Talk:Barack Obama

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)

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 The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated.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)

The Question of Barack Obama's Place of Birth 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing this as disruptive, and highly unlikely to result in a change to the article. Can we please, finally, keep the discussions here about improvements to the article, not conspiracy theories? --GoodDamon 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times.

Here's the link:

[4]

also here is one for the Philadelphia Times Herald :

[5]

Now do you guys believe me when I say that Obama's not natural-born (born in the US) and cannot run for the Presidency? Angie Y. (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Quite simply, if there was any truth to this, it would have come out to the media with all the details that attempt to prove his citizenship long ago. Besides, I can file a lawsuit claiming that you stole everything I own in an attempt to furnish your home on Mars. That doesn't mean you actually did it, it just means that I've filed the lawsuit. If someone can provide the supposed proof of this allegation to the media and the media outlets who publish it are deemed reputable sources, I'll take a look. The two article you link to provide nothing but talk of the lawsuit and the hearsay that they've been presented. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Angie Y, no of course not. Do you realize the exact same thing happened to McCain, that someone tried to sue asserting that since McCain was born in a Naval base outside of the U.S. that he isn't eligible? First of all the lawsuit is patently bogus. The man in question doesn't have standing to challenge Obama's citizenship. He wouldn't be directly harmed by Obama not being a natural-born citizen. He isn't a parties whose protected rights or interests would be violated. The only person who could file suit against Obama for not being a naturally born U.S. citizen is McCain, and he is most certainly not crazy enough to take that kind of a gamble. So this is all a moot point. The only person who can raise the challenge wouldn't dare do it, and outside of the context of this election what does it remotely matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.97.46 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article says, "Several fact-checking groups, such as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com have determined that the certification posted on Mr. Obama's Web site is authentic." If authentic, the birth certificate establishes eligibility. Nothing else needs to be said about it.--Appraiser (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also from the WT article:

He has filed suits for clients against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, claiming they knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before they happened.

I would dare say that you won't be able to use this lawsuit to include such an assertion on their respective pages either. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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|contribs)} 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuation of above Ayers discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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:

• Palin attacks Obama twice on Saturday (10/4) for "palling around with terrorists" [6]
• She repeats the same phrase on Sunday (10/5) in California. [7]
• 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.") [8]
• It's a subject brought up today on the Sunday talk shows. [9] ""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.

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.

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 [10]
• News: Obama Calls Attacks on Him ‘Out of Touch’ [11]
• News analysis column: Is Era of Dominance Over for Conservatives? [12]
• Op-Ed column by William Kristol: The Wright Stuff [13]
• "Caucus" blog post: The Early Word: Palin Relishes Attack Dog Role [14]
• "Caucus" blog post: Guilt-by-Association Response [15] -- 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ayers consensus discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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:

• 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.

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. --GoodDamon 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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. --GoodDamon 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 Atlantic's 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. --GoodDamon 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. --GoodDamon 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. --GoodDamon 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. --GoodDamon 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. --GoodDamon 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. --GoodDamon 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. --GoodDamon 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good job

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See also

I recently added a "See also" pointer to the Obama–Ayers controversy, which has been attracting considerable attention lately, notably at the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Reverted by Loonymonkey, with the comment "It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with this biography. There is already a category link to all Obama sub-articles, btw. Why highlight this one?"

Obama's relationship to Ayers is relevant because it is part of Obama's work experience, which is (or should be) part of his biography. Why bury it two layers down in a category, where almost no reader from the general public is going to find it? In fact, a number of other Obama-related articles should also be put into the "See also", so that ordinary readers can easily find them.

Other opinions? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

At the very least we should have a "See also" link to one of the controversies that constitutes one of the most prominent criticisms of Obama -- at least the most prominent one that is not mentioned in the prose of the article. Criticism of Obama and a controversy involving Obama is of course something "to do with his biography". Loonymonkey's explanation is absolutely inadequate. Other prominent articles about Obama are included in the Obama box at the bottom of the page or are linked in other ways. I don't know of any legitimate reason not to have a "See also" section link -- unless we impliment what I propose above: a short passage in the Campaign section. -- Noroton (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any other things to See Also makes it a convenient loophole to bypass lack of consensus to insert mention of the controversy into the article. It even advertises the link. People read the intro and the See Also section. Having a section devoted to a link to the controversy article is ridiculous. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" is linked in the primary article, when it was discussed more than one out-of-the-blue article. Grsz^X 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that campaign-related events and controversies aren't being chronicled in the main campaign article. It would seem that the major events that followed the DNC, including the return of this particular controversy, should appear there. Obviously, a smear tactic by a campaign competitor has no place in this BLP, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be chronicled in the appropriate place. Perhaps even the timeline (or should that be time horizon?) article? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we put a "see also" for this? It's notable and relevent.LedRush (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable how? Of all the things that have happened in hi life, how is this more relevant than others? If Obama was not running for office it would never have came up. It did come up in the campaign, and that's where the issue is addressed. Grsz^X 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not an appropriate "see also" link. I believe this has been discussed before, but I would apply the same standard as with a mention in the text (and if it were mentioned in the text it would be linked there, so a "see also" would be redundant). The text material fails on weight/relevancy grounds with some NPOV and WP:COATRACK implications, and has never gained consensus, so a wikilink fails too.Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is borderline recentism. There is nothing new in the Ayers controversy, the only reason it has been making headlines in the past few days is because of the NYT article and Sarah Palin accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists". But in the long run, this is an article about his biography, and as the NYT article stated, "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers". Simply because it has been the subject of recent headlines does not mean that it should be added to an article about his biography. We can add it to the campaign article instead. Khoikhoi 06:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing new in the Ayers controversy, the only reason it has been making headlines in the past few days Massive coverage of a topic, in and of itself, makes the topic worthy of mention in the article, although, as I say above, I'd prefer to see it in a sentence n the "Campaign" section. And this isn't the case: Simply because it has been the subject of recent headlines -- it's been the subject of headlines since April, it's been the subject of television advertisements now going on, it's been the subject of prominent statements by the two most prominent Obama rivals: Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It's been the subject of hundreds of news accounts and thousands of blog posts. The criticism of some is that Obama might be a radical, which I think is silly, but which some people who don't know much about Obama might find plausible. Another criticism is that it says something about his judgment (who he finds tolerable to associate with), which is the subject of one of the six New York Times pieces today about the controversy. [16]

This Ayers stuff is simply campaign-related smear tactics. Not BLP-worthy at all, and never has been. This has gone beyond basic pointy behavior into the realm of blatant disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Obama has nothing more to do with Ayers? don't bother with it here. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

re: first african-american president candidate

Maybe Warren G. Harding should also be mentioned.[17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.147.133 (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, he was like 1/16 black or something.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama is actually half-African American, half-Cacutian. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While I am no expert on what defines a person's race, Obama promotes his AA heritage which makes it an easy call. I don't believe Harding brought up his mixed race background during his campaign. Aside from these differences in approach, "race" can have broad or narrow definitions depending on who's talking and why.198.23.5.11 (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whats in a name?

