Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

His sister Maya

I tried to link to his sister's article, but for some reason, it took at least three times and someone pulled the link once. Why? What does anyone have against her?Ericl (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well for one, you put a broken link the first time. Secondly, she may not be notable. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter. johnpseudo 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Early life and career article?

Considering the current rapid expansion of this section, and the apparent enthusiasm of several editors to add still more, is it time to create Early life and career of Barack Obama? There are enough sources out there to build a good article, and plenty of examples where this has been done for other political figures [2][3][4] whose early lives are subjects of close study and popular interest. --HailFire (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Any examples of non-presidents? I personally wouldn't - though he is a prolific autobiographer, I know. If his early life keeps overflowing here though, you might have to. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia for "Early life of" brings up more examples. Others use an alternate title style that puts the person's first and last name first--for example, Abraham Lincoln's early life and career. I think a new article offers a remedy to the overflow problem, which does concern me, as despite substantial evolution of text in the last year and a half that I have been here, this article's size has remained stable in the recommended "32k of readable prose" range until quite recently. --HailFire (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking up a similar issue, I noticed some the early life edits andy made were sort of at odds with the similar section's consensus on the Obama campaign page. So here is the relevant text we are using over there:

"The Clinton and Obama campaigns quickly denounced the allegations. Investigations by CNN, ABC and others showed that Obama had not, as Insight had written, attended an Islamic seminary. Instead, for his first three years abroad Obama attended St. Francis Assisi Catholic School, and in his last year transferred to State Elementary School Menteng Besuki‎, an Indonesian public school for children of all faiths in the majority Muslim nation. A series of Chicago Tribune reports found that "[w]hen Obama attended 4th grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion. The series also stated: "In fact, Obama's religious upbringing in Indonesia depended more on the conventions of the schools he attended than on any decision by him, his mother or his stepfather. When he was at a Catholic school for three years, he prayed as a Catholic. When he was at a public school for a year, he learned about Islam." "

I noticed he has yet to start using the english name of the first school, even though he accepted that as consensus a long time ago on the other page. Also there is an attempt to "add" a year Obama was indonesia, in andy's new text... by saying "almost three years" and then "finishing third and fourth grade" like implying there were five years in question and not four. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

72.0.180.2 as you have now made an account on wiki i would take my advise and start using it before you get yourself into trouble. Realist2 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

this IP was around when your granny was in diapers son. fancycats is just for editing semi-protected pages, as I posted on that page as soon as I created it. Also all the regulars around here know me and are not very worried that me and fancycats are up to trickery. the fact you are is, however a good and hilarious thing, so let me tell you a little about fancy cats- dear realist, it is true, the happiest cats are also the fanciest cats. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol fair enough i cant argue with that i suppose but i was only trying to warn you, ill leave you to it. How you can handle 2 accounts is a mistery to me tho, ones hard enough. Realist2 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

fancy cats is only two hours old so we will see if I can indeed handle both or if I just switch over- it will depend on how much I edit here vs Obama camapaign wp, where I am much more active. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sure either way you will be fine, just make it clear to all that you have 2, and never no matter how tempting use them both to get your point across or use them to win edit wars. Realist2 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This may help: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative_account_notification --HailFire (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So now, can we please return the discussion in this talk page section to the original proposal about creating an Early life and career of Barack Obama article? --HailFire (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be great, but like I detailed above, the text we have now has slight problems already, I hope it doesn't get worse if we do a split. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed sub article offers better scope for a more structured and informative biographical account of Obama's early life. One year ago we did not have much more than Obama's first book for details covering 1961 through 1995. The explosion of reporting on nearly every element of this period has brought us a wide range of reliable, linkable sources, I'd guess more than might be available online for any other recent public figure. Given the intense level of reader interest that made all those news stories marketable, Early life and career of Barack Obama is likely to quickly become one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia. --HailFire (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, don't expect many people to read such an article. Using the http://stats.grok.se/en/ page view counter:

In March 2008, so far:

• Views of John McCain: 550,479
• Views of Early life and military career of John McCain: 9,079

For February 2008:

• Views of George W. Bush: 563,193
• Views of Early life of George W. Bush: 3,739
• Views of Professional life of George W. Bush: 1,928

• Views of Abraham Lincoln: 641,569
• Views of Abraham Lincoln's early life and career: 3,552

• Views of George Washington: 407,240
• Views of George Washington's early life: 4,576

Anything moved into one of these subarticles, quickly loses about 99% of its readership. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So? That's where it should be. It doesn't matter how many people read them. If they're interested, they will. How do you know how many people DON'T want to read the excessive stuff in the main page? Herunar (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that all these readers don't want to read the subarticles, I think they sometimes aren't aware of them (witness the many talk page comments I've seen that X is missing, when X is in a subarticle; I also think the "main" template has visibility problems). But I can't prove this. Anyway, what I gave is just a (perhaps surprising) data point that's recently become available to us; I had always thought the drop-off would be on the order of 10-to-1, not 100-to-1. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just did it, improvements needed. --HailFire (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to my edit summarized as major edit: revert to version of 2008-02-26 for quick start on summary style; added {{main|Early life and career of Barack Obama}}; linked Sr. & DfMF, Andyvphil reverts and writes: unacceptable to begin with revert. And why is that, Andyvphil? --HailFire (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there have been many major improvements since 2/26/08 and it makes no sense to lose them and begin the process of spinout from an obsolete and defective version. If there is material that you think doesn't need to be here now that you've created a spinout, delete it and we'll see if there is agreement on that. Each step you take should in that way be understandable and acceptable. Reverting is neither. Andyvphil (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, what specifically is obsolete and defective about this version that was in place just a few weeks ago and has already passed FAR twice?[5][6] Let's get a summary section in place quickly so we can restore some stability and quality back to this part of the article, not reinvent the wheel. If there are editors who think important moments in Obama's early life and career have gone missing, we can put them back in. It's not like events between 1961 and 1995 have changed substantially in the last three weeks or that there are a multitude of new and useful sources that have become available during this time. Everything that was in the section before recondensing is still here. The three paragraphs I am asking to reinstate remained more or less the same for over one year because multiple editors of all POVs agreed that it met all requirements of a featured article, including neutrality. There are many editors here (where is Dereks1x when we need him?) who can attest that POV statements have been tested and painstakingly challenged even before you joined the party. Give a little please, my fellow active editor... it will be alright, and we'll both sleep better! --HailFire (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To start with, the last paragraph is total crap. "On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive." Sheesh. You actually slipped empty garbage like that past FAR? Bad enough they didn't realize the Obama-specific stuff that was missing, but finding sentences like that and not saying "wtf?" speaks ill of whoever signed off on the nom. Time to stop leaning on the FA broken reed. It's well established that it's bogus. The current version gets it pretty much right. The Feb version didn't. Start from now and summarize/delete what's no longer needed in steps that make sense. I've already said this. What's your problem with that procedure? Andyvphil (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidential campaign edit needed

In the Presidential campaign section, the paragraph beginning:

After Super Duper Tuesday, he won 16 of the 18 contests that followed, though he lost the Texas primary popular vote. Her husband, Bill Clinton, had predicted the end of her campaign were she to lose either Texas or Ohio; she lost the state of Texas by four delegates.

Needs to be corrected. Barack is not a "her" and "his" husband is not Bill Clinton. Someone has been doing a little too much cut and pasting without looking at what they are doing. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It's been fixed for now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you added "for now". There is a lot of copyediting that could be done. Please - featured articles are supposed to have "professional, even brilliant" prose. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No doubt on the copyedit. The whole presidential section could do with a touch-up, but the constant edit warring over the last few weeks has made that next to impossible. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment about copyedit was prompted because while I was counting sentences to see if there were more references than sentences (I lost count around 220) I noticed a reference that was both preceded and followed by a period (I was doing a search for periods). The biggest copyedit I can see is to format a half a dozen unformatted references that have crept in. And is it correct to say "According to National Journal, a weekly magazine" - shouldn't that be "According to the National Journal, a weekly magazine"? Someone may have fixed it but there was also a botched wiki link to the "Texas primary and caucuses". 199.125.109.52 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But yeah, we're working on the references to get them into proper format and what not. I fixed the bad Texas wikilink (I forgot to put the closing brackets earlier) and will see if I can find the before and after periods. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth

Could we include a longer bit about this in Personal Life? I think it would be prudent to get all the three remaining serious candidates' NWs straightened out and included, as I voiced on the Hillary page. The McCain page already has his NW in the infobox and the subject of net worths was of substantial interest in the 2004 presidential campaign, why not now? PulpatineFiction (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is of interest to the 2008 campaign, it may fit better in one of the 2008 campaign articles. In this election year, we need to be vigilant that this article (and the articles of other presidential contenders) doesn't become some kind of candidate assessment piece, as that is not its reason for being or long-term purpose. I don't agree that net worth needs repeating in the infobox, too much clutter there already. Also, such calculations are more art than science, and therefore prone to wide ranging interpretations and POV distortions. I think we already have enough about it here, from a source (Money Magazine) that most would consider reliable in making that kind of calculation. Just my thoughts, others will no doubt see it differently. Thanks for contributing here. --HailFire (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Barack"

the Barack means a peach in Hungarian :-)

Yes, so we've heard. Köszönöm! --HailFire (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Oh if only Wikipedia would bring back the 32 kB page limit, or at the very least establish a new hard limit of 64 kB. Here is how this article shows up on Google:

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hyperlinked encyclopedia entry provides an extensive personal and political profile of the US Senator for Illinois and candidate for US President.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama - 520k - Cached - Similar pages

Yes, 520 kB, although 420 kB is from images. The source code is 141 kB, and it hangs up my computer trying to load it. And please, 226 references? Surely some of those references could have been used for two sentences in the article instead of only one. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The size restriction is on readable text, not total page size. Please see WP:SIZE. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I've read wp:size, thank you. It allows grossly too large articles, but also says that over 60 kB probably should be split and over 100kB almost certainly should be split up. What does that tell you about this article, which is 141 kB? There are only two sub-articles, but they should be utilized to take out all but a few sentences for the campaign and political positions. There are other sections that could be replaced with a summary and sub-articles created. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, it is only readable text that counts. References, images, lists, etc are not included in this count.This article currently has 42kb of readable text, well within the guideline. There is a lot of source bloat, but unfortunately the amount of disagreement that there has been over this article has pretty much required that everything that is added be sourced or else someone will remove it as being POV. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

IP 199, you are mistaken on size; the relevant guideline is readable prose between 30 and 50KB at WP:SIZE. This page is currently at 38KB readable prose and 6800 words; well within guidelines. Please read and understand WP:SIZE more carefully; older technical restrictions no longer apply and the goal is to be within average reader attention span. For comparison purposes to other featured articles, pls browse here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that all of the editors who commented take some time out to watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. "Morons, I'm dealing with morons" (they don't rob us when we are going up the mountain, only when we are coming down the mountain). If you click on Edit on any page with more than 32 kB it tells you the size of the article. It is only that count that matters, no other count. This article causes my computer to hang up because it is 128 kB (it has been trimmed about 13 kB), what does your edit count say? See for example[7] 199.125.109.28 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Entertaining analysis. You are, however, wrong. See WP:SIZE and read the part about readable prose. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIZE allows grossly too large articles. Over half of the featured articles are less than 20 kB. Less than 10% are as big as this article. How anyone can love being wright when they are rong is beyond my comprehension. It's like driving a car into an intersection with crossing traffic that has run a red light - you are right, but you are dead right. The goal should not be "see I told you so" but "ok, what can we do to fix it?" 199.125.109.28 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation part 1: For now mostly leave article alone but put a top-section header at the top of the page to make editing easy. use appropriate tags to move the TOC to the right place in the readable page. Editors who wish to edit the top section without editing the whole article should log in, change their preferences to enable editing of the top section, and enable JavaScript in their browsers.

Recommendation part 2: After he is elected or defeated, consider trimming out sections that didn't have a long-lasting impact on history. In the meantime if there is anything more than 4-6 years old that won't have a long-term impact, consider trimming or eliminating it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to edit out sections because... the article is only 38k of readable text. The only way to reduce the total size of this article is to A)cut down on the number of sources B)eliminate the use of the cite template. Eliminating content that is more than 4-6 years old isn't going to help because the primary areas that have the most sources are the most recent events. No idea why this is so difficult for people to understand. 38K of readable text - 128k of total content = 90k of non-readable text with almost all of that non-readable text being the 180+ sources this article currently has. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the article length is that much of a problem. I am finding that it is more of a latency issue. It seems to take forever to get a connection to the page, but once connected the load time is really quite quick. Perhaps this is more a reflection on the popularity of the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW: This talk page is currently much larger in size than it's parent article, yet it loads instantly for me. That surely adds weight to my argument above. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No pictures on the talk page. It is the pictures that slows down the article. Has nothing to do with popularity. With the photos the article is 460 kilobytes. This talk page is only 183 kilobytes. Both load just as fast for me. SayCheeeeeese (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The easiest guideline is just what the byte count says when you edit the article. I am having trouble with the article, which is now down to 128k text and 480k with the pictures (thank you Bobblehead for doing some chopping), but not having trouble with the talk page which is 180k, so I think it is more how many bytes have to be loaded, but for simplicity I would not want anyone to do anything other than look at the byte count in the edit window - if it says over 60k split the article into subpages and use a summary style with only a few sentences where now there are a few paragraphs. Clearly it makes no difference if the text is readable or references vs. text. The browser can't tell the difference between them. Since most images are reduced to thumbs they should not be a big factor. I will watch for more pages that hang up the browser like this one does, but I was really curious to read about this person (Obama) and got nothing, just the need to reboot the computer. I tried again and the page eventually loaded, but seriously why on earth create a monster page that takes ten minutes to load? I am not asking for odd responses like the two numbered recommendations above, which are totally bizarre, I am just asking to keep the edit byte count below 64k in all articles. Readable text is also important, but seriously, with the attention span that people have on the internet do you really expect anyone to read more than 10k? 199.125.109.28 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

James Meeks

Obama has been linked to another Baptist Minister in Chicago. He is James Meeks a part of th Southside Baptist Church. We should add this to the article ASAP.(Rhinostampede (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Linked how? Sources? I saw Obama on TV once, so should I be in the article too? I once held a door open for the late King Hussein of Jordan, so I reckon I should be in his article too. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Campaign section

I've just reverted the last two edits (diff) because (a) they restored controversial Rev. Wright stuff against current consensus and (b) they broke some references I'd been painstakingly working on. Please seek consensus! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, an expanded account of the Jeremiah Wright controversy is more suited to Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The campaign section in this article only needs to be a brief summary, or it will conflict with the ideals of WP:RECENT. Hasn't this already been agreed upon many times? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a lengthy account, but a proper brief summary is needed because of the criticism associated with them. The current version gives disproportionate weight to Obama's response and gives Wright's comments, and the criticism associated with them, only a passing mention. There are NPOV and undue weight issues there. My proposed revision is this:

Obama has faced criticism stemming from a March 2008 ABC News report that highlighted several sermons from Obama's long-time pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In them, Wright accused the federal government of selling drugs to blacks, creating the HIV virus to infect blacks, and perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. In one sermon, Wright said that the United State was responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks and urged black Americans to ask God to "damn America." Following the story, Obama faced criticism for referring to Wright as his "spiritual advisor", attending the church for 20 years, and maintaining close personal ties to the minister. Obama points to Wright as the inspiration for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and placed Wright on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee in December 2007. Obama had begun distancing himself from Wright when he withdrew a request that Wright deliver a speech at the announcement of his presidential bid, but when several videos of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube in the first week of March 2008, Obama released a statement "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing] ... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. After the publicity of March, the campaign announced that Wright has left its African American Religious Leadership Committee.

