Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Barrack Hussein Obama

This fake middle name has been added. Could someone get rid of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.82 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on his birth certificate, so, no. Andyvphil (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you call that a reliable source?!? </kidding> UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike Friedman (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Shouldn't his middle name be in the title? Hillary RODHAM Clinton's is in the title of her article.

Is this trolling? "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" is listed by her most common name. Just as is Obama, and every other bio'd figure on WP. LotLE×talk 07:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, though stretching the bounds of believeability, that someone, somewhere, still is unaware of Mr. Obama's middle name, and its similarity to a certain deceased former dictator might cause that person to think it a hoax. However, WP:AGF is not as elastic as all that, and can only stretch so far. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodham is Hillary's Maiden name not a middle name --Magnetawan (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Add VP search, please

The Times is reporting that the VP search is underway, headed by James A. Johnson (businessman). I added it to that page but this one is protected. Thank you. 140.247.45.7 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that would go under Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that this probably falls under WP:NOTNEWS. We would be better off avoiding the speculation and waiting until there is something encyclopedic to add. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg Craig

There was a link created from Greg Craig to Barack Obama that I verified and found false. However, there is a continual spread of news based off the link with wikipedia cited as the source. Here is the change I made for your reference. It is noted on the Obama's fact page that such link is not true. Craig is not listed as staff. Heads up about link attempt on digg. — Dzonatas 01:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hand over heart issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=214396775&oldid=214392914

This was removed by Modocc.

Restoring it...

A simple gesture for our country

Why is it Mr Obama does not put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem? It's a sign of respect. The military does the position of attention when not in uniform and salutes when in uniform, men take off their hats, and everyone else in America puts their hands over their hearts. Why not him? What makes him special that he doesn't need to do that?

67.10.177.108 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)...67.10.177.108 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a suggestion, not a general comment I take it! If there are references to this, such as a news website, then it may be a suitable addition to this article.Nanhaha (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/obama.patriotism/index.html The reporter cited the fact that Obama once failed to put his hand over his heart while singing the national anthem.

Obama replied that his choice not to put his hand on his heart is a behavior that "would disqualify about three-quarters of the people who have ever gone to a football game or baseball game."

The reporter also noted that the Illinois senator does not wear an American flag lapel pin, has met with former members of the radical anti-Vietnam War group, Weather Underground, and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23315711/ - - There's a right and wrong way to put this in Wikipedia. Wrong way is to say Obama is unpatriotic. Right way is to say that others have questioned Obama's patriotism citing his stance during the national anthem and failure to wear flag pins. Obama replied that his choice not to put his hand on his heart is a behavior that "would disqualify about three-quarters of the people who have ever gone to a football game or baseball game."

The fact that CNN and NBC covers it means it's a worthy subject about the man but that he addressed it. Obama didn't say that he forgot to hold his hand over his heart or wear a flag pin. Maybe he prefers an attention stance, not a heart salute.

A shorter version could be that News organizations, including CNN and NBC, have reported Obama's stance during the national anthem and his not wearing an American flag pin which Obama defended his actions. Sceapo (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a biographically irrelevant issue. America is supposed to be "the land of the free" where you can do anything you want, within reason. Obama can put his hand wherever he likes, and we should feel proud that we don't live in some lame-ass nation where some tin-pot dictator would decree that the offending hand should be hacked off with a machete. The nation doesn't need another politician who obsesses about flag pins and nationalist rhetoric. Thousands of Americans have been killed in Iraq, or drowned in Louisiana, or lost their lives because of poor health care. Do you think any of them would care about whether or not Obama put his hand on his heart during a song? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Note: The conversation above was originally started by IP 67.10.177.108, and presumably Sceapo is an account registered with that IP address.) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not that IP. I also disagree with the IP's injection of the military into the issue. However, if you are calling me the IP then I cannot be Nanhaha. Even if I were the IP, that is not illegal to forget to log in and write. But your disagreement should be about the content of character, not the color of skin or any other diversion. Sceapo (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... I don't know what you are talking about. Where do I mention skin color? I think you are just trolling, like the IP user was doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a forum for discussing personal views, pro or con, of Obama. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Obama shaking hands uploaded

I have uploaded a picture I took of Obama shaking hands with an impromptu crowd in Portland, Oregon as he was leaving his hotel last Saturday afternoon and going to an event. It's at Image:Barack Obama shaking hands, Portland, Oregon.jpg --Jason McHuff (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may want to upload it to WP:COMMONS and add it to the Barack Obama category there. Other than that, this article already has plenty of pictures of Obama, so not really necessary here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand and am fine with not having it in the article. I don't have a commons account or else I would consider uploading it there (I also have some diagrams in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon that could go there, too) --Jason McHuff (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright (again)

It seems that there has been another minor flare up on the content of the paragraph about Wright in the Presidential campaign section. The "consensus" version of the wording that was agreed upon last month[1] was:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. ABC News found and excerpted racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright, including his assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "state terrorism" and his assertion that, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Some of Wright's statements were widely criticized as anti-American. Following negative media coverage and a drop in the polls, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, ending his relationship with the campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected some of Wright's comments, but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine. The speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was well-received by many liberals and some conservatives, but others, including various supporters of Hillary Clinton, continued to question the implications of Obama's long relationship with Wright.

Today's little dust-up seems to be around reducing the size of the paragraph to:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. ABC News found and excerpted racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright Some of Wright's statements were widely criticized as anti-American. Following negative media coverage and a drop in the polls, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, ending his relationship with the campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

So, rather than the endless rounds of reverts that usually occurs on this article, I figured I'd start a discussion going. So, what's the reasoning behind the reduction in size? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, what you guys had reduced it to was appropriate and the right wording to keep the NPOV. However, there seems to be one person (Andy) who keeps on trying to bring it back. To me, it seems as if he is continually trying to steer the article towards this issue. It seemed as if everyone had agreed upon this, yet he continues to bring this disruptive subject back up. I think if this person keeps on reverting, subverting, or trying to insert this subject more into the article, then something need to be done. Brothejr (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the shorter version does the initial Wright "event" justice, but it may work like that if the more recent developments are also incorporated. Andy's BLT/TUCC obsession is a separate issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Brothejr, as Scjessey said, this isn't related to Andy's attempts to get BLT/TUCC included in this article, it's not even related to Andy trying to get the Wright issue into it's own section that includes Ayers. Andy just happened to be the one that returned the wording back to the "consensus" wording after User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's removal of the wording. So, is the removal of the content from the "consensus" wording a result of a shoot the messenger, or is there actually disagreement about the "consensus" wording? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Then can we start writing something here and if everyone is happy with it, then we can put it up in the article. My thinking is that we shouldn't put too much weight to this issue because it was more of a controversy surrounding his pastor and church then him. It has been his opponents that are trying to tie it to his view points. Looking from a NPOV I would say that a couple lines and a link would be all that is needed. Also, I see what you mean Scjessey and Bobblehead about Andy's obsession. Brothejr (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Beyond neutrality of tone and adequate citation, there is an issue of balance, just in the sense of length devoted to various topics. The discussion of Wright (and Ayers in some versions) was just much longer than is merited in the overall biography. I agree that the version I found was fine in tone and WP:FACT, but it only merits a brief mention in the general biography. Longer discussion can (and does) happen in the Presidential Campaign article (and the one on the More Perfect Union speech). I know that whoever was working on the article a month ago was trying to reach neutral language, but the result of looking for balance was enough "on-the-one-hand/on-the-other" stuff as to give the topic undue weight. I believe that the reduction I did keeps the neutrality of tone, and directs readers with Wikilinks to the right place to find a more fleshed out discussion.

Obviously, the Wright issues (which are, after all, something someone else said than the bio subject, and only indirectly related to the bio'd person) are more current than e.g. his law practice, or 2004 Dem primary speech, but they are not so overshadowing of a general biography as to merit the length they had a couple days ago. Moreover, there will be lots more side issues in a campaign, especially if he gets the Democratic nomination. I think it's a month later, and time to let the then-current events fade into background discussion (and make room for whatever is "the new thing" next). LotLE×talk 02:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a huge argument then compromise on this, changing it months later without consensus is not good. Andy have every right to keeo it to the consensus. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, consensus just doesn't mean what you think it does on a fast-moving subject area. If this were about William the Conquerer, a month of change doesn't mean much. In a discussion of a politician currently active in a political campaign, a month is a huge time frame. Obviously, we're not going to change his birth date or childhood discussion because of campaign changes, but "consensus" on a campaign debate issue is ancient after a month of news events (not automatically wrong, but not any "sacred text" either). LotLE×talk 05:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, i know for the sake of peace that it should at least be discussed, considering how heated it all got. Rather than altering it months later hoping no1 would notice/care/remember. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I never read this article until recently, so I have no idea of what the sides or hotness was (I can kinda guess). Nonetheless, as it stood when I read it, it definitely had a WP:Coatrack feel to it, certainly an imbalance. That said, I think the explanation I provide above for why only a short characterization of the Wright comments/controversy is appropriate to a general bio is pretty clear, so that seems like discussion to me. Convince me (or rather, the consensus of current editors of this article) that more words are needed to point users in the right direction than are in the trimmed version of the paragraph. LotLE×talk 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont need to convince you, read the previous 3/4 archives on the topic aswell as the review on wether or not this article was still worthy of a FA states. You will soon realise its not worth the stress, pain, edit wars etc etc all to cut the section by two lines. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am coming around to LotLE's way of thinking here, but only if the more recent Wright-related events are added to this shortened version. Wright's recent blow-up, and Obama's subsequent repudiation, should get a couple of lines. I'll be working on adding these a bit later (once I've shaken the cobwebs out of my head). -- Scjessey (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, lets keep all the paragraphs safe so that they dont get lost. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We certainly need to add Wright's blow-up and subsequent distancing by Obama. Enough time has passed since our last discussion to pretty much know the impact of that distancing (blunted the blow-up, added a bullet point to the narrative, but not much else). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've had a stab at adding the more recent material. Please chip in with ideas, comments, critique. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chipped an idea in.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its good, i still dont think it explains sufficiently how controversial it is though. Secondly there doesnt appear to be any mention in the article about his inability to get working class white votes. Something changed after iowa and the article doesnt explained that. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources don't characterize the "level" of controversy, so neither does the paragraph. Partly this is because some people feel it was more controversial than others, and Wikipedia cannot make its own judgment. I'm not sure what you are getting at in terms of "working class white votes" (a characterization I find rather distasteful). What has that got to do with Wright, exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They are two separate things, Scjessey. "Working class" is generally a code for people making less than $50k per year and/or with less than a college degree education. The addition of "white" is to differentiate "working class" whites from "working class" blacks that overwhelmingly vote for Obama. As for why it's not mentioned here, that's a level of detail that is more appropriate for the sub-article than it is here. Including Obama's performance in one demographic would also require us to include his performance in all demographics, ie Clinton outperforms Obama in "working class whites", "female voters", and "Hispanic voters", "etc.", but outperforms her among "educated voters", "more affluent white voters", "blacks", "liberal voters", "independent voters", "conservative voters", etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with wright it was an observation that should have had its own heading i suppose. We should at least try to give the level of controversy some context, otherwise the reader wont see the point to its inclusion. The term "White working class" is rather distasteful yes, but thats how its being described. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am completely opposed to any suggestion of additional headings to highlight perceived controversy, and I am also opposed to the inclusion of any statements that claim that Obama has an "inability to get working class white votes," particularly given that this would be (a) factually inaccurate and (b) arguably racist original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, you know full well it is controversial, we could at least mention that the media have played it so much. Im not going to go into the racism thing.... I get quite tired of this race baiting, as a person of color myself, i find it rather odd. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, dial it back a bit, man. he's talking about a new heading for the working whites on the discussion page, not in the article itself.;) Realist2, the fact that it is controversial is mentioned in the opening sentence of the paragraph and that it received negative press and was accompanied with a drop in the polls.... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I had misread the comment about the heading. I would like to add that that some people regard the events surround Wright's comments to be more controversial than others. It is not for Wikipedia to assign a value to the level of controversy. The word "controversial" is used, and links to a fully-developed article about the issue. No further characterization is necessary in the summary style of this BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Im just going to leave this lynch mob, its not worth it, dont have to put up with those sort of accusations, good day. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright is a major issue so people will come here to read about it. Clist08 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO how "Wright" should have gone down, in this WP bio of Obama:

• From the 1st, we mention how it was Wright introduced BHO to the Christianity (/Protestantism/whatever and its life within BHO's Chicago community).
• When commentatators began to chatter about Wright's tendency for indulgence some in conspiracy theories and so on, we also mention that briefly.
• And, when Hillary grandstands, blah blah, how she had long ago have disowned such a mentor and we'd suppose have quit the only congregation she'd ever belonged to if he was such a reprobate rabblerouser as Wright, we mention that (albeit more from her point of view than I just did). — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

For all the things Obama is famous for, I am not sure the fact that he has authored 2 books belongs in the first paragraph, per WP:LEAD. It is notable, but certainly ought not be there. He has many other notable accomplishments which surpass this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think an abridgment rather than an elimination of the book authorship from the lead is better. After all, it is significant enough to get its own large section in the article, so some mention in lead seems reasonable. The fact these books are best-sellers makes it seem more notable than had they been academic or special titles in narrow fields. However, listing the titles and links of the books is better left for that lower section. LotLE×talk 04:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a problems in the first few paragraphs of the lead; the book is notable, though not that notable (even how much its readers might like it). But the third sentence and first paragraph seems a bit overboard. Compare this with other major presidential candidates and presidents. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to see where else in the lead the comments would best go. "Author" is basically one of his several current jobs (along with Senator and Candidate), and listing them all together flows nicely. Hillary Clinton wrote It Takes a Village, which also was a best-seller, but that was in 1996 while Obama's books are still current sellers. Moreover, I think with a longer Senate career as well as being First Lady, she's just better known for other stuff, while Obama's book is comparatively high in his notoriety. As far as I know, McCain has not written a book. I haven't looked through all the past presidents (or past candidates). LotLE×talk 09:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayers again

Andy has reverted back to his earlier modus operandi of making tendentious edits. This time, he insists on adding details about Bill Ayers that do not belong in this biography, using unreliable sources like opinion pieces in The National Review as justification for what is essentially defamation. These details are not specifically relevant to Barack Obama, and by adding them they are not in the spirit of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV or WP:HARM. Andy requests discussion about the section on this talk page, yet does not deign to do so himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We had a nice break from the POV-pushing and the article was actually stable for a brief time but now he's back in full "flood the article and see what I can get away with" mode. It's really getting tiresome as undoing his damage requires so much work by so many editors who could be spending their time otherwise, but then I suspect that's his goal. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "request discussion of this section", I demanded that Ultraexactzz defend his substitution of "Ayers" for "former Weather Underground bomb maker" on this page. Since he didn't there was nothing for me to "deign" to respond to.

