Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 24 July 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

	Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 5, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Columbia UniversityPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Template:BannerShell

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior: Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted. On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance. New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

Administrators have identified this article as being problematic with regard to our biographies of living persons policy. In order to avoid placing special enforcement sanctions, which may include blocks, deletions, page protections, topic/article bans, and "any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy.", users are asked to take special care in editing this article to ensure it stays within compliance with policy. If you violate our biographies of living persons policy you may receive a warning and explanation on your talk page. If you again violate our biographies of living persons policy, you may be blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned with limited rights of appeal. Misplaced Pages articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (2007-09-17). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-12). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "one of two pieces aired". WCBS Newsradio 880.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Please stop blocking criticism of Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to talk about William Ayers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayers issue is a non-starter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twenty words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still not good enough:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visiting Service members in Combat Zone / War zone

Obama came to the combat and for some reason people are not allowing it. My personal opinion they are McCain supportors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, please be civil when talking to other Wikipedians. Your edits are being reverted because of Misplaced Pages policies, such as WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:WEIGHT. There is no political motivation involved. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict - addressed to Ronjohn) You seem to be a little inexperienced about Misplaced Pages. Please note the assume good faith and no personal attacks policies. Also, you've inserted the material 5 times in the last few minutes which means your account is subject to a block at any time - best to promise that you won't do it again if you want to avoid that. We don't know for sure how anyone is going to vote; few here have announced there political positions. But if it helps, if you look at the article history the three people who have objected to the material are citing value-neutral objections (trivial, not news), and have also objected to the inclusion of biased anti-Obama material in the article as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A US Senator visiting a combat zone where people die not notable Im confused as to how that is trival. if this is so trival why is there a picture of him up playing with deployed service members in 2006. There's not even a vote in process you guys just keep deleting it without even creating a discussion. --Ron John (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is an excellent place to work on user-editable descriptions of current events. I believe that with the unified login system, you should be able to access it using the same user account that you've established on WP. LotLE×talk 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed a non-free image (with an incorrectly cited reference) that is related to this news story. I recommend that Ron John seeks to build a consensus here before making any more changes to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you delete the other pic as well of him in Djibouti playing basketball with service members.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs)

The Djibouti basketball image is in the public domain. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:Ronjohn has been blocked for a short time for the 3RR/edit-warring. I believe that his contributions were initially made in good faith, but just with a lack of understanding of the focus of different Wikimedia projects and pages. After that, I think he got a bit too caught up in a desire for his specific additions to go in this specific location. Hopefully over the next day, he'll have the opportunity to read relevant WP policies and guidelines, and return as a productive editor. LotLE×talk 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So all of Obama's visit's to the middle east this week will not be highlighted in his wiki article as notable I take it.--Ron John (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I'm still convinced you guys are McCain supporters and I'm in-titled to my opinion!

In the context of Obama's entire life (which this biography represents), the current Middle East/Europe trip is not hugely significant. That being said, it has be a significant event when taken into context with his role as a United States senator. Therefore, it seems likely that coverage will end up in United States Senate career of Barack Obama, although this will obviously depend on the level of reportage and the availability of reliable sources. Hopefully, a public domain image will become available too. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Given than McCain and his supporter have been complaining bitterly that Obama's trip to combat zones and other international sites got huge news coverage, with all the news anchors following Obama around the globe, the news services those anchors report for appear to have decided that the trip is at least highly newsworthy. I agree that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, but the trip is clearly important as part of the presidential campaign, by noting how much coverage it got in relation to other similar time periods covering Obama. Google News shows 4,746 stories in the past week containing "obama baghdad trip" alone. U.S News has an article about the coverage.Edison (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take it up at Talk: Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 then - at present, unless something major occurs, it is not likely to have enough significance in his overall life and career to warrant a place in this general biography of his life. I can't say offhand if it will be appropriate for the campaign article, but that's where it could go. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ABC News interviewed him at the embassy in Baghdad He met with General Peatrus and discussed policy in Iraq. I'm not understanding what that has to do with his presidential campaign. He went as a U.S. SENATOR!!! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs)

