Talk:The Audacity of Hope

New Book Content Portion Needed
I recently wrote a summary for Donald Trump's Great Again Wikipedia page. I am now reading The Audacity of Hope and will be updating this page too. You can check out my summary there. I try to remain unbiased and objective. Please feel free to join me. The current content section of this page is too short and uninformative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenbandow (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Summary
Is this description for real? It reads like a breathless fan wrote it. What student of American history would take seriously any claim of some halcyon era "when Congress was characterized by collegiality and mutual respect"? I haven't read the book, so I don't feel like I am the person to rewrite it, but it definitely needs a description that doesn't read like a publisher's promo. In fact, I'd love to read a serious summary of it--what are these brilliant insights Obama has to share? ralian 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was copied from Wikisummaries.  Bearly 541  04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a better summary is definately needed. Joey Roe  13:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read the book, and Obama doesn't necessarily lay out his stance on issues as much as he imparts his belief that Democrats and Republicans should work together to bring about real change for the country. He believes that disagreements between the two parties are too often characterized by both sides attempting to denigrate the other in order to further there own agenda. Obama believes that the parties should come together and through compromises and mutual respect develop policies that will best represent what the American people want. Shaun004 04:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Obama's actual positions on issues, from Iraq to the interpretation of the Constitution, do not leave much room for bipartisanship or compromise. I read "The Audacity of Hope" and I find it mostly uninspiring and polarizing. 161.24.19.82 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not surprising that he has his interpretation of the Constitution, he was a professor of Constitutional law after all. Though, if you could set aside your personal view about his book and write from a generally NPOV, I think your contribution to this article could be helpful.  The original author of much of the material didn't seem capable of that, perhaps someone who isn't star struck could bring some perspective to the issues he discusses. FantajiFan (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the line in the summary, "The book represents Obama's personal manifesto for his 2008 campaign for the Presidency" is in error. Manifesto, "a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature," vaguely fits the book, but it certainly is not so strongly connected to his campaign for the presidency. He doesn't mention running or any ambition to run for president in the book - its just a general overview of some of his thoughts and ideas. And besides, he didn't announce that he was running until Feb 10 2007. I'm going to delete it tomorrow unless someone thinks I shouldn't. -Sam Newhouse, snewhouse9@gmail.com, 00:13, 22 September 2008


 * I replaced the line with: "In the book, Obama expounds on many of the subjects that have become part of his 2008 campaign for the Presidency" to maintain the link and general intention without the incorrectness. --Snewhouse9@gmail.com 13:35 29 Sept 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.95.14.210 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interview not quote for quote. I worked for baracks campaign in Iowa in 2007 and out of all the delegates his campaign ran the most thoroughly. I am still waiting for a check btw. But if things run that smoothly in the most chaos. Then I'm sure he could run McDonald's the same way! Vvs30pt (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

For Kyle
That poem is for me.

Kyle, 2/18/08 129.93.145.164 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And not relevant, out it goes. Kellwie (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of racism
There is a user who is consistently editing the page, appending the term "racist" in front of the reference to Wright. As this appears out of context, I have removed this term and replaced it with a reference to the fact that Wright is "now controversial". Readers can follow the link to Wright, which contains a section dealing with the controversy. I consider this equates to a NPOV treatment of the matter, which is only of peripheral importance to the subject matter. KiwiMal (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)KiwiMal

Where are the negative reviews?
The reception section has only positive reviews of the book.. Surely there was some reviewers out there that had negative opinions of the book? --Bobblehead (rants) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because obama is 100% pure awesome.--98.213.12.169 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Relatively new authors often don't get negative reviews because the publications figure there's no reason to review a book at all [that] if  they don't like, if it's not by someone well-known - if they like it they may review it, but if they would only do a negative review by a more-or-less unknown author, they figure their readers will not be interested in finding out that someone they aren't familiar with wrote a bad book.  But when a well known person writes a book, they are more than happy to publish either good or bad reviews.  So it's not uncommon to not find negative reviews of less well-known authors.  I don't know what the situation is with Obama's books specifically, but that is a generally true principle.  Tvoz | talk 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of Dreams in terms of timing, but the point may still be valid for Audacity. Tvoz | talk 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I added in a negative review by Ann Coulter, to balance it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.204.159 (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa, Tvoz, how many double negatives did you use in that paragraph :p &mdash; Nova  Dog  &mdash;  ( contribs ) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * not nearly enough. Tvoz / talk 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody edited out the Coulter review. Typical kool-aid drinker. Obama Smokes Kools (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

77.45.139.226 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)contrary to what Kauffner said, "them" clearly refers to "Arab and Pakistani Americans" aka American Muslims ==Stand with the Muslims==

"I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION". IS THIS QUOTE FROM OBAMA'S BOOK "THE AUDICITY OF HOPE" IS IT ACCURATE AND QUOTED AS WRITTEN OR HAS IT BEEN CHANGED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.196.100 (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the statement above really in Obama's book? wondering11:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.82.89 (talk)


