama loathers here fit better in Argumentum ad misericordiam or Argumentum ad nauseam (c.f. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html). I suppose they can be both at once. In any case, along the whole irrelevant digression line, it's fun to read about the study of fallacies. LotLE × talk 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lulu, I do not appreciate the presumption of bad faith on my part or on the part of anyone else involved in this discussion. Nor do I appreciate using the inflammatory words 'rant' and 'asinine' in connection to our expressed views concerning what should go in the article.  Myself and others have made our arguments in favor of relevance very clear.  Please deal directly with them and leave the personal attacks out of it.  --Floorsheim (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a lot easier not to presume bad faith if a few radical anti-Obama partisans wouldn't so obviously display it (even using multiple sock-puppets to do so in one case... not by you). Every time there is a new 1000+ word essay on the 1960s actions of Ayers/Weathermen/etc on this talk page, it is a flagrant insult to Wikipedia, to me, and to all editors of good faith.  These tirades continue to lack even a shred of relevance (I suppose the anti-Obama brigade hopes to "win the argument" by mere exhaustion).  While I don't like your expressed willingness to flaunt WP:BLP, I have not seen you post any of those long and insulting rants.


 * Per my analogy, it would be like me posting 5000 word essays on the history of corn as a mean of arguing the hypothetical importance of including a digression on the history and significance of corn into the article, because "Obama has eaten corn flakes" (probably he's done so many more times than he's spoken with Ayers). In fact, checking right now Google news shows more hits on Obama+Corn than it does on Obama+Ayers, so based on news interest, my (absurd) proposed addition has more basis than yours.  LotLE × talk  19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There has clearly been some bad faith (sockpuppets), tendentiousness, rudeness, etc. So some jumpiness is understandable.  But please remember that reasonable people may differ too, and there are some very strong arguments by good, earnest, courteous editors on all sides.  So it's best not to assume that someone is a problem editor just because you disagree forcefully with what they say.  Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Floorsheim's arguments, I will direct everyone's attention to this portion of the Wikipedia essay cited by Floorsheim: Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Ayers belongs in the article, and additional context is needed. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A proper interpretation of BLP
Floorsheim has misinterpreted the policies. First of all, WP:BLP trumps WP:ROC because the latter is just an essay. In fact, WP:BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies - something I will expand on later. First, let me yet again remind you of why guilt-by-association content is so inappropriate to biographies by repeating my example from earlier: Again, this perfectly illustrates why "loads of media coverage" is not a good enough excuse to put facts about other people in a BLP, however thoroughly referenced. Because of the risk of defamation, Wikipedia's BLP policy is the most stringent, overriding all others. It has to be that way to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from potential legal action. There is no question about the relevance of Obama's associations with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, because these were personal relationships that existed for an extended period. Obama's own actions with respect to these men have been questioned. With Ayers, however, we are talking about someone who is little more than a fleeting acquaintance. Any misdeeds that Ayers may have done are not at all associated with Obama (indeed, he was just a kid living in Indonesia at the time), and since that time Ayers has become a respectable civic leader in Chicago. Obama's relationship with Ayers is not at all notable except when Republicans and their would be surrogates tried to make an issue of it during the campaign. The result was little more than a fart in a hurricane, as far as media coverage was concerned. No doubt the GOP machine will try to make more of the relationship than there is as the campaign develops, but that is a matter for the campaign article (if and when it happens). Finally, let me once again remind you of the key WP:BLP rules that apply here: It is clear from these words that there should be no mention of William Ayers in this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Not saying anything.
 * 2) John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy.
 * 3) John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy who, it turns out, murdered his wife by chopping her into little pieces and putting the bits in old jam jars. The story got loads of media coverage because of the gruesome details; therefore, the character of John Doe must be judged on who he buys his shoes from.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
 * The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
 * Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints.
 * 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.
 * If the claim was only that Barack Obama bought a pair of shoes, you would be correct. But this is not something merely being mentioned by the tabloid media or talk radio.  Google news gets 951 hits for it right now  so it is obvious that the non-tabloid media considers it significant.  The article ought to have a sentence mentioning the controversy simply because it is a controversy that is getting a ton of traction in the media.  It doesn't need to go into detail about Ayers' life - that would be a WP:COATRACK - but one sentence would be appropriate. --B (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Search engine test warns us against relying upon search engine returns, but that aside, 951 hits on Google is a very, very minuscule number of returns. Compare with 15,000 news returns for "Obama Wright" and 4,000 for "Obama Rezko."  Many of the Google returns for "Obama Ayers" don't even mention Ayers, only mention Ayers in user-submitted article comments, or come from unreliable blogs like Hot Air.  The weight is nowhere near similar. Shem(talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. Although I don't know about the one sentence thing.  To me, as few sentences as are necessary to make the effects of the factor on the subject plainly apparent (as per the suggestions of WP:ROC) while keeping in mind WP:WEIGHT should be used. --Floorsheim (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ROFL. You cannot use a Google search as justification for a BLP violation, particularly when there are just as many results for an identical search, substituting "ayers" for "shoes". The "controversy" is campaign-related, not biographical. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The comparison is absurd. Nobody is doing an article about Obama's shoes.  They are doing articles about Obama+Ayers.  I remember a few months back, the liberal Wikipedians were convinced that Fred Thompson's artcle needed a lengthy bit about Thompson doing a commercial for Lifelock because it had come out that one of Lifelock's principals had previously been accused of a crime.  Never mind that Thompson had never met the guy or that the one article on the subject had been widely criticized as a vicious attack piece, it had to be there.  I find it humorous that now that the shoe is on the other foot, even extensive media coverage where you can't watch a news program for a half an hour without them talking about Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, and Rezko isn't enough to justify inclusion. --B (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I watch news on different channels for way more than 1/2 hour on a daily base and only on FOX-news it's the same old news again and again and again. So if some want to mention him here go ahead, just write it like a "sidenote" because that's all what it is. If you want to make a "big deal" out of it wait till the actual Presidental election has started and you might get some headlines in your favor. Tha-tha-that's all folks --Floridianed (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point, User:B? It sounds as if those "liberal Wikipedians" were wrong, and were violating WP:UNDUE by trying to insert that into Thompson's article, and it doesn't look like the material you're talking about is still there (and good for that).  I don't expect the "two wrongs" argument from sysops, and I'd respectfully ask that you quit talking past people by trying to bundle Ayers with Wright/TUCC/Rezko.  They can each be discussed on their own merits. Shem(talk) 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scjessey, it isn't clear to me at all from the items you quoted that WP:BLP policy indicates the Ayers stuff should go. Quite the contrary in fact.  Please explain.  Arguments myself and others have presented for inclusion of the Ayers issue have nothing to do with guilt by association but rather are grounded on the presence of the issue in the non-tabloid media, which there is plenty of evidence for.


