Talk:Barack Obama

Please stop blocking criticism of Obama

I remember when we had a lot more editors actively taking part on this page. Many good editors have been driven off. We have also seen one of the editors who were blocking all criticism of Obama, abandoning a long-term account of many years because he was concerned that he would be outed. I suspect the information that would have been revealed was that he was linked in some manner to the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party.

Others were helping him, however, and using tactics that were not in WP's best traditions or best interests: and by the time Rick Block called the question after offering a drastically shortened version of the Rezko material, they were the only ones left to vote.

Please stop blocking material that may cause Obama to be criticized. You know that compared to George W. Bush, Tony Blair on the day it became a Featured Article, and other WP biographies about similarly situated politicians, this article contains a severe shortage of anything that resembles criticism, but you continue to employ every trick and stratagem in the book to block its introduction.

I am inviting Scjessey, LotLE and Noroton to join me in mediation.

If you are blocking criticism solely for the sake of blocking criticism:

Please stop. Examine your motives. Compare this biography to other biographies about similar people, and allow this article to reflect WP:WELLKNOWN: if it is notable and well-sourced, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't "call the question". I suggested a shortened version, a variant of which was introduced by this edit, not made by me. I actually didn't notice this edit until several days later. I'll also note that the reason the long term editor left is not precisely known and your supposition about the reason has no basis in fact. Some editors here make no particular effort to hide their real world identities. Some editors apparently go to great lengths such as creating a WP:SPA and using it only from what they know are untraceable IP addresses. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting this section is an auspicious audacious way to return to the article after a week-long block for incivility and wikigaming. I suggest we either ignore it, or close it as incitement not reasonably directed to improving the article, and ask editors not to incite things by using the talk pages to complain about other editors. Wikidemo (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

... your supposition about the reason has no basis in fact. Well, he was fighting like hell to keep anything that resembled criticism out of an article about a very prominent Democratic politician, using false accusations as a primary method of debate; and then someone did a search and discovered that he had a COI. Very abruptly, he stopped fighting like hell and went into hiding (WP equivalent). That's a pretty good basis in fact. Actions speak louder than words. It's likely that he was a Democratic Party operative, and it's possible that he differed from other Democratic Party operatives on this page only in his lack of discretion about covering his tracks.

... an auspicious way to return to this article ... I'm asking for mediation. Let's see whether anyone would like to resolve this through mediation, Wikidemo. Would you be interested in that? Or do you like the way things have been going on this page? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think mediation would be productive. That seems like yet more wikigaming and prolonging an already-resolved issue, and by opening the matter with the above statement attacking other editors you're pretty much guaranteeing that the process will be contentious. Your contributions to this page have been disruptive in the long term. It would go far to improve conditions on the page were you to stop editing here, as has been proposed a number of times at AN/I. Wikidemo (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) - I'm not clear on exactly what you are seeking mediation on. I was not aware of any existing content dispute that you have been involved with. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

... already-resolved issue ... If you think this is resolved, you've got another think coming. We haven't even started talking about Ayers yet, the ACORN material is following the same tired pattern of disagree/ provoke/ report, and the Rezko paragraph will inevitably be reopened no later than September 3, when he gets sentenced and the 527s start Swiftboating Obama for it. I'd like to resolve all of these content disputes amicably, under the supervision of a large group of people experienced in dispute resolution; so that they can see for themselves who's really gaming the system, and who's really got the best interests of the WP project as their only agenda. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "disagree / provoke / report" pattern - that accusation is just more of the rancor you're bringing to the article. I trust the "another think coming" isn't going to be from you. If one or more seasoned editors / administrators were willing to moderate this article and its talk page that might help. However, to date they all seem to think conditions here are too contentious for them to do any good. A formal mediation process removed from this discussion page, with the contentious editors at the table who should have been topic banned already, seems unlikely to do any good either. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The disagree/ provoke/ report pattern is well established here; and now everyone can see who is offering mediation, who is refusing it, and who is claiming that others "should have been topic banned already." WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, there does not appear to be an ongoing content dispute with anything you have previously been involved with. The Rezko issue has been dealt with, and you would have to begin a new consensus-building process to even get to a point where mediation might be necessary. Mention of Bill Ayers has no place in this article, because Obama's tenuous relationship with Ayers is an insignificant detail with respect to his entire life (and vice versa). It received a tiny bit of attention during the primaries, so it might warrant a brief mention in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, I'm filing an AN/I report on this disruption.[4] Perhaps the nth time is the charm and this can be dealt with in some lasting way. Wikidemo (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So once again the stability of this article is being threatened by Worker Bee's clear partisanship. Ayers does not belong in here, and Rezko has appropriate weight. Rezko's sentencing should not change anything in this article; if Swiftboating occurs, it would at most belong as a mention in the campaign article. The point about relevance to the man's entire life is, of course, exactly on target - this is not a campaign piece, it is a biography. I wonder how many times that has to be said. And I agree with Wikidemo's comment about topic banning of contentious editors - should have happened long ago. And I further agree that this section should be closed - its title and intro proves the point. Tvoz/talk 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All of this must be covered in an WP essay somewhere that rouses contributors to pick up rhetorical swords and silence anybody holding a minority position or viewpoint (which by its nature involves controversy as to whether it's to be reflected in mainspace and how). Could somebody point me to it? 'Cause this telling of another contributor essentially "F/u, you ought to have been banned" etc. feels out of order to me.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no attempt to silence minority opinions, and please don't jump into the discussion with that kind of reflexive accusation of bad faith. This is a long-term disruptive editor and proven WP:SOCK who has been dragging this article and its editors through the mud for nearly two months now. There's an AN/I report right now, so if you wish to comment more on the subject please direct your efforts there. This page is for discussions related to improving the article. Wikidemo (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if think your comment was in bad faith as much as it's my impression it didn't address how to edit this article so much as it was letting your a/n/i type commentary leak out onto this talkpage.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC) However I'm not gonna to look at diffs or comment at the an/i. I'd warned WB74 before (ie patronizingly scolded) to at minumum work on demeanor so as to try and avoid heat from Wiki powers that be.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're off base. There's no picking up swords, no silencing, no telling anyone off. There's simply an attempt to deal with an editor who has ruined the editing environment here through long-term disruption. AN/I is for raising issues that need administrative intervention. It was not until his last comment here,[5] where he turns his disingenuous appeal for mediation into a way of attacking me, that I thought the issue was ripe for AN/I. I don't need to be scolded or patronized over that, and it's unhelpful because it only enables him and prolongs the trouble when you take his side. He's already picked up on your "fuck you" language and he's berating me via a sock account over at AN/I.[6] Because it is there now, so there is not much more to be said here. Wikidemo (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to understand it from this perspective. A single-purpose account user, who has contributed nothing but disruption, edit warring and a lack of civility, has returned from a week-long behavioral block and immediately "requested mediation" on a long-since resolved content dispute. His first post upon returning to this talk page is an accusatory, inflammatory diatribe against perceived censorship that features claims of conflict of interest and "driving off" other editors. How exactly are we supposed to respond to that? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

{§ I remember when Shem had just been doing mostly the odd edits here and there to Barack Obama mainspace before he first made his splash onto the talk page to advocate heavily re the original Ayers "vote." I remember reading something he'd written somewhere, not on the article, that had led me to imagine even way back then that he was involved in the campaign somehow, obviously something completely independent from WB74's speculation to that effect now. Is such speculation pointless? Sure. But so is, I think, decrying the situation that lead to Shem's taking leave from us. He spoke his piece here and then he decided to go. Life goes on.}
Surfing Wikipedia, I come across the tidbit that in 2002 a congressman in Peru, Eittel Ramos, challenged the country's Vice President, David Waisman to a duel; these guys are priviledged with contemporary versions of title and nobility (immunity from petty prosecutions, their views generally given no small weight, etc.) Look folks, King Jimbo's empowered the whole lot of us in this wiki to contribute here----so, Your Excellencies, let's pull the huge feathers out of our three-pointed hats and quit wanting to push our sword through the gut of some fellow when we feel our honor's been impugned and go back to our desks and channel all such disagreements through WP's version of Parliamentary procedure, shan't we?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that serious mediation, entered into in good faith by all parties to the content dispute (and let's not pretend there isn't one) would be very constructive. Someone here claims he wants more senior editors and admins involved? Well, the Mediation Cabal is packed with them. Anyone trying to game the system will be quickly found out. But here I am, suggesting mediation. And there Wikidemo is, refusing mediation. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop these games? Wikidemo (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to mediate. This article has moved on since you were blocked for your disruptive behavior, and the content dispute was resolved (in large part due to the absence of your disruptive influence). All you are trying to do is re-ignite an old argument because the resolution doesn't fit your point of view. If you have new content concerns, express them here and try to build a consensus for changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of things to mediate, not the least of which are your conduct and LotLE's. This conduct was the topic of WP:ANI threads by respected, well-established, trusted, non-SPA editor Noroton, so it's not something I'm making up; there are others who have noticed that you're not exactly a pair of angels. This goes hand in hand with the illegitimate resolution of the Rezko content dispute. At the start, there were 15 editors participating and the ones who wanted to include more criticism had a 9-6 majority. At the end, there were only three: Tvoz, LotLE and SCJ. The rest had been driven off, or prevented from participating because they were IP editors, or baited and tormented into conduct that was then reported at ANI with demands for a block. Even Noroton had been driven off. There's also the following Ayers question, which is already undeniably an unresolved content dispute. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my conduct, file a report. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Directed to all, let's in general keep the an/i page completely separate from this one somehow. Discipline ourselves from harping on past stuff. Cut down somewhat on the repetetiveness of our arguements arguments. (Can't spell.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to talk about William Ayers

Since the Bill Ayers election controversy is sufficiently notable to have its own rather long WP article, and since it's only this election that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator with a 300-word biography, the Obama/Ayers relationship is notable enough to be included in this biography. All my previous observations about the prevalence of criticism in WP biographies about prominent politicians, including Tony Blair on the day it won Featured Article status, are still very appropriate. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not s'posed to argue what I'm about to, but here goes. In Lizza of the NYer's seminal, contextual narrative about B's political immersion before the milestone of his Illinois senate service, Ayers is mentioned in a couple of sentences. Now's the part where I gotta whole lotta splainin to do. Therefore, lol, we'd not be remiss if we ourselves only dedicate----whatever percentage a-few-mentions-out-of-a-half-score-pages is----of this preliminary period's coverage to user-of-flag-as-patio-mat Ayers (which preliminary period's entire narrative in B's WP bio, as chronologically dedicated to it, is thus far zero incidentally anyway. That is, about 1% of our article's at present zero mention of pre-Illiois-senate-service political activities: 1% x 0 being 0).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no mention of, for instance, John Hagee on John McCain's page.--The Bruce (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be. Was Hagee the co-founder of a terrorist organization that set off bombs on US soil? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a joke about Hagee's claim about terrorism by God in New Orleans? Just wondering. If so, maybe you should take up drawing cartoons for The New Yorker. (Hagee has also attacked Catholicism, Islam, homosexuality and Jews, according to his article. I don't believe he has been specific as to whether their death and destruction should come on or off US soil. There's also Rod Parsley and now Bud Day.) Flatterworld (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's a fairly strong argument that any mention of Ayers here would violate both the "Undue weight" and "Neutrality and verifiability" sections of the WP:NPOV policy. I think it's easier to talk about concrete rather than abstract suggestions, so what specific wording would you propose adding and where? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of Ayers violates WP:WEIGHT. Simple problem, fully solved. LotLE×talk 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, you don't WP:OWN the article, so dismissing the problem as "fully solved" exhibits a flippancy that, if I had exhibited it, Wikidemo would have raced over to WP:ANI to start a thread about. Please dial it down. Rick, I don't see any point in writing at any length about the controversy in this biography. But since the other article exists and no one here has nominated it for deletion, it is a significant event in Obama's life. I was thinking of something like this, in chronological order in the presidential campaign section:

The Bill Ayers election controversy made headlines after George Stephanopoulos, moderating a televised debate on April 19, started by asking Obama about his relationship with Ayers. As a co-founder of the 1970s anti-war group Weather Underground, William Ayers had set off bombs in the Pentagon and other US targets.

WP:FRINGE is inapplicable, WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPOV demand its inclusion, and WP:WEIGHT is rather vague. It has no specific, precise formula indicating how much material to include. I think two sentences is a little short but a reasonable compomise with folk like LotLE. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"...William Ayers had set off bombs in the Pentagon and other US targets."

The Ayers article seems to need an overhaul. It's states:

"Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot.[7] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.[8] The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and blown up again by Weatherman on October 6, 1970"

Mmmmh... --Floridianed (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with Obama? I could perhaps see a footnote-ish reference in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 but is there any evidence this had any impact on the campaign, let alone Obama's life? From WP:NPOV#Neutrality and verifiability: A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. This seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to connect Obama to Ayers's past. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DITO! My intention (regarding my comment above) was to show how misleading WB's proposal is, even in the facts about Ayers, (not to mention the non existing connection between Obama and Ayers radical past). It is a non-issue in my opinion ["undue-weight" is indeed a concern] as I similar stated quite some time ago. Let me state the basics here again. Ayers: If mentioned at all, just very very briefly. Rezko: To be mentioned but still pretty briefly. Wright: To be mentioned for sure, less briefly but w/o going over the top with to many details especially about Wright himself. For all those three: Make sure there is a WP-link within the text to lead to those individuals for readers looking for more information. Wright and Rezko is already covered (not the way I would have done it but I'm "ok" with it). So now we're stuck with Ayers and if we could agree on "not blowing this issue out of proportion" by staying on the facts while discussing, there might be a chance to get a result and consensus in a reasonable amount of time. --Floridianed (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayers issue is a non-starter

On the substance there doesn't seem to be any relevance or importance to Bill Ayers via-v-vis Barack Obama. It did not figure significantly in his life, and it did not affect either in any real way. As the New Yorker piece (Ryan Lizza (2008-07-21). "Making It:How Chicago shaped Obama". New Yorker.) describes, Obama was associated with dozens if not hundreds of politicians, fundraisers, businesspeople, and other and prominent community members in his rise to power. We cover only a few of the most important - Ayers was nowhere near being important, a footnote if even that in Chicago politics.

On the sources establishing weight / importance, Obama/Ayers gets 450 news hits,[7] as compared to 175,000 for Obama overall[8] Only 1 in 400 news pieces about Obama even mentions Ayers, and most of those are either not the focus of the article, or in blogs and editorials, or both. Nobody else seems to think it's important either.

On the weight issue I've I've looked at the weight we give various people and issues. See my new subpage, Talk:Barack Obama/weight. Of the 45 people we mention 10 are family members and 6 are people who simply commented about him. Of the 29 others, 17 are fellow politicians he ran against or sponsored legislation with (of all persuasions), and only 12 can be said to be friends, associates, or colleagues - of which 8 are his campaign or senate staffers. That leaves only four people we mention as being informal associates - the two pastors Pfleger and Wright, his close strategist Axelrod, and Rezko as a scandal / controversy and mid-level campaign supporter. I just don't see the room in there to start adding people he had a casual relationship with and who happen to be former terrorists - it's not balanced. The New Yorker piece, which is twice as long yet only covers about 1/4 of the territory as this article, devotes 2 sentences to Ayers (dividing up sentences that discuss multiple people). It covers 81 people in total, 34 to a greater degree than Ayers, 43 less than Ayers, and 3 get the same 2 sentences. Just by math that would suggest Ayers deserves 1/4 sentence here (i.e. zip)... but before even thinking about that we should consider some of the 34 more important people. Of them many of the ones most important to Obama's Chicago power base are simply not covered here: Toni Preckwinkle - 33.75 sentences there, not covered here; Will Burns - 27.75 sentences there, none here; Emil Jones - 27.5 sentences there, none here; Alice Palmer - 18.5 sentences there, 1/2 here; Bobby Rush - 16.5 sentences there, 1 here; and so on. In fact, of the 34 people who figure more prominently into the New Yorker article than Ayers, only 8 are mentioned at all in our article. And the New Yorker piece is on the very subject for which Ayers is supposedly notable, how Obama chose his friends and associates in his early political rise in Chicago.

Thus, Ayers doesn't pass the test for weight or relevance, either logically, by looking at reliable sources, or by a detailed analysis of how much space we and others give to various events. It's a no brainer. I think it's very unlikely at this point that Ayers can be included here, or that there are sources out there at this point that can make a case that he should.

This whole discussion came up out of turn. I suggest we wrap this up and move on to something more productive. Wikidemo (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My best 2¢ is, ----What Wikidemo says.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you "squeeze-in" please make it notable. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Floridianed. It's just I'd mentioned analyzing the percentage of Ayers' being mentioned in Lizza's remarkable piece up above (did ya notice?) before Wikidemo wrote his amazing treatment of the same idea, hency my "Wish I'd said it that way" comment.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for "wrapping this up". I just made an edit above the same time you did here and could've spared my time for replying to your comment. Well, now I did and my first sentence says it all ;) --Floridianed (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to concerns

The Ayers article seems to need an overhaul. It says ... FE, what you seem to be saying is that I didn't represent the facts accurately. If you'd please read the Weatherman (organization) article, you would find this section: "On 19 May 1972, Ho Chi Minh's birthday, The Weather Underground placed a bomb in the women's bathroom in the Air Force wing of The Pentagon. The damage caused flooding that devastated vital classified information on computer tapes." [9] Please don't base your decision on a misperception. I've represented the facts accurately. All this has bedrock solid sourcing.

And what does any of this have to do with Obama? Rick, the same question was asked about Wright and later about Rezko. Tempers flared and harsh words were posted here. I will answer the same way and hope tempers won't flare this time, and false accusations won't be made this time. The generic challenge that's always made is, "How does this Relationship X have anything to do with Obama?" The answer is, "The most notable news media in the English speaking world, and Obama's political rivals, have made Relationship X an issue in the presidential campaign. Since without the presidential campaign Obama would be as notable as Jon Tester, the controversy should be mentioned with a link to the article about it."

The New Yorker piece ... Isn't an encyclopedia biography, Wikidemo, and should not be used as a guide on how to write one. The guide on how to write a WP biography about a famous politician is, of course, all the other WP biographies about famous politicians, where controversies and scandals thrive. In those other WP biographies, scandal is called "scandal," controversy is called "controversy" and criticism, without hesitation, is called "criticism." These are dealt with in substantial length and detail, even when there is a separate article devoted to the controversy itself. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The most notable ..." - is this a quote (if so, from where)? Obama's political rivals have attempted to make his relationship with Ayers an issue in the presidential campaign (true fact, lots of sources). The most notable news media in the English speaking world have duly reported on this (true fact, lots of sources - note that these sources have not "made [it] an issue in the presidential campaign", they've reported what the political opponents have said). However, mentioning it in a biographical article on Obama implies significance. But there really doesn't seem to be any. We don't include all news articles related to Obama (like, for example, his recent visits to Iraq and Afghanistan). There are simply too many. Mentioning this particular story gives it a non-zero WP:WEIGHT, implying either Obama has a significant relationship with Ayers (which I don't think anyone has claimed is the case) or that this story had some effect on the election. The fact that it was reported is simply not sufficient reason to include it. We similarly do not include McCain's relationship with Vicki Iseman in the main article on McCain, even though (in contrast to Obama's "relationship" with Ayers) McCain spent significant time with Iseman and supported her clients' interests on multiple occasions. Per WP:NOT, all content hosted in Wikipedia is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nexis is an extremely powerful tool in circumstances such as this. A search can be structured with exquisite precision. I am finding a lot of prominent news media sources that discuss Obama's relationship with Ayers, without even mentioning McCain, Hillary or any other political rival of Obama's. The New Yorker article just cited by Wikidemo is an example of another type of noteworthy news media treatment: while (A) the Ayers relationship is explored and (B) McCain and/or Hillary get a mention, A is not directly linked to B. The article does not discuss any criticism from the political rivals regarding Ayers. So the media are not simply reporting attacks by political rivals as you claimed.