As I write the the pro-hagiographic claque has restored the following text as a supposedly complete treatment of Obama's relationship with Ayers:

In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with former radical activist Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Obviously, this is simply stupid, since it can do nothing other than puzzle the uninformed. It's stated that the relationship received scrutiny, but why would it happen? Some guy who used to be a radical, whatever that means (Tom Hayden, maybe?) once raised some money for him and later joined him on some board? It's only when you at least give some clue that Ayers is an unrepent terrorist who led a group which killed people in the course of armored car robberies and multiple bombings that you've informed your reader why Obama's blase attitude towards associating with him is controversial. And it wasn't some random fundraiser -- it was the very first time he announced he was running for any public office. You clearly want any reader who is uninformed to stay uninformed. Andyvphil (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is really stupid, Andy, since that is the word you are using, is the fact that this is an issue at all. Obama knows Ayers because they are both important civic figures in Chicago, and it would've been almost impossible for them to be not be associated unless one of them specifically went out of their way to avoid the other. Nobody ever bats an eyelid at anyone who associates with warmongering, torturing, economy-wrecking, rights-suspending, law-breaking sons of bitches like Bush and Cheney. Their acts are far more heinous than anything Bill Ayers ever did. So let's get a sense of perspective here and stop trying to make something out of nothing, which is what this is. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this material. National Review is a notabvle, reliable source, None of us agree with its conservative political perspective, but there are millions of people out there who do. And it is not the only source in Andy's version of the paragraph. The Nation, which is as progressive as National Review is conservative, is also used as a source, as well as MSNBC. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't really given any reason for inclusion here other than the fact that you like it. Why does that opinion piece need to be placed in the article? What is its reason for inclusion? Your edit made no sense whatsoever. You dropped a weasly "Some have criticized..." paragraph in the middle of an unrelated section for no reason other than you wanted something negative in there. Notability is the secondary issue. Yes the National Review is notable, but you're confusing the notability of NR itself with the notability of that particular opinion piece to this article. I'm glad, at least, that you're actually discussing it instead of continuing to falsely claim in the edit summary that you already have consensus for adding it, but I really see no reason to include it and no valid argument to do so has been made. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are honestly dumb enough to believe that Obama has no relationship with William Ayers, then there is no point in trying to convince you - you won't understand the argument. Seriously, you as an Obama appologist and left-wing-liberal are making for this article to descend into gibberish, and you should consider taking a step back, as I did over the last few weeks, barely contributing to this at all.-- Fovean Author (talk) 1:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask a question to these three editors: Fovean Author, Kossack4Truth, and Andyvphil Why are you three obsessed over Bill Ayers? Isn't it enough that there is a separate page just on the man, but yet you three seem to need to include wording that is blatantly POV. In any other article in wikipedia, a link to the man's name would be enough, but because Obama is a presidential candidate you need to turn this link into some kind of political statement. As I mentoned above, what is your obsession with Bill Ayers? Brothejr (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's lotsa convincing arguments not to mention Ayers name in this article AT ALL, HOWEVER, once contributors pass the threshold by deciding to mention him, we've gotta splain why he's of note. So that if a theoretic candidate had Patricia Soltysik as her Brownie leader, who'd tried to convince her to write as a theme in elementary school, "Why Student ID is Fascist," (lol) maybe "radical" as a descriptor wouldn't quite be explanatory enough, but if she'd been babysat by Mary Travers (and her first words had been "puff dragon"... ) maybe it WOULD be. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just glanced at the arguments here and read through Andy's text and yes, it would be better a bit shorter and slightly reworked, if Ayers is to be included. But actually, for us to get too involved in arguing whether Ayer's minor association with Obama "means" anything is outside of our perview. We should encapsulate what each factions is saying. ("Militant lover!" and "You guys are mud slingin' bogus charges here!") — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph that describes Ayers as a Weather Underground member. Nothing at all libelous about that. Since there has been zero effort to remove negative information about other people who are Obama's political rivals, there's no excuse to revert negative material about other people who are Obama's close friends and political allies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it really too much to expect the editors on this page to discuss things civilly? In reading the above comments I see several instances of editors questioning the intelligence of other editors and several accusations of disagreeing parties being fanboys/haters of Obama. Please try and discus the content and not fling accusations/personal attacks at each other. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Ayers blogged last month, "I've never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it." — Justmeherenow</spanstyle> (   ) 17:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attacks. The cited source refers to him as a "former" radical activist (in reference to his Weatherman days). I consider his politics to be rather extreme, even radical, by modern American standards, but that's not what is meant by the "radical" label. It refers solely to his past. As for your description of Ayers, the POV was a bit over the top and unsupported by any sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

This section does not seem to have much information about negative aspects of his image. For example, there's nothing about the elitist image (e.g. allegedly conveyed by his remarks about Pennsylvanians who cling to their religion and guns), or about his purported reliance on empty rhetoric (e.g. platitudes and slogans). I could find some reliable sources for this kind of stuff, but would it be welcome here? We ought to try to present a neutral balance, rather than just positive stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem with including negative views of him like the whole elitist thing in this section. While I think that particular criticism is beyond absurd given his background and that it's just a repeat of an attack on Kerry, I do think it would fit in the section because it did get considerable play from conservative columnists/journalists after the whole "bitter" comment. The platitudes criticism you're talking about has also been a pretty frequent one. I know I've seen something to that effect mentioned by a few columnists, as well as both his main rivals, Hillary and McCain.

I think we'll have to make sure to fit it in well into the existing prose though, probably would go after or replace the Senate clubbiness bit. I'm guessing it would look something like: Obama has been criticized (or is viewed) by some as elitist. Columnist A said, "quote". He's also been criticized by many conservatives for his speeches being rife with slogans and "empty rhetoric".[1][2][3][etc] --Ubiq (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What Ubiq said. — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. If I get a chance over the next few days, I'll see if I can come up with some decent sources. It's so nice and sunny outside, though.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not against a very concise mention of some of this, if it can be done in the right way. I confess, for example, that (off Wikipedia), I frequently joke/comment on my perception of Obama's vacuity in his speeches. (The Onion had a great bit on Obama's slogan "He supports both hopes and dreams"). But the jokes I make to my friends are hardly WP material. It's very easy to give undue weight to criticism of bio figures, out of a misguided notion of "balance" (sometimes similarly for praise of a biography topic, but far less often in my experience).

I would strongly oppose including any direct quotes, especially block quotes, since they almost instantly venture into WP:UNDUE weight (the point isn't specifically that Joe Blow of Washington Times wrote some specific words... it needs to be "widespread belief"). And I would also strongly oppose more than a sentence each on two or three common criticisms. However, if next to the Senate clubbiness bit, there was a sentence that said, "Commentators have frequently criticized his speeches as containing empty rhetoric" (with two very good non-partisan citations). Or likewise on the "elitist" thing (which seems silly to me, but same standard if cited). LotLE×talk 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit inconsistent in your opinion on this. On the John McCain article, which you edit very well and have done a very good job defending against vandalism and tendentious editing, you have repeatedly argued (correctly, I believe) that these sort of attacks and "inflated issues" should be mentioned only in the sub-articles if at all, but not in the biography. Why not apply the same reasoning here? Do you really feel that opinion pieces about Obama's elitist image and arugula are worthy of inclusion in a biographical article such as this? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey calls other editors tendentious. Then Loonymonkey then removes sourced content (in order, as Loony states, to restore "former" to the "radical activist" as applied to Ayers---- who's called an unrepenatant terrorist in a hundred sources). Alas, Loony could use some of Ayers' own self-awareness.

Fugitive Days does have moments of self-mockery, for instance when Mr. Ayers describes watching Underground, Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary about the Weathermen. He was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,' he writes. 'The rigidity and the narcissism.'"----THE NEW YORK TIMES (Sept. 11, 2001) — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attacks and I have no idea why you keep posted this in the wrong section (we have topic headers for a reason). The cited source refers to him as a "former" radical activist (in reference to his Weatherman days). I consider his politics to be rather extreme, even radical, by modern American standards, but that's not what is meant by the "radical" label. It refers solely to his past. As for your description of Ayers, the POV was a bit over the top and unsupported by any sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, I'm not sure what the word "arugula" refers to. Anyway, I am trying to apply the same reasoning here that has been applied at the McCain article. The corresponding section of the McCain article discusses his admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks, and also his image as an old guy who looks like "Frankenstein." That section discusses McCain's acknowledgement about being impatient, and mentions that he has been prone to tasteless and offensive jokes that were not even fit to print in newspapers. The corresponding section of the McCain article also says that he's prickly and hot-tempered with Senate colleagues, and that he has employed both profanity and shouting on occasion. The corresponding section in the McCain article even quotes Senator Thad Cochran as saying: "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." And, the corresponding section in the McCain article mentions that his father was an alchoholic, and that his current wife was addicted to painkillers. In contrast, this section of the Obama article has the following negative material: 0.

I haven't yet looked for sources that discuss Obama's alleged "elitist" image, or his alleged use of empty rhetoric, so I can't yet say whether it's worthy of inclusion here, but I very much suspect that there are plenty of reliable and notable sources on those subjects. As I mentioned above, we ought to try to present a neutral balance that reflects what's out there in the real world, rather than just positive stuff. Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between some self-acknowledged personality trait (such as "impatience" or profanity which are mentioned in McCain's article) and a larger political criticism about the candidate and their platforms ("purported reliance on empty rhetoric (e.g. platitudes and slogans)" as you put it). Would you support including editorial opinion that criticizes McCain for being a "flip-flopper with inconsistent positions?" Probably not, and I wouldn't either. How would this be any different? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

1. A successful propoganda campaign labelling a candidate as a serial flip-flopper: possibly notable (depending... )
2. Concisely documenting criticisms of inconsistency on some specific issue: perhaps notable (again, depending... )
3. Regarding fear that through WP's giving encylopedic coverage to #2 it might abet #1: WP doesn't edit fearful of how assertions affect points of view; instead it edits neutrally, fearlessly! — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would say anything about Obama's platform if this section of the Wikipedia article were to say that (according to source X) he often includes sentences in his speeches that are more motivational than informative, or that some of his remarks suggest (according to source Y) an elitist attitude.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The true meaning of tendentious

The existing source's lede described Weathermen as Leninist bombers and in a paragraph further on down it terms Ayers an admitted American terrorist. Then to be on the safe side, I add the famous Sept. 11, 2001 NYT piece that quotes Ayers' own vebiage about how the group were decending into a "whirlpool" of, yes, violence. Then Loonymonkey implies an edit I make is the disruptive one (one that more encyclopedically terms Ayers a one-time violent militant rather than simply a former radical "activist"----you know...sorta like Ghandi?)...but which edit Loonymonkey somehow asserts to be "unsupported." — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not tendentious, Loonymonkey and Lulu were correct to object to the removal of "former" given that MSNBC source characterized Ayers as such. Thanks for removing the redundancy, and its more balance now. Modocc (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten-den-tious. adj. not editing towards encyclopedic content but towards a partisan point of view. Lulu's edit was tendentious when she replaced

Obama's association with university professor Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign due to Ayer's one-time violent militancy.

----with

Obama's association with former radical activist Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

----with the explanation that that "violent militancy" doesn't occur in the citation given (viz., an 11 Sep 2001 piece in the NYT, which citation she also deleted). Of course if such a complaint were valid all of Wikipedia would need be scrapped since word-for-word plagiarism remains invalid. — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Get off your soapbox and stop posting this repeatedly in different sections. Your edits were clearly POV. When you accuse anyone who reverts your edits of tendentious editing and vandalism, you insult them needlessly while indicating that you don't really understand either of those terms. "Tendentious," in wikipedia terms refers to, well, your editing style. You really should re-read that page with a little self-reflection. In particular, note these Characteristics of problem editors:

You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others.

Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine.

You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.

Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all—to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as being a dick.

You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts”.

This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the Talk page in the first instance.

You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.

Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.

Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.

The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources.

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.

If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force it. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.

There isn't much more to say on this subject. If you feel the need to respond, do so here, but please don't create new sections on this or other talk pages to try to continue the same argument endlessly and don't leave long rambling diatribes on my talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet my sincere impression of your style is thay you tend to strike disharmonious chords by labeling other editors The Enemy then jump on any ad hoc rationales you can in order to obstruct their positive contributions to WP (eg such broad generalizations as in your lengthy soapbox-in-Hyde-Park-London remarks above) without actually examining actual specifics. If you sincerely believe this characterization can't possibly apply to you, don't worry about it. My contributing style? Let's see: I changed activism for militancy; somebody claimed I hadn't sourced this but I noted I had and so reverted their revert; but after I again was reverted (under the rationale that a change to of characterization of "militancy" was original research) I brought the question to Talk. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP policy superceded "consensus"

This posturing nonsense about Ryan, Hull etc. is really stale. I have no idea how those pejoratives got into the article (it was before I ever read it), but as soon as I noticed the unnecessary and irrelevant negative descriptions of them in the article, I removed those. If there's some other unnecessary digression into some "opponent" of Obama's in this article, I will immediately remove it; all the editors trying to insert extraneous soapboxing about figures other than this bio topic might do well instead to spend their time similarly removing non-relevant material.

It really doesn't matter what fantasies a few editors have about a consensus in their hatred of the bio subject. Here at WP, the rule is WP:BLP, and we don't violate it because "readers need to know" some allegedly unsavory association of the bio subject. (well, also WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, and a few other rules that they find inconvenient). LotLE×talk 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The claims of "consensus" are generally not true anyway. There are three or four very prolific, very vocal editors who work tirelessly to inject anti-Obama POV into the article and then claim "consensus" because they agree with each other. That's not consensus, it's not even a majority. It's just the noise of a few people (assuming they're all separate people) with an ax to grind. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Siblings

I don't think my trimmed version of Obama's siblings is too much for a general bio. The longer version that listed all the names, and trivia about each was definitely over-long, but I don't think this is:

Obama has eight half-siblings; he only grew up with the daughter his mother had with her second husband. Obama's father had six other children, one lived in Kenya, one lives in China, the remainder live or lived in Britain and the United States.

I'll agree that the about.com link is no strong, but the others look fine to me. LotLE×talk 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, from Hillary Rodham Clinton: She has two younger brothers, Hugh and Tony. From John McCain: His family (including his older sister Sandy and younger brother Joe)[2] followed his father to various naval postings in the United States and the Pacific. Those seem about in line with the above possible Obama paragraph (the greater number of siblings, and half-sibling status probably takes a few more words to state). LotLE×talk 03:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem with that information is that it describes details specific to Obama's father, rather than Obama himself - especially information about where they all live. It would be one thing if they were actually siblings, rather than "half-siblings" (which for some reason, makes me thing of the "halflings" in Lord of the Rings). Wouldn't Barack Obama, Sr. be a more appropriate location? -- Scjessey (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A half-sibling went missing in all that. :-) How about simply:

Obama grew up with his half-sister Maya Kassandra Soetoro, the daughter his mother had with her second husband.

