Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 36

FAR closed; useful leftovers
I have closed the FAR. I'll leave some minor clean-up issues here, from SandyG and DrK. Marskell (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Misc cleanup needs:
 * The section heading, "U.S. Senator, 2005–present" breaches WP:MOSDATE: something like "U.S. Senator, from 2005" might work.
 * The image in "Early life and career" is causing text squeeze, see WP:MOS. If not deleted, it should be moved down.
 * Done Image moved. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues in several sections: Images within sections should be below the templates at the top of sections, and maintenance template are in the wrong place.  See the structure sections of ASSESSIBILITY.
 * Done All images are below navigation and redirect template at top in lead.. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSNUM, ... its staff grew from 1 to 13 ... is awkward, might better be ... its staff grew from one to thirteen.
 * Done I think I got all the MOSNUM issues. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack. External jump in the text, sample:  which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[60] External jumps belong in External links or as citations.
 * Done Fixed by someone else, don't see any others. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain this italicization is correct, see WP:ITALICS ... introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 ... I know law cases are in italics, but legislation, unsure?
 * Legislation or proposed legislation should be just a regular proper noun, no quotes, no italics. Thus, the This Benefits Everyone Act, not the This Benefits Everyone Act or the "This Benefits Everyone Act".  There are a bunch of places where this is currently wrong.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Logical punctuation needs to be addressed per WP:PUNC, sample: ... "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church."
 * Citations still look very clean, but I saw some unformatted citations, so a review might be in order (there are too many for me to look at all of them :-) All need publisher, author and date when available, and last accessdate on websites.
 * ^ Obama: I trusted Rezko" (March 15, 2008).
 * ^ ObamaSpeak
 * ^ http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/offbeat/2008/02/19/moos.obamafied.cnn: CNN Video
 * ^ Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama
 * Done I think this is all fixed now. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency in date linking in citations should be addressed (slowly, over time, since this is a recent WP:MOS change). Some dates are delinked, others linked, example:  Fornek, Scott (October 3, 2007). I don't suggest trying to do this kind of work during an election cycle :-)
 * Done All dates should be delinked and in same format. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All in all, still a very clean article, none of this is significant (except the external jump in the text, I hope there aren't others). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments on this version. Suggested prose changes:
 * "Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992...powers to be." This sentence is too long and complicated. I had to read it over twice.
 * "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." Why not?: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." I know he had another job at the same time, but it is unnecessary to complicate the sentence to point this out, when the other job is mentioned in the next paragraph.
 * Why aren't Senators Carper, Coburn, McCain, Feingold and Lugar, President Bush or St. Paul, Minnesota or Boston, Massachusetts linked?
 * "In March 2007, 'Obama' was officially accepted...obamacam." Seems trivial.
 * "Further reading" is unnecessary given the plethora of references. Can "External links" be trimmed?
 * Images I would have said a signature was an original work of art, and hence copyrightable by the creator, but I could be wrong.
 * I did not find any obvious partisan statements or missing information. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned about the signature for Palin as well: every candidate in the last 3 election cycles (or the last 5, save four candidates) have signatures here on Wikipedia, so there is a prescedent. Duuude007 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Would-be FAR content comments, no Rezko/Ayers/Wright involved
I hadn't looked at the article in a while, so gave it a fresh-eyed read-through last night (didn't note which version it was). Deliberately looked at content other than Rezko/Ayers/Wright. I was going to give these content comments to the FAR, will give them here instead: Anyway, those are my comments. I also noted, as did Sandy and DrKiernan above, that some of the MoS conformance aspects of the article have slipped. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to say something more about the 2008 presidential campaign. Gaining the nomination is one of the great accomplishments of Obama's career, especially in terms of defeating a front-runner with a famous name, setting fundraising records, and prevailing in an unusually long nomination contest.
 * A cite would be good on "Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard".
 * How did he end up running for the Illinois senate in 1996? Why did he enter politics?  Who supported him in the run?  Was it an open seat?  Did he have to contest a primary?  Was it an insurgency campaign or was he the choice of the local Democratic party?  What was his margin of victory?  What were the issues in the election, briefly?  A politician's first race is very significant, due to all these factors.  The Hillary and McCain articles, for example, go into more detail about their first races than this article does.
 * Some of the same questions about the 2000 U.S. House primary race against Rush. Why did he try to oppose an incumbent of his own party?  What we the main issues, briefly?  Why did he fail?  Yes, I know there are subarticles underneath the main one, but a little more attention to Obama's political history here and on the previous point is warranted.
 * Why did Ryan withdraw in 2004? An odd one-sentence paragraph that just leaves the reader hanging there.  (No need to shy away from a good sex scandal!  These articles can always use a little spicing up :-)
 * The middle paragraphs of the 2008 campaign section, that detail the 2008 caucuses/primaries, are not very good at all.  They ignore the chronology of Iowa and New Hampshire coming first.  They are too delegate-focussed for those early states as well (to the rest of the world, Hillary won New Hampshire!)  There is no mention of the racial divide leading into South Carolina, and how Obama won a huge share of the African American vote (not a given, back in 2007).  There is too much rote listing of states, without enough analysis of demographics, of how Obama did well in primaries where African Americans or younger, college-educated, or more affluent voters were heavily represented and Clinton did well in primaries where Hispanics or older, non-college-educated, or working-class white voters predominated.  There's no mention of how Obama completely out-organized and dominated Hillary in caucuses, which was a key factor in building up the delegate margin.  There's no mention of how well-managed the Obama campaign was, and how it avoid the internal dramas that the Hillary (and McCain) campaigns suffered from.  There's no mention of how Obama struggled a bit during the last three months (when Hillary won more votes and delegates than he did).  There's no mention of how they both broke the record for the most popular votes ever in a primary campaign.  In short, the treatment of the campaign is both boring and superficial, when it should be engaging and analytical.  (I'll volunteer to do some work on this section, since I'm going to be revising the same section in the Hillary article, which currently suffers from a different set of flaws.)
 * 100% Endorsed Everything on this list should be addressed. It would indeed improve the article further. If the article has size issues, then we can decide to summarize and split at that time, but we had better make sure that the cross referencing and cross-linking on both sides is very thorough. Duuude007 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? - most of this stuff is covered in child articles, and was deliberately cut out of the main bio per summary style. Too much specificity can cause weight problems. The Ryan thing was dismissed as a violation of WP:BLP because it was basically personal details about another subject entirely. Hillary-related records are a matter for her group or articles, I would think. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Campaign financing
I understand the concept of covering campaign financing in the sub-article, rather than here, but if that's the decision, then the first part of that sentence should go too. To merely state that he didn't take public financing without mentioning the fact that he reversed his earlier intention is unbalanced. The Palinites would love to fill this article with smear, and I think that can be averted by keeping it FA and as NPOV as possible. In my view, that requires coupling campaign financing with his earlier statement.--Appraiser (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. If his decision not to use public financing is notable and used, that this is a reversal should also be noted.  Of course, this is best discussed in the main campaign article, but having one and not the other violates NPOV.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. It's a significant enough decision on his part to be biographically notable. How about this wording or something similar: "On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976, reversing his earlier decision to accept it." It wouldn't even need a new citation, as it's supported by the existing one. -- Good Damon 19:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good, except I'd replace "decision" with "intention" since he did not need to make the decision until June 2008.--Appraiser (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which means that he didn't "reverse" anything - that is a bit of a loaded word arising from a rather weak political jab. I'm somewhat dubious that we want to give time of day to mild criticisms made by political opponents.  Does the fact that he changed his game plan on this really matter to his bio?  It's marginal but plausible.  Let's wait a bit to see who else sounds in.  If we do, I think the sentence works better if done chronologically: "After earlier planning to accept public financing, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976." (I personally don't like using exact dates where the date is not important but others may disagree) Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My proposal does sound a bit awkward I see. You could say "Reversing earlier plans, Obama became..." but you lose a bit of fidelity because "reversing" is somewhat judgmental and not precise. Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I gotta disagree, here. That he received some mild criticism for it isn't the point. It was a major decision on his part, and a reversal, even if it was a reversal of intent, rather than a firm decision. I don't see any harm in noting in a single sentence that it was a reversal. If that's not notable enough for the biography, then I would say strike the whole sentence. If the reversal aspect isn't notable, then neither is the decision itself. -- Good Damon 19:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't disagree with me! I was a good politician and expressed support for both positions :) But sure, if people think it's relevant and reversal is a good word, fine.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]Isn't an unequivocal statement that someone "will" do something more like a decision than an intention? Can't you reverse intentions (first you intend to do something, then you reverse course and intend to do something else)?  I'm not getting the problem.  I am fine with either GoodDamon's suggestion or Appraiser's edit.  But I still feel that the article shouldn't mention the decision to opt out of public funds without mentioning the decision (or statement, or promise, or intention) not to.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, strictly as a matter of logic and English, one can reverse a promise or statement. I don't think you can reverse an intention.  An intention is an ephemeral thing, so one it happens it's done and you can't change the past.  A plan is in between.  People talk about reversing plans sometimes - when they do they mean plan in the sense of the ongoing status of one's intended future actions, rather than the internal mental state at a particular time of intending to do something.  I hope that makes sense.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's all true, but it seems like splitting hairs to me. Well anyway, if you come up with some better phrasing, I'm all ears. Oh, and I'm glad dealing with POV warriors hasn't killed your sense of humor. :) -- Good Damon 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did he not agree with McCain or Hillary early on that he would only accept public financing? As in "lets pledge to only accept public financing" I seem to recall that that is why he got criticized, if we can find the material to back it up would saying something along the lines of : At first Senator Obama had agreed to use public financing but after wards decided not to Rjh00 (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It has always been my "intention" to become extraordinarily wealthy and powerful. The fact that I am both poor and powerless is not a "reversal" on my part. Circumstances have evolved that have sent me down a different path, much as the threat of massive RNC coffers and right wing 527 evilness sent Obama on a different path from the one he perhaps intended. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Info Box
Why are we including Obama's Subcommittee Chairmanship in the info box. If we are going to include that, then we should include it for all members of Congress. Rick Evans (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are volunteering to go thru the other articles. Well done. We could use Wikipedians with a sense of initiative like your's. Duuude007 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Job. --Smuckers It has to be good|undefined 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, I'm putting up my Rezko sources
Following are sources that mention Obama and Rezko, but do not mention Republicans, McCain, conservatives or any other source of a political smear campaign.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/1175377,CST-NWS-rezko21.article

I'll be adding more and more and more and more and more of these links to this Talk page as the discussion goes on. This one was from the Chicago Sun Times. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another source that mentions Obama and Rezko, but doesn't mention Republicans, McCain, conservatives, or any other source of a political smear campaign.


 * http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/208/09/blagojevich-s-1.html


 * This one is the Chicago Tribune. I'll be posting more. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sun-Times is an unreliable tabloid and the Chicago Tribune has a profuse right-wing bias. Besides, the Tribune source is from their blog. Try again with reliable sources. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 18:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is insane. Are you telling me that the city of Chicago has no reliable sources on politics? Cool Hand Luke 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think the Chicago Tribune qualifies as a reliable source for most things. In this case, I'm unable to see the blog WorkerBee74 posted (I get a 404), so I'm unable to make a judgment on it, but based on the quality of the links s/he's been using to push a negative POV, I'd assume it was not the non-partisan newsblog of a journalist; rather, I would assume it was an opinion blog written by a right-wing commentator. -- Good Damon 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with that. Most of these citations seem to be opinion pieces, and personal blogs (even of a reporter) are a different matter than articles the paper stands behind. I just noticed the remark about the Chicago Tribune. It's certainly a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sourcing is a side issue. There are certainly reliable sources to say who Ayers is and how he interacted with Obama.  The issue is POV and undue weight.  There is a lot to Obama, and only so much space to describe in this biography of his life.  Deciding what to include in this article is more than a game of "find a reliable source for your POV claims."  The article already has a sentence describing in straightforward fashion what happened, and a link from there to the Rezko article, which includes five full paragraphs about Rezko's legal troubles and seven paragraphs about his connection to Obama.  It's already in the encyclopedia.  There is no encyclopedic reason to duplicate that here.  We went through a lot of effort to decide exactly how to reference that here, and we made the decision.  There is nothing new to this proposal that has not already been discussed at legnth.  "Consensus can change" but it obviously has not changed on this point.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you'd find that there are a lot of long term, reliable, non-SPA editors here at WP who disagree. Try the WP:RS noticeboard. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no Wikipedia editor in their right mind that would consider a blog a reliable source. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A blog by a Chicago Tribune reporter on the Tribune website is a reliable source. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source. This one is the Canada Free Press:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5076

No mention of Republicans, conservatives, McCain, or any other possible source of a smear campaign. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Canada Free Press is the right-leaning, Canadian version of the Huffington Post. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 18:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not support change - My position remains as it did in the last consensus discussion, that the current wording represents a neutral and fairly weighted coverage of this matter given the sources and the relative importance of it to Obama's biographical history. I am unlikely to participate greatly here but my standing position until I state otherwise is that the Rezko material should not be expanded or significantly changed.  There is a considerable weight of consensus to overcome before the matter can seriously be re-opened.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet we see HuffPo being used as a RS in other Wikipedia articles. Here's another source that mentions Rezko and Obama, but doesn't mention Republicans, conservatives or McCain:


 * That's not the Barack Obama article's problem. Unbias other articles instead of biasing this one. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.rrstar.com/news/x590307928/Gov-sits-out-as-Obama-makes-history


 * The Rockford Register Star. Any problem with that one? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all about Rezko and Blagojevich, with a sentence or two about how Rezko was a fundraiser for Obama, but Obama did not do anything wrong. I'm all for adding, "Obama is not guilty of any wrongdoing" to this article and then referencing this source. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 19:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The point here is to prove that mainstream media find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be notable, and they're not just reporting the smear campaigns by the right-wingers. Do you agree, Erik, that the Rockford Register Star helps to prove this?
 * By the way, before I post the links, Erik, do you agree that the New York Times, New Yorker, and Washington Post are reliable sources? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support FA Concensus Workerbee, That is a BS loaded question. Post the links, and we'll see if they back up any allegations with WP:VERIFIABILITY. Duuude007 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Still support the consensus wording now in the article that has been affirmed, and reaffirmed, and reaffirmed again numerous times. This is a neutral, accurate statement. This entire non-issue could be handled as a footnote in this biography, but if it must be in the text, this is a reasonable compromise. We have been over this many times, and consensus has been reached repeatedly for this wording. I, too, am not going to go through the argument yet another time - my position hasn't changed. Read the archives.  Tvoz / talk 19:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tvoz, I don't need to read the archives. I was participating daily in the discussions that are preserved there, and I remember them well. "Read the archives" is Wikipedian for "Shut up and go away." A different person was making the same misrepresentations: he was claiming that the reliable sources were only reporting smear campaigns by political opponents and didn't find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be noteworthy on its own merits.
 * I have found dozens of NYT articles that mention Rezko and Obama but don't mention Republicans, conservatives, McCain or any other source of a smear campaign. Here are just a few of them. Explain these away, Erik, particularly the first one:
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02rezko.html?pagewanted=print
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/politics/29rezko.html?pagewanted=print
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15obama.html?pagewanted=print
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/07rezko.html?ex=1362546000&2n=5086c986c58301&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
 * How many more do you want? Are these reliable sources? Not a blog in sight. Not an opinion column in sight. Straight up front page news stories in the gold standard of reliable sources. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that Obama had ties to Rezko, I'm just saying that devoting space to discussing those ties on the article is inappropriate per Wikipedia policy. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon's analysis
Yes, if you're going to name a section after me, I'm going to reply with my own subsection. Anyway, please follow along...


 * http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/1175377,CST-NWS-rezko21.article
 * Analysis: A story about Tony Rezko's ongoing legal woes. Mentions briefly his work on campaigns. Article is about Rezko, not Obama, and doesn't contain any information not already cited in the article concerning their relationship. In fact, it contains less detail about their relationship than any articles specifically about it, and only mentions Obama once, in passing.
 * Suitability for this article: None. It's not even about Obama.


 * http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/208/09/blagojevich-s-1.html
 * Analysis: Page doesn't load. Bad URL maybe?
 * Suitability for this article: No idea.


 * http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5076
 * Analysis: An opinion piece on a heavily biased website. Not a reliable source. Which you must know by now. Are you trying to waste time?
 * Suitability for this article: None. Not suitable for much else, either. It's an opinion piece. If you want to write an article about Judi McLeod, that's a lovely editorial with which to depict her opinions. Be my guest.


 * http://www.rrstar.com/news/x590307928/Gov-sits-out-as-Obama-makes-history
 * Analysis: Why, it's an honest-to-gosh reliable source! You should actually be citing the AP, not the Rockford Register Star, as this is an AP story, but it definitely qualifies as a reliable citation for... the Rod Blagojevich article. It discusses all sorts of troubling details about Rezko and Blagojevich, but its only definitive statement about Obama is that he has "...not been accused of any wrongdoing."
 * Suitability for this article: Perhaps a statement indicating that there is no implication of wrongdoing on Obama's part. Otherwise, this would be a lovely story to bring to the attention of editors at Blagojevich's WP:BLP article.


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02rezko.html?pagewanted=print
 * Analysis: A reliable source, to be sure, but it treads ground already covered in the article. Yes, Obama's deals with Rezko have attracted attention. The article already says that.
 * Suitability for this article: I'd say feel free to add it as another reference to the statement that's already there. I don't see anything new in this one that's worth bothering expanding the article for, and frankly it's out of date. The NYT has put out newer stories that essentially put to rest the contentions that there's anything of note to Obama's and Rezko's relationship beyond what's already in this and the campaign article. We already know about the house, and the loans that have gone to charity. What else does this article provide?


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/politics/29rezko.html?pagewanted=print
 * Analysis: A reliable source... about Rezko. Obama is only mentioned briefly, and only in context already covered in the article.
 * Suitability for this article: None. Take it to Rezko's article.


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15obama.html?pagewanted=print
 * Analysis: See my response two above. An older story, largely out of date, that would be perfectly good for a citation on information already in this and other articles. Nothing new about Obama's relationship with Rezko.
 * Suitability for this article: None. There's nothing new to indicate biographical importance.

I am not saying there's no importance to mentioning Rezko. They knew each other, obviously, and the the purchase of a home is a major event in most households. But Obama is under neither journalistic investigation nor legal investigation over the extent of this relationship, and no one -- except some extremely conservative sources -- are accusing him, personally, of any wrongdoing in his association with Rezko. None. There's the guilt-by-association accusations that come from his political opponents, but that's it, and that's more suitable for the campaign article... which already goes into detail about it.

I said it's time to put up. And you haven't. You have rehashed. You have demonstrated a mastery of information that's already known, and already in Wikipedia, in the right articles. Let me put it bluntly: If you want to increase the notability of this relationship -- and it's obvious you do, and it's obviously for political reasons -- you need to cite something that hasn't happened yet, such as a legal investigation or a non-partisan journalistic expose that goes into heretofore unknown malfeasance on Obama's part in relation to Rezko. As of right now, with all these so-called "gold standard reliable sources" you've provided, there's nothing like that. Here's my promise to you: Come back with something new and notable, and factual enough for a biography, and I will be the first person to push for its inclusion in this article. Until then, stop the POV-pushing. Give it up already. It's done. -- Good Damon 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * GoodDamon's stance Endorsed. Quit wasting your, and our, time. Duuude007 (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If no one minds, I'd like to pick up where WorkerBee74 has left off. Here are a few links from The Washington Post, an undeniably reliable source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603597.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302812.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071301904_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302769_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html

And here's one from The New Yorker, another undeniably reliable source and clearly sympathetic to Obama:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=11

Here are a few from The Guardian and The Independent, two British newspapers that are undeniably reliable sources and undeniably leaning to the left and sympathetic with Obama:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/03/barackobama.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=fromtheguardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unwelcome-publicity-for-oil-giant-in-legal-battle-with-billionaire-820750.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-stays-cool-as-icestorm-heads-in-790950.html

Here's a few from the Los Angeles Times, another undeniably reliable source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,3640595.story?page=2

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-obamarezko-connect.swf,0,4208669.flash

http://www.latimes.com/news/ny-usrezk045601160mar04,1,1334601.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/chi-tony-rezko-trial-07mar07,0,4039158.story?page=1

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamaillinois8-2007sep08,0,308382.story

http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/chi-070412obama-money,1,4625776.story

Absolutely none of these mentions McCain, Republicans or conservatives, so they aren't just reporting on right-wing smear campaigns. All these sources find the Rezko-Obama connection to be notable, whether the right-wingers use it against Obama or not. Now let's review what GoodDamon claimed regarding these sources:

''Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's just not true. The non-editorial articles about Ayers and Rezko that have appeared in reliable sources have almost universally been news about how Republicans have been making allegations. The articles have distinctly refrained from lending any credence to those allegations. In fact, to a large extent, they reject the allegations outright. ... It's time to put up. No more opinion pieces, vague implications of guilt-by-association, or reliance on opinion pieces and articles from conservative rags. Give us meat, or give up already.''

I find it hilarious that in the middle of this exchange, Scjessey had the gall to accuse WorkerBee74:

''Ahhh. The usual misrepresentation of the facts, I see.''

The fact of the matter is that it's WorkerBee74 who has been telling the truth, and GoodDamon and Scjessey who have been misrepresenting the sources. (personal attack stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC))Curious bystander (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have perused the sources and find no new arguments or facts, and nothing that suggests reconsidering the earlier consensus. The facts of Obama's dealings with Rezko are not in question, and are well treated in the Rezko article.  However, this is clearly a minor issue in the campaign, much less Obama's life, as evidenced by the relatively scant coverage of the matter.  Even most of the articles cited here give it only casual mention, saying that Obama did nothing wrong and describing the connection between the two as a "footnote" (we give it more credence than that already).  We have previously gone through an analysis of the sources at great length to see just how serious a matter they consider it.  As a proportion of Obama's life this merits approximately the one-sentence treatment we give it here.  Given that mainstream and non-mainstream anti-Obama factions are playing up this issue, and the singleminded determination of the editors pushing this to insert content in the encyclopedia disparaging of Obama, any overemphasis on this cannot be a simple mistake and would have to be considered a violation of our WP:NPOV policy. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are either of you, Cb and WB, reading anything you link anymore? Every one of those articles went out of their way to establish a lack of connection between Obama and Rezko's behavior. Some choice quotes from articles you have hilariously failed to read:

Then you've got the opinion blogs and commentary...AGAIN...which means, I guess, that you both suffer some kind of congenital ailment preventing you from seeing the words "these are not reliable sources." (Kidding, kidding...) Yes, they're hosted at places like the Washington Post. No, they're not reliable for any statements of fact. They're reliable for the opinions of their authors only. And on, and on, and on. I ask for meat, I get tofu. Come on, guys... -- Good Damon 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just left warnings on the User Talk pages of Scjessey and Wikidemon for violations of WP:OWN. GoodDamon, if we disqualify a few of these as opinion columns, what about the rest? the reliable, neutral (or left-leaning) mainstream media sources find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be notable standing on its own, without being propped up by the right-wing spin machine. Curious bystander (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop templating my talk page with game-playing warnings. You are being disruptive here.Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe we should add the following, impeccably sourced quotation:

"Nearly three years later, fallout from Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Rezko, who raised more than $150,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaigns, continue to dog Mr. Obama on the presidential campaign trail. That distraction promises to linger ... Mr. Obama has conceded that it was a mistake to bring Mr. Rezko into his personal real estate dealings, although he has insisted that there was nothing unusual about the developer’s decision to buy a sought-after lot in an upscale neighborhood. But a review of court records, including new details of Mr. Rezko’s finances that emerged recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama."


 * What's wrong with it? Curious bystander (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed as before on POV, COATRACK, SYNTH, and RS grounds -- and in this case poorly and unenclylopedically written. We should dismiss this proposal as being against clear consensus, and close as unlikely to lead to a viable suggestion to improve the article as well as disruptive due to the incivilities of the SPA proposing it  Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong

 * Well, for starters, there are WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH issues. I would also like to note that your choice of phrasing -- "insisted" instead of "said" -- is classic POV-pushing, and even dealt with in the NPOV tutorial. This paragraph as proposed is a gross distortion of the weight the media has granted this -- they all unequivocally make clear that Obama is innocent and the connection is basically coincidental -- and a blatant violation of WP:BLP. You can't possibly think it would fly. And finally, the citation you use is out of date and covers details already laid out in the campaign sub-article. Why not use a current New York Times story, by the way? Is it possible the newer ones would note that Obama has not been accused of any legal or ethical wrongdoing?


 * Now then... Because you absolutely, positively insist on dragging this out until each and every avenue of attack is exhausted, despite zero chance of any productive article edits coming from it, I will now shoot down every remaining article cited in this section.
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html - An old news article, long since subsumed and replaced by others, bringing nothing new. Yes, we know about the purchase. It's already mentioned briefly here. Choice quote:


 * http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=11 - Not about Rezko and Obama. Mentions Rezko once, in passing, thusly:


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/03/barackobama.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=fromtheguardian - All sorts of details about how the trial of Tony Rezko is bad news for Obama during the Democratic primaries. Perhaps worthy of a footnote in the campaign article.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront - All sorts of details about how Hillary Clinton is going to win the primaries because of insults against her... oh, and a brief mention of Rezko as another deciding factor.
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unwelcome-publicity-for-oil-giant-in-legal-battle-with-billionaire-820750.html - Boy, is this ever apropos:


 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-stays-cool-as-icestorm-heads-in-790950.html - Clinton's definitely gonna win now! Hoo-boy! (Seriously, did any of you read these articles, or did you just do a blanket search for every single article that mentions Rezko and Obama, regardless of context, content, or applicability, let alone current events?)
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,3640595.story?page=2 - Link doesn't work. Instead it redirects to their main political page.
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-obamarezko-connect.swf,0,4208669.flash - Not even a news story. It's just a (very) brief description of their association with no context.
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/ny-usrezk045601160mar04,1,1334601.story - Aha! A reliable source! About the beginning of Rezko's trial! With a statement indicating Obama will be a "footnote" in the case! Now there's something to add some weight to the Rezko portion. Heck, let's make the entire article about Obama and Rezko! Have I used too many exclamation points?
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/chi-tony-rezko-trial-07mar07,0,4039158.story?page=1 - This one details the effects Rezko's trial might have on the Obama campaign, but is more about Blagojevich, and is also, like so many of these stories, overridden by newer news stories from the same reliable source that make it clear Obama is innocent. This story would be a reasonable addition to the campaign article, but carries zero weight in Obama's biography.
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamaillinois8-2007sep08,0,308382.story - Sigh... An editorial. From 2007. That notes how likely Obama is to lose the Democratic nomination.
 * http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/chi-070412obama-money,1,4625776.story - Another Rezko-scandal-may-cost-him-the-nomination article, from 2007.