(By the way, that New Yorker article is a marvelous source for a few other tidbits that I'll be exploring in a couple of days.)

A comparison with McCain and Iseman is not valid, as we have previously discussed on my Talk page. Thanks for your response, but you've offered a false dichotomy here: mentioning Ayers in this article implies that either (A) the relationship was significant, or (B) the controversy had a provable impact on Obama's electability. I suggest that we have at least a (C) here: see WP:WELLKNOWN. If it's notable and well-sourced, it belongs in the article, even if it's negative and Obama dislikes all mention of it. The fact that there is a controversy, and that it's significant enough to have a very substantial and well-sourced WP article on it, indicates that it's notable enough to be mentioned here with a link.

I point out also that on the AfD, the consensus among the uninvolved editors is Keep. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep on mentioning WP:WELLKNOWN as if it's some kind of magic wand that makes your points valid, but that simply isn't the case. Although Obama is well known, his alleged relationship with Bill Ayers is not. What little of a relationship exists isn't even controversial - they have briefly worked together on the Woods Fund. What of it? The "relationship" was briefly notable when it came up in a TV debate, but beyond that it is all but non-existent (apart from by the right-wing propaganda machine, of course). So any mention of this so-called "relationship" in this BLP would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, any attempt to shoehorn it into the article would only be for the purposes of linking Obama to Ayers' alleged misdeeds, and guilt-by-association is expressly frowned upon in WP:BLP.

As far as the AFD is concerned, I will also point out that the discussion there has caused me to rethink my initial nomination. I still think it is a non-neutral piece of POV garbage, but I conceded it may have value. It definitely needs to be renamed though, as the current title is completely misleading. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy is indeed the magic wand here, SCJ. There's nothing "alleged" about the relationship. It is confirmed by many reliable sources. A prominent Chicago physician who advocates socialized medicine described Obama and Ayers as "friends." Three years in the lifespan of a man in his 40s cannot reasonably be described as "briefly" but they served together on the Woods Fund board for three years. They've also appeared together on at least two panel discussions and Ayers participated in the launching of Obama's career in politics in 1995. WP isn't attempting guilt by association, merely reporting the reactions of notable news media and notable politicians to this friendship of many years. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh come now, WB74, that's just incredibly misleading. Their connection has been correctly described as "tenuous". Let's drop this smear campaign now, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A mention of Ayers is not going to happen - no consensus to so at this point to include, well-founded objections from several that the information is POV and trivial/irrelevant, it's been discussed at length without resulting in consensus, and this new discussion isn't going anywhere. I don't see much point repeating myself but my own position until further notice is a firm "no." I'm not sure if there's anything else to talk about right now about the article but if there is we should move on to that. Wikidemo (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing the least bit misleading about anything I have said here, SCJ. Nor am I engaged in a smear campaign and your baiting and provocation is not going to work. In your opinion, the Washington Post blogger's description of the relationship as "tenuous" is correct. But that's all it is: your opinion. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yet if we were to sandbox a short section about political activities prior Obama's legislative service, would it be reasonable to propose a sentence about Ayers that would fit into the context of that?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact a paragraph on Obama's early political activities in the "Early life and career" section. Developing Communities Project and Gamaliel Foundation are briefly mentioned. I noticed someone named Gamaliel posting in the AfD, wonder if there's a connection. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the Gamaliel Foundation. I've been editing Wikipedia for four years and I didn't even vote for Obama in the primary. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an old saying "you're known by the company you keep". The Ayers information must not be downplayed. Ayers is an admitted perpetrator of violent, terrorist acts and the historical record makes plainly clear that Ayers helped launch Obama's political career. That connection in and of itself is notable - if only because no other recent Presidential candidate has associated himself with such a violent man - a man of criminal activities. Those who oppose WorkerBee74 on this point have not persuaded me to anything. I categorically reject all to-date stated justifications for downplaying the Ayers connection. Ayers did seriously bad things against USA and never repented. Knowing this, Obama still accepted (accepts?) his help. People are entitled to know that. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There also is an old saying "guilt by association", sometimes rendered as "smear". Tvoz/talk 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia policy "let the facts speak for themselves." Put the facts out there and let the readers make up their own minds. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but if these "facts" are (a) over reported and (b) dubiously sourced then readers will draw false conclusions from these misleading "facts". -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. To avoid "over reporting," I'll get it down to eight words plus a link. To avoid "dubious sourcing," I'll use only the gold standard of sourcing. Deal? WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything more than zero words is over-reporting, per my analysis in the section above. I have yet to see any reliable sources that establish that this is actually a significant matter but for WP:WEIGHT purposes you would probably have to show that there are hundreds, if not thousands. Even stuff that many people consider too trivial to mention such as Obama's basketball playing has eight times the apparent amount of attention ([10] versus [11]) and sixty times the news stories ([12] versus [13]). Perhaps people will entertain a concrete proposal but there is no more support to add an Ayers mention now than there was for the 7-8 weeks (and likely much longer) this has been discussed and I seriously doubt any amount of further argumentation is going to change that. Wikidemo (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And, you're not going to get "pre-agreement" for adding anything that's unseen. If you have a suggestion for an 8 word addition, by all means suggest it here. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, here goes. It should be at the start of the "state legislator, 1997-2004" section. (The Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article should be merged here, due in no small part to the fact that when you boil it down to the body of the article, it's only a few words longer than this section; and it's already been used as an excuse to dump Obama's more controversial state senate activities anywhere but here.) Here it is, with existing text in italics:

---

See also: Bill Ayers election controversy

Obama's political career was "launched" by William Ayers. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer ...

---

All right, let's hear it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not reliably sourced. The "Launching" comment comes from a leftist blog, "Musings & Migraines", by Maria Warren.[14]. That's not a reliable source at all, and Boston Globe does not rehabilitate the source by quoting it without approval. The full quote is: "When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread." There are some other problems but that's the most obvious. Also, that it's probably untrue. Inasmuch as the paragraph is about Ayers and Dohrn it speaks more to their frame of mind than any causal connection between their efforts and the launch of Obama's career. Indeed, the author herself claims that this was taken out of context as a claim that Obama and Ayers are connected. The Lizza article on the subject of the rise of Obama's career credits Alice Palmer with having "launched" it.[15] If we could get past reliably sourcing the claim to a responsible journalist (which we can't, because it's not true) we still have to get past the statement being a coatrack, counter to many other sources, and of undue weight. Wikidemo (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Not even close. And I find it increasingly hard to believe you're even trying to be NPOV here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am absolutely eager to hear a counterproposal that involves a number of words greater than zero, and a link to Bill Ayers election controversy. By the way, Wikidemo, that "Obama basketball" Google comparison is completely bogus. All it takes is for Obama's name to show up on the same page as some NBA highlights or the NCAA tournament, and it jacks up the hits. Use Nexis if you want to get serious. And when you claim that an Ayers edit has been discussed for "7-8 weeks," don't forget to subtract the 6-7 weeks in the middle when we were talking about a Rezko edit and we weren't allowed to talk about anything else. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody is free to weigh in and propose in good faith whatever they wish, but my proposal is that we close this line of discussion as not having consensus, and move on to any other unresolved concerns that need to be discussed. Wikidemo (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Twenty words

Wikidemo, that's the fourth time you've tried to shut this discussion down and no one else is supporting all of your attempts. We are all aware that your vote is "No, no, a thousand times no," so your further participation in this discussion is not necessary. Since you are so eager to talk about something else, I encourage you to go to another section of this Talk page, or perhaps another page entirely, and talk about something else. It's clearly going to take more than eight words to satisfy your demands. Let's try this version. This goes after the Wright paragraph in the campaign section:

In April the Bill Ayers election controversy arose when George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his friendship with bomber William Ayers.

Each and every word is undeniably, pinpoint accurate. The source is the gold standard of sourcing. We could also use the word "terrorist" rather than "bomber," or even substitute the words "unrepentant terrorist" and it would still be undeniably, pinpoint accurate with solid gold sourcing. But that would increase the number of words from 20 to 21. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's no good either, because it violates at least three policies:

• WP:WEIGHT - the question in the debate was an insignificant fraction of what occurred during the months of campaigning (even the flag pin thing got more attention), and it is even less significant when taken into the context of Obama's entire life.
• WP:LIBEL - you cannot claim someone is a "bomber", or any other variation that indicates a criminal act, unless the man has been convicted of said act.
• WP:SYN - Obama's campaign described it as a "friendly relationship" but nobody has characterized this as an actual "friendship" (see transcript of debate).

Also, there is no such thing as a "Bill Ayers election controversy" because (a) Bill Ayers isn't running in any election, and (b) there is nothing controversial about his tenuous relationship with Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:WEIGHT concerns, this article tells us that Obama is left-handed. There are 347 Google hits for that (using Wikidemo's method) but 19,600 hits for Ayers and Obama, a ratio of 56-to-1. Regarding WP:SYN, a prominent Chicago physician who supports Obama and advocates socialized medicine (Dr. Quentin Young IIRC) says they are friends. Again, this is supported by solid gold sourcing. The Obama campaign also says they have a "friendly relationship" so that's good enough. Regarding libel, Ayers has actually bragged constantly about being a bomber. It's in his book. Regarding the title of the linked article, you haven't proposed a decent substitute at your own AfD. But if you'd like, we can remove the offensive word "election" and use Wikimagic to preserve the link to that article. That has the added benefit of reducing weight to 19 words.

You've complained that I don't listen to reason. Physician, heal thyself. Listen to reason. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the other point about WP:LIBEL. Brothejr (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Strikeout by me. Though, I would say that any comment about him being a bomber, terrorist, or anything of that sort would be better on his page, not Obama's. We must remember that this is about Obama not Ayers. Brothejr (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

... His page, not Obama's. The same argument was used in an effort to exclude material about Jeremiah Wright from this article; and that argument failed. It is about both Ayers and Obama. The terms "bomber" and "unrepentant terrorist" immediately signal to the reader the cause for the controversy. This is the same argument that was used to defeat the "there not here" argument regarding Wright. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Still not good enough:

• The left-handed argument - I'm not wedded to it, but one can expect there to be a reasonable amount of interesting personal biographical information in a BLP. And since lame arguments are popular at the moment, consider that Obama has only spent of few hours (in total) with Ayers, but he has a lifetime relationship with left-handedness.
• The physician argument - Answering a WP:SYN problem with a "he said, she said" comment? "Friendship" is a much deeper word than the characterization of "friendly relationship", and "some guy says they're friends" is not a good enough justification by any stretch of the imagination.
• The "Ayers bragged" argument - That still doesn't answer the issue of him not being convicted of anything, and so stating he is a "bomber" or something similar exposes Wikipedia to accusations of libel.

Further argument on this is pointless. There is no consensus for adding any of this contentious, policy-violating material despite repeated discussion on several occasions (see the talk page archive). As proposed by others, this discussion should be closed. Naturally, we can reopen this debate if Obama's relationship with Ayers resurfaces at some later point. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All the above, plus the statement's untrue. Not that the weight conclusion would be different if it were described the origin correctly and we got rid of inapt stuff like calling Ayers a "bomber" or saying there was a "friendship", but the mini-controversy (it's more of a partisan campaign tactic than a controversy) apparently arose in February, 2008, when discussion began circulating in the British press, followed by conservative blogs and Hillary Clinton supporters. Wikidemo (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy first reached a substantial public consciousness here in the United States when the question was put to Obama in that April debate. But you're welcome to propose a version that takes into account previous talk in the British press, right-wing blogs etc. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the other point ... Yes I have, Brothejr, and I grow weary of repeating myself due to the reading comprehension skills of others. (See my Talk page for a tiresome example.) Ayers brags constantly about his days as a glorious bomber for the people's revolution. He brags about it on the lecture circuit. He brags about it in his book. If the horse's mouth isn't good enough for you, I've got solid gold sourcing from elsewhere.

I'm not wedded to it ... SCJ, don't race off and delete the "left-handed" sentence; that seems to be your solution to everything. There's a lot more trivia where that came from. This biography is packed with such trivia. The controversy about Ayers is non-trivial enough to survive your AfD attempt by a 15-8 vote. But if you insist that it's trivia, I'll assume for the sake of this paragraph that it is. So what? We have room for a lot of other trivia if it makes Obama look like a great guy, so why not this? The real reason you're objecting to this particular bit of trivia and none other is painfully obvious.

..."He said, she said" comment ... SCJ, the difference between "friendship" and "friendly relationship" explores new ground in hairsplitting. Dr. Quentin Young is not "some guy." He knows both Ayers and Obama quite well. But if you insist, we can call it "friendly relationship" if you have no objection to increasing the word count by one.

... the issue of him not being convicted of anything ... See above response to Brothejr. If the horse's mouth isn't good enough, there's solid gold sourcing for "unrepentant terrorist." If the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Mother Jones, The Nation and The New Republic can say it, Wikipedia can say it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to insert those BLP / NPOV /RS violations brought on protracted edit warring on the Ayers page after this issue became a political football in early 2008. They certainly don't belong here.Wikidemo (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it brought on protracted edit warring because certain people couldn't handle the truth and, inevitably, this stuff became part of the Ayers page (at far greater length than I propose here) because it is neither a BLP violation (it's true), nor an NPOV violation (see WP:WELLKNOWN), nor an RS violation (due to the gold standard of sourcing). WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It was because most people there, like here, are serious about following policies and guidelines to create a neutral, encyclopedic article. Calling Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist", "bomber", "terrorist", etc., was rejected as a BLP violation, POV editorializing, not reliably sourced, and counter to reliable sources, on the Ayers article. We don't need to have that battle here. I don't care to argue the point further for now - this is just rehashing the exact same thing that has been discussed plenty of times. There's not consensus for including the material at all, and an outright rejection of this version. Wikidemo (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then replace the word "bomber" with "radical" if you insist. I'm trying to compromise here.

The Bill Ayers controversy arose when the British press challenged Obama about his friendly relationship with radical William Ayers.

Nineteen words. Happy now? WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, WorkerBee74! You keep waving WP:WELLKNOWN at us, but that isn't your personal seal of approval to violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:SYN, or be disruptive, combative and uncivil. There is no "truth" for you to expose. This is a cordial relationship between a Chicago politician and a Chicago civic leader and distinguished professor that is not significant enough to warrant a BLP mention, and barely makes the cut in the article about the primary campaign. Enough of this agenda-based activism already!-- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN is policy. None of the other policies you've mentioned above are violated, for the reasons that I have already exhaustively set forth. Stop accusing me of "agenda-based activism," my only agenda is to make this BLP about a famous politician look like other WP BLPs about famous politicians, where criticism and controversy thrive. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale is "to make this BLP about a famous politician look like other WP BLPs about famous politicians, where criticism and controversy thrive." In otherwords, make this BLP as bad as the others. Your arguments have failed, and your proposed addition (for which there is no consensus, and probably never will be) violates half a dozen Wikipedia policies. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It violates zero policies, SCJ, for the reasons I've already cited numerous times; and if you think those other BLPs are "bad," I have specifically and repeatedly cited Tony Blair, a BLP whose lifeblood was criticism and controversy on the day it became a Featured Article. Not so long ago, Noroton completely eviscerated your "those other BLPs are bad" argument by finding several GA & FA BLPs containing abundant criticism. How quickly you forget. Do you need a link to that page and section in the archives? A map and a flashlight perhaps? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying there is a general prohibition on criticism, just that this specific incident is not weighty enough to include in this article. Opinions about this (and these are opinions) differ. Hence, no consensus to add here. I'd suggest crafting some words to add to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW - reading through the current version of the article I count 8 instances of what I'd call criticism. For comparison purposes I count 19 in the McCain article. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• This matter merits zero words in the general biography. Conceivably it might be worth fewer than 20 words in the campaign article. We have been through this many times, let us just start ignoring the provocations and sophistry of the SPA who wants to stick in disparaging/libelous violations of WP:BLP. LotLE×talk 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point in further discussion, especially now that the matter is resolved - no consensus for WB74's proposed edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Provocations and sophistry"? Stop baiting me. Rick, what we have here is a de facto prohibition of criticism. (A) K4T proposes introducing criticism about Wright. Every WP policy gets cited in attempts to obstruct it. (B) Noroton proposes introducing criticism about Rezko. Every WP policy gets cited in attempts to obstruct it. (C) WB74 proposes introducing criticism about Ayers. Every WP policy gets cited in attempts to obstruct it. Now look at the cumulative effect: zero criticism in a BLP about a major party's presumptive nominee.

Furthermore, these policy citations are completely bogus. For example, I'm using the gold standard of sourcing and I still get WP:RS thrown at me. You know, it wasn't so long ago that staffers for several Democratic congressmen were caught whitewashing their bosses' BLPs. The only reason they were caught was that they were editing as IP accounts that could be easily traced to their bosses' Capitol Hill offices. Not so hard to figure out how to get around it ... WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'd like to elaborate on the process, Rick. Whenever a well-intentioned editor suggests the introduction of any criticism or controversy, each and every WP policy is thrown at him, one at a time. Laboriously, he changes words here and there, finds better sources, and bends over backward to satisfy all these demands. Each and every objection is completely demolished.

WP:WEIGHT is always the last line of defense because it relies entirely on their opinions. There's no magic formula to resolve it. It's just opinions. We need outside help here. We need RfC or mediation. Probably both. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now let me illustrate something else. Suppose there are 30 editors working on the BLP of Joe from Cincinnati, and 29 of them want to add a paragraph with a bold section header that says, "Joe from Cincinnati is a child molester," but the sourcing is "I read it on a blog somewhere," and the 30th editor says, "Wait a minute! What about WP:BLP?" Should those 29 editors prevail by citing WP:WEIGHT and voting?

Wait a minute! What about WP:WELLKNOWN? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, WP:BLP wins, hands down. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WB74, while your behavior has been troubling, you've made a fair point. Rick Block observes that there are 19 instances of criticism in the John McCain article, compared to only eight here. Let's start evening it up. I support the addition of WB74's 20 words. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works at all. We don't arbitrarily add criticism in order to "even the score" with some other article out there. We weigh each thing on its own individual merits. Achieving neutral point of view and avoiding undue weight are the concerns here, not a tit-for-tat tally of who has more criticism in their biographies. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. Let's add WB74's 20 words to the article. Coincidentially, that would have the effect of starting to even it up. Curious bystander (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of mentioning that there are 8 instances of criticism in the current version of the article was to show that the consensus is not always against the addition of criticism. What folks are saying here is that the Ayers "controversy" (this specific issue, not "any issue that might reflect poorly on Obama") is no more relevant to Obama's life than the Iseman "controversy" is to McCain's life. I assume most folks arguing for mentioning Ayers here would argue equally strenuously against adding any mention of the Iseman story in the McCain article - and I strongly suggest no one suggest this at talk:John McCain per WP:POINT. Furthermore, I suspect that at least some folks arguing against mentioning Ayers here would also argue against mentioning Iseman on the McCain page. Neither of the McCain or Obama articles are immune from the addition of criticism, but there's no "criticism quota" we need to achieve either. We also certainly have no obligation to achieve "criticism parity" - although I'll note that 8 for Obama and 19 for McCain is roughly proportional to how long they've each been in the public eye. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There you make a point that was always in my mind but didn't commented on it because when I was in the mood to do so, I always was in a very "sarcastic mood" and would've made "crappy" comparisons, and by "crappy" I mean comparing amounts of crap that can be delivered over time. Not going further into that or I do just what I prevented myself to do :) . --Floridianed (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I support WB74's proposal. By the way, I would be interested to learn which bits and pieces of this article Rick Block perceives as "criticism." Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been getting a lot of constructive comments in the RfC concerning this issue, so I'd like to keep this thread from being archived. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More info needed on Obama's nine years in Illinois legislature

I've undone this edit by user:WorkerBee74 which adds what seems (to me) to be a highly POV account of the passage of the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act, sourced to http://www.countercurrents.org/pringle220508.htm (which would appear to be somewhat less than reliable). I suppose we can discuss it if anyone cares to. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well let's discuss it Rick. There's a severe shortage of material about Obama's nine years in the Illinois Senate (compared to his three years as a US Senator and 18 months as a presidential candidate), an allegedly unreliable source is effortlessly confirmed using the Illinois legislative record and the well-known and trusted Chicago dailies, and I'll again invoke WP:WELLKNOWN. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The length of time is not directly proportional to the importance or significance. That being said, the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article could certainly benefit from some expansion, provided that expansion did not violate WP:NPOV or WP:RS (as your recent edit to Barack Obama clearly did). Naturally, such an expansion would also have to take WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP in mind as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The amendment to the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act (IHFPA) was carefully tailored to enable Blagojevich's five appointees to take control of the board. It reduced the number of members from 15 to nine, making five votes a majority: and it achieved the reduction by providing that six Republican appointed members would be removed.