Hello everyone! I am curious to know how appropriate would it be to place the meaning of Obama's name here. Any comments? I know I was curious enough to search for it and found it on his website. Other's may be interested to know the meanings too. I would add it but am unsure exactly where to place it at on the page. Below is what his website says of the possible meanings of his name. If this is already present on the page and I am simply missing it please point that out to me. hehe. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) By Adoyo - Aug 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm EDT Also listed in: 9 groups

Tags: barack, hussein, meaning, Name, Obama For those who wonder about the real significance of Senator Barack Obama's name:

Barack:

baraka: blessing (Kiswahili) baraka: also berakhah , in Judaism, a blessing usually recited during a ceremony baruch: Also related to "berakhah" or bracha (Hebrew: berakhot), which is a blessing. baraka: also barakah, in Islam and Arab-influenced languages, meaning spiritual wisdom and blessing transmitted from God "Baraka", a rarely used French slang term for luck, derived from the Arabic word Baraka, aka Nigella sativa , a spice with purported health benefits

Hussein: an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "beautiful" or "handsome".

Obama: a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya (Nyanza Provice) which may derive from "obam," which conotes "bending" or "leaning". also a surname in Japan and Equatorial Guinea

All told, Senator Obama seems to be a living embodiment of the name his parents gave him: he has lived a blessed life and seeks to share his blessing; he is beautiful to behold and to listen to - people are drawn to him and inspired when they hear him speak and consider his ideas; and in public life he is flexible and dedicated to leaning where necessary to help uplift others.

I examined my own name and found that it accurately indicates some of my innate tendancies. Curiously enough, both my Luo name and my English name mean the same thing: thoroughness, purification and wonder/curiosity (among other things...) - who'd have thunk? How about you? Do you embody your name's meaning?

Sources: Wikipedia (baraka, baruch, hussein, obama)

Other sources: My mother; multicultural childhood & education including Luo and Kiswahili.

While interesting, I doubt the biographical importance of the various meanings of Obama's name. Besides, it would be original research. --GoodDamon 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama/Acorn

Why is it that there is no information about the Obama/Acorn connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiemae (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is. Obama's work for Project Vote is described in the article. That article describes more about that organization and its relationship with ACORN. However, there is little reliable information on exactly what the relationship is. Attempts to tie Obama to the alleged fraud that took place in one or both organizations seem to be limited to partisan/blog/editorial sources, so there is nothing to go on in this article and no indication of any significance to that. There may be further information in the talk archives of the various pages. Wikidemon (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Obama campaign official position on ACORN and Obama with acredited sources Boris Badinov44 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See Also (2)

I know that this page is a veritable hot-bed of partisans and edit warriors, and that even well-meaning forays into the discussions can be tiresome, but I am wondering why we can't have a "See Also" section that links to a bunck of Obama related articles. Someone made the suggestion on the now-closed thread which suggested having a see also for the Ayers controversy. If this has been answered before...sorry.LedRush (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend that such addititons to this article & the articles John McCain, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin be put on hold until after the prez election. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you afraid of fighting over what "See also"s we'll get, or by supporting biases by putting up a See Also that doesn't belong, or something else?LedRush (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of my question: Are you worried that people will fight over what subjects get their own "See Also" links or are you afraid that the mere use of "See Also" links will support certain biases (for example: See Also: Pedophilia)? If you're still unclear, perhaps a better question is "Why is it better to wait to include "See also" links until after the election?"LedRush (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The latter, by IPs. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"See also" sections are often a cop-out, albeit necessary for less well developed articles. They're not bad to have for a short article or a stub, but in a featured article like this one, I believe it's better to include anything worth linking to within the flow of the prose... or possibly within subject area templates. In some cases, a WP:SUMMARY style section has a {main|...} tag to link to a longer discussion of the related topic; in other cases a Wikilink is a good way to get from a mentioned concept to a dedicated article. A "See also" falls short of those things: it just says "we think this has something to do with the topic, but we are not sure what (or can't be bothered to make the connection more explicit)". In the case of this specific article, I would further fear that a See Also would become a coatrack for throwing in articles that are not of sufficient relevant to discuss in the main text, but that some (partisan) editor feels "must be known". LotLE×talk 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If it werethey are worth a "see also" it would bethey are worth a description in the text, which would include a wikilink and obviate the need for a "see also" link. The reason it is not a other matters are not linked as "see also" is the same reason it is they are not mentioned in the text. It is of no significant They are not of sufficient weight or relevance to Obama's biography or there is some other reason that the material is not appropriate to the biography. With the Ayers political criticism in particular there is also a bias (POV) in selectively choosing controversies to link to people's biographies. There are dozens to hundreds of articles that mention Obama and we do not have room (and it would be unencyclopedic) to list them all. If need be you can use the software feature that does that. Choosing out of them a minor political attack that happens to be today's big talking point among Obama's opponents does introduce a non-neutral slant. Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In a more general sense there are far more pages that mention Obama than reasonable links we could include. Any such link would have to be chosen for its relevance. This is a featured article, so any relevant subject should be given its due weight in the article text rather than listed in a "see also." The only possible exception would be parallel examples of things that are useful to list here for navigational purposes to direct editors to a subject they may also be interested in if they are interested in this one. Things in the nature of [[list of African-American politicians]] - I know that isn't a great example but that's the best I can come up with. Also, note that we have templates that provide links to families of related articles.Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)While I think your (Lulu)last statement may be true, I've never viewed a "See Also" as a cop-out for less developed articles...quite the opposite. I've always seen them as a way to keep articles that have way too much information for one article brief enough to get all the highlights, but still retain the ability to add more color and information about a notable topic somewhere else.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the scope of your comment, LedRush. To clarify mine: I think a somewhat different standard or judgment applies to a short article than to a long and developed one like this. Also the fact this article is summary style makes it a bit different. In something short (but still worth having), it may be difficult to describe the association between "Foo" and "Bar" without adding undue weight. If I write a two paragraph description of, e.g. a moderately obscure painter whose style is similar to another moderately obscure contemporary artist, I don't necessarily want to say "Foo paints in similar style to Bar" in the main prose, but still want to let readers jump to something else they are likely to want to know about. See Also works about right for that. However, by the time the article on Painter Foo expands enough to discuss a whole range of influences and contemporaries, the See Also should drop away as we have the opportunity to mention the specific nature of each connection in the main text (and wikilink appropriately). Obviously, I think this article is in this latter "sophisticated" stage. LotLE×talk 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems at least 3 people strongly feel that See Also links are bad here. Hopefully we can keep the discussion open a little to see if anyone disagrees, though I suspect that the above comments will be the consensus.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with adding a 'See Also' section after the US prez election is held. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If a "See also" would be valuable then, it would be valuable now. Support adding one. This is a simple matter of basic user-friendliness. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I support adding a "See Also" section here. It appears to be the only way to get any mention of the Obama-Ayers controversy. This controversy is notable enough to have over 1,000 Nexis news hits. It is a significant factor in the campaign, and the campaign is the only thing that makes Obama more notable than any other freshman senator. If you are using WP:SS to exclude even one sentence about Obama and Ayers, then WP:SS requires a link to the article here. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not support adding a "See Also" section, for many of the reasons stated above. It's used primarily to avoid the work of blending in additional prose, and to add negligibly related content (see comment above mine). If there is additional prose to be added, why not go through the trouble of adding it well? In any event, this article just went through -- and passed -- another featured article review, so I'd be very hesitant to fix what isn't broken. --GoodDamon 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Template problem

