Misplaced Pages

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. 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.

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;; this association would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign." 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 " 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. Misplaced Pages 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/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)

Wright, Rezko, Ayers relevancy debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 " 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 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. After ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, that addressed issues of race. After Wright reiterated some of his remarks in a speech at the National Press Club, Obama strongly denounced Wright, whom he said " a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."

• • Proposed language:

In March 2008, Obama was criticized for his 23-year relationship with his former paster, Jeremiah Wright, 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. Obama condemned Wright's remarks and ended Wright's relationship with the campaign. 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 " a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Both the writer and the publication are highly respected and notable enough to have their own Misplaced Pages 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 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)

There has been no consensus

I would like to point out to you guys that there never has been any consensus to your edits and even if there is one person who speaks up against them, then there is no consensus. Plus also your edits are breaking all sorts of wiki rules too numerous to name. Lastly, this is an article about Obama, not Write, Rezco, or Ayers.

I feel it is about time that an admin(s) step in to resolve this dispute.Brothejr (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely past time for some admin involvement. But I'm not sure how best to solicit that. A checkuser on Kossack4Truth might help, but having sockpuppets is not per-se a blockable matter. It looks like he's also been just skirting the edge of 3RR, while introducing worse-and-worse additions at each round (both longer and less-relevant to bio subject, and also more POV/soapbox). But even so, it's below the threshold of outright vandalism.

Article RfCs are an absolute nightmare in my experience. They take forever, and only result in improvement inasmuch as pugilists eventually get exhausted. User RfCs are rarely that much more effective. Any thoughts on best approach to Kossack4Truth's disruptions? LotLE×talk 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Brotherjr has posted a complaint at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit War/Continual Ayers/Rezco/Write Debate. I suppose someone could also post a complaint at WP:3RR noticeboard. I agree the edit warring should stop. I think those who are edit warring should be warned now by administrators. Some of this would be reduced if more editors would try harder to reach compromise on some of these issues, but I don't expect that. I'm waiting for Floorsheim to come up with definite wording for proposed changes in the Campaign section so that we can then post a request for more participation at Village Pump and at other pages. Then, with a larger number of editors, perhaps some kind of consensus can be reached. Personally, I'd rather see a consensus against what I want than all this edit warring and endless debate, but I don't want to give up before trying to get more editors involved. Noroton (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's been no consensus, and editors shouldn't be changing the article on contested subjects before there is one. That isn't going to get us anywhere. Noroton (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Newsflash! Continual edit warring at a political the article, involving a constantly evolving cast of visitors. Unlikely fix: sanction an entire, amorphous class of inclusionists. A more usual one: a cadre hovers and throws out any stuff they don't like. An even better one? When conflicts can be solved by a slightly more inclusive order of contributing, do so. E/g when readers are reading a summary-style main article they'll every so often come to a few phrases or sentences that explain a minimal context of a daughter article; then, if they want, they can click over to this other article for more detail. But when exclusionists too-stringently filter out recentism----incorrectly crystalballing (as guided, ironically, by whatever their particular POVs) what's likely to be encyclopedically notable nine, ten years from now----in the process sometimes they leave the reader no clue as to why there even IS a daughter article in some cases. "Obama started his campaign. After awhile there was controversy regarding William Ayers"----full stop. No clue as to its nature; but with blue text indicating there's an embedded link at the word /controvery/. Result? (A) A boatload of potential contributors think they see a whole in the text and try to fill it in. (B) Queue the hovering cadre.

Hey, but what if Misplaced Pages were allowed to excel where it's at its best? giving recent events stringently neutral, encyclopedic coverage? Editors work toward a super-tight compromise. At its very least: "Obama's association with education activist William Ayers caused /controversy/ because of Ayers' past involvement with the Weather Underground." Result? Maybe a larger percentage of potential contributors would perceive their "holes" to be filled and would be satisfied. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama campaign volunteers who have taken control of this article are being unreasonable. There should be some mention of the "unrepentant terrorist" past of Bill Ayers and the felony trial of Tony Rezko, particularly since the trial is about political fundraising, and Rezko's link to Obama is his political fundraising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

11 states or 12?