This is only slightly longer than the previous version, but much more balanced. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me if you think these proportions are well-suited for this article:

1. 270 words for a 2-week controversial-remarks story surfacing during a lull in campaign news in mid-March, 2008.
2. 266 words for Obama's entire State Senate career.
3. 275 words for the entire first year of Obama's campaign.
4. 228 words for Obama's entire Senate campaign.

This just needs to be put into context. It is a very important development in the Obama 2008 presidential campaign. It is not a pivotal event in Obama's life. Leave a small mention in the personal life section (the details that relate to his personal life), leave a 1-2 sentence mention in the campaign section (the details that relate to his campaign), and move the rest to the campaign article. johnpseudo 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those word counts. Your suggestions sound reasonable to me. I'm hopeful that we are getting closer to restoring some stability to the personal life section. --HailFire (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So your opinion is that the Jeremy Wright:

1. Obama's minister of 20 years
2. The person whom Obama credits with his conversion to Christianity
3. The person who married him to his wife, Michelle
4. The person who baptised BOTH of Obama's daughters
5. The person whom Obama credits with inspiring his book
6. Who SERVED in the Obama campaign (until being dismissed)
7. Whom Obama prayed with before announcing his candidacy

Was not pivitol in his life? Tell me, what does he have to do to become pivotal, after all that? Squat down and birth a mini-me version of him? Maybe donate a kidney and then perform the surgery himself? No - this is classic censorship by you Obama supporters, because as we've seen, if it SUPPORTS Obama, you guys have NO problem with posting it here.

Perhaps you'll believe Barack Obama, who said today that Wright was pivotal in his life. Does THAT make him pivotal in his life? Or is Obama not a credible source?

-- Fovean Author (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you actually don't know whether the editors who are arguing to reduce the size of the parent article summary are "Obama supporters" or not and I object to your tone and accusations. Some of us work as much on this article as on other politicians' articles, and guess what: we do it without regard to our own private political positions, and you don't know what those positions are. So why don't you give it a rest already? We're here to make the article better. Try it, you'll like it. Tvoz |talk 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, from my user page, my bias is transparent. Personally, I think that's a good thing. However, I totally disagree with Fovean here- yes, the person is pivotal in his life... in his own words he's "like family to me". But for one, there is a big difference between including biographical information on someone as they relate to Obama's biography and including a huge paragraph on the horse-race of a controversial-remarks story that recently developed in the media. For comparison, take the remarks that Michelle Obama- another of Barack's family- made that were similarly controversial. Even if those remarks were as controversial as the remarks made by Wright, they wouldn't belong here in his biography. They would belong in the campaign article, because that's why they would be notable. The context in this article is Obama's life. Wright has made a pivotal impact on Obama, but this little story has not. He hasn't gotten a divorce over these comments...his campaign hasn't been changed by these comments nearly as much as past primaries and caucuses. These comments may prove to have a more pronounced impact on the campaign, but giving them huge weight right now would be trying to predict the future. johnpseudo 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So as you can see, Tvoz, I DO actually know that the editors who are arguing to reduce the size of the parent article summary are "Obama supporters". I think that now, however, we've got the right balance of info on there. -- Fovean Author (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, Fovean. And my support of Obama doesn't negate that policy. Every edit I make is in order to improve the article, never to make Obama look better. johnpseudo 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie, because of the size of this article, certain "sacrifices" have to be made on sections that are large enough to support a child article and, unfortunately, one of these sacrifices is covering a single event within the subject area of the child article in detail. One of the ways to look at the presidential campaign section is to see it as the lead for the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article. If you look at it as a lead and follow WP:LEAD then the campaign section as a whole should be 3-4 paragraphs long in total. Is Wright controversy really worth a quarter of the paragraphs that we should have to cover the entire presidential campaign, or is it acceptable to leave a 1-2 sentence summary of what happened on the main article and leave the actual details to the presidential campaign article? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this - we need this to be a summary. The section has grown too large and in doing so is becoming too focused on the most recent events. Tvoz |talk 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the dust-up over Rev. Wright may be significant enough to require a large space. Barack gave a nice speech today that may stem the tide against him. It was necessary for him to do so because he had lost so much ground in the polls. If it stems the tide, then Rev Wright becomes less important and the section can be dramatically reduced in size. If Barack's poll numbers continue to fall, then Rev Wright is still an issue and readers should have access to that information that explains why. This situation is still in flux. RonCram (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it does continue to be a problem for the campaign, then the campaign issue should go in the campaign article with a brief summary of the information in this article that is supposed to be about his entire life. Putting all the details in this article give undue weight to the event when you compare it to his whole life. Jons63 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)The Wright controversy is currently 2 paragraphs in a 6 paragraph section. It is certainly not 1/3 of the notability of Obama's presidential campaign. At most, this entire thing, so far, is worth two sentences in this article. One covering the controversy and the other covering Obama's response to the controversy and then a full and proper covering in the campaign article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama looked to have the nomination wrapped up and probably the general election also. After this dustup with Rev Wright, he is trailing both Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the most recent polls. Perhaps the Wright section does not need to be very long now, but if he loses the election readers will want and deserve more information on Rev Wright in this article. In such a case, Rev Wright would deserve at least 1/3 of the section on the presidential election.RonCram (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Er...no. That would still be a matter for the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Er... no. As long as the community decides there should be a section on the campaign on this article, then Rev Wright would need to be prominently discussed in the section. Think about it. If the Rev. cost Obama the election, then he becomes THE most important issue in the campaign. I am not saying Rev. Wright needs to be that prominently discussed now. To do so might make it look like Wikipedia is trying to impact the election. That is NOT the role of an encyclopedia. But if Obama loses, you can rest assured Rev. Wright will be prominently discussed. RonCram (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is entirely irrelevant. Try to understand that this is a Biography of a Living Person, not an article about a campaign. The campaign article is the place for this kind of stuff. Furthermore, you are suggesting that it becomes important "if the Rev. cost[s] Obama the election", which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Also, deciding that it would require some arbitrary fraction of a section is ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much Wright is wrong

There is still way too much weight given to the Jeremiah Wright controversy, which is more about Jeremiah Wright than Barack Obama. It should be a brief summary comprising one or two sentences. The details can be more thoroughly explored in the related articles, as I have stated previously. I believe a consensus on this matter has already been reached, but we may as well seek agreement again. What say you, fellow Wikipedians? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Wright was this guy's pastor for 20 years, married him to his wife, baptized his children and inspired his book. He served on his campaign and now Michelle Obama quotes him.

Two sentences for that? Really? -- Fovean Author (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama didn't inherit his churching. Wright inspired Obama to join his church and stay in it for twenty years, showing up pretty regularly for the sermons and finding them acceptable, apparently. In fact, the political positions Wright advanced are what Obama says inspired him to join the church (I've quoted this above, if it hasn't succumbed to the 5-day cleanout). Should tell us quite a bit about who Obama is, a question otherwise obscure despite this article, in its current state. Andyvphil (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

...and, btw, the idea that this is a slow-week news story is obtunded. Obama's viability comes from the idea that he's a Democrat Colin Powell, somebody whites can be comfortable voting for. And the fact that he sat still for Wright for 20 years is a big problem for that image. Might look like I'm quoting Steyn, who I rewrote after someone else put his comments in the article, but I wrote "It turns out that the politics he thereby chose to associate himself with, and which were the foundation of his own entry into politics, are controversial... and is bound to get more controversial if and when he has to start... competing for the center rather than the left wing of the electorate. You can't keep this out of his bio and deserve FA, and unless he loses to Clinton events are bound to overtake you anyway." just before the overtaking took place. Andyvphil (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, two sentences would be perfect. No matter how much you two bang on about how important Wright is, he is not as important as many other influences in his life, including (but not limited to) his mother, father, education, etc. What you are doing is placing way too much weight on the controversy surrounding the Rev. Wright (which is a WP:RECENT problem) and then claiming that all this text is justified because Obama knew the guy. In fact, I could do it in a single sentence that would be more than sufficient:

Obama is a longtime friend of pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose controversial sermons caused a period of discomfort during the campaign for the Democratic nomination.

It doesn't have to more detailed than that, since the "daughter articles" provide all the necessary information. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. The new version of the Wright section by User:Johnpseudo is a substantial improvement over the previously bloated version. It strikes a perfect balance between the necessary brevity and the need to cover this important issue. Nicely done! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It covers the facts without glossing them over or giving them undue weight. This is the version that the article needs at this point. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, Fovean Author doesn't agree. He vandalized my user page (diff) when I restored his revert of it. Classy move, huh? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. I love that you're British and it's harder to make the accusations of partisanism stick to you in connection with this article, though. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what a summary is, yes. I agree that too much is now in the Presidential section here, as the detail more appropriately belongs in the daughter article. To be clear- the only reason I just added to the section is that the previous edits had lost the second half of a sentence, leaving it grammatically broken and lacking in meaning. But I support shortening this section. Tvoz |talk 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor" story from ABCNews misrepresents the facts, and it shouldn't be included here because it is from the "Blotter" portion of ABCNews and doesn't constitute a reliable source. johnpseudo 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you a referring to a segment I have already removed twice, despite discussing the matter with the adding editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the "Blotter" portion of ABC News is not WP:RS? The Blotter portion is from the "Brian Ross and the Investigative Team" of ABC News. This is supposed to be their crack team of investigative reporters that get scoops, not the standard reporters who go to news conferences and reports what all the other news outlets are reporting. ABC News is a reliable source, especially anything by their "Investigative Team." What about the article do you think is inaccurate? [8] RonCram (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "blotter" is a synonym for "blog", which is what that section of ABCNews.com is. Blogs are unreliable sources, especially for biographies of living people. The inaccurate part of the article is the entire premise. Obama didn't contradict himself: on the one hand he said that he hadn't heard those particular statements that Wright had made that were circulating on Youtube, and on the other hand he said that he had heard some controversial statements Wright had made. johnpseudo 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Blotter" is not a synonym for "blog." Blotter is a word that pre-dates the internet. Check Dictionary.com. Blotter means "a book in which transactions or events, as sales or arrests, are recorded as they occur: a police blotter." ABC News allows readers to comment on stories on "The Blotter" but that does not make it a "blog" in the normal sense of the word. "Blog" is normally used to refer to a one-person web blog where there is no editorial oversight such as required by the standards of journalism. The Blotter has multiple contributors from Brian Ross and his team of investigative reporters and does have editorial oversight. The story in question was written by Brian Ross and Avni Patel. Go to abcnews.com and click on the "Investigative" tab and it takes you to "The Blotter." The Blotter is WP:RS.RonCram (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the premise you believe is inaccurate, the admission by Obama that he had heard controversial statements by Rev. Wright was new. He had never before admitted hearing anything controversial. People had a hard time believing Obama could be a member at the church for 20 years without ever hearing anything controversial, but that was the impression Obama had left people with. I do not see anything inaccurate about this news article.RonCram (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article's first paragraph says that Obama, "contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons". This seems at odds with even your interpretation. As far as I know, Obama never denied that he had heard controversial statements from Wright. This article is wrong. (With your consent RonCram, can we move this discussion to the campaign article?) johnpseudo 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

about Bahasa.

Bahasa is the national language of Indonesia. Bahasa is the popular synonym of Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Language). Malaysia never stated Bahasa as their national language, because they have stated that Malay language and English as their national language.

I am strongly suggest to delete the world "Malaysian" in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.95.225 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing citation with incorrect "madrassa" use in title

Earlier I replaced an existing citation that had an incorrect use of the word "madrassa" in it's displayed title (see Madrassa#Misuse_of_the_word for the correct use - it means any kind of school in both Arabic and non-misused English).

The misleading citation (now back up) is called "Obama madrassa myth debunked": the actual Chigaco Tribune article's content is fine - it's just the title being displayed on its own that will mislead readers into seeing madrassas as Islamic and/or radical (which is the developed suggestion in the "Insight" story/slur). It is displayed for all to misread at the base of our article! I had previously created a discussion on this particular citation - but it's now been 5-day auto-archived.

I replaced the misleading citation with an already-used citation that covered ALL the points in the preceding sentences that needed referencing. The new citation used the word "madrassa" correctly - ie. it specifically details an "Islamic" madrassa - as oppose to just saying "madrassa" and assuming an Islamic and/or radical form.

Unfortunately, many articles over a period of time (and readily available on the internet) did misuse the word. That does not make it right though - The New York Times has issued a correction over its own incorrect use of "madrassa" - saying "while some are radical, most are not".

I'll give it another go - can anyone reverting it please say why here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the Sun article doesn't contain the non-misleading version of Maya's quote about her father, so that cite no longer works. That could be fixed by citing direct to NYT source, but the function of citation is not merely to support the current text, but to facilitate exploration of the available material. And Barker has several pieces containing material not duplicated in Sun. I am not going to bury a source just because you don't like the title. Also, btw, I'm not convinced you are correct that Madrasah in all its various spellings "correctly" just means school, with no implications about its curriculum. Not only did the correspondence I had at danielpipes with an Indonesian indicate that he understood it to refer to schools with, among other things, a specifically conservative religious curriculum,[9] but consider this Pakistani example: "Pervez Hoodbhoy, who taught physics at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad... noted that his 'university has three mosques but no bookstore. It is becoming more like a madrasa in other ways too.'"[10]. And consider [11]. It appears that the claim that "madrassa" is an exact synonym for "school" is not true in Indonesia or Pakaistan or much of anyplace else, not merely the US. What is clearly true is that it shouldn't be construed as implying a radical anti-US ideology on the model of Bin Laden, but is it anywhere applied to a school that does not teach from the Koran? Show me one example. Andyvphil (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I'll look for an example of "madrassa" used for a non-Koranic school - Muslim people do learn other things than the Koran you know! The word being Arabic, and us being English-speakers - the native Arabic and the strict English meanings are the important ones here - because this is an encyclopedia, and we must use referable, dictionarial terms - and not colloquialisms, bastardised meanings and slang. Often madrassa is translated over to "school" or "college" (etc) I agree - but that is beside the point.
2. "the function of citation is not merely to support the current text, but to facilitate exploration of the available material." - what? You must be joking!! That function is for "See also" etc!!! - citations are meant to purely (and only) cover the written text!! That is fundamental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 March 208 (UTC)

Comment I use footnotes in WP to do further research all the time. Borock (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll take another look, but I believe while you were at it, you also removed other citations, so I reinstated what we had which was well vetted. It seems to me that it is not our job to pass judgment on the words in titles of source articles, as long as the source articles are from reliable venues - we are responsible for the words that we write, absolutely, but I am not convinced that we are also to review the titles that responsible journalists use in their articles. Tvoz |talk 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was just misused in the cited article I wouldn't mind so much (though I'd still look for a better ref) - but we presented the misleading title on its own on our article. I hadn't realised I removed the other citation - it was a complex nest of cites. I just tried to make the edit again and all the cites got messed up, so had to 'undo' myself! Can someone do me a favour? I basically want < ref name="baltimore"/ > put in place of the first "Chicago Tribune" citation in the group! (straight after the words "fourth grades"). Couldn't make out what I was doing wrong.

The Chicago Tribune reference isn't lost btw - it's made use of on the 2008 campaign page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the Madrasah citation has been moved to the campaign article, but this discussion caught my attention and I can't bear to not comment. Matt, that's fine that "madrasah" is an Arabic word that translates as "school", but you do realize that Arabic is not the native language of either Pakistan or Indonesia where it's cited as being used, right? In both of these countries, "madrasah" is a loanword from Arabic, presumably brought along with the spread of Islam or following at some later period through contact with other parts of the Muslim world; how the word is used in those countries is relevant, and it's not for you to say that it's being used wrong.

As for dictionary definitions in English - according to WordNet, a madrasah is a "Muslim school in Bangladesh [or] Pakistan".