The vandalism template is ugly, and not used on the McCain article. Vandals and attackers in essence win out when an article puts up a vandal template, because it is itself a defacement of the article. I suggest keeping an equanimity between the two articles and using the minimal form here - using just the icon in the upper right. Thanks -Zahd (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama Mixed Not African Amercian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Obama is not African American but Mixed. He is 1/2 African and 1/2 white making him The First Mixed not the First African American. Calling him African American, (a term I have problem with anyway I call myself Black and take the African American term at offence (I have not been to African, and am fully American, Black American or Black does it for me), only insinuates that Blacks are a mongrol race whose purpose is to purify other races by taking out "half-breads" and putting them into any Non-White area. Tiger Woods is of similar upbringing and lists himself as such (and the debate should not have to be repeated). Obama should be listed as he is, because citing him as African American is incorrect and leaves out his White upbring (he only saw his African Father once, and he did not like him).

72.152.155.19 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Bradleat

Please read the FAQ. Thanks Brothejr (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

double standard in favor of his white ancestry

This article list Obama as a member of every white ethnic group it possibly can yet the cherokee ancestry of his mother is unmentioned. Just because Obama has one French ancestor doesn't mean we have to mention it. It's a double standard YVNP (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speaking of the FAQ...

I made some strictly non-controversial edits to it, if anyone cares to check out the differences. --GoodDamon 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Berg v Obama and Wikipedia

Just to let you guys know, I had a look at Berg's Sep 29 filing and the filing uses Wikipedia as a source for his dispute, and uses two sources from Wiki as a reason for Obama's birthplace to be questionable *chuckles*. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/

I hope the sources were good!user:Ticklemygrits (Sorry the bloody tilde key isn't working) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

POV in article

I was curious why there is no mention about the following individuals in Obama's life? Their articles all mention Obama, and...ummm...McCain has the "Keating Five" in his article...

1) Bill Ayers -- Helped start Obama's political career 2) Tony Rezko -- Donated Major funds to his election for senate. 3) Jeremiah Wright -- His pastor for 20+ years, who preformed their marriage, etc.

There is actually a quite exhaustive list I've put together of all very note worthy people who are associated with Obama. Anyone mind if I add it to the "family" section? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Without going into details if you read the archive the answer would be a clear yes they would. --76.66.183.19 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all I'm saying is at least adding Jeremiah Wright into the article. He was his pastor for over 20 years! He married him and his wife, baptized their children, etc. I will even post reliable, unbiased sources for all of it. I just want to add it into his bio because it's part of his religious life, therefore SHOULD be included into his bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright is already in this article. --guyzero | talk 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::The family section? How are these people related to Obamam? GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One can not speak to what role a pastor plays in another persons life. It could be all or none and no one knows that except Obama. Under the above logic, I will be entitled to include a section about how Sarah Palin believes in witchcraft because she was willfully prayed over by Rev Muthee to fight against witchcraft. That she seeks to rid the world of the "Israelites" because the good Reverend specifically asked Jesus to empower her to do so and she did not speak out against him. get the point? speaking of someones faith beyond mentioning their church attendance is a non-fact and has no place in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, any intonation or inference that anyone shares any or every view espoused by their Preacher (ie "it's part of his religious life") is not defensible and has no place here. BeBopnJazz (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One can speak to the role that an individual plays in another persons life if it produces a significant and notable controversy. That is an easy entry and not a violation of WP:POV. Some conspiracy argument regarding Gov. Palin's supposed statements or religous beliefs are not objectively sourced and taken out of context in your argument. Wikiport (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. There isn't a "See also" section in this article, and there isn't a separate controversies section. --GoodDamon 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Striking, as I was apparently responding to an accidental edit. --GoodDamon 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad - I hadn't refreshed my browser. thanks. BeBopnJazz (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to all of us. --GoodDamon 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops...

In the article summary, I accidentally stated "small ass on". I ment to say "small add on". My sincere apologies for that typo -_-. Javascap (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The keys are right next to each other. It's perfectly understandable. And made me laugh a little. --GoodDamon 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't idiomatic usage favor tight instead of small?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked, Just, shocked. Tvoz/talk 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

So, would it be POV to list in Obama's bio that Bill Ayers and Obama:

1) Started Obama's political career at Bill's house 2) Worked on two seperate organization boards for 7 years together 3) distributed grant money to Rev. Wright's church 4) Helped setup the largest push for "alternative" education in Chicago history

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2008/10/cnn_discovers_the_ayersobama_h.html

I'm just thinking that...umm...it might be a notable point in the life of Barack Obama. I completely understand if most of you consider it POV, especially since Wikipedia editors as a whole are generally thought of as having a liberal slant, but it's well sourced material (CNN among them). 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if Obama has announced a place for Ayers in his (Obama's) prospective Administration. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Obama wrote something in Ayer's book too as well as speaking together on several occasions not related to their board work. I personally think it is important to include the fact that the $110 million dollars they spent on education didn't improve it in the slightest. Apparently, the results of Barack's only executive experience are "disruptive" though since they were reverted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been hashed out a thousand several times already. Please see the recently closed discussions above, particularly the one closed just last night. Oh, and uncorrelated.com isn't a reliable source. --GoodDamon 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an existing mention of Obama's service on the board of the Woods Fund. I don't see why we can't add five words to that mention: "... with 1970s radical William Ayers." Five words plus a link. That's all. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Please replace broken record, stylus, whole record player. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack smoking and contract with DSA - why were the edits reverted?