The State Department has determined that both Obama's and McCain's trips are largely about their presidential campaigns, and have directly instructed their support personnel to act accordingly (i.e.. to scale back involvement and provide "minimal support"). That seems to imply that these trips primary function is not recognized by even our own government as senatorial. Quenn (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who runs the State Department? I believe it's George Bush's close friend and mentor, Condoleeza Rice, and she's employed by the executive branch, not the legislative branch. It's a trip Obama took in his official role as Senator, and he's the one who gets to make the decision on where to travel, not the White House. We have an interesting problem here because this article describes perhaps half a dozen trips Obama made overseas in the realm of politics. I'm not sure whether any of them are notable. One does get the sense the State Department is right, but who knows if he would have done this without the election - he took politically motivated trips as Senator too. Perhaps we should eliminate them all and ship them out to the sub-articles, other than the trips to Kenya, which were clearly major life events for him and very inspiring (but a little controversial) for people in Africa. To decide which article it fits in, how much coverage it deserves, and whether it belongs here, I would look at the most serious reliable coverage to see how much there is vis-a-vis other issues, and whether the press is treating it as a campaign event or a Senate event. Wikidemo (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the trip to Kenya is self evidentially relevant, and that there is a real question as to the notability of the other trips. Does anyone have strong feelings that any other particular trip listed in the article has an importance to Obama's biography that would exclude it from being shipped to a sub-article? As there are annual complaints about the size of the article (I think the size is fine, by the way), this may be a non controversial way to streamline it some. Quenn (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that his role as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a highly significant detail in his biography. By extension, his "foreign relations" (meeting dignitaries of foreign lands at home and abroad) are equally important. I'm not sure how you could scale this back and still give his committee membership due weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On an amusingly timely note to the question of the trip's primary purpose, Charlie Gibson's 7/23 interview with Obama includes a direct response by Obama that begins "The main purpose of the trip from my perspective is..." (This exchange begins around 54 seconds into the video): http://youtube.com/watch?v=aAEnu89dxCY Quenn (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"The main purpose of the trip, from my perspective, is looking at some of the most critical issues that next President is going to have to deal with."

Not "I am going to have to deal with" or anything like that. This is entirely consistent with his role in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which gathers and weighs issues concerning the US relations with foreign nations. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You moved my response under yours so it looked like a direct rebuttal to your comment. It wasn't meant that way at all, it was a follow up to my comment. I was simply posting the interview to give a greater insight into Obama's mind set on the trip's purpose. I've moved my response back. I know that this article can get quite contentious and therefore the presumption can be adversarial, but I actually don't disagree with you or your assessment of the interview. Quenn (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

POV fork nominated for deletion

I urge all interested parties to visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy and consider Bill Ayers election controversy for deletion, due to the fact that it is an obvious POV fork to avoid WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

.....The whisker of advocacy just above is not a breach of most-proper canvassing, f'r sure; but even if it is, witchit innt, ppl would decide the case on the merits, anyway.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the general notification above is the only place I "colored" the notice with my personal thoughts on the matter. The notifications I sent out to individuals who had edited the article in question were unaltered, template-based AFD notices. I do not think this can be classified as canvassing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should capitalize Wikislang to clue ppl in to instances of cyber-street semantics. As in, "I'm canvassing for broad participation while being careful not to be Canvassing." (?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LEAD

All this talk and the Lead still doesn't read well. Does anyone else notice the time disparities? I'm on the Obama bandwagon and I certainly want to respect all the effort here. I will rework and post here before making any changes to the Lead (other than the one I did prior to considering the sensabilities of the many editors already involved). I have not made a thourough check of the history of the article since it is quite extensive.--Buster7 (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama VP

Who is/are the frontrunner(s) for Obama's vice president? THANKS, Smuckers (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No one knows, and speculation wouldn't be appropriate to add to the article. Tvoz/talk 08:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a front-runner as there isn't any election process for VP. We'll know in a month, so let's wait until then.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs too long

Hello, I put {{verylong}} into the references section because it takes up half the page. Is there a way to make the list shorter, like a bubble. that would improve the article. Regards, Smuckers 08:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the recently added {{verylong}} tag because it is inappropriate. This article is very carefully referenced (but not over-referenced) because it is extremely popular, and so the references section is necessarily long; however, the overall length of the article (it's readable prose) is within the acceptable guidelines. I have restored the 3-column reflist to decrease the amount of scrolling required, although this will only work for browsers that support columns. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Smuckers may be talking about the physical size rather than the number of references, but I agree that the tag is not appropriate, and there's not much we can or should do other than have the 3 column format. We cannot use the scroll feature for reference lists. Tvoz/talk 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Coulter April 2008 article - Obama

Coulter directly quotes Obama in unflattering light and she is a notable commentator. Her observations and criticisms of Obama are notable enough to mention in this article.

Pierre.cardoone (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Also, The Coultergeist is in "bonkersville", to use a term from her own article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Coulter certainly is notable and regarding her personal comments, I am certain the JWR article quotes her accurately. JWR is a reliable source and the subject of the JWR article (Coulter's comments) is notable. Coulter is pundit and by definition, her comments are always subjective. It's not for us to state if she's "bonkersville" or not. She said it, she's notable and she's directly quoting Obama. You are free to read his book if you think she's lying - she gives the page numbers. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but JWR is not a reliable source. Not only that, the standard for reliable sources is necessarily high for Biographies of Living Persons. In any case, this is not how biographies are written. You must propose a change to the article and then make your case for that change on this talk page. We don't regurgitate biased punditry and say it should be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dick Morris says Obama's health care plan includes FREE health insurance for illegal aliens

To quote Morris:

"Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly."