Within 60 days of the passage of this amendment, these five Blagojevich appointees and their wives donated a total of at least $15,000 to Obama's campaign. (Just one, Michel Malek, donated $10,000 within 30 days of its passage.) I could prove all of this by citing five or six separate unquestionably reliable sources. (SCJ, since you also have Nexis, it's easy enough for you to see what I'm talking about.) Or I could use Countercurrents.org, or one of the other sources where Evelyn Pringle's series of articles has been published. How do you feel about Opednews.com, or Scoop.co.nz?

And we haven't even started talking about the pension fund yet, or how many thousands of dollars Blagojevich appointees to that board contributed to Obama's campaign. Appearance of impropriety? WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

These would be matters for discussion at Talk:Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, not here. The addition you are proposing is way too much specificity for the BLP. Also, you have described it in a non-neutral manner, with phrases like this: "[It] was carefully tailored to enable Blagojevich's five appointees to take control of the board." Furthermore, there is nothing "improper" about stacking the deck with Democratic appointees, just as it wouldn't be if the roles were reversed. See the current administration, SCOTUS, etc., for spectacular Republican examples of same. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

SCJ - I think you're missing the point. WB's suggesting including allegations of kickbacks for favors granted. Per BLP, doing this anywhere (even implicitly) requires impeccably reliable sources without resorting to WP:SYNTH, conjecture, or speculation. I think it's safe to say this would be HUGE news and, since it doesn't seem to be, I imagine WB will have a very hard time with this. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick, please review the edit you reverted. Nowhere did I even mention these campaign contributions in the article mainspace. But if you'd like, we can certainly go to a very reliable source called OpenSecrets.org, where Michel Malek and the date and amount of his contribution to Obama's campaign are listed (along with the names, dates and amounts of all the other donations from all the other Blagojevich appointees on the Health Facilities Planning Board and teachers pension fund board, who now control billions of dollars in government funds as a result of Obama's legislative efforts).

Then we can go to the Illinois legislative record and get the dates and the texts of the amendments to these laws and we see Obama's committee reviewed and approved them in record time and he pushed them through the full legislature, just weeks before the money was donated to his campaign.

Then we can go to the Illinois government websites and look up Michel Malek and all these other appointees, and show that they were appointed by Blagojevich. Then we can show how one of them testified at Rezko's trial in exchange for immunity. Most of the individual portions of this can also be found in the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. SCJ has Nexis just like me, so he can do this in a few minutes if he's so inclined, and if he structures a search properly.

I'm not violating WP:SYNTH because somebody else named Evelyn Pringle put all of this together. Or, if you prefer, we can just restore the edit you reverted. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

None of this is permissible due to the prohibition on original research. All info in the article must be attributed to a reliable source, and crosscurrents.org does not appear to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research Gamaliel. I didn't do any of the research on this. Evelyn Pringle did. Her work has been published in at least three sources. Let's pick the one that's most reliable.

SCJ, you know that Bush and his father nominated several justices to the Supreme Court; so imagine the reaction if McCain had sponsored legislation (back in the days when the GOP controlled Congress) reducing the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to six by removing the Clinton appointees (and a moderate Republican like Justice Stevens). And within 60 days of its passage, Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia donated buckets of money to the McCain for President campaign. This isn't an ordinary case of stacking the committee. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are talking about, WB is the very definition of original research. You can't go poring through government records, reported campaign contributions and courtroom testimony to draw your own conclusion. That's not how Wikipedia works. If such accusations have made against Obama in a verifiable, reliable third-party source than let's discuss those references here. But, this being a WP:BLP keep in mind how high the bar is set. Blogs and editorials aren't good enough. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with what Loonymonkey just said. If you are telling people to go look up government records, then you are proposing original research. If you have reliable sources, let's see them. But they must be acceptable according to Wikipedia's rules for WP:BLPs. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I've done here. Evelyn Pringle did the research and published it on three different websites, and I will allow others to decide which one is most reliable. I'm not Evelyn Pringle. I've just gone to what are probably the same sources she used, employing the same Nexis search engine that she probably used, to confirm that she is a reliable source; and I'm inviting any of you who might also have Nexis (such as SCJ) to confirm for yourselves that she is a reliable source. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So which one is most reliable? Countercurrents.org, Scoop.co.nz, or Opednews.com? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

After examining the sites, my assessment is that none of them fit the criteria of WP:RS. You are welcome to seek other opinions here and at the reliable sources noticeboard, of course. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a serious question, none of the above. The way this works is if it's a real story it will show up in mainstream reliable sources and then (and only then) do we even consider including it here. We don't come even remotely close to "breaking" stories here. Unless and until this is a mainstream story appearing in reliable sources there's 0% chance we'll mention any part of it here (including the supporting "facts" with the intention of letting readers "draw their own conclusions"). You're quite welcome to bring this up again if it surfaces in the mainstream, but continuing to push for it now is starting to border on disruptive editing. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would concur. None come close to being reliable sources, in fact. Evelyn Pringle is a non-notable hack who can only get published in exposé/underground/activist websites. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

None of these fit the definition of a reliable source. In fact blogs such as those are explicitly excluded as sources in a WP:BLP. Plese read WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Plus, as this is an extraordinary claim, the bar is even higher. As of now, WB74, you haven't even come close to meeting the standards for a reliable source with this claim so what's left to talk about? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And what does your Nexis search tell you about the facts she has presented? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source with Nexis, please provide it. Otherwise, this issue is pretty much concluded. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the point is not whether there are reliable sources for the "facts" Pringle is using, but reliable sources for the inferences that she's making from those facts. Presenting the "facts" here by themselves making only implicit accusations is no different from making explicit accusations. We're asking for reliable sources for the accusation whatever it might be. For example, your original edit carries an (implied) accusation of the form "Obama was part of a plot to give control of whatever board it was to Rezko et al.". Since there's no other way to read this particular juxtaposition of "facts" than as an accusation, you need a reliable source for the accusation (not just for the individual supporting "facts"). You've been pointed to this before, but please review WP:NPOV#Neutrality and verifiability. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For an example of WP BLPs that use Evelyn Pringle articles from Scoop.co.nz as sources, please see James Gottstein. Other articles that use Evelyn Pringle articles as sources include Modafinil, BLP Richard Burr, BLP Dan Olmsted, Bjork-Shiley valve, TeenScreen and Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005. She's had about 50 articles published according to Nexis, in two fields (A) medical technology and pharmacology, and (B) exposing corruption in government. In the latter area, she's clearly non-partisan, going after Republicans and Democrats with equal vigor. I don't understand why there's a problem. The source (Scoop.co.nz) and the writer (Pringle) are both being used as sources in other WP BLPs. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So you saying that shoddy sourcing in other BLPs is a justification for using unreliable sources in this article? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessarily provocative response there, SCJ. Please stop putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that just with the other BLPs about famous politicians that use the word "criticism" so very frequently, and devote so very much space to controversy, the use of Scoop.co.nz and Evelyn Pringle as sources has already been vetted and found to be acceptable by other teams of editors. It is well-established practice. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. That is complete nonsense. Wikipedia is littered with poorly-sourced articles, and all you have done is identified a few which use your preferred source and used them as justification for your proposed inclusion. You are advocating lowering the standard of this BLP to bring it into line with shoddily-written BLPs. Awesome plan, that. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If a source is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policy, it doesn't matter how many editors want to use that source or that other editors have used that source in the past. The use of a source in another article confers no special status upon it. Many Wikipedia articles have used unacceptable sources in the past and the proper response was and is to remove those unacceptable sources. I notice you don't mention that you received a negative response to your question about using these sources at the RS noticeboard. I think the reasons these sources are unacceptable was explained there rather clearly by User:Itsmejudith. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention it because I hadn't seen it yet. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I hadn't checked for any response because when I posted my question there, I could see that there was a long queue ahead of me and did not expect such a rapid response. How do you feel about a source like Drudge? You can't walk through a newsroom these days without seeing Drudge's homepage displayed on someone's PC monitor, laptop or PDA. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Drudge is exactly the kind of source that the RS and BLP policies were designed to keep out of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read the WP:RSN response from Itsmejudith a bit more carefully, Gamaliel, and it's not the blanket refusal you described above. Judith described Scoop.co.nz as a site for breaking news and the mainstream media often picks it up. (That didn't happen in this case for some reason.) I'd describe Drudge in much the same way, except the MSM almost always picks it up.

Judith's response regarding Opednews.com is far more encouraging: at that site, it isn't the source that is reliable or not, it's the author. And some fairly prominent, reliable people have written articles that were published there.

So Evelyn Pringle, with roughly 50 freelance articles in publication, and with all of the individual facts of her story confirmed by thoroughly reliable sources, is not reliable at Opednews.com? The Wikipedia policy also suggests that we could qualify this material by adding five words at the start: "Investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle said ..." Is such an idea, particularly in light of another WP policy that says "let the facts speak for themselves," completely wrong and if so, why? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How many of these "50 freelance articles" have been published in the mainstream media? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see for yourself using Nexis, can't you? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I only have access LexisNexis at the library, but I would imagine a fair guess would be around zero. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

There's no realistic chance that this material would be included in the Obama article in its present form, or supported by this source. Singling this legislation out as a favor for Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich, incorrectly describing the scope and history of the legislation, and sourcing it to a blatantly anti-Obama editorial, is too much of a WP:COATRACK by a few orders of magnitude. At most, if the bill to avoid sunsetting out of the health care ordinance in Illinois is an important piece of legislation that Obama was instrumental in passing, and if that's a notable part of his career, we can include a statement as such without the political analysis and ties to convicted / accused fraudsters. Until and unlesst hat happens I think the discussion has shown that there's no consensus to add it. Wikidemo (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I brought up the Evelyn Pringle series of articles months ago on this Talk page, when they were first published. There wasn't even one response at that time. Not one. Now, all of a sudden she's being attacked as an unreliable source. Put the facts intop the article without editorializing, and let the facts speak for themselves. Obama was the driving force behind legislation that enabled a few people, all of them appointed by Rod Blagojevich, to take control of two state boards that control billions of dollars in state funds. Within weeks, these same people were donating tens of thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign. Those are the facts. We don't need to link to the Pringle articles to prove them. We can use sources like the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, the Illinois legislative record and Open Secrets. We don't need to mention that they are Rezko cronies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T, I am reminded of something you said at WP:ANI when User:Therefore complained about you removing a BLP violation at Heather Wilson. You talked about it on the article Talk page and didn't get any action. Then you removed the BLP violation, and Therefore reverted you in just six minutes. And here he is, following you back to Barack Obama and taking the opposite approach to the inclusion of criticism. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Condense Pfleger material?

This attempt to condense the material about Pfleger article[16] was reverted,[17] reinserted,[18] and reverted again.[19]

The edit effected this change:

"Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, after Catholic priest Michael Pfleger gave a visiting orator guest oratory that disparaged Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

Personally, I don't object to the change and think it's for the better given WP:WEIGHT concerns over a scandal of diminishing interest. However, I think we get the most bang for the buck in terms of encyclopedic value if we keep a little more info:

"Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, after Catholic priest visiting orator Michael Pfleger gave a guest oratory that disparaged Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

Neither the fact that Michael Pfleger is a Catholic Priest, and the self-serving (even if true) rationalization by Obama are all that informative. They're the weakest links in this section so they can go. If any reader wants to know more, they can follow the link to the Pfleger article. Wikidemo (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article might ought to mention that the homile/ sermon was given at Trinity and orator seems to obfuscate that he was in the capacity of visiting pastor. I'm open to good faith discussion.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already mentioned Trinity in the sentence so we could clear up the circumstances by saying "after visiting pastor Michael Pfleger gave an oratory there disparaging..." Is "oratory" a term of art or can we use the more common terms like "speech" or "sermon"? Also, the Pfleger article uses the term "mocking". Is that more accurate than "disparaging?" Another version might be "after visiting pastor Michael Pfleger mocked Hillary Clinton in a sermon there."Wikidemo (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable. I think it is clear and forthright as Wikidemo has put it. I think speech robs it of some context. Sermon would be accurate as he did this from the pulpit. I think that " After visiting pastor Michael Pfleger mocked Hilliary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity...," as the introductory clause might even be more poetic and reads better, but Wikidemo's idea is acceptable.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never been comfortable with this. It seems to indicate that Obama's resignation was a direct response to Pfleger's oratory, which would be something of a synthesis. While I agree that the resignation is important (and I think we should give Obama's reason for it), I think that the oratory (and who gave it) is not - per WP:RECENT. I would say that the oratory itself is more a matter for the Michael Pfleger and Hillary Clinton biographies. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't why he quit? Do we have a reliable source on what the reason is beyond Obama's explanation? It seems so obvious Pfleger's speech was the final straw but we can look it up in the sources. "After" is appropriate as long as there is some clear causal connection, even if we can't pinpoint the exact nature of the connection. Anyway, I think it's good practice to be specific (naming notable people and providing wikilinks rather than referring to them by generic occupation), and don't see what the harm is. Wikidemo (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither source given states that Obama resigned from the church because of comments made by Pfleger One of them mentions he has been discussing the matter with his wife since the National Press Club comments. That is was Pfleger had no bearing on the matter. That fact of his resignation is important, but it would still be something of a synthesis to link the event to the guest pastor. This would make more sense:

Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, stating his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

Anything more than that wouldn't really be necessary, and the details of who said what about whom seem more suited to the Michael Pfleger and Hillary Clinton biographies. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think mentioning Pfleger's name is important. It lends a false specificity, per Wikidemo's excellent count of the people mentioned and the lengths at which they're discussed. "Visiting orator" is better since it expresses just the fact it happened at Trinity, which is the point. "Oratory" is definitely the correct term-of-art, in contrast to more generic "speech", "talk", or even "sermon" (it wasn't the last, because the visitor was from a different denomination, etc). I'd be happy with "mocking" instead of "disparaging"... it even seems a little more accurate. LotLE×talk 16:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Visiting pastors from other denominations often give sermons. Sermon is not generic in the slightest, while oratory deprives the reader of the religious context in which it was given. If pfleger's name is not important, then it should not be problematic to include it. Mysteriousness that make these comments of some masked man seems counter intuitive.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting about is that being deliberately general and referring to the category rather than the instance seems a little awkward and detracts a bit from the content quality. It would be like saying that Obama enjoys playing a "team sport" rather than basketball, or cooking an "American comfort food" instead of Chili, that he ran a "prestigious leal journal" rather than Harvard Law Review, that his mother's family might be related to a "Confederate Leader" rather than "Jefferson Davis", etc. Per the weight thing I think we've mentioned Pfleger whethe we say his name or not. For me the decision to mention him or not seems to bear on whether that speech really was a tipping point in Obama's decision to resign as traceable to reliable sources (on the substance), and whether that fact is considered significant in a fair number of places (as evidence). I had just assumed that it was, because it seems so obvious. I haven't yet actually tried to look at the sourcing for this. Finally, I really don't see any NPOV / relevancy issue here because unlike Rezko, Ayers, or even Wright, Pfleger himself isn't necessarily a controversial figure that tarnishes Obama by association. The very point of the the story is the opposite, that Obama felt he had to distance himself from his church because he didn't agree with or want to be connected to what was being said there. Wikidemo (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Die4Dixie just reverted the version as it existed a few days ago. Can we leave it in that state for a spell so we can discuss? In the interest of disclosure he did ask me for help gathering consensus here, and I agree that we really ought to leave the status quo for now. This shouldn't be too hard for us to figure out. So let's all work constructively. This is a very minor section of the article and not a big controversy, at least the Pfleger part. So let's set a precedent that we can all improve the article together! I might have to step away for a few hours but I hope everyone can edit in a supportive collegial way. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[20] is a reliable source. This was a sermon. Here we have third party sources making the points that we object to as "synth". This was a priest, not some itinerant orator. this was a sermon, and not a speech. I can provide more sources to illustrate these points if someone would like to discuss this further in good faith. Perhaps we should make suggestions here be forte we remove this cited material.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring over that paragraph? That would reopen a can of worms that is best left sealed. There was a lot of argument over that paragraph about six weeks ago, and after much acrimony and a few blocks, consensus was reached. Please, let's just restore it to the consensus version, and leave it that way. Curious bystander (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For sure we shouldn't edit war, and I strongly think we should leave as-is for now. I agree we shouldn't be too quick to revisit the scene of old edit wars. But from what I remember of the page history (ignoring a whole bunch of things like issues that went smoothly, random vandalism, perennial issues like the definition of African American, and something I paid zero attention to about images) is that page protection resulted from simultaneous edit warring over three issues: (1) Tony Rezko; (2) Bill Ayers; and (3) the Jeremiah Wright / Trinity issue, including Pfleger. We tried discussing them all at one time, which went nowhere, then somehow decided to discuss them one at a time. We left Bill Ayers behind (no mention) and Wright/Trinity/Pfleger where it was (the version we have now), to discuss Tony Rezko. That took 4-6 weeks to get everyone extremely close to each other on wording, and after a while either we had consensus or people just stopped talking about it. Next, WorkerBee74 brought up Ayers again. That's been discussed in the past week - I won't comment here on the state of consensus. And now one of us has resurrected the question of Jeremiah Wright again. It may be more fair to say we have a "truce" version than a longer term consensus. A long way of saying, the conversation isn't necessarily played out and see no harm in continuing the chat if we can keep it friendly. Wikidemo (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[21] and [22] are also both reliable ( cnn and chicago tribune]. Curious, we are not adversaries, and I restored it to your last version. Some want to reach a new consensus, which is acceptable, but I have provided three reliable sources to answer the concerns of other editors. I'm fine with the version that I reverted to, but it could be better. What i think is that it should stay there until a new consensus is reached, or barring that , it just remain. I don't want an acrimonious edit war on such a minor detail either. Let us build a consensus or leave it.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Die4Dixie, we are not adversaries, but colleagues. Let's make this a better article and let's not dismiss WB74 out of hand. I believe that even the worst of us has some redeeming virtue and while he is abrasive, he seems to be a very effective writer and makes good points about policy. Curious bystander (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey has demonstrated quite strongly above that the claim that previously existed in the article was improper WP:SYNTH (and probably simply false). That is, there does not seem to be evidence supporting the idea that Obama quite Trinity bacause of Pfleger. Unless we have evidence that that specific claim is true (and supported by reliable sources), we cannot include it in the article, no matter what earlier consensus might have been reached. LotLE×talk 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LuLu. this from the cnn article:"Obama said the Pfleger controversy made it clear that, as long as he remained a member of the Trinity congregation, remarks from the pulpit would be "imputed" to him, even if they conflicted with his personal views." The article makes the synthesis for us. the three sources are reliable. I offered to find more. Please review the sources while i find more that make the point for us, clearing up any original research concerns.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I have a tremendous respect for WB's keen intellect. I also happen to agree with him, it appears , on some issues. I have tried to recently contact him by email. I believe that if we work as honest brokers of consensus, there will be room for all opinions to be respected here. If tones are not moderated, and a more friendly atmosphere generated, then this article will remain at impasses while we endlessly argue things that should be easily dealt with. If after the the protracted mutual antagonism that Wikidemo and I have experienced , we can be courteous then I believe that this article can be worked on in a much more harmonious way. All it took was his thanking me for adding his signature. I was tired of the drama and incapable of compromise. There are obviously no stupid editors on this page. As bright as we are collectively, we should be able to figure out how to make this work. If we can't then, hell I'll go edit the pages about Spanish literature, something I know something about and which won't cause me any grief.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me, Die4Dixie, that the "Obama quit because of Pfleger oratory" is supportable. The Tribune cite doesn't seem to get that, but the CNN one does. It does look like CNN is trying to shoehorn a connection, but they are WP:RS, so if they do it, it's not our place to question it. I have restored the version that mentions this reason. LotLE×talk 02:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is so much more pleasant.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec X 3) In the interest of saying something nice, WB74 is clearly smart. Since the summary I added at the start of this topic we've had six more reversions in 7-8 hours.[23][24][25][26][27][28] LotLE has partly self-reverted the last one of these[29] so maybe people have come to their senses and this little flare-up is over. But folks, next time can we discuss first? Being WP:BOLD is okay once, but if there's meaningful disagreement be prepared to establish consensus. The burden is on those proposing a disputed change to establish consensus. Wikidemo (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The final issue here now is whether to link to Pfleger and mention him by name - why not? I see no reason to avoid the name and link. The two cited sources, particularly the CNN piece, mention Pfleger extensively (in comparison to the total content of the articles). Also, if we want to polish this to the point of perfection was he really a "visiting orator"? That sounds kind of awkward and unclear. Orator is a bit of an archaic and stuffy word. CNN calls him a "visiting priest" who mocked Clinton during a "sermon." Associated Press (via MSNBC) doesn't mention his being catholic but does call him "Reverend" and "Father", and says he mocked her "as a guest speaker". So why don't we say "after guest speaker Michael Pfleger mocked Hillary Clinton in a speech"? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Speech" does rob it of its religious context. The word sermon is used in the tree impeccable sources to which I have linked above. Bottom line , when I go to church on Sundays, I go to hear a sermon. The three sources I gave above say sermon. I'm trying to get a church bulletin now ,and if it says sermon...... Rev. Father Pfleger, then I'd say he delivered a sermon.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment (sorry, couldn't resist), some churches are a lot more secular than others, and some like Trinity are overtly into politics. If it was part of the worship service it's probably fair to call it a sermon even if Pfleger spent his time talking about Hillary Clinton rather than anything religious in nature. But let's check to see if it might have happened in a church-sponsored event that wasn't a service - you know, like a lecture series or a forum, even an announcement at the end of the service, in which case it might really be just a speech. Wikidemo (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(Meanwhile I typed this but I won't squeeze in above; it does it purpose here too I guess).

