Talk:Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama

Untitled
This page is necessarily a fork at the moment from the main Barack Obama page. It should be expanded, as more and new information is added. For 8 years in the Illinois senate it's actually pretty brief!  Wik idea  13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Record on how Obama voted as a senator:
I can not seem to find it anyplace? Any idea were I can find this? Thanks 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)~

Illinois senate career...
Do the sections on his keynote address and US senate race really belong in this article? Sure, they happened while he was in the Illinois senate, but I would not consider this to be a part of his Illinois senate career. It would seem to make more sense to move this to his US senate career article; the keynote address was arguably a part of his US senate campaign. --KarlFrei (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If nobody cares, I am taking these sections out tomorrow. --KarlFrei (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely they were made while he was an Illinois Senator? Or maybe then, they should be moved to the US Senate career page? I think they should at least be kept somewhere, right?  Wik idea  14:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, these sections were taken from the main Barack Obama article, where they still are. Yes, they could be moved to his senate career article. --KarlFrei (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama was never a Senator of Illinois he was a Junior Senator tha never went to the meetings. This article is wrong and this information is false. I kno because I did a project on this in high school I especialy remember that is that it said he was a Junior Senator. Bear (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) User Bear620 (talk)Bear (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Early Senate Career
Citations 7 and 11 are from Obama's campaign page which themselves are uncited (and if they were then those citations should be researched and used in this article I think). Is this consistent with WP policies on NPOV? 155.212.30.130 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral section
Currently, a section of the article reads:
 * Palmer returned to request that Obama drop out of the race and let her run again for the seat. Obama refused, and Palmer decided to run against him. But, prior to the primary, Obama contested the validity of her ballot petition signatures as well as those of all his other Democratic challengers, a common tactic in Chicago politics. As a result, they were all denied a place on the ballot and Obama ran unopposed in the primary. In the general election, Obama won the heavily Democratic 13th district by a large margin. He was easily reelected in 1998.

This is written from a biased viewpoint, suggesting some sort of foul scheme to steal an election victory. In addition, it is poorly-sourced. I would like to solicit opinions on how this section can be improved to make it more neutral and better sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, the "disputed" statement is not widely contested. It is not biased to state that he requested that the signatures be examined, and indeed, all reports are that this definitely happened. The primary source here is an excellent and widely read article by Ryan Lizza. It is ludicrous to claim that Lizza, a former editor at the New Republic and current editor at The New Yorker, is somehow biased against Barack Obama. In fact, I would be willing to bet that he is an Obama supporter, although he was reportedly jilted at not being given a seat on the campaign plane during Obama's recent overseas trip. In any case, I have seen this account reported elsewhere. I will go look for that material now, but I would argue that it would be biased to remove this information, which is clearly a part of the public record, and only reflects poorly on Obama if you want to see it that way (I, for one, do not see it as particularly negative). -- Chicagoshim (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with the content of the section. The problem lies with the way it is presented, with non-neutral language. Consider this alternative that includes the same details:
 * Palmer returned to request that Obama drop out of the race and let her run again for the seat. Obama declined, and Palmer decided to run against him. Prior to the primary, Obama challenged the validity of ballot petition signatures for his opponents, resulting in their exclusion from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary. Obama won the heavily Democratic 13th district by a large margin. He was easily reelected in 1998.
 * This is by no means perfect (just a first stab), but it already looks a lot more encyclopedic and neutral. I see that since I last posted some attempt to resolve this issue has been made, but I still this approach would be better. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to rewrite the whole thing anyway, sourced to two Ryan Lizza articles (New Republic and New Yorker), the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Why not wait till I've done it, and if you have any problems with it, we can discuss it here? I won't put a thing in the article that can't be sourced. My understanding is that the paragraph as written is on target. Obama's challenging of the petition signatures has been widely reported -- partly to show that he can use "sharp elbows" (an image I've heard in more than one spot) and isn't naive. I don't consider that a slur on his character, by the way. Noroton (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have said above, the facts in the section are not in dispute. My problem is with the way the section is written - in a non-neutral, non-encyclopedic manner. I'll give you a couple of days to do your thing before jumping in myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting aritcle from Todd Spivak
I had always heard that Jones pretty much put cleared the path for Obama's sentate seat, but this article has quite a bit of information in it. Any Ideas on how to incorporate it into this article? CENSEI (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One would have to be careful, because it is essentially a "blog entry" written in a free newspaper that is not part of the mainstream media. I'm not saying it isn't a reliable source (I don't know anything about it), but you'd still have to be careful. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is a reliable source, then the materail would seemto be fair game ... Wikipedia relies and utilizes sources like this in a whole host of articles. I think alof of what Spivak is saying can be coroberated by additional sources, like the relationship to Emil Jones and Jones' effort to launch Obama's senate candidacy can be found here as well CENSEI (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Illinois State Senate Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
Why no section on Barack's vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection act? I think it's relevant to this article, and probably the biggest thing he did as a state senator that continues to be a topic of discussion. Ryratt (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that this should be covered, however it would be difficult to do it non biased Atlandy (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So just pretend it never happened because that wouldn't be biased at all. Typical for Liberalpedia.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