Sounds to me like this should be mentioned here. Dick Morris is a noted political observer and commentator. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See Scjessey's comment above. "We don't regurgitate biased punditry and say it should be in the article." Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama probably does not need Morris to speak for him and announce his programs, since Morris seems to be a McCain supporter. If Obama announces he intends to provide free health care for illegal aliens, then we can revisit the question. Edison (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that Dick Morris is even-minded and notable enough that if he parses someone's comments and comes up with an observation, that observation is notable. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then consider putting the remark on HIS page. He has not been appointed spokesman for Obama. Edison (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup. My spidey sense go up every time I see a talk comment with "X said bad thing about - we should put it in." This is not mainstream, and it would be bad encyclopedia writing to include it. WP:SOAP. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Stalk ----- Smuckers 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do we assume that giving health care to illegal aliens is negative or "a bad thing"? I'm not sure that our value judgements, although ok on a talk page, should creep into our article editing.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue of providing government services to illegal aliens (and sometimes legal aliens too) does tend to cause a stir when it arises and there are cogent arguments on both sides. I'm not sure what the alternative is - letting them suffer outside the door because they can't get into the hospital? Making hospitals eat the loss for treating someone who turns out to be uninsured? Using taxpayer money to fund programs for people who are avoiding taxes (though some illegals do pay taxes)? If and when this becomes a matter of wider public debate it may become notable as a matter of public policy - probably in an article about the health care legislation, should Obama get elected or otherwise have an opportunity to actually introduce it. That later part is just a prediction. For now I don't see much notability to it as a biographical detail about Obama, or even as an issue in the Presidential campaign (unless it becomes one). Wikidemo (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image patrol?!

I and others have added some good images to this article but it seems that the article always returns to having exactly the same old images? It seems therefore that somebody might be 'owning' this article and trying to keep it to their (old) version so I'd appreciate if they would stop doing that and let people add images. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

user:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel|Gustav von Humpelschmumpel]]. I can't find any pic you added recently (going as far back as May) so I'm wondering why you're the one starting this section with posting:"I and others have added some good images...". Which images did you post? As you can see looking at the article history I just reinsert a picture that was removed with a (for me) non-convincing edit summary. So you can't call me an "image patrol member" and yet I have a problem with your post here because I don't understand it. What is it what I don't get if anything? Looking forward for a response from you, Herr von Humpelschumpel , --Floridianed (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,it is simply that the images that are currently on the article have been there for an extremely long time and whenever anyone adds new images they eventually get removed reverting to the old layout. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very closely monitored and edited article. You should gain a consensus on the talk page before making major edits, such as adding new photos. That is why they are being reverted. Quenn (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, we should take a look at the new photos that were added by user user:Jacoplane as there might be some copy write issues with them. I could not find a clear stance on if the images are publicly free to use from the DOD page that the user had gotten them from. If there is not a clear use statement from the original web page then I recommend removing the images from the page and also deleting them from Misplaced Pages. Brothejr (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Images created by the U.S. Federal Government are public domain images, so they can be used on Misplaced Pages. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 00:43

Please see {{PD-USGov}}. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 00:46

Good enough for me. You weren't adding that many shots. Though, in the future, I'd recommend bringing it up on the talk page before you add and fix images in this articles so there is no problems in the future. Especially with an article as closely watched as this one. Brothejr (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

However, there is still no consensus on their addition, so it would be nice if you would self revert and discuss the photo additions on a case by case basis here.Quenn (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how Misplaced Pages works, see WP:BOLD. Personally, I feel these images are a great deal more relevant to the article than images such as Image:Coburn and Obama discuss S. 2590.jpg, Image:Lugar-Obama.jpg, and Image:BarackObama-Basketball.JPEG, so I was bold and added the images. If there is consensus that these changes are not appropriate then they will be reverted. However, it is not the case that every change must first be discussed on the talk page, even for a featured article. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 01:01

You are correct that you can edit the article in any way you wish. However, gaining a consensus usually means that your edits will remain in the article longer, and this is especially true for significant edits, such as adding photos. Photo additions in particular have a history of being reverted in this article. Also, talking about significant edits first prevents heavily edited and contentious articles from descending into chaos. Quenn (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters that "two pictures including Petreus is too single-themed (perhaps insinuates some special connection between Obama and Petreus as well)". However, I would suggest that at least one of the images be kept, given the amount of coverage Obama's visit to the Middle East has had in the media. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 01:13

I have removed one of the two images of Obama with Petreus. There's nothing particularly wrong (nor especially necessary) about either, but having two with the same other figure suggests some special closeness of connection that is not indicated in the text.