Just right out of my head as I remember, the reasons Obama to leave the church were in main part because of Wright's repeated controversial remarks, also reinstating some old ones and attacking Obama directly ("...typical politician..." as an example) on two occasions. Read Jeremiah Wright, Political controversy, where there is no mention of Pfleger, yet, as he held his sermon right in that short timeline of Obama's decision of renouncement it should or could be mentioned (with or w/o naming Pleger with his name) since he included Pfleger's "Hillary-bashing" in his speech('s). So it's just a matter of looking for sources that certainly exist "en mass" and then get to the "hard" part of agreeing in the right wording (as usual). But that shouldn't hold us up to get done with this paragraph. --Floridianed (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I prefer not to mention Pfleger by name is the false specificity thing I mention. Let me try to clarify though: By putting in his name, it suggests that Obama was especially offended by Pfleger, or that that was an outrageous person to invite as guest speaker/orator/whatever. It seems more accurate that Trinity invites a variety of outside speakers, many of whom Obama is likely to disagree with; that it happened to be Pfleger that particular week isn't the main point about the resignation. However, I don't care that much, and if anyone puts back his name, I'll leave it (but please no descriptions beyond just a wikilink at his name).

On the oratory/sermon thing: it's my understanding that in many denominations, only someone in the same denomination (or a "theologically compatible" one) can properly give a "sermon". Pfleger, being a Catholic, can rather offer an outside view, but perhaps one of religious subject matter. I know the word is old-fashioned and perhaps pedantic, but I think it's actually the correct one. That said, I defer to me estimable co-editors if they want speech/sermon/whatever. LotLE×talk 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LOLU (and others of course). I don't care at all about NOT to include Pfleger's name. He's not notable enough to be mentioned by name here. It could've been someone else giving that speech or sermon or both at the same time (I wasn't there to judge) and therefore it doesn't really matter to me if his name is mentioned here or not. I would prefer if not since he's (again) NOT notable in general public. --Floridianed (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, you do not have consensus for this edit. The "new editor with an 'interesting' focus" won't appreciate your innuendo, I'm sure. He asked you to please stop editwarring and I join him in that request. I am opposed to the removal of Pfleger's name and the fact that he mocked and disparaged Hillary Clinton during his guest sermon. If you want to reopen the discussion about the Wright paragraph as a whole, let's discuss it and reach consensus; and while we're at it, let's reopen the discussion about the Rezko paragraph. Deal? WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said at the top of this section, I agree that the edit was hasty and that the old version should remain pending discussion. LotLE's edit was the 11th, and your new one is now the 12th revert. Please note that the edit warring has already stopped after LotLE reverted his last edit in part, accepted Die4Dixie's newly proposed sources as proving a point, and is participating amiably in the discussion as it seems to be nearing consensus. We're almost at the resolution of a small chunk of material we can all agree on. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say about the material about Pfleger's sermon/speech and Obama's decision to leave Trinity. To do that, let's just keep calm. No agreements to reach, no reopening the Rezko matter that we just closed a week ago, and no tying this to larger issues. Wikidemo (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an effort to remove the name of Michael Pfleger. I am opposed to that effort. It is clear that his guest sermon precipitated Obama's resignation from TUCC. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said before. Who said what about whom (Pfleger mocked Clinton) is not as important a detail as the fact that Obama resigned from a church he had long been a member of. To be honest, I have no problem with the existing wording; however, when viewed from a historical perspective I think that these less important details aren't necessary. Bear in mind that this is a summary of a larger treatment in the primary campaign article, where the specifics of who/what/whom are more important. I'm fine with it staying as it is for now, but (per WP:RECENT) I do think that it can (and will) be cut down eventually. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If all we are concerned about is the historical perspective, we can sum the article up by saying " Barak Obama was the first African American politician to be a major party's presumptive presidential nominee in US history." That would sum it up. I think the article would benefit from some amplification, and part of it is his religous life that he gave no small part to in his autobiographical writings. The separation of a man from his church is significant in the life of a self professed christian, and it should be adequately explored. His campaign has made much hay over his religion, sending emails, hiring people to "debunk" myths about his religous views etc. I comfortable that the inclusion of who said what and its relationship ,draw from reliable third party sources, is appropriate.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I came here from the AN/I thread about LOTLE's edit warring on this segment. Having read the diffs of 'both' versions, I support inclusion. The guy has his own page, is clearly of some notability, and expanded understanding here can only assist interested readers. Other than trying to whitewash the situation as 'Obama left cause he's so damn holy', there's no good reason to remove it. Understanding WHY he left a church of long standing is important, and frankly, an extra 200 characters to explain that isn't that much. I see that it's been referenced adequately, and can't understand the blanking, except to spin Obama's reputation. ThuranX (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I note and mostly agree with your position. I think the editors here have already agreed on a version that preserves the existing reference, rewords it for clarity, and removes Obama's own statement about the affair. If we can avoid muddying the discussion with complaints about other editors the only outstanding issue being whether we refer to Pfleger by name or indirect reference, something we can quickly resolve. Under the circumstances to accuse editors of whitewashing, regarding Obama as "holy", spinning reputation, etc., tends to drive a wedge in the spirit of cooperation that has emerged. Can we just stick to the content here please, and the very minor remaining wording yet to be resolved? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten sidetracked for a spell by some wikidrama that followed. Do we have a consensus then for something close to the following?

"Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, after Catholic priest Michael Pfleger gave a guest oratory that disparged delivered a guest sermon that mocked Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

By "consensus" let's not sweat every last word and we can make minor modifications. Do most people feel the new version is either no worse than, or an improvement on, the current language? - Wikidemo (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am ambivalent on removing the second sentence, but I support the above wording either with or without it. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also comfortable with the wording with or without that second sentence. Brothejr (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the wording, too. I also support the second sentence. If there are competing explanations for what Obama has done, then this kind of wording is pretty much ideal: We stick close to the facts, we mention his explanation, we note the event that some say was the real reason. LotLE made a good case for not using Pfleger's name, and it wouldn't bother me if it weren't there because it doesn't much matter who he is, but I marginally favor including it, partly because Pfleger is prominent in Chicago and Obama knew him. Noroton (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton had a similar idea on my talk page, which I had not thought of, but makes a lot of sense. That is, I still believe the "false specificity" thing I've described about naming Pfleger. However, it was Pfleger who gave the sermon/oratory/whatever rather than someone else. We could use the common noun as a link term, e.g.:

Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, after a visiting Catholic priest delivered an oratory that mocked Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

What do editors think? LotLE×talk 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EGG, I think this has to be either after a visiting Catholic priest or after visiting Catholic priest Michael Pfleger. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the fact that Pfleger is Catholic so important? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to go to the trouble of saying it was a priest, it seems sensible to specify the denomination (particularly because it differs from the church itself). That being said, I don't think who said what about whom is important anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd just be simpler to say something like, "Obama resigned from Trinity after a visiting orator mocked Hillary Clinton." Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

All I meant is that linking "Catholic priest" to "Michael Pfleger" has to be avoided. I'm expressing no other opinions on the wording here. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No link, and no particular reason to say he's Catholic. It seems worth mentioning that he was not only visiting but not of the same denomination - because that shows that he is not part of the church. I have no idea of the relevance and for weight reasons it's not worth more than a word or two. I do think identifying him as a "Catholic priest" is more apt than saying he's an "orator". The former is probably closer to describing his profession. Not a big deal either way but if we're going to make the article as good as possible I think it's more encyclopedic to identify people by a primary trait like occupation than by their situational relevance (e.g. "Prominent lawyer John Smith was in a car crash" rather than "speeding driver John Smith was in a car crash"). Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends a little, doesn't it Wikidemo? If John Smith is in the story because his speeding led to the article-topic car accident, it seems more relevant that he was a "speeding driver", and his occupation is irrelevant. However, if the story is about an ethics investigation into bribes where the payoffs are made at the carwash, the fact he sped to get there seems irrelevant. Not that I mind any of the variants about Pfelger's speech, really. Rick Block is correct that my proposed linking strategy would violate WP:EGG, I had not noticed that guideline; I withdraw that suggestion. I still prefer to omit Pfleger's name, but probably both the fact Pfleger is a priest (i.e. not a member of denomination) and spoke inside Trinity are relevant. E.g.: "...after a visiting Catholic priest delivered an oratory that mocked Hillary Clinton." LotLE×talk 16:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As Pfleger has a page here, it's to our advantage and in keeping with WP guidelines to link to him for more on his part in the situation. As he's of a different denomination and was the person whose actions were the proximate cause of Obama's withdrawal from that congregation, it's worth noting. Those advocating dropping both parts will be left with 'after a visiting speaker appeared, Obama left'. That's easy to just drop off the article entirely as 'too vague to be notable, if notable would've said more', and boom, another whitewashing of the page. There's an obvious intent here to reduce the size and importance of the event to the point where it can simply be pulled off the page. A number of editors in the above section seem to be quite clear that if they could, they'd simply remove the entire thing, cite WP:BLP as trumping WP:V and WP:NOTE, and move on to how the sun only shines when Obama smiles. Leave the sentence in as it currently is, giving his name, denomination, and position. ThuranX (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments duly noted. However, please assume the good faith of editors trying to improve the article. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Existing criticisms in this article

Kossack4Truth asked above what I'm considering in the current version of the article to be instances of criticism. The eight I count (bold added) are:

1. U.S. Senator, 2005–present: CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on analysis of all Senate votes in 2005–2007, and the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007.

This presupposes that liberal is bad. This is a value judgement rthat we cannot make in reference to the article. The article does not attribute a negative value to LiberalDie4Dixie (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Legislation: Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with McCain of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.

Insufficiently left-wing? Will he ever recover from such a brutal remark? Skepticism is not criticism. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Committees: In a speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke about political corruption and ethnic rivalries.[80] The speech touched off controversy among Kenyan leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.

But absolutely zero criticism from Americans, even though there's a lot of it out there on the left and center, not just the right. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

4. 2008 presidential campaign: In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. ... [entire paragraph]

This paragraph is so short and so watered down that it barely qualifies as controversy. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Policies and proposals: Before the conference, 18 anti-abortion groups published an open letter stating, in reference to Obama's support for legal abortion: "In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway."

This criticism is directed at Rick Warren, not Obama. Makes the anti-abortion groups look loopy. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Family and personal life: The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer and friend Tony Rezko attracted media attention because of Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama.

This not criticism as it clearly distances him explicitly from RezkoDie4Dixie (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's far too short and it's watered down. There's a lot of criticism out there in the media, regarding relationships with both Rezko and Wright, from unbiased and even sympathetic sources that are eminently notable, but it hasn't found its way to this page. Just a mention of Wright, a mention of Rezko, and careful efforts to distance Obama from both of them. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Cultural and political image: In January 2007, The End of Blackness author Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise: "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."

Warns people against drawing implications from Obama's rise in politics. This is not criticism. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

It's hard to define a report that someone is "playing by the rules" as criticism. Sorry, but the whole list just illustrates how whitewashed this article really is, Rick. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the comments WB74 interspersed throughout, they are all clearly negative / derogatory terms. By the standard that they're not criticisms if they don't conclude that Obama did something wrong, the McCain article has no criticism either. McCain was exonerated of any criminal or ethics breach in that, and that article says so, right? Same thing with Rezko, a vastly smaller scandal. Obama was in proximity to the fraudsters but he was never even charged, much less accused than cleared. The negative sections here cover some major negatives that Obama has in the current election in terms of public perception: Perceived closeness to people militant about race (Wright), proximity to local corruption (Rezko), and being overhyped and elitist (saying he's all about expediency and playing by rules rather than a true reformer). I also caught somewhere in there a less than stellar review of the new book and perhaps some other stuff. The point isn't to justify that we're being just as negative with Obama as McCain - our job here is to tell an encyclopedic story, not to mete out criticism. Rather, this is a fair response to the complaint that the article has zero criticism because people are supposedly removing or blocking attempts to introduce it. That complaint only encourages an adversarial approach to editing here, which takes us the wrong direction. Wikidemo (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Of the 19 criticisms I count of McCain, 12 are immediately "explained away" in the article and most of the others are simply facts that put him in not the best possible light (e.g. he also earned a reputation as a partying man - The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries. - During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, the McCains' marriage began to falter, and he would later accept blame - Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,[194] and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated).

It's perhaps overly obvious, but to someone biased on either side of neutral, something that is actually neutral may very well appear to be way on the other side. I'll make no claim that the Obama and McCain articles are perfectly neutral, however they look (to me) to be similarly whitewashed. Criticisms in both are handled quite delicately, and are generally either fairly oblique or (as they say) "contextualized". -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would characterize the criticism in both articles as largely "neutral", which is exactly what they are supposed to be. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo: our job here is to tell an encyclopedic story, not to mete out criticism It's slightly more complicated than that. Since our job is to tell the story in an NPOV way, it's our job to mention that there was criticism when that criticism is prominent, not to turn that volume down or mute it. It's the same with information that puts Obama in a bad light: WP:WELLKNOWN is specific about that. Rick Block: the Obama and McCain articles [...] look (to me) to be similarly whitewashed. I agree. That's a problem with both articles. We don't tend to tiptoe around criticism in articles about other people in public life (see Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, for example). Our readers deserve better. That said, we're better off concentrating on discussing specific language, because we tend to do a bit better in coming to consensus with it, rather than with more general criticism, although I think this section is a useful review. Noroton (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually even more complicated - each statement must be presented in an NPOV fashion and then on top of that the entire article must not overweight or underweight individual events. The sentence in WP:WELLKNOWN that says:

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.

does NOT mean (or say)

Any and all allegations or incidents that are well-documented by reliable published sources belong in the article.

All of 1) notable, 2) relevant, and 3) well-documented by reliable sources must be met (keeping in mind the Criticism and praise section of WP:BLP). In addition, for an article written in summary style (as this article is) "article" means not solely the main article but the collection of articles. These factors make it not that obvious what specific "allegations or incidents" to include in this article. I don't think there's any particular disagreement about what "well-documented by reliable sources" means - hence, most of the arguments revolve around "notable and relevant" (i.e. WP:WEIGHT). For a biographical article in summary style, I think the standard for inclusion in the main article has to be notability and relevance to the person's entire life.

I strongly agree with Noroton that we're better off concentrating on discussing specific language, although it might be helpful to also explicitly consider whether a proposed addition meets all of the notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources criteria, and if so, which of the article(s) are appropriate. For example, I'd suggest the Ayers "controversy" should be mentioned in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 (it's well-documented by reliable sources, notable, and [in my opinion] relevant to the campaign but not to Obama's overall life). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean excluding notable POV

Take a look at the current three-day Gallup rolling average. Obama is ahead of McCain by only 45% to 43%. This means that 43% of the American people believe that McCain is a better candidate. WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV define this as a substantial minority viewpoint that must be proportionately represented in the article mainspace. The fact that you have such a small number of tiny scraps of something purported to be "criticism" flies in the face of the definition of NPOV.

From WP:NPOV: "The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'. ... NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

"In proportion to the prominence of each," in light of all of the polls, demands that more space must be given to genuine criticism, not a brief mention of a controversy followed by vigorous wordsmithing to insulate Obama from it. Post quotes from and links to a fair sample of the multitude of criticisms from notable sources. Even, Gaia forbid, a conservative or two. Kossack4Truth (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten, but Wikipedia articles are not just for Americans - just ask any of almost a quarter of a million Germans who showed-up in Berlin yesterday. What the current polling of less than 3000 registered American voters think has absolutely nothing to do with how we should write a biography about a world famous person. Wikipedia suffers enough from systemic bias already. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't structure wikipedia biographies based on opinion polling. That's ridiculous. By that same logic, since Bush's approval rating is below 30% should his biography be over 70% criticism? I don't think so. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Loonymonkey. George W. Bush is a Good Article, so it can't be dismissed by SCJ as a bad article, and it has 16 separate conjugations of the word "criticism." It had the same number just before the 2004 election. Do the math. By that measure, this article should contain nine conjugations of the word "criticism" It has zero and it has always had zero. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You still seem to have this bizarre notion that all biographies on wikipedia must have the exact same number of "criticisms," no matter who it's about. Sorry, that's not how it works. Each edit is made on its own merits with regard to that article only. We don't increase or decrease the amount of criticism in articles to satisfy some perverse sense of "balance" with other articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Before we spend too much time on this peculiar suggestion we might want to wait for the outcome of this.[30][31] If it sticks, we'll just be talking to ourselves here. Wikidemo (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere. Neither is Die4Dixie or the new editors, Curious Bystander and Pierre.cardoone. All four of us have expressed serious concerns about this issue. There is no criticism in this article.
If you don't like opinion polls, look at the results of the recent elections. Berlusconi is back in Italy, Sarkozy in France, Merkel in Germany. It is an undeniable fact that worldwide, conservatives are a powerful voice representing at least 30-40% of the world population. Conservatives are not fond of the politics that Obama represents. They would criticize Obama with great relish, and at great length, in any forum for his long and close relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers.
But judging from this article, they don't exist. The POV that is critical of Obama (whether conservative, progressive or somewhere in between) is at the very least, a substantial minority. WP:NPOV requires proportionate space in this article for their criticisms. Not these tiny bits and pieces of something that you're pretending is criticism.
Regarding systemic bias, Jimbo Wales has acknowledged that Wikipedia editors tend to be left of center. A show of hands, please, from all editors on this page who are not going to vote for Obama, or (if you're ineligible) would not vote for Obama if given a chance.
Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of poll is both inappropriate and irrelevant. Editors are editors and NPOV is NPOV, regardless of who you vote for. Focus on the article content, not the personalities involved. Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee, there are dozens of articles relating to Obama in Wikipedia now, and not ALL of them have to include your favorite criticisms. We have an entire article about the so-called Bill Ayers controversy, and that's enough. This particular article is his overall biography, and as such it includes what's important, not what's popular in the rightwing press. Also...you may want to check out what Berlusconi, Sarkozy and Merkel have been saying about Obama lately - they're very enthusiastic. As for 'long and close relationship' with Ayers - are you serious? Wright for sure, Rezko within limits, but not Ayers. (btw - I fixed your breaks so they wouldn't appear as separate unsigned comments.) Flatterworld (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, there are dozens of articles in Wikipedia now, and not ALL of them have to include your favorite criticisms. What you seem to be saying, Flatterworld, is that if all Obama articles in the aggregate satisfy WP:NPOV, this one can violate it because it's counterbalanced in some other article, even though the other article isn't linked here. This article must proportionately represent all the content in all those other articles, including Bill Ayers election controversy.