State election section
The first paragraph currently reads:
 * When Hyde Park State Senator Alice Palmer decided to run for Congress in a 1995 special election, Obama decided to run for her seat in 1996. Palmer endorsed Obama, thereby securing him an easy victory. But her competition was more effective than she expected and she finished third in the Democratic primary on 29 November 1995. It was won by Jesse Jackson, Jr. who went on to win the general election on 12 December 1995. 

There are several problems with this section. Most of it seems to be about Alice Palmer and Jesse Jackson Jr., which would seem out of place. There is also some non-neutral text that is original research, such as "thereby securing him an easy victory". In an effort to clean up the section and get the NPOV tag removed, I'd like to propose removing all the extraneous and non-neutral text and merging what is left with the second paragraph:
 * Obama ran for State Senator when Alice Palmer decided to run for Congress in a 1995 special election, and he received her endorsement. After being defeated in the primary by Jesse Jackson Jr., Palmer returned to request that Obama drop out of the race and let her run again for the seat. Obama declined, and Palmer decided to run against him. Prior to the primary, Obama challenged the validity of ballot petition signatures for his opponents, resulting in their exclusion from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary. Obama won the heavily Democratic 13th district by a large margin. He was easily reelected in 1998, and again in 2002 (after the district was redrawn to span Chicago lakefront neighborhoods from the Gold Coast south to South Chicago). 

If nobody objects, I'll update the text in a couple of days and remove the dispute tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This section should give the results of his other state elections and somehow that has gotten lost.--Genuine sim (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

