Talk:Barack Obama

On drugs

Why does the spoken version of the article include statements about drug abuse when the actual article contains no such thing?Rallefar (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

liberal views

Obama is noted in the media for his liberal leaning viewpoints. Other editors seem to have a problem with the use of "liberal" or "left" in noting Obama's political views. I believe that relevant adjectives that can be backed up or are common knowledge are fair game when describing a politician's views. Ronald Reagan was labled "right wing". I see no reason why the same would not apply to Obama as "left wing".

I'm not sure it's so simple, given that many conservatives use the term "liberal" as a pejorative rather than a simple descriptor. Depending on the connotation, this may not be NPOV. And I'm not confident that either "liberal" or "conservative" is well defined enough in American politics that we can say that Barack (or anyone else) is the most liberal (or conservative) member of any governmental body. If that's the case, the statement in question means whatever you want it to mean.

Regardless, I can't see where the MSNBC piece provides adequate support for any contention that Barack is the most liberal member of the 109th Congress. Misslauren (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The MSNBC piece was for his voting record in 2007, which is the first year of the 110th Congress. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wright, Rezko, Ayers relevancy debate

"Nothing that doesn't matter in a biography of Nicholas II of Russia matters any more in this biography..."

I've taken a closer look at the arguments of those who feel so strongly that the details of the Rezko, Ayers, and Wright stuff be left out. I think I understand this debate a little bit better now. Fundamentally, this is not a debate between pro-Obamist and anti-Obamist POV pushers. This is a debate between those who feel the article should present politically relevant information about Senator Obama and those who feel it should be limited to a biographical account of Obama's life.

One one hand, folks don't want the article to exit the bounds of what belongs in a BLP. They know a lot of thought and hard work has been put into defining the standards for what goes into the different types of Wikipedia articles, and they want to make sure those standards are followed.

Other folks know people will be coming to this article to inform themselves about Senator Obama and to aid in their decision about whether or not to vote for him. They know Wikipedia is one of the only places in this world where people expect to find unbiased and non-exclusive facts without spin or sensationalized accounts. Thus, they want to make sure all the facts relevant to Obama's electability get in so that no one walks away with a distorted view when they were counting on getting something else.

I'd like to offer a reconciliation of these perspectives on the grounds that the facts relevant to Obama's electability are within the bounds set up by Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.

While I'm no expert on Wikipedia policy, from what I understand the fundamental criterion for what belongs in an article is notability. Wikipedicity of facts is by definition their level of relevance to the subject of an article's notability.

To contrast with Nicholas II of Russia, Senator Obama's primary notability is by far his status as a presidential candidate, participant in one of the tightest and most dynamic democratic primaries in history, and person who a vast number of people are deciding whether or not they would vote for as president. Any facts that reflect in a significant way on Obama's status as electable (for a significant number of people) are thus relevant to his notability and belong in the article. This would include the nominal details (enough to get a picture of what the issue is and why people care about it) of the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues.

Floorsheim (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I applaud your effort to look for a way forward, but I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more with your solution. You are talking about second-guessing what a particular reader wants, and that isn't Wikipedia's job. You are correct when you say that the current campaign is important - so important, in fact, that it gets an article all to itself. Stuffing this article with transient, campaign-related tidbits is not appropriate for a BLP, and doesn't fit in well with the summary style we have adopted here. The article already notes what is important about the individuals you mention above with respect to Barack Obama's life, but we have (properly) left out details only tangentially-related (or not related at all) in order not to burden the article with undue weight concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey is entirely right. There's just no position of compromise where we introduce "some" of the information that "voters need to know" (or at least not because they need to know it). Giving an analogy with a dead politician (and one who never faced elections, moreover) was quite deliberate. What we write in biographies should be, as close as is possible, a "view from the distant future." Obviously, new information is going to become relevant to this bio, even in the scale of just weeks and months. But as much as possible, all the words that we put in today should be ones that will be just as relevant a decade or a century from now. As soon as November of this year (whatever the outcome), no one is going to care about Wright, Ayers and all that (or at least not as readers of this article); and that much less so a year after that. We are not here to judge (and still less advocate) a position on his "electability"... when we know that as an actual fact in a few months, the article will certainly be updated to reflect it. LotLE×talk 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you has addressed my fundamental argument. I am not saying we should judge or advocate a position on Obama's electability. Nor am I saying we should second guess anything. I'm simply saying we should include facts that adhere to Wikipedia's fundamental rules for inclusion: relevance to the subject's notability. Rules and policies and notions concerning what is to be included in a particular type of article are all created to make sure that all and only facts that are verifiable and relevant to the subject's notability get included. Using them to keep something that is verifiable and relevant to the subject's notability out would be an instance of legalism and defeating the purpose the rules and policies were created for. I think there's even a policy against doing that, although I can't seem to find it right now.

In this case, Obama's status as a democratic primary frontrunner and petitioner for presidential votes is his primary notability. Clearly the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues play a dominant role in the minds of those he is petitioning for votes and are thus highly relevant to his notability. Therefore, the article should provide readers with enough facts to form a clear picture of what those issues are and why they are found to be so important (by those that find them that way) so that they can then decide whether to read more about them. This would be in keeping with summary style. What would not be effective summary would be to mention the issues more or less in passing as the current article does without providing any clear pictures.

Floorsheim (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Dominant role"?! Huh?! It's hard to argue against something that is so far beyond absurd. While I realize that the plural of anecdote is not "data", but I mentioned the insertion of nonsense to a couple friends/colleagues of mine, ones who are pretty well politically informed. On mentioning the excess material on Wright and Ayers, none of them remembered who either of them was without some background explanation... after a bit of description, they generally vaguely remembered having heard of those issues.

In any case, WP:RECENT really is an excellent discussion to look at. Things that there is no chance in hell that anyone will care about in a year don't belong in the article today. Trying to shoehorn pro- and con- campaigning under it's "short walk" closeness to notability just isn't acceptable on WP. It's a really bad and forced analogy, for which I cannot see any very good motivation. LotLE×talk 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes----but isn't pretty well politically informed kind of a subjective measure when applid to folks whom you say didn't remember who Wright is? (P.S. The lede of Kinsley's piece in yesterday's Time starts out

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, best known recently as friends of Barack Obama, disappeared in 1969 after two of their colleagues in the Weather Underground died while building a bomb. Ayers and Dohrn spent 11 years setting off bombs and putting out statements threatening violent revolution. They promised to kill innocent Americans and praised the lunatic murderer Charles Manson....----TIME

) — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Lulu) Thank you, Floorsheim. I agree completely, and you put it better than I did. I think we have an impasse here on an article that is important for Wikipedia to get right. I'd only note that we have a pretty good sized section here on Obama's stance on the issues, and we already do mention various controversies, so it's not as if there's some kind of policy in place to keep out election information. That being the case, the important, relevant issues that have received significant coverage -- both "political issues" and character questions -- should be given summary treatment in this article since that is what an election is about. Noroton (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Obama's status as a democratic primary frontrunner and petitioner for presidential votes is his primary notability. Clearly the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues play a dominant role in the minds of those he is petitioning for votes and are thus highly relevant to his notability.

Actually I'd like to point out that these issue are not playing a dominant role in those he is petitioning for votes, only those are looking for controversies. If anything the majority of the people, news media, and the candidates themselves have moved on. A simple blue link and a statement like "the controversy over so and so" is best and if the reader is so enthused to find out what the controversy is, they can click the link. As stated before this is a biography of Obama and not Ayers, Rezco, or Wright. This endless circular debate is getting tiring! Brothejr (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to point out that these issue are not playing a dominant role in those he is petitioning for votes, only those are looking for controversies. In your opinion. The polls say otherwise. [6] CBS News/New York Times poll, May 1-3. Among Democrats, 56% have an unfavorable opinion of Wright; 22% of Democrats said that Wright's statements have made them feel less favorable toward Obama; 18% of Democrats said Wright's statements made themless likely to support Obama; and 47% of Democrats said that Obama renounced Wright because it would help him politically, not because he actually disagreed with anything Wright said. So it's obvious that Wright is having an effect on the primaries, and on the election in November. Should we wait until there are similar polling results regarding Rezko and Ayers, after Rezko is convicted they might run a survey about him. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not American, republican, democrat, black, white, Muslim, Christian or Jew, and I was born and reside 8000 something miles from Illinois. Therefore, consider me neutral. Kossack, it is true as you say "Wright is having an effect on the primaries, and on the election in November", but doesn't that require only a brief mention here in Obama, and link/s to extrapolation in Wright/primaries/election articles? How would Wikipedia suffer if the article concentrated more on Obama and less on Wright? Seems to me politics is overpowering biography.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All it takes, and I believe all that's being argued for here, is just enough information to tell the reader briefly that there is a public controversy involving Barack Obama's life and to link to the articles where each controversy is expanded upon. That's all. The counterargument is that we should have nothing or we should have something so short that the reader won't know why there is even a controversy. It doesn't take much space to describe why something is controversial, but some editors here think that even 100 words in a 121K article is extraordinary. That's the difference of opinion here as I see it. Noroton (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'd agree with that, which would better balance the article. Where I asked whether only a brief mention should be made, I didn't mean inadequate mention. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that you , me, Kossack4Truth and Floorsheim are substantially in agreement. Well, then if we look at the specific language on Wright, I see the need for a phrase or two describing just what it is that's controversial about Obama's association with him, and as for Ayers, just what it is that's controversial about him. There should be adequate mention of Rezko's relationship with Obama, although I don't have definite ideas on whether or not that's already adequate. I think we could probably do all of this with a few phrases, possibly sentences. Noroton (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that you, me, Kossack4Truth and Floorsheim are substantially in agreement. There are also Fovean Author, Justmeherenow and Andyvphil. A total of seven editors. That is consensus. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It isn't just seven editors. It's eight, now that QuirkyAndSuch has joined us. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I've also noticed, is that people are looking back to past articles to base their opinions on this issue. Before you add anything more, go and take a look at current political shows and web sites (not including blogs which are basically overgrown editorials!). Do not type in any of the names in the search engines, but just take a look at what articles and issues the web sites are running there. If you do, you will notice that none of the mainstream political web sites cover this "controversy" anymore and if anything these issues only lasted for a couple weeks before the candidates moved on. I would like to remind those who are planning on making more edits on this issue then what have already been done, that your edits will be reverted as many other people have already agreed that what has been written is fine and that this is Obama's article not Ayers, Rezco's, or Wright's! A blue link and the words "the controversy over so and so" is more then enough and conveys the right tone. Brothejr (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is another ludicrous argument. We have already covered the relationships that Obama has with these three individuals in the article. Now you are saying that we should essentially add tangential or unrelated information as well. If it isn't directly related to Obama, it should not be in his biography. And just to be absolutely clear on this, there is no consensus for adding (or in some cases, re-adding) any of this tendentious crap. A circular argument does not a decision make. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not tangential or unrelated, Scjessey, and you know that perfectly well. For Tony Rezko the jury is still deliberating on 24 felony charges related to political fund raising. And what did he do for Obama for so many years? Why, it was political fund raising.

William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are proud and unrepentant about their past as bomb-tossing terrorists. Terrorists use violence for political goals. And when Obama started his own political career, it was in Bernardine and Bill's living room. They launched his career, just as surely as Madison Avenue launches a new product.

Enormously popular, mainstream news sources with formidable fact-checking departments have found these relationships with Obama and their unsavory nature to be worthy of abundant news coverage. So the unpleasant facts about the politically-related histories of these other people must be in this article.

And just to be absolutely clear on this, there is no consensus ... Kossack4Truth, Floorsheim, Fovean Author, Kaiwhakahaere, Noroton, Justmeherenow and Andyvphil support including the negative material, in summary form, regarding these unsavory people who are such dear friends of Barack Obama's. That's seven editors. That's a consensus, Scjessey. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of editors of this article. I am pretty sure you have no chance of pushing your tendentious POV into the article without attracting a storm of protest, particularly because such edits would violate a number of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of editors of this article. Currently participating, I count about 10 who have expressed an interest in this issue, and seven of the 10 oppose you, Scjessey. This consensus supports including negative material about Obama's associates in summary form. Including representative material from all significant POVs, including the POV that criticizes Obama for these unsavory friendships and alliances, is what WP:NPOV is all about. You have twisted and distorted Wikipedia policy to defend your pro-Obama bias long enough. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It isn't seven out of 10. It's eight out of 11, now that QuirkyAndSuch has joined us. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Brothejr, the fact that few news sources are covering these controversies right now is what's irrelevant. The fact is that before Wright hit the fan, Obama won 11 primaries in a row and seemed like an unstoppable juggernaut. After Wright hit the fan, he lost four out of six primaries, by wide margins. Encyclopedias don't limit themselves to what's happening right now. We read encyclopedias to learn about the ancient Egyptians, the Peloponnesian War and the Renaissance. Likewise, this article should not be limited to what the news media are covering right now. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is completely relevant in any election. Someone please add the fact that Obama, only one month before distancing himself from Rev. Wright, sayd that he could not dump Wright any more than his gandmother, or something like that. I don't have the quote handy, but I remember hearing it on the news. However, it shows how he is able to flip on a moments notice when political pressure demands it. This behavior suggests that either he has no moral convictions, or will say anything to please whoever is listening. Very relevant observations of character. 68.177.12.38 (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ted.

!Votes (please move your votes to this section if they arent already and bolden them)

1. #1, after reflection overnight, is now my first choice. #3 is my second choice. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I'd support #3 as well -- FWIW, I don't buy the argument that there needs to be lots of detail here "so people will know what the controversy is about; they won't click the links otherwise." I think folks are generally savvy enough to follow links if they have any interest in learning more about the controversy. (This point is beyond the NPOV points that things like "unrepentant terrorist" are neither neutral nor unambiguously true.) Mfenger (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
3. While I agree with you on options 1 or 2, I think number 3 would be a more agreeable revision that people can get behind. I also wanted to ask if there is an election controversy article? Brothejr (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
4. No. 5, but No. 4 is OK... while Scjessey's No. 6 is too sensationalistic. — Justmeherenow (   ), through stark illumination of an associate's guilts, is----conceivably----appropriate. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) But I equally support a stingently neutral No. 8 — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I support No. 5. No. 7 No. 1 is ludicrous. No. 2 is slightly less ridiculous. No. 6 would be over the top, even though news media have been consistent in calling Ayers "unrepentant terrorist." — WorkerBee74 (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC). I have changed my preference to No. 7 effective June 3. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I would support #3, and I must congratulate Scjessey on taking this move, hopefully we can continue like this on future points. Please call me when we move onto the next point incase I miss it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
7. "I choose Noroton's No. 7 option or failing that, reluctantly Scjessey's No. 6, or No. 5 as a last resort." (transcluded from here) Kossack4Truth, 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
8. #3 or #4 Obama's relationship with Ayers's wife hasn't really been a factor in what I've seen in the media reports about Ayers and Obama, so I don't see why she should be included in the article. #5 and #6 are definitely too much information. If anyone is interested in finding out more information about the Weathermen, there name is wikilinked and they can click to that article. Wikipedia doesn't add (an Islamic terrorist organization) after every mention of Al Qaeda, nor does it add (a militant Irish nationalist organization) after every mention of the IRA, I don't see why the Weatherman would be any different. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
9. #1 is best. #3 or #4 are acceptable. #5+ are definitely no good, and clearly violate Wikipedia policy (moreover, the gratuitous introduction of Dohrn makes no sense, only Ayers was subject to any media coverage, perhaps outside a few fringe sources). While all that "unrepentant terrorist" bullshit is way over the top (and libelous), if Ayers is mentioned, some adjective describing Ayers' left-wing politics gives some context (against 2). "Radical activist" is cleanest, since it follows the source and Ayers own article. But "Weatherman founder" is factual. "(former) Militant" seems plausible. In any case, nothing more than a word or two describing him, not clauses and sentences of rambling condemnation of Ayers (and also not irrelevant-to-controversy details like his academic title and book publications that sometimes creep in as pseudo-balance). LotLE×talk
10. #1 for Ayers specifically as a matter of weight and relevance because he seems utterly insignificant as a factor in Obama's life or career. It is of interest only as a controversy in the 2008 election, and there are far more pertinent articles about that than this biography of Obama. Put information where it most logically fits; don't repeat attack politics issues in every possible article about every subject touched by them. Wikidemo (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
11. #7 My reasoning is found, among other spots, at the "Consensus-building discussion" section below, and I hope others comment there. Voting is not going to get us to consensus, discussion does that. Noroton (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC) update: Noroton (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
12. #3 seems better balanced to me. A little niggle tho --- "he was joined on the board" might infer that Ayers joined the board to team up with Obama, rather than simply be his own man on a multi-member board. Or is that the intention anyway?. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Number 5 is most preferable to me, but considering the strong support for number 3, I would advocate the use of that option. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
14. #3 I would be willing to support this version. Although personally I feel it is a campaign issue (and a minor one at that) requiring no mention in the bio, the consensus seems to be leaning towards some mention of Ayers. Given that, #2 doesn't particularly work because it doesn't provide enough context for why we are mentioning this particular person (as opposed to any other random guy who he crossed paths or worked with in Chicago). The others seem to go too far in the other direction (far too much information that is irrelevant to Obama). --Loonymonkey (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
15. No. 7 was chosen by Andyvphil here "I strongly suspect there will be more information on this subject, but I can accept this for now ..." WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :"... if it is modified to indicate that it wasn't some random fundraiser, but the announcement of Obama's first political campaign." Actually, I think the alternatives we are answering are the wrong ones entirely. The Woods and first Chairman of Chicago Annenberg Challenge[7][8] positions belong in Early Career, with no need to mention Ayers in that context at this point since we don't yet have RS demonstrating that the Ayers connection was then significant to Obama's career. (This may change[9] once the Repubs, who don't have Clinton's perennial problems of a certain blindness to the issues due to shared POV, and not wanting to alienate a motivated portion of potential workforce, fundraising, and electorate, get seriously involved.) Ayers needs to appear with Rezko and Wright in the campaign section, where the significance is clear. Andyvphil (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ...and indeed somenone has removed all mention of Ayers from Early Career. So I've gone ahead and made the campaign mention more specific.[10] The hagiographers will no doubt have the whitewash back in place by the time you see this. Could've written it a little better, but some editors don't like "Ayers joined Obama" and I'll try to oblige even half-reasonable expressions of concern. Andyvphil (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
16. #4 or #5 get equal first-ranked votes, #3 or #7 get equal second-ranked votes, #2 next, #1 and #6 equally last. I'm a "Sanger co-founder" of WP:08. JJB 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
17. No. 3 or No. 4. It is appropriate to mention Ayers, note who he is (Weathermen founder), and link to the relevant articles. Ayers's wife has not been a significant issue in the campaign, let alone in Obama's life. Ayers himself barely ranks as a minor character. All we have is one mention in the debates and scattered newspaper stories (very few in proportion to the total amount of stories written on Obama or the campaign). It's about on par with the flag pin thing, which would be silly to mention here.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
18. #3 Like Loony, I don't think Ayers needs to be in this bio at all, just a brief mention in the separate campaign article - I'd point out that the story has not increased in significance in the mainstream media as time has passed - but I too can see that some folks won't give up on it here so I can live with option #3. Dohrn does not belong in this article, and the higher numbered options are inappropriatedly detailed, and done so with bias. So I can support #3, but would prefer #1. Tvoz/talk 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
19. #5 is my preference, but #3 seems acceptable as well. I fail to see where those two options apply undue weight or push a POV. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
20. 8. Instead of phrasing the coincidence of their joint affiliation as notable, it would be better to approach this from a NPOV perspective in a list of criticisms, controversies, etc - "commentators such as X criticized Obama for his ties with Bill Ayers" to begin, then a description of Ayers, then a description of the associations, then a description of Obama's statements on the matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
21. No. 8, since you're asking. To refute the deliberate misinterpretation below by one of the Whitewash Brigade, this means No. 7 plus the words "unrepentant terrorist" and a brief list of Weatherman bombing targets, along with appropriate RS links. 68.29.208.59 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
22. No. 1 - nothing in this particular article. Move this discussion to his presidential campaign article if you like, but 'suggestions' such as the one directly above this one speak for themselves. We're an encyclopedia, not a red-top tabloid - try to keep that in mind before you destroy the Wikipedia project. We have a Bill Ayers article, and we have a Bill Ayers election controversy article. Why are these 'helpful Wikipedians' here so interested in copying the ooh! ooh! parts of those articles (and much, much more!) into this one? Because they're deathly afraid some credulous voter, somewhere, somehow, might miss their propaganda war. Nice try guys, but that sort of thing really belongs in personal blogs. Not in Wikipedia. Tell you what - why don't you write equally 'scandalous' material about each and every other person who served on the Woods board with Obama? You know, like the directors of USB and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill? How about all the other people who served on panels with Obama? Or who donated to his campaign? Instead, all you do is find a new place to have this same ridiculous argument, each time hoping you can restrict it to your 'buddies' and quickly come to some fake consensus before 'normal Wikipedians' can find where you've squirreled it away. And I'm suppoed to assume good faith on your part? I'm not that gullible and stupid, thank you very much. imo you're a disgrace to the mission of Wikipedia - and worse, you don't care. Flatterworld (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
23. I withdraw from the poll, and reject it as being useful for building consensus. This Ayers business is a WP:BLP matter, and this vote is moot. Furthermore, the "spectrum" of options creates a false dichotomy which isn't useful for establishing consensus (as evidenced by those attempting to create a numerical average as "consensus"). Shem^(talk) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
24. No. 4. I think it's important to have some fact about Ayers in this article, or else nobody will understand why he is being mentioned or why controversy about him exists. Noting that he founded Weatherman is about as neutral as you can get -- it only has negative connotations if you already know what the organization is and have a negative viewpoint about it. At that point, you're entitled to your opinion about the guy. If you don't know what it is, you can click the link to find out without first having your opinion informed by all the vocabulary people are freaking out about ("violent," "terrorist," etc). That said, I don't think the Bio section is the place for it. We can't verify what actual impact Ayers had on Obama personally, only on his campaign. Slurms MacKenzie (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
25. #5 - second choice #4. Definitely not this watered-down-let's-not-step-on-anyone's-toes of #8, nor #1. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
26. #5 then #4. That is enough detail and not POV. Hope I am not too late.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This !voting, as per WP:VOTE guideline, only opens consensus discussion, which continues below