We have an entire article on the so-called Bill Ayers controversy, and that's enough. But it isn't linked here. If there's no link, how do readers even know the controversy exists?

... Check out what Berlusconi, Sarkozy and Merkel have been saying about Obama lately ... Isn't diplomacy a fine thing? I could link photos of Chamberlain shaking hands with Hitler and smiling, and Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein and smiling; but if we could ask them now, both Chamberlain and Rumsfeld would not be smiling. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you want to include this (from Sarkozy) in the Obama article? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/sarkozy-to-obam.html Flatterworld (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have some corncerns with the article; however, I am weary of conflict. I am willing to give a lot to get a little here. With all respect WB, I don't want to be painted with the broad brush that you and Kossack4 Truth have been painted with . If you see his topic ban discussion at ANI, my recent attempts at reaching out have be labeled an "unhealthy interest". I don't want to be topic banned, and the administrators there are trying to lump us all together. So hey , Let's take a chill the fuck out, edit as as harmoniously as possible give a little, get a little, and have some fresh starts and some fresh dialogues. You asked who would vote for Obama? Well, I wouldn't. I don't know if I can vote for John McCain , either. Guess if I do, I'll have to hold my nose while I do it. I agree with you on a lot of things, but I can get into my own shit here. If you wonder why I'm a little weary, see:[32].Die4Dixie (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

D4D, it's clear to me that there's a significant POV that's being excluded here in violation of WP:NPOV. Whether it's called the "conservative POV" or the "criticism POV" or the "questioning POV" is not important to me. Abundant reliable sourcing exists for it. Well-established practice in other WP biographies about famous politicians encourages its inclusion. WP:NPOV requires it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no matter how many times it is explained, you fail to understand that you cannot arbitrarily violate WP:WEIGHT in favor of documenting insignificant details - regardless of whether or not they are covered neutrally. I could probably find 1,000 reliable sources that say that Obama is African-American (and talk about it at some length), but that doesn't justify having 14 paragraphs about it. You need to find a sense of proportion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting 14 paragraphs for Ayers or any of these other controversies. In the case of Ayers, I've said at least three times that I'd settle for one sentence and a link. It should (no, it must) be proportionate to the coverage in the mainstream media, which after all has decided almost all other questions regarding notability and weight. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add a section on Obama's current worldwide tour

Neither this article, nor Barack Obama presidential campaign (2008) mentions with one word the highly relevant and current tour of the Middle East and Europe. Please add this. TH (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to be bold, and add some content, properly sourced.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast! This is a biography of Obama's entire life, described from a historical perspective. The current tour Obama is on, ostensibly as a US senator but also (to a certain extent) as a candidate for POTUS, is a matter for the Senate career and campaign articles. Anything that makes it into those articles may, at some point, warrant a brief summary here. That being said, since it is a current event it is more suited to Wikinews, which (strangely) doesn't currently have much to say about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to pull a fast one. For my biography ,I imagine that my overseas travels are a part of who I am , and of my history. Perhaps this might not be true in this case. Certainly not a fast one. I just didn't want to do the research and citing for an addition, and was merely recommending that the person who found the article lacking do it. :) Die4Dixie (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Horsten. I was stunned to not see a peep about his world tour. In front of 200,000 people in Berlin...meeting with leaders...this has the possibility of being very historic. What gives?? Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is discussed somewhat in the "Visiting Service members in Combat Zone / War zone" section, above. I think the outcome is that the most recent trip may be one of Obama's more important ones but that some of the trips already discussed aren't individually worth mentioning. Also that it may be most relevant to the Presidential campaign or the Senate career articles. It's a little early to know if this is a life-defining event or not, considering he's still out on the trip right now. We don't move at lightning speed anywhere on Wikipedia, and certainly not on this article. So I would agree with Die4Dixie, give it a shot but be sure to make it well-referenced, concise, neutral, and in the right part of the article! If you have any concerns feel free to propose some text here on the talk page first to see what people think. Wikidemo (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason for your addition of your signature above? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Wikidemo on this. It is probably one of his most important trips and might be even written in history if he'll be elected President but to 'value" his stay in Germany we'll have to wait what comes out in the media at least within a few days from now before making any (then) appropriate edit in regards of this. --Floridianed (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting coverage and events from the tour - Prayergate[33] (which has far more coverage per WP:WEIGHT than some of the supposed controversies here, but probably fails WP:NOT#NEWS) and for a bit of levity that has some lesson in it regarding media coverage and weight, this.[34]

It does look notable and maybe even historic. I'd say give this a couple days to a week to see how this pans out. Then add a sentence or a section on it. However, I do not see a reason to add it right at this moment. Maybe after a short bit this might pan out to be something bigger and better, or it might not pan out at all. Brothejr (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the jury is still out on the significance of this trip from a biographical perspective. but from a campaign perspective, the historic significance is clear. So far as I am aware, a trip of this nature (visiting two war zones and meeting with seven heads of state) by a presidential candidate is completely unprecedented. For that reason, the trip probably warrants substantial coverage (perhaps its own section) at the campaign article. More limited coverage of the official CODEL portion of the trip (Iraq and Afghanistan) is probably appropriate at the Senate career article. I'd support maybe 1-2 sentences here in the bio, with the caveat that this may be expanded, reduced or eliminated entirely as time passes and the historical significance of the trip becomes more clear. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been covered enough in the world media to be so far beyond the notability criteria on Wikipedia that it beggars belief it hasn't been added yet. I'd agree with Die4Dixie and "be bold" but I'm on a business trip away right now and don't have time to come up with something good enough for inclusion on such a high-profile article as this one right now so I'd leave it to others to do the actual work, I just wanted to point out that it's appalling that it's not already there. Wikipedia moves slowly, yes, but a "current event" tagged section outlining at least where he's been and who he's spoken to certainly wouldn't go amiss. As I said I'd like to do it but I realize it's a controversial article and I'm not about to touch it when away on a business trip where I can't quickly follow up on comments etc. Please someone else, be bold, it needs to be added. TH (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering he has just returned it is a little premature to summarize his trip in a historical sense. Let the news cycle do its job and in a few more days you will have some perspective and opinion on the overall trip. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Does this article violate WP:NPOV?

Template:RFCbio It has been alleged that this article violates WP:NPOV by failing to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints ... in proportion to the prominence of each." Specifically, it does not proportionately represent the significant POV that has criticized Obama for his relationships with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, and raised questions about his judgment.

Obama is 46 years old. Wright was his mentor for 23 years. Rezko was his fundraiser and friend for 13 years, and he's had a "friendly relationship" with Ayers for 13 years.

Please do not allow this biography's Featured Article status to influence your analysis. FA status was granted long before these controversies reached public awareness. For example, Rezko hadn't been indicted yet when FA status was granted; he has since been convicted on 16 felonies related to political fundraising, and he was one of Obama's most prolific fundraisers before Obama ran for president. The article, it is alleged, has not kept up with the criticism and controversy.

Other biographies of prominent politicians that have been offered for comparison include George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Stephen Harper, John Howard, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Please compare the amount of criticism in those articles with this one. Does this article proportionately represent the criticism POV?

Editors who have been participating on this page for the past weeks are respectfully asked to refrain from comments here. This RfC is for the purpose of hearing uninvolved commentary. Please keep your comments civil and respectful. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to have broken down here - the request that only uninvolved editors participate is out of process, and has now become the subject of wikigaming and edit warring on this talk page. The RfC itself is problematic, and misstates and omits key facts. Some matters proposed here for discussion have already been decided after a long consensus discussion; others are underway elsewhere. I suggest we close the RfC and instead move, if desired, to some other step of dispute resolution. At a minimum the heading below is misleading because two editors, including the one who brought the RfC, are ignoring the request to limit discussion to uninvolved editors. Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the RFC should be closed, but largely because the overwhelming response to the question has been in the negative. Thus far, the process simply confirms the existing consensus that the article reflects a neutral point of view, and the existing consensus that mention of Ayers would be inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave it open. It's been open less than 24 hours, and the normal process for this is about a week, isn't it? The stated purpose was to bring in uninvolved editors to hear their perspective. I have said on my talk page, and I will repeat here, that I do not care for this bullying by the two of you. You were among the first to ignore WB74's request to not comment here — an action I find genuinely provocative. Now you're trying to edit-war over the deletion of his comments. The "overwhelming response" from uninvolved editors at this early stage is a mere 2-1 in favor of the status quo, which is easily upset to become "overwhelming response" in favor of adding some real criticism. Curious bystander (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"and the normal process for this is about a week, isn't it?"

It is gratifying to know that at least some new users take the trouble to learn about all these obscure processes before taking part in them. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Though, a more in-depth review might reveal that among other terms of the proposed article probation[35] the talk page is not the place to cast aspersions or accuse other editors of things. Though not (yet) sanctionable conduct I suggest that editors refrain from airing opinions about other editors here. Regarding the discussion, yes, an RfC if legitimate would normally stay open for a while. This RfC, however, threatens to stop meaningful progress in its tracks for a week while we re-set the discussion yet again (perhaps the 25th or 30th time the discussion has started from scratch), and to bring the page back down to the incivility from which it so recently escaped. I don't see how this discussion could possibly establish consensus for the general proposition of adding more criticism to the Obama article; a consensus to do so is extremely unlikely, and even a specific change supported by the "uninvolved" editors here would go recent earlier consensus by "involved" editors, and thereby lead only to further differences among the editors. Not to mention the hidden trap by which any "uninvolved" editor who comments here is now "involved" and thereby disqualified from being recognized by all parties as neutral in further discussions (most of the "involved" activity takes place here on this talk page in the form of saying whether various criticisms should or should not be included, not via edits to the main article). Wikidemo (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved users

Comment No, this article is not in violation of NPOV. All articles should be written from a neutral point of view at all times. If 40 percent of people have a certain stance on an issue, then 40 percent of the article on that issue is not automatically written from that POV. The key phrase in the WP:DUE clause is in proportion to the prominence of each. Though the Ayers, Wright, and Rezko controversies might be in the news now, they are not a significant part of Obama's entire life, which is what this article is about. The article also has to represent a worldwide view of the subject. Using an American opinion poll to slant the article against Obama is not representing a worldwide view. Neither is using controversies esoteric to Americans to claim a violation of WP:DUE. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment No, Wright and Rezko are appropriately addressed in the article, a biography and not a campaign document. Ayers was a blip in his campaign and inconsequential to his life story. Looking through the talk pages and archives, it appears that these elements have been carefully crafted. Expansion in his biography (vs. other campaign related articles) would raise POV pushing issues. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment for Noroton I have a problem comparing Ayers to David Duke and, particularly, Charles Manson. Ayers is a respected professor of education; the book you mentioned that Obama recommended was a well known book on education reform. I read the Chicago mag's profile of him and, although he retains very provocative opinions, he is certainly not part of the lunatic left anymore, as J. Edgar described him, more part of the leftist bourgeoisie. I would think possibly more analogous parallels would be Pat Buchanan, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy and other unrepentants from the right. Now, I'd like to avoid a culture war debate on who was more harmful to America, but should we do opposition research on every person, notable or otherwise, McCain has come into contact with? Are you saying if Ayers was repentant then this would not be an issue? If instead of standing on an American flag, he was draped in it, then you would agree that the association would be OK? If so, then you are criticizing Ayers for his freedom of speech and not his (current) actions. His actions are redemptive -- he's working on education, not tossing bombs. Do we even know that Obama was aware of Ayers' past? The associations that you carefully laid out do not appear to me significant. Maybe if you were describing me, then, yes, I don't attend all that many boards (though I do some) and possibly it would make sense to attribute issues of judgment because I meet so few (relative to Obama) people. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC comments. On first pass it reads fine to me. Can you explain what makes you believe that Obama's relationships with these individuals are covered out of proportion? The association with Bill Ayers probably doesn't need to be covered at all (and it's not)—he's well-known in local politics, and the "story" was only reported by fringe sources, from what I can tell. Rezko might be worth another sentence, but the paragraph on Wright also seems about right. All of these things should get more coverage in his campaign article, but the biography looks ok to me. Cool Hand Luke 02:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Slightly. Ayers is the most minor of the bunch, probably isn't worthy of much more than a sentence at most. Rezko seems to be represented ok. However, Wright should probably have a larger section, espcially given what is common knowledge about his relationship with Wright. It is commonly known that Wright was his spiritual advisor, was slated to be on hand during his announcement for presidency, was the pastor at his wedding, and baptized his children, not to mention a large influence on his book, "The Audacity of Hope". I would expect to see this info here, but it seems like this chapter of his life is quite sparse in light of the controversy regarding Wright in what I can only deduce is to minimize the relationship he had with Wright. Additionally, since his relationship with Wright extands far beyond his recent presidential aspirations, it seems apt that more information be included in his main bio regarding Reverend Wright. Arzel (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously involved users

Comment No, and I believe the question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. General "criticism of Obama" is not a point of view. We look to balance different points of view on specific issues, but in a biography we don't craft the article from the top down with the intention of finding and adding as much criticism as is needed to achieve a threshold that matches opinion polling or to "even the score" with other wikipedia articles (two rationales that have been suggested above). That is not balance, it is simple POV-pushing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - A mention of Ayers has been repeatedly considered and rejected. The Rezko language is the product of a long consensus process involving many editors, including the editor filing the RfC, and to some is already a compromise to add a longer and more derogatory mention than they preferred. The Wright material was under a discussion that seems to have gotten sidetracked by some disruptive editing and by this RfC. I think the RfC, phrased as it is to discourage the participation of the editors that reached these consensus points, is a process fork. Assuming, however, that the new editors are reasonably in agreement with the results of previous editing process here I trust this puts the matter to bed and we'll not be subject to yet another attempt to introduce the disputed expansion of this particular derogatory information about Obama.Wikidemo (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I hoped not to have to re-argue a position we've already discussed for 6 weeks but here goes, the short form. There's a sub-page, Talk:Barack Obama/weight, where I lay out for comparison the amount of space we devote to various people and things in Obama's life, and compare it to the much lengthier New Yorker article on the subject of Obama's Chicago years and rise to power. Based on that textual analysis, an analysis of the quantity of reliably sourced coverage, and the substantive importance of various things to Obama's life, I argue in detail that Ayers is worth no mention, and the Rezko mention is more or less right. Wright's mention is considerably too long by this analysis but I see no reason to re-open it at this time other than following up on several editors' attempts to improve the article's mention of Michael Pfleger. In the case of Ayers specifically, the substance is that Ayers was a nth-tier peripheral character in the Chicago political landscape, with whom everyone dealt, certainly all Democrats. Chicago politics is full of controversial and corrupt people; that's the way they do business there. Anyone with any connection to the black churches, African-American politicians, or local organizers, has connection to radicals. Anyone who deals with city politics deals with felons (something like half of the recent mayors have been indicted for felonies after leaving office). It is utterly unremarkable that Obama visited Ayers' house, Ayers gave him $200, they served on a panel together, etc. That's a baseline level of political involvement with a minor figure, and Obama has connections like that dozens or even hundreds of times over. The claim about launching Obama's career is sourced to a liberal blog, the author of which denies that's what she meant. Utterly trivial. On the text, the New Yorker piece finds 30-something different people worthy of more mention than Ayers. If we were to go into more detail about how Obama got his start in politics we should mention some of those. Yet we don't even mention most of the top ten, people who were instrumental. The long and short of it is that this article does not have much detail. If it were a balanced, 15,000 word piece like the New Yorker (X 4 = 60,000 words because we cover four times the territory) then sure, we could devote a couple sentences to Ayers like that article. We're 1/8 the length and hit only the main points. Ayers is not one of them. Finally, only about 1 in 400 news articles about Obama even mention Ayers, and the mentions there tend to be blog rants, editorials, incidental references, reporting of controversies, and fact-checking. We base our encyclopedic coverage on reliable, published sources. The world is not interested in this, so we should not be either. For all these reasons any mention of Ayers is inappropriate. By similar analysis an incidental mention of Rezko is fine but further detail and scandal-mongering is inappropriate, and we go into too much detail about who said what in discussing the events that lead Obama to change churches, something that's better suited for the article about campaign events than his bio. Wikidemo (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, you said, The Rezko language is the product of a long consensus process involving many editors, including the editor filing the RfC. I beg to differ. Since the consensus vote seemed carefully timed to occur during WB74's block, it's obvious (at least to me) that he was deliberately excluded. You've claimed that it's a process fork, but since you've provocatively ignored WB74's reasonable request and added your comments, you've thoroughly refuted that argument yourself. Let the discussion continue, please. Cheers — Curious bystander (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have not ignored WorkerBee74's request, as unreasonable as it is. If you will look at the heading above, this is the section for "involved editors". This talk page is not a good place to start accusing me or anyone else of bad faith. Your comment above is inappropriate. Please remove it.Wikidemo (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

Ayers needs to be in the article Talk pages are discussions, not votes. Eric the Red: Americans perspectives are not "esoteric" they are fundamental to an article on the Democratic nominee for president of, after all, the United States. Illinois, Chicago, and black perspectives are also important, and all have a place in the article, just as perspectives from outside the U.S. are important, but much less important than if he is elected president. The relative importance of various perspectives in the article, I think, is based on what makes him notable. As a presidential candidate, the views of his supporters and opponents both need to be considered, but less in relation to the election (because there's an article focusing on that) than in relation to what is thought about his life. In accordance with WP:NPOV, if a significant part of the public, or very important voices are concerned about Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, that tends to make the matter prominent enough to at least mention; other important factors are that prominent news organizations have included mention of it in articles about Obama's life and commentators opposed to Obama have mentioned it on an ongoing basis (Newt Gingrich mentioned it on Fox News a day or two ago; Sean Hannity asked John McCain about it yesterday and Hannity mentioned it today; Rush Limbaugh mentioned it today -- it doesn't matter what you think of these commentators, it is not contestable that they are influential).

Therefore: you say this is a biography and not a campaign document. Given that two large sections of this biography are given over to campaign topics, a sentence or two about Ayers is not out of place, given that Ayers is a campaign issue related to Obama's life story. POV issues go both ways -- either too much or too little space devoted to the topic.