 * Again, it doesn't matter whether you or I think it's a silly or unfounded issue for the media to cover. The simple fact that the media is covering it warrants its inclusion in this article.  Here's another quote from WP:BLP regarding that:
 * In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say.


 * Clearly, on the basis of this and my quotations above, WP:BLP policy is to include the material. It is significantly discussed in third-party sources; and it is notable, well-documented, and relevant by the standards suggested in WP:ROC on the grounds that it has affected Obama's public perception and presentation in the media.  Therefore, WP:BLP is in favor of its inclusion.


 * Also, please keep inflammatory incivilities like "ROFL" out of the discussion.


 * --Floorsheim (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence you quote above refers to the subject of the article (Barack Obama), not William Ayers. The manufactured controversy is an artifact of the election campaign, which means the coverage of it is certainly relevant to the campaign article. But it has no relevancy in the biography, and it really hasn't had any effect on the public perception of Obama (unlike Jeremiah Wright). Incidentally, I'm not sure how you can equate "ROFL" with incivility. I just thought the Google search was funny because it was so meaningless (as I demonstrated). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see this more as a relevancy and weight issue than BLP (though in other articles and occasionally here derogatory material about Ayers can venture into BLP territory). Regarding relevancy, it simply is not something that says anything encyclopedic about Obama.  Tagging each politician's article with every bad person they ever met is not an encyclopedic endeavor.  The fact that partisian politics works this way is interesting and notable - in articles about elections, but not about the people behind them.  If you can step back, we do this in other contexts too.  If there is an article about a famous sports player we don't put all of their sporting events, however well sourced, in their main bio article - we would describe the detail in the article about that game, or season.  We don't put critical reaction to each of an author's books in the author's bio - we put it in the article about the book.  And so on.  It's a matter of putting material where it belongs.  In a different political era it was okay to have rough friends (as long as they weren't communists or athiests or something), but the issue back then might have been drug use.  Any politician who ever used drugs, or associated with people who did, was doomed.  Would we put a bio section in every politican's article that they used illegal drugs or not?  No.  At different times, if a politician was ever in therapy, or had a divorce, or hired domestic staff without proper tax withholding, that was the big issue of the day.  Today the issue is trying to taint candidates by emphasizing their connection with unsavory people.  That's relevant to elections, not to people.  On the weight concern I counted 95 articles about Obama / Ayers.  Perhaps it's 1,000 depending on how you search google.  But that's out of hundreds of thousands of articles about Obama.  This is a tiny, tiny issue.  The only people paying attention, it seems, are us on this talk page and some conservative bloggers who are pushing this as an issue.  Frankly, America does not seem to care.  America cares a lot more about Rezko and Wright, for example (though there could be a relevancy issue with Wright), than Bill Ayers.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to try to argue that the media coverage is not significant, that would be a relevant argument. It would be interesting to compare the number of articles concerning Obama's relationship to Ayers with the number concerning chili-cooking skills and various positive information in the article.


 * Otherwise, the simple fact is, provided there is significant coverage of the Ayers and other issues, they belong in the article according to WP:BLP, WP:ROC, and also WP:COMMON sense. Trying to say the Ayers issue hasn't influenced public perception in spite of significant coverage simply because there hasn't been a poll to prove it as there has in the case of Wright is heads in the sand.  While it would be WP:OR to state in the article that public perception has been influenced by the significant coverage, deciding whether to include the material in the article is a separate issue.  It is far safer to assume that an issue receiving significant coverage has influenced public perception than to assume that it has not.  Much better to include it than leave it out.


 * Furthermore, owing to the fact that Obama's presidential run is his most significant noteworthy trait and the fact that these events have influenced that campaign, as Scjessey states himself, the material is relevant according to WP:ROC guidelines on those grounds as well.


 * Scjessey, you are way out on a limb here. I know you want this article to be a strict bio of Obama's life, focusing on his chili cooking skills and what not.  But that is not what consensus here at Wikipedia regarding articles such as this says we are to do.  And it is not what common sense tells many of us would make a good article.


 * WP:BLP policy states that it is our job here, for the most part, to document third party coverage of issues relevant to Obama. The relevancy of the Ayers, Wright, and Rezko stuff is air tight.  Provided the coverage is significant, it must go in.


 * Also, "ROFL" is a well-known term of condescension in reference to another person's point of view. Scjessey, please leave things like that to yourself from now on.


 * Will be gone next couple of days.