Poster's question answered, discussion growing uncivil, further discussion unproductive and unlikely to lead to viable proposal for improving article - Wikidemon (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it is Barack's only executive experience, I think it is very relevant, especially for someone running for an executive position, for the results of his chairmanship to be included. The source was very good - it was Barack's own organization that admitted the $110 million dollars they spent did not improve education. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And that his only executive experience was shared with William Ayers during the Annenberg Challenge. This is, indeed, a part of his life. It's about time people start taking note... 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a case of WP: OWN by certain editors. There is a blurb included about him quiting smoking, but when I correct the record, with a good source, using the phrasing of that source - it is summarily deleted. Is the perception of him quiting smoking more important than the reality that he has been "bumming" cigs off people?

Why was his contract with the DSA deleted? Isn't it important to know which organizations he has pledged to support? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the person who reverted Thegoodlocust's edits, information about his support by the DSA and its affiliate, the New Party, was "unhelpful." Unhelpful to efforts to elect BO, perhaps.

Well I would revert it myself, but I don't want to be accused of engaging in an edit war - especially since someone else would likely revert my "disruptive" edits. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! The addition by TheGoodLocust is even more craptastic than I would have guessed. I should have known! There is nothing in the given sources that even slightly suggests that Obama pledged alignment with DSA/New Party. What it says is that Obama (along with a bunch of other local politicians in 1996 or so) had a conversation with DSA members that the DSA journal thought worth reporting. Ever more of this same style of nonsense, invented whole cloth (maybe first heard on some right-wing blog or AM talk radio, who knows). LotLE×talk 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil. I'll try to spell it out for you using quotes from my sources. First, in Sept-Oct of 1995 it states, "Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP." It also mentions Barack a bit at this point. Next, in July-August of 1996 it states:

"Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District."

What part is unclear to you? Candidates, after going through an approval process, must then sign a contract with them - Barack is one of their candidates.

I take it you have no problems with my sources for the failure of the Annenberg Challenge and Barack's "bumming" of cigs? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the heck would someone bumming cigatettes make it into an article like this? It's absurd. I heard that punk George Washington bummed snuff off of redcoats...DARN HIIIIIMMM!!!LedRush (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was apparently important enough to mention how he promised to his wife to quit smoking. If his promise to quit smoking is notable enough, then I don't see why him, in all fairness, breaking his promise is any less notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your convoluted "deduction" around DSA violates WP:SYNTH. The cigarette thing is simply non-notable. Actually, if you wanted to remove the whole discussion of smoking, stopping, etc., I wouldn't object. That all feels pretty borderline to me (as much as the smoking disgusts me personally, it's not why the bio subject is famous). LotLE×talk 22:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again - please remain civil. You appear to be using loaded language when discussing this issue with me. It does not violate SYNTH - the website makes it clear that candidates must sign a contract with them. It also makes it clear that Obama is one of their candidates. As for the smoking, this is what I don't understand, it is notable enough to be in the article for a very long time demonstrating his "promise" to quit smoking, but as soon as the promise is broken it is all of the sudden not notable? This is illogical. As for the failure of the Annenberg Challenge - what is wrong with mentioning this? Do results not matter? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the DSA bits: The sources don't say that Obama signed any contract. Even though the website makes it clear that candidates must sign a contract, we have no RS that says he actually did. Bridging those bits together is SYNTH. The Annenberg bits should go to the Annenberg Challenge article as the original reverter said in his edit summary -- Obama is not mentioned in the 271 page PDF you cite which also says quite a bit more than it simply being a "failure." --guyzero | talk 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't qualify for SYNTH since it is the same source - SYNTH requires different sources. This is from the same author on the same website discussing the same subject. As for the Annenberg "bits," Obama doesn't need to be mentioned in my source - he is linked using the other sources in the article. And it makes it quite clear that it was a failure, the summary was wordy, but we can't include such verbosity in this article - just the overall result, which, according to the report, was statistically insignificant. In other words - it provided no measurable benefit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is: reliable source-A says A, reliable source-B says B, and then the editor makes claim C, by concluding that A plus B must equal C. Whether A and B are from the same website doesn't exempt claim C from being considered original research. Does the source say explicitly say that Obama signed a contract? If not, then we can't include it as it is a claim where we have no reliable source. As to notability/weight, we don't have any additional sources that say the Chicago NP was important to Obama, an influence on his life, etc. I also do not follow the idea behind condensing a 271 page document that doesn't appear to mention Obama at all (the article subject) down to a sentence that says the project failed can be somehow regarded as fair NPOV treatment. For NPOV, we'd need a paragraph at least to describe the findings of that document, which probably fails weight in terms of inclusion into this article. --guyzero | talk 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are stating your opinion as fact - the source is the same author on the same website. That is the same source. It CLEARLY states that candidates must sign a contract with them, and it also clearly states that Barack is their endorsed candidate. This is an obviously deduction and I suggest you look into WP:NOTOR - policy is clearly on my side in this issue. As for the CAC stuff, I wasn't summarizing 271 pages - I was using the summary. It makes it VERY clear that the project was a failure. Your argument seems to be that I am incapable of summarizing the summary - that is illogical. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that says he signed a contract? If not it is unsourced. That is very simple. Without that we don't even get to weight. With it, it fails weight as a non-notable event. Yes, that is an opinion. It is the opinion of various editors about what should be in the article. Opinions about how to apply guidelines, sources, and policies just fine on talk pages. That's what consensus is all about. Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the millionath time yes, it is sourced - did you even read WP:NOTOR? Simple logical deductions are allowed. It gives this as an example, "If A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C." This example is EXACTLY the same as my logical deduction - Obama was their candidate, all candiates must sign a contract therefore Obama signed a contract. What part of this don't you understand? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Might I recommend you read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Brothejr (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that WP:NOTOR doesn't apply to the claim that Obama signed a contract with the New Party. Again, you are making an inference/deduction -- a logical deduction that may even be true, but it is not automatic, as you say. You will need a reliable source that explicitly states that Obama signed a contract. I encourage you to take it to the BLP or RS noticeboards if you think you need further clarification on this beyond what several other folks who have tried to explain here. My point above regarding the CAC addition stands -- saying it was a failure is not NPOV, it is your OR. The fair NPOV treatment we would need to give this information would not pass WEIGHT and should go to the CAC article itself. If the reader is interested in the CAC, they can follow the link to that article. good evening, --guyzero | talk 05:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, WP:NOTOR only applies to very, very obvious conclusions, like "Springfield is in Illinois. Illinois is in the United States. Therefore, Springfield is in the United States." That's the kind of syllogistic logic it allows. It does not allow for complex situations, such as closeness of relationships and factual statements concerning whether or not someone signed a contract to be synthesized from (very weak) circumstantial evidence. Please stop citing it now. --GoodDamon 00:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Was Obama's birth certificate found?