Since the inclusion of his close sister is certainly important to his biography. Still, its possible (?) that his other half-siblings are important too, for blood can compel closer relations, at least with some family gatherings, so we might go with a longer version, either now or later:

Obama grew up with his half-sister Maya Kassandra Soetoro, the daughter his mother had with her second husband. Obama also has seven other half-siblings; his father had six other sons and one daughter.

Sourced of course. Modocc (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this version is excellent. Doesn't belabor the matter, but doesn't omit any mention of siblings (i.e. same as with Clinton and McCain's articles... and presumably other public figures, but I haven't checked others so much). Having an actual wikilink to the sister he actually grew up with is helpful as well. LotLE×talk 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Noting religion

So the question: how to indicate Obama's religion in the infobox?

My opinion is that only denomination should be listed. This is the usage in place for the articles on Nixon, Ford, Carter, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB, for example. I didn't go back farther in presidents, and I don't have a good survey on other politicians than presidents. However, I found it striking that there was no variation in the way the last six presidents are listed (obviously, different denominations, but no formal difference in what is presented).

Moreover, the exact characterization of a particular denomination is more detail than can be contained in an infobox. For example, various denominations are claimed to be Christian (or Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever) by some folks, while other folks think that denomination is outside the purview of the larger category. Some of this issue arose in the back and forth of changing the broad category for United Church of Christ between Christian and Protestant. I don't think the editors had this matter in mind, but there is quite a bit of theological contention (in various circles) over whether Catholics or Protestants (or both, or neither) are "really" Christians. Along the same lines, where do Mormons, or Unitarians, or Branch Davidians, etc. fall in those broader categories? (I'm not trying to argue a position, I just know that there are differing ones).

Rather than stake some theological position on what denomination is really in some broad category, let's just let readers follow the link to the denomination (which is what some figure concretely belongs to), and read about any such issues in that relevant full article. LotLE×talk 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(identity)#Self-identification here. Whatever Obama states his religion is what matters most. It might be that only his wife is more in tuned with the church doctrine, but perhaps not. For many reasons, the church he has attended is not by itself a testament to his religion. Rather than make a presumptive error or speculate we need to follow policy. If he has said he is a Protestant, then that would be fine. If he says he is a "United Church of Christ Christian" it would make sense to use only that denomination. To my knowledge, he has self-identified as a Christian and we should go with that. I am pretty sure that whatever is placed in other biographies is irrelevant to the applicable policy. The recent solution of bracketing the denomination is unsatisfactory (redundancy and lack of clarity), so the box needs optional fields to display "Church" and/or "Religion". Modocc (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Modocc (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

More evidence along the same lines: Richard Durbin, senior Senator from IL has listed denomination-only; Peter Fitzgerald, Obama's Senate predecessor has denomination-only; Fitzgerald's predecessor, Carol Moseley Braun has denomination-only. I think this is a pretty strong and consistent pattern to how religion is listed (always as "religion", never as "church"). LotLE×talk 01:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that what is typically meant by "religion" by well-intentioned editors is "church affiliation". Politicians are noted for adhering to their affiliations, but if religion was put on a similar box for all non-politicians, my point would be made more clear, because counter-examples would be more forthcoming. Modocc (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, what your claiming is that we should follow a different rule on this article than on all the other politician articles because... well, non-politicians might be listed differently?! Actually, I can't really think of any bios on non-politicians that list religious affiliation at all (well, except for people who are notable as clergy, founders of religion, and stuff like that). This seems like a bad pattern to follow; it would be one thing if there was an obvious split in what other articles did, but in fact they all seem to use the simple denomination-only form. LotLE×talk 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a tendency to "look at what the others have done" and create a de facto rule. By your own reasoning too! This "rule" probably got started along time ago and has not stopped. Still, we have a conflicting policy that says to use self-identifiers that the biographical subject uses and I doubt many editors want to wade into a thorny issue to figure out what the self-identifier(s) are. Yet, the policy I have brought up couldn't be more clear. Thus, to reconcile past mistakes, perhaps there needs to be a project discussion to change most of the religion fields to "Church Affiliation" "Church" -affiliation- with "Religion" -belief- as an option. Modocc (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what rule you think you brought up. Self-identifiers are by no means consistent; I'm sure Obama has said at different times "I belong to United Church of Christ", "I am a Christian" and "I am a Protestant". Picking and choosing whichever one you think sounds like is just a subjective accident... I assume that all the editors on every other politician article avoided this for exactly this reason, settling for the much more direct and verifiable denomination-only approach. LotLE×talk 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement on the sound reasoning of the editors, Religion (belief) is actually avoided. For instance, how many politicians say I'm a "name-of-church christian"? They don't. When pressed they typically say "I'm a Christian". In other words, their expressions tend to be nondenominational, but their affiliations are denominational. Thus, what is being asserted by the info box "Religion" field is denomination affiliation not expressed religious belief. Of course, if any and all expressed nondenominational rhetoric becomes used or preferred the religion field becomes virtually useless. However, "Church" -affiliation- is more appropriate and for some "Religion" -belief- is (for those that are unaffiliated). I think an affiliation label would explicitly help both readers and editors. Modocc (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Vice Presidential Canidates

Honestly, I think it's too early to put a list of VP canidates page considoring he has yet to secure the nomination, ughhh.. perhaps they should wait until we find out what the DNC plans to do with Florida and Michigan(WE WE'RE ROBBED!)... so.. yeah. It is quite possible Hillary can get more delegates after May 31st if they deciede to count our votes! Well, anyways, that is just me but.. you know ;) CIAO! --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This idiot is going to give away the general election to McCain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.171.79 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia as a discussion forum. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From an article standpoint, any encyclopedic material about the search for and choice of a Vice Presidential Candidate should probably go to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a section on possible VP nominees would be a good thing in the campaign articles for each candidate. This is something people will be looking to WP for info on. The choices have to be cited possibilities of course, not just our suggestions. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, even on the campaign article it gets into crystal ball and WP:NOTNEWS issues. Substituting the speculation of others for our own, doesn't change the fact that it's still just speculation. Considering that any such section will be moot and need to be removed in a month or two, we should probably just leave it alone. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama ignoring gay media

Throughout his campaign he has ignored the gay media. None of the twelve member newspapers of the National Gay Newspaper Guild had been granted an interview with Obama, even though all of them had asked. He has only recently talked to a few gay media sources, and even then has been reluctant. And you’ll notice that he only started talking to gay news sources after he has been called out for not doing so by the Philadelphia Gay News in Pennsylvania. They have an article about it. Why is this not included here or in his positions? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that he stated some of his positions (no pun intended) with respect to LBGT issues during the Hardball College Tour. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think obamas position is quite clear from the link scjessey just gave, i suggest it is added to the article if not already. I would also advise Quirky to remain civil. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

His views with respect to LBGT issues are given coverage at Political positions of Barack Obama#LGBT issues, although probably a little inadequately. Personally, I don't think his positions are outside the mainstream enough to warrant a specific mention in his BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah your right, i was expecting him to lean slightly more to the left on that issue though. Still its nohing worth discussing. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people ignore the gay media so it is hard to write about. It's also hard to write about what people didn't do. Easier to write about what they did do, even if it was a gaff. Clist08 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

he just doesnt want it to sink his campaign, he might address them after and if he becomes president tho, just be patient —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.47.71 (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort of the way John F. Kennedy acted when confronted with the civil rights movement. Luckily Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't have enough patience.--142.150.48.194 (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama rallies 75,000 in Portland, Oregon

Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the article? I mean, it is likely the second largest political rally in American history, and by far the largest for any primary. Just some thoughts anyways. --75.175.75.207 (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, remember a large amount of them were just there for a music concert, and he was a side-note for them. It would be a bit of a misrepresentation. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the [Decemberists] drew that crowd is poorly founded. Here's an article debunking the "big Portland crowd didn't come for Obama" meme: [2]Katsam (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The presidential campaign is (and justifiably) too short to allow it now. There is already a note at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also notice that whatever the relative draw of Obama's speech and the concert accompanying it, 75k is by no means the "largest political rally in American history". It's not in the top ten, and quite possibly not in the top 100, just in terms of number of attendees. Many famous events (e.g. the March on Washington with MLK, or numerous Vietnam-era anti-war rallies, or 1930s labor marches, or V-E day rallies, etc. have attracted an order of magnitude more participants, historically). It might be the largest in the current Democratic Primary campaign, but still hardly ascends to great significance in the general biography. LotLE×talk 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have researched election rallies, and it would appear that the Portland Obama rally of May 18th, 2008 is probably the largest primary presidential election rally in US history. The Decemberists were part of the rally, and Obama was the main attraction. The point that matters is that 75,000 attended the rally and heard his speech. Anti-war protests, and marches are an entirely different matter. --75.175.57.16 (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Name origins

I added the detail that Barack Hussein Obama Sr's middle name is after Barack's grandfather, which was flip-of-the-wrist deleted with the explanation (or, at least, this is what was in deletionist's edit summary) that my edit had been an attack on Barack. Oops, apparently this deletion was an accident. Sorry (thanks). — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This bit on family names is just too far afield for inclusion in the main biography. Apparently, both mom and dad got names from their own parents ('Stanley' for mom, 'Hussein' for dad). That seems true enough, and not hard to cite, but it's also pretty irrelevant to a main biography (probably fine for biographies of parents themselves, or maybe in "early-life" sub-article). I'm not sure if the digression on the "Hussein" middle name is meant to try to insinuate some religious or ethnic angle.

Yes, Hussein is a name of Arabic origin, and the name of a famous dictator... it's also the name of millions of non-Arab, non-political people in the world. And similarly, Adolph L. Reed, Jr. is an academic who is neither German nor has anything to do with another famous dictator (I assume his "Jr." means his dad had the same name, also). Let's not vaguely allude to non-connections. LotLE×talk 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if Barack's middle name was Stanley (or even Ann), it would be of note that he had been named after his mom. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lulu: Also Queen Noor's late husband. But while the vast majority of encycopedia readers know that Hussein is Arabic, some may come to Wikipedia to find a concise explanation of how Obama got this name. But editors who think in all instances the reading public has to be "lead," I personally believe are contributing in the wrong venue. (Maybe The Weekly Reader has some openings. Joke.) But, seriously now, when you substantively mentioned in your edit summary only something about "residence" and "secular" yet took out a phrase that didn't mention either, how in the world am I to conclude you are editing soberly, let alone in good faith? — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I mentioned, there are lots of Hussein's in the world. Was it Obama's grandfather's first name, or a middle/last name there? (not that it matters, I'm just curious). While name origins are interesting bits of trivia, I just don't see them as important enough for main biography in most cases. We had that funny dust-up where one sockpuppet editor thought it was urgent to let readers know that Obama's mom's dad was named Stanley, which seems equally far afield. And I also don't think it's important enough for main bio to let readers know that 'Barack' is a name of Hebrew origin (probably some great, great, great- something of his was Jewish; or so I'd guess). So what.

I apologize for my incorrect edit summary, as I did on my own talk page. I was looking through edits one by one, and failed to notice that a more recent one had removed the "secular and from Nairobi" part. LotLE×talk 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. (As for BHO's grandfather, a source I trust (to wit, Wikipedia, lol) says he adopted Hussein as his first name upon his [apparently nominal] conversion to Islam from Christianity----but then he sent his own son (Barack's dad) to a Christian missionary school. Barack, an Arabic word that has entered Swahili as barak(a), is cognate to the Hebrew beracha and means "a blessing." And Barack once told reporters his given name in Swahili means "blessed of God." [Incidentally, McCain's given name "John," is ultimately from the Hebrew for something like "graced by God," too. It's speculated by at least some scholars that John (Yochanan) had been an honorific during New Testament times for such individuals as John the Baptist and John the Beloved to signify those who were "favored in the ways of God"----much as religious teachers in recent times earn honorifcs, such as in Ghandi's case Mahatma meaning "Great Soul," etc.(?)]) — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Any word-origin on "Hillary"? If you can find something similar, we can be guaranteed that God will be on the side of the next president... well, I guess you'd have to work on "Ralph" too, just to be safe :-). LotLE×talk 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(From here): Ralph: "fame wolf" (Germanic). Hillary: "cheerful" (Latin from Greek. But could have alternate etymology from a Germanic word meaning "protector," too.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Hillary" comes from the Slavic hill-hairy, meaning "courage in the face of sniper fire." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This pleasant chitchat aside, I now assume that the provenance of Obama's middle name is only too obviously encyclopedically of note (noting widespread curiosity about this aspect of our subject), so I propose the same compromised with you, Lulu, that Moddoc accepted, to wit our adding the detail that BHO's middle name is after his grandpa but exclude the perhaps less notable detail about (Onyango's) religion/place of residence. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree if his name was not "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.". The "Jr." part gives the full fact that he is named directly after his father. So the question turns to "why was his father named such?"... but at that point, we're a step too far from this biography (put it in dad's article, definitely).

If contrary to fact, it were that case that: "Barack Stanley Obama is the son of Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama". It might be notable enough to add "His middle name Stanley is his mother's birth first name". Or likewise, if dad was named "Barack Ali Obama" instead, and the Hussein came from granddad, that might be notable. However, the "Jr." really just closes that avenue by reaching too far into other people's bios. LotLE×talk 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, now your "anti" argument is now much more cogent. (Than the one before, essentially that any discussion of Barack's middle name is POV. That is, taking text substantially unchallenged as to neutrality and removing it towards the furtherance of an editorial slant, would itself be pov) — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All that said, if one other editor agrees with Justmeherenow that a clause mentioning grandad's name (minus religion and city of residence) is really helpful, I won't delete it again. LotLE×talk 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Was Ayers militant?

One editor after another defensively edits toward pov when they see the former actions of Bill Ayers when he was a Weatherman Underground bomber, distinctly described as violent militancy instead of by an expression such as radical activism that could just as accurately apply to someone who had been an advocate of passive resistance.