Tally

"13 of the 25 votes cast have indicated that #3 would be acceptable (6 of those as clear first choice), with more than twice the number of votes of the next choice. #1 is first choice of 7 editors. (votes on #8 are hard to place in the scale)" ---ANONYMOUS--- Please sign and date any such selective "tally". Andyvphil (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But nearly high a %----13-out-of-20---go along with something more inclusive. — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This count by Justmeherenow is simply incorrect. It's hard to know how to interpret the new vote for "#8" (to me it says to use exactly the wording currently on the page [which I wrote]), but it's not very specific about characterization or verbosity. In any case, someone saying "#4 is acceptable" is fundamentally different from accepting 5+, they cannot be lumped together. #5-#7 are fundamental violations of WP:BLP, are directly libelous, and can never be allowed on WP (and thankfully, they also only get a few fringe "votes"). #3 is still a bit better than #4, but either is factual rather than libel, and the two word difference has nothing to do with "more inclusive". LotLE×talk 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How interesting that that many votes should be on the page ... how do you suppose that happened? How many more votes do you expect we'll get by tomorrow afternoon? Don't count your chickens before they're hatched, although I guess my preference isn't going to make it. But it's just a guess. Noroton (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Since options are presented among a spectrum, which falls on its median? Eg among 19 votes among options 1-7, we statistically throw out----OK folks, this is only figuratively----nine top-spectrum votes and nine bottom-spectrum votes to be left with exactly one at mid-spectrum. Which happens to be mid 3-to-4.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible ballots

• "!vote of 4.5" I believe constitutes JJB's vote — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already there as vote #16 above. JJB 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

We could try finding the average vote, it would at least be interesting to see. Turn the vote number into points, add the points up and divide by 11 (number of people who voted). Some people has said they would accept more than one number eg 2,3 or 4, their point score should be considered to be 3 therefore. We need a total score and divide it by the people. Otherwise we are discounting the "fringe" views of people on both sides, those who say 1 or 2 and those who say 6+. Theoretically they will cancel eachother out, but it should be seen that they were included in the mix. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The average choice using Realist's method, converting each number and adding them up, then dividing by the number of editors who posted their choices, is 4.4333333 so any effort to install any "consensus" for anything other than No. 4 or No. 5 at this point is illegitimate. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not balanced. 1 and 2 are not fringe opinions, they're valid concerns about weight and relevance. 3 already has some weight and sourcing problems because it claims there is an "association" between Obama and Ayers. The fact that a single person held a single fundraiser for a politician says next to nothing about the politician; it's included only for the controversy. Anything 5 and above is heavy-duty POV pushing. The problem is that it assumes we have a reasonable distribution of fair editors with different opinions. I see a considerable number of reasonable editors plus a handful who have flocked here to try to discredit someone running for office. If this were an either / or question of including controversial content or not those POV-pushers would sooner or later be left out of a consensus. By posting this as a spectrum of just how much controversial content to include it gives them too much weight. Wikidemo (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You must also understand though that those people who vote 6+ consider 1 or 2 a "fringe". It works both ways and we must respect eachothers opinions even if we disagree. Accusing the 6+ of trying to derail the campaign of Obama is a huge breach of AGF. It can be argued that both sides here have an agenda or it can be argued that both sides are trying to do what they feel is best for the article. Please dont discredit the anti obama people of destroying the article, likewise the pro obama side shouldn't be accused of whitewashing. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not work both ways, and there is no breach of AGF by noting disruptive and POV edits for what they are. As I said, when there is a range of reasonable opinions there can be a reasonable discussion along that line. When there are tendentious POV editors on one side and people trying to keep order, it makes no sense to pretend the discussion is anything other than what it is.Wikidemo (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have the lowest score, i disagree with your opinion as much as I do the 6+ people, i still respect both sides though. I wouldnt call you a whitewasher and I wouldnt call them "trying to derail Obamas chances". Personally, i voted for 3 so you would think i would be jumping up and doww with happiness that most agree. However i want both extremes to be heard as well, even if it shifts away from being 3. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. But no, a number of people correctly surmise the subject does not deserve a mention in this article, and should instead be covered elsewhere, per content policies and guidelines, but the way the vote is structured it assumes a fait accompli that we should cover it. Thus, I am dubious that this process can achieve any real consensus. Please don't confuse taking a position in the middle of a biased pack with neutrality. Wikidemo (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a breach of anything, it's a fact. The very fact that you characterize people as "anti obama" and "pro obama" makes that clear. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to carry out political agendas -- and that's the only reason to include this stuff on this page. -- 98.108.203.136 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments (please remove your votes from the comment section)

Comment. Ayers is (or was) a current campaign issue that does not belong in the "Early Life" section, where it was given undue weight and misplaced as being significant (in its own right). Its best fit is in the campaign section where it is now, as a barely notable reaction to a debate. But, on the particulars that might be agreed too? Eke! I'll abstain on that question for the moment. Modocc (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the issue is related to the campaign, and the media coverage it has drawn should be covered in the campaign article; however, in this BLP I think it would be best situated in the "Early life and career" section for reasons of chronological accuracy. There is a difference between describing the association (appropriate for "Early life and career") and describing the controversy surrounding the association (appropriate for the campaign article, but not really for the biography). That is why I went the route of the examples I offered above. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But, Scjessey, the amended text is not describing their association! It is only a coatrack about a controversy about Ayers' prior militancy. The "concerns" may or may not have little bearing on the significance of their relation, but its not for us to make such a case, and the airing of the particular "concerns" raised belong elsewhere. I'd prefer examining additions to the current consensus version. At least two contributing editors on opposing sides as well as others support the current placement. Modocc (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the original consensus text (option 2) neatly describes how Ayers and Obama were associated (Woods fund, fundraising event). The controversial aspects of Ayer's life can only be gleaned by following the blue link to his biography - a solution which I still believe is the most appropriate. Options 3 and up are the versions which fall into WP:COATRACK issues, but it must be understood that these are just examples designed to illustrate the level of detail, rather than actual usable text (as I indicated in my introduction to the section). I'm trying to get a sense of the specifics of what to include, and once that is agreed upon we can figure out how best to incorporate those specifics into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We will have to disagree then. I'm OK with getting a "sense" of specifics perhaps (I've seen plenty put forth). But, the level of importance of Ayers involvement in his early life is very controversial. Thus, in my view, the later scrutiny in the campaign section is the more appropriate NPOV context that should be used to introduce Ayers content into the article. Modocc (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Weathermen engaged in about twenty bombings. They went on to rob armored cars and kill people. Makes them different from the FSM and the SDS, but like the BLA. Unlike AQ and the IRA, not everyone knows this. The idea that ought to introduce the name without explanation is absurd. Describing Ayers as a "former radical activist" is concealment. He's said he doesn't regret the bombings. It was the first Obama candidate clatch he hosted, not some random one. He selected Obama to head the Annenberg Challenge and Obama at the least didn't object to bringing Ayers onto the Woods Board and Ayers' later selection as chairman, since both decisions were by consensus. There's two POVs on the significance of this and NPOV requires not suppressing either. Andyvphil (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Weathermen has its own article and the expectation for #4 is that it will be linked in this article. Anyone that is unclear as to what the group was can click on the link and discover more about the group. The whole point of the links between articles in Wikipedia is that if someone is not familiar with the term, they can click on the link and find out about that term.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think this makes more sense to introduce in the campaign section. While it's not strict chronology of initial acquaintance, that follows the chronology of what made something (perhaps) worth putting in the bio. Likewise, if there is discussion of Wright, it shouldn't solely (or mostly) be at 1985 in the the chronology, but rather at 2008.LotLE×talk 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• No attempt has been made in this supposedly broad range of options to get at the central point that several of us have made above -- that the biggest reason why Ayers has been a controversial association for Obama is that he was violent as well as unrepentant about it. That Scjessy would ignore this in his supposed fair attempt to describe the range of options, after all that's been discussed about this already, makes me deeply suspicious at the same time that Scjessy is calling for "civil" discussion. If you sincerely want civil discussion, why provoke irritation among most of the people who so far have disagreed with you? The way you set these options up doesn't give confidence that you're actually trying to reach an actual consensus. If I'm wrong, Scjessey, feel free to admit your mistake, and add my option to the mix. And if I've missed something in my description of how you've done this, feel free to correct me and I'll drop my suspicions. As I said at 23:43 May 27: I just want the situation with Ayers accurately presented with just enough detail that readers will get the gist of it and be able to follow a blue link or two to find out more. I suggested this language before and I'll bring it up here again. Call it "Option 7":

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities.[13] In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996.[13] Obama's association with Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Noroton (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect there will be more information on this subject, but I can accept this for now if it is modified to indicate that it wasn't some random fundraiser, but the announcement of Obama's first political campaign. Andyvphil (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

@Noroton - I think you have misunderstood my intention here. If you note #7 of the list above, you will see that there are additional "options" available that I simply didn't write. The example text I offered was not intended to be the actual wording, but merely a representation of the "sliding scale" of views. This is more of a fact and opinion-gathering exercise to see if we can move toward a consensus. I will immediately add your "option" to the list (so that #7 will become #8) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But of course it's not a sliding scale, it's one end of a sliding scale. Therefore it fails as an exercise toward a broad consensus. What it does is build up a group of exclusionist editors in order to face down the inclusionist side. That's not consensus-building, and ultimately it won't be effective. Look, out there in the real world, if you look at the coverage so far, the overwhelming consensus is that these associations of Obama's (and this is one of the top ones) have been a big issue in the campaign, and his controversial associations are definitely about his life. Ultimately, you're not going to get a consensus to either erase the article's coverage of that or whitewash it by removing essential details (that is, the bare outline of what made these associations controversial). Like it or not, this article is too big for a broad range of Wikipedians to accept that kind of treatment -- not for Obama, McCain, Clinton or George W. Bush. If I'm wrong, we'll see, but I warn you: It's better to attempt a moderate compromise on something this prominent, because the pressure won't stop and eventually you'll lose. If I'm wrong, we'll just see, but I recommend that you re-evaluate your strategy and position. Noroton (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I was distracted by a disruptive edit just a little while ago, and I must have ignored your last two sentences. I appreciate that, and you've removed my suspicions. Thank you. I'm crossing out that part of my post immediately above. Noroton (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Norton, you can put what you like on the list of suggestions, but frankly no1 aside you will agree with it, hardly anyone here wants to go above 5 on the scale, add what you like but you wont get much support. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. Nice user name, by the way. Noroton (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I too think Noroton is unduly hopeful of wider attention from editors with less impacted bias, but we'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would note that the current language is almost exactly "#3", which is getting majority support among editors. The only difference is that the current language (because I wrote it carefully) avoids any suggestion about why Ayers joined the board (i.e. not implying it was to "join Obama" or whatever). Of course, the language currently there is also in the Prez Election section, where I, at least, think it flows better. To put it there, a slightly different sentence structure is needed, but not different in respect to the characterization discussion (LotLE×talk 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)):

Obama's association with Bill Ayers was also questioned in an ABC debate. Former radical activist Bill Ayers had joined Obama on the Woods Foundation board in 1999 and had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996.

I also think that Kaiwhakahaere makes a good point above regarding "he was joined on the board" which implies intent and would change that phrase to read something like "In 1999, also joining the board was Bill Ayers..." ' or something a little less awkward. Tvoz/talk 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that edits should be evenhanded and come from a NPOV, but to me the most important issues should be notability (within the context of that article) and verifiablity of the information in question. No doubt the people listed above should be included in the respective articles, but they shouldn't take up a majority of the article (and some of them are more notable than others within the context of each person - i.e. Wright > Rezko within the Obama artice). My $0.02. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair treatment of Obama should be similar to how we treat other candidates

I would like anybody who thinks that it is wrong to mention other people associated with Obama in this article to consider how Wikipedia treats the following biographies of the major candidates:

• Hilary Rodham Clinton — numerous mentions of various people that put Clinton in a negative light. Regarding people associated in some way with Clinton:
  • The Presidential campaign of 2008 section has three sentences on Norman Hsu, who was certainly less close to Clinton than the Rev. Wright has been to Obama.
  • The same section has several sentences on comments by another Clinton associate who puts the candidate in a bad light: Bill Clinton's controversial comments about race and the campaign. Surely that is worth keeping in the article on Hilary Clinton.
  • The same section has two sentences on Geraldine Ferraro's comments that put the Clinton campaign, and by extension, Hilary Clinton, in a bad light in the eyes of some.
  • Regarding other negative information on Clinton (usually full paragraphs on each thing mentioned), there is the cattle futures contract (in two different places in the article), conflict-of-interest charges in Arkansas regarding the Rose Law Firm; controversy involving her term on the Wal-Mart board of directors; the controversy/investigation on missing legal papers in her East Wing White House office regarding the Whitewater controversy; and Clinton's sniper-fire gaffe during the campaign (a sentence).
• John McCain:
  • Information on Richard Keating (footnotes 84-87; John McCain#House and Senate career, 1982–2000 section: Amount of space: two paragraphs
  • ADDED POINT: The article does not mention the Rev. John C. Hagee whose controversial remarks about Catholics and about the Holocaust caused McCain to disassociated himself from the minister. The article also does not mention McCain's ties to a lobbyist that some suspected was having an affair with him. (Personally, I think the Hagee stuff belongs in that article, in a sentence or two, and a link to the lobbyist controversy article should also be there, but it's a point in favor of the exclusionist side in this discussion that those two people are not mentioned in the article.)
• Rudy Giuliani:
  • Rudy Giuliani#Early life and education: This section opens by telling the reader his father "had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing" and worked as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law who "ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn." Mind you, this last quote is about Giuliani's uncle.
  • The Mayoral campaigns, 1989, 1993, 1997 section has a subsection called "Appointees as defendants" consisting of a paragraph each on scandals/controversies involving Russell Harding and Bernard Kerik, and the Kerik paragraph is preceded by: "Main article: Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik" Kerik is mentioned in at least two other places in the article. "Post-mayorality" section is one ("Politics" subsection), and the "Family" section, where the last paragraph is a sentence stating that Giuliani is godfather to Kerik's children.
  • Other negative information on Giuliani includes part of the Legal career section, which opens with details his draft deferment in a paragraph; another paragraph is devoted to criticism of his setting up public perp-walks for arrested Wall Street bigwigs and then eventually dropping prosecutions of them. That paragraph is larger than Giuliani's leading the prosecution in one of the biggest Mafia trials in history (perhaps the most important).

Presidential candidates are big boys (and a big girl), and they get tough treatment in the media because they are trying to get a very powerful, very important job. We don't overprotect them on Wikipedia just as the U.S. media and international media don't protect them. The exclusionist side of this discussion appears to want far higher standards for inclusion of information about Obama than we have for Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani. This goes against both Wikipedia practice and policy & guidelines. Anyone who scrolls up can find a (too-long, I admit it) examination of how Wikipedia treats past presidents Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman and even William McKinley (see "More candidates for the fat farm" subsection). All those articles also mention people associated with the subject of the article, including in a negative context. This information is commonly thought to be necessary to fully understand the subject of the article. So I have a question for the exclusionist side: What is it about the Ayers, Wright and Rezko situations that justifies treating Obama any different from the other candidates? If you can't answer this, you should support Option 7. Noroton (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted above ("ADDED POINT"), I just added a point in the McCain section. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that making POV statements about people with an alleged connection to the candidate is inappropriate, no matter who the candidate is. "Unrepentant" is an opinion, NOT a factual statement. It's not about Obama, it's about Ayers, who is not the subject of this article. Two reasons not to put it in. I also think it's disingenuous to say that words like "unrepentant" and "terrorist" are necessary to let readers know what the controversy is about. Saying there is a controversy, with a link to the explanation of the controversy, is absolutely all that is necessary to let any reasonable reader know that clicking on the link will take them to an explanation, presumably with all the nuances involved. Adding characterizations of the parties involved, even if "supported" by other media sources (whether it's the NYT or the National Review), does not make the characterizations neutral. Especially when the sources themselves are opinion (or "analysis") pieces. Mfenger (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I haven't seen the word "terrorist" used on this page for a while, although my #7 uses "violent" and "unrepentant". (2) Your position is that the main biography page should obfuscate as to the actual nub of whatever controversy is being referred to. Mine is that we should be as clear as possible consistent with being relatively brief. That's what is done in the other biography articles I link to. (3) It is a simple fact, as you know from reading the discussion earlier on this page, that the mainstream reliable sources agree on "unrepentant" and "violent" and even if you were to consider it an opinion, Wikipedia reports on opinions. (4) I saw a very supportive comment about Ayers at the bottom of one of his blog pages, signed M[ichael?] Fenger. Was that you, Mfenger? (5) Please address my point: Why should Obama be treated differently from the norm of similar articles? Noroton (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I would say that "violent" and, more emphatically, "unrepentant", are unnecessarily POV; as I also said, it seems to me that the #3 selection is descriptive enough to let any reasonable reader know that clicking on the link will send them to the discussion fo the particulars. (2) It's not "obfuscation", it's avoiding charged terms in favor of neutral terms. Certainly, #3 gives enough information to anyone interested in learning more about the controversy, especially given the information provided in the linked article. (3) The fact that others share an opinion that Ayers is "unrepentant" in an opinion or an analysis piece (or in multiple opinion pieces) doesn't allow wikipedia to state "unrepentant as a fact, (4) Yes, that was my comment — that blog piece was the basis for my conclusion that "unrepentant" was an inaccurate representation of Ayers's views. As I said above, "repentant" woulds also be inaccurate IMO. But, the lack of an unequivocal [if such a thing could exist] apology does not equal unrepentant. Especially if, as Ayers points out, any given actor could say that an apology is insufficient. (5) I think that the standard I'm advocating for should be applied to other similar articles. That is, the details should be in the linked articles, and the emotionally-charged POV terms should be eliminated from the articles, to the extent that they exist. I certainly haven't participated in the editing of those articles — I came to this article based on the Ayers comments, and my belief that the guilt by association storyline is making a mountain out of a molehill. I personally doubt that Obama shares much, if any, worldview with Ayers, and that making that assertion based on their "association' is unworthy of an encyclopedia. There's plenty of it on the sites like National Review; I believe that linking to sources like that are best done on the linked site, not the main one, given their status as opinion. Mfenger (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot directly compare the Barack Obama biography to those other biographies from a content standpoint, because this particular BLP is written in summary style and the others are not (although a couple of them seem to be "half and half"). Because we have adopted SS here, we are able to go into much greater depth in the associated sub articles, resulting in more detail than you get with the other politicians mentioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the other candidates' articles, I'd argue that their articles're treating all the "controversy" material with undue weight. They should follow the FA-quality example of this article, not the other way around. Shem^(talk) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

It looks like Noroton has identified a number of examples of inappropriate POV/Soapboxing in articles about other people. Some of them really are quite egregious. He would do Wikipedia a great service to remove (or at least heavily trim) those digressions into third persons that partisans put into other politician articles. If Noroton does not get to it, I might make an effort myself to clean some of that up (obviously though, as we've seen here, cleaning up to encyclopedic standards can often meet great resistance from anti-Bio-Subject partisans). Unfortunately, I can't personally improve millions of articles at once, probably not even dozens where the subjects are living persons of high general interst. LotLE×talk 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, although it is important to bear in mind that the other articles are going to have more detail because they are not written in summary style. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to put my comment on this ... I don't know Obama/Ayers well enough to comment on the choices here. But speaking for the Hillary article, I disagree that there is "POV/soapboxing" in it. The matters covered there are either legal or ethical investigations that she was the subject of, or issues that materially affected her presidential campaign. So for example if Obama had been the subject of a seven-year federal investigation into allegedly improperly firing federal employees and replacing them with cronies from Chicago (Travelgate), I think we'd all agree that it belonged in his main article. And as for matters like Bill messing up Hillary's campaign, the marriage to Bill has brought Hillary both very good things and very bad things, and is one of the major themes of the whole article. It belongs too. These parts of the Hillary article weren't put there by "partisans", but in fact accurately reflect the weight the topics are given in all of the mainstream, neutral biographies of Hillary. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And as for McCain, the material on Charles Keating is there not because McCain was a friend of Keating or because Keating said outrageous or embarrassing things. It's there because McCain was the subject of a multi-year inquiry as to whether he had improperly intervened with federal regulators to block an investigation of Keating's savings and loan practices. In the context of the nationwide savings and loan crisis, Keating Five became the major scandal of McCain's career, and for a while threatened to end it early. It deserves the treatment it has there. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Loud footfalls in the hall. A foot-long hollow tube thrown through the transom lands on the floor with a thud. Attached with a cord, this crumpled communique: ANy ThiNg LeSs ThaN N^o 9 PluS ¹/₂ WiLl Be MeT WiTh THe PeoPleS' ReSiStaNcE----TEXTUALEVOLUTIONFRONT — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Where can I get some of that stuff you are smoking? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If put into quotation marks and linked to a reliable and neutral source, indicating that they are the source's words and not Wikipedia's, the phrase "unrepentant terrorist" might be included. There are many, many politicians whose Wikipedia biographies contain details about other people. I have completed a extensive review of about 100 senators, governors and major party presidential candidates from the past 20 years, comparing not only Wikipedia biographies, but also Encyclopedia Britannica biographies. I can't find any that do not contain some details about other people. This seems to be standard encyclopedic practice. Some editors are trying to say, "The way that I have made this article is right. All of those other articles are wrong. You inclusionists need to go out there and do all the work, to bring all of those other articles up to my standards, because I'm right, and all of those other people are wrong. Even the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. They're all wrong." Surely any reasonable person can see what they're doing. You may call them exclusionists or deletionists, or whatever you choose. I will call them Obama campaign volunteers. That is the most accurate descriptive term. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. What we cannot do is go into detail about the other people's lives, beyond what is necessary to reasonably identify them. That policy should apply to all BLPs. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is missing the point. We not only can, but must go into a little detail about other people since all other articles I've seen about prominent politicians do so. For the purposes of this article, "what is necessary to reasonably identify" Bill Ayers? Would Obama's friendship with a "university professor" be notable? No.