His district "was redrawn"
I changed this earlier to "after redrawing his district" but it was changed back. Do we mean to say that this just happened spontaneously? It really was Obama who did this. I would consider the use of the passive voice here to be an attempt to hide this fact, were it not that I should assume good faith. So, I would appreciate it if somebody could please explain to me why the passive form, which essentially conveys less information, is better here. --KarlFrei (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I now notice that the source for this has also been removed from the article, why? I refer to Lizza, Ryan. "Making It", New Yorker, July 21 2008. It used to be listed under Further Reading. Lizza writes "The partisan redistricting of Illinois may have been the most important event in Obama’s early political life." (emphasis mine) --KarlFrei (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As no explanation appears to be forthcoming, I am changing the text. --KarlFrei (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed it to just use the redistricting link (without any special text). Redistricting by an incumbent is unremarkable and sanctioned by the Supreme Court. There is no need to state that Obama redrew the district himself, as this is implied. Your language implies that he won re-election in 2002 because of redistricting (gerrymandering), which is not the case. His redistricting revolved around giving him a constituency that reflected his politics, demographic and vision. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my language implies that, all it does is make clear who did the redistricting. If anything, it probably made it less likely for him personally to win re-election, since the whole point of the redistricting was to distribute the Democratic voters over more districts in order to win more districts in total. Also, I very much do not believe that it is autmoatically implied that Obama redrew his district. Who knows, they could have appointed a commission to draw the districts! Anyway, why imply things if we can just state them? It is not like we are making the article harder to read or something. --KarlFrei (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Scjessey here. Your change makes it sound like Obama personally redrew the district. Either rephrase or add a source showing his personal involvement. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but the source is right there. I added a ref-tag to the line when I changed the text, to the article Making It that I mentioned above. A quote from that article:
 * One day in the spring of 2001, about a year after the loss to Rush, Obama walked into the Stratton Office Building, in Springfield, a shabby nineteen-fifties government workspace for state officials next to the regal state capitol. He went upstairs to a room that Democrats in Springfield called “the inner sanctum.” Only about ten Democratic staffers had access; entry required an elaborate ritual—fingerprint scanners and codes punched into a keypad. The room was large, and unremarkable except for an enormous printer and an array of computers with big double monitors. On the screens that spring day were detailed maps of Chicago, and Obama and a Democratic consultant named John Corrigan sat in front of a terminal to draw Obama a new district. Corrigan was the Democrat in charge of drawing all Chicago districts, and he also happened to have volunteered for Obama in the campaign against Rush.
 * [...]
 * Like every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum, Obama began working on his “ideal map.” Corrigan remembers two things about the district that he and Obama drew.
 * Emphasis mine. Now is it OK to change the text? --KarlFrei (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still not notable, and adding it would imply gerrymandering. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, the source is reliable and it's pretty clear about what happened. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In fact, if what happened in Illinois in 2001 was not gerrymandering, I would like to see an example of what is... And we don't even say that Obama was gerrymandering, the reader may draw his own conclusions! Also, sorry, but suddenly bringing up notability really looks like clutching at straws here. Note that we are talking about a change of three words. --KarlFrei (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I still have concerns about your wording, as he did not draw it himself, but with Corrigan and certainly with the approval of the Democratic party, so this was hardly a solo project. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * An inaccurate and misleading essay in The New Yorker in the middle of a presidential general election campaign—by an out-of-state magazine writer who knows less-than-nothing about Chicago and is reconstructing events from many years ago to disparage Barack Obama—is not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP, and certainly not appropriate as the main source for an encyclopedia article.
 * The partisan redistricting of Illinois may have been the most important event in Obama’s early political life.
 * This is Ryan Lizza's personal opinion; not encyclopedic, factual information.
 * Like every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum, Obama began working on his “ideal map.” Corrigan remembers two things about the district that he and Obama drew.
 * If "every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum" worked on their "ideal map," wouldn't their "ideal maps" conflict? All of the Democratic legislators who "entered the inner sanctum" presumably provided their input into the 2001 Democratic legislative redistricting, but an encyclopedia should not say that an individual state legislator actually redrew their own district.
 * More important, the statewide gerrymandering made it likely that Obama’s party would take over the State Senate in 2002, ...
 * "Gerrymandering" is a pejorative term, except when used descriptively to describe a bizarrely-shaped district. The term "gerrymandering" was not used in Illinois news stories in 1991 to describe Republican redistricting or in 2001 to describe Democratic redistricting (except by Democratic legislators in 1991 and by Republican legislators in 2001 attacking remaps by the opposing party). Lizza seems to be using the term "gerrymandering" for variety, as an alternative to his repeated prior use of the phrase "partisan redistricting." How about just using the more WP:NPOV term "redistricting" or the phrase "Democratic redistricting" in this encyclopedia article?
 * Newross (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this is way off the mark. The New Yorker is indisputably a reliable source, and this is a factual piece of journalism we're talking about here. If you have sources to dispute the facts contained in this article, please offer them. Note that I have no objection to using the word "redistricting" instead of "gerrymandering" in the article, and I'm not sure anyone is actually advocating the latter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ryan Lizza's New Yorker essay is not "indisputably a reliable source" and "a factual piece of journalism we're talking about here."
 * Starting with the very first sentence of the essay:"One day in 1995, Barack Obama went to see his alderman, an influential politician named Toni Preckwinkle"
 * --  4th Ward  alderman Toni Preckwinkle was not Barack Obama's alderman when Obama lived in his Hyde Park condominium at 5450 S. East View Park in the  5th Ward  from 1993–2005.
 * Or this:"Obama was financially outmatched. Although he raised about six hundred thousand dollars, sustained television advertising in Chicago cost between two hundred thousand and three hundred thousand dollars a week, according to Dan Shomon, Obama’s campaign manager at the time."
 * -- Obama was not financially outmatched—he kept pace with Rush's fundraising. Rush, Obama and Trotter all did radio advertising— not sustained television advertising:
 * -- Osnos, Evan (February 20, 2000). Rush could face his toughest test; 2 key stat senators among primary foes. Chicago Tribune, p. 1 (Metro):"On March 21 he will face potentially his toughest primary against two well-regarded state senators: Barack Obama and Donne Trotter, both of Chicago. The three candidates offer similar liberal platforms: economic redevelopment, better schools, and expanded health care. On the campaign trail, the rhetoric has revolved largely around the candidates' vision, fueling interest in a race closely watched as a possible preview of the future of Chicago's black political leadership.