• One footnote goes to a source whose lede says Ayers had belonged to a Leninist group of bombers and in a further paragraph down describes him as an admitted American terrorist.
• An additional source quotes Ayers himself describing the Weatherman Underground as descending into a whirlwind of violence; and, while they are at it, these editors also remove this added source. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography about Barack Obama. How is the "militancy" of Bill Ayers of any importance to this article. Surely this should be discussed at Talk:Bill Ayers? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When we're worried about WP:BLP, wording matters. Calling someone violent is libelous if not properly cited (and it's not). Ayers is not identical to other members of Weatherman, no matter how much some editors would find it convenient to lump everything together in a big insinuation stew. The word "militant" does occur in the NYC source describing Ayers directly (while other people are described as committing violence in the source). While it would read slightly worse, I believe that the following would at least be consistent with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:V:

Obama's association with university professor Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's presidential campaign due to Ayer's one-time militancy

Of course, uglier language is still uglier, but at least that wouldn't be a per-se rules violation. LotLE×talk 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I was going to suggest the same. Modocc (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all the sources, Justmeherenow, but I cannot see the relevancy. I can provided a bunch of sources that say Boeing builds airplanes, but that wouldn't be relevant in a biography about Barack Obama either. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a general guideline that you should use the label the individual uses for himself; other labeling should be sourced and identified as an opinion. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(identity)#Self-identification. So, how does he currently identify himself? Life.temp (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bill Ayers long ago settled into a life of quiet respectability as[...]a much-published activist for better schools[...but an] unquiet past as a leader of the violent Weathermen[.... ...] He has never apologized for his violent past.--THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE (17Apr2008)
• "I was a revolutionary anarcho-communist, intent on overthrowing the government, a worthy if immodest goal."----FUGITIVE DAYS: A MEMOIR — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  (27Jun2003): [...] I chose to build a capacity to survive what I thougt was an impending American facism---the imperial project was already visiting a facist-like state of affairs in Indochina,Africa,parts of Latin America as well as the ghettos of our cites---to resist,make the cost of empire higher,fight back,and,yes,a bit immodestly,make a reolution that could prevent future wars,bring about racial and economic justice,restore some balance to the world.I was determined,despairing sometimes,hopeful other times,and a bit over the top....But then,who had it figured out right?And have that person write and tell us what to do now in this gathering darkness... [... ...] (29Jun2003): [...] There is work to be done,work that involves remaking ourselves and our culture in order to free the planet.....The questions we face are huge ehical and political and strategic questions,not little tactical ones.But I must object to a definition of terrorism that is both too large and too small.The use of violence by a non-govt.group....both lets the main perpetrators of terror thruout history off the hook,and conflates the actions of Bin Laden with the Berrigans,the Brownshirts with John Brown and Nat Turner,the Klan with the African National Congress.A firmer definition,which applies to all groups,is the killing of innocents to achieve a political end.We still have to figure out the question of a just cause,but terrorism is never really defensible,and in my book I try to show a group of young people flirting with the idea of answering official terror with a terror of our own,never pulling it off and finally renouncing it as an option....----BILL AYERS (from The Well, a Salon.com community) — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ayers[was ...]a leader of the Weather Underground[...]clandestine organization[...--]a rabble-rouser and a saboteur.----JOHAH RASKIN (likewise a professor, who the NYT termed a "courier for the Weather Underground" and who has asserted he "knew most of [its] members";from a bookreview in the 13-19Sep2001 Northern California Bohemian) — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is how he is labeled (he is identified as a 60's activist and radical in the lede of his article), because Justmeherenow and others would like to insert a description of his acts, nevertheless encapsulating the proposed description as opinion would be required by WP:NPOV. I agree with Lulu that the labeling of his acts as violent would need sourcing. Also, given the different POVs and usages of "violent", their inclusion to maintain NPOV would digress into a coatrack here. Modocc (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this discussion relevant to the Barack Obama article? The description of Bill Ayers is covered in the Bill Ayers article, where it belongs. (fwiw, Ayers has described himself in any number of ways, so choosing one is problematic.) The description of the Weathermen organization is covered in their article, where it belongs. The so-called 'connection' between Obama and Ayers is covered in that article, where it belongs. This labeling and libeling is getting way out of hand. This is an encyclopedia, not a red-top tabloid hot off the presses. Our goal is not to inflame our readers, but to educate them. Please keep this in mind. Flatterworld (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld is right, of course. All these quotes from Ayers show that he is a fairly interesting person, with a range of opinions that seem both nuanced, and that evolved over time (about violence and about other things). All of that might be of some relevance if this discussion were happening at Talk:Bill Ayers. It's not though... none of the hair-splitting over what Ayers really believed and when he really believed it has not a whit of relevance to this article on Obama. What is relevant continues to be WP:BLP, contentious pejoratives have no place here. LotLE×talk 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ayers is a militant. He is an unrepentant former terrorist. It is neither a violation of WP:BLP, nor irrelevant to Obama's Wikipedia biography, to briefly mention that fact in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. It would also go against WP:COAT, WP:HARM and WP:CON. Adding it would go against WP:DIS and make editors ask you to visit WP:DBAD. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention he was a militant is appropriate. Ad nauseum: the former saboteur's wife, friends, own autohagiography, and gajillion other sources all say Ayers turned from Socialist activism in the SDS to being a fugitive----until the federal charges were dropped----and an Anarchocommunist militant in the WUO (which the Chicago Sun-Times has said "the FBI labeled as a 'domestic terrorist group'"). — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong article for discussing Bill Ayers. Please take this to Talk:Bill Ayers instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

---

• Concur with militant, while willing to go without shading it as violently----which could be construed to imply intention to harm people.

I duly note Flatterworld's and Scjessey's quasi-WP:forum shopping and their declining to respond to this RfC's basic question (along with their seeming preference to refer us to whatever descriptors are used for Ayers in his own WP bio), nonetheless, I believe this RfC is appropriate in this forum. And in order to bring this article in line with WP:SUMMARY's guidelines (to summarize within brief mention of a subject in one article, such as this one, the material given in more detail in another, such as the Bill Avery article), I concur with the remainder of commenters who do address this RfC's basic question to-date and observe our WP:consensus thus far is to change the article's text from indentifying Ayers as a former activist to more correctly identifying him as a former militant.

To everyone who has or will give your input, thanks. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayer's own article (as you know) uses the terms "radical" and "activist" in its lead. The word "militant" occurs nowhere in his own article. I do not believe "militant" to be pejorative, but unless or until Bill Ayers mentions that term in its lead, using that as the single adjective here is WP:OR. LotLE×talk 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lulu. Notice however that the guidelines say anything contoversial must be sourced independently; ya can't just point to a related article (ie, Wikipedia itself can't be used as a source). So, in order to satisfy sourcing guidelines for OUR article, we'd indeed put in a footnote an excellent source for the word's usage. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a completely bogus "RFC" No pejorative characterization of Bill Ayers, sourced or otherwise, has a place in this biography. There is no consensus for using the term "militant", and I would certainly not give my consent to do so. Details about Bill Ayers that are unrelated to Obama are not relevant. The only relevant details are (a) the fact that Ayers has held a fundraiser for Obama, and (b) at one point, they served on the Woods Fund together. Any attempt to use guilt-by-association by shoehorning unrelated details about Ayers into the article will be strenuously objected to, and probably reverted without delay. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, your belief that WP:BLP gives a blanket guideline discouraging any encylopedic content regarding a political subject that would be possibly construable as negative maybe shows you're not a good fit on this site. Maybe over at the wiki on some partisan site (where I'm sure its guideline WikiPartisanopedia:hagiography of a living person is written that way! ;^). — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's very witty. Fortunately, my understanding of WP:BLP appears to eclipse yours. Again, I find myself forced to quote from it:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'."

"[Content] should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."

By talking about the events of Ayers' distant past, which have nothing to do with Obama whatsoever, you are not following the policies outlined in WP:BLP. Obama's association with Ayers is based on the latter's role as a civic leader and a member of a philanthropist organization, and not because of events that took place 40 years ago. The policy is quite clear on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, consider the relevant section of WP:BLP:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

From Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, subsection titled: "Well-known public figures" Noroton (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that refers to the subject of the article, rather than other people that may be mentioned within the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not matter. Bill Ayers is a well-known public figure and has been for decades. Nor does the policy only apply within the Bill Ayers article: BLP applies on any page in Wikipedia: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. (third regular paragraph, top section, WP:BLP) Noroton (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It does matter. It does not cover biographical details within the BLPs of other people. That's what blue links are for! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "detail" that there is a controversy about the Obama-Ayers relationship. That's what's known as an important, relevant fact about Obama. Blue links do not absolve us of the responsibility of giving a short summary of what the controversy is about the Obama-Ayers relationship. Blue links are for further information. Prose is the way we present the important information. The points I make just below also apply to your comments. We are required to present a summary of the important information on Obama. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the controversy about Ayers is worth mentioning in the article about Obama. Not if we're going to be neutral.Noroton (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with telling it like it is (was). Ayers was a self described Violent Revolutionary, and a U.S. domestic terrorist. Why not speak the truth? Dr. Ayers tells it like it is. Why shouldn't we? Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is an article about Barack Obama, not about Bill Ayers. Obama's association with Ayers is related to a shared time on a philanthropic organization, and has nothing to do with the events of 40-odd years ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above by Scjessey, none of this argument is directly related to Barack Obama. Barack Obama was not part of the Weatherman Organization and by this time neither is Bill Ayers. Also, as mentioned I took a look at the Bill Ayers page and it mentions nothing about him considering himself a terrorist. I have also read the articles continually cited and neither mentioned that Ayers considered himself a terrorist. (It has been third parties who have been labeling Ayers a Terrorist.) If anything, Ayers considers himself a college professor and has the concurrence of his peers as being a respectable professor. Everything people are arguing here happened over 40 years ago and the only people who bring up the idea of Ayers being a terrorist are people who are just trying to throw labels around as scare tactics. This article is about Barack Obama, not Bill Ayers. If you want to label Ayers a terrorist, please do so on the relevant article (I.E. the one on Bill Ayers) and please keep to the facts. Brothejr (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First, this is irrelevant to the biography of Barack Obama. Second, can you provide a reliable source in which Ayers describes himself as a "violent revolutionary" as you claim? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Loonymonkey: ""I don't regret setting bombs." Bill Ayers quoted in [The New York Times. He protested the article, but hasn't denied that he said this sentence. He set bombs. Whether or not he meant to kill people with them (he says he didn't), he said he set them. His prosecution on charges of crossing state lines to promote a riot (the "Days of Rage" incident in which his wife pleaded guilty and served jail time) was dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct. There is plenty of evidence that he promoted violence. More than 60 people were injured in the "Days of Rage" rioting where Weather Underground people showed up prepared for violence, bearing helmets and weapons. It is right that Ayers is controversial. It is right that a candidate for President of the United States should be judged by the company he keeps. We need to mention the controversial company he keeps. Noroton (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis that ignores the fact that there still isn't a reliable source that describes him as "violent." But it doesn't really matter. You can argue this out on the Bill Ayers article if you like, but none of it has anything to do with the biography of Barack Obama and everything to do with the stated desire of yourself and a few other editors to influence the opinion of readers of this article. As you said, your argument for wanting to include all this biographical detail on Ayers here is that you want Obama to "be judged by the company he keeps." That's POV-pushing, plain and simple. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Loonymonkey)Response to Brothejr: We're not required to accept Bill Ayers' self-description when reliable independent sources such as The New York Times tell us he was a violent militant. The vact that Ayers is weasily about his past activities and whether or not he now renounces his violent militancy against the U.S. government is evidence that he himself is not a reliable source about his embarassing past. When asked whether he renounced violence he equivocated in the famous New York Times article that happened to appear in 9/11. In a letter of protest he sent to the Times about the article, he didn't unequivocally renounce violence either. He has made plenty of other statements but no clear renunciation of violence that I've seen (please correct me if he has, and give me a link), although he is able to say simply and clearly that he renounces terrorism. When a U.S. presidential candidate is found out to be associated with someone with a past in violent political action (and we know the B.O./B.A. association went beyond simply seeing each other at board meetings), it becomes a matter of importance to voters trying to make up their minds. It is a necessary feature of an article on the subject of this presidential candidate. Leaving it out is whitewashing, and that's an obvious dereliction of our duty to our readers. Obvious whitewashing is harmful to Wikipedia's reputation. Noroton (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Leaving it out is whitewashing, and that's an obvious dereliction of our duty to our readers. Obvious whitewashing is harmful to Wikipedia's reputation"

Ok then include it in the Bill Ayers article where it belongs. His past actions do not belong on a page about Barack Obama. As I and a bunch of others have said, it does not matter what highly reputable news agency has said about Bill Ayers, this page is about Barack Obama, not Bill Ayers. Including it here in Barack Obama's article would mean you are implying he is also a terrorist or sympathizes with terrorists, which would be incorrect and libel. If you want to debate whether Bill Ayers is a terrorist, or what others have said about him or reported about him, then take it to the Bill Ayers page. Brothejr (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Justmehearnow) Perhaps I haven't been clear about what I want: I just want the situation with Ayers accurately presented with just enough detail that readers will get the gist of it and be able to follow a blue link or two to find out more. I think this can be done within a regular sized sentence, but it must actually involve no whitewashing. I think my proposal in the subsection just below is something we might all agree with if we can come to an NPOV consensus. Noroton (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe the whole Ayers brouhaha is the political version of a WP:coatrack. Still it'd be part of our encyclopedic coverage to mention something about it in Obama's bio.

There were those who failed to understand that it’s not red-baiting to point out that a person is a Communist—if that person really is a Communist. McCarthyism is a little more complicated. It wasn’t McCarthyism to deny a government worker who was a member of the Communist Party access to classified materials. It wasn’t McCarthyism for the A.C.L.U. to bar Communists from membership. It wasn’t McCarthyism to fire a person from a public-school teaching job for being a Communist if that person was using his or her position to propagandize to students. Similarly, it wasn’t McCarthyism to call somebody a “Communist sympathizer” if that somebody sympathized with the salient features of Communism, such as one-party rule, totalitarian repression of alternative opinions, the abolition of civil liberties, and murderous gulags. But it was, and is, McCarthyism to try to comprehensively ruin a person’s life solely because that person was once a Communist (or a Fascist, or a racist, or a radical Islamist)—or even if that person is still a whatever-ist but doesn’t actually do anything about it.
The central feature of McCarthyism, however, was accusing people of being Communists or Communist sympathizers who were not, in fact, either. And one of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s favorite evidentiary techniques for carrying out this particular form of character assassination was “guilt by association.”
Guilt by association is another tricky term. The Communist Party is an association, and being a member of that association does indeed makes you guilty of being a Communist. A garden club is also an association. But being in a garden club with a Communist doesn’t make you a Communist. And being in a garden club with an ex-Communist doesn’t even make you an ex-Communist.
[... ...]McCarthyism is not a charge to be levelled lightly. Even so, I conclude[...]that attacking Obama because of his “association with” Ayers constitutes McCarthyism.----HENDRIK HERTZBERG (22Apr2008 New Yorker)

Anyway, as far as WP:BLP goes, is the suggested assertion about Ayers

1. Sensationalistic? Not if our refering to Ayer's former militancy is not within the nature of an emotional expose but merely factual reporting.
2. A titillating claim? No, the established fact of Ayer's methods would be presented in the least tittilating way possible while destinguishing them as militantly revolutionary (not overstating it----inlight of his avoidance of human collateral).
3. Doing harm to Dr. Ayers? ...Dude wrote a book! — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed language on Obama and Ayers

Currently, the "Early life and career" section of the article reads:

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities.[13] In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996.[13] Obama's association with former radical activist Ayers would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.[14]

The sentence I suggest changing is the one in italics. In it, (1) Ayers should be adequately identified so that readers know why Obama's association with him is so controversial. Simply being a "former radical activist" is not enough. Plenty of former radical activists have changed their politics and, for instance, have been elected to Congress. We need to accurately label Ayers so the reader understands what's so controversial about him. (2) There should be a link within this sentence to the article about Obama and Ayers. (3) There is no 3. The first two are the only changes I want. My proposed language change (in italics and the new blue link to Bill Ayers election controversy):

Obama's association with Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Can we come to a consensus around this? Noroton (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(As probably most contributors know, Bobby Rush, founder in '67 of the initial Chicago chapter of the Black Panther, is a member of the House of Representatives from Illinois' 1st U.S. Congressional district.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll ever achieve consensus for such a clearly tendentious edit. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how explaining why the association was controversial is tendentious. Being absolutely factual is one point in its favor. A constructive approach on your part would be to try to suggest language that meets the reasonable objections of other editors. I think wanting to tell readers why an association is controversial -- in a phrase or even a sentence -- is a reasonable concern and not inherently tendentious.Noroton (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith here, Noroton, since you've just joined this discussion. But we may not violate WP:BLP and WP:NOR by introducing our own, possibly libelous, characterizations of Ayers. "Former radical (activist)" is what his article and the cited source describe him as. Of course, there also wasn't ever anything "so controversial" here... there was one idiotic question, in one debate, that never got any real traction, despite attempts to smear Obama with a vague association. I can't read Stephenopolos' mind about how he imagined Ayers characterization (and neither can you). That said, the link seems fine, I'll add it.