There's every indication that the word is legitimately associated with Islam in these countries; and the article title does not incorrectly imply a connection with radical Islam - attending a Muslim school was bound to be a source of controversy during the election, whether it included radical fundamentalist teachings or not. Vorlon (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

POV stuff that keeps being added by User:Andyvphil and User:Jwvoiland

These two editors continue to add or edit the article to deliberately distort reality to favor their worldviews. For example, the following paragraph was added in response to A More Perfect Union:

ABC News reported that "buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons." Critics have found the response not only contradictory, but inadequate. For example, Mark Steyn, writing in the National Review observed "Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race... Yet since his early twenties [Obama]’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster... the Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old." In the speech, Obama referred to his white grandmother and later explained that "she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know ... there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

The overwhelming response to the speech by the mass media has been positive, yet the addition of the paragraph above implies the complete opposite. This is clearly an attempt to manipulate the article to suit a personal agenda. Even if the paragraph was truly representative of the media response, it is far too detailed to be including in this WP:BLP. For too long, the factual integrity of this article has been threatened with POV edits like those performed by these two editors. Even a cursory glance at their editing histories will give an indication of their motivations. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The version Scjessey prefers [12] addresses this issue as follows, in its entirety:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race.

What's left out? Everything except Obama's spin is left out. No clue remains that Obama's popularity has gone off the rails. We're still in la-la land where where Obama could say he thought his church was "uncontroversial" rather than what his pastor said "offensive". Andyvphil (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much Wright is wrong - redux

I've just reverted another substantial inflation and promotion of the so-called "Wright controversy" that had once again been added despite the established consensus not to. This issues surrounding Rev. Wright are fully explored in the Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 articles and do not need more than the neutrally-worded summary already present in this biography. I urge all editors to view the substantial talk page archive and note the prevailing consensus before adding this kind of inappropriate material. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. As I noted above [13] the version you want, which I quoted in full there, is unadulterated Obama propaganda. Also note this remarkable statement: "Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)" Such unselfconscious bias has proved hard to reason with. Andyvphil (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I urge Scjessey to view the rapidly developing nature of this controversy and note the changing consensus. A consensus is not permanent, see WP:CCC. "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. Past decisions are open to challenge and should not be 'binding' in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back." Based on changing circumstances, consensus among editors can also change and evolve. As page view statistics above have shown, banishing material about criticism and controversy to satellite articles ensures that only 1% as many people will read it. I'm not going to accuse any particular editor of trying to exclude all criticism from this article. I am only going to say that such a practice is wrong. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

@Andy - since your bias is self-evident from your "remarkable" editing record, I am going to ignore your comments until you start contributing something useful.

@Kossack - this is not a popularity contest. The number of page views a particular article gets has nothing to do with what should or should not be in said article. By tripling the amount of information concerning the "Wright controversy", you added undue weight to it. To have a segment that takes up fully 50% of the Presidential campaign is completely ridiculous. Once again, I reverted your completely inappropriate additions (which also had improperly cited references that caused an ugly horizontal scrollbar). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore me if you wish. Just don't ignore this.Andyvphil (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It should have more info tho, i dont even think it mentions any of the comments the REV made. The bottom line is that this incident has cost him the whitehouse and the polls are showing it. Looks like Mc Cain is doing very well these days. If this event stops him being president it should be substancially covered. Realist2 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"The bottom line is that this incident has cost him the whitehouse(sic) and the polls are showing it". Do you know when the election is? It's more than seven months away. Do you know that while some polls show McCain slightly ahead of Obama in a head to head, others actually show Obama slightly ahead? Are you aware that your comments show a gross violation of no-point of view? My feeling is that there are Obama haters here who are trying to impose their views.JonErber (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Above is one of the misconceptions I see quite a bit here. Sometimes when people talk about the Policy WP:NPOV they talk about it as is we can have No Point Of View (NPOV), when in fact the policy is Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). No point of view is impossible to achieve, a Neutral Point of View is much easier to achieve. Start by writing all sides to the argument and then putting them into the proper weight. The weight that an issue should have is dependent on the article and on the issue. This article is about Obama's life from birth to now. Most of the editors who are trying to insert large sections about this one controversy are writing like this is an article about his campaign for President. There is another article about that and it has more of the details, along with Wright's bio and Trinity's article. It is a bigger concern for the campaign than it is for his life and should have more coverage (as it does). This article is a summary of his entire life and this issue is a small part of his life. Jons63 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is very little mention of Obama in notable sources before his run for the presidency. At the time he declared that he was running for the presidency in February 2007, Obama had been the junior senator from Illinois for just two years. Before that he was in the state (that translates to "provincial") legislature in Springfield, Illinois. No one had ever heard of him. He had a legislative record in Springfield and in the Senate that wasn't really setting the world on fire. As a result, most of what's notable about Obama has occurred during his presidential campaign. Make no mistake about it, this campaign is by far the most noteworthy event of his life; and it is only reasonable to give this, his greatest obstacle to his campaign, greater coverage in this main article. The current effort to limit any criticism of Obama to two sentences, and banish anything more to a satellite article that no one will read, is not in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. It is a violation of WP:NPOV. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kossack, I don't believe that your edit summary accurately reflects the situation of whether or not a lengthy description of the Wright controversy should be included in this article.[14] In looking at the discussion in this section alone seems to indicate that there isn't any sort of consensus on how Wright's statements and the controversy around those statements should be covered in this article. Please continue to discuss with your fellow editors how much and to what extent the situation should be covered before re-adding a lengthy description.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is all that is said about Wright in this article: "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright.[97][98] On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race." And you think this warrents a POV tag? Clearly it is you who needs to review the guidelines. There is a very limited amount of detail here because it is covered in much greater detail on both the campaign page, the Wright page, and the controversy page. You're using the POV tag as a weapon simply because you want to put more information in, clearly with your POV included. Adding a POV tag here is disruptive, and will result in reports for such behavior. If you have a problem with the coverage of Wright, take it to the appropriate articles. Grsz 11 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that alone would justify a POV tag. A purposely short and vague description of a controversy of fundamental and demonstrated importance to Obama's career, answered solely by Obama's spin, with no other POV on the subject allowed, is quite enough. Then we also have the enforcement of Obama's POV that such "old politics" characterizations of his record as favorable ADA ratings must be excluded. The POV tag says what it means and means what it says. A dispute about the neutrality of this article is in progress. If you think that isn't true, go ahead and ask for admin intervention. Andyvphil (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

as the user who originally added in the wright text, while the page was totally-unprotected after the full lock was lifted, I cannot emphasize enough- Why do we keep having this discussion? Consensus has been challenged repeatedly (usually by the same user) and it has shown, invariably, the same standards for inclusion and the same level of inclusion. and under those rationale, the wright issue gets its two sentences. Although certain users like to pretend that wp:recentism is some sort of magical fairie text carved on to the back of river-rocks, it is in fact sound advice that most editors take into account and use in their due/undue weight judgements. There is a ten-year question involved, and while it is hard enough to argue NOW that against the backdrop of Obama's entire life, fully half the presidential campaign should be devoted to Wright. Against a ten-year context, that is an impossible argument to make. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil’s proposed changes

Following are Andyvphil’s proposed changes:

Addition to "Senate Career"

According to National Journal, a weekly magazine geared toward "Washington Insiders", in its 27th annual vote ratings, Senator Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007. The candidate shifted further to the left during 2007 prior to the Presidential primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. Hillary Clinton ranked as the 16th most liberal Senator in 2007, voting differently than Obama on only 10 of the 297 votes considered in calculating the rankings.

On the other hand, the rankings by the Americans for Democratic Action seem to show an opposite trend, with a 100% rating in 2005 declining to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007. This is misleading, as the 2007 decline was due entirely to missed votes. In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once.

Jeremiah Wright

(He proposes titling the following section "Obama, his church, his pastor, and politics")

Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, three years after first coming to Chicago to take a job organizing the political activity of black churches in the city.A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama began distancing himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired 36-year pastor Jeremiah Wright, when he called Wright the night before the February 10, 2007 announcement of his Presidental candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event. Wright did however, attend the announcement, prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand, and joined the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee.

Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, three years after first coming to Chicago to take a job organizing the political activity of black churches in the city. A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ. The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama began distancing himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired 36-year pastor Jeremiah Wright, when he called Wright the night before the February 10, 2007 announcement of his Presidental candidacy to withdraw his request that Wright deliver an invocation at the event. Wright did however, attend the announcement, prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand, and joined the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee.

After Wright's retirement (his last sermon was February 10, 2008) copies of his sermons were offered for sale. News organizations like ABC News bought them and searched them for controversial material. ABC News found "repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans." In addition to controversial comments after 9/11 that had been previously publicized ("We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards.") the site also quoted Wright as saying "No, no, no, not God bless America — God damn America!"

In March 2008 Obama went further then he had before, "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing]... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. The campaign announced at that point that "Rev. Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee."

Repeat of Talk Comment in Previously Established 'Wright' Section:

HELLO ALL - I have spent several weeks away from this article, only revisiting to see how the Jeremiah Wright issue was being covered (as I have some historical knowledge of Rev. Wright). I must say that I was expecting a lively debate in the discussion boards, but I was not expecting any references in the article itself (given what I perceived to be an imbalance of passionate Obama supporters that seemed to have heavy editorial influence over the article). I am at least pleased to see the inclusion of certain facts in the article. I think it at least discusses enough to suggest to a reader that there is much below the surface on the Wright issue that requires further research. The reader can then dive deeper. I do, however, disagree with Bellwether...who, if left alone, would likely remove all references in the article other than Obama's claim to Christianity through his membership in that congregation. Rhetorical question: Does anyone on this board go to church on a weekly basis? Those of us that do attend church on a regular basis know how difficult it would become to receive a weekly sermon for 14 years that espouses views that are extremely contrary to one's own views. (Isn't that the time frame that was quoted by Obama as his membership in that church?) As one of the minority owners of a multimedia technology firm that owns diverse Internet TV sites, including StreamingFaith.com which has for years broadcasted the sermons of Rev. Wright, I can tell you that his sermons go way beyond the controversial clips they are showing on mainstream TV today. Networks on the right are going a little further by showing clips of Wright's claim that our government "invented AIDS to infect black people", or his claim that the government is "importing drugs to feed to black people" as part of its "plan to jail black people"...but the unedited sermons of Rev. Wright that have been broadcast over the years can only be described as the preaching of Hate and separatism. Even Obama must believe this to be true as he has distanced himself increasingly as the truth about Rev. Wright has become more widely known. Just to ask the obvious question: At what point during the last 14 years should we have expected a hopeful leader of our nation, one who preaches a message of national unity, to have stood up and walked out of Rev. Wright's separatist church? The big question, as the electorate evaluates this candidate, is "Why did it take so long?" ...As this relates to Wiki, remember, this is an article about a candidate for our highest office. Obama's decade long decision to associate with Rev. Wright cannot be erased with a few quick words of denouncement...and this article on Wiki that purports to be biographical in nature must include the ties to Rev. Wright to maintain its accuracy and completeness. Unlike the dentist analogy, Obama has over the years told us how important Rev. Wright has been to him...Obama made this bed by not walking away on principle earlier. Jtextor (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not 14 years. Obama came to Chicago to organize black churches in 1985 and chose to sign up with Wright in 1988. I don't think any other church had as much to offer him, career-wise. And Wright didn't step down until last month. 23 years. Andyvphil (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

i had to rv some of andy's txt there because of a BLP violation.

"Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even oversighted if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources."

Jtextor you are getting close to that as well. Obviously everyone gets some leeway- but andyvphil has a long history of posting things unacceptable on the actual page, on the talk page instead. and totally without "talk" concerning the article. So anyways andy- I added the original wright text during the thirty-seconds it was totally unprotected.(believe it or not!) So obviously if you add something neutral, maybe (maybe) it would get consensus. If you continue to edit in your usual manner however, I will have no choice but to support all the other editors who rv just about everything you write. If for once, you could AGF towards us, we might AGF back towards you (even though that looks gross in writing). Jtextor- I think posting your text and sources, would be a much better idea than pushing the libel boundaries on the talk page with speculative crap. learn your lesson from andy's block history before its too late. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the sentence to my post that 72.etc deleted ("I don't think any other church had as much to offer him, career-wise.") It is not by the wildest stretch of any reasonable person's imagination a BLP violation. And, contrary to what 72.etc would have you believe, I have never been blocked because some admin objected to the content of anything I've ever written on Wikipedia. Andyvphil (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

72etc has several times redacted my comment about how Obama joining Trinity can be seen as a sensiuble career choice rather than the matter of religious belief Obama has presented it as, most recently in the "More Perfect Union" speech where he quotes himself from "Audacity of Hope" on this subject. I most recently undid this here, and asked for admin help in preventing this vandalism of my words here. I will further note that my observation has now appeared in at least one RS, as follows:

Perhaps [Obama] merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone. African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois State Senate with the support of Chicago's black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago's largest and most politically active black church.

[15] BLP does not prohibit us from sceptically examining Obama's claims. Indeed NPOV requires us to give the skeptical POV due weight. Andyvphil (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How could that be classified as a reliable source? If the sentence begins with "perhaps" it means that the author is merely speculating, rather than reporting the facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Threaded discussion of Andyvphil's proposed additions

both are very well written, and both should be included (especially Wright). In regards to the National Journal, I think that is appropriate since there is already a few op-ed quotes in Obama's article, one saying something about him being the most likely man to change the world. With such a glowing op-ed quote already in the article, the national review quote adds appropriate balance for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The quality of the writing isn't this issue. The appropriateness of the content presented for the main Barack Obama article (as opposed to the campaign article or the Wright/Trinity articles) is what I would like to see discussed. Bellwether ^B_C 22:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that both sections are well written; however, both sections are completely inappropriate. The "most liberal" section rightly reports the details, but presents them in such a way as to present a point of view. Due to the candidate seeking the nomination, any ranking based on 2007 data is likely to be extremely suspect because of a lack of available data for the judging criteria. The "Jeramiah Wright" section has no place in this article whatsoever. Parts of it would be fine in the articles for Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ, and perhaps Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; however, almost none of it would be appropriate here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• This pretty succinctly summarizes my views as well. Bellwether ^B_C 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

also 4 paragraphs is def. undue weight. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But zero paragraphs is undue weightlessness. Let's see your alternative. Bellwether's "Our 'alternative' is that it stays out" isn't going to cut it. Btw, both the National Journal and ADA numbers are for three years, not just 2007, and if you think they are presented "in such a way as to present a point of view" Wikipedia policy is explicit as to what you should do: "balance it with your side of the story."

Wright's political views were the reason Obama joined his church, and his advice as a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee remained welcome for more than a year after Obama claims he became aware of how "inflammatory and appalling" those views were (after those qualities had somehow gone undetected for 22 years). Asserting without explanation that those views should be stashed behind a blue link is absurd. Andyvphil (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the disputed content one last time. If you all want to let him shove it in the article whole cloth, without discussion and revision, then I won't remove it again. I'd suggest you take a look at his talkpage, though, as he has a long history of tendentious editing, and several blocks to show for it. This is just more of the same, non-collegial pattern. Search that page for "consensus" and similar words. I'm telling you, it's interesting reading. Bellwether ^B_C 10:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. Andyvphil must stop his blatant attempts to bend this article toward his biased point of view. He claims "consensus" for his edits, when the only support he has are from (a) other biased editors and (b) unregistered "newbies" who decided to make attacking this article their first Wikipedia experiences. No consensus among the longstanding editors exists to include this inappropriate and biased material. These subjects should be one-line mentions at best, without all the duplication and bias. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You badly need to read the policy WP:OWN. Barack Obama has become the likely Democrat candidate for the Presidency of the United States and this article is now the most viewed article on Wikipedia by a factor of more than two.[16] The days when this article was the private project of a happy band of Obama fans who could rely on the FA reviewers not knowing enough about the subject to know what what was being omitted are over. Andyvphil (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The POV is obvious to any third-grader. Wikipedia is a community, not a system that you could flip around. I would suggest User:Andyvphil to cease these childish games - seriously, it wastes everybody's time. I do agree with several points of Andyvphil, and that the material deserves more attention in the article than it is receiving. However, the edit Andyvphil made contains little more than presumptions and speculation. It's nothing close to a featured article standard. Herunar (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, if you don't like it, change it. Just deleting the subject immediately fails featured article criteria [WP:FACR] 1(b). Andyvphil (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe this page is still subject to constant obstructionist fan-editing! I'll rejoin the effort to bring balance and NPOV to this article when I return from vacation.--166.199.165.120 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (Davidp)

Andyvphil wrote: As I keep saying, if you don't like it, change it. I didn't, so I did. --HailFire (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine

Cocaine Long before he ever ran for political office, Obama wrote a book about, well, himself, and his amazing his journey from messed up kid to, um, himself. It was quite an epic, considering he was 34 at the time. In that book, called "Dreams From My Father", he writes that he used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow".) Oddly enough, he writes that he didn't try heroin because -- wait for it -- he didn't like the pusher who was selling it. (Weren't there any other reasons?) In a later interview, he added "Teenage boys are frequently confused."