I heard that a newspaper reported that Obama's birth certificate was found, proving that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. According to the rumor I heard, Obama's parents wanted him to have both American and British citizenship (at the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was still a colony of the British Empire). Is there any truth to this or is it another lie like that one about how Obama is a closet Muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.1.246 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See FAQ or the prior 500 discussions of same questions.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The state Illinois election

Wasn't there something about Obama's opponents being pushed aside dishonestly? GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He hired a lawyer to knock off all the other democratic rivals off the ballot, while technically legal, it is at odds with his current "politics of hope" philosophy. Funny, I remember a while back how we'd decided to include this information - I guess the WP:OWNers are more "passionate" about reverts only when it improves Barack's image. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources or are you back to your insert random garbage act? Grsz^X 22:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But really, it's mentioned in Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. Grsz^X 23:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like my "garbage" is accurate. It WAS in this article until it was deemed "unimportant" or "unhelpful" or whatever - the end result always seems to make Barack look better for some reason. In this case, this information was pushed to an article people are much less likely to read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Or a more appropriate article where details like that can fit it. If you actually made a decent neutral attempt at improving the article, it would probably go a long way. Grsz^X 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And once again, the "appropriate" details seem to only help his image. A neutral observer would likely conclude that the results of a person's work (like my AC addition) are important. A neutral observer would likely find importance in how a politician who claims to empower voters actually has a record of taking away their power by taking away their choice. A neutral observer would likely conclude it is ridiculous to include a promise he made to his wife, while NOT including the fact that he has broken that promise. This are my recent proposed edits, but they too are deemed "inappropriate" or whatever excuse is necessary to cut them out of the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, your recent edits about bumming smokes ("to reflect the reality of the situation"), being a Socialist or the project are either irrelevant or false. So the "excuse" excuse is pathetic. Grsz^X 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I used the term bumming cigarettes because that was the phrase used in the source. What would you have me do? Say he was begging for a smoke? Also, I never called him a socialist, but he was endorsed by, and signed a contract for, the Chicago DSA. Yes, it is a socialist organization, if you have a problem with that then take it up with Barack Obama. And your assertion that the results of his only executive experience in the CAC is "irrelevant" is flat out ridiculous - this is an encyclopedia article, and a person's record, a person's RESULTS, are very relevant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The socialist reference is unsourced, WP:SYNTH, obscure, and likely untrue. Smoking a cigarette isn't well sourced, and it's a trivial matter. If it rose beyond that we would use more encyclopedic, dignified language. The executive experience thing is editors' opinion and argumentation, and if sourced would be a POV campaign argument, in either case not a proper subject for a biography. This is not anywhere near a close case, so it's probably best not to give it too much mind. Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The socialist thing IS sourced, is not WP: SYNTH for the reasons I previously explained, "obscure" is your opinion and its "obscurity" is frankly irrelevant and "likely untrue" is your opinion as well. You can find more sources for his socialist connections here and here. Your argument that I shouldn't include the facts about his smoking and time at the CAC are ridiculous, because they are already in the article. If they are important enough to be in the article now, then it is MORE important that the truth be included. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to debate this in any detail because there's no realistic chance of this getting into the article, the main reasons being SYNTH, RS, POV, and WEIGHT/relevancy. You're welcome to your opinion, just trying to explain. If you'll make an effort to understand why that might help steer things to a more productive discussion of improvements to the article content. Getting back to Obama's litigation tactics that was an interesting move. You could look at it as a sleazy / opportunistic tactic, but you could also look at it as using the law to break up what had been a cozy, corrupt practice in Chicago politics. It's hard to argue in favor of illegal campaign tactics, and complain that the party who brought the law to the argument is the one in the wrong. In any event it isn't up to us to take sides. It was a bold, notable move that's worth reporting as a matter of due weight in some article relevant to his career. It is indeed covered for about what it's worth in Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. Small compared to his overall trajectory, so not worth describing in the couple paragraphs we have here, but an interesting early event. Wikidemon (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you've made up your mind, and nothing will change it - charming. You can quote SYNTH, POV and WEIGHT all you want, but that's just a smokescreen for shutting down reasonable debate. Once again, a person's record matters, and the oppposition to including his record, especially in the case of the CAC, is ridiculous. What would you have me say? The 110 million dollars he spent on education was a huge success? Sorry, but that's not the truth - the truth is that it was a waste of 110 million bucks and it was under his "leadership." TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the other discussion. I don't have anymore to contribute, having made my point, but if there's a point in continuing this one, please stick to any reasonable proposal for improving the article and try to work collaboratively rather than confrontationally with other editors. If this gets stale or uncivil, I will close down this discussion. Please note the terms of article probation referenced at the top of the page and also here: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you close down the other section? I made my point quite nicely there about how simple logical deduction are allowed. And, you seem to be warning me about civility, but Grzz has been anything but civil. Where was his warning?TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