Personally, however, I think even the number of words we currently have on Ayers is too many for this article. And I 'definitely don't think this talk page is the right forum for writing long essays on 1960s leftist groups, as Justmeherenow seems to imagine. Y'know, many blog sites are free... maybe you should get an account. LotLE×talk 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Folks tell me to source stuff, I do and report back----then they kvetch I oughtta get my own blog. Point taken, but, sheesh!  — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been reading through the sources cited in the Ayers article. If you scroll up a bit you'll see my comments that link to them. If you haven't read them, then please do, because they show there is nothing unfair in the characterization. I also explained in detail why it is no violation of WP:BLP at all to reference the legitimate public scrutiny of a presidential candidate and, for that matter, to accurately describe a public figure such as Bill Ayers. It isn't a "characterization of Bill Ayers" to accurately describe why he is controversial. He is controversial for specific reasons that can be described briefly and only in the context of describing Obama. "Former radical activist" is whitewashing. WP:BLP tells us to follow what the responsible sources say, and they go well beyond "former radical activist", and therefore there is nothing libelous at all in the statement. Please don't exaggerate. You are also inaccurate on "one idiotic question, in one debate". It's been more than that, and it deserves an accurate mention in this article. There was no original research in this proposed half-sentence at all. Have you read the sources?Noroton (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the reason Ayers is "controversial" is actually at all the reasons some editors are trying to stick in this article (nor, of course, is this the right article for it, in any case). The controversy, in as much as there is any, isn't about some Weatherman actions that Ayers may or may not have had any involvement in; it's actually about the fact that someone who has remained a radical activist through the present has been successful in Chicago politics (appointed to a board by Mayor Daley, for example, or serving on the Woods board). However, I'm not going to put my own opinions on WP articles, in violation of WP:NOR. The only characterization that is acceptable is the one in the cited source (in it's title, not something buried in the 17th paragraph that is actually about someone else), and that is given in the lead of Ayers own article. It's not your place to speculate about the "specific reasons" behind the "controversy". LotLE×talk 00:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence as it currently exists is fair and accurate: "In 1999, former radical activist Bill Ayers, who had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996, joined the board;[13]; this association would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.[14]" The reference to Ayers is wikilinked, so anybody wanting to know more about him can research at their leisure and draw their own conclusions. An encylopedia should help people draw their own conclusions, not push them to have any particular opinion. Life.temp (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The existing paragraph is just fine, and I see little chance of achieving consensus on a version that includes details about Ayers that are unrelated to Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since they are only "details" that relate to why the Ayers connection was controversial, they are not, in this context, details about Ayers but the inclusion of necessary context for the reader to understand an episode in the subject's life that has become controversial. Compare:

• Alan Keyes is described in the article as A long-time resident of Maryland,,
• Pete Rouse, a 30-year veteran of national politics and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle
• Karen Kornbluh, former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, as his policy director
• Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions,

So how is it that the proposed phrase about Ayers is a set of "unrelated" "details" instead of the necessary information that puts the Ayers controversy into enough context for the reader to actually understand why the matter is controversial? These "details" are no more detailed than what this very article provides elsewhere. Noroton (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes is so described to indicate the difficulties he had when being drafted to run against Obama. Pete Rouse and Karen Kornbluh are so described because they are job titles. These differ significantly from characterizations of the ilk you are hoping for with Bill Ayers. Also, it is worth noting that there is no "controversy" to speak of, despite what some inappropriately-created and titled Wikipedia article might suggest. The association between Ayers and Obama has been known for some time, and has only drawn scrutiny because Sean Hannity prompted George Stephanopoulos to ask about the association in that travesty of a "debate" last month. Trying to include details about Ayers's radical past that are unrelated to his relationship with Obama implies that the candidate is somehow participatory, or at the very least supportive, of that radicalism. That is, of course, completely inappropriate for a biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[exdent]What the Obama campaign volunteers are trying to do here is called "hiding the ugly." Models are taught to do this when preparing their portfolios for modeling agencies. If your butt is too big but you have really nice legs, include photos that show off your legs and conceal your butt. It's the same with the details about other people. If they make Obama look good, they're included. If they make Obama look bad, they're "completely inappropriate" or "irrelevant." Rezko's criminal charges are directly related to political fund raising. His relationship to Obama is all about political fund raising. But somehow, any mention of either one of these two facts is "completely inappropriate." Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even a Democrat. I came to this subject via the RfC. I see you registered two months ago and have posted on virtually nothing but topics related to the Democratic presidential campaign. There are undoubtedly some editors here motivated by politics rather than making a good encyclopedia, but that's equally undoubtedly true of both sides, as I think you know. Life.temp (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Trim the fat

Certain editors are pushing for huge, extraneous digressions about third parties, which they insist are of urgent importance to readers of this biography. To defend this idea, they sometimes claim that such digressions exist about third parties where it is "favorable" to Obama.

Before I got to this article, I think there was a small correct point in that regard. There was more said about Ryan and Hull than was necessary for Obama's biography. As soon as I noticed those extra clauses, I removed or reduced them. Having read the article a few more times, I don't see anything remaining that digresses into third-party biographies (unless the edit-of-the-second has added a long biography of Ayers). However, if anyone notices something remaining, please be ruthless with the scissors... or let me know the issue on the talk page, and I'll cut aggressively. LotLE×talk 14:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with this. Over the last couple of years, this article has evolved into using a strict summary style in order to accommodate all the biographical details necessary to give an overview of Obama's life. The article has a growing number of sub articles and related articles that expand on each summary, and although some editors have expressed disapproval of this system (with claims that this "hides" details) it is perfectly suited to notable figures with extensive biographies like Obama. I still think that there is some scope for trimming - I believe some sections are over-referenced, for example - but it is looking pretty good at the moment. I imagine that as the campaign develops from the nomination fight to the general election, the section on the campaign will evolved to reflect this (rather than simply being made longer). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to be specific here. Words are a very precious resource in a summary article: no word should be here without earning its keep. It is far easier to be verbose than concise, and wars of "include every side" aggravate this trend. Long doesn't necessarily mean inaccurate, but it does mean undue weight.

So, for example, excluding words in references, we spend 443 words discussing Obama's "Early life and career". Which is to say, about the first 35 years of his life. In the current version, 30 of those words are devoted to discussing Bill Ayers. Do we really think that Ayers made up 6.7% of Obama's life? So that's too much. In the monstrous expansion that I recently trimmed, that expanded to 44 words about Ayers... 10% of Obama's first 35 years! Events can have significances other than mere duration; obviously, some brief experiences can be life-changing or pivotal... but does anyone really fantasize that 10% of the "significance" of Obama's first 35 years of life was his acquaintance with Ayers?! More important than his mother to his life? More important than going to law school? Etc. LotLE×talk 15:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

More candidates for the fat farm

So, LuLu, you want the article to go on a diet, eh? And wanting to keep down or remove information on why Ayers was actually controversial for Obama has nothing to do with it? And the addition of a dozen words or so on Ayers is now one of a number of "huge, extraneous digressions" a/k/a "fat" that our bulging biography just cannot afford? Is this really a simple weight-loss program for good article health or is there a slender possibility here that this has something to do with "hiding the ugly" as Kossak4Truth (02:13, 28 May) so helpfully puts it back at the "Proposed language" subsection? Your sudden concern with "fat" in the article is amusing. Perhaps we can recruit some more biographies into the fat farm:

• Franklin Roosevelt has this "extraneous" information on Alfred E. Smith: "While Smith lost the Presidency in a landslide, and was even defeated in his home state, Roosevelt was narrowly elected governor -- fat! fat! sixteen words!
• From the same article, six more unnecessary words: Al Smith was supported by some city bosses, but had lost control of the New York Democratic party to Roosevelt.
• From the same article, I'm not sure how much fat is here, but surely there's at least another half dozen words (the last two items already total more than Ayers). It wouldn't have been the "boisterous rhetoric" of a prominent Democrat who "let Roosevelt isolate his opponents and identify them with the wealthy vested interests". I'm sure you can find more words to cut here:

Conservative Democrats, led by Al Smith, fought back with the American Liberty League, savagely attacking Roosevelt and equating him with Marx and Lenin.[46] But Smith overplayed his hand, and his boisterous rhetoric let Roosevelt isolate his opponents and identify them with the wealthy vested interests that opposed the New Deal, setting Roosevelt up for the 1936 landslide

The alternative to cutting would be adding words to put Smith's opposition in perspective, but I'm sure you wouldn't want that in the article, would you? Anyway, we already have 21 fatty words on Smith that can be cut.

• Harry Truman has tons of information on Tom Pendergast. Too much for me to even cite here. Just run a search for the word Prendergast on that page. But let me just mention one paragraph where Pendergast is mentioned. Surely you would want to excise the last sentence here (in italics):

In 1930 Truman coordinated the "Ten Year Plan," which transformed Jackson County and the Kansas City skyline with new public works projects, including an extensive series of roads, construction of a new Wight and Wight-designed County Court building, and the dedication of a series of 12 Madonna of the Trail monuments honoring pioneer women. Much of the building was done with Pendergast Ready Mixed concrete.

I mean, after all, how extraneous...

• Oh, let's excise this one from the Harry Truman article as well: "The appointment confirmed Pendergast's control over federal patronage jobs in Missouri and marked the zenith of his power." I mean, it's about Pendergast, not Truman. Truman was just the guy who was appointed, and we mention that in an earlier sentence. Eighteen words of fat for you!
• We'd probably want to keep this sentence in the Truman article: "Truman assumed office under a cloud as 'the senator from Pendergast'." But of course we need to keep down the other mentions of Pendergast, whether or not they explain what this sentence is about and why it mattered to anyone to call Truman the "senator from Pendergast" because, after all, we're on a mission to reduce fat here, and we know what's more important.
• I mean, for instance, just look at all this extraneous, fatty material in the Truman article. It's not about Truman at all. It's only about Pendergast. I don't know about you, LuLu, but I smell a plot:

The 1936 election of Pendergast-backed Governor Lloyd C. Stark revealed even bigger voter irregularities in Missouri than had been uncovered in 1934. Milligan prosecuted 278 defendants in vote fraud cases; he convicted 259. Stark turned on Pendergast, urged prosecution, and was able to wrest federal patronage from the Pendergast machine.[27]

Ultimately Milligan discovered that Pendergast had not paid federal taxes between 1927 and 1937 and had conducted a fraudulent insurance scam. In 1939, Pendergast pled guilty and received a $10,000 fine and a 15-month sentence at Leavenworth Federal Prison. No charges were filed against Truman.

• William McKinley do we really need to know that his friend and campaign manager, Marcus Hanna was "a wealthy industrialist"? There's a bit of fat for you.
• Thomas Jefferson. I invite you to look over the subsection of Thomas Jefferson#Jefferson and slavery titled "The Sally Hemmings controversy". Does a Wikipedia article on our founding father really have space enough for four paragraphs on whether or not Jefferson had children with one of his slaves? Paragraphs about 1998 DNA studies, what Haplogroup Jefferson belonged to, 2001 studies, etc. etc. etc. Surely you'd want to excise about three fourths of that section, because we can give the main points in a sentence at the end of the first paragraph.

After all Words are a very precious resource in a summary article: no word should be here without earning its keep.Noroton (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

There seem to be a bunch of excerpts from other articles, I guess all on presidents, that Noroton mentions. As with all Wikipedia articles, if some of that information is extraneous, I encourage him/her to "omit unnecessary words". I haven't looked at each of those to see if they all use WP:SUMMARY style; a somewhat different standard applies if they don't, but digressions are still bad.