"After Super Tuesday, Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses. Obama and Clinton split delegates and states nearly equally in Vermont, Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island."

I know it says he had an 11 state straight win before hillary stopped it with Ohio. But isnt it 12 wins? Vermont was called in Obamas favour just before she got Ohio. Can this be checked please. Also I like all the trimming down, its much better. I has concerns about that second line though, its nothing major, but that was perceieved as a good night for Hillary, more so than Obama. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

VT and OH were on the same day, right? Conventionally, contests held the same day are considered "simultaneous", which seems reasonable enough. There's no one moment in time when a "win" occurs: usually the media call contests first (but different networks in different orders), then the SoS releases tentative results (sometimes the next day or so), then a couple days later, the "final official" results are released by the SoS. I don't know the exact order of these events between VT and OH, but I'm pretty sure you could construct either order by cherry-picking the "true result" method. It's really not very important to the biography whether there were 11 or 12 "wins" in a row, it barely makes a trivia question. Moreover, this thing with "wins" is silly anyway... 51/49 is a "win," but it's more different from a 65/35 win than from a 49/51 "loss"). LotLE×talk 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure they were the same day, though why say 11 at all if it doesnt matter, people here seem to think its noteworthy, if it is noteworthy we should try to make sure its accurate. I believe he won Vermont by a long mile so the minute it was announced it was official he had won. If we ARE going to have a number lets make sure it right. I still have an issue with the neutrality of the second line. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 19:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not official when a large margin is reported in the popular press (based on exit polls or partial county results). Legally, it's official when the Secretary of State releases "certified final results." Exactly when and how that happens varies by jurisdiction (and in principle might be delayed for errors, challenges, etc). I'm not attached to th 11 as anything in particular, if you have some other more generic phrase (especially if it is more concise), great... maybe "A string of wins" or something? LotLE×talk 21:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This was raised at the HRC article too. I agree completely with LotLE: it's impossible to determine an order that primary or caucus wins "occur on" when they are held on the same day. Certainly a network "calling" a race has no effect in and of itself, witness the number of times such calls have ended up being retracted. The streak should only cover primaries and caucuses held on prior days and weeks. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Delegates counted

The delegates from F and M have been counted, with a few mathematical adjustments to ensure Obama keeps the delegate lead. Clinton gets quite a lot more delegates than obama but it wont be enough. That means however she now takes the lead in the popular vote. We can get the sources together and decide how to word it all. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also raised at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Delegates counted, where some complexities in trying to calculate the popular vote lead are listed in response. But in any case, this is immaterial to this article, which only describes primary results in terms of delegates. For example, this article says New Hampshire was a draw and Nevada was an Obama win, when Hillary won the popular vote in both states. So by extension, the total popular vote is completely irrelevant here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So if she wins the total popular vote are you suggesting it not be mentioned? Dont you realise how huge it will be played if she has the popular vote yet he wins. It will be similar to that thing where it looked like she could win off the superdelegates. Not mentioning it in the article seems like a convenient cover up, still we have to wait for the figures. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be huge if the popular vote had anything to do with the delegate count, which has always been the way the nomination would be decided... and also, the section is named... Lyellin (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Astonishing POV push redux

As I write, User:Andyvphil and User:Kossack4Truth are adding their POV material to the article, violating several policies and ignoring a number of guidelines and essays. There has been no attempt by Andy to discuss the matter on this talk page, despite the fact he is just emerged from a week-long block for this kind of tendentious editing. The discussion on the Admin board includes a comment from an administrator that argues how inappropriate this stuff is, yet this has been ignored. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted their edits and included a comment to the admins that these are exactly the same POV edits as before, plus it looks to be same style as Kossack4 had been doing, as in someone else adding the content and then he came in to finish it up. Brothejr (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(@ word "astonishing" in the section title): Not so shocking, really, that folks see holes and fill em. Per Meta on "Wikifaith":