 * --Floorsheim (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Believing your assumptions about Ayers to be correct and saying "it adheres to policy" over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Shem(talk) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't assume anything about Ayers. I simply think that, provided there is significant third party coverage of the Ayers issue, it ought to be represented in the article.  To me, that is WP:COMMON sense and it is the clear application of WP:BLP policy to this article for reasons I have given several times.  --Floorsheim (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that weight argument about whether the Ayers controversy is significant enough to cover in a bio about Obama translates to "it is because it is", whereas mine is "it isn't, as evidenced by the relative paucity of reliable published sources as compared to the weight of sources about other things." Sure some sources are about his chili cooking skills.  But most of the pieces about Ayers are even less weighty than chili cooking.  And unnecessary fluff isn't nearly as bad as impertinent disparagement.  Nobody can sort through several hundred thousand articles, and even if we could there isn't an algorithm for weighing things.  It's always going to be a matter of judgment.  That's where relevance comes in.  95 articles or 1000 is enough to establish notability, so we might as well cover it in more detail in a place where the coverage is reasonable - an article devoted to the controversy, which we have.  There's no demonstration at all that this significantly affects Obama's presidential run, much less his trajectory as a person and a politician.  Until then, it's like devoting a section to the fact that a given politician used drugs, saw a therapist, or failed to withhold taxes on domestic help.  You may think it says something about their character but most people, apparently, disagree.  Agreed that ROFL isn't a term of insult, btw.  It can be a little passive aggressive, but in most cases it's a way to diffuse tension, not to increase it.  Have a good weekend....we'll keep the article going for you.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Also, "ROFL" is a well-known term of condescension in reference to another person's point of view. Scjessey, please leave things like that to yourself from now on."