However, I have not edited any of the articles mentioned, so have no specific opinion on the importance of a particular excerpt. If I do decide to edit them, I'll certainly work for conciseness of language. LotLE×talk 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Thomas Jefferson, I think four paragraphs really is too much for the Sally Hemmings matter. It looks unbalanced to me relative to the length of the article. However, there does not seem to be a separate sub-article on the topic, which makes trimming somewhat more difficult, and Jefferson's article is not in summary style. Ideally, the issue of Jefferson's (possible) children with Hemmings, and the nature of their relationship, could have its own article, and the general biography should just have a sentence or two that pointed to that child article. However, this is the talk page for the Obama article, not the Jefferson one. The ranting about the Truman article and the McKinley one seem to be completely vacuous rhetoric though. LotLE×talk 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you might want to refrain from calling other editors' comments "vacuous ranting" so that we can keep the discussion on a less emotional level. I thought just a little humor was appropriate, however, since what I was responding to was already so humorous. Let me spell out the strong logical connection for you: The examples are all on point. They demonstrate how Wikipedia already balances concerns of conciseness with concerns for explaining the context in which the subject of the article actually existed, very particularly, with regard to how much information these articles have on other people. As is obvious from the examples given, it is Wikipedia practice to show how the actions of other people help us understand the subject of the article. Information on Pendergast gives us some insight into Truman; information on any of these people gives us some insight into the subject of the article, just as information on Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers gives us some insight into Obama. While I wouldn't want as much on Ayers as the Truman article has on Pendergast (which is actually a bit too much), or even as much as the McKinley article has on Hanna, a bit of information on Ayers, putting that relationship into proper context, cannot be left out for reasons of "conciseness" because that's clearly going overboard. As I've just demonstrated. Noroton (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, information on Ayers doesn't give us any insight into Obama. During the time Ayers was doing his thing, Obama was a boy living in Jakarta. As I have repeatedly said before, Obama has only known Ayers as an influential civic leader, as a professor, and as a fellow member of a philanthropist organization dedicated to helping the same communities Obama worked with as a lawyer. So actually, banging on about Ayers' radical past would be a distortion of the truth. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Two or three sentences in the article is "banging on about Ayers' radical past"? And, um, in your sentence Obama has only known Ayers as an influential civic leader, as a professor, and as a fellow member of a philanthropist organization dedicated to helping the same communities Obama worked with as a lawyer. You could just as well have added, as a famous former violent radical involved in bombing public buildings. In fact, wasn't Ayers more famous than Obama was when Obama knew him? I'm not sure, but was that foundation the one that brought Obama to Chicago for community organizing? (I thought I'd heard that, but I'm not sure.) "information on Ayers doesn't give us any insight into Obama". Well, the controversy is about whether it does. If we're going to follow what mainstream sources say about Obama, then we're going to include it. Anything else would be a distortion of the truth. Noroton (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong about this. Ayers' "radical past" has nothing to do with Barack Obama, who was 9-years-old and the opposite side of the world at the time. Only the right-wing lunatic fringe (and Hillary Clinton, apparently) think there is anything significant about their relationship, and that is just a transparent bit of guilt-by-association electioneering. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your political opinion. Do you consider the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, ABC News, TIME and The Nation part of the right-wing lunatic fringe? If they all had coverage of this would you say it would be worth mentioning in the article? And worth enough mention so that we understand just what the reason is that makes it so controversial? Tell me, what's your opinion as a fellow encyclopedist? Noroton (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your bellicose comment. The sources you have mentioned do indeed talk about Ayers and Obama, but none of them link Obama to Ayers' "radical past". Putting details of that nature into this BLP would imply Obama was somehow involved. Obviously that would not be true or appropriate, so obviously it those details should not be included. Blue links make it possible, however, for us to link to Bill Ayers and go into exhaustive detail about his life there. Perhaps these examples will help you understand:

1. Would it be appropriate to talk about Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright in the Bill Ayers article?
2. Would it be appropriate to talk about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers in the Jeremiah Wright article?

The answer would be no, to both questions, right? Do you see what I'm getting at now? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I "dissent" ((...does the present text really enjoy a plurality of supporters?!)) from former radical as our succinct descriptor for Ayers. Which was sourced from just the headline and not the article itself in a piece from MSNBC----whom, I guess, since I'm a lefty, I can't complain about for its being "Fox News of the left"----instead of a still-succinct-but-more-accurate label. Especially (to effect the least impression of WP's bias) as sourced from a more generally prestigeous source, maybe even one of the print media pieces talk) mentions. — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)What was bellicose about my comment? Please calm down. If I understand you, you don't want this single additional phrase in the article at all, despite the fact that the subject of the article is a presidential candidate, that during his campaign this became a widely reported controversy, and that it's a controversy about Obama's own past actions -- which is the actual stuff of this article. Rather than us condensing what the reliable sources have to say about Obama, you want us to take a position that on this point what they say is so irrelevant to his life that we should not include it. Could this possibly have something to do with your hope that the Democratic presidential candidate will win in November, and therefore serves his interest not to have the information in, or is your opposition only on the grounds that it serves the interests of our readers to have the information omited? If so, how does omitting it serve their interest? (I've explained how this adding of a phrase serves their interest.) You mention a blue link, and that implies that you want something about Ayers in the article. Keep in mind that we're disputing whether or not to include a phrase here explaining just what it is about Ayers that actually makes the connection controversial. If the blue link is useful, so is the phrase. For you to repeatedly go on about "exhaustive detail" is confusing to me. Could you explain how about 20 words is "exhaustive detail"? Noroton (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained this umpteen times in previous comments. If it was up to me, I would not include any mention about Bill Ayers in this article because I believe his relationship to Obama to be of no significance whatsoever, except where it impacts on Obama's election campaign. On that basis, it belongs in the campaign article. However, a consensus was reached earlier to include some mention of Ayers that included a blue link to his biography. I didn't agree with it, but I actually wrote the original consensus text. Now we have a small group of dedicated individuals who absolutely insist that Ayers' "radical past" be mentioned, with vivid descriptions like "unrepentant radical terrorist bomber" and the like. This kind of inflammatory text is inappropriate. If you need further elaboration of my opinion, please refer to my previous comments on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of an edit is judged by how that edit helps the reader understand the subject. Your judgment about what helps the reader understand the subject in this case doesn't match that of responsible sources, including the newspapers I mentioned above. Any matter concerning Obama's life that receives this much coverage is going to be worth mentioning in this article with just enough detail for people to understand it. a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions is not inflammatory, it's simply informative about inflammatory actions. For you to want to keep Bill Ayers name from readers of the article is to impose your judgment above that of mainstream judgment (from professional news people) about what is important, and it's the judgment of the mainstream sources that we're supposed to be following, not blocking. Noroton (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Compare my proposed language with this: Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. -- New York Times, May 11. And this, from Salon:When controversy erupted recently over Barack Obama's longtime association with Hyde Park neighbor and former Weather Underground member William Ayers -- who is unrepentant about his radical political past and the violent acts he committed Inflamatory language? Noroton (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "this much coverage", to be honest. I've seen hardly any coverage since the brief flurry that followed ABC's disgraceful debate last month, with the possible exception of FOX News and Murdoch-owned newspapers. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Mfenger)Google search: Obama Ayers, and Google News results: Obama Ayers; and finally Google News Archives: Obama Ayers (I think this last one does not overlap the previous one, but I'm not sure). I'm not saying there are 1,500 news articles online about these two guys, but there are a lot. I'm not saying it's worth even a paragraph, but it's worth a neutral sentence or two. And I'm making a point about encyclopedic coverage of a subject, not a political point about a candidate. Noroton (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" was mostly manufactured -- it's a weak "association," any association that exists is based on Ayers's present work not his Weatherman past, and the "unrepentant" stuff is completely opinion. Not to mention that the reporting in the places like the NYT was about the "controversy" rather than about the story. Anyone interested in the controversy can follow the link, and I agree with the opinions that expanding what's currently in the text is misleading, both factually and by giving it undue emphasis. So, a vote against its expansion. Mfenger (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, if you don't actually understand the gist of the controversy, you won't have a reason to follow the link. We need the addition of the proposed phrase so that readers understand what the controversy was. If your point is that there was only a controversy, fine -- then let's quickly say what it actually was. Do you understand at the addition of about 20 words is what we're arguing about here? How is it misleading when the New York Times and Salon mention it roughly the same way? How is it undue emphasis when it's received this much coverage? Noroton (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

and the "unrepentant" stuff is completely opinion The overwhelming conclusion of the mainstream sources disagrees with you. Ayers has commented on this controversy numerous times in his blog, and I've looked for a renunciation of his violent acts and I haven't found it. We have no reason to avoid saying what the vast majority of reporters say: unrepentant. If Obama's campaign could dispute that, you know they would. Noroton (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I found it pretty easily on his blog — "It’s a strange sensation to be assigned a role — in my case “unrepentant terrorist” (wrong on both counts) — to be handed a script, and then to discover that no editing or improvisation is permitted." The fact that mainstream journalists are sloppy in buying into a script doesn't mean it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Maybe his repentance isn't abject enough for some, but the nuance (and lack thereof) is what makes it an opinion that's included to inflame rather than explain. Mfenger (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The assertion Ayer's isn't repentant is pov; a subarticle including this would have to source it. — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Mfenger and Justmeherenow: The assertion that Ayers is unrepentant is, as shown by the quotes and links above, sourceable to The New York Times and Salon (and quite a few other sources). If we had an unambiguous statment from Ayers, it would trump all that, but we don't. If he says he wasn't a terrorist, as he says in that statement Mfenger quotes, yet has admitted to being involved with the bombing of the Pentagon, etc., his statement is questionable. Likewise his vagueness about what he's repentant about (in the very same statement). He wrote an entire book about this, but didn't devote space to a direct, unambiguous statement. Same with his blog. I looked at his blog and couldn't find something straightforward. It isn't nuance, it's slipperiness. And he's made contrary statements widely quoted in the press. If he really was repentant, he could clear it all up quickly. Yet it goes around and around in the media and he doesn't do that. In fact, there are tons of sources stating that the reporter tried to contact him and couldn't, or did contact him and he refused to comment. It ain't hard to clarify this -- if you in fact want to clarify it. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It consists in this, that the sinner abandon his sin, remove it from his thoughts, and resolve in his heart never to repeat it. § It is so when an opportunity presents itself for repeating an offense once committed, and the offender, while able to commit the offense, nevertheless refrains from doing so[...].----MAIMONIDES(Knowledge; Amson, trans.; p82)

I'm not alleging Ayer's is repentant, neither----just, it's hard to pin down. So encyclopedically it's gotta be placed in the mouths of whatever arbiters or givers of opinion. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just take it from the quotes I have at 21:51, 28 May 2008, just above. The New York Times is the best source, backed up by Salon. Nobody's calling him "repentant", and as I demonstrate just below, he's quite equivocal about it. Whether he's repentant is only in dispute on this page, nowhere else. Noroton (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

{unindent)More on Mfenger's quote Oh, you found this quote easily: It's a strange sensation to be assigned a role -- in my case 'unrepentant terrorist' (wrong on both counts)? That's found in a post revealingly titled "I’M SORRY!!!! i think…." Just like the ambivalent title, the post is full of slippery language calling into question what he's actually repentant about, if anything. It's not the kind of language anyone associates with repentance. Here's just some of the slippery language, but I invite readers to experience the full tortuous, torturous effect at Ayers blog:

• I feel like I’m in a bit of a trough here, because I hear the demand for a general apology in the context of the media chorus as a howling mob with an impossibly broad demand, and on top of that I’m not sure what exactly I’m expected to apologize for. The ’68 Convention? The Days of Rage? The Pentagon? Every one of these can be unpacked and found to be a complicated mix of good and bad choices, noble and low motives. My attitude? Being born in the suburbs? I feel regret for much—I resonate with Bob Dylan singing of “so many things we never will undo; I know you’re sorry, well I’m sorry too.” But, he goes on, “stick with me baby, stick with me anyhow, things are going to get interesting right about now.” Some read my failure to apologize as arrogance, stupidity, and recalcitrance, or worse, but I think, or I hope, that I’m holding on to a more complex, a truer read and memory of that history. If he were repentant, at the very least, he'd start doing the unpacking and sorting out what to repent of and what not to repent of. He does none of that here.

• Everyone wants to be a peaceful person and close their eyes tight to the violence erupting all around and in their names. Yes, I definitely want it both ways, and perhaps that’s not possible—shouldn’t be possible. This sounds exactly like being "unrepentant". He wants to be a peaceful person, but perhaps that isn't and shouldn't be possible.

• Now we come to the quote Mfenger gives above, and look at the context it's in: It’s a strange sensation to be assigned a role—in my case “unrepentant terrorist” (wrong on both counts)—to be handed a script, and then to discover that no editing or improvisation is permitted. I read time and again that I’m wandering around saying “guilty as hell, free as a bird,”—unrepentant, triumphant, arrogant—when what I actually wrote was, “among my sins—pride and loftiness—a favorite twinkling line… guilty as hell, free as a bird…” Sins? Oh my, is that repentant enough? Apparently not. This feels more totalizing than a conspiracy. It feels like the suffocating straight-jacket of common-sense. It sounds like he's repenting for pride and "loftiness", not starting a riot or placing bombs in buildings.

Mfenger wants us to reject what reliable sources say because Bill Ayers says ... well, can anyone nail down just what he does say? Someone who's repentant wants to make sure people understand that he's repentant because that's a commonly accepted part of repentance (as Ayers actually says at one point here). Repentance is about acknowledging the hurt you've done to others. He's not doing that here. Noroton (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is not that he is repentant, but that whether or not he's repentant is POV. On your part, and on those "reliable sources" (who have no more insight into Ayers's soul than have I, or Noroton). Saying he's unrepentant bespeaks a value judgment that wikipedia shouldn't be making. (For that matter, so would saying he is repentant, based on the evidence we have.) The Ayers article links to his blog, where anyone interested can read what he wrote about repentance for themselves, and make their own judgments. Mfenger (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In the context of a newspaper or magazine article, "unrepentant" means "publicly unrepentant" or "hasn't offered a public apology" or even "hasn't indicated that he's sorry" -- that's the only thing it can mean since every reader knows we can't look into his soul. Look at the context: The news articles indicate that it is newsworthy that Obama associated with this guy even though this guy didn't make it clear that he was sorry about staring riots and bombing government buildings. Even if it were opinions being expressed in the news columns, it isn't POV to cite reliable sources making those judgments, as WP:NPOV explicitly states. You might want to read the bottom of that NY Times interview with Ayers that appeared on 9/11 for another version of how he plays cute. Would you rather we reworded the proposed language from unrepentant to has not publicly repented? I could go with that. Noroton (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, your point is that Ayers "didn't make it clear that he was sorry about staring riots and bombing government buildings". The former is more problematic to me than the latter, though both IMO are subjective analyses regarding the level of repentance. "Riot" is a charged term for the Days of Rage, and while "bombing government buildings" is accurate and non-subjective enough, the point I'm trying to make is, that your judgment about how repentant he is in "I'm Sorry . . . I Think" is what makes "unrepentant" so out of bounds IMO. You were obviously less impressed with that blog entry than I was — I thought he made good points about how requiring "repentance" for conduct is (my words) a double bind. That is, no repentance can ever be expansive enough or specific enough, especially in circumstances in which there are lots of (perhaps inconsistent) motivations and intentions. It seems as though (for example) the Weatherman practice of warning bombing targets beforehand to assure that property and not persons were hurt does not affect your moral calculus. It seems that it does affect Ayers's degree of repentance. What I'm saying is, those factors make it impossible to make an objective statement that he's unrepentant, or even that he hasn't made a public repentance. To say that he hasn't repented publicly is to say that his essay "I'm Sorry . . . I Think" is objectively unrepentant. The fact that some MSM analysts have said he's unrepentant (whether they've read his essay is hard to say) doesn't make the determination of lack of repentance any less subjective. I don't read WP:NPOV as making acceptable the use of "reliable sources" making subjective determinations as a source for an apparently objective statement like "unrepentant". Mfenger (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Bill Ayers is repentant is academic. The events in which he participated in almost 40 years ago have nothing at all to do with Obama. Ayers has become a highly respected professor and civic figure, and it is in these capacities that he has associated with Obama. These protracted discussions about Ayers' background need to be taken to Talk:Bill Ayers because they have become highly disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to the discussion

Actually, I'd kind of favor transferring the tiny Ayers reference to the campaign section, where we should mention Obama's relationship with the former violent conspirator became controversial. And of course, we need to say why it was controversial. Just as we do with the Jeremiah Wright information. Only the Ayers explanation, even if we lengthen it more than I originally proposed, will still be considerably shorter. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think something like the 44 word version of Ayer's description would be perfectly fine in the Obama Presidential Campaign article (not section), where it's actually relevant. Still not some 100+ word monstrosity over there (since a separate article on the "controversy" existsdoes exist; unlike, e.g. in the Jefferson/Hemmings example). Actually, I think the 30-word version (or something close) would indeed work better in the campaign section than the early life section. LotLE×talk 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What this article ain't

The bloody endless soapbox speeches on this talk page about how "readers need to know" all sorts of details on some guy Obama has a passing acquaintance with (and need to know it right here because a mouse click is far too difficult for readers to carry out) seems to come from a underlying misunderstanding.