Is Obama's friendship with an "unrepentant terrorist" notable? Yes, because that's where the controversy resides. Stephanopoulos didn't ask Obama about any of his many other friendships with professors. He only asked about this one. What is it that makes Ayers stand out from all of Obama's other friends, or all of the other professors Obama has known? What is it that makes him notable? It is his status as a founder of the Weathermen. If not for that, Stephanopoulos never would have started a nationally televised debate with a question about Ayers. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Then let's designate Ayers as "Weathermen founder" instead of using language that you must admit is very charged. For people who know about the Weathermen, this will still carry the same weight, right? And for those who don't, we wouldn't want to deny them the chance to reader the Weathermen article and decide for themselves whether (that) the organization was these things. Slurms MacKenzie (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving from vote to integration

It seems we have achieved a broad consensus for a level of detail outlined in #3 of the listed choices. Here is a slightly modified version of that text (a link now includes an anchor), with the references now included:

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

I would like to suggest that this paragraph be added to the "Early life and career" section, with all other references to Ayers (currently in the campaign section) removed. I think that the last sentence of the paragraph satisfies the "campaign-related issue" problem (especially since I have updated the link to point to the "media coverage" section of the campaign article). I have checked the two references against the proposed text and I can find no synthesis issues. - Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. Average of all choices is 4.433333 and if a few more choices on the high end of the scale come in, such as Fovean Author, it goes over 4.5 and gets rounded up to 5. For now, the consensus option is No. 4, not No. 3. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple list of agree/disagree comments seems appropriate:

• AGREE -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• OPPOSE — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Once this process is through, however its chips fall, participants should refrain further from edit warring on this point.

• • agree — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no "association" shown between Ayers and Obama, and the fact of it being a minor controversy in the campaign is a weight problem here. What happened is not "media scrutiny" but attack politics. Additionally, the process has not had adequate participation and is flawed in a way that will ensure coatracking. "Chips fall where they may" is no way to write articles; any result reached this way does not seem binding and is unlikely to hold. Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're disagreeing with No. 3's being the consensus? Or disagreeing with starting this up/down poll now, Wikidemo? :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any apparent agreement that might be reached among this group for one level of detail or another about these various campaign mini-scandals is a consensus to include the material, not the sort of consensus Wikipedia tries to implement. Moreover, the process of going down each of the controversies one by one in sequence to agree on how much emphasis to place is not a good approach, and would result in coatracking of a lot more controversy than would otherwise be in an article. Two more have been proposed so we're up to five. How many would we process in this way - ten? Twenty? For all the candidates? I know it's an attempt to restore order, but it's a symptom of the breakdown in good editing. A more sensible approach is to decide, globally, how to handle articles about politicians engaged in campaigns, and not allow case-by-case deviations. The outcome of that approach would be, and probably is already, that the thrusts and parries of political theater belong in campaign articles, whereas the bio articles are about the people themselves and their significant career moments and life events.Wikidemo (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, but I was just getting fed up with all the edit warring. I felt like there was no choice if there was going to be any kind of article stability. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've begun asking for wider comment from people who aren't habitues of this talk page. I've started on the talk pages of other candidate articles. I'm going to continue that process today and tomorrow. There are not nearly enough editors involved in this discussion and those that are have what I think is too parochial a viewpoint for an article that is this important to Wikipedia. Wikipedia should get this article right, and this article will only get more important over time. You can try to close the discussion down now while you have a small number giving you a temporary consensus, or you can wait another couple of days as others stream in. But this discussion is not over. It's barely started. Noroton (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is entirely inappropriate. You are basically conducting a subtle form of canvassing to garner support for your more extreme views, using the inadequacies of other articles to justify yourself. We must move this process forward and go onto the next thing (Wright or Rezko). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP guidelines caution: "(...I)t is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process...."' I have wikifaith Noroton will canvass according to the spirit of this directive. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Justme, but you don't need wikifaith. You can get wikiconfirmation by following the links on my contributions list and reading exactly what I wrote. I've been quite open about what I intended to do for some time. I even mentioned it on the WP:AN/I page in the section (now in archives) was started on the conflict with this article. I can't be sure that people who read the notices will agree with me, but at least they'll create a broader number of Wikipedians, and I think that's good for discussions about neutrality.Noroton (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You made so much of trying to be fair when you thought you'd win, Scjessey. Try to continue to be fair. Otherwise you look desperate. From WP:CANVASS#Friendly notices: Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject, the Village pump, or perhaps some other related talk page, while still only, or in lieu of, posting a limited number of friendly notices to individual editors. Noroton (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still premature to call #3 the "consensus option" at this point. Even though a majority of editors have at this point at least indicated that #3 is acceptable, a majority is not a consensus. It is also premature as far as timing goes. It has been less than 24 hours since real discussion started on this. Wikipedia doesn't react that fast in finding consensus. It should really take at least 5 days of discussion/waiting before we call something a consensus version. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Scjessey's suggestion per my !vote of 4.5 before reading this. As a member of WP:08, I believe Noroton's wish for outside help is appropriate, and going to other articles is also appropriate; if the degree of canvassing was a bit questioned, let's not make every little thing an issue. My comments at Talk:Ron Paul#How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?, written prior to knowing anything of Ayers besides the name, are cross-posted below. I am not watchlisting at this time. JJB 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support brief explanation of up to a couple sentences, with link. It's case by case, but the general answer must be middle-of-the-road as you suggest, unless (for example) criminal charges link the two. Perhaps by this standard Lew Rockwell has too much coverage in this bio article. However this is not a matter of "equal treatment" per se because, say, does Mike Gravel really have any controversial associates? It's a matter of nominal "equal treatment for equal circumstances", and since no two circumstances are ultimately equal, proper weighting in each case. Some associates will need more space than others. Balance is determined by building local consensus and staking out NPOV and POV positions through a group redistricting procedure. JJB 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• OPPOSE the MOVE, May I remind Scjessey of a point you made: "Options 3 and up are the versions which fall into WP:COATRACK issues". Now comments to rehash the opposition/support of a "consensus" version appear to be conflated with the move. The only thing this exercise has done is show editors that if they want a different consensus they have to bring better proposals and better arguments to the table. Remember, consensus is not a vote. User:HailFire [11] was correct in objecting to this coatrack. Yes, Ayers worked on the board and also supported Obama. Sooooo? Obama has attracted many supporters over his career. Why should Ayers be treated any different? Arguably, this proposal to move is giving Ayers undue weight in Obama's life and it is this undue weight that is at the heart of the digression. #3 is already integrated into the article, for the debate is the only reason there are notable sources on the Ayers and Obama association. Modocc (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate methodology

"Average of all choices is 4.433333 and if a few more choices on the high end of the scale come in, such as Fovean Author, it goes over 4.5 and gets rounded up to 5.
* "For now, the consensus option is No. 4, not No. 3."---- WORKERBEE74. Am pollinating (whoever-is-) "WorkerBee"'s suggestion — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

just a note here, I am not sure every one agree's the options are presented as a spectrum from 1 being pro-obama and 8 being anti... at least in between 1 and 5 (or so) you can argue the spectrum is improperly organized at some points, with 4 being more agressive than 5, etc 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• AGREE — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Umm.. That isn't how consensus works folks. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• I can tell you right now that this methodology has absolutely no chance of producing a consensus. And as far as I cant tell, the user known as Fovean Author is only in existence for edit warring, and is currently blocked for just that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, "how (Wikipedia) works" would always be whatever a consensus of editors agree to, not just whatever way you define it. And the arrangement of choices from among a spectrum naturally invites approximating a weight to each vote according to its position along it. — Justmeherenow (   ) 12:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The account User:WorkerBee74 is almost certainly a sock-puppet of User:Kossack4Truth, as is User:Fovean Author. WorkerBee74 started this new round of tirades (including references to the planned votes of K4T/Fovean) exactly when the first two accounts were blocked. Once broader action is taken against those sock-puppet accounts, we can strike out those three "votes", and I believe greater calm will be reached on this page. LotLE×talk 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Call everyone who disagrees with you a sockpuppet or puppet master. Way to AGF there. Kossack is right, it's a really ugly personal attack against all three of them. 68.29.208.59 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (Posted from IP whose sole edit history is on this page)

• Mostly agree per my !vote of 4.5 before reading this, but averaging is misleading because #7 should be #6 and #6 should be about #9.5 because of the undue word "terrorist". JJB 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for demonstrating an odd methodological issue. You get meaningful results by averaging ordinal numbers, that's like asking a sofa for a job reference. Wikidemo (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bobblehead is right - this is not how consensus works. Tvoz/talk 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• It isn't bad. If roughly half want No. 3 (or something close) and roughly half want No. 7 (or something close), then mathematically No. 5 turns out as a fair compromise. 68.29.208.59 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

An aside re zero and infinity

Problem is----most BHO-bio Apologists' ballots really are mathematical zero! The result of which is identical with a statistical method that would require multiplication since zero is/always will be----zero. And its corrollary(sp) is that most BHO-bio Dissidents (seeking to investigate/smear BHO)'s ballots are really mathematical infinity! (∞).

• Therefore it's only fair to throw out, for statistical purposes, any and all ballots from folks at those extremes, even if these together are in the vast majority. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please identify where in WP:CONSENSUS that it says that the opinion of editors that are acting in good faith may be ignored? I've done a quick review and I can't find it, but perhaps my interpretation is incorrect. There is no way to statistically decide that a certain proposed wording is the "consensus version" based upon an arbitrary number that is only used to identify them. You might as well say that because some editors like apples and others bananas, the consensus fruit is a grape. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With an ear for parodox, Bobblehead, you'd hear that the fact there's really no way to mathematically determine a consensus version of text was----EXACTLY----my very point.... :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) --->If you must argue with me, Bobblehead, please do so against the apple of whatever point I'm actually making and not against the orange of some point you're only claiming that I'm making. A compromise is a compromise and just 'cause a compromise is predetermined to be partially iNclusionistic doesn't negate the principle of eXclusionism as an ideal. Even though, in effect, by determing to compromise what's been done is to throw eXclusionist votes out of the hopper. As an anology, John drinks enough water to bloat his tummy contantly as a health regimen. Sally never drinks water as part of her stringent diet, partially as a part of her spiritual beliefs. Yet statisticians looking at average water consumption could conceivably decide their best methodology would be to throw out data from both John and Sally. Still, this apple of a statistical decision would in no wise be making the oranges suggestions that reasonably copious consuption of water isn't beneficial or that "oft-fasting" isn't an excellent spritual discipline. But since ya've got a history of sorta "only finding the ridiculous" in others' beliefs and opinions, Bobblehead, I'm not terribly confident you won't simply discount whatever point I'm actually trying to get at here and also offhandedly label it to the extreme of its having entirely no basis in fact or as being something of no possible utility. Oh well, the fun of dealing with data alongside "fellow near-Aspergers" (lol, figurately speaking) here at WPdia outweighs its downsides. :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[P.S. For those interested, :^) one reason Einsteinian relativity and macro-cosmology can't yet entirely be unified with quantum physics and micro-cosmology (other than attempts via string theory) is because the former uses Cantorian mathematics (which includes in his set theory the "singularities" at mathematical points zero and infinity) while the latter doesn't.
[-Eg, in standard cosmologies,
--at the (Cantorian) point zero-age of the universe was the big bang
[--and at the (Cantorian) point infinity-age of the universe will be
[---either the big whimper (final acceleration into into infinite space) of a open ("infinite") universe ((which might be constantly creating new matter while old matter constantly disintigrates, rendering the universe finite in any "one moment of space-time" [should such a thing be thought to exist], but "infinite" en toto))
[---or, alternately, the big crunch (the entire universe's descelerated expansion to a point of its final collapse back into a single point of nothingness or zero space) of a closed (finite) universe.] — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for spirit of cooperation

After what seemed like a giant step forward in trying to find a consensus over the Bill Ayers inclusion, we seem to have stumbled. Possibly triggered by my attempt to move toward integrating the consensus text, there has been a breakdown of friendly, cooperative discussion. I had thought that most of the regular editors had weighed-in with their votes and opinions, so I began the next step of the process. We can certainly halt that "integration" and have further discussion, if necessary, but I would remind contributors that there are other issues waiting in the queue that must also be resolved. I urge editors to remain cool, avoid personal comments, and try to keep this process moving toward a much-needed conclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, both sides have got to let go, please, for the sake of the articles stability, stop fighting over every little word. If we have/get a consensus further edit warring from EITHER side will be seen as disruptive and could result in a block. Both sides have got to let go and accept the result, please stop name calling and lets get back on track. Please think about the stability of the article and that golden star above politics. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to rush. I agree with Bobblehead's comment just above (16:51, 3 June 2008) that a broader consensus is needed and a longer time is needed to get it. This has been argued within this little group for some time, and this little group can wait a bit longer. There is no need to wait for this discussion to end before starting on Wright and Rezko. In fact, I think that might be a good idea. Noroton (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and cutting of discussion too soon can hurt a spirit of cooperation more than extending discussion until a solid consensus arises. Noroton (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

May i just add, to those who are resisting consensus on both sides. We still have a few other issues to settle after this. Within the next few week there are going to be other things to argue about on the Obama page. I have already heard talk of removing the FA star because of upcoming stability concerns regarding potential presidency. The more things we are edit warring over the more likely it is that the article will be delisted. We really have to resolve these Ayers/wright issues NOW before the next set of issues arise up against John McCain. We need to get this sorted so that we can keep the article stable, please, if you care about the article, lets unit around a compromise before the star is removed. We need to be fully prepared for new issues. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, we've had two or three editors come here in the several hours since I put up the notices about this discussion that I always said I would put up. This sudden impatience itself is not a consensus-building move. Consensus building requires at least some patience. Evening has just started on the East coast, and over the next six hours or so, a lot of U.S. Wikipedians -- adult Wikipedians with day jobs and responsibilities, are going to see those notices. Some will be coming to the page. When those notices have not even been up a day it is passing strange to present them with a debate that has already shut down early for trivial reasons. Consensus is more important than article stability and even more important than maintaining FA stars. I don't see FA stars mentioned on that page that talks about Wikipedia pillars. You want stability? Form a solid consensus and it will be respected by anybody who doesn't want to be blocked. The way it looks so far, you'll probably get a consensus I don't like, but I'll say it again: wait and see. Give it a fair chance. Feel free to start discussions on Wright and Rezko. Noroton (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as it takes is fine with me, just that each side has to let it drop when a consensus is finally reached, sorry if you thought I was rushing the process. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this POV push is most definitely not in the spirit of cooperation. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And your justification for this whitewash is? Andyvphil (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...is more than adequately explained in the edit summary. Stop adding non-neutral details about other people to this biography, especially when the editing community is in the middle of a consensus-building discussion on this very subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus-building discussion of the options

The !votes section above is a good early step in seeing where we are, but building a consensus is going to take a good number of editors discussing the reasoning behind their preferences and with many ultimately agreeing that their preferred option just doesn't have enough support to go into the article. I posted a notice about this discussion in enough places to get a larger number of Wikipedians involved and the response appears to give us a good indication about what editors believe so far. At this point, no matter if more editors join in, I don't expect the pattern of !votes to change without further discussion. The best way, initially, to reach consensus is to make sure we can't change minds first. We may actually be able to move some people toward our position and we may find we're convinced by other arguments (you can see that's happened even during the voting above as people have changed their minds). I'd like to reopen the discussion on some points and address some of the new points that have been made right here and do it with

• (1) VERY CONCISE COMMENTS SO WE DON'T BORE ANYBODY TO DEATH
• (2) No attacks or condemnations of the sincerity of anybody on Wikipedia. It isn't necessary.
• (3) Factual evidence when called for, preferably with links.

Submitted: Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 1: Say nothing about Ayers

• My comments in the subsection Fair treatment of Obama should be similar to how we treat other candidates show that this is not how Wikipedia treats other candidates, and I see nothing in WP policy or guidelines mandating that this is the course to take. Oh, and significant media coverage of this situation has made it a prominent part of the campaign, no matter how much certain editors may not like it. Character matters, associations matter, sometimes loose associations matter, this association matters. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  What on earth does Bill Ayers have to do with Obama's character that isn't a matter of guilt by association? Including negative information about someone because it deflates his "character" for is almost the definition of a coatrack. Wikidemo (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I now think this is the only viable option. There are no reliable sources that can be cited to prove that Ayers planted any bombs, etc., and even if it were so, it was decades before Obama even met the man. Of the few occasions where Obama and Ayers have met, only one appears to be even vaguely notable. I conclude that there is no reason to mention Ayers in this biography at all, as it would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT, which in turn would be a violation of WP:BLP. That being said, it was notable that Obama was asked about Ayers in a TV debate, so it makes sense to mention it briefly in the campaign article; however, that is not a matter for this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Press coverage disagrees with you. It extends from mid-February to Michael Kinsley's column in the May 29 Time magazine. Every major news organization in the country has run stories about this. How do you reconcile "no reliable sources that can be cited to prove that Ayers planted any bombs" with the best source possible: Bill Ayers himself. "I don't regret setting bombs", he said in the first line of a Sept. 11, 2001 New York Times story. (Is this behind their subscription wall? I can email the story.) Four days after the NYT story appeared, Ayers wrote a very critical blog post reprinting a letter he sent to the Times. In his criticism of the article he never said that he didn't tell the reporter "I don't regret setting bombs." You could look it up. BLP specifically allows negative information on public figures and it is extremely hard to argue WP:UNDUE when what's being added is a line or two. Noroton (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Norton that all candidates should be treated the same, but I would do that by removing all controversies from the articles about candidates unless the controversy itself was a significant issue in their life (e.g. Gary Hart's affair with Gennifer Flowers ending Hart's Presidential race), or unless the underlying event was significant to the candidate's life, e.g. being a recovering alcoholic, and further provided that the controversy or scandal is adequately covered as a separate article or as a mention in the article in the campaign(s) in which it became an issue. If those are the rules, and people understand the rules, they won't perceive bias and we won't get so much edit warring and coatracking over political attack pieces. Wikidemo (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we don't demand that every two-line statement in the biography of anyone be a "significant issue in their life." If you cut out anything that didn't meet that standard from this or any other biography, you'd be cutting most of the information out of each. Yes, we should cover only the important negative information in the bio article and cover it as it affects the biography. But the media coverage this matter has gotten is not tabloid coverage and it is important to allow readers a chance to get to the article on it from the bio page. We use media sources for over 100 other parts of this article, and those same news organizations consider this important enough to cover. It's worth a couple of lines in our bio coverage. Noroton (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I beg to differ. I believe we demand that of every article on every subject in Wikipedia, a concept generally described as relevance. Weight is also an issue. Tabloids, political opponents, and enemies try to paint every politician as undesirable based on stuff that sounds bad but is usually unfounded, out of context, out of proportion, irrelevant, or simply untrue. We really shouldn't take part in that game. If it's relevant only to the political process in which the politician is participating, but is not a real issue that is part of their real life, career, or policy, better leave that to the articles about the political process, i.e. the campaign articles. Wikidemo (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • We demand relevance of every whole article, and certainly every section should be a "significant issue in their life", but not every two lines. In my 01:04, 5 June post just above I link to a Google News search of Obama + Ayers. Not every result is about Bill Ayers and it's not all from reliable sources, but there are tons of non-tabloid, non-enemy sources there. This is very much a real issue. It isn't as big as other issues and doesn't deserve massive coverage in this article, but your description is an exaggeration, and I've given you the proof of that. Noroton (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • We have room for Obama to report that he fancies himself a pretty good chili chef. This article is packed with the kind of trivia that Obama's campaign manager loves to see. If there's room for that kind of fluffy trivia, we have room for a treatment of Ayers and his Weatherman past. We have a separate article for United States Senate career of Barack Obama, but we also have room for 980 words in the "U.S. Senate" section in this article. We have a separate article for Political positions of Barack Obama, but we also have room for 1042 words in the "Political positions" section in this article. Surely we have enough room for an equally detailed examination of the presidential campaign, including controversial figures such as Ayers, in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I think Kossak's point puts this two-line addition into perspective. You don't start looking for places to cut prose with items that will not receive a link if you cut them, and you don't start preventing coverage of serious topics before you've pruned the trivia. WP:WEIGHT is not a credible objection. Noroton (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
            • We demand relevance of any fact in the encyclopedia. Extraneous details that cannot reasonably be tied to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject of the article simply don't belong. That's true of trivia too, but where there is less harm there is less urgency. Using the google search test there are 220,000 web pages that mention both Ayers and Obama - Nearly all are blogs, opinion pieces, and coverage of the controversy itself rather than the underlying events, then of course the usual duplicates and random web clutter. But almost certainly among those, there is enough reliably sourced information to show that it's notable for something. I haven't seen any sources that show that the information says anything about Obama himself, other than that people are trying to attack him for having interacted with Ayers. On the other hand there are 60 million web pages that mention Obama. So Ayers is mentioned in 1 out of 300. A news archive search is even more stark: 195,000 articles about Obama[12] of which 95 mention Ayers[13] , a ratio of 1 in 2,000. Given that most of those probably mention things other than Ayers, probably less than 1/5000 of all the discussion of Obama in news sources involve a discussion of Ayers. That's awfully slim. A whole section or even a couple sentences here gives it undue weight. Wikidemo (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a profound and fundamental difference between information about Obama and information about some other person. Of course "unrepentant terrorist bomber" or whatever is more important (albeit not true) than "good chili chef". But in this article, any information, no matter how trivial, about Obama is more relevant that information about somebody else. That said, I think the chili chef thing probably does descend too far towards trivia; we could certainly lose that and save a few words. However, those 1042 words on Obama's political positions are centrally relevant... all these radical anti-Obama partisans seem to utterly forget that this is a biography of its subject, not of "whoever else we can find not to like" LotLE×talk 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If his political positions are that important (and they are), then issues related to his character are also very important for the same reason: One important aspect of any presidential candidate bio is going to be information that voters will be looking for. Now this is not a referendum on the ballot but a flesh-and-blood person. We are not electing a platform but a person with strengths and weaknesses. Who you associate with is one way for voters to judge your strengths and weaknesses. Candidates change positions, but character issues tend not to change as much. This is worth the two lines proposed. Noroton (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything said about Ayers here is about Obama in the sense that we simply describe what was problematic about someone associating with Ayers. It should be clear why we're actually mentioning Ayers here. Before this presidential campaign, organizers of an education conference disinvited Ayers and Northwestern U. alumni protested against Ayers' wife, Bernardette Dohrn, because they were unrepentant about their violent past. But Obama, like much of the Chicago establishment, did not. These details are not worth noting in this article, but they put Obama's association into perspective. Obama's decision to associate with Ayers is about Obama and is important to the voters relationship with him, just as the political positions are. Noroton (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Noroton. Information about Ayers and his relationship with Obama is highly relevant to Obama's notability and therefore belongs in the article for the simple reason that, as a person running for president, he has drawn significant media scrutiny as a result of it. Information about his own assessments of his chili cooking skills are much less relevant. --Floorsheim (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Information about Ayers and his relationship with Obama is highly relevant to Obama's notability"