I don't know what internet you're on, but that's not what that abbreviation means. Nar Matteru (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ROFL. You cannot use a Google search as justification for a BLP violation First, it isn't a BLP violation but keeping it out is an NPOV violation. Second, while any lunatic can open a website and the cumulative effect of a lot of lunatics can fluff up an ordinary Google search, Google News is limited to respected, mainstream news media websites like the New York Times and Reuters, plus a few partisan sites like Daily Kos. The handful of partisan sites are far from sufficient to skew a Google News search. There are 411 Google News hits for "Obama + Ayers." They include such mainstream sites as MSNBC, Time magazine, the Wall Street Journal, ABC News, the Washington Post and the Associated Press. And a hearty "ROFL" to you too, Scjessey. The mainstream media are linking Ayers and Obama, and they find the association to be notable. Sorry, you lose big time. No BLP violation. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The abbreviation is for "rolling on the floor laughing". Telling someone you're rolling on the floor laughing in response to what they have said, that thing not being a joke, is an insult.  --Floorsheim (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to seriously check your motives if you're treating Talk page discussions as "win/lose" contests wherein your goal is to make opponents "lose big time." This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. Shem(talk) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it. When POV pushers like Scjessey lose, Wikipedia wins. BLP says, Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints. The particular viewpoint that's getting a disproportionate amount of space ... in fact all of the space ... is the viewpoint of Obama's campaign manager. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're hardly in any position to accuse other editors of POV-pushing. I'd say "pot kettle," but "plank in eye" seems more fitting.  You seem content to ride the fast lane toward ban-town, so I'll leave you to your own devices. Shem(talk) 03:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When a substantial POV that criticizes or questions the subject of a biography is systematically excluded, deleted and reverted, in clear violation of WP:NPOV, the partisans seeking to preverve this status quo frequently accuse those seeking to restore NPOV of being "POV pushers." Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Er... that would be fine except that you were are talking about "a substantial POV that criticizes or questions" someone who is NOT the subject of the biography, which is why it is a clear violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The criticism and questioning has been directed TO OBAMA - during televised debates, in the pages of our nation's newspapers and news magazines, and on televised talk shows (no, not just Fox) - for associating so closely and for so long with criminals and bigots. It has been directed to Obama by mainstream, highly respected journalists and political commentators. Which is why it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV to delete it, but not a violation of WP:BLP to include it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Obama is being criticized over his affiliation with the man. --Floorsheim (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Compare Ron Paul
Please consider my comments as a WP:08 "cofounder" and a veteran of the same battle at Ron Paul's article. Five months ago Paul was attacked (again) for newsletters he'd overseen that had his name on them, and which often implied that he'd written them: the newsletters had many viewpoints described as racist and by other epithets, and his associations with the actual writers (and whether he was an actual writer) were hotly debated. The article was locked down for a week, tempers flew, and I opted out for awhile because so messy. Well guess what. We sprinkled the newsletter controversy throughout the article with strict chronological methodology; we included one to two paragraphs on its late flareup in the campaign section; and we directed all editors to rant (seven or eight paragraphs) at the campaign article instead due to the main article being a Former Featured Article Candidate. And the edit war DIED COLD. That has not happened here. There is still a faction that believes any mention of a controversy is somehow verboten as if such mention could never be NPOV; and there is still a faction that believes that controversies should be played up as much as possible because there is no way to properly contextualize without loads of gory paragraphs. Under good faith, both these POVs are understandable, but guys, you must take the time to recognize them as careless, unsophisticated ruts of mismanaging this possibly most controversial article of all (I don't say that lightly). Only then will the Wikipedian goal of article stabilization be successful. (And if you don't believe in stabilizing this article, you need to reread some of the Wikipedia core documents.) My point is that wars over Ron Paul (who faced an exceedingly similar attack), George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and even Hillary Clinton have not had anywhere near the inability to agree on policy applications that this article has seen. This article rivals (and I think surpasses due to subtlety) the Eastern Europe turf wars (where is Macedonia?). Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. The third Featured Article Review here even was closed with an anomalous result unique in the annals, because there seemed no way for the debate closer to proceed normally; and the debate has continued indefinitely. My POV (digression): It is my firm belief that Clinton (no love lost) will use the very allegations we're discussing, among others, to cannibalize Obama completely about two weeks before the convention, pulling superdelegate rank and winning a dirty vote, prior to her coasting neck-and-neck past McCain (no love lost) in a no-holds-barred, full-attention-diverting "race". The more attention wasted the better for her real plans. See if this prophecy is wrong. That means that this may all be academic soon because it'll be suddenly and painfully obvious that much more attention will have become appropriate to Obama scandals; (end digression:) all the same, wouldn't it be better to have these issues settled long before the flurry of news that anyone can reasonably expect to arise at the convention? JJB 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempt to make peace. Looking at the other major candidate's article, John McCain, none of that contention is present and there is no debate over detailing random miscellaneous controversies.  The article does not have them.  However, I don't think it's a good idea to characterize  positions cogently argued by 1/4 to 1/3 of the participants on each side as "careless, unsophisticated ruts."  The objection of some to coatracking discussion of "unrepentant terrorist" (say some) Bill Ayers into this article isn't that controversies should be ignored; rather it is based on BLP and on an argument that it is not a bona fide controversy - it is a minor, failed piece of attack politics that is covered elsewhere, not relevant to the subject of this article, and does not satisfy weight concerns.  The objection of others to "whitewashing" the candidate is not entirely without merit either.  They correctly point out that each of the controversies is verifiable and has enough reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, and that readers coming to this article want to know about them, at least to be pointed to where they can learn more.  What has broken down here is not content but process.  We have repeated polling, lots of incivility, edit warring, wikigaming, an outstanding sockpuppet report, and now an AN/I case.  Wikidemo (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A fine point, but John McCain does have controversies. Also, your observations demonstrate my language precisely: it is a careless, unsophisticated rut either to insert "unrepentant terrorist" by citing sources (which is a coatrack here), or to delete an informative link to Weathermen by citing BLP. The approach indicated by WP and yourself is to determine what middle ground is due weight in each case, and to avoid every gameable invocation of other processes. This can hardly be the first ANI case on this page, and with recent news it's going to get worse before better. Anyway, hoping to catch up with you on cooler pages. JJB 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. Exactly right, John. Look, I will support any compromise that allows a fair treatment of Wright, Rezko and Ayers in this article. Keep it as short as you want, but make sure that readers understand there is a controversy, and why there is a controversy, by reading this article. What is the weight that is due to Bill Ayers when a compromise is reached? At least one sentence maybe two. For Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, at least one substantial paragraph each, maybe two, maybe more later if the right win 527s make a big deal out of them.
 * I hesitated to take a voluntary 30-day vacation from the topic of Barack Obama, because it would be difficult for the people like Noroton left here to control the impulses of what Bigtimepeace describes as "Obamanators." But since BTP is here, I feel more comfortable doing so. Pay attention to what BTP says. I'll be back. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Future discussion methodology for Rezko and Wright
Might I suggest we not use "sliding scales" or averages for the next two discussions? Also, which should we tackle first? Shem(talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We have already tackled Rezko, we used a much shorter sliding scale (which has eliminated much of the problem caused by the longer sliding scale for Ayers) and the consensus supports No. 4. 70.9.18.59 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After seeing the disruption arising out of the repeated Bill Ayers polls, I think the approach of going down each controversial subject one at a time by polling is unwise. Our experience to date has embodied every problem raised by WP:VOTE - polarizing discussion, raising the stakes, triggering incivility, leaving off options, triggering expectations of majority rule, improperly interpreting outcome as binding, ignoring encyclopedicity.  I got sucked into the Ayers vote, but I've avoided the Rezko vote because it's so contentious and pointless, and think many others may have done the same.  We should probably go back to the drawing board on all this and see if the standard approach will work - an organic, free-form discussion among concerned editors, with behavioral guidelines against incivility and edit warring rigorously enforced.Wikidemo (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The true core of civility is to assume brother- and sisterhood. Not that siblings don't argue. But towards abandonment of argument through characterizations of others, replacing it with examination of whatever assertions and suggestions on their merits. (Eg, info about WorkerBee's being a new, campaign-issue-only account, is great. The first time. But thereafter, i/e until something untoward would be smoked out, let's let its repetition slide.) — Justmeherenow  19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If we must start a new discussion, then it's clear that about a week was wasted in the old discussion. I suggest that a firm commitment to prompt resolution, and avoiding any repetition of old arguments that have already been refuted, should be assumed. Giving up personal attacks, suspicions of sockpuppetry and aspersions against the motives of others should also be assumed. Can we agree on these ground rules? 70.9.18.59 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with IP but I will not moderate. Sat out Rezko for same reason. This article is the remedial summer class for Consensus Building 101 and it has no teacher. "Leave those kids alone" only goes so far. JJB 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Condescension to both sides downplays legitimate concerns about editing abuse. Moreover, the out-of-sequence comment and minor put-down in the form of a new section heading, below turn Shem's response to the new IP editor into a non-sequitur.  So I suggest, please help if you will, but don't put down those who are.Wikidemo (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up presidential campaign article
Just a note that Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 already has 79k of readable text to cover the primary, so discussion of how best to split up the Primary and General election portions of the campaign is under way here. Since at least one of the proposals so far involves linking the future primary and general election article from here directly rather than creating a main campaign article and then a primary sub-article and general sub-article from that article, I figured I'd invite the editors from this article to join in on the discussion. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support you and wish you good luck. Little bit of sarkassm but you know how I mean it. --Floridianed (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Article probation discussion on AN/I
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but there is an ongoing discussion on AN/I about placing article probation/topic banning for several of the editors on this article. I've seen comments from many of the people involved, but not everyone, so not sure if everyone is aware of it. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama Infobox and Succession boxes
Sample infoboxes in sandbox: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes

Sign for archiving purposes. AvruchT * ER 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying again: Cultural perception section
I have tagged the "Cultural image" section for Neutrality. It gives various reasons why people love Obama, while giving the impression that there is not a soul around who has a negative "cultural perception" of him. Fishal (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a whole paragraph in that section on whether Obama really "counts" as African American. You don't consider that a critical passage? Shem(talk) 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true-- my mistake :-/. But even that concludes with the idea that Obama's just too darn appealing to white people... sort of a left-handed criticism, if such a thing is possible?  As the campaign has dragged on I know that via the media I have heard all sorts of issues people have with his background (cf. the "arugula" comment and the "bitterness" comment).  Both of these faux pas were blown ridiculously out of proportion, but both left a lasting impact on many people's perceptions of Obama.  The issue was the cover story of Time (or Newsweek) quite recently, IIRC.  Fishal (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Be bold. Fix it. You too can get reverted. Andyvphil (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just might :-). http://www.newsweek.com/id/134398 is the article.  I'd better get on it quickly, since those articles tend to get archived away from the public rather fast.  Fishal (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to go forward with this, Fishal. One of the weakest sections in the article.  --Floorsheim (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the tag is unwarranted. Differing points of view are presented, with issues over his "blackness" raised in the second paragraph and specific negative image concerns raised in the third paragraph. The arugula/bitter "faux pas" are transient issues arising from the current campaign which are unlikely to make a lasting impression, but certainly warrant coverage in the related campaign article. I think the section is a bit too long, but I am uncertain as to what (if anything) should be cut. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Throwing in a couple criticisms of Obama amidst such a great deal of praise does not equate to NPOV when there is quite a bit of other criticism out there that is not represented at all. Also, it is impossible for us to say at this point what will and will not lead to a lasting impression.  The NPOV tag should stay until all notable, well-sourced, and relevant criticism and negative views are represented, in accordance with WP:BLP.  --Floorsheim (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Something about the section seems not-right, although I wouldn't call it an NPOV problem. Maybe a matter of focus and unencyclopedic tone. An extended section on "image" seems like spin, and a bit like pop culture digression. We could probably research, and find enough sources, for an "image" section on every politician but is that how we want to organize the article? I don't see it all as praise though. Saying that people think of Obama what they want to think of him, without knowing who he really is, is not entirely a compliment. The answer is not to pile on every criticism that can be sourced - BLP is clearly not about that. It might be to shorten the section by about half, change and demote the heading to be more specific, and make it sound less like an essay or exposition. Wikidemo (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds largely like something I could get behind. And I agree that we ought not pile on every criticism that can be sourced.  The more notable and prevalent criticisms and negative views should be represented and explained, though, possibly including some (sourced) analysis thereof.  It's important to an article about a politician to accurately portray how the public sees and has seen him.  I think it's useful to include some views about why he is and has been seen in such ways as well.  That way, readers are better equipped to understand the overall political context of the person, not to mention formulate their own views in a more clear-headed fashion.  --Floorsheim (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New Cultural perception paragraph proposal: Viral emails
I'm sympathetic toward those who view the "cultural perception" section as a puff piece, though I disagree that it lacks critical analysis (debate over Obama's "blackness ," for example). For the sake of getting rid of the POV dispute template, how about this: A paragraph on Obama's struggle with viral emails. He's addressed the emails several times in debates and interviews, and hasn't shied from confronting their content (there's an entire section of his website dedicated to addressing them, and his campaign just added a new "internet war room" staff to deal with them ). I'm not saying this should be added to balance "positive" information with "negative" information, but to satisfy those who feel there're notable less-than-flattering cultural perceptions/images of Obama which aren't being duly addressed. This seems like something those who are "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" could participate in shaping, and there're wheelbarrow-loads of sources we could draw from.

I'm an Obama supporter, and can assure other Obama supporting editors that I'd be diligent in working with User:Fishal and others to prevent it from becoming simply an extension of the viral emails themselves. Thoughts? Shem(talk) 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely appreciate the effort, although I would hope you would do that last bit regardless of being an Obama supporter or not. :) One question I would have is how seriously does anyone take the viral emails?  Although they are apparently taken seriously enough for Obama to address them publicly.  If we did cover the viral emails, I think it would be good to debunk their more outstanding claims while we were at it.  For all we know, someone could have come to the article right after reading one of the emails wondering if there was any truth to it or not.


 * The stuff I see as being most important to add, myself, is Obama's falling out of favor with blue collar white males and the surrounding events and sensitivities. That is a view of Obama that many people have and take seriously.  It should be brought up and explained.


 * --Floorsheim (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's terribly important to include the viral email smear, in part because it would be extremely difficult to determine how widespread the smear is and how seriously those who've read it take its contents. If there's a consensus that the tone of the "cultural image" section is too adulatory, I'd support some mention of the elitism charge and Obama's difficulty connecting with some white working class voters, especially in Appalachia.  (Here's one possible source for such an addition.)


 * Also on the topic of Obama's cultural image, it might be worth considering a mention of how Obama and his candidacy are viewed internationally. The New York Times had a detailed overview of international responses to Obama securing the Democratic nomination (see here) and yesterday Thomas Friedman went so far as to say, "It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats’ nomination of Obama as their candidate for president has done more to improve America’s image abroad ... than the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years."  I don't have the time to slug out how this (or something similar) could be incorporated into the section, but I think that international views of Obama are an important element of the "cultural image" question.  If I wanted to make a big stink about it, I would add a Globalize tag to the section, but I don't think that's necessary or particularly productive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No need for a globalize tag. He's running for the US Presidency, after all.  And I don't think the viral e-mails are particularly noteworthy-- these sorts of things lurk in the background of every campaign.  Maybe a mention, though, since Obama himself seems to acknowledge them as a danger.  Perhaps a statistic citing the staggering percentage of Americans who still think Obama's a Muslim!
 * This source is also useful, talking about his alleged lack of appeal to working-class voters. Had I time I would have already added material to the article from it: Thomas, Evan; Bailey, Holly; and Wolffe, Richard.  "Only in America: obama's 'Bubba Gap'".  Newsweek 5 May 2008.  Online: http://www.newsweek.com/id/134398.  Accessed 6 June 2008.
 * And by the way, Seth-- I've been an Obama supporter since the primaries began. He's the first candidate whose name's been pasted to my bumper.  I happen to be an Obama supporter who values neutrality.  Don't jump to conclusions too quickly.  :)
 * Fishal (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He's running for the US Presidency, but if we're going to talk about how he's viewed we should consider international perspectives as well. Since the US is one of the most powerful nations in the world (although China is probably running neck-and-neck with us now), international views of its potential leaders are important.  But, as I said, I don't have time to fight for it right now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Josiah. The international perspective is notable, important, interesting, and well-sourced.  It would be good to incorporate it.  --Floorsheim (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Another useful source for international opinions about Obama is this recent survey from Pew, which found:People around the world who have been paying attention to the American election express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama's, as well as in Jordan and Pakistan where few people have confidence in either candidate. Obama's advantage over McCain is overwhelming in the Western European countries surveyed: Fully 84% of the French who have been following the election say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 33% who say that about McCain. The differences in ratings for Obama and McCain are about as large in Spain and Germany, and are only somewhat narrower in Great Britain.