Wikifaith is a faith in the wiki model of web development -- itself simply a technology based on a faith and trust in the positive balance of human nature. Those who tend to be exclusionist demand hard controls and limits to wiki do so because their wikifaith is weak, or they are in fact unbelievers in wiki -- a paradoxical contradiction considering that many such people are active Wikipedians.----WIKIMEDIA: META WIKI — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream news media attention to Rezko, Wright and Ayers, and the results from multiple surveys proving that Wright has affected how people view Obama's candidacy, mean that Rezko, Wright and Ayers belong in this article. Readers deserve to know, by reading this article, why these three men belong in this article. It is their own less than admirable activity that has made them controversial and notable. An admin's comments about content carry no more nor less weight than comments about content by any other editor. Hysteria about "astonishing POV push" is a mischaracterization, claims of sockpuppetry are a lie, and claims of racism are a lie. Refactor your lies, Scjessey, and apologize. Brothejr is trying to say is that Andyvphil is my sockpuppet. That is a lie as well. Brothejr, refactor your lies and apologize. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

@Brothejr - To be fair, I am completely convinced that Andy and Kossack are different people; however, that does not mean that they don't dance to the same tune.

@Kossack - There are already articles that cover the specifics of Obama's associations with these men, and the actual specifics of what these men have said/done are not required (or appropriate) for this biography about Obama. This is a biography about Barack Obama, not about other people. Your failure to understand this simple fact borders on the astounding. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What is astonishing is that you Obama apologists actually believe that anyone in their right mind is going to buy off on taking anything that you find to be negative and putting it off to another article, in hopes that it not be read. I understand, that's the best you can come up with, however it's just not going to fly. You look at existing rules and willfully misinterpret them to say that ANY comment you don't like is 'POV' and undue weight, then want to be 'astounded' that we don't see it your way - well, be astounded. We aren't fooled. Right now, I'm watching David Bonior making the exact same argument you are - at least we know where you're getting your marching orders.Fovean Author (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between, e.g., saying (a) that Ayers is a former "radical activist" who once held a fundraiser for Obama and (b) that Ayers is an unrepentant former bomber who hosted the announcement of Obama's first run for office and whom Obama later hired as a fellow well-paid sinecurist on the BOD of the Woods Foundation is not that the latter is "specific" information about someone not the subject of the article. The difference is that (a) is misleadingly jejune. Andyvphil (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it would be better if we simply left out any mention of Ayers in the article whatsoever, as I have argued for previously. There is, in fact, no case for any type of Ayers inclusion. Obama's association with Ayers has only been negative from a campaign standpoint, and only because right-wing apologists who are desperate for their party to cling to power have tried to make it so. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to decide, so let's just do it completely your way. If nothing else, you're predictable, talk. You need to recognize that 'consensus' doesn't mean 'completely your way,' and that you and your compatriot User:Brothejr aren't going to be able to keep Wright, Ayers and Rezco off of the profile. It is ludicrous to assert that Obama has no other factors in his life or personality outside of Obama. These persons are major factors in Obama's life and they WILL appear in the article. Fovean Author (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In the game of basketball, what Brothejr and Scjessey are doing is called a full court press. They are monitoring the article on a full-time basis, relying on the idea that during any 24-hour period, the two of them have more reverts available under WP:3RR than any people like us who may happen to show up and believe in WP:NPOV. They make false accusations, they never ever apologize, they take it to WP:ANI and WP:3RR whenever they are able, and they have generally made this article into a full-time job for themselves, hoping the rest of us don't have the time or the will to resist. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's association with Ayers has only been negative from a campaign standpoint, and only because right-wing apologists who are desperate for their party to cling to power have tried to make it so. There you go again, Scjessey, trying to dismiss George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, former press secretary for Democratic president Bill Clinton, as a "right-wing apologist who is desperate for his party to cling to power." Stephanopoulos is, without a doubt, a Democrat.

This is just the latest example of the distortion and spin-doctoring coming from Obama fanboys on this article. I repeat, it isn't just right-wing partisans and crazy sites like Newsmax that focus on Wright, Ayers and Rezko. It's Stephanopoulos and the rest of the mainstream media as well. It's Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who support her. It's also Michael Barone of National Review and other highly respected, credible conservatives. Scjessey pretends that it's only "Republican tools" who are interested in this story. He pretends that any WP editor who wants this article to be NPOV is also an "Obama hater," even "racist."