Cool Hand Luke, you say, the "story" was only reported by fringe sources, from what I can tell. This is where asking outsiders to comment without providing an adequate background section first, with links, is wrong, because we get input from editors who are less familiar with the facts than the long-wrangling involved editors have been. The Ayers/Obama connection was reported in the major national media in the U.S. [36] [37] [38] and even the U.K. papers had some original reporting on it. Major, reputable commentators (National Review, The New Republic, I think George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer, certainly Jonah Goldberg in the L.A. Times and Michelle Malkin) and opinion magazines have weighed in on it. he's well-known in local politics: Very true (a very strange quirk of Chicago politics)[39], but that doesn't make him uncontroversial nationally, which has been the case before, during [40] and after Obama's association with him. He is widely reported to be unrepentant about his involvement in Weatherman, which was responsible for bombing government buildings and advocating violence (see Days of Rage, a riot in which 60 people were injured when Ayers was one of the group's top leaders). His own culpability for the death of his girlfriend, who died in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion (not something he wanted, but something he bears some responsibility for as a Weatherman leader; and if the bomb hadn't blown up in their faces, the Weatherman members were going to bomb an officer's dance at a U.S. Army base) is one of the things that makes him controversial. When the topic of his own responsibility for acts of terror comes up, he hems, haws and makes other strange noises on his own blog and elsewhere, but he's been quoted in the New York Times saying he was unrepentant, as well as on a PBS website (the quote is in the Bill Ayers article; I know because I added it there). I looked for an unambiguous statement from him on this and couldn't find one. Many mainstream news organizations that have reported on this simply say he's "unrepentant".[41] Like them, I think that's important. An educational organization disinvited Ayers to a national conference, and some alumni at the college where his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, works had also objected to her, as was reported several years ago. Whether or not the Chicago Tribune (on whose governing board Ayers' well-connected father sat when he was alive) or the Sun-Times think so, many others think Ayers is a morally reprehensible character. These objections were widely known in late 2001 when Ayers biography was published at about the time of 9/11. Then Obama got to know him. They served on the Woods Foundation board together for years, involving afternoon-long meetings and sometimes dinners, and Ayers was chairman of that board. Obama and Ayers participated in two panel discussions together -- one organized by ... Michelle Obama. [42] Ayers hosted an early get-to-know-you meeting at the start of Obama's first run for public office.[43] Ayers contributed $200 to that campaign. Obama wrote a glowing review of a book Ayers wrote on education reform. Ayers has refused to talk about his association with Obama, as numerous mainstream news organizations have reported. The Obama campaign and Obama himself have said as little as possible about the connection. In 2001, Ayers was pictured in Chicago Magazine standing on an American flag.[44] He still considers himself very much a radical, and if you look on his web site, he excoriates the U.S. at nearly every opportunity. He believes the U.S. is morally reprehensible for killing millions of people worldwide. Aside from any partisan dislike I have for Obama (and I have some), this simply makes me, and many others, very concerned about Obama's judgment and values. Did I mention that "judgment" and ethics are big themes in Obama's campaign? Ayers, from all we know, was probably not ever among the 25 people, or maybe 50 people closest to Obama. But when Ayers is this morally reprehensible, why would Obama associate with him the way he did, accepting his support, praising his work and working with him? It tells us something important about Obama's character and beliefs -- or at least I think so and, it's not hard to imagine, many others think so (which is why this is not a "guilt by association" charge because the thing Obama is criticized for is the association itself, not Ayers' own guilt). And that makes it worth a sentence or two in the article, with a link to the Bill Ayers article and the Bill Ayers election controversy article.

This is the short version of my argument, and it basically recaps my weeks-long argument about Ayers. If someone needs more links on a particular point, please ask. Noroton (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So just because O is American, we should throw outside opinions to the wind and flood the article with systemic bias? I don't think so. Should we not include any non-German opinion on chancellor Angela Merkel? It doesn't matter if certain commentators pretend that Ayers was a huge player in Obama's life, he wasn't, and that's what WP has to report. Wright is already given a paragraph, as much as he deserves, Rezko is given a sentence, as much as he deserves, and Ayers is given no mention here, the overall life story of Obama, again, as much as he deserves. We cannot allow this to become a forum for preaching criticisms of people we don't like. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik the Red: just because O is American, we should throw outside opinions to the wind and flood the article with systemic bias? This is an obvious exaggeration. And I was talking about perspectives more than about opinion. The perspective of the world about Dayton, Ohio is worth including in that article (the Dayton Peace Accords, association with the Wright Brothers), but it's not as important as information that Americans, Ohioans and especially Daytonites would be looking for. I have no problem with some non-U.S. opinion or article focus on Obama, both positive and negative, but I doubt anybody thinks it should be very much, compared with in-U.S. perspectives. That's not bias, it's judgment. We cannot allow this to become a forum for preaching criticisms of people we don't like. I think you have a point there. I admit that I loathe Bill Ayers' actions, opinions and lack of repentance. He had some influence on the people near him who died in the bomb blast: Diana Oughton and Terry Robbins -- and Robbin's girlfriend, Cathy Wilkerson, has criticized Ayers for his inadequate acknowledgement of his own guilt. Plenty of other Weatherman members have since expressed repentance: Wilkerson, Mark Rudd (kind of) and others. But my point in mentioning this is not that we should be judging either Ayers or Obama's association with Ayers, but that this is what has made the Obama-Ayers connection newsworthy and, for so many, "criticism-worthy". Few of Obama's connections are this controversial for a reason: Those guys didn't bomb buildings and become associated with people getting killed. Ayers did. That's the reason why this has been reported. So the length and depth of the association with Ayers isn't the only issue here. The connection is just inherently controversial. That's why commentators with radio and TV audiences in the millions are still bringing it up. Noroton (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be written from a primarily American perspective, considering that Obama is an American candidate. But a perspective is different than worldwide notability. An example of perspective is the use of the word "economy" in this article. The word refers to the American economy, not the British or German one, because there is an American perspective. However, how much weight an item gets should be proportionate to the worldwide notability. In the Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel articles, for example, more weight is given to topics important to a worldwide audience than topics important only to a constricted British or German audience, respectively. Reasons why not to vote for Obama, and indeed reasons why to vote for him should not have a large place in this article. (Not necessarily no place, just a smaller place than topics a worldwide audience would care about. FYI, my definition of "worldwide" is not synonymous with "non-US".) I apologize for my gross exaggeration that you pointed out. One last reiteration: an article can have a worldwide view of a subject and be written from a US perspective at the same time. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment, Noroton. I have to admit here that I'm speaking from a Chicago southside perspective. Ayers didn't make much of an impact in local news—at least not to the extent of Rezko. I would guess almost every southside pol has dined with Ayers at some point. I had no idea that it got so much national coverage. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it would get more coverage locally—but perhaps I'm getting too accustomed to the strangeness of Chicago's machine. For what it's worth, and unlike Erik the Red 2 above, I think the U.S. perspective on Obama is very important. He's running for the presidency of this country, after all. I promise to look into it more, and I might revise my comment. I still think a little bit more coverage of Rezko is merited. Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, after a review of the archives of this page, you seem especially adept at providing such a "background section." I think you could just cut and paste the admirable evidence gathering that you've already done, and I encourage you to do so. Curious bystander (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Ayers'(/Dohrn's) being unrepentant: "[...] Is this association between Obama and these dangerous radicals a scandal? Or is the scandal digging up all this ancient history? Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd. ¶ "In America we believe in redemption and even self-reinvention. And we don't usually require stagy Stalinesque recantations. But Dohrn and Ayers test the limits of that generosity. They remain spectacularly unrepentant, self-indulgent, unreflective--still bloated with a sense of entitlement, still smug with certainty. They are dead to irony. Dohrn declared her contempt for the judicial system but wanted into the bar association. The two of them encourage young people to 'be outraged.'"----MICHAEL KINSLEY ESSAY, TIME MAGAZINE (May 29)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's actually a fair point that with the Chicago media and political establishment not shunning Ayers at all, Obama was following a horrible, wierd example that they set. Personally, I think that makes him less culpable, but it doesn't stop making the association controversial enough to be mentioned. To make a molehill-to-mountain analogy, all of our early presidents from Virginia, from George Washington to John Tyler (or was Taylor the last one?), owned slaves, as did many (probably most) other people in their social class in Virginia. I'm sure we mention slaveholding in the Washington and Jefferson articles, partly because it has moral implications and has been commented on by prominent sources. Obviously, this O-A connection is not as big a deal and all sorts of people in Chicago were doing what Obama did, but also obviously, Ayers' controversial past was well known, and Obama, who had large political ambitions even then, knew Ayers would be controversial. I think Michael Kinsley is often quirky in his opinions, but overall that quote supports both the prominence of the situation and its controversial nature. That quote gives us some idea about how important this was in Obama's life -- it helps us know him better. That is something to consider when we decide what to include in an article. I think we all realize that associating with people with some level of a controversial past would be worth mentioning in this article, even if only this close. If Obama had done these things with Charles Manson or David Duke, we wouldn't be debating this. So in part, it's a question of how controversial Ayers was and is. It even strengthens the case for including Ayers that Chicago politics is such a pit of turpitude. That muck Obama came from itself has some WP:WEIGHT. It matters that he didn't get his political start in a leafy, squeaky-clean suburb. Noroton (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Any mention of Ayers whatsoever is grossly undue weight. This has been discussed many times, and it is our responsibility under WP:BLP to avoid soapboxing and distortion to introduce a POV. LotLE×talk 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, Ayers can "reasonably" be left out...with this reason most succinctly said this way: "Ya can't include every event in a person's life in his bio"; nonetheless it'd be preferable to mention him, for the simple reason that it's best for us contrubutors to have researched and written as complete a bio of Barack Obama (or for that matter of any notable person) as possible. Let me explain it this way: within the first paragraph following the lede @ "Rousseau," Wikipedia reads, "Like most submissive sexual fetishists, he was also an exhibitionist." Yet if WP's bio of Rousseau was only two sentences, would its best choices be (sentence No. 1), "Many consider Rousseau the father of Romantic philosophy"; (sentence No. 2), "Rousseau was an exhibitionist as a youth"? No. Nonetheless, the kind of detail that Wikipedia actually does go into with regard to Rousseau (and others) is exemplary and apt----since, after all, the sources (beginning with Rousseau himself, of course) believe it germaine to not only examine his, well, "Romantic" ideals, but also the unvarnished truths his self-examinations have brought to the fore. (And the same argument can be made for briefly mentioning in Freud's bio what's known about the father of Psychoanalysis's own psyche.) So, in the case of Obama, Obama has had an auspicious start to a polical career and in its start he knew certain folks and had relationships with them that have been characterized by neutral sources as thus and so: all of this pertinent and interesting info to be included in a most complete bio of the politician Obama. My belief that such info about Freud and Rousseau is a valuable addition to Wikipedia's coverage has no bearing on the fact that I personally find much value in their ideas and believe the prestige of both of these thinkers' contributions to Western culture is justified; likewise I believe looking at Obama's association with Ayers is useful and good, this opinion being unaffected by my support of Obama's candidacy.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That has little bearing on this discussion. Both Freud and Rousseau are long-dead historical figures. Clearly WP:BLP is not a concern with those articles while it is the primary concern here. In addition, this article must be concerned with all of the attendant issues that articles about politicians involved in high-profile races must address. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But how exactly would such a prohibition be thought to apply here? Since WP's policy regarding well-known public figures (as found on the BLP policy page itself) reads, "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. 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. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." 'Nuff said!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(Later.) From Wikipedia's "Freud" bio: "Dr. Jurgen von Scheidt speculated that most of Freud's psychoanalytical theory was a byproduct of his cocaine use." [Scheidt, Jürgen von (1973) "Sigmund Freud and cocaine." Psyche, pp. 385–430.]And what apparently is Wikipedia's position on von Scheidt's belief? The only cards showing in WP's hand are that it has selected and prepared a serving of his thought as "meat" for its readers (without its going beyond this and masticating it into pablum).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 11:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply to Freud, since he died in 1939. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

True. However, of course, even if Freud were to be living, the WP policies regarding living people would not check otherwise pertinent commentary appearing in WP's bio of him in any case, due to the fact that he was of course an exceptionally well known, public person. <sighs>  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who are arguing "the campaign is just one event in Obama's life," I remind you that it's only this campaign that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator. Jon Tester gets about 300 words; Barack Obama gets about 3,600. Since it's the campaign that's making him this notable, it's the campaign that should be covered in greater detail here, while such details as his Senate committee assignments and his obscure family relationships should be moved to other articles to make room for it. That's WP:WEIGHT. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's not true, either. Obama was catapulted into the limelight with the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. This was a huge event for Obama, arguably setting him on the path to the presidency. I would compare it to when another relatively unknown African-American walked out onto a stage in Monterey, 1967, and made such an impression that only two years later he was the headline act in the most famous music festival in US history. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No real opinion on the increasingly silly analogies. What's the hangup about Jon Tester, anyway... maybe angling for a "Tester test" on Wikipedia guidelines, for the alliterative quality. I feel embarrassed though, Scjessey, that I'm not certain whom your referring to in your analogy: is this Jimi Hendrix who was at the festivals mentioned? ... and can we reason that if Hendrix' WP article says he OD'd, we surely must say that Jimmy Page OD'd too, for surely he is just as good a guitarist (if tongue-in-cheek is not obvious, I'm not actually taking a stance on the merit of various rock guitar greats). LotLE×talk 19:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Question To Eric The Red

This question keeps getting deleted, but I'd like an answer if no one minds: Obama called Wright his "close personal friend" and "spiritual advisor" for his entire adult life, and acknowledged that Rezko was a "friend" and "significant fundraiser" for 13 years, nearly his entire career in politics. His campaign staff has acknowledged that Obama has had a "friendly relationship" with Ayers for 13 years. Does this affect your opinion on the matter? Other editors who were previously uninvolved are also invited to respond. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama probably has a friendly relationship with over a thousand people, should we throw them all arbitrarily into the article? No. Blowing up the significance of controversial figures to the point where they are grossly overweight is nothing more than pure-and-simple POV pushing. I have heard all of the sound-bites provided by "fair and balanced" sources like FOX news. The significance of these people has been blown up by the media, and they are reported in their due weight here. Wright gets a paragraph, as much as a close adult friend merits. Rezko gets a sentence, as much as a significant fundraiser merits, and Ayers is not given any mention, just as much as someone with whom Obama had a friendly relationship merits. I will reiterate my point that Wikipedia is not a soapbox to broadcast superfluous criticisms of people we don't like. This issue has already been discussed, and should have been closed a long time ago. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my name is spelled with a "k"- that's the Swedish ancestry for you. :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama probably has a friendly relationship with over a thousand people ... But to the best of our knowledge, only two of them were leading participants in a terrorist conspiracy that blew up buildings and killed civilians in the United States. If Timothy McVeigh had somehow been acquitted and became a university professor, unrepentant about his bombing activities, and if McCain had a 13-year "friendly relationship" with him, received a $200 campaign contribution, a political fundraiser at McVeigh's home, and three years of service with McVeigh on a small board of trustees, I think there would be something about it in the John McCain biography. And if there wasn't, and I was working on that article, I'd be advocating its inclusion. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty ludicrous comparison. McVeigh was legally responsible for the death of 168 people, whereas Ayers is legally responsible for the death of nobody. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. The only reason Ayers wasn't tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison for three deaths when a Weather Underground bomb exploded prematurely was the FBI's fumbling of the case against him. He participated in a criminal conspiracy that committed felonies, and during the commission of those felonies, the conspiracy caused three deaths. Under the law, that's called "felony murder." You're from the UK so maybe you're not familiar with American laws. Use Nexis and look it up. In my hypothetical example, McVeigh was acquitted, so the legal result would have been exactly the same: unrepentant terrorist bomber who got away with multiple murders. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is still a ludicrous comparison. Maybe we should update the McCain article to talk about his collusion and support of warmongering criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? They are responsible for an illegal invasion of a foreign nation, the deaths of thousands of American servicemen and women, the dismantling of our Constitution with illegal wiretapping, the politicizing of the Justice Department and the Pentagon, illegal torture, detention of people (without legal recourse) and extraordinary rendition - far worse crimes than anything Ayers might have been convicted of. And these people were doing it for oil and power! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A neighbor donated $200 to Obama back in his Senate campaign, held a fundraiser at his house, and served on a board of campaign adviser for a couple of months. Does that warrant his inclusion in the article? No. The only reason you want Ayers in the article is because his name obviously carries negative connotations and that negative feeling would rub off on Obama ie. "Bill Ayers, a major terrorist persecuted by the FBI and a murderer of three people, is Obama's friend." That casts negative feelings on Obama. Some of your arguments seem along the lines of "Other political articles are biased, so this one should be biased, too." We should not drag good articles down, but try to raise bad ones up. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Merely linking the two names in this article, without any such linking elsewhere, would in fact be dragging this article down. But as others pointed out, Wikipedia would not do the linking. Wikipedia would only report on the fact that many other, very notable persons and very notable news media have linked the two names. Scjessey is getting more than a little ridiculous in ranting about Bush and Cheney, since no prosecutor or court has shown even the slightest interest in taking action against them. As much as I loathe Republicans, the attacks on 9/11 created a state of war and according to the Constitution, a commander-in-chief during a war has tremendous power that Congress cannot challenge. But I digress. Erik seems oblivious to the fact that Ayers committed crimes. WB74's legal analysis is corerct: Ayers, if he had been tried and if the evidence against him hadn't been illegally obtained, would probably be in prison for the rest of his life for felony murder. The fact that a politician with presidential ambitions would even associate with such a person is remarkable. While Obama has committed no crime, questions about his judgment in this matter are fair questions and many notable voices from all directions are asking them. This fact cannot be reasonably suppressed in this article. Curious bystander (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not in a state of war and the party in power has obviously committed far worse crimes than Ayers. But whatever camp you're in off wiki we base articles here on reliable sourcing rather than anybody's personal politics or legal analysis, much less a hypothetical setup of a criminal case that might have been. There's nothing at all remarkable that a powerful politician has unsavory people in his extended circle, they all do. There's no conspiracy, cabal, or suppression going on here to suppress information, only adherence to Wikipedia's content standards. The media have not seen fit to cover this to any substantial degree, so nor should we. Attempts to "balance" things or "question" the candidates are misplaced. That former radicals are part of grassroots politics may say something about the state of politics in Chigago, but nothing about the candidate. We're not about to turn this page into a political scandal sheet simply because some blogs and editorial pages do. How much longer are we going to deal with this distraction? We've talked about this on and off for two months at least. There's no reasonable likelihood that the material is going to be in the article. The horse is dead, the body is buried, and we're out of hay. Wikidemo (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You said, We're not in a state of war ... Since Scjessey is being cryptic about Jimi Hendrix, I'll be cryptic too. There's a famous Ivy League law professor who disagrees, and he has no love at all for Bush or Republicans. If you don't object, I prefer to rely on his expertise. The "obviousness" of the alleged crimes of the party in power is not obvious to me, and I'm an attorney who votes a straight Democratic ticket and loathes Republicans. You also said, There's nothing at all remarkable that a powerful politician has unsavory people in his extended circle, they all do. I can't think of any major party presidential nominee who had, in his extended circle, one of the founders of a criminal conspiracy that committed multiple murders. You've also said, That former radicals are part of grassroots politics may say something about the state of politics in Chigago, but nothing about the candidate. To the contrary, it illustrates the state of politics in Chicago and the candidate is purely a product of that environment. Curious bystander (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to not chest thump on credentials. You may consider me a a high school dropout from Idaho if you wish but I won't defer to any bar membership or college hiring committee. For every academic you cite who supports the notion that the Constitution disappears every time a bomb is planted I can find you ten professors plus a few founding fathers who argue we are a nation of laws, not executive power grabs. Based on your claim that Presidential candidates do have not associated with founders of criminal conspiracies perhaps you may be giving light treatment to the careers of Ronald Reagan, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, LBJ, the Bush Family, etc. "Candidate is a product of the environment" should disqualify any candidate from Texas, no? Very lawless climate there. New York as well. Probably anyplace. But here we're writing a biography of Barack Obama, not conducting our own vetting committee to determine whether or not he is of acceptable moral character. Drawing a link between the man and a peripheral character back in Chicago with whom he has almost no connection and nothing in common is farfetched. The only people doing that are his political opponents. That's not our job here. Wikidemo (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