That is just a ridiculous statement. Obama is most certainly not notable because of his relationship with Ayers!

"as a person running for president, he has drawn significant media scrutiny as a result of it."

That only reinforces the argument that this belongs only in the campaign article, and not in the biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Using words like "ridiculous" in reference to others' perspectives could be taken offensively and give rise to heatedness in discussions. Please avoid such language where unnecessary. My point is not that Obama's relationship to Ayers is his notability. Rather that it is highly relevant to his primary notability as person running for president seeing as he has drawn significant criticism because of it. And that for this reason, it should be included here. Also would like to point out that this article is not an ordinary biography and that some of the familiar intuitions and guidelines concerning BLP's may not apply here. --Floorsheim (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant to his notability at all. Not a single person on Earth has heard of Obama because of his association with Ayers. The coverage of their association is notable, but not the fact of their association. That is why it is only suitable for the campaign article. And how is this "not an ordinary biography" exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an ordinary biography because it's about someone running for president. In the case of most biographies, the facts of interest are facts about the person, their life, their favorite color, etc. Here the facts of interest have a wider scope including but not limited to items which have verifiably influenced the public perception of Obama's electability (the presence of abundant media coverage qualifies).

You are accurate in saying no one knows about Obama because of his association with Ayers. This establishes the point we agree on which is that Obama's relationship to Ayers is not his notability. My point is entirely separate from this. My point is that the facts of the Ayers relationship should be included because they are relevant to Obama's notability as person running for president for the reason that they have led to significant criticism.

Check WP:ROC. You'll find the following general guideline for content inclusion on Wikipedia:

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

The facts of the Wright, Ayers, and Rezko issues clearly qualify.

--Floorsheim (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To a very large extent, Wikipedia allows the mainstream news media (not the extremes represented by World Net Daily and Daily Kos), history book authors, and editors of conventional encyclopedias to decide what is notable. We just report what they're talking about. If they cover it, we cover it. The mainstream media have found the connection between Ayers and Obama to be notable. Ayers himself admits that he planted bombs. Case closed. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your conclusions are all wrong. Re-read this edit to see the degree of wrongness. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of why this is not an ordinary biography. In the case of most persons, Scjessey's linked example provides a case in which media coverage is not an indicator of an issue's relevance to an article. In the case of a person running for president, though, the situation is quite different. The simple fact alone that an issue draws media coverage for such a person immediately brings the issue into relevance. It doesn't matter if we think the issue is silly and shouldn't have drawn media interest, as I in fact do for the most part in this case. What matters is that it has had an impact on that person's public perception, which is probably the most relevant thing of all to his or her primary notability as person running for president. --Floorsheim (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But it would still only be notable with respect to the campaign, and so would belong in the campaign article. In terms of Obama's biography, it is not significant at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring the fact that if it wasn't for the presidential campaign, Obama would be no more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator. Tester's biography is a few hundred words. Because it is the campaign that makes Obama more notable than any other freshman senator, it is the campaign that should receive the lion's share of coverage in this article. That means a fair representation of all significant POVs, including the POV that asks tough questions about Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. This cannot be dismissed as a fringe POV. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kossack. The material belongs in both articles on the grounds that it is highly relevant to the notability of both subjects. It should receive proportionately more weight in the campaign article but should have a presence in both. If you didn't see my link above, Scjessey, please take a look at WP:ROC. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 2: Don't mention Ayers controversial past

Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

• Nobody prefers this option as of this point. Only !Vote 3 gives it as a second or third choice.Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 3: Identifies Ayers as former radical activist

Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny ...

• My problem with this is that former radical activist is too vague. He appears to be a "radical" (vague term) still, and he is certainly an "activist" (another vague word) in some ways, hosting a fundraiser and working for educational reform. Furthermore, being a "former radical activist" is not why scrutiny was drawn to the association, and not why it was controversial. So the sentence can be misleading. The association is controversial because Ayers formerly engaged in violence (bombing of [largely] empty government buildings; organizing a riot in Chicago), and because his later statements, even to the present, have been taken as not being repentant about that. This is also my objection to some other options. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• The problem with Noroton's characterization is that it is at best WP:OR, and at worse an outright lie. There is zero WP:RS evidence that Ayers formerly engaged in violence or created any bombs. Noroton might speculate on what is "likely" (in his mind), given Ayers' associations 40 years ago, but that's only appropriate for Noroton's blog. No matter what anyone opines in this endless stuff, it will never be acceptable to invent that claim under WP:BLP. Whether Ayers' is "repentant" is always and completely subjective, that can also never go into an encyclopedia without violating WP:BLP and WP:OR. LotLE×talk 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't need to speculate. Ayers admitted it. See 01:04 5 June post in Option 1. This removes the WP:OR objection and the NY Times isn't the only source. There is a mainstream of reporting from WP:RS sources backing this up. LotLE, you are again engaging in WP:NPA personal attacks and lack of civility with "Noroton's charactherization ... is ... an outright lie." Stop poisoning the discussion. You don't have to attack me to make your point, and you're making yourself look bad and me look good whenever you do it. Noroton (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• People can go to the Bill Ayers article to see for themselves what he is all about. Adjectives should be used in this kind of a reference only as much as is useful to identify and frame the reference, not to impart a POV in the article. "Former radical", "Former radical activist", "Former Weathermen leader", etc., all do that equally well. We still have a weight issue with this option. Tossing aside the outliers who believe that Ayers is a "mentor", "friend", or benefactor of Obama, the believable sources all say there is no association at all, just routine interaction of two people who move in the same circles. That would not be mentioned but for its being the subject of attack politics, so the mention rightfully belongs in an article about the campaign, not here. Wikidemo (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • An adequate description of a few words or a phrase is really not unreasonable, IMO, but that's the kind of thing we should be able to get to a consensus on. Noroton (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 4: Identifies Ayers as Weatherman founder

Weatherman founder Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny ...

• It's too vague for the reasons I give in my comment in Option 3 with this timestamp. It's not that he founded an organization that makes him controversial, it's that he founded an organization involved in violence. We can't expect readers to know what "Weather Underground" was and we shouldn't make them follow the link just to find out. That's not serving the reader. Especially when we can fix the problem with the addition of a few words. In fact, as my preferred Option 7 shows, we don't need to even mention the name of the group, because the exact name is not necessary, and even the fact that he was a member of a particular group is not necessary. The quality of his past actions and his attitude toward those past actions is the issue, not the group. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 5: Mentions Dohrn, links both to Weather Underground, called "militant activist" group

Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who during the 1970s were co-founders of the Weather Underground (a militant activist organization), would later draw media scrutiny ...

• Adding Dohrn is unnecessary detail. Weather Underground was more than "militant", it was extremely violent (although they didn't want to murder people -- we should give them that). I see no reason to substitute "violent" with "militant" -- it just does no good and it isn't disputable that they weren't violent. What is the reason for calling them "militant" rather than "violent"? The words "activist organization" is an improvement over Option 4. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Dohrn absolutely has no place in any of this. If that was removed, this one would be within the bounds of WP:BLP. However, "violent" is definitely not permitted; no one was injured or killed in any Weatherman action (except themselves). It's a subjective argument whether destruction of property (even with bombs) is "violent," but "militant" is clearly accurate. However, the reason we have wikilinks is so that we don't have to rewrite articles inside parentheses, so this reduces to #4 if written in a professional style. LotLE×talk 00:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Dohrn co-hosted Ayers' fundraiser and reception in the mid-1990s that launched Obama's career. Dohrn worked at the same law firm as Michelle Obama. They crossed paths frequently. It is worth a mention, with Dohrn's name in the form of a blue link to her Wiki biography. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I like this one. Dohrn seems relevant to me; I'm comfortable with "militant"; and I feel "Weather Underground" needs to be explained. I might prefer to spell out just a bit more exactly what "militant" means but am willing to let it slide. As far as that goes, the bomb that exploded in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion was intended to hurt people, as evidenced both by the construction of the bomb (nail bomb) and by reports of former members. --Floorsheim (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• The first sentence here has no verb (it has one but not one for the subject of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • All options have this same problem. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 6: Calls Ayers unrepentant terrorist bomber, includes most Option 5 info

unrepentant terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who during the 1970s were co-founders of the Weather Underground (a militant activist organization), would later draw media scrutiny ...

• I just noticed that, like Option 2, there's no support for this in the !voting. My comment immediately below is probably unnecessary. Sorry. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Calling Ayers a terrorist bomber may be technically correct: It seems reasonable to suppose that Weatheer Underground wanted to sow "terror" in the population by setting bombs. Objections: (1) The word terrorist tends to imply that someone wants to or is ready to kill people, and Weather Underground specifically wanted to avoid that. We do no harm by replacing terrorist with violent. (2) The word bomber is too constricting. One of the key points against the Weather Underground was that the group worked to set off a riot. People were injured in that riot. We don't need to add a lot more words here in order to make all these distinctions. Just drop the word bomber since either "terrorist" or "violent" gets the entire point across. I'm also not sure he's definitively admitted to setting bombs instead of just supporting it as a member of the group -- if we can't source it, it's a BLP violation. (3) Both words are more controversial than I think we can ever get consensus for, and violence is just as good. Not every option will have the full emotional affect of others, and that shouldn't matter -- the goal should be to provide the minimum amount of information necessary for an adequate understanding of why this association was controversial. For my objection to unrepentant see my comment at Option 7, same time stamp as this one. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers book isn't online, but Factcheck.org writes, "[The] bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground [were] at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, in a men's lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and in a women's restroom in the Pentagon in 1972." [14] Saying he was a bomber is uncontroversial outside of the la-la land that is this talk page. Andyvphil (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 7: Calls Weather violent, says Ayers didn't renounce violent actions

Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw media scrutiny

• well known because Ayers was famous for his involvement with the WU and Obama could not have been ignorant about that. violent radical group because "violent" was one of two major points that makes this association controversial. had not renounced the group's violent actions This avoids the word "unrepentant" that Mfenger objects to. It is a simple, provable, objective fact, which can be sourced, that he has not renounced the violent actions. It can be proven to be false if someone can find a clear, public renunciation. Together with "violence" it is one of the two top things that makes Bill Ayers controversial today. Other violent radicals have renounced their violence and even entered Congress, and people work with them without controversy. A public figure who works with someone who has not renounced past violence can expect that association to be controversial. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, sourcing "had not renounced the group's violent actions" is going to be problematic — how does one prove a negative like that? It's a subjectivve, POV statement of opinion by analysts if you source it to the places that were advocated earlier (e.g., NYT or Slate opinion pieces). I also wonder about your earlier statements in this section that readers won't know what the "Weather Underground" was (and won't click on a link to learn), and won't wonder what the "controversy" is and click on a provided link to further discussion. If readers are the way you say they are, won't they just buy "failed to renounce" without looking into the further discussion that I assume will discuss Ayers's writings on the subject with the nuance they deserve? For these reasons, I think the third option is stil the best. Anyone interested in the controversy will click on the link. Mfenger (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that readers may misconstrue what was controversial based on the description of the controversy. That can happen whenever a controversy isn't described well enough. One "proves a negative like that" about not renouncing violence by referring to news articles that say he didn't renounce it. I provided one from the NY Times before and there are others. We commonly give negative information about people in Wikipedia, especially with public figures, when we have reliable sources saying precisely the same thing. I see no controversy out there at all that he is unrepentant. If there is, the phrase could be modified. It has been reported that he was directly asked whether he renounced violence and the response he gave was quoted, and it clearly was not renouncing the group's violent actions. Multiple news accounts accepting that he is unrepentant are not all due to lazy reporting. I get the impression that no matter what evidence is provided, you won't be satisfied, but feel free to tell me how I'm wrong and what evidence would work for you. If a simple phrase describing the solid facts that make the group and Ayers controversial can be added to the article, why object to the addition? Noroton (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, this "unrepentant" is complete crap, and cannot go in an encyclopedia.. period. Ever! Moreover, Ayers' has made many statements (reproduced on this talk pages) expressing what he was, and wasn't, sorry about. Noroton's definition of "unrepentant" means "hasn't apologized enough for me." Unless Noroton is Ayers' shrink, or priest, or rabbi, or maybe St.Peter judging at the Pearly Gates, he has no idea whatsoever what Ayers' may or may not have "repented." LotLE×talk 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with my organizing these discussions this way is that the same points keep coming up. Lesson learned. As I mentioned elsewhere, I refuted this point about "unrepentant" at my 01:04 5 June post in Option 1. Reliable sources say he's unrepentant and he hasn't said different. LotLE makes the additional point about Ayers' odd statements expressing regret about various things. It seems to me that Ayers could very easily put the whole matter to rest with a single, simple statement that clearly says he's sorry about promoting and committing violence. That's extremely easy to do, and if he does it, it should be enough for us. Instead, he toys with it, plays around with it. I'm willing to accept a clear statement from him as proof of repentance about violence if someone can provide it. Fair enough? Noroton (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Oh, and the language here isn't "unrepentant", it's had not renounced the group's violent actions. An objective fact. Noroton (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers' own words are easily understood. He doesn't regret setting off bombs. He wishes that he and his Weathermen friends could have set off even more bombs. Don't pretend that "unrepentant" would be inaccurate in away way, or any sort of a stretch. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More proof that he has not indicated repentance From an interview with Ayers and Dohrn on a PBS website:

In the film, Mark Rudd talks about his qualms and his very divided feelings about what he did. You don’t make any equivalent statement, and I wondered why not… How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?

Bill Ayers: I’ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it’s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful?… I don’t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable. You could look it up. In fact, I think it's fair to call him "unrepentant" as backed up by this reliable source. Noroton (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Weather Underground was violent against people, not just property

Mark Rudd, a leader in Weather Underground (called Weathermen when he was a leader), confirms that the group planned to kill innocent people:

On the morning of March 6, 1970, three of my comrades were building pipe bombs packed with dynamite and nails, destined for a dance of non-commissioned officers and their dates at Fort Dix, N.J., that night. You could look it up on his website.

So, just to clearly sum it up: We have multiple reliable sources that Bill Ayers is an (1) unrepentant (2) terrorist bomber. Capisce? I'm willing to support another option for the sake of consensus, but not because this option doesn't have solid reliable sources to back it up. Noroton (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you can add all the evidence you like - pages and pages of it - and it won't make any difference to the central issue, which is that none of it is relevant to this BLP, and would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. You must write about the subject, not the subject's acquaintance. You have to prove that Obama himself was an "unrepentant terrorist bomber" to put those words, or words like it into this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement from earlier up on this page: I urge editors to remain cool, avoid personal comments, and try to keep this process moving toward a much-needed conclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Sjessey, the veracity of various statements was questioned, I proved their veracity. It shows why Ayers is controversial and shows that solid descriptions of Ayers can be sourced. Just because you have other objections (which have already been answered), you don't need to insert them here. It's not really helpful in keeping the process moving forward. Noroton (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you can add all the evidence you like - pages and pages of it - and it won't make any difference to the central issue, which is ... That a clique of pro-Obama partisans are whitewashing the article, and won't let the facts, or Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, get in their way. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When there are too many people who oppose them, they point fingers and scream, "Sockpuppet!" Here we see the first failed attempt. The RFCU result was "Unrelated." Here we see the second attempt, unconsciously evoking Josef Goebbels' old maxim that if you repeat a lie often enough, and loudly enough, and with enough arrogance and brass, some people will start to believe it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack, while I understand your frustration, I'd like to suggest keeping WP:FAITH in mind, if also WP:BEANS. Scjessey and company have made their reasons for their position clear: the facts we feel are relevant don't belong because they aren't directly about Barack Obama. It is not our place to insert surreptitious motivations where those that they lay claim to suffice.

In response to Scjessey, here is a direct quote from WP:BLP:

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

The Ayers stuff is certainly notable and well-documented. As for relvancy, here is what Wikipedia:Relevance of content says about what belongs in an article:

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

The Ayers stuff has influenced Obama's public perception as evidenced by its level of presence in the media and thus is relevant.

So according to the very policy you yourself keep referring to, the Ayers stuff should go in. Same for Wright and Rezko. I don't see how you or anyone else can continue to claim otherwise.

--Floorsheim (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Floorsheim's arguments, I will direct everyone's attention to this portion of the Wikipedia essay cited by Floorsheim: Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Ayers belongs in the article, and additional context is needed. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 8: Rewrite, lengthen, ID critic, describe Ayers, associations, Obama's statements

In campaign section, Commentators such as X criticized Obama for his ties with Bill Ayers... then a description of Ayers, then a description of the associations, then a description of Obama's statements on the matter.

• This is the only option calling for much more detail. Its strength is that it's easier to treat the matter with NPOV, but we can do that anyway. If this matter becomes much more controversial (I actually expect it will), then this is a good option and it may be what we'll be forced to do by events, but it doesn't rate that kind of treatment now. The links will do most of the work of providing detail. I think it matters what news outlets you watch or read. Fox News and various web sites and publications on the right have made more out of the Ayers controversy than some other TV news orgs and magazines. I think people involved in this discussion are assuming that their news outlets are reflecting news coverage in general. If this controversy gets the attention that the Jeremiah Wright controversy has received, then this would be a good option. Otherwise, the idea of reporting on others opinions is a good strategy, endorsed by WP:NPOV. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I support either No. 7 or No. 8. Now that we have discussed it, I think I like No. 8 the best. The must be done with absolute neutrality, but that means allowing Obama's critics to be heard in this article. Then let Obama defend himself as well. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the alternatives (1-7) is that it makes the (I think unwarranted, other people think very warranted) assumption that the coincidence of Ayers and Obama being on the board together amounts to anything in and of itself - that is, simply reporting the fact as notable is POV. That makes it very tricky business - I, at least, would find it to be a bit POV. Which is why I think framing it in terms of a controversy - or even just in terms of the ABC debate - is so much more preferable. Because it's very contested whether Ayers matters to Obama as such. Whereas nobody, I think, would deny that the Ayers controversy is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that the connection is still appearing in news articles (all right, a news analysis article), as well as commentary, something which started in earnest in mid-February and has continued to the present, shows that a couple of lines in the article on the association is worthwhile. We cover the subject in detail at Bill Ayers election controversy and we'll link to that with whatever we add. I think that at the Barack Obama presidential campaign article it deserves the treatment you suggest. Giving it extended treatment suggests in itself that the connection is more important than it appears to be. Also, I don't think a consensus is going to form around this option. Noroton (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the 2-7 versions are all noting both the membership on the board and the fact that Ayers hosted a meeting for Obama. The meeting was actually Obama's political introduction to Democrats in his neighborhood -- his predecessor as state senator introduced him for the first time to other Democrats in the district at this meeting and said she endorsed him, giving it some importance in Obama's career. It's actually more than just a coincidence that the two were on the same board -- they both traveled in something of the same circles. The board governed the group that previously gave a community organization the money which first brought Obama to Chicago, and meetings of the board (which wasn't very large, less than 10 members) commonly took up an entire afternoon four times a year, and they were both on the board during a three-year span. Reliable sources also say dinner parties were involved. Obama also gave a favorable review to an Ayers book in the Chicago Tribune. This is what we know so far. In contrast, Ayers was controversial enough that an educational group disinvited him to a conference, and his wife, Dohrn, controversial enough that it caused a move by Northwestern U. alumni to kick her out of that institution in 2001. Bill Ayers has his own "Times Topics" page at the New York Times website (I hope this is not behind a subscription wall.) None of this shows the two were best buddies or anything, just that Obama associated with Ayers despite Ayers' past, which has always been well-known, while others were outraged or uncomfortable with any kind of association. Worth a couple lines here, I think, no more, no less. Just enough so that people understand it and can link to the article about it. Noroton (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree (I think it amounts to no more than two people in the same political establishment in the same city), I think that's a respectable position well stated and not for POV purposes. Thanks for the cogent comment. Wikidemo (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we reach a reasonable compromise here?