 * GIVE. IT. UP. It's over. The fat lady has sung. The sun has gone down and the moon has come up, and long ago somebody left with the cup. Let it die, already. This is an encyclopedia, and you have been using it as your soapbox long enough. -- Good Damon 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected edit request
This page has been vandalized, would someone please change it?


 * Could you perhaps be more specific? Which line is currently vandalized? -- Good Damon 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect they're talking about the penis vandalism I reverted a while ago, and which another brand new account complained about 10 minutes earlier. Since I reverted it a minute after it was added, I suspect it's a caching issue.  I have further suspicions about why it's cached like that on these particular editors pages, but I'll keep those to myself. --barneca (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of misunderstanding of Obama's religion
How do editors feel about this edit? We had some material for a while in the "cultural and political image" section that said, basically "Obama is a Christian, but a lot of folks incorrectly believe him to be Muslim." There was always a difference of opinion on whether that "cultural perception" was noteworthy (clearly not directly a fact of his biography in any "what he did" sense; but arguably so in a "how he is perceived" sense). Obama's actual religion is well discussed earlier in the article, in any case.

I think I personally lean towards supporting the removal of that material (but only lean), but it seems odd for it to have been removed without any comment on this talk page. So I guess that means, I hereby comment :-). LotLE × talk  23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch, hadn't noticed that. I think I lean towards its removal as well, as it's already covered in detail elsewhere and it's of questionable biographical value, but I'm definitely open to being convinced otherwise. -- Good Damon 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Didn't realize i'd be odd if I didn't comment on the talk page. I removed it because I felt that a poll conducted 3 months ago by a few publications was of little encyclopedic importance, and it's already stressed in the article. Have a nice day. --Smuckers It has to be good|undefined 11:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Arabic form of his name
I'll probably be posting this same question on the talk-page for the Arabic translation of this article, but:  What is the correct form of Mr. Obama's name in Arabic? The Arabic wikipedia uses "باراك أوباما" (bārāk 'ūbāmā), but I think it should be "براك عباماء" (barāk `abāmā'), in which case his first and last names would be Arabic lexical words just like his middle name. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My hunch is that this is the wrong page on which to ask about Arabic orthography. It seems more likely that someone can give you a good answer on the Arabic Wikipedia.  LotLE × talk  16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion is closed as it is a repeat of the same argument as in the FAQ. Brothejr (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence
I've followed this issue for months and all the past conversation about it has been pointless due to too much absolutism.

This sentence:
 * "Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president"

is not false, but it is inaccurate because it's specific to the point of falsity due to fact exclusion. It should read like this:
 * "Obama is the first candidate of African American heritage to be nominated by a major political party for president"

The problem with the current version stems from what the meaning of "is" is. When Bill Clinton turned that phrase, he was mocked in some corners as trying to parse things in a self-serving manner. But he did have a point: How you parse a sentence definately changes its meaning. Change the meaning of "is" and the meaning of the sentence changes. Obama is not "is" African American exclusively but our current sentence falsely suggests he is. The way to reconcile that is to point out that he's "of" African American "heritage". That leaves enough room to make clear that there's African American in his background, without doing what we are doing now which is aligning ourselves with the non-factual POV that Obama "is" African American. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This topic is a waste of time. Everything in the sentence is accurate. Duuude007 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence which I offer as an alternative is more accurate, more true and less POV. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But doesn't African American heritage apply to anyone who has a American and a African parent but isn't born in either Africa or America?Rjh00 (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:V. The statement is based on what he calls himself, and the fact that it can be verified. If he chose to call himself biracial or multiracial, I suppose that could also be verified, but he adopted the role of AA. It is his decision to make, not your's. Again, this topic is a waste of time. Duuude007 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, the question is actually moot, and this is the 200th time this same question has been raised by editors who don't want to read the FAQ or talk archives. However, Duuude007's now piqued my interest slightly.  The conclusion is correct that we can't just decide what we, as editors, would most accurately describe Obama as.  However, it isn't quite right that the decision belongs to the bio subject.  In truth, it belongs to the consensus of reliable sources.  If for some reason a bio subject wanted to be referred to in one way (in terms of ethnic/racial background), but the media who reported on her/him wouldn't go along, it would be our job to defer to the published sources not the subject herself. I can think of a few cases where that distinction matters; it obviously doesn't create any contrast here though.  LotLE × talk  20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did anoyne one even read the sentence I offered? I am not trying to take out "African American". 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we did. But your option, as we pointed out, is an unnecessary waste of time technicality, one which even he does not consider. Therefore, I have strong prediction value that the consensus will remain unchanged, and that you are still wasting your time. Duuude007 (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that editorial clarity is an "unnecessary waste of time"? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Paternal relations
Howdy, should the wikilink for Kenyan relatives be Obama Family#Paternal relations|Kenyan relatives instead of Obama Family|Kenyan relatives

Any admin willing to make that minor editBoris3883 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't take an admin, just an established editor. And I went ahead and did it. It's a good change and relatively minor. -- Good Damon 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous elections
I think this article could use some more information on his previous election wins - state senate and U.S. senate for instance. I came here for information on Barack's prior wins and while the U.S. senate part talks about how Obama already had it in the bag when Ryan had to quit, there is nothing about how he won his state senate seat. I'm sure he won in a landslide like he did for U.S. senate though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.0.187 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And that would be what Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama is for. This article is in summary style, which means everything is given the bird's-eye treatment, while the sub-articles go into detail. -- Good Damon 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I just read that article and now I see why there's no mention of it on Obama's main page as it makes it look like he won by default, and that would not be good for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.0.187 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Father Son Name Thing: Jr. vs. II
It is my understanding that the following is true. Sr. and Jr. are used for father and son. However, if a child is directly named for another older relative and has the same surname, II is used. Am I wrong? Is "II" on Obama's birth certificate? Do we know? CallidoraBlack (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

His birth certificate says II. Duuude007 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, his birth certificate says "Barack Hussein Obama II". Joe Levi 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine says "Joseph Mortimer Finchwistle" (not really), but that doesn't mean Mortimer goes in my article's theoretical infobox. Check other people's infoboxes, and you'll see the middle name is not typically there. -- Good Damon 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and the template documentation says nothing about the middle name being required. It says of the birth_name field: "Name at birth, if different from name." It's not different. It's just that he doesn't go by his complete name, any more than I do or most people do. The name on the infobox isn't "different" from his birth name just because it's not his complete birth name. Now, if someone went by a nickname or changed their legal name or something like that, that's what the birth_name field is for. But not just to incorporate the person's middle name. -- Good Damon 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Overwhelming practice is as described above, and as used here. The Birth name field is for subjects like Irving Berlin, where the name by which the person is known is actually a different name than their given name at birth. It is not intended for cases where someone does not commonly use his or her middle name and/or suffix. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which means we do not blindly follow policy for policy's sake. If the documentation differs from prevailing practice, the correct resolution is to fix the documentation. --Clubjuggle T/ C 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's also worth noting that this article uses Infobox Officeholder (as redirected from Infobox Senator), not Infobox Person. The documentation for Infobox Person therefore does not apply here. --Clubjuggle T/ C 03:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable claims about race
Why isn't there any mention of republicans and white nationalists claiming Obama shouldn't be considered black? They have even gone so far as to call his father an Arab. Why isn't this mentioned?YVNP (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting angle. We often get people editing the article or asking here why he is called African-American by editors who insist he is not.  I always assumed that these were mostly African-Americans, multiracial people, and others who were objecting to the way Americans think about race, particularly the so-called One-drop rule.  The Arab / Muslim thing, emphasizing his middle name, etc., sees to come from people who are misinformed or spreading untrue rumors... That was in this article for a while but eventually people decided that the untrue things other people say about Obama isn't really related to the story of his life, which is what this article is all about.  There is some mention of all this in the Public image of Barack Obama article.  Hope that helps.Wikidemon (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter who's claiming that Obama shouldn't be considered African-American? I'm sure there are Democrats, Independents, blacks, whites, Asians, etc. that don't believe he should be considered African-American. Regardless, I agree with Wikidemon and believe that topic is more appropriate for a public image article. Obama's own identification of his ethnicity should be all that matters for this article, unless it were something crazy like if he believed he was a Vulcan or something crazy like that. --Amwestover (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These are good questions. I never thought about it this way. I thought he was black. Wikirator (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Raila Odinga
In the Raila Odinga article there's been reoccurring removal of some information about the connection to Obama and his visit to Kenya in 2006. Can more people look in to it (and the discussion on the talk page Talk:Raila_Odinga), since it is removed by claim of breaking WP:LIVE and unsourced (even if the sources, , ) is Chicago Sun-Times/Daniel Johnson and The Chicago Sun-Times/Lynn Sweet and footage by CBS2/Mike Flannery. Nsaa (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The removals are completely appropriate. A wordpress blog and a youtube video do not qualify as reliable source, and an opinion piece on the New York Sun is not a reliable source for anything but its author's opinions. But why are you bringing this up here? This is a page for discussing improvements to Barack Obama's biography. -- Good Damon 15:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bringing it here. Did it because the user removing the paragraph involving Obama, claims WP:LIVE. (and hopefully more people with a close relationship to the area can help making a jugdment). The sources above are from big newspapers and a television station (if not the youtube-video is a forge?) Nsaa (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack's Current Kansas Family
Current members of Barack Obama's Kansas family include Margaret McCurry Wolf of Hutchinson and her son Milton R. Wolf, M.D. of Leawood, Spence McCurry of Wichita and his children Spencer, Frank, Kelli and Jamie.

Perhaps this should be added to the main page?


 * I doubt it. They're not members of his immediate family, they're part of his extended family. If anywhere, they should be described (with sources) in Family of Barack Obama. -- Good Damon 13:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Significance of Barack's Kansas heritage is often cited by Barack himself. As such, it seems that he considers this to be of central significance, immediate family or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationispower2008 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we were to list every first cousin twice removed in this article, it would be insanely long. The fact that he values his Kansas heritage is notable and worthy of mention with proper citation. An exhaustive list of every distant relative is not. --Clubjuggle T/ C 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's why I included only his current Kansas family.  Informationispower2008 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Question of Barack Obama's Place of Birth
ObamaCrimes.com states the following on Barack Obama's REAL place of birth:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on the last day to file a response, for the obvious purpose of delaying Court action in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by delaying the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama was “natural born.”

It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist. 

Angie Y. (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So? Look at the source. Do you really think there work has any place in an encylopedia? Obama was born more in the US than McCain was, but both as citizens.  Grsz  talk  04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) We've discussed this odd little conspiracy theory already. Obama was born in Hawaii.  Obamacrimes.com is not a reliable source.  The suit, even if real, is not notable.  Anybody can file suit against anyone in America, and apparently one has.  Berg has also sued George Bush and perhaps John McCain on other conspiracy theories it seems.  Given the editor's recent edit history and the article probation status (see notice at top of page) I'll caution this editor not to promote conspiracy theories on important article talk pages. Wikidemon (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be added. It's something involving Barack's true place of origin. Angie Y. (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, positively not. This will never happen, and I ask you to give it up right now before you end up with an incident report. "Obamacrimes" is not a reliable source, and the idea that you could push it as a reliable source over real newspapers and the state of Hawaii is laughable. This discussion is over before it began, but I'll leave it archived here temporarily as a blunt warning to others of three things:
 * This article is on probation
 * WP:BLP applies
 * Poor sources will not be tolerated
 * Do not bring this up again. As a relatively experienced editor, you should know better. -- Good Damon 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, I am not a WikiPedia expert or anything like that. However I find your comments troubling on not even allowing any questions on Obama's place of birth. I thought Wikipedia was a searcher for truth. The tone I am reading from you comments is one of "this is the truth and we should not question it". I would think a better tone to take with someone who makes a statement without facts is to say more proof is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not that I won't "allow" such questions. If someone simply asks where Obama was born, I see no reason not to answer such a question by pointing out the in-article citations that list his place of birth as Hawaii. But in the discussion above, no question was being asked. Rather, a laughably biased source was presented as proof-positive of Obama's foreign birth (something I'm fairly sure U.S. Federal Election Commission might be interested in if there was even the faintest scrap of evidence). Wikipedia uses reliable, secondary sources such as newspapers and peer-reviewed academic journals, with solid reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. "ObamaCrimes.com" has no such reputation. Furthermore, this is a biography of a living person, meaning anything libelous that ends up in it may be grounds to sue Wikipedia. So when patently libelous accusations like those in the closed discussion above appear, Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to shut them down, and shut them down fast. Now, let me make something clear... Let's say the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or some other reliable source of information came out with a serious journalistic investigation that presented irrefutable evidence of Obama's foreign-soil birth. Then it would merit inclusion in the article. Until then, though, absolutely not. -- Good Damon 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clarifications. I use Wikipedia quite often and really like the fight against POV. While I appreciate your concern against liabilities, I am noting a perhaps overly quick use of adverbs, like "laughably". Rather than characterize something outrageous, I would say understatement would make points even louder, a.k.a. the deafening silence. Anyway, Wikepedia is a great resource that should be protected, defended and even debated but never forget the openeness that has made it so startling. Carry on GoodDamon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and I'm glad you find it to be a useful resource. I suppose my vehemence comes from constantly having to respond to every POV warrior who comes along with astounding evidence that Barack Obama eats a live puppy every morning before praying to Satan over the blood of virgins, as proven at www.obamaisatraitortoallhumanity.com. It makes makes one a little snarky. -- Good Damon 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence
''I'm closing this again due to it being a rehash of the same argument. Please see the FAQ for reasoning behind the term African American.'' Brothejr (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I've followed this issue for months and all the past conversation about it has been pointless due to too much absolutism.