Comment: Like others have said above, I do not see a NPOV issue here. This is an encyclopedic biography, not a campaign article, or a general discussion about the man. After reading the article for the 'umpteenth time, I feel that there is just the right amount of criticism of his life within the article. Each criticism that has been included, has been something that has directly affected and shaped his life and decisions (I.E. Rezko and Wright for example.) Yet, NPOV does not mean we should include every criticism of the man or that we should follow what the current opinion polls, shock jocks, blogs, editorials, etc are saying. Some of the criticisms that other editors are fighting tooth and nail for are merely incidental relationships (I.E. Ayers) that have neither shaped or effected his life. The only people who have placed any significance to these incidental relationships are Barack Obama's political opponents and concurrently do not lead the reader to a better understanding of the man. Brothejr (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I have said before, since Obama's relationship with Ayers is so minor, the only reason I can see for wanting to include it in this article is to try to hope some of Ayers' alleged guilt will rub off on Obama - certainly not neutral in any sense of the word. And this is the long version of my arguments, you will all be relieved to hear. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama's relationship with Ayers is [...] minor. I address this objection in my comment at 22:18, 26 July. The rest of the statement is unhelpful, and similar unhelpful comments have been made in the past by other editors on both sides (I think I've made some of them). Please, let's get away from impugning motives when we don't have to. -- Noroton (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Scjessey (and others) above. Ayers does not belong in this article, any more than he belongs in the Daley article or the Tribune article (as both defended him). Ayers is just not a significant person in Obama's life. (The claim that he 'launched' Obama's political career is especially absurd.) Flatterworld (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "launched" greatly overemphasizes Ayers' role. My comment at 22:18, 26 July answers Flatterworld's objection (and one of Scjessey's) that Ayers is just not a significant person in Obama's life -- the very controversial nature of Ayers' past makes him more significant than the association would otherwise be. Noroton (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below in the "Guilt by association" section. It's actually "questioning judgment by association" and Wikipedia isn't doing the questioning. We would only be reporting the questioning by other, very notable people and news media. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More criticism is needed. Full disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat and an Obama supporter. The articles offered for comparison, particularly George W. Bush and Tony Blair, contain a lot of criticism. Tony Blair was a Featured Article and George W. Bush is a Good Article, so the addition of criticism would never cost this article its FA status. As an American attorney, I do not adhere to the Napoleonic "All which is not expressly authorized is forbidden" philosophy of law. I adhere to the Anglo-American "All which is not expressly forbidden is authorized" philosophy. There's no real criticism in this article, like we see in the Blair and Bush articles. The many policies that Scjessey and others have cited do not forbid criticism that is well-sourced and notable. WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of criticism that is well-sourced and notable in proportion to its significance in reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT is satisfied by keeping it fairly brief and providing a link to the specific article dealing with each controversy. As an Obama supporter and new Wikipedia account holder I feel that it's best to put these controversies out in the open in this article, show Obama's side of the story, and show that there's really no substance to the allegations. I've only been participating here a little bit and was not involved in the months of acrimonious debate we have seen here, so I feel my comments belong in this section. Curious bystander (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That rationale seems to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We do not start out by determining how much criticism an article should have and then pouring in as much as we can find until we reach that threshold. Every thing we add needs to have its own reason to be added and needs to adhere to all of the considerations of WP:BLP material. Most importantly, we never add criticism to one candidate's article simply to "even it up" (as you said earlier) with another candidate's article. An article stands on its own. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyond all that, are you suggesting something similar to Criticism of Tony Blair? Flatterworld (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also Criticism of George W. Bush. But in both cases, the existence of a separate article entirely devoted to criticism hasn't kept a substantial amount of criticism from finding its way into the biography. Also, Loonymonkey, you misunderstand me. I have only compared this article to those two because arguments have previously suggested that adding criticism would cost this article its FA status, or make it NPOV, when the reverse is true. Curious bystander (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have misunderstood you. In earlier comments on this subject you stated "there are 19 instances of criticism in the John McCain article, compared to only eight here. Let's start evening it up." That is exactly the sort of arbitrary tit-for-tat editing that I'm speaking of. That isn't balance, it's POV-pushing. We don't add criticism to an article in order to even the score with other articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He said that, yes; but then he rephrased, and I think he's showing a pretty good understanding of policy. Far better than a few others on this page I could name. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newbie here, but I can read. WP:NPOV requires the representation of any POV, in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. There is a POV which isn't giving Obama a pass on his relationships with Ayers, Rezko and Wright. That POV must receive proportionate representation in this article. That is Wikipedia policy. Curious bystander (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By that policy alone there should be no mention of Ayers (prominence is under the threshold of inclusion), Rezko is about right, and Wright is covered moderately too much. Also, we have a number of overlapping policies, informed and augmented by our guidelines. You're citing WP:WEIGHT, which is one part of WP:NPOV. WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS apply, as well as the question of logical organization of information in one article or another, a meta-issue. Probably some others. Adding derogatory information about a political candidate for the sake of making the article more derogatory because some editors consider it a "whitewash" is a really, really bad idea and violates WP:NPOV no matter how you cut it. Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've read all of those policies and I disagree. Since it's true and verifiable in reliable sources, it satisfies WP:BLP. Since it's verifiable, it satisfies WP:V. Since multiple, extremely reliable sources verify it, it satisfies WP:RS. This is not suggested for the sake of making the article more derogatory, but for the sake of representing a POV in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. Curious bystander (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments above, at #Existing criticisms in this article. The weight issue is amplified here since this is an article written in summary style. I said there, and I'll repeat here, that I think Ayers should be mentioned in the sub-article on the campaign but does not warrant being mentioned here. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions about "guilt by association"

Noroton says "...the very controversial nature of Ayers' past makes him more significant than the association would otherwise be."

That is the very essence of the problem right there. A pure, undiluted example of guilt by association. This would be in direct violation of this section of BLP policy, where it says: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." I don't see how my point could be made any plainer that that. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a "guilt by association" charge, then you should be able to answer the following questions:

1. What is the accusation that Obama is being associated with and called guilty of?

2. If it were David Duke whose home Obama was going to, who he was appearing with on a panel organized by Michelle Obama, who he was sitting on a small foundation's small board with, from whom he was accepting a $200 campaign contribution, and whose book received a glowing review written by Obama, would it be "guilt by association" to mention that in the article? If not, what's the difference?

3. Is it not possible that, for a presidential candidate, scrutiny of the people a candidate chooses to associate with, when they are especially controversial, is worth pondering for what it says about the candidate? Not necessarily that the candidate is guilty of the same thing that the controversial person is guilty of, but as an indication of what the candidate finds tolerable?

4. Why do you suppose the New York Times reported the association? Here it is from May 11:

Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.

Now, along with Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations. In 2001, Mr. Ayers said he did not regret the Weatherman bombings. Even so, in Hyde Park, he and his wife were viewed favorably for their work in addressing city problems. Mr. Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Mr. Obama said recently.

The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it “a searing and timely account.”

--Noroton (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste too much of my time answering these questions because I've already explained about eleventy-billion times why mentioning Ayers is wrong, but here are some quick and dirty responses:

1. Ayers is alleged to have done some bad stuff 40 years ago. Obama has met the man, sought his counsel, and served on a board with him. Ergo, Obama is bad too. That is how guilt by association works.
2. I don't know anything about David Duke, so I can't offer a response.
3. I agree; however, I believe this does not apply in this case because (a) the level of contact Obama had with Ayers is relatively insignificant, and (b) Ayers is not the evil man some people seem to be making him out to be. His is now a distinguished professor and a significant civic figure in Chicago. By all accounts, it would have been downright difficult for Obama to avoid Ayers. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to try to judge Obama negatively based on what appears to be an inevitable association with a man who has become a veritable pillar of Chicago society.
4. Perhaps it was because at the time, they were supporting Hillary Clinton. Since her failure, NYT has continued to be rather critical of Obama, I have noticed, as if they are sulking after backing the wrong horse.

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree more or less with Scjessy's comments as well so I'll take a swing at it:

• 1) Guilt by association. The accusation is embodied here:[45] "Can we elect a president that associates with friends that are self-declared terrorists?". It's simple. The radical right is going down a well-worn path, cynically promoting a stronger connection than really exists so that they can say Obama is "friends" with a lot of evil people. In its most polite form they say it impugns his "judgment". But obviously, many go beyond that to say he sympathizes with terrorists, will be soft on terrorists, is under the sway of terrorists, or has a secret anti-American agenda. It sounds silly to even say it, but they've convinced a substantial number of Americans that he is some kind of Manchurian Candidate - Muslim, studied in a madras, is an Arab, etc. Even sensible people see a taint that gnaws at them and gives them a sense of unease, perhaps enough to vote for the tried and true - nobody accuses McCain of being anti-American. The thing about guilt by association is that it's not specific; it works on ungrounded suspicions and emotions.
• 2) David Duke. David Duke would get no mention either. David Duke is not a respected academic moonlighting as a self-important but peripheral Democratic political operative in local Chicago politics, but if you transposed the roles and he were the sort to sit on serious academic panels, write well-received nonpolitical books on academic subjects, make small political donations, and serve on community-empowerment charity boards, then no, an incidental brush with David Duke would be utterly irrelevant as well. It's hard to mirror the roles because conservative nut jobs like Duke don't behave the same way as liberal nut jobs like Ayers, nor does left wing attack politics work the same as right wing attack politics.
• 3) Is [association with evil people] an indication of what the candidate finds tolerable? Maybe yes, maybe no. but this translates into a question of whether we should practice guilt by association here. The answer is no.
• 4) The New York Times can cover whatever it wants - that's not the criterion for inclusion. Bill Ayers does not have substantial coverage in the press in proportion to the other people and events in Obama's life, and this one article doesn't even contradict that, much less provide a meaningful counterexample. Strictly as a weight issue the Times article is about a narrow subject, Obama's "transformation...from his leftist Hyde Park base to more centrist circles", so that's about 1/8 to 1/16 the scope of this article. Within that subject the article gives Ayers somewhere between an incidental and a minor mention - roughly 8 1/2 sentences, 190 out of its total 5,000 words, or 4%. By that calculus if we were truly covering Ayers in the same proportion as the Times we would devote perhaps 0.25% to 0.5% of our article to him. Ours is slightly longer - 6000 words. So that would suggest around 1/2 to 1 sentence, 15 to 30 words. But the purpose of our article, even the section on Obama's political rise, is not to expound on the thesis of a "transformation". It's to report the biographically important details. To answer the specific question, as the Article itself says it is covering the subject because "Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations" - in other words, it is covering the guilt by association campaign. In the world of politics, people boostrap issues out of nothing by blogging and editorializing about partisan talking points like this to the point where newspapers cover the sensation, then they point to the newspapers as proof that there's something to the nonsense. But the coverage is about the scandal, not about the substance.

- Wikidemo (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming an involved editor, I'd like to answer these.

1. Agreed with Scjessey.
2. David Duke or Charles Manson are false analogies. Ayers is a respected professor of education; the book you mentioned that Obama recommended was a well known book on education reform. I read the Chicago mag's Ayers profile you provided above and, although he retains very provocative opinions, he is certainly not part of the lunatic left anymore, as J. Edgar described him, more part of the leftist bourgeoisie. I would think possibly more analogous parallels would be Pat Buchanan, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy and other unrepentants from the right. Now, I'd like to avoid a culture war debate on who was more harmful to America, but should partisans do opposition research on every person, notable or otherwise, McCain has come into contact with?
3. You appear to be saying that if Ayers was repentant then this would not be an issue. If instead of standing on an American flag, he was draped in it, then you would agree that the association would be OK? If so, then you are criticizing Ayers for his exercise of speech and not his (current) actions. His actions are redemptive -- he's working on education, not tossing bombs. Do we know that Obama was aware of Ayers' past? Wouldn't that be a requirement to impute judgment problems? The associations that you carefully laid out do not appear to be significant. Maybe if you were describing me, then, yes, I don't attend all that many boards (though I do some) and possibly it would make sense to attribute issues of judgment because I meet so few (relative to Obama) people although I don't know the back story of every person.
4. The New York Times was reporting that Mr. Ayers had "become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations."

∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

An addendum to my answer to question #4: If Ayers was a significant associate of Obama, then you should have no problem providing sources pre-dating the partisan controversy. The Chicago mag Ayers profile doesn't mention Obama. How many pre-controversy sources establish this relationship? The link to the charity doesn't establish that this was significant. What news outlets or other reliable sources made note of their closeness before it became a campaign issue? A lack of independent sources may indicate this is a campaign, opposition issue and not a colleague worthy of biographical interest. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 16:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two important distinctions here that are being blurred (perhaps deliberately) in this "guilt by association" discussion. First, it's not guilt by association. Since we're making a point of ignoring right-wing fringe sources, it's clear that mainstream and even left-wing fringe sources are questioning judgment by association, which is far more legitimate. Obama is essentially running on a good judgment platform.

Second and more important, Wikipedia isn't doing any of the questioning. We are only reporting the fact that there is a multitude of eminently notable sources, from Hillary and McCain to the NY Times, Wasington Post and LA Times, and even Mother Jones, The Nation, The New Republic and The Village Voice, who are questioning Obama's judgment because of these relationships. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not really correct. Almost without exception, mainstream media has written about the Obama/Ayers relationship in the context of how Republicans and the right-wing groups intend to use this relationship to their advantage in the election. From a campaign perspective, MSM has concluded that Obama's minor relationship with Ayers might prove to be a small headache - that is why I have consistently advocated that this relationship be given coverage in primary and general campaign articles. From a biographical perspective, however, the relationship is essentially meaningless (neither a positive or negative factor). If it turns out that his relationship with Ayers is seen to cost him the election, then it will absolutely get mentioned in this BLP, but right now the relationship is not significant enough to warrant a mention. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving discussion

The foregoing WP:RfC is now subsumed into the new WP:RFAR report here - Wikidemo (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, don't archive this RfC. You've tried several times now to shut down discussion prematurely. Until the ArbCom accepts the case, this RfC cannot be subsumed into it. Please stop trying to shut down discussion. It is inappropriate. Curious bystander (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using this talk page to attack other editors. If you disagree with my understanding that this RfC should be closed while the Arbcom case is underway you are free to say so in a neutral matter on your talk page or mine. You have interspersed this discussion with a number of accusations, and I would appreciate your removing them.Wikidemo (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

He may as well, this RfC was a complete joke. All the usual editors spilled right in, continuing the fights from all the other sections, and seeing it as the ding-ding of a new round in their little boxing match. As Someone who, until recently, avoided this cesspool of an article because it was such a fistfight, and then got involved after seeing numerous AN/I threads about it, I find there's way too little criticism of the guy. I said as much when I supported the specific and more expansive of the tiny non-mentions about Pfleger and the church. What I find surprising is that Obama–Ayers controversy is an orphan, not linked here OR at the presidential primary article. That's a major problem. MAJOR. Orphaning a controversy? big problem. ThuranX (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for the Obama–Ayers controversy article to be linked from here, because there is (rightly) no mention of Ayers. There definitely should be a mention/link in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008, and I am surprised that there isn't, but I don't monitor or contribute to that article. You are wrong, however, about the controversy article being an orphan. You will find it linked from Bill Ayers, Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund of Chicago. So not a "major, MAJOR, big" problem at all, really. Also, how do you define "too little criticism" exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Apologies for the length, but there's a lot to say (and I consider this just about my final comment), and for the delay: we had a little detour over at WP:RFAR. The responses to my four questions included some good points, but I won't attempt to address everything. I think these responses show that opposition to including a mention of Ayers in this article isn't simply "whitewashing". He simply isn't as close to Obama as, for instance, Rezko and Wright, so he didn't have as much of an influence on Obama's life story. The case for including mention of him has always been to include a sentence or two, no more. And I do think it's significant that Obama was in a city where Ayers was an accepted part of the community. So far as we know (and Ayers and Obama are pretty mum on the association, but no other sources have shown up), Obama wasn't getting any closer to Ayers than the powers that be in Chicago were (although it's disingenuous to say he didn't have a choice -- he worked with the guy and accepted his support). That doesn't destroy the case for including Ayers, but it makes it more difficult.

All three responses (from Scjessey, Wikidemo and Therefore) evaded the 800-pound gorilla in the room: the terrorist past that makes Ayers controversial. They also evaded the point of question #1. Another way I could have put it was What is [..] Obama [..] being [...] called guilty of? The answer, "Obama is bad too" doesn't address it. Wikidemo responded, But obviously, many go beyond that to say he sympathizes with terrorists, will be soft on terrorists I don't see that point as unreasonable on its face. Obama's association with Ayers is part of the record of Obama's past history on how he responds to terrorism. It is a legitimate part of thinking about a national legislator or presidential candidate to consider both what that person has said about terrorism and how that person has acted with regard to terrorists (including past terrrorists, because there's no evidence of Ayers being one now, despite his lack of repentance). (As Thomas Sowell has put it: There is nothing more real than a man’s character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it. There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. Stripped of the context of Sowell's POV column, does anyone doubt the principle he's stated here? Is this Ayers association not part of Obama's track record on dealing with terrorists?)

And of course, Wikidemo was engaging in guilt by association to conflate all the people who were concerned with this matter with the "radical right". Very cute, but the explanation I've just given completely debunks the idea that concern about this association is really just "guilt by association". With this kind of obvious explanation now laid out here, I don't think it's really honest for anyone to use that term again in this discussion without explaining why the point I just made is wrong. I expect partisan campaigns to engage in that kind of thing, but editors trying to put partisanship aside and create a neutral article shouldn't. (And don't anybody give me the line that you're not a terrorist unless you actually kill people. Helping to set bombs in order to terrorize the public is quite enough.)

Much of what a president does is to focus public discussion and attitudes on serious problems and policies. We're entitled to wonder how a President Obama would prosecute a war on terror, no matter what he says now, when his attitude toward a former-but-unrepentant terrorist was to treat him as normal. Whatever you personally ultimately conclude about this concern, it's NPOV for us to consider it a reasonable one (that many prominent commentators have expressed) when we think about including a sentence or so about Ayers.

The case for including Ayers rests very largely on the fact that this person did things in his life so terrible that to voluntarily associate with him is to excuse those horrible actions -- promoting a riot, helping to bomb buildings, being involved (not in an entirely clear way, but clearly with a degree of responsibility) with the planned bombing of an officer's dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey, an operation that resulted in the deaths of three people who turned out to be in the Weatherman group itself. This is serious stuff that left victims in its wake and hurt this country. A lot of people, including me, believe in redemption and forgiveness, but you don't redeem yourself without coming clean and admitting you were wrong, something Ayers has never, ever done, despite writing a whole book about his Weatherman experiences, along with articles and his own blog. For a possible president of the U.S. to, in effect, excuse a terrorist of his terrorism, despite a lack of repentence, tells us something important about that candidate, which is precisely why the matter came up this year and just won't go away. Too many prominent news organizations and commentators have looked at it for it to be considered not notable. It is very much a prominent campaign issue, and a Wikipedia editor concerned about providing the most important information about Obama in an NPOV way should want to include it, especially when Obama has put the themes of his judgment and ethics front and center in his campaign, and especially with U.S. policy toward terrorism a prominent issue for either a senator or president. We decide these things not based on either our own partisan feelings or entirely on the exact amount of media coverage given to something (as if we are capable of gauging the exact amount), but largely on our judgment as to what is more or less important about this article subject, with a very rough approximation of how much coverage a topic has received from the most prominent sources.