Oh no, the horror, the horror, we should never let anyone inside political office who has partaken in cocaine....

Get a grip guy. If we banned anyone who had taken drugs, oh hey, we wouldn't have anyone inside the current executive administration, including the current president who is an admitted clean and sober fellow having given up on cocaine and alchohol years ago. Rather than shocked at any of this, we should be proud of him and of Obama both for being able to brake free from the vicious cycle that lifestyle is.

You don't reward or take pride in people for NOT doing drugs and doing what they are supposed to do.

Funny, I use cocaine and run one of the largest and most respected companies on the eastern seaboard. The only reason coke is a big deal is because it is not taxable. I'm also fairly conservative.

Is there a reason no one signed any of these comments? 199.125.109.100 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

rev wright issue has peaked

I am cross posting this to Obama, and Obama Campaign 08.

Now that Obama has polled ahead of clinton for two days in a row, after being behind her during the time of the wright issue, I would like to advocate that new progress on it has ceased, new first-tier reporting on it has ceased, and it is receding into historical background. So it is time for editors to stop adding material on it, until such time as something new happens in the issue. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is still edit-warring over how much content should be included on the matter in this article, I'm thinking a cessation of adding new material is a bit premature, not to mention it isn't exactly appropriate to make such a statement. Wikipedia is built on users adding new content to what are, by and large, topics that are more "historical" than "current", so making a statement that this needs to stop goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Obama pulling back ahead in the polls does not necessarily mean that the Wright issue is over for him, particularly since the respondents in the polls are more favorable to Obama (meaning they are Democrats) and are more likely to be forgiving of him than others. All in all, Obama may have pulled back ahead in the polls, but all that means is that he's pulled ahead in the polls, it doesn't dictate what can and can not be added to this (or the campaign) article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

as I said, "until such time as something new happens in the issue."

If Obama was a Republican this issue would have received its own "controversies" subsection. Lesser issues have generated such sections that deal with Republicans. Blatant POV, systemic and specific. [17] --Heckler & Koch ^Talk 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP guidlines suggests merging controversy sections back into existing article text, because criticism sections are unencyclopedic; you are recommended to do that with the Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele page, as we have done here, if the issue concerns you. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

prior to the peak was it ok to add as much material as possible on wright, barack's "uncle" that believes uncle sam made HIV to kill black people, told his congregation "god damn america", talked about the "us of kkk-a", hangs with louie farrakhan, etc here? CarlosRodriguez (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the page is hacked.

I'm pretty sure Barack's full name is not Sadam Hussein Obama, Jr. Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly doesn't mention the Sadam part anywhere else online. I'm pretty sure theres a hacking going on. Peterrobot (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not really likely. I was going to edit it back but it's semi protected, so if anyone could fix it, it would be appreciated.

That's more like it. Gratz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrobot (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

source 180

10 people who can change the world, someone might want to check that out i didnt see any mention of obama. I dont think its the right source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.135.203 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still there, 162, in the middle of the second paragraph. We have chosen only one out-and-out politician: Barack Obama... --HailFire (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you include the controversies of Obama?

Dear Editor of This Page,

I fail to understand why it is inappropriate to include the controversies of Senator Obama. It is as relevant to include controversies as it is to include honors and awards. I see that many other political figures have controversies included on pages about them. Furthermore, Senator Obama has publicly came out and talked about the issues. It is important to give all information in a biography.

Thank you for reading,

Person For Equal Editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.191.25 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the many other article about Obama before you make such statements. Grsz 11 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Answer 4 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico (Governor) as example of Issues regarding senator Barack Obama endorsements that have been accepted by Sen. Obama

Could themes like this be considered so the article is more balanced, even from the perspective of persons who have favourable or neutral positions on Sen. Barack Obama's supporters?

Suggested draft of text:

"Barack Obama has distributed a document expressing his appreciation for the endorsement he received from the indicted-Governor of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, charged with 19 counts (reportedly including election fraud and corruption) by the United States Department of Justice. "

My Boxing Ring (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no. This article is about Obama, not Vila or Puerto Rico. Grsz 11 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that critical views should be included. However, this is not fair. Nobody would expect him to turn down an endorsement. I'm sure that some bad people also endorsed Clinton and McCain, but their articles shouldn't make a point of that either. Borock (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer endorsed Clinton. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Change to Presidential campaign requested

Q1This needs to be removed from the Political Campaigning section, 3rd paragraph " Clinton, in turn, had support from the poor and the less educated, as well as those who have not paid as much attention to the race: This is bias and alludes to Clinton supporters as being uneducated, poor, and unknowledgeable about the primary race! This is absurd! This is exactly the type of information that hinders people from being able to learn something without other peoples personal opinions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyscijunky (talk • contribs) March 27, 2008 copied from Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ.[18]--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is sourced. Grsz 11 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(Not that I'm saying it should stay) Grsz 11 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the citations given after that sentence don't really support it. I do seem to recall some exit polls after Iowa saying that Clinton had more support among lower-income voters and voters who had not been following the race closely, but that citation isn't in the article, so the sentence had to go. Even if the sentence had been properly cited, its wording was far from neutral. If someone wants to find the Iowa exit poll info and find an actually neutral way to mention that, properly cited, maybe it can be reinstated. As is, it's gone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

well I don't know about Iowa sources, but I know there are later sources for that claim. It has been pretty much all over the news, prolly the most prevalent was after wisconsin, when Obama picked up lower-income, less educated voters which commentators where not sure he could reach out to. And then again in Ohio when he lost lower income and less educated voters back to her... so anyways plenty of sources for this in general. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you found some of those sources and provided them with a new proposed wording, Josiah would be willing to reinsert the new wording into the section. Telling him that the sources are out there isn't going to change his mind. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help McCain win nothing could be better than to bash Clinton's supporters in this article. :-) Borock (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

well there are lots of these type of statements: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/clinton_obama_need_to_cool_it.html

"Clinton will win Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky -- states which are in line with her base; heavily blue collar, lower income, and with large numbers of older voters.

Obama will win North Carolina with its large black population and concentrations of upscale professional voters, and Oregon, home to large numbers of educated, higher-income voters with a younger electorate. Also, expect Obama to win the primaries in both South Dakota and Montana."

and by the way I was under the impression Clinton was promoting these factors in an effort to solidify her base. I don't know if thats "true" or not though.

also true if we use any of this the language needs to be more neutral... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If we want to restore the information in the context of Iowa (which was where it was before), we should have a source referring to the people who voted for Clinton in Iowa. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care if we re-add it or not- i am just making sure people realize those concepts do have sources somewhere... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

minor fix

{{editprotected}} The first reference's source is "Inoglo". It is supposed to be "Inogolo" Σαι ( Talk) 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done God is this article really protected again?? Happy‑melon 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

U of Chicago - Senior Lecturer

This should be clarified as it's been brought up that Obama's not an actual professor (he is): http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

Statement Regarding Professor Barack Obama

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Flatterworld (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course he is. Anybody who teaches at a college is a professor. Grsz 11 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some colleges and universities reserve the name "professor" for tenure-track faculty, or even for faculty members with tenure. But not all, and apparently UChicago is one of the ones that don't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The University of Chicago recently issued a disclaimer. The text is as above -albeit, the above section lacks needed parentheses. See the following politico.com March 28, 2008 article by Ben Smith [19] Dogru144 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little more detail to the relevant section, and cited the University's statement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

obama muslim?

theres article fails to mention any of the current issues regarding how obama hows to defend the fact hes not muslim. i am not talking about his muslim background but its a big deal when someone has to defend themselves they are not a muslim. www.obamamuslim.com can be used as a great reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.208.7 (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's covered in his campaign article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Position on Abortion?

I notice there is only two sentences on his position for this issue. After watching today's town hall meeting I'm still confused as to his true position as I'm sure others are. Would someone be willing to expand a bit on this? 216.220.15.211 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• He's strongly and consistently pro-choice. NRLC rates him zero. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• See Political positions of Barack Obama. There's a recent things don't go in-depth here. Grsz 11 19:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(very) minor editing suggestion?

Is not one a lecturer on constitutional law, not of constitutional law? 67.163.141.14 (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I believe that "of" is the correct usage (even though it sounds kinda weird). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.....then perhaps the word "lecturer" should be capitalized to show his official academic title (then) and specialty?...Lecturer of Constitutional Law... Without that, I see usages such as this:

2. he is a lecturer in French"
synonyms: university teacher, college teacher, tutor, reader, instructor, academic, academician.

Thank You,

mark Kohut 67.163.141.14 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The difficult thing is that when you say "he was a lecturer" you're describing his job in general terms, but when you say "he was a Lecturer" you're referring to a rank and title in the academic system. In terms of his title, Obama was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004. But he was a "lecturer" for all that time.

As for "constitutional law" vs. "Constitutional Law", to me the former suggests a field of study while the latter suggests a specific course. I see usages of the lowercase around the web: "lecturer of business law", "lecturer of philosophy and aesthetics", "lecturer of fixed prosthodontics" (the last one being in reference to a Dr. Harry R. Potter — who knew?).

"A lecturer in" does get more Google hits than "a lecturer of", though that includes usages like "a lecturer in San Diego" or "began his career as a lecturer in 1847". More of the "lecturer of" usages seem to be referring to a specific field or department in academia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Do people think we can unprotect the page now, or would the unresolved issues (categorizing Obama's political history, etc.) bring us another edit war? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like we both asked somewhat the same question, just different sections. I think we need to resolve the categorization of Obama's political history before the article can be moved back to semi-protected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

lets figure out everything here first before we unprotect, so certain users can't come complain in the future... as far as voting record goes, I heard there was a difference opinion on 10 votes between him and Clinton- so I don't see why we are going to bother with adding that to the BLP (again campaign page people) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

Why is this page really protected? I'm not buying the "He's a politician currently running for office...blah blah blah" when the other two candidates, McCain and Hillary are unprotected. The argument isn't made. Not to mention Hillary's page has some interesting text at the top that should be removed.

This page is not accurate about his life, past or present and is grossly biased. I thought Wiki was concerned with the truth but it doesn't appear so, at least on this page. All of the information should be made available for all to see, not just part out of ideology. I am quite concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddanger (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is edit protected due to edit warring. Once the disagreements that caused the edit war has been resolved, it will be unprotected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what Kiddanger thinks is "not accurate" in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Probably just another troll. Grsz 11 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Highly probable, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need for Criticisms Section

Despite the fact that Obama's supporters are diligent in removing anything remotely unfavorable on this article, there should be a section for criticisms as they do exist and they are legitimate. Anyone else believe that this is necessary for an unbiased article?Rgwilliams (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Grsz 11 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see answer 3 in the FAQ at the top of discussion page. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"well-publicized" effort to quit smoking

This article says his efforts to quit smoking were "well-publicized" but an obscure article about him smoking does not make it "well-publicized." The article cited does not say it was "well-publicized." In fact, the article says he is quiting to make himself a more appealing presidential candidate, but that information, which is actually presented, is NOT shown in this article.

The term "well-publicized" makes it look like he is not trying to hide his smoking habit, but the article clearly states that is indeed his motivation for quitting. This description is biased and should be removed. Thegoodlocust (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually he quit because Michelle made that part of the deal. I expect his daughters were giving him a hard time about it too. Anyway, I recall it WAS well-publicized, but I certianly never heard anything about "making himself a more appealing presidential candidate." I do think it shows an amazing amount of will power to quit during a campaign, although his use of nicotine gum has also been well-publicized. Try http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+smoking if you want more or better articles.Flatterworld (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article states his reasons for quitting, and it is because smoking is viewed in a poor light - we don't elect smokers as presidents anymore.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0702060167feb06,0,373462.story

In fact Obama said, "On the cusp of a potential presidential bid seemed the right time to quit for good." And another person is the article said, ""I hope he makes it a public fight." This has not been well-publicized, and it has especially not been shown in the mainstream media. Thegoodlocust (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is the Chicago Tribune not part of the mainstream media? For what (little) it's worth, I recall hearing about Obama quitting cigarettes on NPR some time last year. Do you have any reliable sources indicating that Obama is trying to hide the fact that he was a smoker until fairly recently? (Because that seems to be your implication.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think little blurbs in a city paper are really "mainstream" and while NPR is a good news source, I'm not sure if I'd consider radio news to be "mainstream." Nevertheless, "well-publicized" mean, to me, a concentrated effort, over a decent period of time, to bring light to a subject - briefly talking about something doesn't make it well-publicized. Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright is well-publicized - how he hired a lawyer to challenge the nominating petitions and knock off every other name off the ballot to get elected unopposed as state senator was not well-publicized - despite being published in a mainstream paper.Thegoodlocust (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Coverage of Obama quitting: Chigago Trib, Washington Post, Boston Globe, ABC News via Huffington, LA Times. Grsz 11 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable objection. This conversation would have had much less drama and would have been more effective if you'd started with that parsing of the term "well-publicized" instead of introducing accusations of bias.

That said, the Chicago Tribune isn't just any city paper — it's the fifth largest newspaper in the United States. I don't actually have strong feelings about whether the phrase "well-publicized" should be in the article or not, but would you feel any different if more sources mentioning Obama quitting smoking were added? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not sure how someone can prove "well-publicized." I mean, I could probably provide 20 or 30 sources from "mainstream" media about some news that most of us haven't heard of. Not only that, it just seems like such an unnecessary descriptor that I think adds bias. Thegoodlocust (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the use of "well-publicized" would need eliminated everywhere. There's no argument that the Wright issue wasn't "well-publicized". Likewise here, we have ample sourcing about the issue. 06:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside whether "well-publicized" adds bias or not (a debate which I can't see being productive), does it add anything to the sentence? Wouldn't it be more succinct simply to say "Before announcing his presidential candidacy, he quit smoking", or, if that's too final (after all, my chain-smoking aunt has quit hundreds of times), "Before announcing his presidential candidacy, he announced his intentions to quit smoking"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

<digression into personal attacks removed by Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)>

OK, fellows, deep breath. Let's all try to assume good faith. First, it's entirely possible to edit neutrally even when one has a personal preference in favor of or in opposition to a subject. It might be good for everyone here to read (or re-read) WP:COOL. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On the topic, I never had a problem with removing the bit about making him a better candidate or however it's worded. But it certainly was "well-publicized". Grsz 11 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can say this, while I was at the rally outside the January Las Vegas debates- some lady was going around yelling about how Obama was a smoker, like it was proof he was a red or something. Anyways anecdotally yes it is well-publicized. ps I am starting a website its called anecdotipedia lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot and dev/null

It looks like when the header section got "cleaned up" this weekend, the cleanup also broke MiszaBot so that it archived everything to dev/null that was older than 24 hours. I've restored the formatting of the MiszaBot template to the format MiszaBot likes and I think I've re-added all the discussions that MisazBot mistakenly purged. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

protect

Why can't we just protect articles of all the poltitical people? because people ALWAYS vandalize it anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.244.175 (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Categorization and ranking of Obama's politics

Do voting record-based categorizations and rankings from partisan or nonpartisan sources help improve readers' understanding of Barack Obama's Senate career or his politics? An example of the disputed text is linked here.