The issue, Jacoplane, with adding images to the article (or changing the ones here) is not particularly that the new images are any worse (or better) than ones that have existed. We have been though a lot of revisions, however, where editors have apparently randomly added, moved, resized, and/or removed images. These are good faith edits, but it becomes bewildering to figure out the copyright status of each new one, and mostly the preference between them is purely personal taste. Moreover, sometimes images are chosen in order to emphasize some particular aspect of Obama's career over others, by portraying him in some particular activity or with particular people; those aren't really wrong per se, but there's a danger of creating "spin" with that.

The moral is that it's really better to just propose the changes you'd like here on talk. I do not think most editors are especially attached to the images currently in the article (personally, I think there are more than necessary), but it's good to explain reasons for a specific addition or substitution. LotLE×talk 01:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All the images that I and other have added have been freely licensed images that we went to the trouble of searching for and uploading to Commons. As Jacoplane says above people should not have to have detailed discussions about merely adding images unless they are in some way controversial or overly numerous. The article today had exactly the same image arrangement that it had about 4 or 5 months ago and that can only mean in my opinion that a small group of people keeps reverting or undoing changes of others to their own version (this may include text as well). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I was editing simultaneously with Jacoplane above, but I think the explanation s/he provided for inclusion of a picture portraying Obama's Middle East visits is reasonable. I do not necessarily endorse or disagree with the reasoning, but it's exactly the sort of calm explanation that is refreshing to see on this talk page. LotLE×talk 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you, perhaps I was approaching this article like any other Misplaced Pages article and assumed that as long as I was making good-faith edits there would be no controversy. Probably I should have thought again. Still, I feel it's appropriate to include Image:Petraeus Obama.jpg in the article for the reasons I mentioned above. The Iraq theme is a major one in his campaign and it has received massive amounts of media coverage, so I think it's highly relevant, and not just a matter of "personal taste" pr "spin". Regarding the copyright status, since these are clearly works by the U.S. Federal Government, that's not an issue. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 01:23

Forgive my digression into the metasphere but there are a few things different about this article that strain the limits of some Misplaced Pages practices. It's a featured article, one of the most read articles on the project, it has several dozen people editing it at a time, it's about an issue of current events, and it's been the subject of lots of disputes and edit wars. For all those reasons and more it's best to be extra careful, extra civil, and fairly gradual in changing things - not necessarily because policy demands it but because it helps everybody get along. There's no reason to give up the usual WP:BRD process, just turn the knobs to the lowest setting. Something as simple as adding an image probably isn't even WP:BOLD on most articles but it's bold here given that as soon as you do it, it probably trips a few hundred people's watch lists and will get scrutinized from every direction! Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about it being on a lot of watchlists but it does seem a little suspicious to me that the images and layout keep reverting back to the exact same layout that existed months ago- this would indicate to me that someone or a small group are trying to own the article. I wanted to add new images because I don't think the ones currently in the article are particularly good and the layout is also poor. I spent quite a bit of time scanning through flickr for new free images which I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons- I and others have tried to add these images as well as other new ones but they have all eventually been removed again and replaced with the old layout . Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How "good" the images are, and the quality of the layout, are secondary concerns. The purpose of the images in the article is to support the text, so they have been carefully selected to do so. Every image inclusion/exclusion has been discussed and debated at some length (see archives passim) to make sure they are appropriate. The recent coverage relating to Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe has generated many good images; however, these are more suited to United States Senate career of Barack Obama and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (although the trip is part of his duties as a US senator, this impacts on his campaign too). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that the images in the article should stay there in perpetuity because that is in effect what has happened? Can images only get changed once a year with the approval of a select band of editors? This seems ridiculous and goes against what wikipedia is meant to be about. There are numerous good images at commons:Category:Barack Obama and commons:Barack Obama that could improve this article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the facts or make something more out of this than there is. I have explained what happens already. Images are used to support the text to which they are adjacent. By all means propose better/alternative images (that do the same function) on this talk page, and let us discuss their merits; however, please don't consider adding images just to make the article "look better" or anything like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Global Poverty Act

The section on this Act contradicts our Global Poverty Act article; this article says, "The legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid"; that one says, "This is not in the bill; the bill does not require any minimum foreign aid spending." I've no idea which is correct. Henry 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the Act, and it would seem this article is wrong, with the source called into question. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Smuckers 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"No" what? Are you saying the article was correct? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Condense Pfleger material?

This attempt to condense the material about Pfleger article was reverted, reinserted, and reverted again.

The edit effected this change:

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

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Articles on BLP Special Enforcement Sanctions notice
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press