This article is not here for the purpose of "letting readers decide" how to vote in a political race. We aren't trying to "inform voters on the pressing political questions that face them." We aren't trying to "reveal the truth about candidates." This is a biography of a person, and the only perspective that matters is that of describing the life and social significance of that person. Nothing that doesn't matter in a biography of Nicholas II of Russia matters any more in this biography (obviously, details vary vastly between the two persons, but not the biographical form)..

There are many fine publications in the world (and some not-so-good ones also) that advice on how voters should vote. There are sites that help voters determine whether political candidates share their values. There are campaign materials of candidates, their opponents, political action committees, and what not. I am glad all those sites exist, and invite interested voters/readers to visit them. Wikipedia ain't any of those things! LotLE×talk 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All sorts of details Does this description of the proposed addition strike anybody else as an exaggeration? Here are the "all sorts of details": well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions. One other thing that Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTCENSORED: some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content [...] and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), In other words, just because you don't think the issue should have come up doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't mention it, and mention it just enough so that readers understand what the point of it is. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing more than POV-pushing and it's getting extremely tiresome. The two or three editors who are writing these thousand word essays about 60's radicalism are doing so simply because they want to influence opinion about Obama, not because they are objectively trying to improve an article. As Noroton stated early on in this argument, his reason for wanting to include his particularly tendentious description of Ayers is that he wants Obama to "be judged by the company he keeps." That's not the purpose of this article, nor of wikipedia in general.

The argument has come full circle a couple of times and there's really no point in continuing it. There will never be consensus for those POV edits. In fact, the current version is the consensus version, reached through a lot of discussion and compromise (personally, I don't think there should be any mention of Ayers as it's relevant to Obama's campaign, but not his biography but the consensus version is at least neutral in tone). --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So you think the Salon and New York Times articles I quoted were not neutral in tone? Were Salon and the New York Times POV-pushing? Would you say there's a lot of anti-Obama sentiment in the national media that's warping their coverage? How many words have you and your side written on this page? In response to your argument that in your judgment Obama's association with Ayers is irrelevant, I made the following point (and I see that Kossak4 made it earlier), and I'll state it with more elaboration because you don't seem to have gotten it the first time: One of the important things about an encyclopedic biography is that it touch on the topics that are widely judged to be important about the subject. (That is the purpose of Wikipedia articles.) Therefore, we have a section on Obama's positions on the issues, for instance. Another topic that is widely judged to be important about the subject is the controversy about Obama's relationship with Ayers. An article about a presidential candidate is supposed to mention topics that have become important in the campaign. In general, the associations a presidential candidate has are examined in the press during the campaign and when that happens the controversial ones -- become controversies, and therefore get quite a bit of coverage. That means we note it adequately, even if briefly. We don't try to protect our readers or the candidate from the important topics that the responsible sources cover. It isn't POV pushing to cover adequately the topics that the sources have deemed important. It's POV pushing to refuse to cover them. Noroton (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's what I meant when I said It is right that a candidate for President of the United States should be judged by the company he keeps. We need to mention the controversial company he keeps That doesn't, by the way, mean I think this is hugely important -- I think it's important enough to warrant a sentence or two in the article and to warrant its own article (or even a part of the Bill Ayers article). I think it's interesting that a simple description of the facts in a sentence or two should bring up so much opposition. Noroton (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Political leanings of WP editors on average being what they are: if there was a similar dispute on the McCain page, the result would be that contributors who advocate a "more inclusionistic" approach would prevail. Say for example ya took Obama and replaced it with McCain, and took Ayers and replaced it Duke, and took "a former leader of an archocommunist underground" and replace it with "a former leader of the white separatist movement"; kin ya imagine WP editors then following the example of some imprecise Fox News article's headline and calling Duke a former leader of the radical right? Much better for us to strive to step outside of whatever our particular political leanings altogether and strive to edit accoring to the purest encyclopedic standards. — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did support the existence of the John McCain lobbyist controversy article about McCain's alleged affair with a lobbyist, as noted here and here (although I opposed creation of a separate article purporting to be a biography of that woman). I supported it because I think issues about the personal character of presidential candidates, when the pass notability and other requirements, should be adequately covered in Wikipedia. That's a nonpartisan concern. I support coverage of these issues with candidates I support as well as oppose. Noroton (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is not well written but too big a task to re-write. Ruwq2 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange that it achieved Featured Article status then, eh? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then it shows that Featured Articles have room for lots of improvement. The article is way too centered on recent events and skips some notable recent events. Some well written articles are Featured Articles and some Featured Articles are really poorly written (e.g. some rock bands). Ruwq2 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of what is wrong? Literally hundreds of editors are working on this article to try to make it as good as possible, so you will need to be specific about the problems. How can it be both "way too centered on recent events" and "[skipping] some notable recent events" exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If it goes into so much detail in one area but skips other recent events, that's cherry picking. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Cutting a lot of recent events would also prevent edit warring because there would be nothing to war over.Ruwq2 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Which recent events would you cut? We already do our best to follow WP:RECENT, so I am having a hard time seeing what to cut. I've already said in previous comments that I follow the "if in doubt, leave it out" philosophy. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing from article

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson#Electoral_history

This section is missing from the Barack Obama article. I don't know how to make a box. If you are opposed to the box, try starting a new article called "Barack Obama Election Results". Quite a few politicians articles have this but not Obama. Ruwq2 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This article, unlike that on Bill Richardson, is written in WP:SUMMARY style. As such, those boxes on election results would not be appropriate here. However, a subarticle that contained them would seem like a good idea. LotLE×talk 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY does not prohibit election boxes. Why are they not appropriate. In order to find out the results, you have to do a lot of searching. Any opposition to the article or a summary box? If so, why? Ruwq2 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I agree with Ruwq2 on this. Apart from the fact that they are hideously ugly, I can't think of any reason why election boxes should be excluded. WP:SS isn't specific enough to offer guidelines on this, so it might be worth getting the opinions of a few regular editors. You do have to do a bit of hunting around to find election results at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugly? If so, they can be improved. Objections to colors? Typestyle? Too big (then make smaller). Too small (then make bigger). Ruwq2 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a child article, with a prominent "See also" link in the main article, would be much better than cluttering this main bio further. It's true summary-style doesn't per-se exclude the boxes; but they are ugly, and this article already throws in too much. The exact results of past elections isn't something to hide, but it also doesn't seem all that central (other than which ones he won versus lost, which is mentioned in prose). LotLE×talk 20:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A "see also" wouldn't work because there are several unrelated contests to cover (with the promise of another). These are the Illinois State Senate (twice), the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I thought of the difficulty of where to put the link. Maybe it could go in the series box that appears on each page. I'm not sure that's perfect, but it's better than a bunch of low-information-content tables on this page. I guess what I really dislike about them is that they take a huge amount of room for very little information. One not-very-long sentence could give all the information in two gigantic boxes that are stuck in the Richardson article. Actually, maybe I'll go make that more concise version for Richardson... LotLE×talk 20:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Landscape image sizes

In my opinion, the thumb tags (which provide a width of 180px standard) are simply not enough for landscape images and result in a bias against these images as opposed to portrait and tall images that do not have this area limitation. Please see my proposal regarding this problem in the manual of style archive here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_100#New_proposal_on_images. If you agree that this is a good idea I would welcome suggestions on how we can get my proposal for new image tags implemented. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Astonishing POV push

Kossack4Truth has made this astonishing edit to the article that pushes a variety of tendentious points-of-view, using inflammatory wording and sub-headings. The user claims "consensus", saying he has the support of 6 other editors. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Parts of Kossack's shocking POV have some support from some of these other editors, but not all. I reverted the changes, but Kossack reverted them back. There has been a long (and continuing) debate on this talk page about some aspects of Kossack's huge rewrite, but they have yet to reach a meaningful conclusion - there is certainly no consensus to justifying this extraordinary edit. I urge editors to scrutinize and weigh-in on what Kossack has done. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion about this led by Floorsheim for the past two days. Support for these changes includes Floorsheim, QuirkyAndSuch, Kossack4Truth, Fovean Author, Kaiwhakahaere, Noroton, Justmeherenow and Andyvphil -- a total of eight editors. That is consensus. On your side are Scjessey, LotLE and Brothejr. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly the majority of your edits where of a WP:POV nature and none were relevant to Obama's article. This article is about Obama, and not these people. Please carefully read WP:NPOV before you consider any more edits. Brothejr (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

@Kossack: That is not so. You have only limited support for some of what you wrote. I have also noted (and warned you) for canvassing for support on your so-called "consensus" edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Kossack, even if that description of the sentiment were accurate, it wouldn't constitute a consensus. A majority is not a consensus. You are also a suspicious account. You registered 2 months ago, and have edited almost nothing but articles related to the Clinton/Obama contest, with 90% of your edits in 2 months being to this article. Life.temp (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking a crack...

I've attempted a conservative version addressing the concerns expressed by myself and several others above. I also included additional description of the "A More Perfect Union" speech, which no one seemed in objection to. I think the poll statistics mentioned by Kossack pretty well wrap up the case for relevancy of the Wright stuff for anyone who remains in doubt. Although such statistics are not present for the Rezko and Ayers issues, many here, including myself, are of the perception that they are of comparable significance for those Obama is petitioning for votes. Out of respect for the WP:Weight concerns of Scjessey and others, I cut some details that strike me as not highly relevant in order to make room for those that to me (and others) seem necessary to provide adequate summary. Forgive me if I screwed up any of the reference tags. Did my best to keep those straight, but still learning...

As far as the recentism concerns go, one point that is made in that essay, which I agree wholeheartedly with, is that, for many reasons, a certain amount of recentism is healthy for Wikipedia. No one knows what will be viewed as notable and relevant about Barack Obama a hundred or even ten years from now. Largely, it depends on the outcome in November (or potentially earlier). For those who think the article should appear exactly as it would a hundred years from now, imagine what would happen to an article this long over someone who once ran for president a hundred years ago. It would be cut down to a couple of paragraphs at best. Do you really think that's what should happen to this article?

Floorsheim (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's Floorsheim's text:

---

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. Concern arose when racially and politically charged sermons by the pastor became public and offended many Americans. Sermons included the repeated phrase "God damn America" and attributions to the U.S. of partial responsibility for the September 11 attacks. Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. In further response to the controversy Obama delivered a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Obama took the speech and occasion as opportunity to openly discuss and confront race issues in the United States, delivering remarks that have been described by notable sources as stirring, profound, sincere, exhibiting wisdom beyond Obama's years, and compared in the media to Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. After Wright reiterated some of his remarks in a speech at the National Press Club, Obama strongly denounced Wright, whom he said "[presented] a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."

Obama's association with Bill Ayers has also been questioned. Many Americans have been concerned by Ayers's 1970s involvement in a violent activist organization known for deploying explosives on U.S. soil. Most notably, Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama has also faced scrutiny concerning his relationship and business deals (described below, under Personal Life) involving Tony Rezko, a land developer currently under indictment for fraud and extortion.

---

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Way, way too many words!

• The particular content of Wright's speeches already is well described in child articles. The description "racially and politically charged" is more than enough to tell readers what it's about. There are dozens of different comments by Wright that someone might have been offended by, cherry-picking editorial favorites doesn't belong here (child articles can give a bunch of them).
• Rezko's stuff definitely doesn't belong in two different places saying the same thing. If it's pulled out of "Personal life", it would be fine for no more words to live in this section.
• "Many Americans have been concerned"?! C'mon, let's not go wild with WP:OR and POV-pushing. Very few Americans ever heard of Ayers outside the recent Obama association. Saying "radical activist" more than adequately covers the general reason it was a question. I don't per se mind the equally brief word "militant" by itself... but that's not what the source or Ayers' own page uses, so that's back to WP:OR.
• The "More Perfect Union" also has its own article. Hagiography comparing it to MLK (really, it used more phrases from Lincoln, FWIW) doesn't need to go here. Again, let's summarize: links exist.

LotLE×talk 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I mean no disrespect but that version has some very tortured English. In-text links to sub headings are not at all appropriate, and there is quite a lot of original research evident. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT offering Floorsheim carte blanche to come up with as minamalist a text as possible [viz., as Floorsheim re-edits the above----or else as is] with a vote up or down. And move on? Or if this kind of idea can't receive enough assent I support simply going along with the radically minimalist text favored by the rotating quadrumvirate-plus of Obama Wikibio regulars. And move on. — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but it gets really confusing when you keep re-editing your comments over and over again. I end up having to use the discussion page's history to follow a conversation. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Will use Review button more. (First re-edit was to re-sign, since Lulu had inadvertently posted her comment right in the middle of mine.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT offering Floorsheim carte blanche to come up with as minamalist a text as possible with a vote up or down. I agree with Floorsheim and Justmeherenow. Other editors such as Andyvphil will no doubt agree as well. I agree that a simple majority is not consensus, but a 3-to-1 majority is certainly consensus. Now who thinks I'm a suspicious account? I edit the things I know about. And after I was duped into voting for the man, I have really done my homework. There's a dark side4 to this man's character and certain people here are doing their very best to conceal it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another attempt at compromise language on Wright:
  • Current language:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright.[87] After ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright,[87][88] Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign.[89] Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,[90] that addressed issues of race. After Wright reiterated some of his remarks in a speech at the National Press Club,[91] Obama strongly denounced Wright, whom he said "[presented] a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."[92]

• • Proposed language:

In March 2008, Obama was criticized for his 23-year relationship with his former paster, Jeremiah Wright,[87] after racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Wright were broadcast, including statements condemning the United States and alleging that AIDS was the result of a conspiracy by the U.S. government to kill blacks.[87][88] Obama condemned Wright's remarks and ended Wright's relationship with the campaign.[89] During the controversy, Obama delivered a widely praised speech, "A More Perfect Union", that addressed issues of race. Later, further comments by Wright resulted in Obama stating that the pastor "[presented] a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."[92]

I'm afraid I don't agree with Floorsheim's addition, because I think it was a bit more than minimally necessary. This one is the same length (actually, it looks like it's one character shorter), removes unnecessary info (who cares if the speech was given at Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, right?) Adds an adequate description of Wright's statement. Noroton (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Noroton's version. Spent a little bit of time working on an improved version of my own. Here it is without the references. I do like mine better because I think "God damn America" paints a better and more effective picture than "statements condemning America". Also think the quote about the speech gives better indication of the extent to which it received acclaim. Definitely feel that "racially and politically charged" and simply mentioning the speech do not adequately portray the significance.