IP trolling deleted - Wikidemon (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a way to improve the article or are you just trolling? Grsz^X 03:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie; I'm a rather conservative person. However, I refuse to let myself log in until the debate is over because I know that any edit I make to any political article right now will be charged in unfortunately a biased fashion. I can't help it. However, I have to point out I refuse to sit idly by and watch other editors get snowballed by people that won't take the high road and just exclude themselves from the conversation. I mean, seriously, if you have a political motive, you have no business edition articles right now. Keep it to the discussion page like I'm doing, and bring up points you feel are valid (once again, like I'm doing). There is no harm in that. I simply think this perfectly sourced material is relevant. And I also agree that if Obama's promise to his wife to stop smoking is notable, so is it when he breaks that notable promise. thats all I'm adding to this until the election is over. Please don't accuse me of trolling though because if I drink anymore tea I'm not going to be able to sleep!!! 75.40.204.26 (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers folks, this isn't what I expected when I asked about the state Illinois election. A simple yes or no wouldn't sufficed. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize on behalf of, well, everyone. You gotta understand, for about a year now, this article has been pretty much the continuous target of every campaign smear you can think of. When the smear was about Ayers, it was all about making sure to wedge all sorts of details about Ayers into this article. When the smear was about Saul Alinsky, it was all about making clear that Alinsky had a tremendous influence on Obama -- even though the two never even met. When the smear was about ACORN, well by golly, better get that talking point in here too. Then back around to Ayers again. Sorry if that comes off as kind of snide, but it's been like clockwork; new smear, new attempt to get that smear into Obama's BLP. Same thing happens pretty continuously at the John McCain article. I guess we should all take it as a good sign, that Wikipedia is notable enough in and of itself now that it's become an active target for campaign surrogates. --GoodDamon 00:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The New Party affiliation is interesting and factual. See http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html. I will now put this as the reference.--Mikedelsol (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"That one" redirect

Resolved

 – Page speedily deleted. Grsz^X 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I typed in "that one" just for the fun of it, and actually redirected me to this article. Would it be too far-fetched to assume that John McCain might be an editor around here? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Legislation Disconnect

talk 06:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 – Narrative in this article correct. List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate corrected. --guyzero

In the article, the following narrative is found: "In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor." However, when one goes to the list of bills sponsored by Obama, Bill 109.S 2125 is listed as "RS," which means it was recommended to the Senate, but not "ATS," which means "Approved by the Senate," which would be necessary for President Bush to sign the bill. Whether the narrative or the table is correct, please correct the other one. 216.68.31.124 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)James T. Turner, October 9, 2008.

Thank you James, I corrected List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate as it was not marked approved. It was signed by Bush in December 2006 as this article states. [18]. Thanks again, --guyzero | talk 06:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Health

Given that they are running for the presidency, is it appropriate to have a section of the health of the candidates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradrogersau (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gun legislation

I think that it is relevant to keep the statement about Obama's stance on gun control. It was deleted, reason: "ungrammatical addition wouldn't be of sufficient biographical weight even if improved in style." There can be an entire paragraph devoted to Obama's position on the second amendment, but a sentence or two about the issue should be enough to keep it in the article. Both the Palin article and the McCain article have a snippet on their position on the gun control. Gulfy32 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

support - since both other articles have a snippet regarding gun control, it would be a good idea. I'd include NRA rating. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a better topic for Political positions of Barack Obama? Don't forget, this article is in summary style, which means the sub-articles can be largely considered to be part of the main article, this one. I don't think the gun issue has been a large enough one in Obama's life to merit an entry in the WP:BLP article. --GoodDamon 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include his ever-shifting position - especially his support for handgun bans and how he voted to make it illegal for homeowners to defend their homes with firearms.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Update article with new information

I personally think we should include this in the short section regarding his campaign:

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

1) Christopher Dodd, D-CT $133,900

2) John Kerry, D-MA $111,000

3) Barack Obama, D-IL $105,849

And the list goes on for about 50 spots or so. All the big "earners" are democrats.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

I can't wait to hear the reason's for rebuttal against adding this relevant, sourced information. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevent to this article or his life? Does this make the "top 500 events in Obama's life" list? I don't think so.LedRush (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I say it was relevant to his life? Or, did I say that this should be added in his short campaign section since it is indeed relevant to his campaign? I'm not sure you fully understood my question. In your opinion, are public officials campaign contributors relevant to their campaign? If so, we are in agreement and this should go into the article under the campaign subheading. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, how is this relevant? Why include this one over others? That's the question for you. Grsz^X 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is relevant for more than just one reason. The first reason is that Obama is currently running for president and spending millions of dollars in advertisements (TV, Radio, etc.). The money he uses to fund this advertisements is public record and a source of scrutiny. Secondly, Fannie Maye and Freddie Mac are largely involved in current events at the moment, and a recipient of $2,000,000,000 of tax payer funds in an effort to bail them out of financial trouble. My question to you is how is this not relevant? NOTE: I have signed into my account. I am IP address 68.143.88.2 and I normally don't sign in here because I'm currently at work. So, please don't assume the false sense that I'm a 2nd person. Digital^Ninja 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it should be in the campaign article. But Fannie Mae isn't even close to any of the top-five contributors.[19]--Appraiser (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but being any of the top-five isn't what's notable, it's being Fannie Mae that makes it notable, and the fact that he is the 3rd highest paid U.S. politician on the Fannie Mae hand-out list. That's whats notable. But yes, I agree it belongs in the campaign article which I'll move to shortly. However, it needs to be in the subheading here as well. Digital^Ninja 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, and isn't it ironic that Goldman Sachs is #1 on his total contributions list? That should also be included, thanks. Digital^Ninja 21:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out [20] too.--Appraiser (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, campaign contributions and possible conflicts of interest should be included in both campaigns in my opinion--regardless of political party. I just find the Fanny Mae thing overly notable. Digital^Ninja 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[21] [22] .. can you explain the difference between the NY Times information and the opensecrets stuff? All of this seems to belong in campaign-related articles as noted above. Having this one data-point mentioned in the Obama bio looks POINTy as currently written. Are there separate articles somewhere that provide for capturing the contributions for these campaigns? thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this - no consensus for its notability and frankly, it is not a salient detail on Obama's life or career. It might make sense in the campaign article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, these sums are dwarfed by the amount received by Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, by orders of magnitude. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were the contributions of individual non-executive employees. The numbers are very different if you look at the contributions of executives, which would be the more notable information, unless you're going for the lower-pay-equals-more-likely-to-support-Obama angle. In any event, all of this is moot. This is Obama's biography, and I don't think the comparatively tiny amount of contributions coming from the lower-echelon employees of a company whose executives all supported McCain bears very much weight for his biography. --GoodDamon 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! "Lower-echelon employees of a company whose executives all supported McCain". Kind of like Franklin D. Rains right? Yeah, I can see how he's supporting McCain and serving advise to Obama's campaign at the same time. Oh oh, I know, It's Barney Franks boyfriend that is running Fanny Mae and supporting McCain at the same time. Seriously, do you even read articles besides Wikipedia? How long have you worked for the Obama campaign GoodDamon, and Wikidemon.... Digital^Ninja 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And secondly, how does WP:WEIGHT apply here? It's the majority obviously, since it's well sourced and accurate information. So, I can either take this to an arbitration committee, or you can discuss this like a normal human being. Either way, I'm not going away just because you personally don't want something in the article. Digital^Ninja 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reinstated the Fannie Mae reference