 * Here is where is the quote comes from:


 * Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. (p. 261, Audacity of Hope)


 * As you can see for yourself, the antecedent of "them" is "immigrant communities," not "Muslims," so the quote is fake. Kauffner (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotefarming
See. Articles are not collections of quotations (WP:NOTDIR), and a section entitled "Content" should actually discuss the content, not consist of a collage of phrases.  Sandstein  07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no ban on quoting from the book. If you want to add context, feel free. This isn't a reason to delete the entire section and replace it with nothing. It's only three quotes, all on a single theme, so I don't think the "Wiki is not directory" citation is relevant. Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is your responsibility to add context. If we were to allow "only three quotes" to remain on this article, there is nothing stopping other editors from adding even more quotes from the book. I believe you are looking for Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is such a joke. I put context before, but that was deleted too. Do you have real reason for deleting the quotes? Why don't you try contributing something instead? Kauffner (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your quote farm has been removed by four different editors now. Perhaps you should take that as a hint and try to convince us why the quotes should be included. Please do not add them again without getting consensus here. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 06:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reception - repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits
Kauffner's latest repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to an Obama-related article:


 * A Reception section paragraph quoting two obscure anti-Obama op-ed columns that are  not  about Obama's book The Audacity of Hope


 * —the subject of this encyclopedia article—


 * and do  not  discuss the reception or impact of the book


 * —the subject of the Reception section of this article—


 * but instead each only mention the book once in passing:


 * Noting that in the book Obama writes that, "There will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff," Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby writes, "there will almost surely be times in Obama's administration when the United States will have to use force when others won't, to defend its principles or protect a threatened party." Other have wondered how the hopeful tone of the book has held up. "It was only last year that I bought The Audacity Of Hope by this fellow called Barack Obama. How audacious hope seemed back then!" according to commentator Mark Steyn.


 * added 3 times by Kauffner:
 * 03:19, 19 February 2009
 * 07:44, 20 February 2009
 * 14:14, 20 February 2009
 * and reverted 3 times by Newross.

Kauffner's only other contributions to Obama-related articles have been:
 * The Audacity of Hope:
 * A "Content" section comprising a personal selection by Kauffner of out-of-context quotes from The Audacity of Hope


 * added 6 times by Kauffner:
 * 04:36, 17 November 2008
 * 02:29, 24 January 2009
 * 03:45, 25 January 2009
 * 07:00, 5 February 2009
 * 01:42, 8 February 2009
 * 05:55, 8 February 2009
 * and reverted 6 times by Sandstein, Loonymonkey, Newross, and Bobblehead.


 * Dreams from My Father:
 * A WP:FRINGE theory that: Dreams from My Father was ghostwritten by former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers


 * added 9 times by Kauffner:
 * 08:34, 9 October 2008
 * 14:40, 9 October 2008
 * 16:31, 9 October 2008
 * 02:32, 10 October 2008
 * 06:57, 10 October 2008
 * 08:28, 10 October 2008
 * 02:59, 4 November 2008
 * 05:45, 2 January 2009
 * 04:33, 23 January 2009
 * and reverted 9 times by 211.30.218.190, 81.157.49.0, Josiah Rowe, Wikidemon, and Grsz11.


 * A personal selection by Kauffner of out-of-context quotes from Dreams from My Father


 * added 6 times by Kauffner:
 * 14:00, 11 October 2008
 * 01:29, 12 October 2008
 * 01:48, 31 October 2008
 * 02:05, 31 October 2008
 * 13:48, 1 November 2008
 * 01:47, 2 November 2008
 * and reverted 6 times by Loonymonkey, Josiah Rowe, and Priyanath.


 * Project Vote
 * An out-of-context quote:


 * '"I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it," said Barack Obama.


 * added 2 times by Kauffner:
 * 07:29, 10 October 2008
 * 11:32, 13 October 2008
 * and reverted 2 times by Guyzero and Rick Block.


 * Barack Obama
 * An out-of-context State legislator: 1997–2004 section sentence:


 * While serving in the state senate, Obama voted "present" 129 times out of the 4,000 votes he made as a state senator.


 * of Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 trivia


 * that has been discussed in Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13


 * and included in the South Carolina section of the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 article


 * has been inappropriately and disruptively repeatedly added 6 times by Kauffner to the WP:Summary style article Barack Obama:
 * 11:38, 6 February 2009
 * 06:17, 7 February 2009
 * 15:53, 14 February 2009
 * 02:51, 15 February 2009
 * 03:53, 16 February 2009
 * 16:42, 20 February 2009
 * and reverted 6 times by Newross, Scjessey, and Brothejr.