Pointers to earlier discussion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Liberal
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Requested full protection
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Andyvphil and his attempts to make large, unilateral changes to the article without discussion
• Talk:Barack Obama#Andyvphil’s proposed changes

Summary statements by editors who are parties to this dispute

• One nonpartisan source lists Barack Obama as a "Rank and File Democrat".[20][21] How is this notable to our purpose here? Readers' understanding of Obama's career or his politics will not be supported by a series of political rankings provided from either partisan or nonpartisan sources. Statistical analysis of voting records is easily manipulated and such surveys almost always reflect some kind of partisan POV. Also, categorizations and rankings derived from such analysis risk conveying a false impression of neutrality. Stringing together a series of such surveys that reach different conclusions does not in any way assist readers' understanding of the underlying complex decisionmaking and negotiating processes that go into determining votes on proposed legislation. "Findings" of these surveys should not be included in Obama's lead biography article, and their usefulness in other political articles is also doubtful. Let readers decide for themselves where a politician fits according to their own criteria and analysis of the issues. --HailFire (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Obama dismisses such political labels as “old politics”,[22] but you don't get to impose his obfuscatory POV here. RS characterize, and report characterizations of, him as "progressive", "liberal" or even, apparently, "rank and file". Our job is to reflect the RS, not hide his ADA rating from readers lest they be too dumb to reach their own conclusions about what it means, no matter how carefully we explain it to them,[23] or maybe smart enough to decide they know that what it means is that they don't want to vote for Obama. Andyvphil (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Commentary by editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute

• I'm not personally a big believer in the political spectrum, but many readers and commentators are, so I think it's useful to include a variety of measures of a political figure's placement on such spectrums. It can also be useful to include a variety of interest group assessments ("Jane Smith has a lifetime 85% rating from Americans for Eating Radishes", that sort of thing). Again, not perfect but usually tells you something. It's important to include a variety of these measures and metrics, not just one, and to use lifetime averages, or give the results for several years, as any particular year can easily be an outlier. For the three senators currently running, 2007 is especially problematic for such ratings, since they all missed a lot of votes due to campaigning and thus the sample size is even smaller than usual. Examples of the approach that I think is valid and useful are in Hillary Rodham Clinton#Political positions and Political positions of John McCain#Organizational ratings. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editors could show their sincerity by visiting some articles about conservative politicians and removing the word "conservative" there. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  conservatives are generally proud of that label however- there are been no effort to find a "new" euphamism like there has been for liberal/progressive. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  How or whether Obama self-identifies on a party or spectrum basis is not really what was being asked here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Surveys are, to a large extent, in this case very subjective. Often they have a political agenda behind their creation. They are to a large extent an attempt to group him in a category. That said, I think the label should be included given as little weight in the article as possible. The original text was way too long, and should be summarized as to be given no more than two or three small sentences covering the whole idea, maybe something like this:

According to the National Journal Senator Obama was labeled the most liberal senator in 2007. According to the Americans for Democratic Action In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once.

Yahel Guhan 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever decision is made regarding the label 'liberal' and Mr. Obama, it seems important to link to his recent disavowal of that label..?....(or is that too partisan coming from him? perhaps partly for political reasons?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.141.14 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New discussion on political categorization

Sharing this blog entry to help illustrate why some of the editors here (myself included) consider votes-based "political spectrum" categorizations (or characterizations), non-notable at best, or at worst, unnecessarily misleading. Comments welcome. --HailFire (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's considerably more to MSNBC's analysis of Obama's voting record than your blog suggests. And, of course, the existance of an article on the subject in a RS demonstrates, by definition, the opposite of "non-notability". You don't get to censor the POV, found in multiple RS, that Obama's voting record can be meaningfully analyzed to determine where he stands on the political spectrum merely because you think such analysis is misleading. We are supposed to reflect RS, not overrule them. Andyvphil (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

how come there is no issue with mccains ranking in the political spectrum. its posted in his article which i'm for btw. i think obama's ranking in the political spectrum should also be posted. i think the issue here is that he is the #1 partisan senator and some of you see that as controversial. well the ranking is the ranking. if he was in the center i'm sure the information would be put in the article, since they were ok with putting mccain's ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, if the information confirmed the belief that he is non-partisan then it would've been included without question. As it stands, this article considers his left-handedness, smoking, and being voted "able to change the world" by a rag as more pertinent information. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV The Neutrality of this Article is Challenged

User:Scjessey admits that only favorable information is allowed on this page.

On his and my talk page, User:scjessey explains that only favorable information belongs on the Barack Obama page. Information about Obama's voting record, information about Obama's yearlong denial of his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons does not have "any place in the BLP. That should be on the campaign page, if anywhere." User:Scjessey talk

This of course is a clear admission that the Barrack Obama page violates the NPOV policy. Jwvoiland (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

This article has been flagged for violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Jwvoiland (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please paste here where Scjessey made the statements you claim he made. I see you accusing him of such but I'm missing the part where he states that no negative information may be added. Also, I think you are using the tag as a weapon because you are having a disagreement with other editors. Therefore, it should be removed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Jwvoiland is using the neutrality tag as a weapon in a content dispute, a clear no-no among experienced editors. I presume this is because he/she is a new user with few edits. Let's not bite. --HailFire (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone to comply with WP:3RR, to not edit war, and to use the dispute resolution process. If you find your additions being reverted by multiple users, chances are, your changes are not going to get in the article and you should really not revert it back into the article, but rather come to the talk page and try to work with the other editors to find a consensus. If you are still unable to get your content added to the article, proceed up the chain of dispute resolution. Conversely, for the editors that are reverting additions, please remember that consensus can change and don't automatically kill a discussion by saying, "We've already reached consensus on this!" Rather, point them to the consensus agreement and ask if they are willing to follow it. If they are not willing to comply and there isn't much interest on the page to rediscuss their changes, suggest they create an RFC. If they fail to comply by the consensus while they are trying to change the consensus, you should start down the disruptive editing path to get community and administrator support. This fairly constant fighting over content is unproductive and detrimental to the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag for a second time, as there is no justification for it being there. Controversies regarding the presidential campaign are discussed in the article for the presidential campaign. Blocks will be issued for continued disruptive behavior. Grsz 11 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't put the tag back on. It's a featured article. It's highly viewed. Tagging is disruptive. Will ^(talk) 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just came back from being out and found this little discussion. It seems pretty clear that I didn't say anything about only allowing favorable information on this article from my editing history. Anyway, it looks like someone else has taken care of this problem already. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, until tomorrow at least, if the user comes back and continues along the same tact, just pop over to AN/I and see if anyone is willing to implement some preventative measures again. The threshold is usually lower than four reverts if they are coming off a block for edit-warring. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The flag isn't necessary. Anyone who reads it, and compares it to the articles about George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, can easily see tha tit's an NPOV violation. Without criticism, it's a hagiography. Banishing controversial material to other articles that no one will ever read is a whitewash. Let's be neutral about the subject. Kossack4Truth (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The quality of an article has nothing to do with how it compares to other articles, and the key criticisms of Obama (Rezko, Wright) have been adequately covered. Besides, the three individuals you are comparing Obama too are more worthy of criticism by a considerable margin. Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because editors are trying to protect Obama? There is abundant criticism of Obama available from several notable sources. Specifically, this Jeremiah Wright problem has been a major gaffe for Obama, because he first denied having heard Wright say anything inflammatory. Then, when confronted with the evidence, he admitted it just a few days later. It is reasonable to include a representative sample of this criticism. To make room for it in an article this long (recommended length of Wikipedia articles is 32 KB plus photos, see WP:SIZE), we should cut back on some of the fawning praise that we see so very much of in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have considered that possibility, but I have discarded it. I am a neutral editor of this article - I am not a US Citizen and I cannot vote in any elections. My interest in this article is based on its popularity, and the desire to make sure that such an important article maintains the highest possible standard. This "abundant criticism" you speak of that comes from "notable sources" - well I can think of many notable sources that are also unreliable and/or partisan sources. The "major gaffe for Obama" is your personal opinion, inflated by partisan views from partisan sources. Compare this minor case of misspeaking with the McCain's recent confusion over religious factions in the Middle East, for example. Seriously - compared to McCain, Bush and perhaps the Clintons, Obama (if you'll forgive the irony of this expression) is whiter than white! -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your neutral opnion is that Obama is a prince. No need to hold an election, just do the right thing and coronate him. Hey!... wasn't that the Saturday Night Live sketch last night? But it's too pathetic to be funny when the person writing the material doesn't realize it's a howler. Or would be, if I were a better person. Andyvphil (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Hard to disagree, with several having said so in this section. "Please see the discussion on the talk page." That's here. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." It isn't. Don't. Andyvphil (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a true "consensus" as to this page's neutrality, why do several editors keep undoing information that sees Senator Obama in a not so favorable light? A number of editors have included information that a number of others continue to undo, claiming "consensus" against it. The NPOV of this article is clearly challenged. It is not consistent with the NPOV mandate to rule that material about particular controversies must be moved off of this article and into a separate page. Muls1103 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103

This isn't Wright's article! That's the consensus, not to put such a great detail of Wright information here when he has his own page to add it to. Clearly you aren't the new user you seem to be. Grsz 11 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::What is the personal insult "Clearly you aren't the new user you seem to be" supposed to mean ? The editors of this page continue to show their hostility to NPOV in favor of Obama-spin. (had been logged out, signing now Muls1103 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103)12.145.168.6 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103

User:Muls1103 has been blocked (along with User:Letveritas as an abusive sockpuppet of User:Jwvoiland. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with portraying Obama in a "favorable light". It is entirely about undue weight. The existing sentences covering these matters neatly summarize what occurred, and include links to related articles that cover the "controversy" in exhaustive detail. Since this is a biography about Barack Obama, the article is primarily about the person. The additions proposed are, instead, detailed (and biased) accounts of a specific week of Obama's nomination campaign. Certain editors, such as Andyvphil, refuse to accept the prevailing consensus (and downright common sense) that adding such detail, regardless of its accuracy, is ascribing far too much weight to a single event of Obama's life. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article does seem fairly pro-Obama to me. Articles about other politicians don't avoid controversies. Why should this one? An article's credibility is damaged when it appears to be biased in either direction. Obama is clearly dealing with some criticism. Of course some of it is partisan. But most controversies are partisan. That has not prevented them being included in other articles about politicians. So, why should it here? About the above labeling of the Wright controversy being about "a week" of Obama's life. That is really not very accurate. The Wright controversy is a about a man who has been influential to Obama for nearly half his life, and most of his adult life. This is not inconsequential. The way it is currently portrayed in the article does feel somewhat cleansed and incomplete. ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of worrying about our alleged POV violations, you should worry about familiarizing yourself with certain guidelines that Scjessey mentioned, as you are a new user. Grsz 11 16:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm accused of hostility, while the other side is using sockpuppets! Ha! Grsz 11 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone here contend - with an actual argument - that, despite the discussions littering this talk page and archived versions, that the neutrality of this article is somehow not in dispute? I have re-added the NPOV tag to reflect this. --Davidp (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the neutrality of the article is not currently in dispute. The only complainants appear to be the various sock puppets of Jwvoiland and the extraordinarily biased Andyvphil. Everyone else seems to be happy with the article in its current form. Please remove the NPOV tag unless you have identified a specific POV item (in which case, a sectional NPOV tag would be more appropriate anyway). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You and your friend accuse everyone of being sockpuppets merely because their opinions diverge from yours. You've stated that there is "little criticism" of Obama which is why there is none on the page. This article reads like it was written by his press secretary. Just keep on denying that anyone could possibly think differently. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the neutrality of the aricle in currently in dispute. See the FA review], in progress. Andyvphil (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that factual information is left out of this article when it is a negative (no mention of challenging ballots in illinois, but extensive discussion of his fed senate race) and that an entire block is dedicated to his DNC speech (positive, non-bio) and includes a non-factual statement that it's when most americans were introduced to obama, I find the neutrality of this article to be clearly lacking. --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.161.234 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a controversy section

This is ridiculous, and reeks of Obama supporters trying to hide any critical information. You don't have to agree that something is "controversial," but it was still a controversy focused by the media, and the public. This article is getting pretty laughable. This isn't going to last long. Before you know it, a million people are going swarm here, and start yet another edit war will ensue. Why not just make a section, and keep it in one place, before a bunch of people start fighting over where to place it, and whether or not they "agree" that something was a big enough story. This isn't suppose to be a fan page. Almost all other politicians, have had a criticism, or controversy portion of their article to get it all out there, and not to have people sliding stuff into the other portions, where others might miss it. This is the easiest solution to move past the "bias" assessment. Things like the "no hand over heart during the national anthem," "won't wear a flag pin," stories, are still notable, whether you find them ridiculous or not. My point is, it's better to agree on these controversies/criticisms now, give them a spot, and move on. This back and forth is getting tiresome. 07:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

um, no. That is not necessary. None of the candidates have a criticism section, and if they do, it is a sign that it needs to be cleaned up and possibly removed or merged into other parts of the article. Yahel Guhan 07:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel has it right. Or as Gzkn commented a while back, consider what would be said if we decided to have "praise" sections in these articles. Tvoz |talk

This article is typical example of the bias that pervades every corner of Wikipedia. Compare and contrast Jeremiah Wright's mention in this article (and glowing biography) to the entire section devoted to the Keating Five on John McCain's page. The nut-jobs who admin this site don't understand that they undermine their own credibility with this sort of "fairness". Admittedly, Wikipedia is a great resource if you need to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle or who wrote the 14th episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That said, Wikipedia is a political joke, philosophically broken and scientifically faulty. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since that was only your second contribution to Wikipedia, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If you think something is wrong, improve it! Regarding your comparison of this article with the biography of John McCain, the problem may lie with the McCain article itself. When evaluating whether or not to include material in a biography, one must consider the significance of that material. If you think the "Keating 5" section is given too much weight within the scope of McCain's life, raise objections on that article's talk page. That is far more productive and useful than simply calling people "nut-jobs" and referring to Wikipedia as a "joke". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, there is very little point in trying to improve it. The people who made it this way are hovering over their favorite articles, because they made them that way and they want them to stay that way. Because there is an entire section on the Keating Five in John McCain's article, and an entire section on Whitewater in the Hillary Clinton article, there must, I repeat must,' be an entire section on the Wright controversy in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the other stuff essay is about deletion discussions but it also applies here. Just because things exist in other articles doesn't mean something must exist in this article. Jons63 (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And as I have said before, what happens in other articles has no bearing on what happens in this one. At the moment, the "Wright controversy" is only significant to Obama's campaign at the moment. As such, it receives plenty of attention in the appropriate article. As far as his biography is concerned, however, it is (currently) of little significance, so it receives the necessary concise summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The things cited as 'controversies' here hardly hold any bearing on his potential policies or ability to govern the country. If he becomes embroiled in an actual scandal, sure, maybe adding it is worthwhile. But not putting his hand on his heart? That's not a controversy. It's an overblown issue which is only prolonged by adding fuel to the fire by mentioning it further. Belfunk (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article was definitely written by Obama fans. 138.67.4.87 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You say it and run away, but can you back up what you say and provide instances where this article favors Obama? Grsz 11 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Very simply put: any time there's criticism or controversy, it is banished to a satellite article that no one will ever read. There are numerous examples on this page and in the archives. The presidential campaign is the one major notable event in Obama's life. Four years ago, he was a mediocre state senator in Springfield, Illinois. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not being "banished". Trying to cover the full scope of a candidate's campaign in their biographical article would make the article ridiculously long. By giving the campaign its own article, it enables Wikipedia to offer a more in-depth coverage of every aspect of the campaign - including the "Wright controversy" that you seem to hold so dear. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion was made that I make edits. As has been said above and elsewhere that is a futile effort. For simply questioning the bias of Wikipedia, I've already been threatened with a muzzle. If that's the response I get from a talk page, then I'm quite certain that if I commit the crime of editing an article I will be hammered into oblivion. The Stalinists who run Wikipedia do not seem to have much tolerance for diversity of opinion. That said, I'll give Wikipedia its props. If you want to know the difference between cylons and stormtroopers, you've found the place. If you want to know what the progressive/liberal talking point is, this is the place to go. But if you want a fair and impartial political resource: this is not the reference you want. I submit this article as proof of that thesis. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since then my comments have been edited by someone else to insert typographical errors and ridiculous and insulting assertions. But I will leave them stand as edited and as further proof of what is wrong with Jokipedia. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that 72.196.233.224's comments above are as they were when they were made. [24],[25] I've no idea what the IP is talking about when he says his or her comments were edited. As for the article's neutrality, perhaps he or she would consider Conservapedia's effort to be better? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hate church

There should be some mention of the hate church he has belonged to for the last 20 years in the introduction - what Christopher Hitchens called Obama's "dumb, nasty, ethnic rock 'n' roll racist church" - and the role of hate preacher Jeremiah Wright, Obama's priest. HillaryFan (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned, although without all your equally hateful intolerance and one-dimensional point-of-view. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling. That's what Encyclopedia Dramatica is for. Belfunk (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't characterize it as a "hate church". But it is true that the one mention of the "racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor" is inadequate coverage of this subject. Andyvphil (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

At least pretend like you're objective and come up with a name other than "HillaryFan". The article calls Wright his "longtime pastor and religious mentor", and Wright has his own article, which is linked. Paisan30 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia content that respect the ex-Pastor Wright should be directed to his page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.25.97 (talk • contribs) 01:47, April 2, 2008

That's been the general view and practice here, although a vocal minority disagrees. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My contention is that it should be listed in the contents, since many people are interested in the subject. From there feel free to link it to an outside article. It is important and it is commonly sought information. It should be made easily acceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be mention of the controversy concerning Pastor Wright, but to call the church from which it came from a Hate Church is out of line. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

2004 keynote: undue weight?