I believe we can reach a reasonable compromise. I propose that either No. 4, No. 5, or a combination thereof would be the reasonable compromise that would resolve this matter. Nobody will think it is wonderful, but a consensus will find it acceptable. Please consider this with an open mind, and state below whether you support or oppose this proposal. If the proposal gains acceptance, then we can hammer out the details of the compromise. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• SUPPORT. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• STRONGLY OPPOSE Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, no. The burden is on you to demonstrate why Ayers is notable enough to be in Obama's biography, which (unlike others have successfully done with Wright and Rezko) you have have failed to do. The Stephanopoulos/Ayers debate question can remain where it belongs -- in the campaign article with other "mini-controversies" -- until you've done otherwise. You seem to enjoy polling as an implement for pushing your POV, but polling is not a substitute for discussion, especially when the options to vote for appear to be constructing a false dichotomy. Shem^(talk) 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Very mildly oppose, with a suggestion that we instead include Option 3 This is, of course, just a way of seeing where we are right now in terms of support, after discussing this more. And we're going to discuss this more still before we get there, so calm down, everybody. It seems to me that there was plenty of support for Option 3 and that ought to be in the mix. We should then discuss those three options. The fact is, that discussion has been fruitful in showing there just isn't enough support for some options and some options are simply not credible. I don't think the following is disputable, but my mind is open, and I may be wrong:
  • Option 1 — First, the option is at one extreme of the scale and most editors do not support it because they want something in the article. It is not credible to say that we can form a consensus around this option. It might have been credible if a good enough argument for it had been put up, but instead the arguments for it are discredited by the facts. I find Shem's comment just above shows an attitude that does not contribute to consensus and his statement that the burden is on the rest of us to demonstrate why Ayers is notable enough is contrary to what has already been shown in the previous section and earlier: Similar references to other people have appeared in presidential biography articles ("More candidates for the fat farm" above), other candidates have similar passages (in my section between this and the vote list on Ayers), and in the discussion on Option 1 above we've decisively met all the arguments in favor of it with better arguments based on facts, logic and policy & guidelines. Face it, people: There ain't no way that option is going to get consensus. You don't have the numbers of editors in support and you don't have a hope of getting them because you don't have the arguments to do it. You can try to obstruct a consensus, in which case the numbers indicate you can be rolled over, or you can work to support your second or third choices, for which you still have a chance. It's your decision on whether to be reasonable or not. I have to drop my preferred Option 7, even though it got some support, because I don't believe it will pass. If I can play like a grown-up, you can too.
  • Option 2 — no support, obviously off the table, unless the Option 1 supporters want to try to push it now as a second-best option, but it likely won't get more support from other editors. No one supported it before.
  • Option 3 — This option had some support and it is a second or third choice of many who had Option 1 as a first choice. I think it would be premature to drop it now, although I doubt it would get consensus. We need to consider it further.
  • Option 4 — still on the table
  • Option 5 — still on the table
  • Option 6 — basically the same situation as Option 2. I don't think it can get support. I think there's consensus against it.
  • Option 7 — I got some support for this and I have excellent reasons for it which no opponents have been able to show is wrong, but it nevertheless doesn't seem to be a likely consensus option. As a grown-up, I'm willing to drop it.
  • Option 8 — Received little support. There seems to be a consensus that a short version is best. (To me, this is a good description of what an Ayers passage on the campaign article should look like)

Now, let's see if we can agree to discuss only Options 3, 4 and 5 — not only in terms of which is the most reasonable but in terms of which is most likely to get consensus. I'm willing to wait a little longer if a good number of people think more discussion will convince people, but there hasn't been evidence of that so far. Let's actually try to be successful in reaching consensus after having put so much work into this. Anyone who actually wants a consensus must be willing to accept that most of us are NOT going to get the option we most prefer. Grown-ups, please. Is there support for adding Option 3 to the mix and looking firther at these three options? Noroton (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You cannot use what goes on in other articles as your justification for allowing BLP violations. We should follow Wikipedia's policy over Wikipedia's history. Since this is a BLP, Shem is quite correct in saying that the onus is on the "inclusionist" to prove that a detail is both notable and relevant before adding it to the article. None of these "sensational" details about Ayers are related to Obama, so notability and relevancy have not been proved. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to go for now. Life intrudes. If you want to defend the Alamo at WP:BLP when the time comes, be my guest. Really, when you're at the short end of the consensus, what can you do? Either withdraw or do what I did: accept reality. We can discuss Option 1 further above (I think that's a good idea), but I haven't seen too many new ideas, just old ones coming up yet again. I've been reading some of the things at Mark Rudd's website and one of the suggestions he has for radical activists is to accept reality. He also admits the people killed in the Greenwich Village explosion were building nail bombs to set off at a dance at Fort Dix. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So? Did Obama help build any of the bombs? Is Obama a member of the Weather Underground? There is NO PLACE on Wikipedia for guilt-by-association. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Option #1 is the most appropriate, and should never be taken off the table. #4 and particularly #5 have some serious problems. Per policy the burden falls on anyone who wants to add material to demonstrate that it is appropriate; hence, not including it always an option as long as there is legitimate disagreement. I don't see a consensus for adding the material at all. The notion of dividing a controversial issue into eight different degrees of coverage and asking people to choose one is a nice try and perhaps generates some interesting discussion but it's fatally flawed as a tool for creating or assessing consensus, particularly when the best option arguably is no coverage at all. Wikidemo (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Options No. 1 and No. 3 are not a compromise. They are what the Obama campaign volunteers have announced that they want. I want No. 7 or No. 8 but, like Noroton, I am going to act like an adult and meet them halfway. No. 4 and No. 5 do not violate BLP because Ayers admits that he placed bombs on US soil, and because Stephanopoulos asked the question at the beginning of a televised debate, and because many other journalists are asking the same question on the pages of their papers and websites. If you think these options violate BLP, file your complaint at the BLP Noticeboard. But it isn't going to fly. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your controversial insertions aren't going to fly. This entire exercise is moot given this poll's "options" create a completely false dichotomy. Ayers' very inclusion invokes a litany of serious policy issues: WP:LIVING, WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE), and WP:RECENTISM (the last of which isn't a policy, but whose words are certainly germane). I'm not sure who you are, "WorkerBee," but you're clearly an alternate account of an experienced editor who should know better. Shem^(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.6.152 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict) - That is a ridiculous argument. It is akin to this:

1. Not saying anything.
2. John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy.
3. John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy who, it turns out, murdered his wife by chopping her into little pieces and putting the bits in old jam jars. The story got loads of media coverage because of the gruesome details; therefore, the character of John Doe must be judged on who he buys his shoes from.

This may seem like an extreme example, but it perfectly illustrates why "loads of media coverage" is not a good enough excuse to put facts about other people in a BLP, however thoroughly referenced. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that we are not trying to reach a compromise here. We are trying to reach a consensus, which is significantly different. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Scjessey. In the midst of Kossak4truth's barrage of polls, it seems people've become so caught up in the exercise that they've forgotten how things actually work here. A controversial POV/BLP insertion is something which must be justified by the pusher, not voted on. Shem^(talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion 1: Single purpose accounts should not be counted toward consensus in any decision we make. I don't know if we can enforce that, or how, but I don't want this decided because one or more SPAs tipped the scale. Same goes for no-name IP addresses. Nothing stops them from participating in discussions, of course. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion 2: Where is the evidence Option 1 will ever get consensus? Look at the long vote we took -- the one that Scjessey set up. The initial consensus is against you. A vast majority of other editors thought that including the information in some form was the better course, and they evidently thought it was within policy to do so. There's nothing wrong with a policy argument, but you have to make the argument and make it stick with other editors. I see assertions that it is the only acceptable option because it is the only one that follows WP policy, but I don't see proof of that anywhere -- neither here or in the section just above for comments on Option 1. If a consensus still goes against you, we'll add new language to the page the way the consensus wants it and you can take it to BLP noticeboard as a violation, and the matter can be decided there. I believe that's the way the system works (maybe you could go to WP:BLP noticeboard now and make the argument -- be my guest). Now, we're never going to get to consensus without taking some options off the table. If you want to try to persuade more editors to support Option 1, you're free to do so, and if you feel that strongly about it, we can keep it on the table. There doesn't seem to be support for keeping Option 3 on the table, so let's not. Let's further discuss Options 1, 4 and 5. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC) ADDED COMMENT: Actually, as I look things over, Option 3 had initially 7 editors who said it was their first choice. I think we need to leave it on the table as well, so my suggestion is that we further consider Options 1, 3, 4 and 5. Noroton (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the whole point of Wikipedia is that everyone gets a say, even if they are just "no-name IP addresses". You may not like that arrangement, but it is precisely why Wikipedia is the success it is. Secondly, since the "misdeeds" of Ayers are not related to Obama in any way, there are absolutely no criteria for inclusion that the policies associated with a BLP will allow. Any attempt to include such information would be a direct violation of several Wikipedia policies. For your convenience, I will again quote from WP:BLP:

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. (my own emphasis)

Any attempt at an Ayers-related inclusion should be mercilessly reverted by any Wikipedian who should have the misfortune of stumbling across such a blatant piece of guilt-by-association POV pushing. There can be no consensus for violations of Wikipedia policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? We have to describe what is controversial about the association between Ayers and Obama in order to explain to readers why it's controversial. If you complain to WP:BLP noticeboard that we describe Ayers in a phrase or two, you're going to get laughed at. If you don't get BLP noticeboard approval and revert in opposition to consensus, administrators are going to demonstrate to you the hard way how consensus is used to interpret policy in individual instances. It isn't just consensus here but standard practice in Wikipedia to explain the significance of other people in the life of the subject of a BLP and biographies of dead people. You have no excuse for not knowing this because I demonstrated it earlier on this page ("More candidates for the fat farm" and "Fair treatment of Obama should be similar to how we treat other candidates"). It would be passing strange if, with consensus, policy, practice and simple logic against you that you would prevail in edit warring under a false BLP banner, but you're welcome to experiment with that if we get consensus to add something. The argument I've just given you is the one I'll bring to administrators, and we'll just see what they think. If you all want to welcome with open arms the SPAs and IP names that have already participated in the !vote above, I won't object.Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Scjessey. There's no "compromise" when it comes to violating WP:BLP, nor will a small flock of single-purpose POV-pushing accounts change such. Shem^(talk) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey and Shem, you two have convinced me: I will reconcile myself to accepting the support of WorkerBee74 (fifth !vote in the long list) and 72.0.180.2 (13th vote in the long list) and 68.29.208.59 (21st vote). In order, they favor options 7, 5 and 8, and I think they're likely to support some compromise similar to their preferences. Thank you for your strong support for these editors. I promise to welcome them to my side with open arms. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Option #1 does not need consensus because it is the default. Problematic material stays out unless there is a consensus for inclusion. Wikidemo (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If we get consensus, you'll need consensus or BLP Noticeboard approval to change it. No one is talking about adding anything without consensus. Consensus is not unanimity. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It would take a consensus to include a controversial addition. Consensus does not override policy. But consensus on how to interpret policy is valid. Nevertheless, most popular among 8 options does not equal consensus. However, we may want to simply reach an agreement or truce to avoid edit warring...plus, as long as the material is kept fairly factual and netural this whole issue is a lot less important than the amount of verbiage on this page would suggest.Wikidemo (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Have we been miscommunicating? No one wants to impose any solution without getting a full consensus behind it. This is going to call for us to call the question and ask everybody if they support or oppose a particular proposal.Noroton (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if Stephen Hawking opened a Wikipedia account and devoted all of his edits to the subject of theoretical physics, would his opinion be dismissed because he's a single purpose account? If he didn't bother to open an account first, would his opinion be dismissed because he's just an IP address? Everybody's opinion is equal here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've conceded the point; please, let's drop it. Noroton (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After finding the Media Matters for America site I expanded the information[15] using some sources they pointed out, which make it pretty clear to me that the "$300,000 discount" claim is a blatant falsehood. I think that this vote is a distraction from the fact that people should discuss what Obama did or what people said about Obama, in which Rezko has some part, and that the information should be true and well sourced! Wnt (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?

Please review the discussion between the initial tally ("!Votes (please move your votes to this section if they arent already and bolden them)") and this point, and perhaps previous discussions. For the sole reason that the initial tally seemed to give more support for Option 3 than any other choice, this is organized three ways around Option 3, but with total flexibility in voting for a preference. So after having seen additional discussion, which option do you support as a first or second choice? Please choose among the following choices, and if we get a consensus around one of them, we can go with that. Please keep in mind that we are trying to reach a consensus, which is something well over a majority:

Prefer something less specific than Option 3

Option 1 was to say nothing; Option 2 was to give Ayers name without identifying him and mention there was a controversy (Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.)

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):

• 1. 1 > 3 >> other. LotLE×talk 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. No. 1 or possibly no. 3. I think option 1 is the best because I do not see the issue as having enough weight and relevance to mention. However, I do not see it as a BLP issue. Therefore, as long as the specific wording can be kept neutral a 1-2 sentence reference that sticks to the facts and refers people to the specific article about the controversy would be fine...just so long as that stays stable and the article overall does not turn into a big coatrack. A few of these little controversies is okay; twenty different trivial controversies, no. So option 3 is acceptable, and option 4 is just about the same as no. 3, though I reserve judgment on the exact wording. Also, I think this numerical process is a problem, but as long as it brings peace to the article I can accept that. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prefer Option 3 as first choice

Option 3: Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):

• 1. Option 3, if not, options 4. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prefer a different Option with more details than Option 3

There are several other options already described above, but none have a large number of supporters.

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):

• 1. 4 as a first choice, 3 as second choice and my vote can be used for either one that gets consensus. I still think 7 is the best, but I think 3 and 4 can get consensus support. If it looks like we get consensus support for options 5, 6, 7, 8, I'd go with them Noroton (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'd be fine with the use of 3, but realistically, I don't see a major difference between 3 and 4. Calling Ayers a former radical activist and the founder of a defunct radical activist group are for all intents and purposes the same thing. The one issue I have is that with #4 it gives the appearance that Weatherman was founded by Ayers alone, not that he was one of 11 people, so calling him co-founder or one of the founders is probably more appropriate than just founder. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'm fine with Option 3. Brothejr (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus

• 1. Sorry, no. Discussion on this issue has evolved significantly downpage, specifically with regard to its inclusion's abidance to Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#UNDUE). The "spectrum" presented in this poll created a false dichotomy as evidenced by those who have gamed it to declare a numerical average to be "consensus," and voting has been plagued by single-purpose accounts (including possible sockpuppetry). Shem^(talk) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I take full responsibility for this cock up, because I came up with this stupid "sliding scale" idea. After thoroughly studying the details of WP:BLP and talking to some other, more experienced editors, I realized that any inclusion of Ayers would violate Wikipedia policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A brief reprieve

I just noticed that Kossack4Truth has been, rightly, blocked for repeated 3RR. That's a relief. When that 48 hours ends, let's report the next violation promptly, which will hopefully result in a longer block than 48 hours. Admins tend to escalate these periods in a sensible way (it's a mixed bag, but mostly).

FWIW, I'd really appreciate it, Justmeherenow, if you don't rant about some false equivalence between Kossack4Truth's edit-warring, and the efforts of some responsible editors (like myself) to remove vandalistic POV additions... and still more, don't put in the unencyclopedic stuff yourself either. LotLE×talk 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm sorry that K4T has been blocked for edit warring, but I certainly do not think it is appropriate to encourage people to report 3RR violations in an article talk namespace. Furthermore, I would like to request that we allow sufficient time for K4T to have a chance to contribute to the discussion above (on building consensus, et al) before moving toward the next step. Within reason, all concerned editors must have a chance to weigh-in or we risk building a lopsided consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your constant use of language like "rant" and "vandalistic", as well as charging POV violations even when sincere editors are doing their best to try for fair treatment of an important issue is not helpful, LotLE. You've pretty much lumped in irresponsible with responsible efforts to change the article, and your efforts overall haven't helped to get us anywhere near consensus. Pot. Kettle. Black. Noroton (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference here is that I don't mistake "mob rule" for "consensus", as you seem to want to, Noroton. The only things I care for are making WP articles better. That means following WP:BLP and other WP policy, not making fake votes, recruiting sympathetic editors, using sock-puppets, and so on, to create some illusion of "consensus" for policy violations. I've been editing a lot longer than anyone else in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to pretend that obvious bad faith is "responsible". LotLE×talk 17:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI. [16][17] You can plug in your, or my, name, if you want. Andyvphil (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide diffs for your charges or take them back.Noroton (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Read any of the dozen or so "polls" K4T has put on this talk page, where he "votes", and declares consensus for violating WP:BLP. Sadly, sometimes with your "vote" for the same thing allegedly proving we can ignore policy. Policy will remain in effect, period! (I'm not sure how I would "prove my charge" that policy governs... if you don't get that, you don't get WP). LotLE×talk 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no you don't. Stop being cute about a personal attack. A list of your accusations against me:

1. The difference here is that I don't mistake "mob rule" for "consensus", as you seem to want to, Noroton. In addition to diffs, describe the difference.
2. The only things I care for are making WP articles better. Strongly implying that I don't. This is a minor attack, and it's not an attack at all if you can prove I don't. The problem is, you can't.
3. That means following WP:BLP and other WP policy, not making fake votes, Not following BLP and other WP policy is simply a difference of opinion and I can't criticize you for saying that, but not making fake votes is an accusation that I've done that.
4. recruiting sympathetic editors, using sock-puppets, and so on, to create some illusion of "consensus" for policy violations. You're addressing me and then bringing this up, strongly implying that I'm doing all of these things.
5. I've been editing a lot longer than anyone else in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to pretend that obvious bad faith is "responsible". So now I'm acting with "obvious bad faith".
6. consensus for violating WP:BLP. Sadly, sometimes with your "vote" for the same thing allegedly proving we can ignore policy. Policy will remain in effect, period! As you well know, I interpret WP:BLP differently than you do. I've provided quotes of WP:BLP above. As you well know, consensus is generally how we interpret policy. If you believe any consensus decision on this page interprets policy in voilation of WP:BLP, you can bring it up on the BLP noticeboard. Oddly enough, when I quoted WP:BLP above, you didn't have a cogent reply.