Nevertheless, I think we've discussed every aspect of this matter that's worth discussing, and there just isn't a consensus to include it. Since I don't find that there's any more to say about this, I'll drop it unless some new information turns up or someone makes a new, compelling argument we haven't considered, and I suggest everyone else here do the same. I do expect more coverage of this, and I actually expect that to happen, but until it does, we're just spinning our wheels here to no good purpose other than potentially riling up each other even more. Noroton (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC):Thanks, Noroton.

You're right that I was painting everyone with the same brush in using the term "radical right" to describe those in the world beyond Wikipedia who are hawking the Ayers/Obama connection at the national level as if it's a major issue. It's probably a mixture of different things, but there's definitely a heavy component of ideologues, political operatives, and those for whom politics is a game. But whatever it is, it's way over the top as things in the blogosphere tend to be. Your question was how highlighting the Ayers/Obama connection was practicing guilt by association, and I answered with an example from a relentlessly anti-Obama attack page I found within several seconds of googling. That's not to suggest you or anyone else here does not have more meaningful reasons to consider the matter worth contemplation, just that guilt by association is being practiced offwiki.

As a topical question, no, it's not plausible that Obama's willingness to be seen with a college professor who fomented riots and planted bombs in the 1960s is going to make him any more likely to accept those who would blow up American embassies in the 2000s. That speaks more to a willingness to look the other way for the sake of expediency when there seems to be no consequence (a political pragmatism that is far more the rule than the exception) than it does to any fondness for terrorists. As offended as you may be by Ayers' anti-American activities, others are offended by the dealings of, say, Ollie North, Carl Rove, or John Yoo. We could ask of a Republican politician why they were willing to be tied so closely to unrepentant drug dealers, torturers, betrayers of national secrets, and subverters of the Constitution. But these are tenuous connections involving several logical steps and weak inferences from there to here. Any special place Obama had for Ayers is indiscernible when viewed against the hundreds to thousands of people Obama met in the rough and tumble realm of Chicago politics - or in the case of the party in power, when you run a country you work with thousands of people and some of them are unsavory. There's nothing wrong with this guilt by association when you're deciding how much to trust someone, who to vote for, or how to inform your own world view. It's just a corrosive force within the world of political campaigns to try to manipulate people's suspicions for political gain, and a weak basis for making substantive content decisions on what is worth telling our readers about here. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

(a) I thought you were doing the "guilt by association" thing here, yourself, consciously, to make a point; I see what you mean, I meant to ask how was noting the association necessarily a g. by a. move; our arguments here aren't tainted by the fact that worse arguments are elsewhere -- it just doesn't matter what's said elsewhere when we have our own reasons; (b) it's not "willingness to be seen with" but working with, going to the home of, having dinner with, accepting support from; (c) there is no comparison between a terrorist whose actions led to many injuries and nearly led to many deaths, and wound up leading to a few deaths and the other people you mention; even G. Gordon Liddy, the best comparison that someone out there had brought up, didn't do things that led to the death of others; (d) What GOP candidate has ties as bad as Obama to Ayers? (e) There's nothing wrong with this guilt by association when you're deciding how much to trust someone, [or] who to vote for -- then I don't get your opposition. Noroton (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no smarty-pants dig on my part. It was a counterexample to prove a point, not an attempt to belittle the discussions here. There's infinitely more blood on the hands of North, Yoo, and Rove, and exponentially worse damage to America, than from Ayers. It's not our place to debate politics, I'm just pointing out that if we're going to question people's judgment by drawing dots from who they associate with, people on the other side of things are certainly extremely mistrustful of other politicians based on crimes committed there. That's why the label "terrorist" is useless - I disagree (below) that it means the same as terrorist does today, but it was in use for sure in the 70s. Ayers actions are not in dispute, only what to call them. Labeling them terrorist doesn't explain things any more, it just applies a value judgment. Like calling Yoo a torturer (or perhaps a torture enabler) for leading the Administration's shaky excuses to permit waterboarding, sleep deprivation, nonlethal beatings, "stress positions", terrorizing people with dogs, freezing naked prisoners, etc. I personally don't know what ties McCain may have, but I would think that anyone alive has worse skeletons in their closet than Obama's passing social / political brush with Ayers. Ayers was respectable in Chicago at the time. It is only in the context of this election that some people wish to retroactively revoke his chance at redemption decades after the fact.02:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of points you make that I simply must respond to. It appears that you base your argument on two salient points:

1. Bill Ayers was a terrorist
2. Obama's relationship with Ayers can be seen as an example of how the man might deal with terrorists and terrorism.

The second point is only really important if the first point is true, and that hinges on whether or not Ayers is regarded as a terrorist. Well until recently, the answer was emphatically no. He was an "activist" in a time when activism was the response to some of the terrible decisions surrounding the war in Vietnam. Ayers allied himself with a one of the more radical activist groups of the time, but the Weather Underground were not characterized as terrorists. It was not until much, much later that the word "terrorists" was used, and this was many, many years after the group had disbanded. Thanks to the conservative right, the "terrorist" characterization is all the rage. Everyone is a terrorist now - a million names on the "terror watch list", including radical librarians and the evil sewing circle regime.

I digress, but I think you can see where I am coming from. "Terrorist" is the designation du jour, so it is unsurprising that the term is now applied to a man who has not been convicted of anything (although this has been conveniently forgotten by the conservative right). And that brings me to the second point. Obama's association with him is unremarkable. Indeed, hundreds of politicians and civic folk in Chicago associate with Ayers, but none of them are called into question for their judgment. And what makes this even more ridiculous is that it is Obama, not Bush or McCain, who wishes to pursue Osama Bin Laden. Obama is the man who wants to end the war in Iraq so that we can go after the real terrorists - the people who murdered thousands of our people, rather than just blowing up themselves and the odd monument.

So in summary, to say that Obama's association with a civic leader and distinguished professor means he's going to be soft on terrorists, when he is practically the lone voice insisting we go after these bastards in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and when his opponent insists on wasting more time and American lives in Iraq, is pretty unbelievable. Rather than shoehorning Ayers into this article, we should be spending our time writing an article criticizing the conservative right for distorting the truth and lying to the American people to further their warmongering agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Ayers fits the definition of terrorist to a "T" and was called a terrorist before the Obama campaign and even before 2001 (I saw him called that in a NY Times article from the 1970s). Ayers flouted not just laws but democratic rule in the U.S. -- he wanted to terrorize people into submission. It's not so much "how he might deal with terrorists and terrorism" as it is an example of his attitude. We don't exactly know his attitude, of course, but we know he wasn't all that disgusted by Ayers: he certainly had plenty of opportunities to distance himself from Ayers. I find it very telling that Michelle Obama would organize a panel discussion in which Ayers was on the panel. I don't see any disapproval of Ayers here at all. We all know why he wasn't convicted: The FBI violated Ayers' Constitutional rights. That had nothing to do with Ayers' guilt or non guilt. Anyway, this isn't primarily a matter of following laws but of committing abominable acts up to and including acts that resulted in death. And Obama is very obviously not the only candidate who wants to pursue Bin Ladin. Noroton (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (((made a couple of wording changes -- Noroton (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC))))

Ollie (the patriot who once expediently helped freedom-loving counter-revolutionaries fight Che-admiring communists through extra-legal means) was never classed by the U.S. government as a "terrorist"; and Bill (the one-time John Brown-like, domestic anarchocommunist revolutionary), who since the 1980s has dedicated his life to moving the culture to greater participation by minorities and increased attention to social ills through nonviolent means, rejects the label as well. Chomsky would apply the label to both and off-wiki, I'd agree; however on-wiki I'd say just briefly describe each's actions and not worry about labels.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is a terrorist. At least he makes my head hurt. I think we agree that once we move beyond facts and get to labels it's harder to reach agreement, hard even to agree on what standards to apply.Wikidemo (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, don't joke like that. In the past few days dozens of people were killed by terrorists in three different countries. That flippant attitude insults them. Noroton (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me as though there are multiple layers here -- how to characterize Ayers's actions in the 60s, how to determine how "repentant" he was when Obama worked alongside him 30 years later, how Obama should have weighed the past and the present Ayers (informed by Ayers's "level" of repentance), and (apparently, according to Noroton) the conclusion Obama should have reached regarding the "moral repugnance" of Ayers. Many of these layers are informed by the POV of each of the actors and editors. (Characterizing Ayers's actions as "resulting in death" is absolutely POV, and not reflected in the facts, as it seems pretty clear that Ayers was not involved in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion.) It's the multiple jumps that, to me, support the conclusion that Ayers does not belong in the Obama biography -- it's tenuous enough in the campaign article. Mfenger (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me you'd have a better perspective on Ayers by reading this review of his memoir by Cathy Wilkerson, one of the survivors of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, especially the parts about Ayers' influence and the last two paragraphs. It isn't a coincidence that many of the news stories about Ayers in the past eight years have used the word "unrepentant". But this discussion is straying from the topic. My only point was to show that outrage at Ayers is not some feigned move by political commentators and others, and you don't have to agree with that outrage to understand that it's genuine and widespread. Characterizing Ayers' actions as resulting in death is not an opinion but reflecting the facts, and I don't see any evidence that you, Mfenger, have looked into the matter enough to give an informed judgment on that. If this is not behind a subscription wall, this is an interesting 2004 article in the New York Times that would also help you understand how the sources we're supposed to follow have been reporting on Ayers. Noroton (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayers is a terrorist, and he is unrepentant. Those are not merely labels, but facts. If necessary, we can put quotation marks around the phrase "unrepentant terrorist" and cite one of the many very notable and very reliable sources that have used that label to describe those facts. Curious bystander (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, calling Ayers an unrepentant terrorist is not going to fly in any article on the encyclopedia, much less here. By his account and many others he is neither a terrorist nor unrepentant. Some people offwiki wish to call him that, nearly all of whom have a political agenda. That the disparagement of a person is reported as what someone else said rather than endorsed as a fact does not cure that it's a matter of opinion, and not reliably sourced. We go for facts, not the back and forth of invectives people hurl at each other. Ayers did what he did, and that is adequately covered in the encyclopedia. Identifying him as an "unrepentant terrorist" in his references degrades any attempt to be factual. Might as well call Bush a "failed President" or Noam Chomsky a "loony radical" every time we introduce them. The problem is solved, simply, if we identify them by their name, wikilink, and if they're not a household word to all, something about their occupation or claim to notability, e.g. "former radical", "education expert and former Weatherman leader", etc. Throwing in a swift kick that he's an "unrepentant terrorist" is utterly gratuitous politicization of the article. 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mfenger, are you trying to provoke other editors? You're not only making provocative statements, but they're leading us farther off the topic of this page. Commenting on an utterly gratuitous politicization of the article is rich -- the topic is political and this is a talk page on an article about a politician. And calling Ayers an unrepentant terrorist is not going to fly in any article in the encyclopedia doesn't make the statement any less true. If we were to follow what the most prominent sources say and the predominant reporting on Ayers, "unrepentant" and "terrorist" can be quoted time after time after time in, for instance, news articles from, for instance, The New York Times. I see no evidence you are familiar with what's been written about Ayers. Noroton (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mfenger, I would like to add that WB74's legal analysis is spot on. Ayers not only participated in, but was one of the founding members and masterminds of a conspiracy. That conspiracy, with his active participation, committed several felonies and was planning to commit more. At that moment, the act committing two felonies (unlawful possession of explosives and unlawful manufacture of an explosive device) caused the deaths of three people. This is a textbook case of felony murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a): "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder ... committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any ... sabotage ... is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree." Section 1111(b) continues: "Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life[.]" As a matter of law, a defendant may be vicariously responsible for the actions of his co-conspirators. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). Curious bystander (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah-dee, blah. Now go and read this, please. There is nothing "spot on" about it. You may disagree with the process, but the fact remains that the process did not convict him. Now it is time to drop this pointless argument and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whomever you are (I don't know since you didn't sign your name), you said, By his account and many others he is neither a terrorist nor unrepentant. His own biography here at Wikipedia, well sourced, quotes him saying that he "no regrets" and that "I feel we didn't do enough." He has also said, "I don't regret setting bombs," and "I acted appropriately in the context of those times." While he rejects the title "terrorist," as Noroton observes it is a reasonable title. He admits unlawfully setting bombs. He admits that his intention was to frighten people. This sounds very much like a terrorist to me. Curious bystander (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That was me. He has expressed qualms and regret about his past actions. Whether he has "repented" is in his heart and not for an encyclopedia to judge or speculate on. The entire subject of the level of penitence 40 years after the fact of a college professor and local political organizer with a fringe radical past is farfetched and many steps removed from the biography of a candidate for president. Whether Ayers is remorseful or not has nothign to do with Barack Obama. Taking a single controversial quote out of context to use against a him, then blowing that up 40 years after the fact to use against a presidential candidate, is so remote it is not a matter for serious discussion. It doesn't pass the straight face test. Let's not belabor the point. Wikidemo (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You said, He has expressed qualms and regret about his past actions. Please provide a link to a reliable source for this claim. It contradicts what the New York Times quoted him saying. I've even seen and heard a video of the panel discussion where he made the statements I quoted above, and it's probably available on YouTube. The only thing he regrets is not setting more bombs. Curious bystander (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Just a heads-up - I've uploaded several photosets by military photographers of Obama's visits to Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq for anyone who might want to browse or use them. The images can be found in Commons:Category:Barack Obama. Kelly ^hi! 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to put some up but the wiki nazis deleted them from the article.--Ron John (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

An editor deleted a pargraph with the edit summary "totally inappropriate"[46] (I restored a "main article" template that was deleted in the process, I assume inadvertently).

The material in question seems to be of the "some people say Barama is not an ordinary African American" variety - perhaps an enlightening, debatable, controversial point. And it's presumably discussed in the main article. I'm not sure when the material was put here. Any thoughts on whether the material is okay, and whether the deletion is appropriate? If this material isn't right for the article what about the rest of the section - some of the other material is also a little bit controversial and perhaps tangential to Obama's personal biography.

I've avoided reverting, and unless there's some serious objection maybe it stays out? Wikidemo (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I already put it back in because any deletion of that magnitude is bound to be highly controversial. I did a quick look back in the history and it has been there for some time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

<detectivework>

It was added by User:HailFire back on August 26, 2007!

</detectivework> -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor had just removed the section again with little explanation. The editor put this as the reason: "one reason should be enough to explain it." I don't think that person has a real reason other then a personal reason. Personally, I do not see a problem with the paragraph and added it back because of the same reason as SJC. Brothejr (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor also lopped off the first "public image" paragraph on the John McCain article,[47] which has since been restored. They've also been making a string of sometimes idiosyncratic and occasionally dubious edits elsewhere without edit summaries (e.g.[48] - mentioning fame is peacocky elsewhere but not for this particular individual). We can't read minds! Also, before removing significant chunks of content any editor is advised to consider that anything that is in the McCain or Obama articles has gone through quite a vetting process and is probably in there for some reason, whether you agree with the reason or not. Wikidemo (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I've noticed that this editor has gone around and removed serious content from other articles without an explanation. Brothejr (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth Certificate

This article contains a link to the FightTheSmear's page on Obama's birth certificate which has been disputed as authentic. The FightTheSmear's page in question is a low res image which was obtained supposedly from an image scan of the certificate. Although I believe that Obama does indeed have a credible birth certificate, I am not aware of any record of it being reviewed for authenticity. As such, I think deleting the link to the image in question and including fact tag's by the location of birth in the article till it has sufficient Verifiability is a proper course of action. Mordere (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from a few fringe sites, I'm unaware of anyone that is questioning the birthplace of Barack Obama, let alone the authenticity of the birth certificate. That this article would even require a legal document to reference Obama's birthplace is amusing and is just another example of Wikipedia having to bend over backwards in order to show to conspiracy theorists and internet rumor mongers that their opinions are wrong and even then, it is not enough because they are more likely to believe their own echo chamber of fellow conspiracy theorists and internet rumor mongers than they are to believe a verifiable facts. Obama's birthplace is confirmed in multiple reliable sources and unless you can find a proponderance of evidence from reliable sources that his birthplace is not correct, then this is a non-issue. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the indirect ad hominems, I don't think I specifically advanced a theory that he was born in any other place. I'm simply saying I don't think any sources have gone any further than an ipsedixitism when referring to his location of birth which is not, in my own opinion, a very reliable source. On top of this, the Obama camp obviously felt that this was a compelling enough "rumor" to try and defeat on their FightTheSmears site with this low resolution image. However, since I can see that this could be classified as advancing a fringe theory by requiring proof of his LOB, I'll let the revert stand. Though please feel free to include references to the aformentioned "multiple reliable sources." Mordere (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it your plan, Mordere, to go around adding {fact} tags to the birthplace of all politicians. Hardly any of them have specific citations of undisputed birthplace. If not, let's go ahead and leave the weird fringe conspiracy sites off this article as well. Actually, even if you plan to do the spurious tags elsewhere, those are inappropriate as well. LotLE×talk 18:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed , this fact tag is misplaced. An aside: the birth certificate is not a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth generated near that time.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mordere, exactly what do you think they're "hiding"? No credible Reliable Source doubts his birth info, unless you can provide sources that do. As such, having such a high benchmark of proof is silly, and expectign us to doubt the icing on the cake is a good side-tracking of the editors on this page, who have a lot more serious work to do to fix it. Roy Rogers once said about birth certificates, 'it's taken on account that when a man's standing in front of you, he's been born'. As for the link and the controversy, that can stay or go. Fact tagging the man's birth info? I'd love to hear the theory Mordere's harboring for this one. I struck the 'link can stay or go' when i realized what the real agenda is, blocking out the anti-smear site entirely, by hanging it all on the BC 'controversy', which, a little googling shows is more about a guy faking a McCain cert using the BHO cert as a starting point. ThuranX (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comic relief

Part Deux (this time with apologies to the Four Evangelists et al).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfAr

Following the dispute concerning this article (and consenquently other related ones) which came to the attention of the ArbCom, I must say that some problematic inteventions and edits by some IPs and suspected sockpuppets accounts will be faced with firm admin actions according to our policies and guidelines. This is a message to all involved parties and failing to abide by those rules will definitely lead to blocks as per my explanation here. I hope this is clear. If you have any question in regards to this matter, please contact me (e-mail or my talk page). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious BLP concern

A great deal of what has been posted on this talk page lately about Ayers feels to me like it is dangerously close to libel. None of it has anything to do with the actual topic of this biography article, but even about a different person, and even on a talk page, the accusations seems to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to possible legal action.

I'm not really sure what the best place to take up this issue is, but it feels to me like material that reaches the level where not only should the comments be deleted, but the history should be purged of them. These are really seriously inappropriate material. LotLE×talk 00:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Although the concern isn't farfetched, my reading of BLP is that we can state our opinion, conjecture, etc., on the talk page for purposes of healthy debate in the article space. Clearly we need more room in the talk space to do this than would be permitted in the mainspace. For example, one can argue here that "Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist" or "President Bush committed crimes against humanity", if only for purposes of discussing why such mentions are wrong in the mainspace. If we couldn't do this we could not reasonably discuss things. BLP applies to talk space in the sense that you can't say "Mr. John Q. Smith of 3848 Oak Street, Anywhere, Kansas is a pervert who is suspected of being a peeping tom". However, it's necessary to be able to state your position on article content. Sometimes that gets tendentious, disruptive, etc., but I simply can't see that as a BLP violation. We are absolutely, positively covered by the First Amendment here so Wikipedia itself is in no danger from such talk. The "Do no harm" policy doesn't greatly apply because talk page is for editors improving an article, not for the readership. Also, everything here gets archived quickly and thereby shunted even farther out of view. Erasing archives is somewhat Orwellian, and deleting things from edit history as an administrative act that is nearly impossible for high-traffic pages due to technical limitations. Wikidemo (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)