While we're talking about undue weight, I'm wondering whether the section on the 2004 DNC keynote address could be trimmed a bit. It's true that the speech was most Americans' first exposure to Obama, but does its significance in his biography really merit as much detail as we're giving it? Could we make the same biographical point more succinctly? I wonder whether we need the first two block quotes. It's the red state/blue state bit that seems to have lingered in the public consciousness. (Well, at least it's the bit that I remember from that speech.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

be bold then sir... I don't think anyone is worried you're an "ip vandal" lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want anyone to think that I was using my admin status to put changes in without consensus while the page was protected. I'll wait a bit to see if there are other opinions before trimming the section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be reduced to a sentence or two. It is one of the glaring reasons this article is POV - it reads like the script of a campaign commercial. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

POV

See also: Talk:Barack Obama § POV tag, and Talk:Barack Obama § The D part in BRD

As nobody who thinks the tag belongs can explain why the tag belongs/that the article is POV, it should be removed. It's been argued countless time why it should not be there, and now the editors who keep adding it seem to be adding it just for the heck of it, or because they don't agree with the consensus. Grsz 11 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is correct - no credible arguments have been presented that the article, or the section, is not neutral. Tags are not to be used as POV weapons. I'm removing the tag. Tvoz |talk 07:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As I explained, ...A purposely short and vague description of a controversy of fundamental and demonstrated importance to Obama's career, answered solely by Obama's spin, with no other POV on the subject allowed... we also have the enforcement of Obama's POV that such "old politics" characterizations of his record as favorable ADA ratings must be excluded. The POV tag says what it means and means what it says. A dispute about the neutrality of this article is in progress... Andyvphil (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I'm readding the POV tag. Andyvphil (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the articles for the campaign or Jeremiah Wright. Covering this issue with as much detail as is done there is a violation of recentism. If you can address the issue subtly, as it should be, feel free. But you haven't. You just go and add a lot of inappropriate information that is already adequetely covered elsewhere. The section has a {{main}} tag, leading the reader to the campaign article, where they are better off finding more information on the campaign, and the controversy is covered in depth. I moved the POV tag, as the article is NOT in violation of POV. I left it on the section, rather than starting an edit war. Grsz 11 13:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is only of "fundamental and demonstrated importance" if you read conservative blogs, listen to conservative talk radio, or hang on the words of Clinton's spin machine. Most commentators agree that Obama's speech, for the most part, answered the questions asked by his association with Jeremiah Wright. Regardless of whether or not this fact is true, the full extent of the details and discussions surrounding this particular issue are far beyond the scope of a BLP like this. Trying to cover it in this article, with the necessary brevity, wouldn't do it the kind of justice you are looking for anyway. It is much better suited to the related articles A More Perfect Union, Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph a bit. It links directly to the section to Wright in the campaign article. Let me know how it works. Grsz 11 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT: The POV label is good. It alerts the reader that there is a dispute. Then the reader can decide for himself. In America, there are lots of warning. I heard that there's a warning that coffee and tea is hot. Gasoline is poisonous. So, beware of this article is appropriate. There is plenty of debate so the label reflects consensus (that there is debate). Just beause there is a POV label does not mean Obama is bad. Actually, Obama is a good speaker and will be the next American President. I salute him or whoever is the next President. KVSTamilNadu (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I tried to give editors a list of what I *know* to be POV phrases (located down below on this page) and the majority were just tossed out for some wacky undue weight and supposed BLP concerns. Happyme22 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Which bit is POV?

Instead of just wacking in NPOV tags all over the place without comment, kindly explain exactly which bits are POV so that we can try to address them. Give us specifics, rather than simply generalities. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not reporting Obama's vote ratings is POV. Not reporting that the church he chose to join and support for 20 years was and is known for Black Liberation theology/politics, and not making clear what that is, is POV. Reporting his speech in response to the Wright firestorm only in terms of his own characterization of it is POV. The POV of this article is disputed -- attempting to conceal that by removing the POV tag is POV. Andyvphil (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It has already been established that the vote ratings for ALL candidates in 2007 are thoroughly misleading when indicating career voting behavior because the statistics are distorted by the lack of data. Obama's religion and church are covered adequately in numerous places within the article. The controversy surrounding the pastor of that church is exhaustively covered in the relevant related articles and a satisfactory summary, agreed upon by overwhelming consensus, links to those related articles. The NPOV tag was removed after consensus had been reached, and only re-added today with no specific reason given. It is in fact your own edits that destroy the neutrality of this article, by adding biased and misleading data. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The material you deleted on ratings cover all three years and addressed the missed votes issue. The church and pastor are not covered "adequately", and your assertion to the contrary does not address the omissions I specified. No POV critical of Obama on the Wright issue remains in the article. Material in related articles does not address omission of balancing POV here, and there can be no legitimate "consensus" to overrule NPOV requirements. NPOV is POLICY. It is simply a lie to say the NPOV tag "was removed after consensus had been reached" -- it was removed immediately and repeatedly by edit warring without any consensus. Your assertion that the material you are removing is "biased and misleading" is simply an unsupported and unconvincing assertion. And coming from an editor who has written "Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama?" any claim from you about anti-Obama bias requires proof. And, btw, your self-revert only got you back to 4 reverts in 24 hours. Be more careful in the future. Andyvphil (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Andy, but you are completely wrong about this. The stuff you have been trying to add doesn't balance anything - it skews it in a negative direction to satisfy your desires. And like I said before, I can't even vote! How can I be pro anybody if I have vested interest? Also, unlike you I don't monitor my contributions to make sure I don't violate 3RR. I just do what I think needs to be done. Your record of "hit and run" every 24 hours is different. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned. You were reported. You offered to accept a penalty, and that offer was accepted. You are on parole. Start monitoring yourself. As to your suggestion that you can't be biased in favor of Obama because you can't vote for him... well, civil words fail me. I would think you were pulling my leg, except you are so consistent. See ~"There is no criticism of Obama because he's so perfect."~ Not ROFL. Just stunned pity at the obliviousness, maybe. Andyvphil (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

andy you seem to have the worst understanding of 3rr policy I've ever seen. Obviously reverting a drive-by POV tag vandal, on a main Biography page, goes pretty close to the BLP guidelines and any user making good faith edits with proper interpretation of BLP as a goal, that is a good faith argument that temporizes any dastardly dangerous violations of 3rr, which surely is the most important issue this page currently has. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So adding your own POV somehow makes the article more neutral? I don't think so. Grsz 11 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding balancing POV is exactly what WP:NPOV calls for. Read it. It's "core" policy: Articles must represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Such as the significant view that Obama's choice of Wright tells us something important about Obama. Where is it in the article? It not being there is an NPOV violation. Andyvphil (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in his campaign article, because it's relevant to his campaign! Should I start adding Ferraro's and Carville's statements to Clinton's main page? Or her lies about Bosnia? Grsz 11 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It also is a bit excessive. How much needs to be said about how he voted? It doesn't disserve the weight you gave to the issue. His voting record is not that important to his biography. Why don't you try summarizing it, as a compromise? Yahel Guhan 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "According to analysis by GovTrack of the bills that Obama has sponsored, Obama is a "rank and file Democrat".[26]" --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What part of "all significant views" are you not getting? You can have that POV in the article, you just can't keep out the others. Andyvphil (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy on article size states that an article over 100KB should "almost certainly" be broken up. This article is at 484. Adding information that is already quite thoroughly covered elsewhere violates the Manual of Style in this regard. Grsz 11 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, as I couldn't see size on the edit page. Regardless, these are unneeded additions where there are other relevant articles where they can be better addressed. Wright controversey → Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; Reviews of his political positions → Political positions of Barack Obama. Grsz 11 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:SIZE. The guideline is for readable text, not for total page size. This article has 37k of readable text. This is well below the 100k "almost certainly" be broken up threshold and it is also below the 50k generally applied to FA. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See here - I get 35K of readable prose. Even if it's 37K, it is well within all guidelines. But we have worked hard to keep it at about that size - so I agree that the approach taken here, as in all of these types of articles, of having shorter summary sections in the main article and longer daughter articles for major areas makes sense and conforms with policy. The Presidential campaign article goes into great detail about many things surrounding the Obama campaign, including the Wright matter and much more. That is appropriate and doesn't make this main article any less neutral. But a reminder: this is supposed to be a biography of a notable person - his entire life and career - not an article specifically about a presidential candidate. Therefore we have to keep this aspect of his biography in perspective, just as we do on all of the other biographies. That is not POV, that is policy. Tvoz |talk 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And that is precisely what I thought we had already worked out in various consensus discussions. The problem is that users like Andyvphil don't like this approach because they want the article to have a more negative and controversial feel about it. They confuse efforts to maintain a normal WP:BLP style with POV editing. The kind of reportage they are looking for is more suited to the campaign article which tends to report everything in often exhaustive detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary style guidelines require that the summary left in the main article be NPOV. The notion that Wright's political activities are so unimportant to Obama's bio that the controvery about him is properly summarized by saying only that there is a controversy, and that Obama has give a speech to address it, is laughable. There is another significant POV found in reliable sources, and this article need to reflect it. Further, the idea that Obama's place on the political spectrum is both to some degree determinable and significant hasn't been spun out, merely censored. Andyvphil (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise wording can be worked out? Something in between the two sentences favored by one faction and the up to six paragraphs favored by another faction? Perhaps something that includes a summary of the impact of the controversy? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

you make it sound like two sentences is somehow inappropriate , when in fact it seems a little long considering the new WSJ/NBC poll which shows Obama lost two points of positive and gained four of negative- to come to a pos/neg of 49/32 (early march was 51/28) where as Clinton got slammed during the same period and lost EIGHT points of positive and picked up five of negative to go from 45/43 to 37/48 (thats 11 points of negative spread BTW) [[27]]

long story short- folks the Wright issue is DOA until (lol Bobblehead) something breaks in the story, which hasn't happened in a while. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we're discussing polls, would you like to discuss Gallup's rolling five-day average? Obama has gone from two points ahead of McCain to three points behind in just two weeks, and shows no sign of regaining the lead. In a race this close, the "DOA" Wright issue could very easily cost Obama the White House. It doesn't get any more notable than that. But there are people here who believe that even two sentences with no section header is too much. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

yes you're right most editors do choose two sentences as their consensus version lol. Someone with such vast knowledge of polls as you should then know two things: this is a campaign issue, hence the majority of WP coverage is on the campaign page. You should also know that cited McCain figures is disingenuous when he is essentially not campaigning until the democratic race is over. Your claims about the "White House" are a joke compared to WP is not a crystal ball... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm by no means saying that two sentences is inappropriate, nor am I saying that six paragraphs is inappropriate. What I'm saying is that the incessant edit warring over the content and the blatant lack of good faith on all sides is ludicrous and has to stop. Unless the factions start to actually discussing a compromise that they find acceptable this article will continue to see edit warring and more rounds of full protection. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I think some of the concerns over NPOV (specifically involving his political stance and voting record) are valid, I think as a general rule, this article, by the subject's nature, is going to read more pro-Obama than against him, largely because there is little to criticize HIM about (read that carefully, I do not include Rev Wright or the issues of any other associate to be the same as criticism of him). This is true across the board. For instance, someone like Mother Theresa is going to have an overwhelmingly positive article because there is little to criticize her over. However, someone like say Adolf Hitler is going to have an overwhelmingly negative bias because the vast, vast majority of the globe is of the belief that what he did is wrong (minus Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I can't think of a current leader of a nation that does not condemn the actions of the Nazis). The Wright issue should ideally be about how it effected HIM as a person, and how it effected his Campaign not in terms of the people, but in terms of both his feelings about it, and his politics. -- False Prophet (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy - Bobblehead's effort

Just to throw an idea out there:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright.[28][29] In the days following the revelation of Wright's sermons, Clinton took her first statistically significant lead of 7 percent in Gallup's Democratic national polling since shortly after Super Tuesday.[30] In an attempt to stave off the controversy, Obama delivered a speech titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in which he sought to explain and contextualize Wright's comments[31] while trying to expand the discussion to include race relations in general.[32] Following Obama's speech, Clinton's lead in Gallup's polling began to recede until the two were virtually tied, but, after leading in the poll by 6 percent the previous week, Obama's campaign had not fully recovered from the damage caused by the Wright controversy.[33]

Just throwing that out there as a start. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Bobblehead's effort

That seems okay to me, although I still think there is more detail in there than necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

not very ok with me, but I'm a pain anyways so take it for what its worth... I give you one set of numbers, you go with another and don't even mention the interpretation I put forth. Fine, but please know that two separate news broadcasts I watch LED OFF today with a story essentially saying that the polling they expected to show the Obama/Wright problem, in fact showed Clinton doing far worse than Obama. So again write what you want for the hypothetical paragraph, but I would hope it might work toward a more neutral direction. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is by no means the final version that has to be used and is put out there only as a starting point to get some sort of consensus discussion going to put an end to this edit warring. If you don't think my proposal is acceptable, then propose an alternative. It really isn't that difficult. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

in this case your assumptions were probably correct lol, I am a pledged and oath-taken supporter of the current two-sentence version. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. The point of consensus building is to make compromises in such a manner that while you may not agree with the end result, you at least find it acceptable. It is apparent that the two sentence alternative (as it currently exists) is not acceptable to at least one group of editors and as such, clinging to that wording is a non-starter in consensus building. Conversely, clinging to the six paragraph alternative is also a non-starter. If any editor is not willing to find a consensus/compromise that is acceptable to the various groups, then we can start ignoring their contributions to the discussion while the rest try to get consensus. Given that, what's your compromise alternative wording? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

to clarify, I guess if you want to make the two sentences more critical of Obama, fine I guess. But there really should be no more than two sentences. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think two sentences is unacceptable, given the amount of attention that has been given to this issue by notable sources, and the effect it has had on Obama's chances to win the White House. I think meeting halfway, at two or three paragraphs, would be a fair compromise. I think Bobblehead's paragraph is a good place to start, and adding the Mark Steyn quotation (as representative of the abundant criticism that is out there in notable sources) is a good way to move it toward completion. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems decent to me. My only beef is the polls, as this is not Clinton's article. This article is a biography of Obama, and therefore should only include biographical information about him. I doubt this would appease the other side, as there idea of making it neutral was two or three paragraphs of some terrible Fox News slant, or something along those lines. Grsz 11 01:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with the poll bit, is it even worth noting here that Clinton took the lead for what...four days? Something as miniscule as that can certainly be ignored here and taken to the other article. Grsz 11 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More still, the two sentences in the article now, that I rewrote earlier are completely neutral. They mention that there was a controversy, what it was about, and that Obama responded. It makes no judgement on the nature of Wright's statements, or Obama's speech. I can't see anything wrong with this, as it summarizes and directs the reader to the campaign article where numerous different viewpoints are addressed. Grsz 11 01:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy - Kossack4Truth's effort

Here is my suggested three-paragraph version of the new Wright section. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. In them, Wright accused the federal government of selling drugs to blacks, creating the HIV virus to infect blacks, and perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. In one sermon, Wright said that the United States was responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks and urged black Americans to ask God to "damn America." Following the story, Obama faced criticism for referring to Wright as his "spiritual advisor," attending the church for 20 years, and maintaining close personal ties to the minister. Wright presided over Obama's wedding and baptized both of his daughters; Obama points to Wright as the inspiration for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and placed Wright on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee in December 2007.