If you feel it needs to be removed, please discuss it here (and note the conversations above). It has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT, and it's perfectly acceptable to reinsert it per my favorite guideline; WP:BOLD. Digital^Ninja 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:BRD. In any event, that's the sort of low-level detail that belongs in the campaign article. It has zilch weight in Obama's biography. It's also lacking in context; it was individual employees who gave to Obama. Executives gave to McCain. -- GoodDamon 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agreed. This has changed from earlier today. Its too much detail and POINTy. It may belong on a campaign-related article, if anywhere. --guyzero | talk 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

State your source that is was individual employees. Also, state your source that McCain received money from executives. Take off your Obama-blinders and read a little won't you? It's staying... Digital^Ninja 02:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[23] here you go for the executive contributions. Note government enterprises such as FM/FM cannot make campaign donations, so all of the data is regarding their employees. --guyzero | talk 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beat me to it. I'm astonished anyone even needed to ask for that. It's been all over the media. -- Good

Check out WP:OWN, DigitalNinja. It is not a major part of Obama's life, and so should go in the campaign article, not his biography. Being bold does not mean allowing everything a user thinks is relevant into the article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, that just means the same thing needs to be in the McCain article. I'm not sure I understand your motives or your logic. Digital^Ninja 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What? What bearing does this have on the McCain article, either? That's his BLP. Don't bring the same undue weight into that article. --GoodDamon 03:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ecX4)Reverted as lacking consensus, not detail with any significant weight to the biography, also as a low-level poltical campaign attack it is POV. Please do not re-add without first establishing consensus here on the talk page. To point out, it looks unlikely. Wikidemon (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note this content still exists in the article. Will a consensus-supported revert such as this place me in violation of 3RR? I was reverting the farrakhan vandalism earlier. --guyzero | talk 04:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be careful. That's why I am not reverting it either, and I'm only at 1RR. By article probation it's best not to go beyond that except by clear consensus. Otherwise, if one editor who thinks they're in the right reverts another editor who they think is just edit warring, the second editor thinks the first is edit warring, and there is no stopping it. Best if people would make a single bold edit, and if that doesn't take, discuss (which means disputed content stays out). Why don't we see if anyone else is willing? Wikidemon (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone else has done it. I think we're getting near consensus on this. --GoodDamon 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Farrakhan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

closing discussion. Do not' reopen to make disparaging comments about other editors

[24] this edit from User:Thegoodlocust goes far beyond the pale of what is an acceptable addition to a BLP article. This is a non-reliable-sourced 3rd party statement inserted into the first sentence of a paragraph that discusses his personal religious views (not Farrakhan's.) This isn't a notable statement about Obama in the context of his life. This is just a smear that you'd like to insert -- I have a really, really hard time assuming good faith about this insertion. --guyzero | talk 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Video is not unreliable. This video was recently shown on the news. And what part about it is a smear? It is just a fact that he has been declared the Messiah by a major religious leader. This deserves a mention compared with all the other insignificant crap that is in his "political and cultural image" section. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a smear, it's notable because it's national. I seriously wonder how many of these people work for Obama, this is ridiculous. FYI: We are building an encyclopedia here people. I support the information regarding Farrakhan going back into the article where it belong. Digital^Ninja 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just can't believe how white-washed everything must be.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK, suggest here how you'd like to insert this revelation that will save the reader from the "insignificant crap" that makes up the rest of the article. Your prior attempt that I linked above did not use a reliable source (neither worldnetdaily or newsmax are reliable), and was inserted into totally the wrong section. thanks, --guyzero | talk 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you want? A youtube link of the video? Both sources show video of him being declared the Messiah and this was recently shown on Fox News. And sorry about putting it in the wrong section - I'll just put it in his "image" section next time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs to go into the right section, but other than that just stick it in here per WP:STYLE. Whats the problem? Digital^Ninja 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys are kidding, right? You seriously want a declaration of messiah-hood in this article? No. Case freakin' closed. I can declare Obama the Lord of all Muffins or High Commander of Xenu's Army, but that doesn't belong in his biography. Farrakhan can declare Obama whatever the heck he likes; it has no bearing on Obama's life. Give this up right now, immediately, or I will take this straight to the BLP incident board, and you will lose. Don't try to insert it again. Don't edit war over it. This is way, way, way over the line. Stop now. --GoodDamon 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Farrakhan is a major religious figure. More importantly, he is a major religious figure in Obama's neighborhood and social circles. This is very relevant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Again, no. There is literally no argument you could possibly provide that would qualify Farrakhan's declaration to be applicable to Obama's life. It's Farrakhan's lunacy, not Obama's. It has nothing to do with him. I strongly remind you that this is a biography of a living person. I won't even bother with further discussion of this. Let me put it bluntly: Place that gross BLP violation again, get reported. Give this up right now. --GoodDamon 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the section regarding Obama's political and cultural image - if the crap in there is notable then being declared Messiah by a religion is MORE notable. This is not an attack - this is a fact. There is no BLP violation, but there are a lot of Obama campaign workers trolling this page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus man, if it means that much to do, no big deal. It's all over the internet anyways (since it is notable, I would suppose). Don't worry, you can still vote for him. Although I think you could have handled this differently since you're clearing trying to stop out a growing consensus.