So prove it or take it back. WP:AGF isn't meant for situations where bad faith has been demonstrated. So prove my bad faith. Otherwise you're in violation of WP:NPA. Rather than raise the heat any further, I'm going to ignore you for 24 hours in case this is a simple heat-of-the-moment situation. Say anything you want in the meantime, but it would be a good idea to think about what I've just said. If you're going to stand by this, provide the diffs, please. Noroton (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, we can WP:IGNORE policy, as long as we can show that it is in the best interest of Wikpedia. --Floorsheim (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey I agree, Kossack4Truth should have his chance too when hes returned, we should give him a chance, we dont want any decision to be accused of bias, all sides must speak. Is his talk page locked? He could express his wish from his talk page if that doesnt breach any policy regarding blocks. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, I would rather simply wait for the block to expire and continue the discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, good point, I will leave a neutral message informing him of the consensus building task. To uphold transparency further. Here is a link to show he HAS been notified, no accusations of unfair practice can be made against the pro Obama people. See here — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Any editor should be given the opportunity to use this discussion page to discuss controversial edits, but they should not be given the opportunity to edit war in main space. This is true if the participants in the edit war discussing the changes on the discussion page or not. Additionally, if any editor's first actions after coming off a block for edit warring is to continue that edit war, then they can be reported on AN/I or AN/3RR for another preventative block, regardless of the number of reverts they have done since the block ended, as it is apparent the block did not prevent them from continuing their edit warring. The theory behind preventative blocks is not only to stop the immediate edit war, but to also encourage editors to use the discussion pages rather than edit war in main space. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion to find consensus should not be held up because of Kossack's block. If Kossack wishes to be involved in the discussion prior to his block ending, he can leave responses on his talk page and one of the other participants in the discussion can copy his response here (with an indicator that they are copying it from Kossack's talk page, of course). This is a fairly common practice on Wikipedia as the intent is to stop the edit warring and not necessarily the discussion process. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever everyone else thinks is necessary, but I still think K4T's opinion is important to this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as he gets a say, whether it be here or his talk page, I dont mind. We shouldnt move onto the next stage until his thoughts are known. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you three, Realist2, Bobblehead, and Scjessey have just bent over backwards for Kossack, who obviously has no right to participate for the next 48 hours. I hope the courtesy is appreciated. Noroton (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Everyone's opinion is important. The only difference here is that Kossack will have to make his opinion known on his talk page and someone else will need to transfer it to this discussion page until his block ends. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill add further comments to his talk page and ill put it on my watchlist. I have also emailed him to check his talk page, because of the block he might just be staying away and not know about all this. See here. Cheers — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to chime in to say that I completely agree with Realist2, Bobblehead, and Scjessey that we need to allow K4T a say in this. That way we can all get our opinions and concerns voiced and work towards an agreement. I also want to thank Norton for his comments and I hope that all of us can come to an understanding and work out a way to get this page back on track and into the Feature Status that it had been before the election campaign. I think that if we can keep level heads and work through this without a flurry of edit wars and accusations, then this can be done with little problems. Let's take what Scjessey has started and use it to work towards a consensus. Brothejr (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the editers vote providing a link from his talk page. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead section problem

Michelle Obama does not warrant a mention in the very first paragraph. Unlike Bill Clinton, who is crucially important in Hillary Clinton's article and therefore needs such a prominent mention, Michelle Obama is of secondary importance. It should either be moved to a later point in the lead section where his personal life is specifically being discussed (presumably the second paragraph), or removed from the lead section altogether. My personal recommendation is currently to simply remove it: there is no particularly smooth point in the current lead section where it could be placed, and Michelle Obama is about as important to Barack Obama as Laura Bush is to George W. Bush. Thus, for the same reason Laura Bush is nowhere mentioned in Bush's lead section, Michelle Obama need not be mentioned anywhere in Obama's lead section. -Silence (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that she is mentioned in the introduction because she is one of the most significant aspects of Barack Obama's life (this is, after all, a biography). Michelle Obama has become a nationally-known figure because of her vigorous campaigning during the 2008 Presidential election (Laura Bush was barely seen during the Bush campaigns). I don't see that the brief sentence in the introduction is doing the article any harm, and it was there when the article became Featured. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Scj, my recollection is it may have been in there for a time earlier (I remember something about his being "married to Mrs. Michelle Obama" at one point) but for quite a while after the article was featured the personal stuff was not in the intro. Seems to me not a big deal either way, but I don't see how the sentence that is there now in any way indicates that she is a nationally-known figure or a significant aspect of his life more so than Laura Bush or any of dozens of spouses, nor do I particularly agree that she is such. It's a rather bland sentence just saying they're married and have 2 kids which I don't think particularly fits in the first graf of the intro. On the other hand, I don't object to it that much so am not moved at the moment to re-write the intro. But I'd be interested in other opinions, and did want to say that it was not there for much of the time that the article has been featured, as far as I recall. Tvoz/talk 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the two sentences referring to Obama's family and his 2 books per this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee vs. a candidate

I did a bit of WP:BRD and reverted the lead back to referencing Obama as just "a candidate" for the Democratic presidential candidate. Neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough pledged delegates to cross the 2,108 delegate threshold after all the primaries/caucuses have been held and, as of now, Obama doesn't have enough superdelegates to push him over that threshold. Until one of the candidates drops out, or the other crosses that threshold, it is probably best to not say that Obama is the "presumptive nominee". Of course, if anyone wants to disagree with me, you're more than welcome to include your explanation of such here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are conflicting press reports on this issue. An announcement by Clinton appears imminent. Perhaps the article should be protected until an official announcement is made. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we edit for the long view, this back-and-forth over up-to-the-second accuracy concerning this obvious eventuality seems a little silly, at least to me. Anyway, after a hard-fought campaign, this WP'dian congradulates Barack and invites a rousing ovation for Hillary. Watch: (YouTube) — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Clinton campaign is vociferously denying that Hillary intends to concede defeat, although it seems likely that she will have to acknowledge that Obama will have an insurmountable lead in delegates. Once the magic number is passed, he will automatically become the presumptive nominee, but that doesn't mean she is out of the race. There is no hurry to change this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Miss Ann Thropie, the article doesn't need to be protected until an official announcement is made.;) There doesn't appear to be an edit war over this and discussion is in progress. As far as the conflicting reports... That's exactly why it should remain as "a candidate" for now. Wikipedia isn't a press organization, so we can afford to wait until something official is said about Clinton's campaign status and whether or not Obama really is the "presumptive nominee". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should follow a few steps (at least) behind the news of the day, not try to leap out in front of it. The press gets it wrong often in its rush to have the latest news. We can afford to wait. Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the latest story that is unleashing the "presumptive nominee" and "Clinton has dropped out" edits. Problem is if you go over to CNN, there's Clinton's advisors saying she's in for the long haul. Heh. All in all, still need to wait until Clinton makes it official. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AKA perhaps we might let the body get cold before we bury it? Tvoz/talk 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The official "clinch" number is now 2,118, according to the source we are using for delegate numbers (CNN), and Obama has 2,1022,106 delegates. Until he reaches 2,118, or he is widely reported as the presumptive nominee, we should hold off. johnpseudo 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It should also be noted that the "dozens of articles" that are out there are almost exclusively a result of the AP incorrectly announcing that Hillary Clinton is dropping out of the race and then news outlets repeating that article because they are on the AP newswire, or because they, like a majority of news outlets now adays, are too lazy to actually do any reporting and confirm the AP story with the Clinton campaign before running to the presses with a "AP: Clinton dropping out of race" story. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would use the second criterion, that it is widely reported that he is the presumptive candidate - rather than trying to interpret delegate counts here. That's going to be short-lived. I'll bet all you a free 3RR pass that Hillary Clinton is going to concede as soon as "presumptive" becomes real. What's the worst that can happen? That we report it three hours after CNN and USA Today instead of three hours before CNN and USA Today. Wikidemo (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In the "calling a trowel a 'trowel' dept.," if dusk comes and he's still not "presumed," let's source him at least as de facto nominee. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aak! After visiting the campaign article I feel like I'm putting my finger in the dike on this one. A lot of people want to update it to reflect Obama as the nominee-in-waiting and there's no stopping them. Maybe Hillary and I have to accept the inevitable. Thanks for giving it a little dignity and time, at least. Wikidemo (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Both CNN and NBC, and probably others, went to "presumptive nominee" as soon as the SD polls closed. The Hillary article has been changed to reflect this, and so it should be here too as well. And is ... but I gotta say, your lead's first paragraph is whack. Neither the two books nor the wife and daughters belong there. Never mind, I don't wanna go to rehab! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 90% of that. It's like a lede within the lede. But it's not my article, and you seem to be conducting original research or perhaps a self-published source with respect to your desire to go to rehab or alleged lack thereof :) Wikidemo (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion in "Christian Converts" Category?

I removed Obama from the category "converts to Christianity" and it should not be replaced, unless someone can add a fully cited reference to this so-called conversion. I believe he is being included in that category specifically to try to categorize him as growing up something other than Christian, or as a non-christian. He has made many statements about his beliefs, but it's not fair to try to lump him into anyone's religious corner. A lot of non-supporters would likely want to paint Obama as a "former muslim"; in the same vein, a lot of Christian supporters might want to call him a "convert to their own faith". Then there's also the possibility of those who, for different motivation, want to categorize him as "not a true Christian, because he is from a Muslim background." Hence, I removed him - I don't think he fits into the category, and I think the category itself is extremely faulty. Dmodlin71 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Right - it is wrong and has been removed numerous times before. Thanks for catching it again. Tvoz/talk 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the category was being used to insinuate Obama was a "former Muslim" (a familiar subject of chain mail smears). Instead, I think it only refers to his statements that he did not grow up in a religious home, and that his parents were confirmed atheists. That fact is discussed in the bio already. I think it's a fairly silly category either way, but I assume good faith about its reason for placement, which seems supportable. LotLE×talk 18:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lulu, I didn't comment on the motivation of whoever added the category - I haven't taken the time to see who and how it got there this time - but I disagree with any assertion that he "converted" to Christianity. He was raised by his grandparents who were Christian, and his mother who was a Christian-born non-believer. It was apparently a non-religious home. His embrace of Christianity as an adult is not a conversion, it is merely an embrace of the religious background he already had. Changing from one religion to another would properly be called a conversion, not this - so including him in this category raises more questions than it answers and should not be there. Tvoz/talk 04:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Category:United Church of Christ members may need to be removed as per Obama's recent resignation from that congregation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast! I think the category reasonably includes former members, which is a more encyclopedic approach. I note, for example, that Hubert Humphrey is in the category and I'm pretty sure he's not on the membership rolls right now.Wikidemo (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Darn right not so fast! He left the congregation. That doesn't mean he left the denomination. Those are totally different decisions. Proof, please. Noroton (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Righto, it is very important to note that Sen. Obama has not left the Christian faith, nor the United Church of Christ denomination. He only did resign his membership from his former church amid all the controversy ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Senate box

In comparison to some of the above debate, I think I have an uncontroversial issue. In the horizontal box at the bottom of the page entitled "United States Senate", the words "Served alongside: Richard Durbin" appear. But since Obama and Durbin are both senators at the moment, shouldn't this text be in the present tense? I don't know how to modify it. DO56 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change that, bring the discussion to Template:U.S._Senator_box. The same template is used for all US Senators for consistency. I have no specific opinion on the right display, but it must be consistent, as the template assures. LotLE×talk 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama Infobox and Succession boxes

Sample infoboxes in sandbox: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes

Obama's mother race

I think it should be in the intro. His diversity is one of his defining characteristics. What does everyone think? JackWilliams (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would generally rather not mark race in first mention of mom and dad (actually, no one did so for dad, only nationality). I like the White Americans article well enough, but we don't generally do that for other politicians or bio subjects. However, I can see arguments both ways, so it's a weak disinclination in my mind. LotLE×talk 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, if we could introduce that link very concisely in "Early Life", but not in lead, I think that would be the right thing. LotLE×talk 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be in the intro. It wasn't noted anywhere in the article that Obama is half white. Xioyux (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a summary of Ann Dunham's ancestry in the early life section without mentioning the 'w' word. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My question would be why mention it all. His father's race is never mentioned, then why mention her race? Brothejr (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because, he's labeled African-American in the very onset of this travesty of an article. A myriad of people read just the first paragraph of this article and get misinformation. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He self-identifies as an African-American, so the introduction is correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because he self-identifies as it doesn't make it correct. If he called himself Asian, there would be some asterisk explaining it away. This has been worn throughout the discussion pages and you people still don't get it. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. How Obama describes himself or how the media describes him should not have precedence over the most accurate word to describe him in an encyclopedic article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP places a strong emphasis on verifiability, correct? And there's WP:OR, also. Given that, by logic, we are obligated to accept whatever the well-sourced sources are publishing, if we choose to accept their word. Thus, it is less about what I (or you or anyone) thinks is the best, most accurate word to describe Mr. Obama's ethnicity than it is about what has actually been widely published by reliable and verifiable sources.

At least, that's how I interpret this particular situation. Please note that I understand where you are coming from, but I am finding your position difficult to fully reconcile with WP policies and major/historical thrust. Correction welcomed. Cheers, 64.209.16.204 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Two major parties?

The United States has had many influential/major political parties over the last two-hundred and some odd years, so why are we restricting it to just Democratic and Republican? I'd suggest rephrasing it to "the first African American candidate of any major American political party," or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arexkun (talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Unschool (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Unschool (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Define "major". E.g. Lenora Fulani (on the ballot in 50 states for the New Alliance Party).... yeah, they weren't going to win, but "major" seems like an unreasonable value judgment/WP:OR. LotLE×talk 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even with the most narrow definition, there have clearly been more than two major parties, in the history of the country - it's just that there have almost never been more than two at one time, as the Federalists gave way to the Whigs, and the Whigs gave way to the Republicans. Cogswobbletalk 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, the wording is directly from the reliable sources. NAP may have been the first to put an African-American on all 50-states, but it wouldn't make the list of "major political party" under any conceivable definition. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording Correction

"He is the first African American to win the nomination of any major American political party. "

Technically, he hasn't won it yet (as even stated in the prior sentence). Perhaps rephrase this to "He will be... "

How about... 'He is the first African-American presumptive presidential nominee'...? 'Presumptive presidential nominee' is what the mainstream media is currently calling Mr. McCain, prior to the official Republican political party convention coming up soon. It's probably not prudent to say 'win the nomination' yet in Mr. Obama's case, since the Democratic political convention has not yet taken place, so the results are not yet official at this time. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The media is also now referring to him as the presumptive nominee, until made official at the respective conventions. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another wording problem

We're calling him African-American. Except, he's half African-American and half white. I see this as erroneous reporting both here and in the press. It's like calling Tiger Woods African American (which he strongly protests). Maybe it might be proper to say "the first multiracial candidate to win..." It's certainly more correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to emulate the available reliable sources rather than undergoing a bit of WP:OR of our own and assuming that the reliable sources actually meant to say he's the first multiracial candidate...--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not OR. It's fact. The papers reporting him as african american have it wrong. Blindly following something that is factually incorrect leads to the encyclopedia being wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can do it next to a reliable, mainstream citation, I'd also rather call him "the first multiracial candidate". However, as it goes in American discourse, "African-American" is already a word for "multiracial" (almost all African-Americans, unless they are first-generation immigrant, have European ancestors too). But Obama is an especially clear case of the poverty of the discourse, since he has one parent actually born in Africa, and another who was of predominantly European ancestry (as opposed to a broad mixture at many generations back). LotLE×talk 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article shouldn't really try to undertake the faulty discourse of race within the US. That being said we are bound by verifiability and at this point, the only thing I've seen is that Obama is the "first African-American", not the "first multi-racial" so to claim that he is such is the very definition of WP:OR, because in order to reach that conclusion we must research that he is indeed, the first multi-racial candidate. Without a reliable source to back this up it is not verifiable. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's innumerable sources that note he had a white mother and a black father. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural perception etc.

The last section is rather glowing. Where's all the negative baggage associated with him? The article shouldn't dwell on the inane criticisms that others have lobbed Obama's way, but neither should it kick back and parrot the praise of his supporters. The section currently consists of unqualified praise, without pointing out that there are many, many people who don't like Obama precisely because of his "cultural image." Fishal (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

isnt not liking him because of his "cultural image" just a posh term for racism? 92.21.85.57 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For some, perhaps. But some also say that, since Barack's closest friends said to be academics and professionals (usually of the non-profit foundation type), he occasionally strikes a false chord when he's trying to appeal to Middle America common man types. David Paul Clune, author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma, writes, "Last year he responded to an Iowa farmers concerns about crop prices by asking if 'anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?'" — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fishal. The Cultural and Political Perception section does not at all portray a realistic picture. Possibly for the simple reason that it's outdated. Everything referenced in there comes from 2007 or earlier. Much has changed since then. To me, facts pertaining to the Wright, etc. controversies and reactions thereto by the public should, logically, be presented in that section. There should also be information concerning Obama's apparent lack of appeal to white working class males along with notably-sourced opinions concerning what might be the reason for that. Furthermore, there should be mention of and an expansion on the reactions to his "A More Perfect Union" speech. Perhaps by including these in this section, we could aid the consensus building process concerning how the Campaign and Personal/Early Life sections should be written.

Also, sorry for being MIA for the past few days. Am in the middle of moving. Should be on again Sunday. --Floorsheim (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was refering to the (IMO unfair but definitely real) perception of him as an "elitist liberal"-- the "arugula" comment, the "bitter" comment, and similar gaffes have cemented that image among plenty of Americans. The cover story of Time or Newsweek or one of those magazines was about exactly that a couple of weeks ago. If anyone has that, it could be used as a source. Fishal (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential issues should he be elected to the Presidency

May be a little early to say, but should Obama be elected, or even during his run for the presidency itself (he seems highly likely to be the democratic candidate) this article is going to see huge (near mammoth) attention, and issues that currently affect almost all major political leader articles will affect this one. As this is currently a FA, I worry that this may place it's star in danger, with the likelihood of FAR cropping up more as changes come and go with such great frequency.

Do the users who normally regulate this article have any thoughts/plans to help maintain the FA quality of this article during this time? SGGH ^speak! 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How about full protection for about 8 years? </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can try just four years, and play it by ear for any second term. LotLE×talk 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Doublespeak of equating bombing with activism offensive

Michael Kinsley ironically relates that Dohrn and Ayers "write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as 'activists' who have never abandoned their noble ideals." An encyclopedia can do better. I've boldly edited Ayers' mainspace description to read former radical activists Ayers. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Justme... Please do not edit the sentence(s) referring to Ayers until consensus is reached on the wording. If you have concerns about how Ayers is referred to in the article, the proper venue is to do so in the discussion about Bill Ayers. There are limits to WP:BOLD and one of those is that you shouldn't be editing a problematic area of an article while discussion about the area is in progress. I'd ask Andy to do the same, but I know that will fall on deaf ears. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you bobble your head back at Bobblehead, note that ALL mention of Ayers has been removed from the article, and not by me. Andyvphil (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Obama campaign volunteers are continuing their round the clock efforts to airbrush this biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments like that, and coining phrases like "Obama campaign volunteers" to describe editors who do not support your attacks on the candidate, are disruptive and unhelpful. If you are going to comment here could you please confine your comments to efforts to improve the article? That is, if you are not another user sockpuppeting in the first place. Wikidemo (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheney link

Since we're mentioning his family ties to Jefferson Davis, it's probably worth noting that Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins. 205.167.180.130 (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an extremely distant relation, so rather minor trivia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Obama probably inherited a minute fraction — one divided by two to the 11th power — of Mareen Duvall's genome, which would amount to less than one gene, assuming the Y chromosome was not inherited. Much the same would be true of Mr. Cheney."--NYT — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight for Tony Rezko.

Tony Rezko was covered with fair weight in Obama's "personal life" section. I have removed the second Rezko plug in the "early life" section. Shem^(talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Obama is the first African American to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party, and the first to be born in Hawaii.

In his victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, Obama said: "After 54 hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end. Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Because of you tonight I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America." Paying tribute to his rival Hillary Clinton, he said she had made him a "better candidate". He congratulated her on the race she had run "throughout this contest" and also praised former president Bill Clinton's economic policies. In her own speech in New York, Clinton showed no sign of suspending her presidential campaign. She told cheering supporters: "Now the question is, 'Where do we go from here?' And given how far we've come, and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight." Earlier, she had signaled her interest in joining Obama's ticket as a potential vice-president.

OK, someone added all this to the bottom of the campaign section while I was asleep. Currently the bottom paragraph was well trimmed and to the point. This seems too detailed and needs a copyedit/trim, it doesnt add much for the number of bytes it takes up. Thoughts — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Way too much detail about the victory speech for this article. It might be good in the campaign article, but certainly not here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall I trim it? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If by trim you mean delete the whole paragraph about the speech... I'd say go ahead. Better yet, if it's not already in the campaign article, remove it from this article and put it into the campaign article? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill remove it leaving a sentance, it should be elsewhere. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I took some out, you can remove more if you think its nessary. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mulatto

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

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

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

Good. :) --Loremaster (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the term is a bit rude, to say the least. We probably wouldn't want to call him that. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there's a discussion a couple of sections up about whether to refer to Obama as "the first biracial..." or "the first African-American...". At this point, Obama is only being called the "first African-American..." Until we can get verifiability that he is the first biracial person/African-American, it's probably best if we don't whip out the original research that he is. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

From Is Obama Black Enough? - TIME: "Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa."

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

Obama is biracial, yet he insists on referring to himself as an African-American. Couldn't he do more to stop: "racism by running as just an American instead of choosing to label himself according to one side of his genetics?"