Obama had begun distancing himself from Wright when he withdrew a request that Wright deliver a speech at the announcement of his presidential bid in February 2008, but when several videos of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube in the first week of March 2008, Obama released a statement "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing] ... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. After the publicity of March, the campaign announced that Wright has left its African American Religious Leadership Committee. On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race.

In the speech, Obama referred to his white grandmother and later explained that "she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know ... there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way." ABC News reported that "buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons." Critics have found the response not only contradictory, but inadequate. For example, Mark Steyn, writing in the National Review observed,

"Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race ... Yet since his early twenties [Obama]’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster ... the Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old."

Discussion on Kossack4Truth's effort

Comments about the three-paragraph version down here please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the main article? Entirely too long. Tvoz |talk 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Grsz 11 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The main section in the campaign article is 6 paragraphs...how can you think this is appropriate here? Grsz 11 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable, I'm afraid. The first two paragraphs are all about Jeremiah Wright and what he said. This is a biography of Barack Obama, in case you didn't notice. I still think a single paragraph is way too long, so a three-paragraph tome about some other dude is never going to work for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Three paras is a bit long for the main article, IMHO. I'd really like to keep it to one para at the most. So far it seems the issue hasn't really had a lasting impact on the campaign (well, as far as the primary is concerned). Sure it knocked him down a few points in the polls initially, but he's pretty much recovered from that. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't be expanded if the impact is greater later. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just provide links to the appropriate pages ?--Die4Dixie 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Wright controversy - Scjessey's effort

Here's my attempt at a compromise. This is a combination of some ideas from User:Bobblehead and the original text from 72.0.180.2:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Following significant negative media coverage, Obama chose to respond to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments while trying to expand the discussion to include race relations in general, the decision not to repudiate Reverend Wright failed to definitively end the matter.

I believe this satisfies the need for brevity, yet still manages to include more of the negative aspects that are desired by some. The references are intact if a wholesale copy/paste is needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Scjessey's effort

It's awesome! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC) </sarcasm>

Ha - but I agree. Works for me. Tvoz |talk 02:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Couple of thoughts here. The comment that by not repudiate Wright is extending the controversy is the opinion of the guy that created the Swift Boat ads and we should really attribute it to him as that's the first I've heard of that opinion. General opinion that I've seen is that no matter what Obama does it will stick to him in some measure and that this will be added to the general "Obama is anti-American" meme. Second thought is that the most recent source in this version is from the 21st. Perhaps a source from the last few days would be a better judge of the results of Obama's speech and the lasting impact of the controversy? I'd also like to see something that reflects the (temporary) drop in polls as a result. Without mentioning that drop it's hard to assess just why Obama gave the speech (negative press is common in a campaign). Perhaps something like "Due to a drop in polls as a result of the negative media coverage,[source] Obama chose to respond to the controversy..." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would argue that Obama's speech was responding to the negative press more than the poll drop. The polls were already evening out by the time that speech was given, and usually the internal campaign polls are a couple days ahead of the public ones. bla bla bla etc. Its a minor issue. More importantly, I agree with Bobblehead about the last sentence. If you want to mention the "staying-power" of the controversy, I might suggest saying (to the effect): his descision not to repudiate drew praise from some and criticism from others, including HRC who kept the issue topical into the new week, by saying that Wright "would not be her pastor." again or some jibber jabber to that effect. But again both efforts on a rewrite have been good... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Wright controversy has little effect on the polls (short or long term) with respect to the Democratic nomination. It has seem to have made a difference with respect to the General Election, but Clinton has suffered by pretty much the same amount. The polling seems to be more a reflection of Democratic in-fighting than anything specific, so I don't think including the polling data is necessary. Agreed on all other points. I'd like to see some feedback from the "other side" though. The whole point of this is to try to negotiate a compromise. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Any acceptable version is going to have to be clearer about what was controversial and about why Obama's image is affected by the controversy. "Racially and politically charged" doesn't cut it. His problem, and the biographical fact that has to be clear in his biography article, is not that he didn't repudiate Wright now, it's that he signed on and sat there for twenty years while Wright preached from day one in a way that that a lot of potential Obama voters see as hostile raving, and that this is not compatable with Obama's carefully cultivated image as someone who transcends black hostility. And you are going to have to allow some mention of the POV that his response was an attempt to change the subject, not merely put everything in "perspective". Andyvphil (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is a biography of Obama and not of Jeremiah Wright. The level of detail you are expecting simply isn't appropriate. Secondly, it has become apparent from Obama's own words and the exhaustive investigation of the mainstream media that the candidate was not in church at the times Wright made the controversial statements that have been reported (although Obama admits he was aware that statements may have been made). Thirdly, we are talking about a handful of controversial statements made over a thirty year period that began during a time of great racial tension and black oppression. This fact doesn't excuse Wright's words, but it does offer context in which it is easy to understand how such statements could surface. Fourthly, it is worth noting that Barack Obama's good character and inclusive stance has evolved despite his relationship with Reverend Wright. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, in the context of Obama's entire life it is now clear that the controversy surrounding Wright has not been of much significance to Obama or his campaign, which is why no more than a brief summary that points to a more exhaustive explanation is all that is needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to your POV, you just don't get to impose it on the article. "Obama's... inclusive stance" may be real or it may be a pose exposed by his voluntary adherence to Wright's church. You may believe that Obama wasn't in Trinity on any occasion when Jeremiah Wright went raving over the edge, and never learned about such an occasion with any promptitude, but there's a different POV that doesn't believe that Obama began lying about this only 13 months ago. And Obama didn't have to be in church to find out that Wright had said Louis Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness." That was in the Trumpet. As I said, your version is a non-starter. Andyvphil (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. We are trying to resolve the dispute, Andy. Have you nothing constructive to offer the discussion? The facts are these: although the Wright controversy continues to be discussed, it has had almost no effect on voters. It may yet surface again if Obama goes on to win the nomination and run against McCain, but until then it is adequately covered without undue weight. I have tried to come up with an "extended" paragraph with what I believe to be a more neutral tone, building on the work of other editors. Rather than dismiss the paragraph as a "non-starter", why not come up with your own reasonable version of the paragraph so that we can see how far apart we are? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you would like half of this article about Wright. Grsz 11 13:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

""The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability" from WP:BLP#Criticism. Did people not know of Obama before this? Maybe a few extermely ignorant individuals, but hardly a significant number. Grsz 11 13:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked, "Did people not know of Obama before this?" Four years ago, Obama was an obscure state senator (translation: provincial legislator) in Springfield, Illinois. This presidential campaign is the most noteworthy event of his life. Nothing else even comes close. Scjessey said, "it has had almost no effect on voters." This is a close race, and in the Gallup five-day rolling average, Obama has dropped from two points ahead of McCain to 2-3 points behind and stayed there. Granted, a 4-5 point move can be described as "almost no effect." But going from "ahead of McCain" to "behind McCain" cannot reasonably be described as "almost no effect." Obama himself, who has never previously shown the slightest sign of faltering, admitted that the controversy over Wright has left him "shaken." Scjessey's version doesn't give this cpontroversy the attention it deserves. Add the mark Steyn quote and a "Wright controversy" section header and it would be acceptable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Two articles from the nonpartisan Pew Research Centre might shed some light on this. On the one hand, this poll shows that the Wright matter hasn't had a significant effect on Obama's support. On the other hand, this poll notes that the speech and the Wright videos were the two most widely covered items in the 2008 presidential campaign to date. I'd say that means that it merits more coverage than the article currently gives, but I'm not sure that the Mark Steyn quote is particularly representative of people's responses to the controversy and speech. If we were to add the Steyn quote, I think that we would also have to add a balancing quotation from one of the many pundits and commentators who have praised the speech. Would that place undue weight on the matter? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There's more detail on the effect of the Wright matter and the speech on the polls at A More Perfect Union#Effect on voters. Looks to me as if the net effect was more or less negligible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - I agree that this election is the most noteworthy event in Obama's political life, and that is why it warrants its own article. That is why Josiah's suggestion of pruning the 2004 speech makes sense. The most recent Pew Research Center poll continues to show that Obama (and Clinton) have a statistically significant lead over McCain, so using polls as an argument for including more of the "Wright controversy" isn't useful. As for Mark Steyn, I certainly don't think the personal opinion of a well-known liberal-hating conservative has any place in a brief summary of what is still only a footnote of Obama's entire campaign. After two weeks, the only people talking about Wright are right-wingers who are never going to vote for any Democrat anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times today is about Wright/Obama, and the desperate effort to force Hillary out of the race before she can capitalize on Wright/Obama. Read it. [34] It's clear that Dowd is not a right-winger and that she's going to vote for a Democrat. There are many, many other examples I could provide: genuinely progressive, even left-wing political commentary from notable sources who aren't just talking about Wright/Obama, but seem unable to talk about much of anything else. This controversy merits its own section, including criticism from someone who isn't going to vote for a Democrat, because they deserve to be heard and there are a lot of them, and it merits a section header. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kossack- your post there was totally misleading fyi. I mean you might win some awards for a fish story, but as far as commentary on Maureen Dowd, you maybe missed the boat a little. The word "Wright" was used exactly once that I saw, so maybe other's should read that article as well (the word desperate was NOT used ever in that article of course...Maureen keeps it classy regardless of what you think.) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Wright affair has been heavily featured in the media for the past couple of weeks, and it probably deserves more than the two sentences the article currently gives it. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that it deserves its own section, though — it's not as if the Wright affair or even the speech (which, let's remember, has its own article) was one of the key incidents or themes of the man's life. It's an important episode in the campaign, but it's not as important as the campaign itself, or his time in the Senate. To say otherwise is recentism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to replacing the current paragraph with Scjessey's version? I know that Andyvphil doesn't think it's adequate, but surely from his perspective Scjessey's version would be an improvement over what's there now. I realize that this won't resolve the issue for Andyvphil, but if we want to keep good faith on all sides we should acknowledge when good faith efforts are being made. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a substantial number of more in favor than not. Grsz 11 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If moving Scjessey's proposal onto the article would end the edit war, I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure it will resolve the dispute based on the comments above of the editors that disagree with it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but I would agree that the last line needs work. We can't assume that the situation would have been "definitively ended" if Obama had "repudiated" Wright. Paisan30 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

i see farrakhan has been once again clensed from the article. a bit of biased censorship is going on here. a bit of white wash.

Josiah's tweak of Scjessey's proposal

Paisan30 makes a good point about what would or wouldn't have "definitively ended" the controversy. I do think it's worth noting that Obama rejected Wright's offensive statements while refusing to repudiate the man. How's this variant on Scjessey's theme? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Following significant negative media coverage, Obama chose to respond to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but declined to disown the man himself. Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments, some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.

best yet... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up. Grsz 11 05:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Then make the edit. As time goes on, and as it becomes more and more obvious that this issue will cost Obama the White House, perhaps you'll reconsider giving it more than one paragraph without a section header. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If Obama wins the nomination, I am sure the Republicans will try to milk this Wright thing for all it's worth (despite the fact that McCain enjoys the endorsement of some pretty awful religious nut-jobs himeself). However, I think you will find that once the Democrats have settled on and united behind a candidate, McCain doesn't stand a chance with his pro-war and ignore-economy stance. But this is not the place to debate such matters... - This is the best version yet and I would imagine that the concluding sentence and citations will mollify those insisting on more negativity. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, this article is a hagiography. Every valid, well-grounded criticism gets one or two sentences and banishment to a satellite article that no one ever reads. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears that dozens (if not hundreds) of other Wikipedians disagree with you. This article reads like a normal biography to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about dozens, but False Prophet agrees with you that there shouldn't be much criticism of Obama. The comparison with Mother Teresa made me think it was you writing, but I was surprised by the signature.

Anyway, the controversy isn't "concerning the sermons". It's concerning Obama's joining, and then failing to disassociate himself from, a church in which blaming the CIA for AIDS, etc., is considered within the range of normal discourse, rather than raving insanity. And Obama's now added that had Wright not retired he would have left Trinity, so his "declining to disown" in the Philly speech is a defensive position that has already fallen. Now that he's conceeded that Wright is reason enough to leave he's going to have a hard time justifying sticking around as long as he did. Wright's sermons have been broadcast for some time. Gotta be tapes out there, from well before 9/11. And what was well received in the speech was not the "attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments". The ones who praise the speech don't praise it for that.

So, some tweaks are in order. But as K4T says, if Obama gets the nom attacks by those less inhibited than Hillary will put the Wright business front and center, and the defenders of the pro-Obama POV won't have enough thumbs to keep the dikes from leaking. I'd rather talk about the ADA ratings. Need to put some flesh on his self-identification as "progressive". Andyvphil (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The only people making a fuss about this are Hillary fans (who have conveniently forgotten how helpful Wright was to Bill Clinton) and staunch Republicans who would never vote for any Democrat. Even the electorate is bored of it, according to all the recent polls. Even McCain thinks this has blown up out of all proportion. Wright came to prominence in a time when black people were treated like sub-humans, and it is hardly surprising that he still has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about it. But regardless of his controversial comments (which I personally find either ludicrous, disgusting or both) he has done a tremendous amount of good for his community, and he has been a positive influence on Barack Obama. You guys are fixated on the tiny island of bad in a gigantic ocean of good. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[out] I'm fine with Josiah's rework of Scjessey's attempt. Tvoz |talk 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that discussion over this isn't over, but this seems like the closest we've gotten to a consensus so far. It's certainly in keeping with the description here:

a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'.