Please immediately cease and desist making repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to Obama-related Wikipedia articles. Newross (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC). Newross (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're complaining about edits of mine that go back four months and are mostly on other pages? Fascinating. As far as the recent stuff goes, Mark Steyn is the author of a bestselling book one of the most widely read commentator on the Internet. Jeff Jacoby has been a columnist for the Boston Globe for many years -- that's hardly an obscure position either. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was complaining about your repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to this and other Obama-related Wikipedia articles. I did not mean Jeff Jacoby and Mark Steyn, two winners of the Fox News Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, were obscure. I meant the two op-ed columns you cited were obscure—not notable amongst scores of anti-Obama op-ed columns by Jacoby and Steyn—and more to the point, were not about Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. Newross (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is better suited for the Administrators Noticeboard to solicit an outside opinion than an unmonitored talk page.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reception
Reverting this edit because it seems pointless to lead the "reception" section with a pot-shot from a politically off-center critic that the book's title is "silly and callow" and snarky mock-speculation as to Obama's motives for choosing it. The observation by another that Obama makes reference to the need for unilateral military action by America is interesting but lacks context, and it is not clear why this one comment in the book would deserve that much weight. In general, critical commentary about a book is not self-sourcing. Thousands of commentators, book reviewers, etc., have commented on this book. Why should we choose one rather than another? To establish that one particular opinion is worth repeating we would have to agree that it represents a significant and relevant opinion that the reader should understand in order to be informed of the reception the book received. The same comment goes for some of the other material in the "reception" section, which should also be trimmed unless there is consensus for including it. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if that doesn't work, you always make up another list of my diffs going back ten years and post it AN/I. Kauffner (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghost-written book
Has anyone investigated claims that Audacity of Hope, as well as other Obama books, was ghost-written by William Ayers?

&mdash;Enquiring Minds Want to Know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.16.216.5 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable source for that, and it is generally regarded as an implausible WP:FRINGE theory. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sales as Hardcover
Given the sales success of the Palin autobiography, it would be interesting if this article set forth the sales of the book? We know that book reached #1 on the best seller chart, but we cannot readily compare the sales success of Obama's book to that of other nonfiction works released the same year, or that of other similar works during this era.

How is the dog eating content not in this article?
Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for notable events. The whole dog-eating incident has turned out to be very notable. Hell, Romney's dog Seamus even has his own Wikipedia page for God's sake. Yet to read this article, there isn't even a mention of the dog eating quote from the book and the subsequent reaction that took place in 2012. Very bizarre. I tried adding it referenced but of course someone erased it right away. I move to reinstate this content as it is very notable and it isn't Wikipedia's job to "protect Obama" or whatever is going on here. JettaMann (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, please don't accuse editors here of having ulterior motives, that's not going to win anyone over. The material you proposed to add was neither neutral, nor reliably sourced.  The real, encyclopedic event, is not that Obama ate dog meat as a child in Indonesia - that certainly wasn't considered noteworthy on its own before candidate Romney's defenders got hold of it, and their using as a campaign smear now doesn't make the incident itself any more significant.  Rather, if there is anything here at all, the encyclopedic statement is that Romney supporters took up this passage from the book a different book - thanks Loonymonkey by way of disparaging Obama while deflecting an old incident that's been plaguing Romney for some time, after an opinion writer promoted the story.  That's not exactly earth shaking news.  If it becomes a truly significant issue, which is very hard to judge right now, it could be worth a brief mention.  In the meanwhile, if we filled the encyclopedia with every peripheral campaign matter of the day that hits the blogosphere, or every mention of someone eating dog meat, we'd have an undue amount of such material.  Everything about Obama, including many things from this book, has been raised in the last two presidential campaigns.  We try to take the long, encyclopedic view of things instead of giving a false gravitas to the daily output of bloggers and political partisans. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then how does that explain the material with Romney's dog being given such prominence on Wikipedia? Everything you just stated about the Obama dog eating incident should apply equally to the Romney incident, should it not? JettaMann (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can make that argument over there. Wikipedia has a million or two articles, and each with its own editors who try to keep their particular article under control.  Our opinion doesn't really count over there, but it seems that an article or article section devoted entirely to Romney's car-dog incident would also be political, peripheral, and thereby unsuitable for articles relating to Romney.  Seems like a non-issue to me for Romney or Obama, but might be a factoid for an article about the mechanics of the 2012 election.  Not to ignore the poor dogs involved in each case... - Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * More to the point, JettaMann, there's not much to respond to here, given that you're talking about the wrong book. I believe you're referring to Obama's other book, Dreams from My Father, not this one.  At that article, this silliness was rejected by multiple editors for running afoul of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE (for reasons explained by Wikidemon above).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Horatian background
While Obama and the preceding sermon-writers no doubt saw G. F. Watts's painting as symbolising a Christian virtue, the Victorian painter may have been aware also of Horace's phrase sapere aude which has influenced pagan and later secular writers for two millennia. NRPanikker (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)