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

Obama self-identifies as an African-American, and I can so reason why that designation isn't sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be obvious that it doesn't matter how Obama self-identifies: If Obama lost his mind and suddenly decided to self-identify as "ethnically Asian" despite the fact that he isn't, should all encyclopedia articles on Barack Obama be edited to reflect his whim? --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether racial identification is an objective reality, in which case self-identification would be irrelevant, or a subjective matter, in which case self-identification matters a great deal. Our article race (classification of human beings) acknowledges this uncertainty. Self-identification is not the sole determinant, but it matters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the issues you raised. I'm not arguing that self-identification doesn't matter. It does to the extent it would be important to mention how Obama self-identifies. However, my point still stands. --Loremaster (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing that Obama is bi-racial, just that we can't say he's "the first biracial..." without a multiple reliable source to outweigh the reliable sources that are saying he's "the first African-American". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll work on that. --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Before some here disagree with the sources, consider: Thanks to folks like Thomas Jefferson, African Americans aren't 100% of African descent either. Over the course of a dozen or more generations in a white-majority country it's fairly sure some mixing has occurred for most. As to the offensiveness of "mulatto", a well-written article gives a clear "maybe", bordering on "no".[18] But I'd be a little wary about what the meaning of the word truly is. Nowadays Spanish is familiar enough that I'd be prone to interpret "mulatto" and "mulatta" more strictly in terms of black combined with partially Hispanic (or native American) ancestry. When I was a child I had had a strange impression that the term was distinct from simply mixed-ancestry and referred specifically to people with a slightly mottled skin color or otherwise having a particularly attractive combination of black and white features, but I don't know if that is actually rooted in any identifiable American cultural notion. I have a feeling there are a lot more funny ideas floating around for that word, simply because of this country's pathological history. Wnt (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Why no mention of OBAMA's political mentor and major fund raiser Tony Rezko

I guess it's ok to keep Obama's friends and past associates, important in his rise to political stardom off this bio. The more stuff like this is suppressed, [19] [20]the more people will realize the phoniness of the process and those who are doing this.68.75.164.178 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko is mentioned in this article. Certainly you know there is a Tony Rezko article - you were just editing it.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Rezko&diff=217180610&oldid=217165256 There goes your theory that the truth is being suppressed. You seem to be quite happy to use this "phony process" to make that article reflect more negatively on its subject. Perhaps you can actually help improve the encyclopedia instead of airing unfounded grievances about it. Wikidemo (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded Grievance, nice to see the Ad houminm attack on an editor with a reasonable question right out of the box and make assumptions that only positive stuff should be on Obama's pretty bio (while other political office holders bios on wikipedia are treated, less kindly). Tony Rezko, a Convicted felon, was (is) a very close friend and business associate and close political mentor of the untouchable Obama [21]. This should be noted and it is relevant and part of this mans resume. Lets not forget Obama is the product of the Cook County Democratic Organization, and all of it's ways... lets stick with the subject and lay off the editorializing of my motives or reasons... let the words speak and lets stop the double standards which would seem wikipeida is famous for now.(talk) 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you rant about the "phoniness" of Wikipedia and do nothing here but try to disparage Obama. You might also want to look up what ad hominem means. Wikidemo (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ad hominem is an appropriate characterization. 68.75's argues his point regarding the "phoniness" of the process and contributors at Wikipedia on the grounds that there is a suppression of a certain class of notable information in this article. You're attacking him personally for daring to state that there is something phony about Wikipedia and for presenting his view that some information that might reflect on Obama in a negative way for some readers should be included in the article. Those are ad hominem distractions. Also, just because Rezko et al. are mentioned in the article does not mean that there is appropriate WP:WEIGHT given to them. --Floorsheim (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you could use a brush-up on the definition as well. An ad hominem is an attack on the person rather than the message. It's not a generalized term for a strong rebuke. Calling a grievance "unfounded" and a "rant" is an appropriate response to the absurd claim that the existence of less disparagement of Obama than somebody wants means that Wikipedia process and Wikipedia editors are phony. Making those kinds of claims is counterproductive because they won't be taken seriously by anyone who is not similarly convinced, and they serve only to stir up discontent and not to encourage meaningful discussion or improve the article. Not to mention they're based on something blatantly untrue. The poster clearly knows better because he or she had just edited material about Rezko before claiming it doesn't exist.Wikidemo (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting words in my mouth and insinuating motive with out forethought. Thats very 1984, Thought Crime accusations, yes? I read Saul Alinskyand Rules for Radicals too? "Accuse the accuser of the very thing you do and cloud the augment and draw attention away from the thing you don't want discussed? I was born and raised on the south side of Chicago, I know, first hand the political crucible Mr Obama was ween on... I can tell you for a fact what you see is not what you get. Rezko relationship is the tip of that (Obama's) world and the underbelly of Obama's political training. You mark my words, there will be more and I can tell you it's just as juicy, You see...(for some insider stuff, Mr Obama has an almost uncontrolled, fiery temper which I suspect will be exploited to help MR O put his boot in is mouth)... Any rate, you should stick with the argument and stop trying to stick it to me with your wikislander.68.75.164.178 (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But you were attacking him as a person. You were insinuating that he is a bad or unhelpful person for attempting to make the points he is trying to make rather than focusing specifically on what he said and why you felt it was incorrect or unhelpful.

That said, I do agree that it is not useful to attack Wikipedia and contributors as "phony". But I would also avoid inflammatory descriptions of another contributor's positions (especially those of someone new, as per WP:BITE), even those I saw as counterproductive, such as by referring to them as rants. --Floorsheim (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In 68.75..'s defense, while Rezko is mentioned in the article, many contributors are dissatisfied with the amount of information presented concerning the controversy surrounding Obama's relationship with him and feel that it is an case of bias. --Floorsheim (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit more about the case to the article[22], based on the source cited. It should be noted that the relevant discussion of the Rezko case pertaining to Obama is really not very much against him, since he has not been accused of any wrongdoing and simply received money from a well-known Democratic fundraiser that he donated to charity after his background became known.

It would interesting to see is how many other high profile Democrats lived near Obama and Rezko. Do they have their own little neighborhood? Wnt (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt to build consensus on Rezko details

Tony Rezko has been found guilty on 16 of 24 felony counts related to political fundraising. There are two bribery convictions, two money laundering convictions, and 12 fraud convictions. Over 1,000 Google News hits for Obama and Rezko. LA Times, Chicago Tribune, AP, AFP, CNN, ABC News and Reuters.

AFP: Obama friend, fundraiser found guilty of fraud, bribery

AP: Jury: Rezko guilty of 16 counts in corruption case

As a second example of Scjessey's initiative, I would like to initiate a meaningful discussion on how much Rezko-related text there should be. Consider these options please:

1. No mention at all.
2. Personal life section: The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer and Obama supporter, Tony Rezko. This deal provoked media scrutiny of Obama's relationship with Rezko, who was convicted in June 2008 for fraud and money laundering.
3. Early life section: The firm represented, and senior partner Allison S. Davis became a business partner with, Tony Rezko's Rezmar Corporation. Obama did some work representing Davis in his negotiations with Rezmar and also a small amount of work directly for Rezmar. Presidential campaign section: Obama also faced scrutiny for his relationship with political fundraiser Tony Rezko. Rezko, who was convicted in June 2008 for fraud and money laundering charges related to political fundraising, had raised over $250,000 for Obama's political campaigns through the years. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing. Personal life section: The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer and Obama supporter, Tony Rezko. This deal provoked the earliest media scrutiny of Obama's relationship with Rezko.
4. Early life section: The firm represented, and senior partner Allison S. Davis became a business partner with, Tony Rezko's Rezmar Corporation. Obama did some work representing Davis in his negotiations with Rezmar and also a small amount of work directly for Rezmar. Presidential campaign section: Obama also faced scrutiny for his relationship with political fundraiser Tony Rezko. Rezko, who was convicted in June 2008 for fraud and money laundering charges related to political fundraising, had raised over $250,000 for Obama's political campaigns through the years, starting with the first day of fundraising for Obama's first campaign. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing. Personal life section: The Obamas received a $300,000 discount and paid only $1.6 million for the house. The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer and Obama supporter, Tony Rezko, for full price. This deal provoked the earliest media scrutiny of Obama's relationship with Rezko.

You can see we have a sliding scale of increasing detail and negativity. We need to come to an agreement about how far along that scale we want to go, and then duplicate the process with all remining "controversies" such as Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama. Please consider these options and express your preference below. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Express your preference below

1. I cannot perceive any "scale" in the provided options. I guess there is a certain scale from "concise and encyclopedic" to "verbose with digressions". On that scale, No. 2 looks about right. However "personal life" is definitely the wrong section: "early life" is probably best, but "prez campaign" also has some sense to it. What we need is no more than 50 words (of main text, footnotes might have some extra words for the citation), and all in one section. LotLE×talk 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
2. No. 4. Now that Rezko has been convicted, the mainstream news media are definitely linking Obama with Rezko, and calling Rezko Obama's "friend" and "fundraiser." ABC News lists this story third on their web page: Fixer With Obama Ties Found Guilty The New York Times also listed this story third: Fund-Raiser Convicted in Illinois Bribery Scheme The Guardian also listed it third on their homepage: Developer with Ties to Obama Convicted In Chicago Yahoo News has listed the AP wire version fourth on their homepage: Political fundraiser convicted in corruption trial Google News has now installed the Rezko/Obama AP version as the Banner Headline across the top of its homepage. [23] Political fundraiser convicted in corruption trial In the past hour, the number of Google News hits for "Obama + Rezko" jumped from 1,115 to 1,350. This is a major event for the campaign. Obama is always mentioned in the lead sentence, if not the headline, of all major news media websites' stories about the Rezko conviction. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) UPDATE The number of Google News hits "Obama + Rezko" is over 1,500 this morning. BBC News: Obama fund-raiser guilty of fraud Washington Post: Former Obama Fundraiser Convicted of Corruption I will keep everyone posted regarding the first poll results taken after the Rezko conviction. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
3. No. 4. A good and concise list of choices. This will reduce the arguing back and forth, and drive discussion to a prompt and decisive conclusion. 70.9.72.38 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (first edit by this IP address)
4. No. 4. Fairly reflects the connection. It is me i think (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
5. No. 2, and whatever text is chosen, only one section of the article. It's undue weight of the nastiest kind when Rezko's name is mentioned in every other section of Obama's article. Shem^(talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
6. No. 4, but I could easily accept No. 3 or accept No. 2. Shem makes a good point about one section. Readers would get a better picture of the relationship with all the major elements we know about in one spot. I see no value in separating them just because something happened at one point and something else happened at another point. I like No. 4 best because it mentions that Rezko was an early supporter. Early support is something a politician should be much more grateful for. The early money can get poured back into more fundraising or vital early publicity that then generates more money. Early supporters of Ronald Reagan got some appointments in his administrations (William French Smith was one, I think), and the New York Times recently had an article about an early supporteer of McCain, some land developer McCain did quite a few favors for. Noroton (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
7. My view is that the nature of the Rezko relationship belongs in the Personal Life section. The impact on the campaign belongs in the campaign section. I think No. 2 does a good job of the former. I don't yet see what I would consider a good solution for the latter. Too many details in No. 3 and No. 4. To me, what needs to be expressed is the nature of the deal itself, who it involved and what they have been convicted of, and the fact that Obama has faced scrutiny concerning this. Doing that in the fewest possible words providing the clearest possible picture and in the logically relevant sections should be the goal. also strongly support including "Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing." --Floorsheim (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
8. No. 4. It's the only one that gives sufficient details to explain to the reader why the Rezko/Obama connection is so controversial. Rezko, Ayers and Dohrn were involved in Obama's political career from Day One. All three committed felonies. As Evelyn Pringle observed, "Rezko is Obama's political Godfather." Good work finding that source, Kos, and even better work limiting the number of options here. In doing so, you have also limited the amount of bickering, nitpicking and Wikilawyering. Brilliant. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
9. No. 2 Number 4 seems ridiculously long and includes a lot of crap people don't want to have to sift through if they're just trying to find out about Obama. --Ubiq (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments below

Please keep your comments civil. I had the luxury of watching Scjessey's giant stride forward over the past few days. It has collapsed into more feuding but I think we can reach a reaonable compromise. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also would like to say I appreciate Scjessey's and others' showing of deference for Kossack's inclusion in the discussions and general contributions to the consensus-building process. --Floorsheim (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can we wait until the discussion on how to handle Ayers is done before we start the discussion on Rezko? It's already confusing enough to try and follow the Ayers discussion and trying to track both this and the Rezko discussion is only going to make it harder to find consensus on both topics. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I have moved Bobblehead's comment to this section. Hope he doesn't mind. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I believe we should move this along faster, particularly since Rezko just got convicted. We are all intelligent people, we can discuss both Rezko and Ayers simultaneously. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What's your hurry? There is no reason to hurry these discussions along and increase the heat of the ongoing discussions by conflating the two different discussions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not hurrying the discussions along. I think the Ayers matter could stand at least another day of discussion, maybe two. I'm just opening a "second front," so that the editors who feel like discussing something besides the Ayers matter can do so. The Rezko matter is rapidly developing now. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in starting the discussion. Others can join in later. I don't think this will be as controversial (famous last words).Noroton (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing. should be moved up and tacked on to the end of the first sentence in the passages of #3 and #4 where it appears. I don't want readers to start thinking that Obama was involved in the matters that came up in the trial. Noroton (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the options presented above seem realistic to me. As far as Barack Obama is concerned, there are only two salient facts that concern Tony Rezko:

1. A property deal that Obama later described as a "boneheaded" mistake.
2. Rezko's role as an important fundraiser earlier in Obama's political career.

Obama's lawyer work for Rezmar Corp was unremarkable, so it isn't notable enough on its own to justify inclusion. Rezko's recent conviction did not implicate or involve Obama, so there is no reason for it to be included either - particularly as doing so would create a conflation that would result in undue weight concerns. So apart from the property deal and the fundraising, none of the other details concerning Rezko are biographically relevant. Since the two related facts do not seem to be directly connected, a concise inclusion would seem to be difficult. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem that a good writer can solve...how to include "difficult" material into text.Tack69 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs faster or more archiving

Wasn't sure if the bot was working because Mirzabot seemed to have stopped operating in the Hilary Clinton article - but can we either archive manually more discussion or speed up the automatic archiving of the talk page so to reduce the size given it is well over 400k (and increasing very fast by the hour) in order to reduce lagging/slowdowns on this page. I think it least 50% of the discussion can be archived without problem if not more with some discussion inactive since 10 days. Given the situation right now, this talk page will have a huge size which could cause even more major slowdowns. Also, maybe some of the discussion should be at other related articles instead of here. --JForget 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The archiving was at 7 days, but I've decreased it to 5. If you think it should be decreased further, go ahead. I think Misza is still working though. It came by just after midnight yesterday (UTC) and archived about 20k of text.[24] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will wait and see before thinking about decreasing it to 4. Thanks! But I'm not sure if the bot had archived all threads that were inactive for more then 7 days during the last operation yesterday - because i've seen inactive threads since the 24-26 still there, don't know if it is a bug or something. --JForget 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, no idea why the bot left those two behind, but I'm sure they'll be picked off in the next round of archiving.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems nothing has been archived last night and size has increase by 25k more since my last comment. I'm reducing the number of days to 4 for inactive topics. If nothing, I will move all discussions that are inactive since May 31 or perhaps as early as June 3.--JForget 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot has been doing perfectly well on its own, so please leave the archiving of this talk page alone. With such a popular article, the length of the talk page is always going to be greater than is desirable. Almost all sections are still active discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, it just chopped out one-third of the size recently. --JForget 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Presidential campaign section, paragraph 5

The fifth paragraph of this article's "Presidential campaign" section does a good & fair job of summarizing the evolution of Obama's relationship with Trinity United Church of Christ, but the Ayers plug in the middle of it was a ham-fisted insertion of a one-night debate mini-controversy the likes of which are far better suited for the campaign's sub-article. No one can argue that Stephanopoulos' Ayers question has come even remotely close to the coverage of Wright, Pflager, TUCC, etc -- one is a twenty-year card-carrying-member association which has had pervasive effects upon Obama and his campaign (certainly worthy of inclusion in Obama's biography), while the other barely lasted one news cycle. This is a POV weighting problem, and needs to be treated as such. Shem^(talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tally

There is a tally of votes. This is not accurate. Look at Ron Paul. 90% support him on the internet, 5% in reality. So we should use judgement, not voting. Tack69 (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

image

This section is not complete. Many images are not listed.

Positive: change, very good speaker, very smart in political strategy, very good when speaking from a podium, that he's wrongly called a Muslim.

Negative: elitest, limited foreign policy experience, relies on a teleprompter or gets flustered, not as good in a town hall format.

All these have reliable sources. Administrators wrote elsewhere that political commentary is ok if reliable sources are used.

So include all of these and more or consider not having any of it. Is there a concensus for including all images or just to include positive images. Tack69 (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama qualifies as a convert to Christianity

The fact that Obama did not belong to another religion prior to his becoming a Christian doesn't change the fact that he was not raised a Christian, but subsequently became one. And that seems to be the only requirement Wikipedia is using to determine who is a "convert": you needn't have "switched" from a different religion.

Obama was baptized in 1988, at age 27; he first began attending Church at around the same time. There is no indication that he ever had even an inkling of faith in the divinity of Jesus beforehand; we don't even know if he believed in God. His own writings and public statements prove beyond reasonable doubt that he became a Christian in his late 20s, which makes him a convert to Christianity.

Note that baptism varies between Christian groups - not all baptise at birth or regard it as particularly important. Conversion generally indicates a change in religious identity, not just a development or strengthening. The way I interpret the word Obama could convert to Christianity if he had been an avowed atheist as a child, but not if he was simply uninterested in religion. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I am both a non-Christian and an Obama-supporter, it seems clear to me that if not just people like Pocahontas and Cyprian, but also people like Gabriel Marcel and William J. Murray, are included in Category:Converts to Christianity and its subsategories, then Obama unambiguously belongs in the category as well. Besides, he's already listed on List of people who converted to Christianity. We should not be inconsistent in what we report, nor should we allow our political agendas (which seem to have motivated some of us to obscure Obama's nonreligious background in order to defend against ridiculous accusations of an Islamic upbringing) to cause us to hide the facts. -Silence (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. Please be WP:BOLD, and add back the cat. FWIW, I'm also certainly no Xtian... I'm not an Obama-supporter either (and actually think religion reflects badly on him); but neither am I one of the rabid Obama-haters who populate this talk page. I am pro-encyclopedia, and the cat matches. LotLE×talk 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That category would be over-inclusive, then, because it would probably mean half of all Christians in the United States. Moreover, it's inflammatory as applied to Barak Obama, whether intended as such or not, given attempts to disparage him for supposedly being Muslim. Wikidemo (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wikidemo here. In fact, since people are not born with religion (it is acquired, not inherited) you would have to include every Christian in that category, if you used the same rationale. That category should only apply to people who converted their religion to Christianity from something else. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is disingenuous, Scjessey. I'm an atheist like you, and I know perfectly well that people are not born with a religion. But there is a big difference between "converting to Xtianity (or whatever religion)" at 1-2 years old, and doing so at 27 y.o. By the criterion of "joined religion as an adult", certainly not half, nor even 2% of Americans are converts. The category clearly includes various people who joined the religion after having no religion previously.

Btw, to Wikidemo. I realize that there is an urban legend that circulates widely about Obama being or having been a Muslim. That fact is unfortunate, and shows either too much stupidity or too much credulity among too many people. At the same time, we can't make editorial decisions based on the chance (even likelihood) that a reader "might make the wrong assumptions" about an indicated fact. Our job isn't to give readers a kick in the direction of truth, but only to present information neutrally, and let them work out what it means. LotLE×talk 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the category shouldn't exist, because it is confusing and ambiguous. The word "convert" implies there has been a change from one form to another. In the case of Obama, this could misleadingly imply that he converted from Islam to Christianity - helping to perpetuate a myth. It would be safer to leave him out of this category. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to "present information neutrally", categorize him simply as a "Christian" and then let the text of the BLP offer up the additional details that one might be seeking. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not particularly fond of categories at all, but inasmuch as they are used, the converts thing does match. I agree that the main text does a good job already. But then, the main text also does a good job of explaining "African-American" (another niggly category subject to some discussion here), or "Irish-American", or "Senator", or "Presidential Candidate". Despite those things being discussed more fully in the main text, they still get categories; the value perceive in categories is not that they present information missing in body text, but perhaps that they point readers towards reading the main text for more information about that categorized attribute. LotLE×talk 18:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, every theist is a convert because nobody is born religious.--Svetovid (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read above discussion. LotLE×talk 18:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But Lulu, one cannot become a Christian (by evangelical standards) without repenting of one's sins and acknowledging Jesus Christ as one's savior (a.k.a. "getting saved"). The very act of accepting Christian salvation is a "conversion" for every single person who says the sinner's prayer. I find the category itself inherently dubious; what age of accepting Christ and "getting saved" is the cut-off for being a "normal" Christian versus a convert? Is someone who "gets saved" at age 14 a "normal" Christian or a convert? Age 16? Age 18? Shem^(talk) 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be three objections to including the category:

1. The category is inflammatory because people will misinterpret it as suggesting that Obama was a Muslim.
   • Nothing about the category implies what Obama converted from (in this case, nonreligion). If a handful of readers bring their own biases and prejudices to the matter—and I find it unlikely that many readers will go to such trouble to scour Obama's many categories who haven't also taken the trouble to skim the article and realize he's never been a Muslim—then it is their loss. Our job is to provide readers with information, not to hide valid information for fear of its consequences.
2. Nobody is born a Christian, so everybody could be classified as a "convert to Christianity".
   • Specious argument. Being brought up in a religion is not the same thing as making a conscious, deliberate decision to convert to one as an adult. The fact that neither is a "default state" does not justify equating the two. And it matters little in practice what age distinguishes the two, since regardless of the vagaries of age of maturity and the like, no one would argue that a 27- or 28-year-old doesn't meet that threshold. So the issue is moot.
3. Category:Converts to Christianity (and presumably List of people who converted to Christianity, which already lists Obama!) is a flawed category because of the ambiguity of the word "convert".
   • Nobody seems to have had a problem with it before. The term actually is quite clear: it means that someone chose to adopt a certain religion at some point in their life. The category's been around for over 2 years, and is quite valuable as a resource, without specifying what the members were before they became Christians.