I'll let someone else figure out how to integrate this info into the article, or the election article if it's more appropriate there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Socks of all stripes...
I saw something amusing when I got to my hotel (too long day of flying, so it cheered me up): Suspected sock puppets/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Apparently I should welcome Life.temp to my evil plans... glad to have you doing my wicked deeds while I have to muck with flights.... FWIW, I haven't looked yet at whatever it was Life.temp apparently deleted, and the usual K4T/FA/IP brigade denounced as "Obama campaign workers". I have to go eat, then I'll see if I think his/her edits are meritorious. LotLE × talk 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming you are not socking, I think it's best to let things like that roll off rather than joining the fray. If you are, shame!  Wikidemo (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying here is that you're travelling, meaning you have access to different IP addresses - now, who was it who based an accusation of being a sock puppet on just that? Oh, yeah...... Fovean Author (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's generally beneficial if the editors have a pattern of similar editing, Fovean Author.. Life.temp has edited this article a total of three times and in a manner inconsistent with LotLE's patterns.. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, Life.temp shows up out of the blue to engage in an edit war with K4T, as LOTLE has done many times. It's pretty clear to me that the latter is breaking in a sock puppet.  LOTLE frequently posts as an IP address with he wants to accuse someone he doesn't like, now he's trying this.  Fovean Author (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kossack reverted Life.temp's edits first, while Life.temp reverted Kossack's reverts.. That's hardly Life.temp coming out of the blue to engage in an edit war with Kossack. Coming out of the blue to engage in an edit war with someone would be a magical appearance to revert back to a version that LotLE agrees with. Life.temp's actions are indicative of someone coming upon another discussion and then taking a look at someone's edit history to see what the heck everyone is talking about.. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'''This page is the talk page to discuss an article about Barack Obama! Please move your conversation to a personal talk page. Thank you.''' --Floridianed (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my Wikipedia friends, Rezko was convicted of bribery
In his/her edit summary reverting me, Bobblehead denied that Rezko was convicted of bribery. He was convicted on two counts of aiding and abetting bribery, two counts of money laundering, and 12 counts of fraud -- a total of 16 felony counts. Here are the Daily Telegraph and the Associated Press. AFP specifies "12 counts of fraud, two of aiding and abetting bribery and two of money laundering[.]" If you'd like, I'll add the AFP link to the article mainspace. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What Tony Rezko was (or was not) convicted of is a matter for the Rezko BLP. The federal trial had nothing whatsoever to do with Barack Obama, so the discussion about its specifics is moot. This article should only cover the details of Obama's relationship with Rezko. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You've made that point about 20 times, and I've made my point that details about other people are essential to understanding why these relationships are controversial about 19 times. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rezko's relationships with other politicians, and his subsequent trial, are not related to Obama. It's as simple as that. Wikipedia is not a blog. I agree that the minor controversy surrounding the land deal is relevant, but none of that other stuff you are trying to push is. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Kosack is a blogger. He's saying it himself. --Floridianed (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did he say that? Regardless of who he is, he's right. In order to understand the controversy about Rezko, readers need context. Context is required in the Wikipedia description of summary style. Summary style cannot be used as an excuse to delete unpleasant facts about the political allies of your favorite politicians, when those facts provide the context that Wikipedia requires. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. Also, the relationships and the trial are relevant for the simple reason that they have impacted Obama's campaign, which is his primary noteworthy trait and that they in all likely events have influenced his public perception.  --Floorsheim (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Both Scjessey and I have since edited this section in a way that removed the specific charges, although I re-added that there were "corruption" charges. I don't think the specific counts (which K4T seems to be contentiously inserting and re-inserting) make any difference.  However, Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction on public corruption charges is relevant as I argue elsewhere.  Obama knew Rezko was under indictment at the time of the land deal, as per the sources.  Obama acknowledges, and many sources report, that the "scrutiny" over Obama's relationship with Rezko is in part a questioning of Obama's judgment in dealing with a person he knows is under indictment.  The second issue, which Obama considers more important (per sources) is the appearance of impropriety in doing business deals related to a fundraiser.  Both sides (fundraiser and politician) are supposed to know better than that.  When the fundraiser turns out to be convicted of political corruption, that tends to explain why the fundraiser is ignoring ethical standards and why the politician then comes under scrutiny.  It is all very routine stuff, well covered by the media, and I don't think there is much dispute as to the underlying facts.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when Obama purchased the house and Rita Rezko the adjoining property, Obama was not aware of an investigation into Rezko's dealing with the Illinois State boards. It was only when Obama wanted to purchase the 10 foot strip of the adjoining property that the press was reporting on Rezko's investigation/indictment and, according to Obama, he took extra care to make sure the purchase of the strip was "ethical and fair". --Bobblehead (rants) 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An editor recently added a sentence detailing Rezko's criminal charges, claiming this is a "previous version" but without otherwise discussing the edit. Another was repeatedly adding the bribery charge/conviction quite a few times in the past few days.  The sentence that mentions the specific charges, at least, is a semi non-sequitur and ought to be deleted in my opinion.  However, I don't want to revert even once given the history of edit warring here.  I hope people will respect this.Wikidemo (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. A clear case of tendentious reverting. For the record (and as stated on his talk page), I agree with the Wikidemo treatment of Rezko. It mentions the corruption in the proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally have no problem with "corruption charges". However, Wikidemo and Scjessey, I do think you should have gotten consensus for this edit here on the talk page before making it. --Floorsheim (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Both you and Scjessey were making substantial deletions in violation of the conditions established on this Talk page by multiple administrators. Both of you are daring these admins to block you for edit warring and disruptive and tendentious editing. Adding one word or one reliable source, or deleting a redundant phrase, is not a substantial edit unless it changes meaning. When you want to make a substantial edit, get consensus first, then edit. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you are joking. What violation? My edits have been in accordance with Wikipedia rules. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What violation? Please read WP:TE and WP:DE. You have already been warned and blocked multiple times for edit warring. Administrators have left multiple warnings on this Talk page, asking edtors not to do what the two of you have just done. Please stop edit warring. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er.. no. I've received a single, 12-hour block for edit warring some 2 months ago. My recent edits were in accordance with all policies and guidelines concerning biographies, and I wasn't edit warring in any way. Simply stating a bald-faced lie does not make it so, and coming from an edit-warring single-purpose account user like you, I think it is pretty astounding that you should make these baseless accusations. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (to Workerbee74) That's barely worth a response. Please desist from hyperbole like that in discussing content changes you oppose.  The warnings were against tendentiousness, edit warring, and inserting poorly sourced information that violates BLP, not against good faith edits.  Your reflexive reversion of the edit, simply for being a change, is closer to how one would define a revert war - but you only did it once, and we only inserted it once, so as long as we do not get caught up in reverting each other this is normal editing process. Wikidemo (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I was looking at Lulu's extensive history of blocks for edit warring. So remove the two words "multiple times" and the rest of my previous edit was 100% accurate. Both of you have been previously blocked for doing exactly what you are doing now. Three different administrators (Anonymous Dissident, MZMcBride and AndonicO) have placed detailed and crystal clear warnings on this Talk page against exactly what you are doing now. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er.. no they haven't. You obviously need to go back and read what they said again. They did not offer any support for BLP violations like you are proposing. They reiterated the importance of reliable sources, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to insert unrelated crap into the article to suit your biased agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Scjessey, it is you who is insisting on WP:BLP violations. You insist on leaving out relevant, well-sourced, and notable material of the exact sort BLP policy tells us to include on the grounds that it is not directly about Obama himself.  What you refuse to acknowledge is that that is simply not what BLP policy tells us is of concern but is rather your own belief about what should go into the article.  Please stop claiming your own personal beliefs to be Wikipedia policy.  --Floorsheim (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That claim has appeared a few times here. Accepting for the moment that relevant, well sourced, notable information is being omitted, that's not a BLP violation.  BLP is a prohibition against including poorly sourced controversial information, not a demand to include derogatory information if it is well sourced.  Nor does it establish notability and relevance standards.  Notability is for whether an article should be here, not the material inside the article.  Those terms serve as shorthand.  As far as I know every proposal to actually define relevance has failed.Wikidemo (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Accepting for the moment that relevant, well sourced, notable information is being omitted, that's not a BLP violation.