This sentence:
 * "Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president"

is not false, but it is inaccurate because it's specific to the point of falsity due to fact exclusion. It should read like this:
 * "Obama is the first candidate of African American heritage to be nominated by a major political party for president"

I haven't followed the conversation for months, and I'm not pouring through 35 pages of archives to find it, but here's my two cents: I think this is ridiculously complicated because of political correctness. I think there is merit in not wanting to broadly paint Obama's ethnicity with a brush, but I think it's understood by most level-headed people that "African American" means an American with at least some black ancestry. I don't necessarily agree with this collective consensus, but it's not something I'm going to climb the Reichstag in a Spider-Man suit over. Besides, when it comes to something like this I believe that it's the person's own identification that matters unless it's a ridiculous assertion, such as Uncle Ruckus saying he's white.

And regardless of all that, the second sentence is technically incorrect. "Of African American heritage" would entail that Obama's father is from Detroit or something. But he's Kenyan, so he's African not African American. Therefore, Obama may be considered African American, but he's not of African American heritage. If your goal is emphasize that he's not 100% black (which probably a sizable portion of the African American population isn't), then you'd need to use different wording. --Amwestover (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence I offered as an alternative says the same thing, but with more precision and clarity. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that, but what it really does is introduce ambiguity when there previously was none. He calls himself African American, the world media considers him African American, that is the general consensus here as well, therefore, that is how it will remain. Case. Closed. Duuude007 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion does indeed suggest something other than a singular assertion and that's why I offer it. It is simply factually false that Obama "is" African American. My best friend is 1/2 Irish and 1/2 Italian. Is he "Irish American", "Italian American" or "Of Italian and Irish heritage"? It's only people who want to help advance the POV myth that Obama "is" African American exclusively who oppose my very reasonable edit. What my edit does is offer a common description of Obama, while leaving room for the fact that the common description is imprecise. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This was archived? Does that mean that some people have a problem with letting others discuss this point here?.. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

magna cum laude
Closing this discussion.Brothejr (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the campaign has refused to release his college transcripts and test scores and there has been no independent verification that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. Absent any evidence to the contrary we should remove that reference. If and when the campaign releases his transcripts and we can independently verify that information we can add it later.

It's interesting that they refuse to release his transcripts and test scores.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Barack_Obama%27s_grades_in_college

Lordvolton (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Before we just start to remove things from the article, what do third party (I.E. reliable sources) say about his graduating magna cum laude? Brothejr (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing a quick check of various sources, all say he graduated magna cum laud. Brothejr (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet those sources got it from this wikipedia article. We may need to get an independent verification from the school itself or perhaps the campaign (i.e., release of transcript). There was no citation to the magna cum laude reference.


 * I'm removing it until we can get independent verification. A call to Harvard Law School might be in order. They might be willing to make a public statement. Lordvolton (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a call would be original research in violation of Wikipedia's policies. We report what reliable sources say. --Clubjuggle T/ C 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Harvard Law School can do a press release that is freely available to the public. The only way to independently verify the claim is from the Law School directly or a release of the transcript by the campaign. But an unverified claim, which apparently slipped unnoticed until now, is simply not up to snuff. I have no idea how long that unverified claim has been sitting there, but the Lord only know how many journalists referenced it.


 * We probably need to pay closer attention to uncited claims within the article. Lordvolton (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources:
 * Fornek, Scott (January 22, 2003). 'Blessed by God,' rooted in two continents. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 8:"He was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1991."
 * Kodama, Marie C. (January 19, 2007). Obama Left Mark on HLS; Profs fondly recall Law School alum as he launches presidential bid. The Harvard Crimson:"The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School in 1991;"
 * Kantor, Jodi (January 28, 2007). In law school, Obama found political voice. The New York Times. p. 1:"He was a black man who had helped one of Harvard's most celebrated professors, Laurence H. Tribe, with an article on law and physics, and would graduate magna cum laude."
 * Not a reliable source:
 * an edit six days ago by " Mazer Rackem " on WikiAnswers, "a wiki-based Q&A project powered by contributors from all walks of life. Anyone can ask, answer or edit questions, building a global Q&A database, covering all topics."
 * Newross (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are those truly reliable sources given the fact that that campaign refuses to release his transcripts? If we can verify that the transcript has never been released then it will open up a whole new can of worms. How do these "reliable sources" know he was magna cum laude if the transcript was never released?


 * Did they have access to his law school transcript? For all we know they're referencing this uncited wikipedia statement or Obama is making claims off the record about his grades while simultaneously preventing anyone from viewing his transcripts.


 * He cannot have it both ways. Lordvolton (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, first off, you don't need access to his law school transcript to find out he graduated from Harvard with as a magna cum laude. All it takes is a staffer, lawyer, etc, to go into Harvard's files (while not violating Barak's privacy) and verify that he was magna cum laude.  Next, if you read each article they all verify that he did graduate as a magna cum laude by simply doing some research.  Finally, this sounds more like a "crusade for truth" argument that for some reason if Barack shows us his college transcript, then we would see all the "bad" stuff and that he is lying about being a magna cum laude.  Did I get that right?  Sadly enough Reliable Sources say he graduated Harvard a magna cum laude, that satisfies a variety of rules including the big one: WP:BLP.  Brothejr (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I assume he graduated magna cum laude. I'm not a political expert, but doesn't his staffers fact check his Wikipedia page? If he didn't graduate magna cum laude certainly someone would have removed it by now. Frankly I was shocked to see the statement uncited. As much as I'd like to take it at face value, the reality is that it's been sitting there for a long time as an unverified claim and absent doing something along the lines you're suggesting we may never know.


 * I attempted to read all of the "reliable sources" although one required a password. It's not clear to me that they independently verified the reference. The Crimson Tide has an email address for Marie C. Kodama and there is a form email for Jodi Kantor who wrote the above referenced NY Times Article. Maybe we should check in with them to see where they got their information?


 * Regarding a mission for truth, if the Obama campaign only releases information pertaining to his magna cum laude status I can already see the media complaining that he's cherry picking his academic information. But that's for others to decide and probably not relevant to the discussion at hand.Lordvolton (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alas, there are numerous reliable resources that say he graduated magna. Your quest for transcrips is original research and unnecessary.  The language stays until proven false by other reliable resources.LedRush (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We may need to have someone else review the process, since there is no way of knowing they were not relying on this uncited article when they inserted the claim in their articles. It should stay out until we verify that they were not referencing this article -- which did not cite a source. I'm sure it won't take long for someone to verify it from the most reliable source: Harvard Law School.


 * Let's remember that this is a verifiable fact. It's not like we're talking about something that is opinion. He either graduated magna cum laude or he didn't. Lordvolton (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are tons of reliable sources for the statement, and until something contradicts the overwhelming evidence and citations, the statement should stay.LedRush (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not necessarily overwhelming given the fact that Wikipedia made the statement without a citation. There is one rock solid source: Harvard Law School. It's a verifiable fact, you seem very eager to pretend that wikipedia making an unverified claim didn't taint the waters. We'll get to the bottom of it and then there will be no question about it. I'm operating on the assumption it's true, but I recognize the effect our articles can have on news stories that are not well researched or fact checked. Lordvolton (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this discussion? There's really nothing more to say on the subject. On one side, multiple reliable sources are cited which prove this fact is true. On the other side is simply one person trying to edit-war over their own personal conspiracy theory. What a waste of time. Unless multiple reliable sources can be found that contradict the ones we already have, there isn't anything to even begin discussing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably for the best. A 3RR report has been opened.  Grsz  X  16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama Supporters image
I recently added an image of some supporters in the political positions section, which I thought made a good example of supporters at a rally supporting Obama's political positions. This is the image to the right. Usergreatpower (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think this image adds anything to the article. We have other images that show supporters, and this one does not portray the bio subject himself.  Obviously, if other editors see the value of it, comment so here.  LotLE × talk  19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value in it.LedRush (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. This isn't particularly notable, either. »S0CO ( talk 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad picture, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article. Is there an article specifically about Obama's political rallies? It might fit better there. -- Good Damon 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the picture were to contain Obama it would be a different story. As it is, it really adds very little.--Buster7 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Race discussions

 * See Talk:Barack Obama/race for any active discussions of Obama's race, ethnicity, birthplace, citizenship, religion, etc.

I've taken the above step to try to separate these matters from other work on the article. I've set up archiving there so if it works they will get archived on a slightly slower scale (15 days) to the main archive. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussions moved so far: -Obama's True Ethnicity -Ancestry


 * I'm not sure this is an appropriate course of action. The creation of a sub-discussion page is generally limited to discussions that have become quite large and that certainly isn't the case for the frequent appearances of people complaining about Obama's race. The use of a sub-discussion page will also encourage more discussions being created on the race as people that are coming here to make the comments will not be used to the discussion taking place on a sub-page and will assume that no-one has brought it up before. All in all, the best course of action is to A) point anyone that questions Obama's ethnicity to the FAQ, then close the discussion. B) If the person is bringing up the "He's an A-rab!!" smear, replace the content of the section with  and put uw-blp on the talkpage of the user that created the section. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bobblehead on this. Tvoz / talk 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Yes, it's annoying to swat down the same thing several times a week, but moving the discussion won't solve that.  If anything it will make the problem worse.  I say we just keep doing what we've been doing (per Bobblehead) --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What are we doing? By Bobblehead's reasoning both discussions could have been summarily removed, although BLP isn't the real reason.  Let's face it, the real problem is a combination of newbyism, failure to read the FAQ and Wikipedia guidelines, and the matter of perennial proposals.  Some are simply misguided and innocent.  Other times it's repeat disruption, sockpuppets, or people pushing fringe agendas.  If we leave them up there they become troll magnets.  If we explain or politely refer to the FAQ, it usually doesn't persuade someone who believes these sorts of things.  If we delete citing policy that's WP:BITEy and sometimes leads the editor to start revert warring or posting again and again.  I don't see how it makes things worse to give people their own space, out of the way, to discuss this to their heart's content. Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I've gotta side with Bobblehead. I don't think it's a good precedent to set to move discussions -- even when they're perennial repeats -- into subpages. Sure, everyone's annoyed by them, but they're easy to shut down with simple statements of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Good Damon 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Case in point: There are several of these every week, sometimes more than one a day.Wikidemon (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I still see these editors coming to the main discussion page and posting their new theories. I do not see that the new sub talk page is going alleviate any of these recurrences. Brothejr (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes them easier to deal with. There's a new one today from a seemingly tendentious editor.  When someone announces that the article needs to change because it is racist there's really not much to discuss.  What to do?  I'll respond to this conversation on this page but it's hard to imagine it going anywhere productive.  It just seems better not to have to deal with topics like this on the main talk page.Wikidemon (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

POV in "Cultural and Political Image" Section
The information given in this section seems biased toward a critical, negative view of Obama's cultural and political image. Does anyone else believe this section's material to be unbalanced? NJMauthor (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you cite specific passages you feel are POV and state why? It's hard to discuss without specifics.  Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll go point by point, because I'm highlighting a cumulative POV.

The first passage contains: >"Obama's early life experiences differ markedly from those of African American politicians who launched their careers in the 1960s through participation in the civil rights movement.[165]"

This can either be viewed as neutral, or negative, trying to distance obama from members of the civil rights movement.

>"In January 2007, The End of Blackness Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise: "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."[166] David Ehrenstein, writing in a March 2007 Los Angeles Times article, compared the cultural sources of Obama's favorable polling among whites to those of "magical negro" roles played by black actors in Hollywood movies.[167]

This passage involves assertions that obama is not "a true black" or "black enough", and implies that a black person born to the decendants of a slave and a black person born to a father in kenya are somehow going to be discriminated against differently based soley on race. It contains, also, Barack's comment, which appears neutral to the nature fo the issue.