I want WP:NPOV in this article, including all significant points of view, including Obama's many critics.

And I want Scjessey and Brothejr to refactor their lies and apologize to me. End your edit warring, end your personal attacks and lies, and accept this consensus. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephanopoulos is, without a doubt, a Democrat.

He's a Clintonite. Clinton supporters, as evidenced by their disgraceful behavior in yesterday's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, can barely be called Democrats anymore - in fact, they have done more for a McCain victory than his own party has. Stephanopoulos' debate question was a disgrace to the "mainstream" media, and the entire debate received universal condemnation for being amateurish and biased against Obama. Again, you state that the National Review is "highly respected", but that's only among Republicans. The rest of the world regards it as a publication biased toward Republican interests. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing about that actual content dispute, because you are clearly unable to follow Misplaced Pages rules, or even show a little bit of common sense. As for refactoring my comments, absolutely no chance whatsoever - I stand by what I said, which was based on the evidence before me. Your silly posturing about it will not change anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Plan and simple, POV is seeing any stuff non-apologetic as venom. While I am (possibly other contributors are) Chomskyist, according to what distortions of reality are produced by the lenses of folks whose coverage tends toward hagiography, apparently any coverage given to the Dohrn/Ayers affair (...even by Michael Kinsley!) is only Buckleyism. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, what has happened over night, I added that little bit about Obama leaving Trinity - which was reasonably neutral I thought - I come back and the controversy stuff has taken center stage. While I agree more needed to be made of it, I was only talking lines, not paragraphs, this is OTT. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agree it's OTT. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

However, dig the assertion above that the PA debate was universally panned as unfair to Obama. Wouldn't a simple test to the believability of such an assertion be to simply imagine we're submitting it to a WP article on the PA debate and sense if it'd pass NPOV muster? Histrionics often buttress the very weakest point of a belief; e/g somebody says "INDISPUTABLY!!" about the part of their argument at the very heart of the actual, well, dispute.

Scjessey believes that "Stephanopoulos' debate question was a disgrace to the "mainstream" media, and the entire debate received universal condemnation...." So, we apply who, what, where, how, when and test the belief in this emphatic universality. Only those condemning exist? Ah, Grasshopper, note the very essence of the dispute of how to edit this page. — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, I am eager to reach an accommodation with you and any other editor who agrees that this negative material about Obama's political allies should be included. I am glad you agree that the article should not be the whitewash that Scjessey wants. You differ with Fovean Author, Andyvphil and I only regarding the amount of space (a little vs. more) that should be devoted to it. Please make whatever edits you feel are necessary for you to fully support this consensus. I trust your judgment. Thanks.

Scjessey, since you stand behind your false accusation of racism, I'm also glad to know exactly how dishonest you're willing to be, in order to win the edit war you're waging. You refuse to apologize for these lies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think he is Whitewashing, he has said for himself in the past that he simply doesn't see these issues as a big deal. Hes not hiding them away, he just honestly doesnt think their a big deal. You see them as a big deal so you want more inclusion. AGF everyone. Personally Im not interested in doing it. I could probably write it somewhere in the middle but then I would upset both camps. I dont think its wise though to start slinging mud at Clinton supporters, its not productive here. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't trust him, Realist2. He's a liar and he refuses to apologize for his lies. He claims that he doesn't think Wright, Rezko and Ayers are a big deal. What he thinks, like what I think, matters no more than flatulence in a hurricane. But what George Stephanopoulos and other notable mainstream news media people think about it? That matters. And they think it's a big deal. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please please please watch civility, if you want to contribute you have to ensure your not blocked first ok. Need to stay calm folks. Both sides need to meet somewhere in the middle, otherwise this article is going to become unstable and could lose its FA star, something that should be avoided at all costs. Both sides are going to have to make some compromises if they truly care about this articles future. Frankly 6 lines for all thats happened isnt enough, but 4 paragraphs is a joke, an embarrassement. A third party that cares about the article itself, not the man Obama needs to take action quickly. Talk page chatter isnt enough. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Realist2. I'll cut down the length. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There you go. I've cut it down to two paragraphs, a total of 16 lines. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well any cut will bring us closer to a consensus so it is an improvement. I advise all parties to discuss before we make edits, not just me and you, we still need the pro obama people here too. We should build something on the talk page or another page and bring it over here, please dont break 3RR. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please explain how Obama's campaign staff took control of his Misplaced Pages biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Its not THAT bad. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If Obama's professional staff was in control of this, it wouldn't be so obvious and OTT. This is the clumsy and embarassing work of amateur volunteers for the Obama campaign. They just cut everything out that sounds discouraging. Clinton just won Puerto Rico which has 55 more delegates, in case anyone's wondering. This means that since Wright became an issue in the campaign, Obama has lost five out of seven primaries. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I added that 5 losses to the article. I will also be adding the popular vote thing if she takes him in that at the end. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New source material on Obama/Rezko

Investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle has published a six-part series on the intimate, intricate, intertwined relationship between Obama and Rezko. Lest anyone claim that she is a paid Republican Party operative employed by the evil Karl Rove, she also has some very harsh words for George Ryan, former Republican governor of Illinois. Among other gems from Pringle: "Obama was Rezko's inside man in the Illinois Senate" and "Rezko was Obama's political Godfather."

Pringle points out that in the Illinois Senate in the spring of 2003, Obama pushed through legislation that would enable Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich to pack a state hospital planning board with his political allies. This planning board controls hundreds of millions of dollars intended for the construction of hospitals and nursing homes and now Blago's political allies control all that cash. Within weeks after Obama ramrodded that new law through the Illinois legislature, the very same political allies Blago appointed to that planning board (and their wives) were pouring thousands and thousands of dollars into Obama's US Senate campaign. The mastermind of the entire scheme was Tony Rezko. All of this is exquisitely documented in the Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune, the Illinois legislative record and OpenSecrets.org, the public record of political donations to presidential, Senate and House campaigns.

Evelyn Pringle's Introduction:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

This series of articles is being syndicated across the Internet on such websites as Scoop.co.nz and Countercurrents.org. Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying No to Controversies Section.

I strongly oppose the repeated attempts to add a controversies section to the article. Granted, different controversies have been and are going to be in the media. But highlighting any of them, yet alone sectioning them together, is undue weight; a synthesis of highlighting, defining, characterizing and framing the 2008 campaign; a partisan tactic that should not be mimicked in the structure of this article's mainspace. Modocc (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT section just removed from this bio's being reincluded. — Justmeherenow (   )

Justmeherenow, I was not referring to that text, since inclusion of any or all of that text is not at issue here, I am opposed to any controversies section, no matter how well-written, period.Modocc (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've slightly rephrased my comment above. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Modocc (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Re Scjessey (in next section): Not gonna argue wid the esteemed Mr. Wales. — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow, don't allow Scjessey to mislead you about WP:CRIT and what Jimmy Wales said. See my comments below. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE if it's a separate section and not included in some other section. I'd prefer omitting the Quentin Young sentence because I see no reason to give it any more prominence than any other quote about this. I think something a bit more generic would work better, but I'd switch to support if it isn't in its own section. I think we should try to be flexible to get a consensus, although the Obama supporters here are not showing open minds or an ability to compromise or, frankly, an NPOV attitude. I think we're ultimately going to change this over their adamant opposition. It's pretty sad that in an important Wikapedia article we have so many editors who won't try to follow WP:CONSENSUS, but that appears to be the case. The arguments for not including at least some more information on these ongoing, roiling controversies are transparently POV pushing.Noroton (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your chronological argument also is convincing, Kos. ("Lib" enough not to be offended by this one-time nick?) Anywho I'm sold on this ideal of not having (as Jimbo terms them) troll magnet criticisms sections. Encorporating both views and events into the same bodies of text facilitates editorial evenhandedness. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maximally Oppose. Absolutely, totally against "controversies" section in any biography on Misplaced Pages. These are definitionally un-encyclopedic, and never amount to anything but coatracking and soapboxing. LotLE×talk 01:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm sure you'll support weaving the controversies into other sections of the article rather than gathering them into a "Controversies" section, as Jimmy Wales recommended in WP:CRIT. Thanks for your support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose As mentioned in a myriad of posts, this is an article on Obama, the majority of the earlier edits were mainly about other people. Also, as mentioned down below within WP:Crit a Controversy has been highly discouraged. Brothejr (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT. According to Jimmy Wales, as a general rule editors should spread any criticism through the article, not delete it. But WP:CRIT also includes examples of why criticism, in some cases, could be included in a single section. Here, we were dealing with events of the presidential campaign in chronological order. And conveniently enough, in the long hiatus in the primaries before Pennsylvania, all of these controversies boiled up. Since the rest of the section is in chronological order, the controversies about Wright, Rezko and Ayers should be briefly described in chronological order in that section. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about a chronological approach, that further attests to the fact that these should be in the campaign article and not the BLP, because these are campaign-related controversies. That being said, I have begun a process to build a new consensus below. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying Yes to Weaving Controversies Throughout the Article ...