 * ?! But it says specifically on WP:BLP under Well-known public figures:  If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.


 * It's true BLP itself doesn't say anything about what relevance is and is not. But WP:ROC does give guidelines, which apparently have considerable consensus.  What it says is that subject matter having an influence on the subject of an article's noteworthy traits, explicitly including public perception, is relevant.  Material receiving considerable media coverage fits this criterion for Obama because it will have influenced his presidential campaign, which is his primary noteworthy trait and in all likely events his public perception as well.


 * --Floorsheim (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ROC is an essay, it is neither a policy nor even a guideline and does not really have much bearing on the discussion here. I don't think the BLP policy does either&mdash;including the Rezko material would not violate BLP but nor would non-inclusion. The real issue here is WP:NPOV in general and more specifically WP:UNDUE. For an article to remain neutral it cannot be a whitewash that excludes criticisms, but nor should negative (or for that matter positive) material be given undue weight. The question with respect to Rezko is if we mention him and how we do so. We make the decision about how to proceed based in large part on the necessity for keeping the article as neutral as possible. Quite frankly there is not a clear-cut answer to the question which is part of why this debate is so heated, but we should at least be aware of what policy is most relevant to the debate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the principle concerns here are WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.


 * One of the things you said, though, Bigtimepeace, is that non-inclusion of the Rezko material would not violate WP:BLP. Others have said similar things.  Could you (or anyone else) please explain how that is so when it says in WP:BLP: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.?


 * It's true that WP:ROC is not an official guideline, so sorry for my mistake there. But isn't it at least worth considering in trying to discern what relevance should be interpreted as meaning in that quote from BLP?


 * Wouldn't doing so help us make heads or tails about what negative material should be included in the article?


 * --Floorsheim (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [EC] - to wokerbee: Yes, Lulu is quite the contentious editor isn't he? But while you're off digging up dirt to throw at your opponents you might as well get it right.  I can't speak for Scjessey but I was blocked for several minutes last year while on troll patrol, which is hazardous duty, by a misguided administrator who got suckered into using the tools to side with sockpuppets in a content dispute.  I gave him an earful in the arbcom case but his block seemed to be in good faith, if against policy.  I'm more experienced now and have learned better how to let sockpuppets dig their own grave instead of my digging it for them - lest I get blocked again.  We got the trolls though, several people, including administrators, permanently gone from Wikipedia.  You really don't want to be flirting with that kind of dispute.  "Exactly what [I am] doing right now" is making single incremental good-faith edits to improve the article while discussing changes on the talk page, exactly how one is supposed to go about things.  As a word of friendly advice, your approach to this article hasn't gone unnoticed, and if you want to stick around and contribute to the project you really ought to tone down the name-calling, personal attacks, contentiousness, etc.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * @WorkerBee:Haha. I saw what you tried at article "Waterboarding". --Floridianed (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Snipping material in subarticles
Obviously, I'm not Life.temp. I got a chuckle out of the report by FA, since it was such a transparently stupid attempt to "get even" for me filing a sock puppet request (which I think is entirely accurate, other than someone's addition of Andyvphil, who I think is an entirely different person than K4T/et alia).