• Proposed language:

Since as early as February 2008, media attention has been drawn to Obama's association with Bill Ayers, who during the 1970s was involved with a militant activist organization and has admitted deploying explosives on U.S. soil. Most notably, Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Since about the same time, Obama has also faced scrutiny concerning his relationship and business deals involving Tony Rezko, a land developer currently under indictment for fraud and extortion.

In March 2008, controversial concern arose when racially and politically charged sermons by Obama's pastor of 23 years became public and were reacted to by many Americans and the media. Sermons included the repeated phrase "God damn America" and allegations that AIDS was the result of a conspiracy by the U.S. government to kill blacks. Obama condemned Wright's remarks, ended his relationship with the campaign and delivered a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" confronting race issues in the United States and situating his former pastor's pronouncements within that context. The speech received wide critical acclaim and has been called the "most important speech on race that we have heard as a nation since Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech."

Also, in my view, the Rezko stuff is best divided between the two sections: relevancy to the campaign in the campaign section, details of the relationship and deal in personal life section. There also needs to be some way of directing readers from one to the other.

Floorsheim (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can support that language. I suggest these changes, though: (1) In the second paragraph I don't think "and were reacted to by many Americans and the media" is necessary -- you could say that about any important matter that becomes public, so I think we can assume it here. (2) I find the Wright quote really offensive and I'd rather not have it in the article. I don't think it's necessary to be that vivid in this article. I think in this one case toning it down to say "condemned the United States" gets across the essential point. (3) The final quote would need to be sourced in the prose. Again, I don't think the quote is necessary. (4) I disagree about Rezko. I think it should all be in the campaign section, but there's loads of precedent for splitting it. Again, none of these things bother me that much and the change would be a definite improvement in the article. I think we've got a good, concrete proposal here. I suggest putting all your language together in one proposal on this page and then we should ask more editors to come to this page to comment on it. I think we can reach a consensus that way. You've now got my support, Kossack4Truth and yourself supporting your version. Noroton (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am adding Floorsheim's version to the article, with the phrase "condemned the United States" replacing "God damn America" as Noroton suggested. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also added a Jeremiah Wright controversy link at the start of the paragraph on the Wright controversy, the recollections of Quentin Young regarding that Obama fundraiser by Ayers, and a subsection header. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR and sockpupputs

Would someone else like to file the new 3RR report on Kossack4Truth and his latest sockpuppet Cloggedthedrain? (I have to get to work). This extrordinary series of bad-faith edits in the last day are really annoying. Hopefully a longer block than his previous 24 hours would keep this page from being vandalized so badly. LotLE×talk 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I trust you have evidence that Kossack and Clogged are the same user? Clogged seems to be your run of the mill vandal that pops up on the article from time to time... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's block clogged for 3RR, and see what effect that has on Kossack's editing :-). Clogged has very few edits, almost all of them restoring things Kossack wrote. I could be wrong, but my hunch is pretty strong. 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who claims I'm running sockpuppets is lying and making false accusations. I do not take that lightly. It is a personal attack. You are falsely accusing me of committing an offense for which I could be banned from Wikipedia for life. Without evidence, I demand that you stop telling these lies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hagiography and condemnation

To Floorsheim: You introduced some new material on Wright. Some of it went on with some details of remarks Wright made, which were presumably offensive to many voters. Another part positively characterized Obama's A More Perfect Union speech:

Obama took the speech and occasion as opportunity to openly discuss and confront race issues in the United States, delivering remarks that have been described by notable sources as stirring, profound, sincere, exhibiting wisdom beyond Obama's years, and compared in the media to Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.

I removed both of those types of additions. I think you are trying, in good faith, to maintain balance. But neither the "pro-" nor "con-" material merits nearly so many words in this article. The Wright controversy (and Wright himself) has its own article, and so does the speech. As you changed it, this matter occupied as much space in the Prez Campaign section as all the primaries combined... which is way, way way too much. This article needs brief mention, following WP:SUMMARY style (readers are welcome to click to read more about those other areas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs)

It's inaccurate to use presumably in connection with the offense taken by many over Wright's pronouncements. If you'll look above, you'll see that Kossack has provided us with poll statistics that make the case for that very clear. Also, while all here understand the importance of brevity, several of us have pointed out the greater importance of adequacy in summarization. As many have indicated that in their view, the article as it stands fails in regard to adequacy and have voiced support for the inclusion of the details I included in my edit (notwithstanding those concerning the "A More Perfect Union" speech which none opposed upon my original suggestion). I made every effort to place these as succinctly as possible. Hopefully I will have a chance to try that again soon. In the event that I do or someone else does, I would ask that you and all others wait until further discussion and deliberation about the edit has taken place before reverting.

Also, I disagree with your presumption that because one issue takes up more space in an article than another, that means the first issue has been given more weight. Sometimes (and I would maintain that this is one of those times) it simply takes more words to adequately summarize one sort of thing than it does another. Results of a series of elections can be adequately summarized in a very small amount of space. Controversies and speeches much less so. We shouldn't cripple the adequacy of summaries of the first type in order to maintain a strict proportionality between space vs. weight as compared to items of the second type.

Floorsheim (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I never saw your suggestion to add more words to the general bio about the speech. If I had, I would have objected. The fact is that space means weight. Graphic designers know this, writers know this, advertises know this. The reason a bunch of anti-Obama partisans are pushing so hard for "lots of words" on certain topics is because they also know perfectly well that more words makes a given topic seem more important. That's also why I objected strongly to the big, ugly infoboxes with minimal information on exact vote counts in prior elections (FWIW, including them would presumably be "pro-Obama", since he won by large margins).

No polls are nearly as specific as saying X% were offended by comment Y by Wright. Let's not overinterpret and head off on WP:OR expeditions. There are too many words even in the brief version. LotLE×talk 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The polls are undeniable. The before-and-after result of the Wright scandal is undeniable. Before Wright, Obama won Super Tuesday and then won eleven primaries in a row. He seemed invincible. After Wright, Obama lost four out of six, including Pennsylvania. In some cases he lost by 2-to-1 margins. These controversies have had a profound effect on the campaign and the right-wing 527 groups are licking their lips and thinking about September. One 527 manager told Newsweek that when he thought about Wright, Rezko and Ayers, he "feels like a kid in a candy store." This is going to make the 2004 Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry seem mild by comparison.

But it is because the mainstream news media are raising these questions, that the answers belong in this Wikipedia article. Not banished to some satellite article that no one ever reads. Here's what needs to be added to the article, however brief and summarized, but it needs to be in there.

1. Ayers and Dohrn were founders of the Weather Underground and the mainstream media have repeatedly, accurately described them as "unrepentant terrorists."

2. Ayers and Dohrn launched Obama's political career with a reception and fundraiser in 1995. It was George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, not some right wing pundit, who first asked Obama about Ayers in a televised debate. Obama dodged the question.

3. Michelle Obama, by some strange coincidence, worked at the same law firm as Bernardine Dohrn.

4. Ayers served on the Woods Fund board with Obama.

5. With Ayers and Obama's support, the Woods Fund donated huge sums of money to Jeremiah Wright's church.

6. At least two of these three controversial quotes from Wright: "God damn America"; 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost"; and AIDS is a deliberate plot by the US government to commit genocide against black people.

7. On the first day of fundraising for Obama's first campaign, more than half the money came from companies controlled by Tony Rezko.

8. Over the years, Rezko did over $250,000 in campaign fund raising for Obama.

9. Rezko is now on trial for 24 federal felony counts related to campaign fund raising, and other financial frauds against GE Capital. ... I count 196 words after taking out the enumerations, so this can be done very economically and in summary fashion. All of these facts come from mainstream news media. They did not come from the right-wing loony sites like Newsmax. Therefore they are notable, and their effect on the campaign cannot be denied any longer. Therefore they must be included in this article. Furthermore, this long slab of gray text needs to be broken up with headers. Wright, Ayers and Rezko should be mentioned by name in the sub-headers. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@Kossack: Your POV rewrite has no chance of achieving consensus, because it is completely inappropriate. You have ignored all common sense and you have ignored Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your edits are tendentious and disruptive, and you have justified yourself by cherry-picking details from POV sources, or misrepresenting details from reliable sources. Your comment about there being "a dark side to this man's character" is proof of either (a) your obvious bias, or (b - and I hope this is not so) a suggestion of racism. This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(I hope this won't alienate ersatz comrades but---- ) I am likely as not to support the four-or-so regular editors' "bare links" (to daughter articles) approach if a pendulum swing the other way sounds too, well, prosecutorial. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, no racism here. That's another false accusation. False accusations are a kind of behavior that is completely unacceptable. I am objectively, without a trace of bias, saying that there is a dark side to this man's character as proven by lengthy and close associations with Wright, Ayers and Rezko. It is completely NPOV to observe that these relationships and the questions about them have had a profound effect on this campaign, that this campaign is the reason why Obama is more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman Senator, and that therefore, the reasons why such questions have been raised belong in this article. Justmeherenow, I agree that the pendulum can swing too far the other way and I do not want this article to sound too prosecutorial, as you describe it, but right now it's a whitewash. This material can be added to the article in 196 words. That isn't too prosecutorial and it doesn't swing the pendulum too far the other way. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessy, bringing up the speculation of racism was completely inappropriate--a big stretch and not in line at all with WP:FAITH. Comments like that can inflame a discussion that we already know is particularly prone to heated debate. I'd appreciate it if you kept things like that to yourself.

As far as Obama having a "dark side" to his character, Kossack, I don't know how such a statement could be said to be non-POV. The conclusion involves a value judgement, and many people do not share it with you.

Concerning the facts brought up by Kossack for inclusion in the article, although I can see why Kossack views those facts as important, I don't think it's possible to include them all with few enough words and still maintain appropriate style.

Also, point taken about using "offended". As Lulu correctly noted, the polls give no explicit indication that the reason voters expressed disfavor in regard to Wright, etc., is because they were offended by his remarks. You'll see I changed the lang—uage in my reworking above.

Floorsheim (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Floorsheim, I have never had any intention of using the words "dark side to his character" in the article mainspace. My intention is to present Wikipedia with all the facts, including the negative ones about Obama's close associates, and let readers draw their own conclusions from those facts. I intend to obey WP:NPOV to the letter, and that means a fair representation of all significant POVs, including the conservative POV that is critical of these relationships. Criticism about Obama's relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers comes from many notable, unbiased sources as well -- for example, no one can reasonably accuse George Stephanopoulos of being a right-wing loony, although Scjessey has tried. These past 10-11 weeks of criticism and tough questions, and Obama's frequent ducking and dodging in response, have profoundly altered the landscape of this campaign. Obama has been demoted from an unstoppable political juggernaut who never makes a mistake, to a mere human who has made errors in judgment and is entirely capable of losing this election. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good example of WP:OR

For whatever reason, Kossack4Truth believes it urgent to let readers know "the truth" about the "dark underside" of the bio subject. Obviously, this is because s/he wishes to influence those readers who are US voters, rather than out of a desire to make a biography more encyclopedic.

There's a comment s/he made that is a beautifully clear example of original research:

The polls are undeniable. The before-and-after result of the Wright scandal is undeniable. Before Wright, Obama won Super Tuesday and then won eleven primaries in a row. He seemed invincible. After Wright, Obama lost four out of six, including Pennsylvania. (Kossack4Truth)

There are indeed some polls about Wright. Certainly they generally say that most voters have an unfavorable impression of Wright. This is sort of a no-brainer, since the vast majority of them never heard of Wright, other than in reading or watching the "offensive" excerpts that some reporters found from him.

From there—either sincerely or as a rhetorical ploy—Kossack jumps to the idea that conclusion that 11 "wins" (with Clinton in a close second for all 11), followed by 4 "losses" scattered among 6 states must be wholly (or at least mainly) caused by Obama's relationship with Wright. However, in real life, the states he lost in April/May were demographically non-identical to the 11 he won in the Feb/March. During that time Clinton and Obama both continued to campaigned. Other issues were discussed by all sides. A number of debates occurred between the candidates. There was a switch in perception about who was underdog vs. likely winner. Exactly which factors were the most important, I don't know, and still less so does Kossack.

Similarly, in the last 17 days, there were 11 sunny days in a row. Then I did a rain dance, and 4 of the next six days had rain. Am I sure the dance caused the rain? Maybe it did, but probably not. Sequence and selective attention does not prove causality... except in WP:OR land. LotLE×talk 06:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Spin spin spin, little ballerina. I demand that you refactor all of your false accusations about sockpuppetry against me, on this page and others, or I will seek action from an administrator against you.

Others who are far more notable than me have made the same observation about the before-and-after effects of the Wright controversy. You want a link? Michael Barone at National Review. [3] Both the writer and the publication are highly respected and notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. What I say about these controversies is about as important as flatulence in a hurricane. What notable political commentators have said about them is worthy of inclusion in this article. Gaia forbid that any criticism by a conservative, even a conservative as respected as John McCain or the late William F. Buckley, might find its way into this article. But conservatives are a substantial and notable force in politics. They are a significant POV on the subject of Barack Obama, and WP:NPOV demands that they be heard. I agree with very little of what they say, but they make a very powerful point: Wright has damaged Obama's candidacy. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Wright issue caused a slight, but brief dip in the polls. It had no effect on any of the actual primary results, according to normal mainstream media (which does not include Republican tools at FOX News and the National Review). Any successes that Clinton may be having at the moment can be put down to the fact that (a) Obama is no longer campaigning against Clinton (partly out of respect, and partly because he has begun his campaign against McCain) and (b) many of the states that have voted recently are perfect for Clinton from a demographic perspective (poor, uneducated, old, racist). You need a little less Michelle Malkin and a little more Tim Russert. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I demand that you refactor your false accusation about racism immediately and apologize to me, or I will be forced to seek action from an administrator against you.

The National Review is a notable publication. It is representative of the whole conservative side of politics, which has not been hread from at all in this article. WP:NPOV is adamant. It demands that all significant POVs must be fairly represented. So far, the only POV that is represented at all in this article is the POV of Obama's campaign manager. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Gallup poll [4] proving that the Wright controversy has hurt Obama. This is in addition to the New York Times poll I cited earlier. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)