Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20


Glaring omissions

Andyvphil, please summarize them here for us. Kindly keep your descriptions of each POV-flaw-by-omission short and to the point, and number them (by beginning each new line with #) for easy reference. It will be a kind of mini-FAR with less fanfare, and we can deal with each of the problems one-by-one. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberal

Odd that the article fails to mention some stats consider Mr Obama's voting record to be the most liberal in the Senate. Anyone object to me adding it? (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/) Francium12 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I do. He's not liberal. As you put it. He's mainstream. Right in the middle. So it's not factual at all.[unsigned]
Not at all. It is factual. --Davidp (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You're confusing opinion with fact. "Liberal" is not an objective quality. This so-called rating is simply editorial opinion and should be treated as such.--Loonymonkey (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No, actually I'm not. We're not quibbling over the meaning of liberal but determining whether his record has been reported by a legitimate source as "most liberal". Thanks. --Davidp (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, that would be the National Journal's editorial position, not fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You're not grasping the issue. It is a fact that the magazine ranked his voting record as the most liberal. This is noteworthy in the Obama article. --Davidp (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The magazine? Then in such case the Wiki manifest is to report that the magazine gave this opinion - NOT Wiki. Unless of course it's your objective to slant public opinion. But you're not trying to do that, are you?
I beg to disagree. If we neutrally examine the article, we find many statements that are included which are mere opinion, yet sourced (hence qualified to be included). The following are already in the article:
he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms
a newcomer to Washington, he recruited a team of established, high-level advisers devoted to broad themes that exceeded the usual requirements of an incoming first-term senator
Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change
The Chicago Tribune credits the large crowds that gathered at book signings with influencing Obama's decision to run for president.
Former presidential candidate Gary Hart describes the book as Obama's "thesis submission" for the U.S. presidency: "It presents a man of relative youth yet maturity, a wise observer of the human condition, a figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur."
Supporters and critics have likened Obama's popular image to a cultural Rorschach test, a neutral persona on whom people can project their personal histories and aspirations.
a May 2004 New Yorker magazine article described as his "everyman" image.
in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s.
An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world
Is it really too far a stretch to state "According to the National Journal....". We cannot be intellectually honest if we summarily decide to include one sourced opinion then snuff out another sourced opinion using the justification that it is "opinion". I mean seriously, loon, if you don't have a problem with the New Statesman saying Obama is one of "10 people who could changne the world" and you endorse that going in the article, how could you possibly justify excluding the National Journal because it is "opinion"? Loon's direct words..."that would be the National Journal's editorial position, not fact"...so why then are you supporting the including of dozens of opinions in Obama's article then? I see selective editing at work. To better Obama's article, remove all opinions, or consider including this relevant fact about him, (that fact being the national journal cited him as the most liberal). I'd enjoy listening to anyone attempt to rationally defend this...my goal is to better the article, so in an effort to do so, lets include the National Journal's reference. It is sourced, and given the numerous editorial opinions in the article already, it is fair to include.
Considering the recent widespread reporting of his Senate record, I think there should be a mention. I agree with Loonymonkey though that simply stating that his record is "the most liberal" is an editorial opinion. As such, any mention of "how liberal" record should qualify it by stating who claims the record is liberal. Cogswobbletalk 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems some would like to distance Obama from his solid liberal credentials, but it's not an "objective quality" if you put it in terms such as The National Journal rating Obama the most liberal senator in 2007. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ Congressional ratings from the National Journal, from the American Conservative Union - not only are these ratings informative, allowing people to make comparisons of the voting records of different candidates, but there is also precendence for giving creedence to these ratings all throught Wiki.Shikamoo (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather some would like to distance Wikipedia from partisan politics.