I have now had a chance to look at what s/he trimmed from the Prez Campaign section. I like the overall goal of reducing it substantially, and leaving most details to the child article. However, the actual edit was a little bit off... for example, it left in the mention of S.Dakota and Montana, while leaving out the (excessive) details on the other primaries. I don't think we need to trim quite that much. A few words summarizing the primary campaign would be good, but not state-by-state details anymore. Maybe a little bit of before/after Super Tuesday though... like 3-4 sentences in total. Probably a slight mention of the Wright stuff even makes sense... less than we had, but some way of finding maybe three sentences that wrap up the whole: "Wrights remarks were publicized; Obama made a speech; more controversy around TUCC and Obama resigned the congregation". Better written and cited than that, but a quick overview with pointers. LotLE × talk 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. Compare this article with other Wikipedia biographies about prominent politicians such as Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton. There are entire sections devoted to scandals and controversies. Some of them use the word "scandal" in the section header. There is no reason to treat this one differently. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * May I add McCain? You really like to leave him out yet he is the most important one to compare. Don't you think so? --Floridianed (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They are all important to compare. John McCain isn't the only other biography of a prominent politician here at Wikipedia. There are hundreds. I've been reviewing them, and looking at corresponding Britannica biographies, for about a week. But since you insist, let's look specifically at John McCain.


 * Even though there's a separate article about the Keating Five scandal, there are two paragraphs about it in the McCain biography and it's even mentioned in the lead of the article, something we haven't yet tried to do here with Rezko and Wright. Is that what you're suggesting? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you consider "Rezko" and "Wright" to be of the same level of importance as "Keating Five"? Perhaps if people are still talking about them in 10 years, but I'd consider that questionable now.  Don't fall subject to recentism. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest we "even" them out as much as possible and give fairness to each. As I pointed out earlier, we are in an election year. That's the reason there is so much traffic and controversy (edit/talk and vandalism) on specific pages. I'm just talking in general, just that there isn't a missunderstanding. --Floridianed (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is not to give equal weight to the failings of each politician. The McCain article has no coverage, and no fighting over, these trivial manufactured controversies - save, as I mentioned, for a few words devoted to the "lobbyist" scandal that I would remove from the McCain article if I had my druthers.  The Keating Five is not a campaign controversy, it is a rather central, key event in McCain's career that almost threw him out of politics.  Obama has no similar scandal in his past.  If he is ever called into a Senate ethics probe of that sort, investigated by an Independent Counsel, etc., then we could say it's important to his biography.  That's not to say we shouldn't cover Wright and Rezko if we can keep it appropriate, just putting it in perspective. Wikidemo (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly given this false portrayal of the Keating Five scandal as something that "almost threw him out of politics" or "almost cost him his seat." Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Democrat controlled Senate completely exonerated McCain. Their own chief counsel admitted that the only reason McCain was dragged into it at all was to keep it from being an all-Democrat scandal.


 * Unlike McCain, three Democratic senators were formally censured by their Democratic colleagues. They didn't even try to run for re-election. They knew better than that. Their careers in politics were finished. By comparison, McCain has run and won by wide margins four times since then. It had no lasting effect on McCain. I think the comparison is a fair one to make. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, McCain did survive the accusations. There's nothing false or minor about facing Senate ethics charges.  McCain was accused, and was clearly involved, in an event that forced three of five Senators out of politics.  That's a significant career event, unlike the minor campaign material in this article.  Other exonerated people in this category include Bill and Hillary (for Monica Llewinsky and Whitewater), Oliver North (Iran-Contra), Clarence Thomas (sexual harassment), and so on.  I'm concerned that you're arguing about "Democrat controlled Senate", "all-Democrat scandal", "Democratic colleagues", etc.  That indicates you're looking at this whole thing as a Democrat-versus-Republican issue.  We're talking about a biography of a person here, not keeping track of political scores.Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not "minor campaign material." The polls say it's a close race. The combined effect of all these controversies could make thedifference between winning and losing for Obama in November. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This belief of yours (that propagation of these controversies could change the election's outcome) seems to be your sole motivation for editing here under your current account. That aside, what "could make the difference" in November's irrelevant because Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. Shem(talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody needs a crystal ball. The Wright controversy has already cost Obama a lot of votes, even within the Democratic Party, as proven by the poll results I posted a few days ago. Assuming that the poll means nothing would sound a lot like WP:OR no matter how you present it. These controversies have cost Obama a lot already. Publications like Newsweek are already forecasting a series of attacks against Obama from the 527 groups, similar to the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry in 2004, but with much better funding. When the "crystal ball gazing" herein comes from a solid gold, neutral, reliable source like Newsweek, it is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's funny, because every meaningful poll shows Obama spanking McCain by an ever-increasing margin. Perhaps that's because McCain referred to "vetoing beer" and "President Putin of Germany" recently. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, allow me to give you a little piece of advice, K4T. Don't embarrass yourself with things like this or this. You'll only draw the ire of Wikipedia Administrators who see through your silly games. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scjessey, I'm referring to the poll that was specifically on Wright related issues. CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 1-3, 2008.  It says that 22% of all voters, including 18% of Democrats and 19% of independents, feel less favorably toward Obama as a result of the Wright affair; 60% of all voters, including 71% of Democrats and 53% of independents, disapprove of the way that Obama handled the Wright matter; and 18% of all voters, including 12% of Democrats and 17% of independents, are now less likely to support Obama in the fall election as a result of the Wright matter. This is the poll that is specific to the Wright matter, and there are others like it. With results like these, the overall ratings you've cited for Obama are lower than they otherwise would have been. This makes Obama look beatable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything you just mentioned is about the campaign. It belongs in the article on the campaign. This article is an overview of a life. Life.temp (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)