>"In a December 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "The Man from Nowhere," Peggy Noonan, advised "establishment" commentators to avoid becoming too quickly excited about Obama's still early political career.[169] Echoing the inaugural address of John F. Kennedy, Obama acknowledged his youthful image, saying in an October 2007 campaign speech: "I wouldn't be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation."[170]"

A "warning" is given. she "warned" the "establishment" commentators. Obama's comment doesn't directly relate to youth; only previous generations.

>"A prominent part of Obama's political image is a belief that his rhetoric and actions toward political reform are matched with a political savvy that often includes a measure of expediency. In a July 2008 The New Yorker feature article, for example, Ryan Lizza wrote: "[Obama] campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist."[173]"

Essentially accuses Barack Obama of hypocrisy or misleading campaigning.

I'm not asserting that the quoted statements are true or false, simply that they are all either neutral, or bear negative connotations. They lack any positive cultural/political image comment, or comments cast in a positive or more neutral light.

NJMauthor (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the stark contrast can be seen between the Cultural/Political image in the John McCain article, and the Obama one. NJMauthor (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for asking something obvious - and this is not a rhetorical question - but how would you say the McCain article differs? As a comment, it seems inevitable that any discussion of Obama's image will address questions of race, specifically perceptions within both black and white communities a black man's becoming a leader in a majority-white culture.  There are obviously some who question whether Obama is "black enough", or whether his perceived "whiteness" (i.e. fitting in with  norms that some would attribute to majority culture) is a repudiation of the black part of his heritage.  Such questions follow many successful black men.  Some think this is a legitimate issue; others find the very question offensive or divisive.  To me that seems like a rabbit hole we do not necessarily want to jump down in a main bio article.  It might be better to ship that whole section to a sub-article.  That would leave the question of exactly what part of Obama's public image is worth discussing here.  Public image sections are tough because it's hard to know what is important.  How much does it really matter what anyone's public image is anyway, and why does this get covered for some politicians but not, say, most business leaders, sports stars, entertainers, or authors (unless there is something particularly notable or distinctive about their image).  Sure people vote on politicians.  But they also vote with their dollars when they attend a film, read a book, or buy a product someone has endorsed.Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True, true. So how about this:

Would you object if I added some cultural/political image material that isn't cast in a negative light to this page? Properly sourced, of course, and not with junk blog sources. I noticed that on the McCain page, every possible negative under the political/cultural image section is followed by an apologist's justification. NJMauthor (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the cherokee section
This article acknowledges every little piece of his black and white ancestry but not a drop of his native american ancestry. If we are going to mention his French and Dutch ancestors why shouldn't we mention his Cherokee? YVNP (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am removing the "Cherokee tribe" category. I could not find any sourcing that Obama is a member of the tribe/nation.  Please provide such sources if you have them. Even if he were, this particular category does not seem to be used to tag members.Wikidemon (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dreams memoir says Leona Payne was part Cherokee. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will assume for the sake of discussion this is true and can be duly sourced (though in reality, self-professed Cherokee ancestry is notoriously unreliable). Obama's maternal grandmother's mother proudly claimed to have Cherokee ancestors.  In that sense, nearly everyone alive has all kinds of ancestry.  If we're making throw-away references to French ancestry I see no reason not to mention Cherokee, but I also don't see any particular reason to do it either.  The way to do it would be a few words in the right place - if there's a category it should be one that is normally used for the purpose, if there is one.  I'm also taken aback by the repeated comment that there is some kind of racist implication to leaving it out, or some imperative to put it in.  It's editorial discretion.Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Website?
I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated. http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html user:chasesboys


 * BarackObama.com is already included, I move to delete this section. natezomby (talk)


 * I moved the presidential website link above the senate website link (as obviously the presidential bid is more important and deserves the prominence) and I hope this is a decent resolution for everyone. Inseeisyou (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama" -- The New York Times, page 1

 * closed as disruptive - Wikidemon (talk)

Top of the front page, The New York Times, October 4: Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths by Scott Shane. Article continues to page A14, where it covers that entire page, including with five pictures.

The Times basically follows what Wikipedia has already included in Obama-Ayers controversy, without some of the POV pushing. There are no new revelations. But the Times considers the matter important enough not just to cover, but to cover as an important matter because it has become important to Obama's opponents.

Reasons the Times gives for showing that this matter is important enough for its readers to know about (and important for our readers to know about):


 * ''Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator., in his bid for the presidency.
 * Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday [October 3], juxtapose Mr. Obama's face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings.
 * In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, asked, "How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?"
 * More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers [...]
 * A review of records [...] suggesst that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have b' een close.
 * In the stark presentation of a 30-second advertisement or a television clip, Mr. Obama's connections with a man who once bombed buildings and who is unapologetic about it may seem puzzling.
 * Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. [...] But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired. "I don't think there's a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings," Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications. "If you're in public life, you ought to say, 'I don't want to be associated with this guy" [...]
 * The Ayers-Obama connection first came to public attention last spring, when both Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama's Democratic primary rival, and Mr. McCain brought it up.
 * It became the subject of a television advertisement in August [...]
 * It [...] drew new attention recently on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page and elsewhere as the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge at the University of Illinois were opened to researchers.
 * Opponents of Senator Barack Obama have created advertisements linking him to Mr. Ayers. (caption for pictures of two Obama-Ayers advertisements at the bottom of the page -- it's been more than just one advertisement)

The first four points above were on the front page, paragraphs 3-6.

If editors here would get it through their heads that when someone's running for president the matters that are considered important not only to the candidate's adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanatics are not the only matters to be considered important but also the more important concerns of opponents, then we could get away from POV pushing and do what The New York Times is able to do and actually cover what's considered important about Obama, regardless of the hurt feelings of the adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanatics. This would, of course, mean Obama supporters would have to separate their personal POV preferences from NPOV encyclopedia building. It isn't the role of Wikipedia to protect a candidate from bad publicity.

The point of the article and of this post, isn't to say that Ayers was so close to Obama that mention of their relationship belongs in the parts of the article dealing with those years (this article supports the idea that Ayers was NOT an important INFLUENCE on Obama, which is one of the two main criticisms of the relationship, the other being how this reflects on Obama's judgment -- see Chapman and McCain campaign comments in the article; the article does NOT SUPPORT the idea that Obama's associating with Ayers was UNIMPORTANT -- it is important because so much criticism has resulted). See especially the Bradford A. Berenson quote in the fourth paragraph from the bottom. Instead, mention of the relationship belongs in the "2008 presidential campaign" section, since it has been an ongoing feature of the campaign since the Spring.

Obama supporters need to separate their support from their encyclopedia building in order to have a WP:NPOV article. Anyone still opposed to including mention of Ayers in this article needs to explain away this massive New York Times coverage and explain why their editorial judgment is better than that of the Times in this matter. -- Noroton (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I'm not characterizing Obama supporters who hang around this page protecting their candidate from criticism as being adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanatics. Far from it! All Wikipedia editors here are committed foursquare to WP:NPOV editing that charts a strict course between adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanaticism and demonizing, anti-Obama fanaticism. That's why I brought this matter up on this page: When The New York Times decides, in its august, ever-neutral no-POV way to cover this matter extensively, I'm sure my fellow open-minded, mature, sober, prudent, trustworthy fellow Wikipedians will want to consider the matter with due regard, despite what those adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanatics elsewhere are mouthing. Have I made myself clear? -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not clear at all. Just cut out the insults.  If you have a proposal, make it in a neutral way without complaining about other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, I see nothing new in it. This looks like just another push to get Ayers into the article against consensus.  Brothejr (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC. You miss my point about what's new here: the prominent coverage (and the coverage of the extensive coverage and comment elsewhere). Why don't you respond to that, Brothejr? What separates your stance from POV pushing? I've explained what separates my stance from it. How is your editorial judgment better than that of the Times? -- Noroton (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We could do without yet another proposal to disparage the candidate and without yet more complaints about other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What we can do without is Wikidemon's continued ignoring of new, prominent coverage and ... extensive attempts over months to keep widely covered, prominent information about Obama from being mentioned in Wikipedia's article about him. I guess the Times is trying to disparage Obama here, eh, Wikidemon? What horrible, horrible POV pushing The New York Times is doing at the top of the front page. -- Noroton (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, we should close this discussion unless and until Noroton is ready to address other editors in a civil tone.Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to taunt me, especially when you just wrote, We could do without [...] yet more complaints about other editors. Do you have something substantive to contribute, Wikidemon? -- Noroton (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Wikidemon's disruptive attempt to box and close this section, which he calls "disruptive". Don't be disruptive, Wikidemon. -- Noroton (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am closing it again because your proposal is unlikely to result in a change to the article and because you are continuing to insult other editors. Do not re-open it unless you are willing to redact your insulting comments and carry out discussion on this page in a civil way.  As you know this article is on probation.  You are not welcome to edit Obama-related articles and talk pages in an abusive way and if you continue, you are not welcome at all.
 * Take it to AN/I. Don't try to close it again on your own. I've issued a clarifying comment above to address your sensitivities. -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop insulting other editors. If you won't, then don't edit here.  How hard can it be to refrain? Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a link in the campaign section? "A campaign controversy arose concerning Obama's /blah blah blah/ Bill Ayers, Obama's colleague at the XYZ Foundation." $\sim$ Justmeherenow     17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, for reasons already discussed. This proposal has been made several dozen times, several of which involved this particular editor re-proposing it after finding a new article on the topic.  We extensively discussed the weight, relevancy, POV, and coatrack issues, and came to the conclusion that all considering it is not worth mentioning Ayers or the partisan attempts to Obama to him to terrorism in this article.  Thus, I do not even think it is worth discussing why a single new article in a source, however reliable, among several hundred thousand other articles about Obama, merits that we reconsider yet again the long-rejected proposal.Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no new information has come out here. Using a quote from the article, a lot of this is simply: “typical campaign shenanigans.”  I agree with Wikidemon that this is just a rehashing of the same argument to try and push into the article something a variety of editors have said that there was no weight to the issue to merit a mention in the main article.  You can try and push for a line or two in the child articles, but there is still not enough weight to the issue for it to be mentioned in the main article.  Also, while the Times is a reliable source, just because it published an article about how some people are pushing the issue, does not mean that the controversy has more weight then before.  Plus, if you read the article itself, most of the time it says there is not that much of a connection between Obama and Ayers.  The article kind of works against the argument for including the controversy in the main article.  Brothejr (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that new coverage never budges Brothejr's insistance that there's not enough WP:WEIGHT in the sources to ever include any information on this. That's the problem. For editors to distinguish their positions from from POV-pushing, they should be able to show, reasonably, how certain bad publicity isn't prominent. Kinda hard to do when that publicity is at the top of the front page of the New York Times, in addition to all the other publicity the same criticism has received for months on end, from the most prominent rival candidates to prominent newspapers and prominent magazines and prominent candidates' debates and prominent, bestselling books and on and on and on and on. Brothejr lets assertion do the work of argument by simply not presenting his reasoning, only his personal preference. The "rehashing" is all on the part of Brothejr and Wikidemon, who have no new arguments when new information comes forward: they have only the pretense that nothing new exists when a new article is on the front page of the Times. Wikidemon seems to think that if a matter has been decided once, new information, such as added prominence, is somehow improper to bring up (when the main argument against inclusion was WP:WEIGHT -- since all other arguments were even weaker). Wikidemon hasn't ever explained how, if there is a supposed WP:COATRACK issue, the matter keeps on coming up in relation to Barack Obama in the sources themselves. Aren't these two editors embarrassed to keep arguing the same thing when their arguments can't account for new information? The Obama-Ayers issue keeps getting bigger and bigger while Brothejr and Wikidemon keep arguing that it's still not worth a mention. It's worth a mention everywhere but in this article, apparently.
 * Two other top Republicans said the new ads are likely to hammer the senator from Illinois on his connections to convicted Chicago developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko and former radical William Ayres, whom the McCain campaign regularly calls a domestic terrorist because of his acts of violence against the U.S. government in the 1960s. -- from today's Washington Post
 * This censorship of Wikipedia for publicity inconvenient to a partisan candidate isn't good for the encyclopedia. Lack of reasons other than that editors just don't like it isn't good for Wikipedia either, not to mention its readers. -- Noroton (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose to close
In light of the ongoing incivility - directed against me, which I do not appreciate, and also against other editors - and this being a re-hash of an old discussion, I suggest we close this discussion. I also suggest that further discussions from this editor be summarily deleted, redacted, or closed to the extent they contain complaints about others here. That is explicitly covered in the article probation terms. It would be extremely easy to bring up a content proposal here without disparaging the other editors. That Noroton chooses to do so suggests he is unwilling to edit within our guidelines. Unless I hear a good argument from someone other than Noroton that this discussion should play out, I will close it again. Although I do not support the proposal, I would not object if Noroton were to make the proposal without accusing other editors of censorship, POV pushing, editing the article to support their candidate, etc.Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing is disruptive and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Actually addressing arguments isn't. -- Noroton (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What you've been doing, Wikidemon, is essentially to simply cite WP:NOTAGAIN. But you can't just cite policies. You have to explain them. Even if it's complicated. Go ahead and allude to your position again, filling in the snapshot with enough strokes to provide coherence to someone just now tuning in or to help old timers' recall what your position is. Think of a senior senator briefly making reference to a complicated policy position at a committee hearing or even on the stage at a public debate. It doesn't have to be several paragraphs of perfectly nuanced prose, it can be some kind of jargoned shorthand. (Alternately, heck, if you're up to the challenge, translate the major thrust of your meaning into a pithy soundbite that somehow "says everything.") Maybe dispense with restating your position at all and simply mention why you believe Noroton's argumentation arising from the Times piece wouldn't change it. But at least say something! As failure to be specific opens you up to a charge you're only arguing "impossibility of worthy new ideas," a pretty bogus premise. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     18:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My position remains unchanged. Forcing us all to re-stage a long contentious debate we have already had a few dozen times, with the same result each time, is an enormous waste of editor time.  I am particularly unwilling to spend the time in an atmosphere of abusive accusations and taunting misrepresentations of my edits.  Again, I would not close this discussion, and would simply restate my opposition, were the proposal made without the attendant insults.  Anyone who wants to see those debates, and the arguments I made, is welcome to search my edit history or the talk page archives.  One page I wrote on the subject, which does not move, is  here.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to walk away, Wikidemon. I'm sure others will take up your banner. The talk page is here to improve the article. If discussion about improving the article makes you uncomfortable, disengage. Or suffer the fact that not everyone agrees with you. -- Noroton (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your Talk:Barack Obama/weight page doesn't address my arguments that this has been addressd prominently by reliable sources and that therefore WP:WEIGHT favors inclusion. It is certainly a prominent, ongoing feature of the campaign. -- Noroton (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument on the weight page directly addresses weight concerns, that: (1) Ayers does not rise to the level of importance in Obama's life to include in the Obama article, and (2) it is not covered often in reliable sources. I will not walk away from the articles, I will not discuss this in response to abusive comments, I have made my arguments, and my position remains unchanged since last time.  I will repeat this position every time you bring it up.  Kindly desist from making untrue statements about what I have said in the past, and stop insulting me.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (My own attempt at a soundbite): "When an aspect concerning a decade of the subject-of-a-WP-bio's life merits a lengthy piece in the NY Times above the fold, this WP bio ought to provide a minimal link to the subarticle covering that aspect, so people reading the main bio can find it." (How's that?) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At minimum, this should be the case. I still think a couple of sentences in the campaign section is warranted. -- Noroton (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Justmeherenow's proposal, essentially using WP:RS alone as the sole inclusion criterion, is not a workable WP:WEIGHT standard. We cannot have a link to a sub-article plus the necessary context for every subject under the sun that merits a long article in a major publication.  That would require an encyclopedia many times bigger than Wikipedia, and an Obama article several times the length of Wikipedia's.  To have a cogent biography - a featured article at that - we have to exert some judgment in how to present material.  The best way is to choose details that are relevant to the subject's life, and of sufficient importance to be worth reading.  Importance is either something obvious to most editors (e.g. birth dates and parentage) or, in cases where editors question or disagree, is verified by reference to a preponderance of reliable sources sufficient to say that the body of serious, unbiased authors who write books, magazine articles, and newspapers consider it important to devote a proportion of the telling of the person's life story.  The significance of this issue is clearly not obvious to most editors here - they do not think it should be included.  The general sentiment is that Obama's contacts with Ayers are incidental and say nothing about Obama.  As for external validation, only a tiny minority of sources that describe Obama see fit to mention Ayers, confirming that writers off Wikipedia do not see it as significant.Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Brothejr's Proposal
From the outside, this looks mainly as a political stunt/election stunt in an attempt to WP:COATRACK as much dirt on Barack Obama to stop the reader into voting for him/votinf for his opponent and give more ammo for those voting against him. If the editors, who are proposing this, are only just trying to improve the article and do not care about the election or who votes for Barack Obama, then they would not mind suspending this argument/inclusion until the election is over. This issue was not a major/minor/or really any importance to Barack Obama's life. It did not shape his life, it did not shape his actions, etc.