And yet you see no problem with subjective sentences in the article such as, "Time magazine's Joe Klein wrote that the book 'may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.'" or, "...Time magazine named him one of 'the world's most influential people.'" as long as he is praised, eh? Blarvink (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is outright hype. Some 'fan' got carried away. Strike all these 'fan' statements. They denigrate Wikipedia enormously.
I am amused that everyone considers "most liberal" to be a criticism. Let's just add a statement like, "The American Conservative Union rated Obama's voting record as the most liberal of any Senator in 2007 (cite). Fishal (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a search for the words "liberal" and "conservative" in Obama's page and in McCain's page, and the results were very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.165.98 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right-- nowhere in the article is the word "liberal" even mentioned! Perhaps because it's become a Bad Thing to be. Fishal (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Only if you watch Fox News ;) But regarding the possible edit, while I don't see how it would hurt his article, I don't particularly see what it would contribute. This article already links to his political views page, which detail his voting record and stances. The reader can infer from that whatever they want about how liberal/conservative he is, so adding a line about the liberal rating wouldn't be necessary in my book. And if anything, I think it would be something you'd rather add to his political views page anyway. --Ubiq (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The "most liberal" rating is a smear tactic. It's used in the pejorative, typically on whoever is going to be the Democratic nominee. Same thing happened with John Kerry in '04. You expect me to believe Obama is more progressive than Russ Feingold or to the left of Bernie Sanders? Please. Adding something like this to the article only politicizes it into a tool for one side's agenda. Fifty7 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But he's an orthodox liberal as evidenced by his voting record. The only thing I dislike more than partisanship on Wikipedia is the intentional concealment of facts. Koalorka (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but 'liberal' says nothing. All 'liberal' means is you're - 'liberal'! Look up the etymology. It's a very weak description of a weak position.
Yes, the "most liberal" label is a joke. But he is liberal, and it is strange that it's nowhere to be found. (again-- is it fear that liberal is a bad thing?) -Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishal (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholly with the assertions regarding content, and the appearance of selective editing in this article, made by davidp, Francium12, Shikamoo, Blarvink, Cogswobble, Fishal, and Kaolorka. The tone of the discussion appears to this newbie to be weighted heavily with bias in favor of a double standard regarding inclusion of material which might give a reader cause to pause when considering the personal integrity and personal character of Barack Obama.

Ya think? LOL

These points are especially relevant in an article about the personal life, and therefore the personal integrity and personal character, of any person who seeks the highest office in the land.

But these things stand out to all but the most hopelessly naive. Which is why it's important to get them the F out of this article. As it makes Wikipedia look STUPID.

Asserting that links to anything critical of Obama are solely political, and should be inserted only in the Obama campaign page, and that such action is sufficient to fill the need/desire for information on the part of a reader of this article on the personal life and personal character/integrity of Obama would seem to be in accord with the assertion of the appearance of selective editing in this discussion.

I'm sorry - is this the 'official' position of Wikipedia? In such case Jimbeau needs to conduct a new purge.

Unless all Obama pages are rolled into that covering his Presidential Campaign, it does seem useful to convey in this article information about just who the man 'is' and what he is 'about'. Facts and references about investigations of the nature of his dealings and relations with Tony Rezko in the purchase of his home, as well as his decades-long membership in the Afro-centric and somewhat radical-left Trinity UCC, are obviously relevant to any reader seeking to know more about the personal integrity and character, as well as the overall personal religious beliefs, of any person seeking the Presidency. Therefore, such facts, along with such as those made by the above referenced contributors, should be included in any article about the 'personal life' of any major public figure. --Whraglyn (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Added the reference with citation. --Davidp (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason: Note that there are only 2 signed comments in opposition to adding this, both of which fail to understand that this is simply citing a widely reported ranking by a non-partisan reputable national magazine. Rather, these wikipedians are arguing whether he is, in fact, "liberal" - which is not the question. --Davidp (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to question your assertion that the National Journal is a non-partisan publication, and thus indirectly question the addition to the article. The publication is notable for launching scathing attacks on Democrats, particularly from Michael Kelly (now deceased). I also object to the whole "most liberal" terminology in general, which I see as nothing more than part of a Republican smear campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
National Journal is non-partisan and has a spectrum of opinions as part of its team. Why do we object to the use of "liberal" and support the use of "conservative" in these articles? There is no smear campaign but there seems to be a partisan protection campaign against information being disseminated in this article. --Davidp (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This has to stop. Those (Davidp) trying to force inclusion of the subjective National Journal "rating" know full well that the term "liberal" has become pejorative. There's no consensus here (or certainly in the edits of the actual article) for inclusion of this subjective factoid. Stop reinserting it without consensus. Bellwether BC 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Bellwether (and others) - How do you square the inclusion of Assessments by political interest groups on the John McCain page with the inclusion of this one assessment by a non-partisan political journal? Or, perhaps you're only interested in keeping the Obama page in pristine pro-Obama condition? This protectionist stance constitutes a POV slant to this article. I have a suggestion: Let's add a similar section to the Obama article. Agreed? If not, can Wikipedia enlist your help in removing that section from McCain's page? Much appreciated. --Davidp (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Also please note that Hillary Clinton's page makes note of ratings such as National Journal's. Is Barack Obama a special candidate that demands special treatment in his Wiki article? Can anyone provide a rational argument for not including this information that will also apply to Clinton's and McCain's articles? --Davidp (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Just because the editors at the McCain article included such information does not mean it's a good idea here. You'd have to ask them why they included it. I don't edit that article. Bellwether BC 00:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Other stuff exists doesn't support your argument, Bellwether_BC, because you're disregarding a legitimate comparison with your red herring reference. It's reasonable to support a consistent set of principles applying to all Presidential candidate biography articles to avoid POV and avoid the myopic and defensive posture here on the Obama page that is unfairly establishing editorial rule by fans. I think it's time for a new, orderly discussion about the inclusion of this and other noteworthy information. --Davidp (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a solution for our problem: Why not simply state that Obama has an "[adjective] liberal voting record" and simply link the article as a source. This delivers the information without using loaded terms such as "most liberal" which are largely subjective and relatively meaningless. I don't think anyone wants to "hide" Obama's voting record, but if it's going to be a central point of discussion it should be NPOV. There is no need to cite the article; we can still deliver the relevant information in other ways. 70.108.21.116 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested full protection