With the primary a month away, the race promises to be the district's priciest ever. Rush and Obama are on track to spend at least $500,000 each, and Trotter expects to spend about $130,000.

Obama's base is Hyde Park, and he has secured the backing of several area aldermen. He also has the endorsement of the Worth Township Democratic organization, which can tap him into 1st District suburban voters. Obama also has the backing of veteran Democratic fundraisers, including former Daley aide John Schmidt and former Ald. Bill Singer, who said they see him as a rising Democratic star. Their support, along with that of African-American entrepreneurs, has helped the candidate keep pace with Rush's fundraising. Ultimately, analysts say, those dollars could prove critical, as Obama and Trotter battle it out for name recognition in the waning days. All three leading candidates have promised direct mailing and radio blitzes."
 * Opinion-laden POV essays like Ryan Lizza's New Yorker piece should not be used as the main source for a WP:BLP.
 * Democrats winning the lottery in September 2001 that allowed them to redraw the Illinois legislative district map—that had been drawn by Republicans 10 years earlier after they won the lottery back then—was important to incumbent Democratic state senators like Obama because it helped the Democrats regain control of the Illinois Senate after 10 years and because if the Republicans had again won the lottery they would have as before probably thrown several Democratic incumbent state legislators into remapped districts with another Democratic incumbent state legislator. But having his own district redrawn—to span the lakefront from the Gold Coast south through Hyde Park to South Chicago—would not significantly affect the fundraising ability of a candidate like Obama who had raised most of his campaign funds from outside his state senate district in his previous elections, was unopposed in his 2002 reelection to a third term in the state senate, and whose next campaign was a statewide campaign for the U.S. Senate.
 * Newross (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again. Incidentally, the current wording "after redistricting to span Chicago..." does not make sense: what is spanning Chicago lakefront neighborhoods? I suggest to write "after his district was redrawn with his input to span Chicago...", which is indisputably true. (Finally, note that most of the complaints against the New Yorker article are irrelevant because we are not proposing to present opinion quotes from that article as fact, we only use it for the facts it contains.) --KarlFrei (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the existing language is wrong. But your proposed change still has a problem in that if you put this information at the beginning of the sentence, it implies that the subsequent election win was because of the redistricting. The two facts must remain separate to prevent confusion, or the redistricting part should be dropped - especially since it is not particular notable or even relevant (the section is about elections). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image doesn't match Illinois Senate career
Nitpick: That's a nice image, but provided that it's tagged correctly, it's from 2005. I guess an image from around the late 1990s might fit a bit better into this article. -Nikai (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found two good images of Obama in the Illinois Senate. However, I don't know the copyright status on them. I've looked through other articles of Illinois state senators and have found that almost none of them have images, except for a few with user-taken photos, which probably means that the picture on this Illinois General Assembly webpage is copyrighted. I don't know about the picture in this article. Penthamontar (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much Palmer
This article has way too much information on Alice Palmer and her on/off candidacy. Unless someone can give a good reason for all this extra stuff (including seemingly exhaustive references) I'm going to start cutting it out. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In what respect does this article have "way too much information on Alice Palmer and her on/off candidacy"?
 * What do you regard as "all this extra stuff"?
 * What is wrong with accurate, exhaustive, contemporaneous, NPOV references?
 * What do you propose to start cutting out?
 * Newross (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would've thought it was obvious. The first section in the main body of the article is all about Palmer, and it discusses her candidacy at length. This is backed up with exhaustive referencing, including lists of backers, etc. There then follows additional information about other candidates (again exhaustively referenced) - and that's just the primary stuff. All told, there are 30-odd paragraphs about the election and all its protagonists, and only around 4 paragraphs on Obama's actual senate career (the subject of the article). I would consider reverting back to this version of the article, which is the last one that had any semblance of proportion. Indeed, that is precisely what I'm going to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to offer additional clarification. "Accurate, exhaustive, contemporaneous, NPOV references" are awesome as long as they relate to the subject of the article. The previous version (before my WP:BRD edit) included an enormous amount of information that was, at best, only tangentially-related to Obama's Illinois Senate career. Mostly, it wasn't related at all. Lots of the stuff I have removed could go in the Alice Palmer BLP, but care must be given not to burden that with undue weight concerns as has happened here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Illinois Senate elections cycle
Currently, the article addresses the issue of the 2-4-4 year state senate election cycle in only the section about the race against Bobby Rush in 2000. Perhaps the "State elections" section should have some wording about this topic. Thoughts? Penthamontar (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

New Party
Does article mention Obama's (admitted "informal-") affiliation?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There aren't any reliable sources which indicate he was, so no. That would be a violation of WP:BLP. Also, Wikipedia isn't a mirror for whatever opinion piece Drudge is linking to today. Drudge has that covered just fine. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * indeed. please don't add New Party rumors. we will delete them. see the talk pages of new party (united states) for more debate than i care to rehash here and now. blogs and websites of right wing cranks and editorials are not reliable sources. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When a researcher with a Harvard Ph.D. finds original documents and shares them, and his article is noted and/or commented on in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the LA Times, and a bunch of other newspapers, I think we have a decent foundation of credibility established, even under BLP constraints. Disliking the researcher's politics or disagreeing with his opinions doesn't change the reliability of the verifiable facts he documents (meaning "facts" in the sense of "some particular meeting minutes claim such and such"). Until the Obama campaign updates their statement from 2008, it will remain controversial, but that doesn't mean it isn't well sourced. Wookian (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can try to puff him up with peacock words all day but it doesn't change the fact that his opinion pieces are not reliable sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And similarly, all the wikilawyering in the world won't diminish the current state of "truth and verifiability" of Obama's brief 1996-1997 New Party fling. Kurtz shared the original documents he found, and his discovery was duly noted by politically diverse and mainstream outlets. Care to explain why you believe it was all an elaborate hoax? Wookian (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