Now, if the editors feel this is an important election issue and must be included, then this article is not the appropriate article it should be included in. This discussion should be moved to it's own article (which it has) and then covered in the presidential article.

Yet, if this is not an election issue, then it can wait until after the election and then debated/added then. Brothejr (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that I said it is an election issue and that's where mention of Ayers should be. And I am shocked, shocked, Brothejr at your horrible personal attack on me, accusing me of committing a "stunt" with "dirt". Careful, Wikidemon might set up a box around your new section and "close" it for incivility. If this is so indefensible, it should be easy to present an airtight case against including the information, and to present it calmly. You should be able to say how an enormous front-page article in the Times and a continuing feature of McCain's campaign against Obama (on top of all of the other notability) is just too obscure to mention in this article. If you can't do that, perhaps that means there's something here to discuss. Rather than discuss whether or not we should discuss Obama-Ayers, why not simply discuss Obama-Ayers? Your strong arguments should easily make me speechless, unable to cite proper sources or policy. -- Noroton (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here, let me help you in actually discussing the idea of including mention of Ayers in the article. A WP:COATRACK article is, according to that essay, a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject What's the tangentially related bias subject here? Is this not an issue in the campaign? Has it not received prominent coverage in reliable sources and has it not been widely publicized? Please defend your so-far-undefended assertion. -- Noroton (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then if it is an election issue, why are you not proposing it in the correct article: Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. This issue should be discussed/added to the daughter articles way before it is added here.  Either way, this issue can wait until after the elections.  Wikipedia is not here to dissuade voters, push for one side or another, or heap as much dirt on someone as we can.  Brothejr (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does it say I have to go through that rigamarole before I go through this rigamarole? Why can't it be added to both? It's prominent enough. -- Noroton (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I second Brotherjr's proposal. A month is no time at all. (Noroton and others seemingly have made edits on the subject for years now; even myself, for months!) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it wait till after the elections? -- Noroton (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying wait, due a rule. I'm saying wait so contributors may better concentrate on the issue at hand and not the election. And this in the interest ultimately of writing a better encyclopedia. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While recentism must be kept in mind, I have to agree with Noroton here. To set an artificial date after which it would be permissible to include this content (specifically, after the election) would seem politically motivated as well. I say it would be best to include it here as a brief note, with a link to a larger and more detailed explanation on a sister article; this was also done with news about the hacking of Sarah Palin's email account. »S0CO ( talk 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Close the discussion!
This rehashing of the exact same non-argument, by exactly the same editor, for the dozenth time or more, smells strongly of bad faith and WP:POINT. This nonsensical discussion should be closed immediately, and ideally Noroton should be sanctioned for the violation of article probation so evidently exhibited above.

If this non-connection was actually of biographical significance here, it would continue to be significant in a month, and could wait until then for any insertion. It is not of any remote notability for the main bio, of course, and the urgency Noroton feels to include it is nothing more and nothing less than attempts at diverting this article into anti-Obama election campaigning. No, no, no, again, for the twentieth or thirtieth time! LotLE × talk 20:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Enough, already.  Why do we need to go through this entire process repeatedly with Noroton?  It's just ridiculous.  And I guarantee you that in a week or two somebody will write an editorial in the Weekly Standard or wherever that mentions the Ayers attack and Noroton will start the whole thing all over again.  Can't somebody write a bot script that will respond to his arguments every time they get repeated so we don't have to continually waste time with it? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were such thing as an anti- ad hominem bot, it would leave behind only a few inches of text in this talkpage section. If only. It would surely refine this discussion. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) LotLE, You call my arguments "nonsensical" without showing how or why? You accuse me of "attempts at diverting this article into anti-Obama election campaigning"? As opposed to, oh, say ... pro'-Obama election campaigning? Why LotLE, you should be sanctioned for violation of article probation so evidently exhibited above! It is not of any remote notability for the main bio, of course, I know it would be a violation of something or other to ask, but please tell me: How is it not notable? I've explained at length why I think it's notable. Please review WP:TALK, for instance: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you, and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Explaining an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus. Also: Your opinion will typically carry more weight depending on the quality of the rationale you provide for making it. Take your time considering a good rationale, based on how the project operates.


 * Here's another great passage from WP:TALK: Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material -- Noroton (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If no administrator is going to do it, then the editors of this page should go ahead and enforce the terms of article probation so that we can be productive here. Editors who are not willing to abide by cooperative editing practices should basically be ignored, and their uncivil edits dismissed without ceremony.  Proposals like this that are made uncivilly or tendentiously, particularly those made by editors who has done it repeatedly, should be closed, deleted, or redacted by the editors here so we can keep a productive editing environment.  I see a majority of editors here wishing to close the discussion, and no evidence of any change of consensus.  Accordingly I have suggested the discussion be closed.  Having done so a couple times and been reverted, I don't want to be the next one to close it, but if someone will take the initiative I support it. Wikidemon (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

''Note - the editor starting the above discussion has filed an ANI case about its closure, here. Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)''

Continuation of above Ayers discussion
Based on Wikidemon's comments at AN/I, I've removed Wikidemon's disruptive closing yet again, and I'll continue the discussion with the rapid new developments that continue to give more and more prominence to this issue. Perhaps Wikidemon and other editors can refrain from closing the argument down, whether or not they like the subject coming up.

Yesterday and today, four more developments on this ongoing, prominent feature of the presidential campaign:

Yet again, the matter comes up. It's been said in news reports that it may well come up yet again on Tuesday in the next presidential debate. The matter has come up continually and prominently since at least the debate in March.
 * Palin attacks Obama twice on Saturday (10/4) for "palling around with terrorists"
 * She repeats the same phrase on Sunday (10/5) in California.
 * Obama campaign releases ad responding to the McCain campaign's new ads that feature the Obama-Ayers connection. ("No wonder his campaign wants to change the subject.")
 * It's a subject brought up today on the Sunday talk shows. ""It's about his judgment and who he associated with during those years and right on into his political campaign," U.S. Senator Mel Martinez said on ABC's This Week.