So I guess I'll put this version in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear to me that your action is not out of policy in terms of an edit to a protected page. I am hereby demurring in advance from any assertion that your version of the Wright issue is the "consensus version". The only consensus is that it is an improvement on the two sentence version. The issue that needs to be faced in Obama's biography is that 20 years ago Obama chose to join a church whose politics are shaped by a pastor with, as Obama knew at the time and as Scjessey (following Huckabee) says, a "chip on his shoulder". Obama's appeal as a national figure is predicated on his not having such a chip. Well-concealed doesn't cut it. Your version fails to make it clear that that's the issue. It is the issue. That's why Clinton's response was to say that Wright would not have remained her pastor. And it is a question about Obama's life and outlook. This is the article where it must be addressed. But it must first be named before we can gather points of view on the question in order to assemble an NPOV treatment. Your edit is still in the obstructive mode, denying by implication that the question even exists. Not good enough. Andyvphil (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK — (deep breath) — I made my edit to the protected page after leaving two days for discussion. In that time, you said "some tweaks are in order" and "I'd rather talk about the ADA ratings". I took that to indicate that although you disagreed with some details of my proposed wording, in the phrasing of WP:PRACTICAL, you "didn't agree but gave low priority to the given issue". That's why I made the change. The protection policy says "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove inappropriate material or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." I thought there was consensus on this — perhaps I was wrong, but I would appreciate it if you assumed good faith. I've got some ideas about how to proceed, which I'll add below, but I didn't want this charge of policy abuse to go unanswered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a charge of policy abuse. Reread my first sentence. I am concerned about the prospect of this article being kept in protected mode with only the most jejeune edits being allowed through to mainspace. Since the current state of the article is not NPOV, and that needs to change, a process which keeps the rate of change glacial is not neutral. It is defensive of a POV status quo. And a misuse of protected status. I read the template and understood your argument. But I'm expressing reservations. Andyvphil (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that is just nonsense, Andy. The article is currently in excellent shape, expressing a neutral point of view despite the quantity and complexity of the content. You are one of maybe 2 or 3 individuals who insist on adding bias to the article to mislead people and misrepresent the individual. You claim you are working to create a NPOV when in fact you are doing the opposite. You then attack anyone who disagrees with you, using every possible argument and trick you can think of. When none of that works, you wait for a few days for things to die down and then you do an arbitrary revert back to your biased version of whatever you want to say and restart the same arguments over and over again. I'm sorry if this seems rather personal for an article talk page, but it had to be said. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what relevant, lasting impression this "incident" has had on Obama's life as a whole (ie, the article's subject)? It hasn't cost him his popularity, it certainly hasn't cost him his campaign. To say, to insist, that this so-called controversy be covered in as much detail (you'd probably want more) than his time in the Illinois Senate is pretty outlandish. Grsz 11 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the closest to what you desire would be Kossack's attempt. That section was as long as both the sections on the 109th and 110th Congress, meaning to say it's more important to his life as a whole than those two topics. Completely unnecessary. 06:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright done for now?

Okay, with Josiah's modified version of Scjessey's proposal in the article does this close the edit war about how much content should be included about the Wright controversy in the main article for now? Obviously if new developments occur in the future more content will need to be discussed/added, but for now, is everyone at least willing to not edit war over the content in the Wright paragraph? There is another point of contention to discuss (his voting record). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the JRowe version is:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Following significant negative media coverage, Obama responded to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but declined to disown the man himself. Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments, some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.

But no, the JRowe version is insufficiently clear on what the controversy is about, and its place in Obama's biography. I propose something more like the following...

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Videos surfaced of some of Wright's sermons (in which he claimed, for example, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color" and attributed the 9/11 attacks to American faults ranging from taking the country from the Indian tribes by terror, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libya, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and supporting state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa) and Obama responded by condemning some of Wright's remarks and cutting Wright's connections to his Presidential campaign. He also delivered a speech devoted to the subject, which he sought to put it in the context of racial and other political divides in America. Although the speech was generally well-received, critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.

...and I will not be deterred from changing the current airbrushed version by bogus claims of "consensus", no matter how vigorously the pro-Obama cabal bobble their heads at each other. If you feel your POV is insufficiently represented, add some more of it. But I don't think any less detail than this is acceptable. Andyvphil (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

undue weight and WTA probelms andy, which the Jrowe version does not suffer from. better luck next time... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the undue weightlessness that's the NPOV problem in this article. Neutral editors at the FAR agree, btw. What WTA? If there's a real problem, I'll address it. If your only objection is IDONTLIKEIT, I'll discount your complaints accordingly. Andyvphil (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Andy, but the specifics of what Jeremiah Wright said are not important enough to include in this BLP of Obama. There is plenty of detail behind the blue links. As I said earlier in this conversation, we are trying to compromise to stop an edit war. Your so-called "Obama cabal/claque" (which I think is extremely disrespectful to the hordes of neutral editors who contribute, by the way) has compromised significantly by allowing negative (and even provocative) wording in the new paragraph to appease the 2 or 3 editors who agree with your point of view. Now it is time for you to compromise, and bombastic threats like "I will not be deterred from changing the current airbrushed version by bogus claims of 'consensus'" will win you no support at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright" ... What's unclear about that? Grsz 11 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The controversy isn't about the sermons. It's about Obama not walking out. Your wording is obfuscatory. And you intend it to be. And, Scjessey, the specifics of what Wright said are exactly what is necessary to idicate why Obama's not walking out is significant. Not all highly "charged" sermons rise to the level of Wright's. You just want to conceal exactly how wildly he raves. There is no compromise to be had short of some semblance of NPOV. And I am not deluded that the cabal will support that. But I can make clear that you are bereft of any real arguments. And I have. Andyvphil (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying conceal anything at all, and I resent that implication. I simply believe (and Wikipedia's own conventions back me up on this) that Wright's controversial statements belong in the Jeremiah Wright article, not in a biography of someone else. Perhaps Obama's ties with the people and community associated with his church are more significant than the particular statements Wright made that are so controversial? His church is clearly important to him, and maybe he didn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like I said before, I am an atheist who finds anything like this repugnant; however, I can see the Obama's logic and I can understand his emotional dilemma. But I cannot understand your need to conduct this crusade of negativity. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Minor correction: I would suggest changing the last instance of "Wright" (as in "some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.") to just "him", since we have already identified his name earlier in the sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to change "Wright's comments" to "the comments" in that sentence, because there's a reference to "Wright's offensive comments" in the previous sentence. But since my good faith in making what I thought were consensus-backed changes has been challenged, I'm not going to edit the article until the temperature cools. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. I knew that the two instances of the surname seemed wrong, but you have correctly identified which needs to be excised. As far as Andyvphil's comment above is concerned, I am both saddened and appalled. My own efforts to become a less confrontational and more compromise-seeking editor have been inspired in large part by what you have been doing in this group of articles recently. His challenge of your intentions and motivations is entirely unwarranted, but not entirely surprising. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, it would probably make sense to change "Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments, some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright." to "Although the speech, which attempted to explain and contextualize the comments, was generally well-received, some critics..." That would remove the objection that it wasn't the contextualization that was well-received. (Although some critics did praise the contextualization, that wasn't the sole focus of the critical praise.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible way forward?

I think that the current version of the Wright paragraph of the "presidential campaign" section gives the matter about as much weight and detail as the section can take. I specifically reject the suggestion that the details of Wright's 9/11 sermon or HIV conspiracy claims are important enough to the life story of Barack Obama to merit inclusion in his biography. Obama wasn't even in the congregation when the 9/11 sermon was made, and the suggestion that he's responsible for a specific statement that his minister said when he wasn't even there is on the face of it absurd.

However, there is a larger argument which has slightly more validity, which is that the offensive statements seen in the Wright clips were representative of an anti-American strain in the theological tradition to which Obama chose to ally himself. I don't happen to think that that strain is terribly important to Obama's life, but it's clear that Trinity United Church of Christ was important in his personal and political development, and any treatment of that should indicate (succinctly!) that the church is controversial.

Therefore, let me suggest another way to incorporate more context for the Wright controversy into the article: Either we add a sentence or two about Obama's religious journey to the "Early life and career" section, or expand the discussion of religion under "Personal life", possibly into a section of its own. The idea would be to succinctly indicate the role that Wright and Trinity played in Obama's journey to Christianity, and while doing so identify their controversial association with black theology. I'm sure that with a little research we could find a reliable source criticizing Obama and Trinity in these terms. That, together with the sections from Dreams from My Father in which Obama talks about Trinity, and this excerpt from The Audacity of Hope, could form the backbone of a (short!) section on Obama's religious views and the way they've intersected with issues of race. If we can sketch the contours of Obama's relationship with Trinity and Wright in that context, perhaps that would give enough of an indication of why some commentators are still objecting to the fact that Obama didn't end his longstanding religious affiliation.

Do we think this might be a way forward? Quoting Wright directly is simply outside the purview of a brief biography of Barack Obama. But a thumbnail sketch of Obama's religious journey, including his association with a church based on black theology, isn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach to me. In fact, it is a similar approach to that taken by Obama himself when he sought to put his relationship with Wright into context during his A More Perfect Union speech. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

also Jrowe- please remember your earlier citation of the WP policy on rough consensus. One or two obviously partisan editors do not, in any way, reduce consensus. I know you have not been watching these pages as long as some editors, but I would like to tell you that this style of consensus will be the best you can find. Certain styles of rhetoric rely on repetition of obvious falsehoods, such as that "there is no consensus for this text." Yes we hear that al the time, but it doesn't mean its automatically true. It also doesn't mean there is some rising creshendo of demands for a more NPOV treatments. I know consensus does not equate with voting- but a quick look at the numbers will show they are lopsided to say the least. And much of the debate from one camp is by "one-time" posters, so take it for what you will. I admire your efforts to accommodate minority viewpoints, and indeed agree that the minority viewpoints are often the more important ones- but in this case I am worried that we are in fact giving undue weight to a wp:fringe theory, something we need to be extremely wary of.

regarding the insertion of more TUCC info- I disagree. To me it seems that the controversy is in fact almost exclusively concerning Rev. Wright. As we all know many of the news reports do not even specify what church Obama attends, simply referring to "his pastor." Yes there is some discussion of the connection, but not nearly enough weight to make it valuable to the obama BLP. I think if any editor feels the issue has yet to reach "due weight," then they need to consider more Wright text and not TUCC text (which not only obama but most of chicago stands behind)

we would not be having this discussion if Andy's suggested Wright text had been successful. This is essentially discussion of a compromise towards him. So lets look at what he wants to add in the first place. Inflammatory words like (9/11, AIDS, terror, etc) are his goal. Notice of our combined efforts to add more Wright criticism without using such words, and how andy always shoots those down. It is not the text itself he wants, it is the inflammatory words which catch the eye and "poison the well" if you will. WP: Words to Avoid is, in fact, quite clear on this subject

"It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label"

so this is why I disagree with working towards TUCC. There is no need for it- Wright is where the media action is, not the former church, and so if CONSENSUS (not just andy and kossack) want a longer paragraph- then they can have more Wright. And regardless of what certain users claim, neutral, non-inflammatory summary of Wright's positions and activities is the RECOMMENDED way of doing it. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He makes a good point there. We are essentially bending over backwards to accommodate just 2 users. Unless are far greater number of established editors adopt the Andy/Kossack point-of-view, there really isn't any reason to change what we already have. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I.e., you think you can win an edit war, so why bother with consensus. Which, per policy, is to be determined by evaluating strength of argument, not counting noses. We'll see. I remember when mentioning that TUCC was political, Afrocentric and that Obama had distanced himself from Wright was repeatedly removed as an unacceptable smear, but facts on the ground changed.

JRowe: "Quoting Wright directly is simply outside the purview of a brief biography of Barack Obama." Not when the quotes are the issue. There are a lot of quotes in this article that throw a lot less light on Obama's bio than Wrights'. You really need to reconsider this sentence.

There is no meaningful distinction between TUCC and Wright. He was pastor for 36 years and took the operation from 87 members to 6,500 or so. He remains senior minister and his offspring, not counting the one that joined Sharpton, still do things like run the Trumpet, and he hand-picked his successor. And there is no reason to think his sermons were any less "charged" when he was younger. And there is no one else at TUCC that Obama had described having a similar connection with. JRowe, there some commentary by Linda Chavez that may be the beginning of what you're looking for.[35] But it's not a substitute for accurately conveying Wright's tenor in the remarks at issue.

72etc, WTA doesn't apply when the inflammatory nature of the remarks is the essence of their notability. This was explained to you at length, including by admin B, if I remember correctly, when he rejected your bogus claim of a BLP exemption in the process of blocking and refusing to unblock you. Martin said Obama was a Muslim, and Wright said the "government" invented AIDS. Saying that what Wright said was "racially and politically charged" doesn't communicate its significance. Andyvphil (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the top of my page says "Talk:Barack Obama"...why are we talking about quoting Jeremiah Wright again? Grsz 11 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoth Andyvphil:

There are a lot of quotes in this article that throw a lot less light on Obama's bio than Wrights'.

Please name one. I've just looked through all the quotes in the article. Every quotation is either something Obama himself said, or (in a very few cases) a quotation of a notable commentator speaking or writing about Obama. Wright's sermons were not about Obama, and Obama was not present when the most offensive snippets were uttered. In the context of the campaign, the details of what Wright said are important. But since there is no evidence that Barack Obama believes that the CIA developed the AIDS virus, or 9/11 represented America's chickens coming home to roost, the Wright comments are irrelevant to the biography of Barack Obama. As I suggested at the top of this section, an argument can be made for a balanced portrait of Barack Obama's religious life and the theology of his chosen church. (By the way, I don't know where you get the idea that anyone was trying to distinguish between Wright and Trinity UCC.) But there is no reason to include the details of Jeremiah Wright's jeremiads in Obama's biographical article, any more than there's a reason to include "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" in Hillary Clinton's. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional thought: Andy, earlier you said, "The issue that needs to be faced in Obama's biography is that 20 years ago Obama chose to join a church whose politics are shaped by a pastor with, as Obama knew at the time and as Scjessey (following Huckabee) says, a "chip on his shoulder"." and "... it is a question about Obama's life and outlook. This is the article where it must be addressed." My suggestion above was an attempt to find a way that addressed these concerns while still remaining focused on Obama himself, rather than comments made by somebody else. If the point is the politics of the church Obama chose to attend, then that's what we should be focusing on. Not something Jeremiah Wright said when Obama wasn't even present.

Your fixation on including Wright's inflammatory remarks and refusal to respond to a good-faith effort to address your concerns makes me question your good faith. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The fixation on obscuring the wildly fringe nature of Wright's remarks (currently described merely, and completely inadequately, as "racially and politically charged") again confirms that the pro-Obama cabal that censors the content of this article has forfeited any credibility to their pretense of editing in good faith. Obama himself credited Wright's attitudes to the experiences of his youth, not some onset of craziness as he approached retirement. We don't know what craziness was spoken in Obama's presence, but there's no reason at all to believe that it's a new phenomenon, or that he always restrained himself when in Obama's presence, or that Obama could be entirely unaware of what Wright said when not in his presence, over a period of 23 years. The stories about Obama retracting the invitation to Wright to make the invocation at Obama's candidacy announcement quote Wright as saying he was told the reason was that he got "a bit rough" in his sermons. Now we know what that means. But not from reading this article, if you have your way. Andyvphil (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not addressing my question. Why is a quotation of something Wright said when Obama may or may not have been present relevant to a biographical article about Barack Obama? Surely a neutrally worded description of the church's theology and style would shed more light on Obama's life and character than an inflammatory quotation which he has explicitly rejected.

You object to the characterization of Wright's sermons as "racially and politically charged". Do you have a different succinct description which reflects the characterizations used in reliable sources? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note here that andyvphil just put forth the finest argument I have yet seen from him, regarding WTA and my horrible miscomprehension of it. Its a great argument for why the Martin issue was applicable to the Obama campaign page- the inflammatory words themselves might have been the essence of their notability. And your argument is equally applicable here- as a reason why we should be summarizing wright's remarks and not regurgitating them whole cloth. The ONE instance of using ONE word, yes it was notable on the campaign page- however using a great mass of inflammatory words, regularly in sermons and elsewhere, creates such a number that to cherry pick a few examples here is far more disingenuous than to make a summarizing blanket statement.

Also, while Martin made his remarks specifically AT Obama, Wrights sermons has a much less direct connection to Obama, as they were made generally in public addresses or in press conferences, etc; and they are not statements about Obama, or mentioning Obama- again totally unlike the Martin situation. So, how sweet to misleading posit that we should ignore WTA issues because of some mythical blanket policy from a different page- but as you may remember the next admin unblocked me five minutes later, so dear andy I would hope you understand: the WTA here is still open for debate. again thanks for the misleading editing but that's why we love you. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)