New Party endorsement not reliably sourced
WP:BLP policy requires the use of high quality sources and contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I removed the following sentence added by William Jockusch (talk | contribs):"He was also endorsed by the New Party, a small, left-wing Illinois party that has since dissolved."citing three unreliable sources:
 * Nichols, John (January 2009). " How to push Obama ". The Progressive is a  prescriptive essay :"The way to influence Obama and his Administration is to speak not so much to him as to America. Get out ahead of the new President, and of his spin-drive communications team. Highlight the right appointees and the right responses to deal with the challenges that matter most. Don't just critique, but rather propose. Advance big ideas and organize on their behalf; identify allies in federal agencies, especially in Congress, and work with them to dial up the pressure for progress. Don't expect Obama or his aides to do the left thing. Indeed, take a lesson from rightwing pressure groups in their dealings with Republican administrations and recognize that it is always better to build the bandwagon than to jump on board one that is crafted with the tools of compromise."not a news article that can serve as a WP:RS for statements of fact.
 * Kurtz, Stanley (Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow) (June 7, 2012, 4:00 am EDT). " Obama’s third-party history ". National Review Online is an  opinion piece :"In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew."that complains about the mainstream press not taking its author seriously:"In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.”...I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press. When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. ...let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency." not a news article that can serve as a WP:RS for statements of fact. Note: an opinion piece cannot be used as a WP:RS for statements of fact. For example, an opinion column by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times cannot be used as a WP:RS for statements of fact.
 * Smith, Ben (June 8, 2012, 9:02 am EDT). " Obama and the New Party ". BuzzFeed.com (comments on Stanley Kurtz's National Review Online opinion piece which mentioned Ben Smith) BuzzFeed (a leading social news organization, intensely focused on delivering high-quality original reporting, insight, and viral content across a rapidly expanding array of subject areas. Our technology powers the social distribution of content, detects what is trending on the web, and connects people in realtime with the hottest content of the moment)BuzzFeed is the First True Social News Organization is a  questionable source . News articles in WP:Reliable sources are not written in the first person:"Kurtz's theory, which doesn't really match my recollection of the politics, is..." Unlike at The Indianapolis Star, The Baltic Times, The Wall Street Journal Europe, New York Daily News or Politico, there is no apparent editorial oversight for a first-person blog post by the editor-in-chief of a "social news organization" BuzzFeed.com.

William Jockusch (talk | contribs) also repeatedly readded ( 1 2 3 4 )—over objections without consensus—the sentence:"The New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his successful 1996 run for the Illinois Senate." to the New Party (United States) article using the same above three unreliable sources.

I do not question that in January 1996 Barack Obama sought the endorsement of, was endorsed by, and may have become a member of the New Party when he was running against Alice Palmer (who sought the endorsement of, was endorsed by, and may have become a member of the New Party when she ran against Jesse Jackson, Jr. in November 1995) any more than I question that in January 1996 Barack Obama sought the endorsement of, was endorsed by, and may have become a member of the IVI-IPO when he was running against Alice Palmer (who sought the endorsement of, was endorsed by, and may have become a member of the IVI-IPO when she ran against Jesse Jackson, Jr. in November 1995).

It is simply that the New Party endorsement of Barack Obama is not currently reliably sourced, unlike the IVI-IPO endorsement of Barack Obama, which is sourced by contemporaneous WP:RS news articles: Newross (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Newross (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . (November 8, 1995). " IVI-IPO endorses Palmer for 2nd District seat ". Hyde Park Herald, p. 3
 * Knapp, Kevin (January 17, 1996). Primary ballot gets face-lift from board ". Hyde Park Herald, p. 1
 * Knapp, Kevin {January 31, 1996). " Local independent voters still divided ". Hyde Park Herald, p. 1
 * Mendelson, Saul; Friedberg-Dobry, Louise (February 7, 1996). " Letters to the editor: Independents defend their pre-election work ". Hyde Park Herald, p. 4