What was that argument about WP:WEIGHT again? -- Noroton (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * sigh* Yes, the McCain campaign is repeating the same attack line. And they'll probably keep repeating it every day this week. So what?  That's not a "new development" and it certainly doesn't retroactively make this an important biographical detail about Obama.  The NYT article that you so breathlessly rushed here to open the discussion again with said basically the same thing.  That, while his opponents keep trying to make this an issue, there is little connection between the two.  We've covered this ground dozens of times.  Give it a rest.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they're repeating it is of course a new development. The fact that they're making it a more prominent part of the campaign is of course something that makes it a more prominent part of the campaign, which goes directly to WP:WEIGHT. I've said repeatedly that I propose mention of this goes in the campaign part of the article because it is, after all, not just an important element of the most important campaign of Obama's life but a biographical issue in that campaign. I don't propose putting it in any of the chronological sections of his life. The case for putting it in one of the other sections could be made -- not because Ayers was an important influence on Obama (I don't believe he was) but because it's caused a significant comment that it raises concerns about Obama's judgment. But that is primarily now a campaign issue.
 * Now I wonder if Wikidemon would be concerned about you saying I so breathlessly rushed here, Loonymonkey. Are you trying to comment on editors more than on the actual subject at hand? Please focus. while his opponents keep trying to make this an issue No, it is an issue when it gets this amount of coverage. Issues are what are contested. It only takes one side to assert something, while the other side disagrees, making it an issue. Obama doesn't get to control what is prominently said and reported about him. The "connection" you say is "little" is considered important by a significant number of reliable sources, as proven by the fact that we have all those sources from way back in April, and during the summer, and now more and more this month. Nothing in policy prevents inclusion and the prominence of the sourcing demands it. there is little connection between the two is your personal POV, not what so many sources say. That POV belongs in whatever passage we put into the article about this, as what a number of other prominent sources state. -- Noroton (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Palin's and McCain's ongoing smears against Obama based on Obama being "pals" with terrorists (which the Obama campaign describes as a "lie" and CNN describes as "false") are indeed a notable issue in the campaign (albeit to call them anything beyond minor at this point is recentivism). The weight argument is that they in substance insignificant as an issue in Obama's life, and as per the reliable sources an insignificant matter in proportion to the overall coverage of Obama's life.  Beyond weight/relevance there is WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV, and depending on what is said about Ayers, WP:BLP.  If we were to cover it at this point, neutrality would mean that we have to honor those reliable sources and report it as a smear campaign condemned as untrue.  But I have said so before, and I will say so again - additional news articles, and additional campaign attacks, that merely continue what has come before are unlikely to change the arguments, much less the consensus against including this content, unless they represent a dramatic expansion in the nature or scope.  It would really have to be one of the defining moments of the campaign, to be worth including it in our condensed campaign section, and I do not see that here.Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Wikidemon at 19:48, (and if anyone violates WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK by removing this comment you're going to get a complaint at AN/I; have fun with that): I'm not arguing that each news development be included in the article, obviously. I'm arguing that they all add WP:WEIGHT to the article. You haven't explained how sources talking about Obama-Ayers are somehow a coatrack in a campaign section in which the Obama-Ayers controversy plays a part. You haven't explained how WP:NPOV is violated when that very policy states that Wikipedia allows the opinions of others to be reported in Wikipedia articles. I believe we already note criticism of Obama elsewhere in the article. You well know that we can cover this topic in a short passage while not violating WP:BLP. If you've actually addressed any of these points before, ever, feel free to link to the diff. It's the Obama-Ayers issue as a whole that should be in the brief passage, with a link, of course, to the article about the subject. additional news articles, and additional campaign attacks, that merely continue what has come before are unlikely to change the arguments. The point you continue to ignore is that they add to weight and erode the WP:WEIGHT argument to nothing. Obviously, new developments don't merely continue what has come before. -- Noroton (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restated a position I have stated dozens of times. I do not wish to re-argue the position, engage in debate, or find diffs.  I am not required to do that.  Anyone who wishes to find my argument is free to search the archives.  My opposition to this stands, as does my comment that merely adding new sources and new utterances of the smear by McCaign campaign operatives does not change things.Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Norton, you are citing wikipedia rules in poor context. Please, end this childish smear campaign. NJMauthor (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks NJM, I love you, too. Wikidemon, you're not required to discuss anything at all or respond any way at all, of course. The fact is, we have an NPOV mandate and prominent criticism of any public figure, Republican, Democrat or anything else, is a proper part of the article, especially a presidential candidate and either an ex-candidate or president-elect. This is one of the most prominent criticisms of Obama and it has gotten more prominent. I guess at this point I should be suggesting specific language. -- Noroton (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * BBC: "Weathermen: Home-grown US Radicals" (Oct. 5)
 * BBC: "Obama rejects terror link 'smear'" (Oct. 5) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Six times today, the New York Times discusses Obama-Ayers. In three separate articles, an editorial column, and twice in its "Caucus" blog on the website:
 * News: Seeking to Shift Attention to Judicial Nominees
 * News: Obama Calls Attacks on Him ‘Out of Touch’
 * News analysis column: Is Era of Dominance Over for Conservatives?
 * Op-Ed column by William Kristol: The Wright Stuff 
 * "Caucus" blog post: The Early Word: Palin Relishes Attack Dog Role
 * "Caucus" blog post: Guilt-by-Association Response -- Noroton (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we continuing this? None of those articles adds anything new other then the Republicans are using this as an election stunt.  Plus if you read the articles and you watch what each news agency says (with the exception of Fox news who just simply ignores this), every one says there is nothing to this accusation.  This begs the question why everyone is pushing so hard to include in in Barack Obama's BLP when it should be debated and added to the election articles?  Brothejr (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec with Guyzero) Our views on what is important-enough material for the encyclopedia article must be separate from support for or opposition to Obama. All of this is proof that the issue is worth a couple of sentences in the "Campaign" section with a link to the Wikipedia article that gives the issue coverage. I'm pushing so hard because a neutral article doesn't try to keep out important issues because Obama supporters insist the embarassing association is not important. What you put in an article is what the reliable sources indicate is important. That's shown by the constant, prominent coverage for months. That's not a partisan argument. A partisan argument would be "This should be in/out of the article because I want to/don't want the article to tell us this thing that's bad/good about Obama", which strongly appears to be the subtext of some of the arguments in the past and now. I have no problem at all with noting in the Obama-Ayers controversy article that Obama and others say "there is nothing to this accusation" so long as the many other sources who say there is "something to" it are also represented in that article. That would be NPOV treatment. I don't have a problem with noting that Palin's comment is an exaggeration. In this article, a brief neutral mention is justified by the coverage. Fox News has not ignored it. Let's simply cover what sources tell us is important enough to mention. Continual, prominent coverage should tell you something, Brothejr. -- Noroton (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that each of these sources you pull up have said that there is not any connection between Obama and Ayers. Each reliable source has done enough research to show that Ayers never influenced Obama, etc.  What each article says is that how McCain's campaign/Republicans have tried to make an issue out of this.  If Ayers had no influence over Obama's life and they barely met outside of boardroom meetings, then how would that be considered important to Obama's BLP?  As I mentioned before, this is important for a campaign article, but not Obama's BLP. Just because there are articles written on how the Republican's are making this charge does not lend any more weight then before.  The only difference between then and now is in the campgain article, we can say McCain/Palin leveled so and so charges against Obama which have been shown to be false.  Yet, none of it should be in Obama's BLP.  Brothejr (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Despite all of the noise around this topic, there is no proof that Ayers ever was an influence or important detail in Obama's life (the bare threshhold for inclusion in this biographical article.) Even the latest round of RS's conclude that there is no there there. A neutral language insertion of this type of info into this article immediately fails WEIGHT and probably fails BLP. This is campaign-related-stuff, for the campaign-related articles. regards, --guyzero | talk 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Guyzero, perhaps you didn't read my comments on just the points you made because of the bullshit "discussion closed" box in the section above, so I'll recap: When a campaign issue becomes prominent enough, it deserves coverage in the "Campaign" section of the article not as coverage of what is alleged by opponents but because the allegation itself is a prominent feature of the campaign and campaign coverage. Its a matter of disagreement as to whether or not this tells us something about Obama (either whether he's some kind of radical or whether he displayed an important lack of judgment). What is verifiable as fact is that this has become a prominently covered aspect of the campaign. Important facts belong in the "Campaign" section. That's neutrality. It fails neither WP:WEIGHT nor WP:BLP (because of the WP:WELLKNOWN section of WP:BLP). Perhaps if the box hadn't been put in that section above, you'd have seen those statements and we could have advanced the discussion easier. -- Noroton (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Our views on what is important-enough material for the encyclopedia article must be separate from support for or opposition to Obama."
 * That was positively dripping in irony. As I have repeatedly stated before, the tenuous connection between Obama and Ayers has only become notable because of partisan attempts to use it to smear Obama. That makes it purely a campaign issue, and not biographical at all. Furthermore, it isn't even particularly notable in the context of the campaign (issues like health, the economy, Iraq are what I would call "notable"). I have said elsewhere that it is probably worth a line or two in the campaign article, but it certainly isn't worth mentioning here. This is basically the same conclusion that has been reached about 20 separate times, which is why I consider further discussion of this to be highly tendentious and disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Important issues in the campaign are obviously worth noting in the section of the biography article that concerns the campaign. It's pretty simple. If only issues are notable, they're covered in the "Political positions" section. So are you arguing that the actual "Campaign" section be deleted from this article? If we're going to have a campaign section, the most significant aspects of the campaign, particularly as they touch on Obama's life, are to be included. Weren't you the one continually invoking WP:SUMMARY for weeks and months on end? Some of the "issues" covered in the article are not particularly notable and are not major aspects of Obama's life. When new information comes up, you simply invoke the fact that the idea has been rejected before, without addressing the fact that there is now much more prominent coverage of the topic. Let's just say that's not a WP:NPOV-compliant position. -- Noroton (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is what's important in your opinion is completely different from what everybody else thinks.  Grsz  X  00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, Noroton. I note you continue to misunderstand the meaning of WP:WELLKNOWN - a subset of the section on privacy. It does not trump the policies concerning neutrality and weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've never been able to actually explain how WP:WELLKNOWN means the exact opposite of what it says. But if you tried, that would be WP:WIKILAWYERING, so I can understand why you wouldn't bother now. Policies concerning neutrality and weight also support inclusion, as I've explained at length. -- Noroton (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I read this talk page and a few back-pages of the archives before posting, thanks. I disagree with your comments above, for now, for the reasons that I give above. In comparison to all of the details of this campaign, this is hardly a "prominent feature", as you say. Documenting this information belongs in the campaign-related articles. thanks, --guyzero | talk 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In agreement; since Obama is no longer buddies with Ayers. It doesn't belong in this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up here. I have filed a WP:3RR report with respect to Noroton's edits, which seemingly revert headings and discussion closures a total of 5 times in the past 24 hours.  Additionally, the repeated use of "bullshit", calling other editors "disruptive", and other invectives directed at other editors, is not allowed here.  Given the ongoing tendentiousness regarding this talk page and the proposal for content on the main page, and the unlikelihood of developing any consensus for a content change in this regard, I strongly urge closing this entire discussion, and doing so summarily should it be re-opened or re-started in the near future.  I would do so myself but having already closed the discussion 3 times, and being the subject of an active AN/I complaint by the editor in question I prefer not to go there.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayers consensus discussion
OK, closing this. Many editors have spoken, and there appears to be, once again, consensus that the controversy about William Ayers, as it lacks sufficient pertinence to Obama's life, is more suitable to the Obama-Ayers controversy article and the campaign article, not this one. Per WP:SILENCE, the editors who proposed including disputed details about Obama's connections with Ayers appear to have accepted this consensus for the moment. This should not be taken to mean the issue cannot be reopened if new information or arguments arise. I could certainly see it becoming notable enough for inclusion in Barack Obama's biography if any of the following were to occur: I'm sure other new developments I haven't listed could also increase the weight granted to Ayers-related material in Barack Obama's biography. But for the time being, with silence on the part of those who have been pushing this material and basic agreement between other editors, I am closing this discussion. If you have a new point to make, please be sure it is not in the nature of an opinion piece about Obama or Ayers, a news report about those opinion pieces (as the current consensus appears to be that those specifically belong in the campaign article) or a reopening of this discussion without new information. If you choose to reopen this discussion, I will make no effort to immediately re-close it, but I ask that you do not simply leave it open without bringing something new to it. -- Good Damon 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A major, reputable news organization (for example, The New York Times or the Chicago Tribune) produced an investigation that indicated their connections are both closer and deeper than professional acquaintance.
 * A similar investigation indicated that Obama is or had been sympathetic to Ayers' past behavior.
 * A branch of law enforcement began or announced a criminal investigation of Barack Obama in connection to Ayers.

Original proposal
OK, now that this is all in a different section, covering Noroton's "new" material, I propose a "new" consensus:
 * 1) That opinion blogs and editorials aren't reliable sources.
 * 2) That smear campaigns and reports on smear campaigns aren't pertinent to Obama's biography.
 * 3) That no actual news article has concluded that there is any substance to claims of a connection between Obama and Ayers.
 * 4) That a much larger body of news articles about Obama's life ignore Ayers completely or explicitly specify that campaign attempts to tie the two together are discredited.
 * 5) That including those campaign claims is therefore off topic.