But...My Fanny Mae piece is staying as it's unarguable relevant...especially right now. Digital^Ninja 02:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and goes way beyond NPOV and BLP. We can't go around calling anybody the Messiah, even if a notable person said so. Obama isn't notable for being the Messiah in the mind of Louis Farrakhan. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that is ridiculous is how fervently you people are fighting this. I can put this in, with a youtube link, in the relevant section. This is a major religious leader we are talking about who has HEAVY influence in Obama's Chicago area. This isn't some unknown whackjob. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article - not a campaign press release. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please cut out the hostility. This does not look remotely appropriate for this article. Everyone has an opinion on the election. What Farrakhan, a fringe politician/leader thinks of the matter, is hardly anymore important than anyone else. And it is more than slightly trivial. I don't think there's a realistic chance that this could gain consensus among editors.Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been caught wikidemon. I called you out on cleaning your talk page of "undesirable" elements before, but now we know you are working with others behind the scenes. Farrakhan is a major Chicago player and a major religious leader, especially among blacks in America. It is by no means "trivial" compared to some random Salon reporter's opinion.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

They just reverted again. I'm going to AN/I and posting all the identifiable edit histories. This is insane. Thegoodlocust, if you could post a comment when I'm finished as to your own observations that would be great. Thanks. Digital^Ninja 03:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please delete or close these disruptive discussions and/or redact the personal attacks and accusations? This is out of hand. Wikidemon (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Also, pending a resolution from an administrator, can we get a community undertanding about stopping the disruption from this editor and DigitalNinja? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - I don't think any of the regulars here, from any POV, could possibly support the insertion of this Farrakhan BLP violation or any of the rest. --GoodDamon 03:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree you people are in "cahoots" and making a deliberate attempt to control information and this article, which everyone can see by looking at the history of what you deleted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation - it was proof until you and your buddies constantly deleted it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, guys... there's something wrong here if a discussion that spanned a hour-and-half earlier today ends up being archived less than 8 hours later. Isn't this supposed to wait until at least five days past the last post to be archived? Whomever is doing the manual archiving appears to be doing so in order to 'freeze' the discussion, which is wrong. I take no position on either side, but way-too-early-archiving doesn't pass the smell test. Recommend this discussion be 'unarchived', regardless of whatever we personally think of it, and let it be run to its natural conclusion before its eventual automatic archiving. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, nope. It can quickly be stopped for just about any reason, especially when it digresses like it did above. Brothejr (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obama's education

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74877

Has anything countered this? YVNP (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has details about his education, sourced to reliable sources. Please read the early life and career section. Thank you. --GoodDamon 12:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama was paid to be a community organizer. He was not a volunteer.

In a world were many, many folks work very hard to accomplish goals for their community, and do it for good and do not work for money, it is relevant, informative, and truthful to say that Obama was paid to work as a community organizer. It distinguishes him from pure volunteers, the vast majority of "community organizers." Removing the word "paid" from the phrase "worked as a paid community organizer" is just concealing the truth and misleading readers into believing that Obama was a volunteer. Rharrykelly (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If he volunteered it would say he "volunteered as a community organizer" and not "worked as a community organizer." Grsz^X 13:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Worked" implies he, well, worked. This isn't broken, it doesn't need to be fixed. And frankly, it's a bit off-topic for a summary style biography; it's the kind of low-level detail that belongs in the proper sub-article. --GoodDamon 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And incidentally, the whole "truth matters" thing just reeks of POV-pushing, as if the article were a lie before your edits. Please try to be less combative, as this article is on probation. --GoodDamon 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz and GoodDamon use sophistry to mislead. Volunteers "work." Let me say again, volunteers "work." Grsz and GoodDamon are afraid of the clarity and truth that word "paid" provides. Millions of community organizers worked in the civil rights movement, gay rights movement, feminist movement, anti-war movement, better education movement, political movements, and more. Nearly all worked, nearly all were unpaid. If Grsz is serious, he'd suggest (just as he suggests we could otherwise write "volunteered as a community organizer") that we should write that Obama was "paid to be a community organizer" or "took a job as a community organizer" or "was employed as a community organizer." I could go for that. I reject GoodDamon's contention that "truth matters" reeks. And yes, absolutely "truth matters" IS my POV. Rharrykelly (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrykelly (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The word has two meanings: to engage in activity, and to engage in activity for wages. When presented with the form "X worked as a Y", the latter form is implied. We're trying to write excellent prose here, which is difficult if every phrase has to be contorted as to avoid offending everyone's sensibilities. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. Sincerely, you make a good point in general, but it doesn't apply to this specific. You'd be right if "Y", i.e. "community organizer", didn't powerfully imply volunteer. Compare: If I said that I "worked for the neighborhood watch committee", would you think it was my paid job? Let's avoid these contrary implications and just tell-it-like-it-is. Let's avoid ambiguity. Let's keep things clear. Rharrykelly (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I rather think your example does imply wages. Just because some fire fighters are volunteers doesn't mean that "worked as a fire fighter" is ambiguous, or that writing "X worked as a fire fighter" without qualification is ignoble in the case of salaried work because it would somehow diminish the achievements of unpaid volunteers. This article shouldn't be held responsible for the reputatation of the volunteer community organiser sector. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been insulted a lot, but accusing me of sophistry... Well, I never! In any event, I'm not "afraid" of the fact that he was paid. Of course he was paid. He was specifically hired to do that work. Which is all laid out in the appropriate sub-article of this article. Look... This article is in summary style, a style that allows for individual focused articles on very narrow subjects, with an overarching main article as the "parent," if you will. And using that style, with excellent prose throughout, this article is a featured article. So if anything, I'm "afraid" of unnecessarily breaking the prose in this article. I don't think anyone coming to this article looking for neutral information confused "worked" in this context as meaning "volunteered." If they want to know exact figures, they go to the sub-article about that period in Obama's life. It's a matter of keeping the articles well-organized. So I'm going to ask you, please revert back to the prior language. I won't revert it myself, but if you won't, I will ask for consensus on this page, and I'm likely to get it. You're fixing something that isn't broken. --GoodDamon 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Since I won't revert the wording myself, I'd like to know what the community thinks. I propose we restore the previous wording, since it wasn't broken.

(Question what was the previous wording?)LedRush (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - As person making the proposition, obviously. If you have alternate wording you think is better, feel free to oppose and provide it as an alternative. --GoodDamon 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. (FYI, the only change here is the removal of the prefix "paid" from "community organiser". The phrasing "worked as a", without qualification, amply implies remuneration anyway, while tacking "paid" onto it makes it look like we're patronising the reader and bumps our word count unnecessarily. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I am happy with the previous wording. Brothejr (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Mixed - I've always assumed that Obama was not paid...community organizer sounds like a volunteer position to me. While I agree that it looks a little odd to place "paid" in front of "community organizer" I think it does provide information that many people will find relevent. Could we put something in the article itself, instead of the lead?LedRush (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think it's necessary. The whole sentence makes it clear this was his job for three years. He would have long-since starved to death if he wasn't paid the whole time. --GoodDamon 15:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of "jobs" that provide housing, stipends, or other means to allow you to live...and many of these wouldn't be considered "paid" positions.LedRush (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)