... regarding Wright, Ayers and Rezko. Per Jimmy Wales' admonition in WP:CRIT. It isn't Jimbo's position that all criticism and controversy should be deleted on sight by Scjessey and his friends. Jimbo's position is that the criticism should stay in the article, but be spread throughout the article rather than being concentrated in one "troll magnet" section. Jimbo says that any criticism and controversy should be woven into the entire fabric of the article, not deleted. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• MAXIMALLY SUPPORT. WP:NPOV demands fair representation of all significant POVs, including the POV that is questioning Obama. "Neutral point of view" does not mean "no point of view" and, most relevant to this article, it does not mean "Obama's campaign manager's point of view, and exclude all others." This questioning of Obama concerning his associations with Wright, Ayers and Rezko is not a fringe POV. It is a very substantial POV, shared by many prominent, notable mainstream media sources, Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the Democratic Party, and respected, credible conservative voices such as Michael Barone and Fred Siegel in National Review. Editors have an unavoidable duty to fairly and proportionally represent this POV in this article under WP:NPOV. The only POV previously represented in this article was the POV of Obama's campaign manager. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed text championed by several of this WP:BLP's current WP:inclusionists:

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served with William Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. media attention has been drawn to Obama's association with university professors Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were co-founders of the Weather Underground, a radical anti-war group that bombed several locations in the United States in the early 1970s. Ayers has admitted deploying explosives. Ayers and Dohrn hosted the announcement of Obama's first run for office in 1996. Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician, remembered being present at this introductory meeting, and described Ayers and Obama's relationship as "casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation." Obama's association with Bill Ayers was also questioned in an ABC debate. Former radical activist Bill Ayers had joined Obama on the Woods Foundation board in 1999 and had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996.

Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp. which is co-owned by his long-time political supporter Tony Rezko. Obama has also faced media scrutiny concerning his relationship with Tony Rezko, a land developer on trial for 24 felony charges, most related to political fundraising. On the first day of fundraising for Obama's first political campaign, more than half the money came from companies controlled by Rezko. Rezko raised over $250,000 for Obama's political campaigns; recently, Obama donated about $160,000 of this money to charity. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• SUPPORT modest mention, throughout. :^)  — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a biography about Barack Obama. We cannot have stuff like "...William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were co-founders of the Weather Underground, which bombed several locations in the United States in the 1970s. Ayers has admitted deploying explosives," in the article because those details are not related to Obama at all, and would therefore violate WP:BLP and other related policies. And many of the other statements in the paragraph, while ultimately true, are given undue weight. Also, conflating such "controversies" under a single section heading is inappropriate. The act is highly discouraged by Misplaced Pages (Jimmy Wales himself weighs in on this at WP:CRIT#Criticism in a "Criticism" section), in this case creating a coatrack section. I do not expect this proposed paragraph to achieve any kind of consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

@User:Justmeherenow - can you please stop moving things around the talk page? It makes it very difficult to follow a conversation thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken yet note that I'd quickly excercised a perogative to reposition solely my own comment, not others'. Peace out:^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a biography about Barack Obama. We cannot have stuff like ... Yes we can. Because the mainstream news media focused on it as part of their coverage of the presidential campaign, we have a duty to report it as part of this article's section on the presidential campaign.