Let's leave this one discussion open, and acquire consensus. Yes, I know, this has been done before, but let's get consensus, and then get the usual suspects on record as accepting consensus. -- Good Damon 19:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points Brothejr (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed obviously. Stop the disruption and irrelevant insertions of soapbox.  LotLE × talk  20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on numbers 1 and 4, but disagree on 2, 3, and 5. That is not to say that I think the claims should be made in this article...I don't.  I just don't think it's an open and shut case.  If you had asked whether discussion of this topic (specifically on whether the "connection" or controversy concerning it) should be closed until/unless more information becomes availabe, then I agree.LedRush (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on #s 1 and 4 and my editorial perceptions here are probably about in the general neighborhood as LedRush's. Yet, I would also probably suggest that Damon's proposal, for a smidgen more rigor in its argumentation, ought to make sure that it not only communicate the nuance that people's "Obama-Ayers" concerns (concerns about Obama's "foundation" work in the company of Ayers) are a matter of opinion, but also that a belief that these concerns necessarily constitute a smear would be a matter of opinion as well. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * GoodDamon, yet again, completely ignores the argument I actually gave in favor of an argument he implies I made. Which opinion blogs and editorials did I say were reliable sources for facts? They're reliable sources for their own opinions. They can also lend weight to a particular topic. That's just following WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. GoodDamon has it backwards: We fix policy on the policy talk pages, not here. Here we're supposed to follow policy. It isn't a "smear" to note neutrally that Obama and Ayers associated with each other and that it became controversial during the campaign. And GoodDamon's use of the word is simply an attack on those he disagrees with. GoodDamon's other points aren't even worth a reply. -- Noroton (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a smear to "note neutrally", as you put it. Since the "relationship" has no real significance (as multiple sources have alluded to, including the NYT article Palin referred to), adding a mention in this BLP would violate WP:WEIGHT (not to mention WP:BLP, for reasons of "guilt by association"). Therefore, the only possible significance would be because it was being used by the McCain campaign to smear Obama - ergo, including it would be a smear. Your analysis is wrong, and your tedious repetition of these failed arguments is disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Worries about BLP don't come into play since Obama's a politician. (Said another way, the allegation that Obama had a friendship and professional relationship with Ayers cannot itself be considered a smear since a complete defense against having "smeared" a candidate for high office is if what is alleged is truthful .) For example, a critic of Palin's who relates her having a non-elite background is not smearing her, even though these critics hold this association of Palin with being non-elite as something negative. Some say aspects of the Obama-Ayers attacks are exaggerated; and it's true that to the extent they are exaggerated would be to the extent they could be considered a smear; but it's not Wikipedia's place to wade in where conscientiously informed sources disagree on the precision of these characterization. Thus to label such attacks wholly smears is a finding Wikipedia cannot make, in order to keep to its neutrality. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no question that it's a smear campaign, and untruthful - that's so obvious it hardly needs to be mentioned. The question is whether that is a BLP violation.  I would argue, and I think most agree, that it is not a BLP violation against Obama because of WP:WELLKNOWN.  For the opposite view, please take a look at the Sarah Palin article and the frequent use of BLP to argue that poorly sourced, irrelevant, scandalous, etc., information about a well-known candidate is in fact a violation.  My argument would be that if a smear campaign against a well-known person is so widely known to be newsworthy on its own it is not a BLP vio.  However, it may well be a COATRACK, POV violation, UNDUE, etc.  But the extra procedural safeguards of BLP do not apply.  On the other hand, William Ayers is not widely known as a "unrepentant terrorist", communist, anti-American, person so toxic that even associating with him makes one unfit, etc.  Using Ayers to smear Obama is depending on the circumstances and how it is done, a potentially serious BLP violation against Ayers.  Ayers is not well known in that sense, and the claims against him are controversial and denied.  I cannot categorically say that everything used to try to tie Obama with Ayers in the Obama article is a BLP violation - that could be sidestepped.  But it is a concern to watch out for.  Anyway, whether one conceptualizes this as RS, BLP, WEIGHT, NPOV, what have you, there is a clear consensus that it is not fit for inclusion here, and it is obvious that this consensus will not change however many times the proposal is brought up here.Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot you say here that makes sense, Wikidemon. Nevertheless, as sophisticated as it may be, what you're saying about "smears" is stuff an opinion magazine of Thought would say and not what a mere journal full of news copy would, understand? So that an unsophisticated way to tell if something is one or the other is to ask, Would a newspaper's news section say that or would an opinion piece? Since "smear" is a word coded with -- judgement and hence is intrinsically not neutral. Sure, if there's nearly universal opinion that something is a smear, WP can probably get away with calling it just that, but if it's much less than that, WP really has to either say, "So-'n'-so believes something a smear whereas so-'n'-so doesn't" or else describe the criticism in a way that isn't coded. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is neither a news source nor an opinion piece. It is a consensus discussion aimed at what to do about a perennial proposal that has in method and tone caused long-term disruption to the Obama article.  As such, one may state one's opinion.  Arguments made over Wikipedia policy do not have the same sourcing rules either.  Most technically the Obama/Ayers thing is a political attack, stretched beyond the point of truthfulness and impertinent to the extent it is true, used for negative campaigning purposes and by operatives in blogs and op ed columns.  That is all sourceable to reliable sources that have written on this.  One could probably find reliable sources to call it a "smear" too but I agree that the word is inherently loaded.  It is also imprecise.  So that is not the word I would use in describing it in a Wikipedia article.  Loaded words used for the purpose they are meant to serve are just fine for dialog, though, because they often get the point across much more efficiently than dry conversation.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, Wikidemon, there's a modicum of truth in these opinions you've expressed. Nonetheless, my point remains that Wikipedia should aspire to emulate the independance and neutrality modeled by CNN's Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston in their "Crossed paths" article rather than the source for such opinions as those of senior Obama adviser Anita Dunn that are quoted in the article or else those of the Ethics and Public Policy Center researcher (and Conservative critic of Obama) Stanley Kurtz that are also quoted there. And, in my frank opinion, far too many Wikicontributors on this page have acted or sounded either more like Dunn or else more like Kurtz, whereas far too few have achieved the objectivity and distance maintained by Griffin and Johnston. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     06:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Also please note that yesterday's issue of Time Magazine has an article about the Weathermen that has the quote, "Subsequent bombings of government buildings, banks and police departments lead the FBI to declare the Weathermen a domestic terrorist group." And I believe it would behoove us Wikipedians were we to emulate this reliable sourcing (Time's researchers and editors) through our refraining from labeling the Weathermen terrorists without attribution, while we relate in NPOV fashion that the FBI had labeled the group as such.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     06:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you bring up these two sources. Wikipedia has its own standards for neutrality.  Newspapers strive more for balance, which is a different thing.  The CNN article was interesting, and probably closer than any other reliable source has come to asserting that the Ayers/Obama connection is notable.  But it left me scratching my head for a few reasons.  First, it uses the phrase "unrepentant radical" for Ayers, which is not entirely objective, neutral, or accurate.  If the question is whether Ayers has regrets he says he regrets what he did.  The notion of people repenting or not repenting is kind of odd and not very newsworthy, and of course it is uncomfortably close to the Republican talking point "unrepentant terrorist."  The article has picked up the language of one side of the debate.  Beginning one sentence "Obama confirmed.." and the next "When pressed..." also seems biased.  The two do not contradict - they are insinuating something.  Then it seems to accuse Obama of being less than honest, without backing it up.  What the article cites as evidence of a deeper relationship than Obama admitted does not prove its point.  The other thing that struck me is that there are sentences in there from a version of this article, written by different authors, that has been kicking around the CNN website for several days.  It is as if some editor is mashing a few things together.  I suppose all sources begin to show their seems if you look at them hard enough.  That is one reason one has to weigh different sources and try to get at a comprehensive view of what happened.  If most of the major papers wrote more or less what CNN did I would say that establishes sufficient notability to merit a reference here, because CNN writes directly on it as if it is a subject worth talking about.  So far the others are simply doing fact checks or reporting on it by way of covering an anti-Obama political tactic.  The Time article, by contrast, seems to glibly dismiss the significance any connection out of hand (by the time they met, Time says, the wind had blown Ayers in a different direction).Wikidemon (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think reporting by CNN's "Special Investigations Unit" is evenhanded and believe it more useful as a relible source for Wikipedia's purposes than either allegations concerning Obama-Ayers guilt-by-association smears (see the Atlantics Matthew Yglesias) or criticisms concerning an Obama-Ayers connection (see RealClearPolitics commentary piece by Dick Morris). $\sim$ Justmeherenow   '  08:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed in a broad sense that campaign attacks on a candidate are generally off topic, and that the Ayers smear campaign is not worthy of inclusion in Obama's bio. But I do not think we need to adopt findings of fact on a talk page, only decisions about what the content should be and how we are going to deal with things in the future.  #1 goes without saying so we don't need to vote on endorsing it here.  #2 and 3 are true as the situation now exists, but they are stated too broadly.  It is theoretically possible that a smear becomes so important that it affects a biography, e.g. swiftboating may belong in Kerry's biography, but it would take an attack of great magnitude and effect, or more than a little substance.  Likewise with #3, even though the great majority of reliable sources find no substance to the reputed connection between Ayers and Obama, I am not ready to conclude that there are not some that say otherwise, and if there are none now, one could always be written.  Such a proposal cannot be adopted prescriptively with respect to future sources.  #4 is certainly true as the sources exist today, and as they seem likely to exist for some time.
 * I would rather consider a proposal with a more concrete application, e.g. that we close down this discussion, that we summarily close further discussions that re-hash this proposal without a substantially new argument in favor of the content, that we make this decision clear in the FAQ, that further partisan attacks by the candidates or by unreliable sources are not considered new material absent a convincing showing that the attacks have had a substantial impact on Obama's life, that further reliable sources reporting on the attacks do not change their weight/relevance unless and until they become so numerous that we can say that a significant portion of all reliable sources about Obama see fit to treat the accusations as a biographically important matter, and that proposals and discussions having to do with Ayers will be summarily closed, deleted, moved, or redacted to the extent they are accompanied by incivility, accusations, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, and as you say, in principal I agree with you. But I think we should do this slowly, carefully, and completely this time. Make no mistake, consensus is definitely against including the irrelevant material in question, but this has become so tendentious a topic, absorbing so much time to deal with near-continuously, that very little of substance has gone into the article for quite some time. I think the only way to get it firmly, thoroughly finished is to gain such overwhelming consensus that it becomes impossible to continue arguing for a while. If this requires a long process of dispute resolution and eventual administrative intervention, so be it. Once it is done, it could be placed in the FAQ with admin blessings, and from then on, dealt with summarily. At this point, I'd rather go the slow, laborious route than the one that allows any wikigaming or false claims. -- Good Damon 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My verdict is NO, leave the Ayers talk out of it, because it'll just turn into a "who can paint the ugliest picture" game betwen the Obama and McCain articles. Tim010987 (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind my moving this statement, since this thread seems to be breaking up into statements like yours and commentary below. -- Good Damon 11:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed - Leave Ayers out of the Biography. As others have written, it's very relevant to articles on the campaign but not here.  There's a need to compartmentalize the articles.  198.23.5.11 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I'm putting this in a separate section because I want to leave the one above to accrue people's thoughts and opinions. Now then...

On #2: If Obama loses the election, the campaign efforts of his opponents will demonstrably have had a significant effect on his life, and therefore would merit more prominent placement in the articles about that life; a prime example is John McCain's biography, which notes the smears (illegitimate black child, etc.) that contributed to his loss in 2000. But until then, the stuff about Ayers is simply campaign innuendo and mudslinging, much more appropriate for the campaign article. So my question to those of you who disagree with #2 is this: What exactly is the pertinence of discredited campaign claims to Obama's life story at this time? In all seriousness, I don't get it. There are entire branches of his family that aren't mentioned in the article, and yet are presumably more important to his life story than these claims.

On #3: This one is a simple matter to prove or disprove. If a reliable news organization, outside of the context of campaign claims, has discovered evidence that links Obama and Ayers more deeply -- for example, evidence that Obama was Ayers' protegee, or that Obama secretly admires Ayers' past -- that would make all the difference. Those of you who disagree with #3, on which news articles are you relying for that disagreement? Certainly, news articles that lend credence to the Obama-Ayers connection, as suggested, may theoretically appear in the future. But we can only reach consensus on what's currently available. If such a news article appears, #3 would of course need to be dropped. If such a news article exists now, I'd like to see it, but if it's an opinion blog, editorial, or story from a biased source, please understand that it doesn't pass muster here.

On #5: Please see my responses on #2 and #3. If I've changed your mind, then I suppose you agree now on #5. If not, I'd like to see your thoughts on my responses above.

Specific to Noroton: I wasn't responding to your argument. I was making a proposal for consensus. -- Good Damon 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to avoid your question, but couldn't we focus more on whether there is consensus to shut down this specific topic (to which myself and Wikidemon have referred above)?LedRush (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops...I missed your comments above. OK, to answer:


 * 2 As you seemed to say yourself, smear campaigns can greatly affect lives. If a smear campaign reaches a certain level, in itself, even if completely unfounded, may deserve mention.  That doesn't mean that this smear campaign should be mentioned...it is only the reason I didn't agree with the statement.
 * I agree completely, actually. That's why I specifically mentioned the smears against John McCain. They were similarly false, but definitely impacted his life, possibly costing him the Republican nomination in 2000. But they're the exception, not the norm. The false smears of political opponents don't belong in the biography of any politician, unless they are demonstrably impacting that politician's life beyond the campaign itself. As of now, the Ayers smear does not appear to be impacting Obama's life in any lasting way. They are certainly impacting the campaign, and there are any number of ways they could eventually impact his life, as I've laid out. But we can't incorporate otherwise off topic information on that basis. It would be like incorporating all sorts of details about rutabagas because he could theoretically choke on one some time in the future. -- Good Damon 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True. What is safe to say is that no substantial reliable sourcing has been brought forth to show that this political attack had any nontrivial effect on the election, much less Obama's life.  The effects, if any, are unlikely to be known until there is some cogent nonpartisan analysis of election results, and perhaps never.  It may well backfire.Wikidemon (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the attacks will work. Not enough subtance -- since for one thing Obama is known by those he's worked alongside as a moderate person, not radical. (Still, I am personally hopeful that in a month cooler heads might prevail and more neutral biographical details might be able to pass through the currently overly-gunked up smear screen.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 3 To my understanding (I admittedly haven't followed this because of the ugly nature of this part of the campaign) is that there is a connection between Ayers and Obama. It's just such an incredibly trivial connection that it's not worth thinking about.
 * That's a pretty good summary. The connection is trivial. Certainly, more trivial than Obama's connections to immediate relatives like his brother... who is also not mentioned in the article. -- Good Damon 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 5 I don't think that the subject is off topic. I just think that it doesn't belong because: 1) the negative implications (even when written neutrally) can be prejudicial, and in the middle of a campaign it's better to err on the side of caution; and 2) I'm not convinced the issue has blown up enough to merit attention that would override concern #1.
 * Fair enough. I disagree on it being off topic (see WP:COATRACK as an example why), but it looks like you're generally in agreement with the overall proposal. -- Good Damon 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope this explains why I agreed on some stuff and not others.LedRush (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing with consensus
At the end of today, barring significant alteration of stances, I will close this discussion as having reached consensus. In the conversations above, rejecting the Ayers material seems to be overwhelmingly supported. While specifics of the other points aren't universally supported, that's the important point. -- Good Damon 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

discussionbottom

Good job
Just wanted to say good job to everyone into getting this into featured status.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

International reception
I would suggest to add a section concerning Obama's international reception, with reference to his strongest supporters in world politics. Do you agree with me? --Lorenzop (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)