 * Even fightthesmears.com has stated that the New Party endorsed Obama. Therefore, this is reliably sourced.  William Jockusch (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "News articles in WP:Reliable sources are not written in the first person" -- Not saying you're wrong, Newross, but can you or somebody direct me to a citation of the Wikipedia guidelines that make this statement? Thanks. Wookian (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not true that opinion pieces can never be considered reliable sources for statements of fact; the "Reliable sources" link Newross gave simply says that they usually don't meet that criteria. But in this case, it was obvious to the opinion writers that it was a safe statement to make, because the 2008 Obama campaign publicly claimed his past New Party endorsement. I see no reasonable objection here, merely wiki-lawyering. (Am I wrong?) Given that Obama's campaign was openly admitting what was arguably politically unfavorable info (therefore credible), isn't it beyond reasonable doubt that we have a reliable communication chain consisting of Obama's campaign, to various writers, to Wikipedia? Where is a break possible in that chain? I don't see it. Wookian (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: fightthesmears.com. All I can find are unreliably sourced "screen shots" of (breitbart.com, theblaze.com) and quotes from (wnd.com) a 2008 Obama campaign fightthesmears.com webpage "The Truth About Barack Obama and the New Party" which apparently no longer exists and cannot be found on web.archive.org. Newross (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a working web.archive.org link. Wookian (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the web.archive.org link. The fightthesmears.com webpage attacking Stanley Kurtz does not appear to be WP:NPOV or WP:RS. Newross (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the sentence:"Obama was endorsed by the New Party." to the chronologically appropriate middle of the second paragraph of the "Nominating petition challenges" section of the Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama article, citing: not citing the contentious Stanley Kurtz opinion piece or the BuzzFeed.com questionable source. It is too trivial for this article (Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama), which does not mention Obama's endorsement by the IVI-IPO either. I re-added the single sentence paragraph:"The New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his successful 1996 run for the Illinois Senate." to the "Influence" section of the New Party (United States) article, citing: not citing the contentious Stanley Kurtz opinion piece or the BuzzFeed.com questionable source. Newross (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Newross (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * New Party (March 1996). " March update ". Brooklyn, N.Y.: New Party
 * Nichols, John (January 2009). " How to push Obama ". The Progressive 73 (1): 20–23
 * New Party (March 1996). " March update ". Brooklyn, N.Y.: New Party
 * Nichols, John (January 2009). " How to push Obama ". The Progressive 73 (1): 20–23