Also, conflating such "controversies" under a single section heading is inappropriate. The act is highly discouraged by Misplaced Pages (Jimmy Wales himself weighs in on this ... Another highly skilled and deceptive Scjessey distortion. I see that you've deceived Justmeherenow into opposing this paragraph. Jimmy Wales is not the god of Misplaced Pages. Policy is the god of Misplaced Pages. WP:CRIT is an essay. It is not policy. It is not even a guideline.

Here's what Jimmy Wales said: "It isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." So the solution is not to delete all criticism from the article as Scjessey has been trying so very hard to do. The solution is to spread it out throughout the article ... just like I was trying to do in the beginning. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Friendly warning re Lulu's 3Rs

Lulu 3R'd on the page within the last 24 hour period going OTT via her removal of the article's "Controversies" section. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Titling of "Obama 2008 presidential election" article's daughter articles re controversies

I invite comment both here and here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to build consensus on the details

Endless edit warring is getting us nowhere. What we need is a reasonable, civil discussion about each of the specific details that the self-styled "inclusionists" want to include. Once we have achieved a reasonable consensus on an item, we can integrate it into an appropriate place in the the article and move on to the next item. There are three specific associations that are being warred over at the moment. These are:

1. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church
2. Tony Rezko
3. Bill Ayers (and to a lesser extent, his wife)

There is no doubt in my mind that some mention of all three of these associations should be made. What needs to be agreed upon is the weight of each inclusion.

Comments

See liberal comments above and these comments. I believe that the article should focus mainly on Obama. But relevant links from past to present, as he is an elected offical and running for President of the US should strongly be considered.

Bill Ayers

As a first example, I would like to initiate a meaningful discussion on how much Ayers-related text there should be. Consider these options (and these are bare-bones examples that do not necessarily reflect how I think they should be written):

1. No mention at all.
2. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
3. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
4. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Weatherman founder Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
5. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who during the 1970s were co-founders of the Weather Underground (a militant activist organization), would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
6. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by unrepentant terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who during the 1970s were co-founders of the Weather Underground (a militant activist organization), would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
7. Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. 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 Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
   

And so on....

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

You can see we have a sliding scale of increasing detail and negativity. What we need to do is to come to some sort of agreement about how far along that scale we want to go, and then duplicate the process with the other "controversies". The second example above was the original text agreed upon by an earlier consensus (see talk page archive), but now we have a push to include more details that are not part of Obama's biography. My personal preference would be for option 1 on the scale above, because I think this is a campaign only issue and should be in the campaign article; however, I have already agreed to the text of option 2. I'd like to get civil opinions on what the best option would be (bearing in mind these are only example texts, and could be rewritten). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Tally

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

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

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

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

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

Possible ballots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments (please remove your votes from the comment section)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. 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 Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Noroton (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving from vote to integration

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

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

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

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

A simple list of agree/disagree comments seems appropriate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An aside re zero and infinity

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

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

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

, but "infinite" en toto))
 — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for spirit of cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus-building discussion of the options

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

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

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

Option 1: Say nothing about Ayers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 2: Don't mention Ayers controversial past

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

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

Option 3: Identifies Ayers as former radical activist

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

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

Option 4: Identifies Ayers as Weatherman founder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we reach a reasonable compromise here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a ridiculous argument. It is akin to this:

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

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

A brief reprieve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead section problem

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

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

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

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

Presumptive nominee vs. a candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion in "Christian Converts" Category?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate box

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

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

Obama Infobox and Succession boxes

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

Obama's mother race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two major parties?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wording Correction

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

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

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

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

Another wording problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural perception etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential issues should he be elected to the Presidency

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