If you think the category is inherently unusable, then nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, it belongs on Obama's page as much as anyone's. -Silence (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources I've read say that Obama was raised a Christian by a Christian mother. I have a quote here from Barack Obama saying "I've always been a Christian"[25] The talk discussion above said not to re-add this until someone produced a source for the 'conversion'. Anybody got a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

C'mon. The article itself explains well that Obama was raised non-religiously. I guess there's some room for argument that "convert" is supposed to mean "...from a different religion" (though that's not in the category description). But let's not invent a Xtian upbringing that didn't exist (and isn't suggested by the link you give). LotLE×talk 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I'd never seen the article Wnt just linked. Knowing that, I don't think we can include the "converts" category when Obama has gone on the record saying "My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married, and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So I’ve always been a Christian." Shem^(talk) 20:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Except Obama contradicts himself in his book when he says his mother was more of a spiritualist than anything and Maya has previously characterized her as agnostic.[26] Ann's parents were Christians and she was raised a Christian, but it is unclear if Ann was a Christian by the time she had and raised Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Agnosticism and theism aren't mutually exclusive. Shem^(talk) 21:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is an isolated and obscure blog that reports a casual offhand comment in a restaurant. You and I know perfectly well that the context was just Obama distinguishing himself from the rumors of a Muslim background. If this "shocking" new information actually meant Obama was raised Xtain, we should change the Early Life section to reflect the new information... but in reality, you know we shouldn't do that. I understand perfectly well that a number of editors don't want the category because of a possibility (likelihood) that someone will misunderstand it as asserting a Muslim background... but let's not be dishonest in spinning unreliable information. LotLE×talk 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Isolated and obscure blog"? You mean CNN? The article bears the byline "--–CNN Iowa Producer Chris Welch". It is dated December 23 2007. Now there's a difference between an offhand comment at a restaurant and an offhand comment at a restaurant in Iowa at the time of the first primary election in front of a CNN Iowa producer. Wnt (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say CNN's Political Ticker is obscure -- it's the official political blog of a major reliable news network, and all its stories are attributed to notable analysts or journalists. It's not an encyclopedia's job to determine what Obama's intent was when he said "I've always been a Christian," but that's what he said, and CNN's Chris Welch was apparently there to record it. Shem^(talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference is between "cultural" Christianity and actual faith in Christ in the evangelical sense. From the context, Barack was obviously saying that he was raised in a nominally Christian home. His mother was from a Christian family. They observed Christian observances. Then, at some point in his life, outside of the scope of the statement "I've always been a Christian," Barack Obama was led to give his heart to Christ. At that point, he became a Christian in the evangelical sense of the word (having a saving faith in Christ). That is a conversion. Every person who is a Christian (not the "cultural" sense of the world) has experienced a conversion because there was a time that they placed their faith in Christ. Now, that said, unless Obama describes his experience as a "conversion", there is no logical reason whatsoever for the article to say he was converted. There is nothing more offensive than someone telling you what you believe or telling you what your religion is. If Obama says that he "converted", then that's the terminology the article should use. If he does not, then we should not put words into his mouth. --B (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit convinced by Wnt's observation above about becoming Xtian after being more-or-less indifferent as a child/young-adult, and becoming one after being stridently atheist before that. I'm still not impressed by the offhand coffee shop comment (not even in Iowa before the primary). However, there's definitely a big difference between William J. Murray and Obama in this regard. In any case, I've never inserted the category on the article, and don't plan to myself (even while still leaning slightly towards its appropriateness).

As to B's comment about the evangelical stuff: that's pretty specific to a certain collection of denominations, Catholics and many non-evangelical Protestant groups pretty much just being born in the faith, and remaining there unless something specific is done to leave it. A Catholic, for example, is supposed to do various things (attend mass, confess, lay off the sins, etc), but someone who doesn't do that is still generally considered a Catholic if they don't get excommunicated or become Muslim (or become vocally athiest, etc). LotLE×talk 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Election to Senate, November 2004

The article should state, "He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote, opposed by a relatively weak candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2004)." 68.40.88.242 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It already states the margin of victory (see Barack Obama#U.S. Senate campaign), but eschews the POV "relatively weak candidate" language, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just say no to dedicated "controversy" sections

His immediate resumption of edit warring aside, Kossak4Truth's recent alteration of the article's section titles pretty clearly constitutes an attempt at creating a dedicated "Controversy" section; this article's FA status rests partly upon its avoidance of such poorly written features, nor should we depart from that standard with a section titled "Wright, Ayers and later primaries." Shem^(talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to revert that, not only is the wording of it seriously NPOV, but some of the "details" he claims were deleted weren't mentioned in the source (asking price of rezkos home) and mention of the fact that the seller wanted to sell both at the same time was no where to be found. I'm not quite sure why people go on crusades to try and defame political candidates on wikipedia, its not like the average voter uses wikipedia as their only guide when looking up a candidate. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. His edit-warring is beyond tedious ((and this applies to the two or three other editors who have the same agenda). There is no majority, much less consensus, for what he wants to add but he now bizarrely claims that the lack of consensus means that his version gets to be put in there until consensus can be reached. This, coupled with the fact that he long ago decided never to assume good faith anymore and to refer to anyone who reverts his tendentious edits as an "Obama campaign worker" make him one of the most most disruptive editors of this article, just a few steps shy of a vandal. --Loonymonkey (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If your problem is with sourcing, I can easily find very reliable sources proving all that. I will direct everyone's attention to this portion of the Wikipedia essay cited by Floorsheim: Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Rezko belongs in the article, and additional context is needed. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

From the essay: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Shem^(talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What policy (including BLP) really says about the inclusion of negative material

I just made a post about this under "Consensus-building..." above. I feel it is so important, it deserves its own section.

In WP:BLP, we find the following

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Floorsheim (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Bottom line? Bill Ayers is not notable enough (in relation to the article's subject) to be included in Obama's biography; Ayers is not Jeremiah Wright, nor is he Antoin Rezko. The Ayers debate question received very minor media coverage compared with Rezko and Trinity, nor has anyone demonstrated that Bill Ayers played a role in Obama's biography even remotely comparable to Antoin Rezko or TUCC. Rezko played a direct role in Obama's early private employment/public work/place of residence, TUCC was his church of 20+ years (and his recent departure from the church makes it all the more notable), but Bill Ayers played no such role in Obama's life. The Ayers debate question "mini-controversy" played a minor role in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (where it is addressed), but doesn't belong in Obama's main biography. Shem^(talk) 05:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Did not mean to talk past your particular perspective. Many here do seem to think policy is to avoid negative material in BLP's specifically that involving the Wright and Rezko issues. Wanted to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. --Floorsheim (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

John Jacobs (center) and Terry Robbins (with sunglasses) at the Days of Rage, Chicago, October 1969.

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

Johnnie Cochran using the Chewbacca Defense against Chef in South Park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A proper interpretation of BLP

Floorsheim has misinterpreted the policies. First of all, WP:BLP trumps WP:ROC because the latter is just an essay. In fact, WP:BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies - something I will expand on later. First, let me yet again remind you of why guilt-by-association content is so inappropriate to biographies by repeating my example from earlier:

1. Not saying anything.
2. John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy.
3. John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy who, it turns out, murdered his wife by chopping her into little pieces and putting the bits in old jam jars. The story got loads of media coverage because of the gruesome details; therefore, the character of John Doe must be judged on who he buys his shoes from.

Again, this perfectly illustrates why "loads of media coverage" is not a good enough excuse to put facts about other people in a BLP, however thoroughly referenced. Because of the risk of defamation, Wikipedia's BLP policy is the most stringent, overriding all others. It has to be that way to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from potential legal action. There is no question about the relevance of Obama's associations with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, because these were personal relationships that existed for an extended period. Obama's own actions with respect to these men have been questioned. With Ayers, however, we are talking about someone who is little more than a fleeting acquaintance. Any misdeeds that Ayers may have done are not at all associated with Obama (indeed, he was just a kid living in Indonesia at the time), and since that time Ayers has become a respectable civic leader in Chicago. Obama's relationship with Ayers is not at all notable except when Republicans and their would be surrogates tried to make an issue of it during the campaign. The result was little more than a fart in a hurricane, as far as media coverage was concerned. No doubt the GOP machine will try to make more of the relationship than there is as the campaign develops, but that is a matter for the campaign article (if and when it happens). Finally, let me once again remind you of the key WP:BLP rules that apply here:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
• Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints.
• Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

It is clear from these words that there should be no mention of William Ayers in this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If the claim was only that Barack Obama bought a pair of shoes, you would be correct. But this is not something merely being mentioned by the tabloid media or talk radio. Google news gets 951 hits for it right now [27] so it is obvious that the non-tabloid media considers it significant. The article ought to have a sentence mentioning the controversy simply because it is a controversy that is getting a ton of traction in the media. It doesn't need to go into detail about Ayers' life - that would be a WP:COATRACK - but one sentence would be appropriate. --B (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Search engine test warns us against relying upon search engine returns, but that aside, 951 hits on Google is a very, very minuscule number of returns. Compare with 15,000 news returns for "Obama Wright" and 4,000 for "Obama Rezko." Many of the Google returns for "Obama Ayers" don't even mention Ayers, only mention Ayers in user-submitted article comments, or come from unreliable blogs like Hot Air. The weight is nowhere near similar. Shem^(talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Although I don't know about the one sentence thing. To me, as few sentences as are necessary to make the effects of the factor on the subject plainly apparent (as per the suggestions of WP:ROC) while keeping in mind WP:WEIGHT should be used. --Floorsheim (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. You cannot use a Google search as justification for a BLP violation, particularly when there are just as many results for an identical search, substituting "ayers" for "shoes". The "controversy" is campaign-related, not biographical. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The comparison is absurd. Nobody is doing an article about Obama's shoes. They are doing articles about Obama+Ayers. I remember a few months back, the liberal Wikipedians were convinced that Fred Thompson's artcle needed a lengthy bit about Thompson doing a commercial for Lifelock because it had come out that one of Lifelock's principals had previously been accused of a crime. Never mind that Thompson had never met the guy or that the one article on the subject had been widely criticized as a vicious attack piece, it had to be there. I find it humorous that now that the shoe is on the other foot, even extensive media coverage where you can't watch a news program for a half an hour without them talking about Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, and Rezko isn't enough to justify inclusion. --B (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Again, it doesn't matter whether you or I think it's a silly or unfounded issue for the media to cover. The simple fact that the media is covering it warrants its inclusion in this article. Here's another quote from WP:BLP regarding that:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will be gone next couple of days.

--Floorsheim (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

ACU and ADA

This article presently mentions that National Journal ranked Obama as the most liberal Senator, and mentions that Obama expressed doubts about the ranking's methodology. But why focus here on National Journal only? Why not the ADA and ACU? I haven't looked at the ratings of Obama from the ADA and ACU yet, but we should all agree that they're very notable.

"The question of how to measure a senator's or representative's ideology is one that political scientists regularly need to answer. For more than 30 years, the standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American Conservative Union (ACU)."

Mayer, William. "Kerry's Record Rings a Bell", Washington Post, (2004-03-28). Retrieved 2008-05-12.

Any objections if we describe the ADA and ACU ratings here?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a pretty exhaustive run-down of Obama's ratings, which includes the ACU and ADA. Here're McCain's, too. Shem^(talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the ADA and ACU ratings. Based on his years in the Senate (2005, 2006, and 2007)Obama has a lifetime average conservative rating of 7.67% from the ACU,[28][29][30] and a lifetime average liberal rating of 90% from the ADA.[31][32][33] I'll add this to the article unless there is any objection.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's a good idea, but could I suggest giving a day's time for more editors to weigh in? Shem^(talk) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool; 5PM tomorrow, then. Does McCain's article include his ratings, too? If not, let's make this same proposal over there. Shem^(talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Edit: It does. The wording follows:

Various interest groups have given Senator McCain scores or grades as to how well his votes align with the positions of the group. The American Conservative Union awarded McCain a lifetime rating of 82 percent through 2007, while McCain has an average lifetime 13 percent "Liberal Quotient" from Americans for Democratic Action through 2007 (see chart for progressions over time).

Looks like the work's been done for us, all we need to do is swap the names and ratings. We could even do charts, apparently. Shem^(talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Obama really black?

The news media keep reporting that Obama could be the first black president, but is he really black? I tried to look up some information about his race, it seems he is only 1/4 black, hardly qualified to be a blackman. Correct me if I am wrong, I didn't see any information regarding this in the article, I could have just missed it. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He is biracal. His father was from Africa and his mother was Caucasian who lived in Hawaii. He also self-identifies as African-American according to his auto-biography --8bitJake (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with lead

"He is the first African American to be the presumptive presidential nominee of any major American political party."

Why is this so important that it needs to go in the lead of the article? Seriously, who cares? This is practically suggesting that we should be surprised that a black man is being considered for the Presidency. It's only news in the racially-backwards country in which he's being nominated. I think the rest of the civilized world view this for what it is - unimportant trivia. If anyone is curious about how many black men, brown-eyed men, men who wore pinky-rings, Californian men, men with asthmatic house pets, etc. have run for President, they can just look up the list of presidential candidates and find this info.

Certainly this information is of interest, and I can see mentioning it later in the article (with an appropriate explanation of why this should be considered important - i.e. the struggle for equality among races in the U.S.) but putting it in the lead just suggests that he is somehow less equal because of his colour or that he is a token candidate - something I am sure Mr. Obama himself would deny being. 139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an important historical fact for the USA as it would be, if Clinton would have been the first female nominee. It's that simple. --Floridianed (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax. The original anonymous poster is obviously spewing inflammatory rhetoric; they are naught but a simple drive by troll. I do, however, like the ongoing documentation of such obtuseness. Sociologists of the future have rich pickings herein. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm calm but still had to point it out. If it convinces at least one it was worth the effort  ;-) --Floridianed (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm quite serious. Why would it be of any more interest if he was female? That's simply another category of trivia. The same caveats still apply - making special mention of either gender or race makes it seem like the candidate is a token rather than an equal. Why is this hard to grasp? It should be removed from the lead for the reasons I outlined, and if included in the article, explain why this is "historic" - i.e. the poor state of race relations in the United States. The fact that a racial minority is seen as being worthy to lead the nation would not be news in many other countries.139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's race, like Hillary's gender, is significant for social, cultural, and historical reasons. The United States' particularly dramatic history of racial polarization, segregation, and discrimination makes Obama's race significant, because it marks a major milestone in the history of racial equality in the U.S. Outside of any historical context, and in an ideal world, Obama's race would be beyond trivial. But Wikipedia writes about the world as it is, not about the world as it ought to be. And in the world as it is, race is still a major sociocultural issue. It's true that a racial minority becoming a presidential candidate wouldn't be news in every country. But then, not every country fought a war over race either. There are other articles (including African American itself) which cover the history of race in the United States more than adequately; we need not give it more than a cursory mention here, as most of our readers will already be very familiar with the matter. Centuries from now, any history book which touches on the history of racism in the United States will probably mention that Obama was the first viable African-American candidate, if nothing else; if he becomes president, that becomes all the more signficant. -Silence (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just a little list of Leaders where "the first woman" or "first black"... is clearly mentioned:

Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Nelson Mandela (look below at subcategory: Presidency of South Africa). Well, now should we go all over WP and take those remarks out or just do the same here? Sure, now you'll say well, but he isn't President yet. And? Being the first black nominee is for the United States a major issue and President or not, he allready has his place in our history! Now do whatever you want. Tha-tha-that's all folks. --Floridianed (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wright/TUCC declared primary season's dominant story by PEnJ

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has named Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ the most dominant issue of this primary season's media coverage (worth taking the time to read). I'd say we can safely retire most of the Wright/TUCC debate to pasture. Shem^(talk) 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wright shouldn't be controversal to include but it has to be done very carefully to keep it within NPOV. That's the only problem and challenge I see. --Floridianed (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

IPA name pronunciation

Forgive me the X-SAMPA, or more accurately CXS, but I can't type IPA easily on this keyboard. Anyway, his first name is transcribed as [b@'ra:k], which looks outright wrong, as no major stabdard dialect of English afaik has [a:] (some British accents do, but they're not standard). From [34], assuming that the author has the father-bother merger, his first name should probably be transcribed [b@'rA:k] (which, incidentally, isn't now British newsreaders, and thus most British people, pronounce it; they always say [b@'rak]). His middle name seems to also have a rather different one than I'm used to ([h@sein]), but this could just be the subcontinental pronunciation. But the transcription of the last name definitely seems wrong too: it uses [a:], but also has final [a], which is impossible because /a/ is a lax consonant and can't be in an open syllable. From the linked reference, I can guess it should be [oU'bA:m@], but it's less clear. I use this transcription because that's also how all the newsreaders say it, so it has some currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.35.238 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

I encountered a reversion stating that "back-and-forth spats" with "partisan organizations" weren't the "right direction. I think that Media Matters for America is notable, and since two of their top front-page articles cite issues with the accuracy of certain media reports about Obama and the Rezko case they are certainly relevant. If anyone has a problem with this please explain. Wnt (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters is a blog.... Is it really a reliable source? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters is reported on by third party media sources.[35] Wikipedia describes it as "a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock." You're telling me that's a blog? I didn't even purge the crummy references with "blog" in their name from the Jeremiah Wright controversy and nobody commented on my mention of them in the talk page. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Wnt. I'm glad you expanded the paragraph a bit, but don't understand why back-and-forth spats between background partisans like Media Matters for America and John Kass warrant such detail. The Media Matters source (whose reliability I'm sure some might challenge) defends Obama, but the sentence "Obama is accused of no wrongdoing" already covers the point they're trying to make. Shem^(talk) 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning when a talking heads on two major news outlets each falsely accuse Obama of essentially taking a bribe in two different ways, each based on what turns out to be clearly false information, when these inconsistencies are each noted by a well known "media watchdog" organization. It speaks to the general reliability of the press in the United States and has an impact on the Obama campaign. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Brevity is important. The two sources you mention, even granting both are WP:RS report different facts. And a hundred other sources each report their own variation or opinion. We can't discuss every nuance of what every source purports, and the "Obama is accused of no wrongdoing" does a good job in summing up the media consensus. When there's any doubt, fewer words is always better than more words in an encyclopedia (or in any good writing). LotLE×talk 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anyone can register as a 501(c)(3), so that's not a very good indicator of reliability.But anywho, their reliability is probably something that shouldn't be discussed on this talk page, there's a whole noticeboard for that. If Media Matters is complaining about inaccuracies in a reporter's story, shouldn't that be covered in the article about the reporter, not the person who is the target of the inaccuracies? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the standards for 501(c)(3) are fairly strict (501(c)(6) is much easier to get). I am happy to accept that Media Matters meets WP:RS, and moreover that a MM refutation of another source casts that other source as last reliable. However, we can avoid the issue by simply omitting all of the back-and-forth over he says/she says on exact land values and the like. LotLE×talk 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph I had was this. (I tried putting up half of it with no mention of MM and they reverted that immediately also, claiming the remaining sources were "partisan". Like I can cover a partisan dispute without mentioning some partisan sources?

The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer and Obama fundraiser, Tony Rezko. This deal provoked media scrutiny of Obama's relationship with Rezko, a top adviser to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted in June 2008 of fraud and money laundering. Although no wrongdoing was alleged in relation to his campaign, Obama has donated $150,000 in Rezko-related contributions to charity. In an interview with CNN host Glenn Beck, Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass stated that Obama had received "around" $300,000 or "maybe $150,000" discount on the purchase and that Rezko's wife had paid $300,000 more. Media Matters for America criticized this statement, citing reports that Obama made the best offer for the property and Rezko's wife paid the $625,000 asking price for the adjacent land and subsequently sold five-sixths of it for $575,000. The group also disputed Mitt Romney's statement to Fox & Friends that Rezko financed Obama's house, citing a $1.32 mortgage Obama and his wife took out with the Northern Trust Company.

From this I managed to slip one fact in past the deletionists - that Obama didn't just pay off all his debts and show up with a $1.6 million house without taking out a correspondingly expensive mortgage. The current version does not mention that Fox and Friends (like Wikipedia) made it sound like this was some kind of a gift from Rezko. I still think that apparent news sources are lying about this guy is worthy of note. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have to "slip it in" past anyone; standing alone, it's a perfectly relevant fact to include. So far's the lies go? Sure, people're going to tell lies about him (he's a presidential candidate), but are we to say it's notable every time someone does such? Shem^(talk) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Shem here. I'm sure that some major news sources are either lying or doing really bad fact checking. While that is perhaps notable in articles about those sources, it's not a matter about Obama. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of misreported facts in the course of the subsequent campaign (about both candidates, FWIW)... we can't have the biographies details every incorrect thing said by every mainstream source. An encyclopedia needs to float at a slight detachment from microscopy about such details. LotLE×talk 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need to cover every single organization's coverage. Fishal (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying again: Cultural perception section

I have tagged the "Cultural image" section for Neutrality. It gives various reasons why people love Obama, while giving the impression that there is not a soul around who has a negative "cultural perception" of him. Fishal (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole paragraph in that section on whether Obama really "counts" as African American. You don't consider that a critical passage? Shem^(talk) 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is true-- my mistake :-/. But even that concludes with the idea that Obama's just too darn appealing to white people... sort of a left-handed criticism, if such a thing is possible? As the campaign has dragged on I know that via the media I have heard all sorts of issues people have with his background (cf. the "arugula" comment and the "bitterness" comment). Both of these faux pas were blown ridiculously out of proportion, but both left a lasting impact on many people's perceptions of Obama. The issue was the cover story of Time (or Newsweek) quite recently, IIRC. Fishal (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's religion

His religion is listed as United Church of Christ. But he's recently split from his church ([36] ). So should it be changed to just "Protestant" or "Christian"? Millancad (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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