 * Thanks -- but when I do a search on "New Party" in this article, it comes up empty. I will add that I don't think the Kurtz RS/not question has been resolved.  But this much ought to be non-controversial. William Jockusch (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * About the "Too trivial" argument. Obviously many Obama critics don't think it is "too trivial", and the National Review chose to give it considerable space.  Hannity gave it high billing one evening.  It has also made Fox Business with Lou Dobbs, the National Review, the LA Times, the Washington Examiner, and a Washington Post blog.  If you don't follow conservative media, I can see where you might think it is too trivial.  But it has gained considerable attention within that sphere.  Furthermore, keep in mind that this is a subsidiary article, not the main Obama article.  For a useful comparison, the Fox News Controversies article opens with the following bombshell: Former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has referred to Fox News as a "right-wing propaganda machine". The point is that a sub-article such as this one has room for such things.William Jockusch (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A sentence noting that Obama was endorsed by a small (now defunct) political party—which (unlike his endorsement by the IVI-IPO) was not mentioned in any contemporaneous news article—in a Democratic primary election in which he was unopposed on the ballot, was added to the "First state Senate election, 1996" section of the Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama article. The "First state Senate election, 1996" section of that article is four and a half times longer and more detailed than the "First state Senate election, 1996" section of this article. Inclusion of trivia such as Obama's endorsement by the New Party in this article would be undue weight and violate WP:NPOV policy. This article, about Obama's eight-year career in the Illinois Senate, already devotes more than enough space (over a third of the article) to his first state Senate election in 1996. Transient conservative opinion blather by Lou Dobbs, Stanley Kurtz, Sean Hannity, and the Washington Examiner may be criteria for inclusion of material in articles on Conservapedia, but it is not for Wikipedia biographies of living persons. Newross (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Newross writes: "Transient conservative opinion blather" Really? You should at least pretend to maintain an NPOV yourself. I notice that it seems to be assumed around here that Stanley Kurtz is the devil and what he writes is untrustworthy. Can you give a concise explanation as to why the verifiable facts he has researched and shared are untrustworthy? The Washington Post (among other major news sources) appears to have a higher opinion of this Harvard Ph.D. and his research than you have. Do you have any reason for hating him and his work, besides his conservatism (you've made quite plain your feelings on that score)? Wookian (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Newross didn't intend any compromise of NPOV when he wrote that. This is a continual problem for conservatives on Wikipedia -- a lot of the editors here genuinely believe that conservative sources are in general not reliable, especially when compared with liberal sources.  How one solves a problem like that I don't know, but I will say I am convinced that it represents an honest belief on their part, not an attempt at pushing.William Jockusch (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether one considers Kurtz to be infallible or not isn't the issue. WP:RS itself isn't even the central issue here. It's the fact that, even if true, this isn't in any way noteworthy. There is a huge difference between discussing Obama in an article about the New Party and discussing the New Party in an article about Obama. It would be ridiculously undue weight to mention it here, and the only reason to do so would seem to be to bolster certain fringe theories that Obama was an active "member" of the party. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember, this is a sub-article. If this were the main Obama article, I would agree with you.  But the whole purpose of a sub-article is a place for stuff that is not sufficiently notable for the main article, but is sufficiently notable for a sub-article.  I believe this meets that standard, as it has reached prominent outlets including the LA Times, the National Review, and Lou Dobbs.  William Jockusch (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't a different standard for daughter articles in BLP's. If it wouldn't be okay there, it doesn't belong here. Daughter articles are simply for breaking up page size. What you are describing, a parallel article with lower standards of notability, is a content fork, which this article is not.  As for NP, why on earth would they be the one group whose endorsement of Obama we describe in this article? There are probably a thousand more notable groups and individuals who endorsed him that we don't mention, so why that one? There isn't anything at all notable about the New Party in this context and if not for Kurtz' anti-Obama crusade you wouldn't even have ever heard of them. I can think of no reason to add it here unless one was trying to hint at the fringe theory that he was an active member of the party, which of course, would be inappropriate. And you still seem to be misrepresenting the sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this really needed
I realize that Obama is the lord and god of liberalpedia but does he really need a whole article for the few days he served as senator between golf outings?????? What next, a whole article on the size of his nose and one on what his favorite color is????? SAD, REALLY SAD.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OH NO, now I'll get banned from Liberalpedia because I questioned their Messiah.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that people write articles about what they're interested in. If you want to write an article about a conservative president's past career in a state legislature, nobody's stopping you from doing so (in a reasonable and encyclopedic tone of writing). I happen to agree that there is a problem in some areas of Wikipedia with liberal bias and POV-based editing, but writing a rant like this doesn't accomplish anything. Anyway, regardless, I disagree with your implicit suggestion that this article should be deleted. Wookian (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907154055/http://obama.senate.gov:80/ to http://obama.senate.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608225931/http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html to http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081102011032/http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.article to http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.article
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422141322/http://ddd-hph.dlconsulting.com/cgi-bin/newshph?a=d&cl=search&d=HPH19950705.2.2 to http://ddd-hph.dlconsulting.com/cgi-bin/newshph?a=d&cl=search&d=HPH19950705.2.2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422141343/http://ddd-hph.dlconsulting.com/cgi-bin/newshph?a=d&cl=search&d=HPH19951004.2.16 to http://ddd-hph.dlconsulting.com/cgi-bin/newshph?a=d&cl=search&d=HPH19951004.2.16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216014957/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0705030101may03%2C1%2C7439904.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0705030101may03,1,7439904.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)