In looking at the edit history of this page, I see a number of editors that could be submitted for blocks due to edit warring, but rather than go that route (blocks=bad), I figured I'd request temporary full protection for the article instead.[1] Seriously, how about y'all try to use the dispute resolution process rather than this unending edit war. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why don't y'all try WP:DR: "If... you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article,..."[such as that Obama has a unusually liberal voting record or that it is relevant that he belongs to a politically-oriented chuch where the politics are controversal] "...think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story." And, if you follow the blue link, "Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally." The ideas that Obama is unusually liberal, or that it's relevant that the church he became connected to politically as a community organizer long before he chose to join it has a record of fringe positions like naming a Jew-baiter "Man of the Year", are signifificant and notable. YourThe efforts to censor those POV are against policy. Andyvphil (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummm. Andyvphil, it's not just one side that is edit warring here and I'm pretty sure that your comment above is not very conducive consensus building. Seems to me that there is enough blame to spread around to all sides of the edit war. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
actually I would mostly blame andy. this is the third page he has done the exact same thing, with the exact same results. I am really not interested in ratting someone out but I have been looking more and more into what dispute resolution would actually entail, because I think in between the three or four pages andy is a regular on have seen enough bad diffs and what have you that some users could perform a proper rfc if they wanted to. So I have some questions about how that works. Also I have seen user:Wndl42 try a couple different tactics with very limited success, such as reporting andy to the sockpuppet watch and trying to perform a checkuser, both of which were essentially denied. So we know what doesn't work. But I am wondering, is this and rfc content issue or an rfc user issue? And which one is more likely to get the results we need, which is not blocking or restricting anyone, but simply keeping the page stable and accurate. In fact I don't even mind andy starting new edit wars because that is how the page expands. what andy needs to learn and what I hope some sort of rfc would teach him (and his brethren) is to realize when he has lost an edit war and to move on. he has as much right as anyone to add new content or rv vandalism, but he needs to understand that does not equate with using misleading edit summaries, deleting RS cites, and getting the same text rv-ed eight times by three different editors. that is called consensus and if the carrot of voluntary compliance is not working with user:andyvphil perhaps it is time to try the stick of dispute resolution. because I hear these complaints from everyone. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Th checkuser request[2] wasn't "essentially denied". It was denied, period. And the laughably bogus sockpuppet allegation [3] has simply been ignored. As I told you there, "I'd like to ask, however, that when you say something like 'always uses weasel words' you provide a diff or, better, a quote." "Misleading edit summaries", "deleting RS cites" and "bad diffs and what have you" is precisely the kind of claptrap I had in mind as being "like 'always uses weasel words'" Andyvphil (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
like I keep telling you there is no point in cutting and pasting out a bunch of diffs when my edit history will show the same thing. half of my edits are cleaning up after you, and anyways notice how you are the only person on this very long thread debating the issue. maybe you need to start providing diffs showing good-faith instead of vice versa. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This jackass accuses me of "always using weasel words", "misleading edit summaries", "deleting RS cites" and "bad diffs and what have you", then repeatedly refuses to provide a single example of any of this alleged behavior, much less defend his bogus characterization of it. Without diffs, he's just lying. Andyvphil (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

do you not understand what "check my history" means, or do you just like to pose? classic andyvphil: getting lectured in 3 different talk threads at the same time. hilarious 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have concerns about Andyvphil's editing practices then an user conduct RFC would be an appropriate avenue to take. However, I don't think that an user conduct RFC will resolve the edit dispute here. In looking at the edit history, Andyvphil was not the only user that was reverting back to the preferred version Andyvphil was reverting to. If the editors on this talk page can not resolve the edit dispute, then I would suggest starting a content issue RFC. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My last edits on this subject[4] weren't merely a revert. Since it had been alleged that the National Journal's result -- that Obama had been the most (reliably) liberal Senator in 2007 -- was a smear by a partisan source, I added the information that the proudly liberal Americans for Democratic Action had agreed with Obama on all but one of the (not counting the 5 he missed) fifty-five votes the ADA deemed were best for identifying liberalism in the period he's been in the Senate. Andyvphil (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Andy's not even trying to build consensus. He wants what he wants, dismisses all arguments against it, and puts it in anyways. He's the main problem. Bellwether BC 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't dismiss your argument against reporting on attempts to characterize the ideological content of Obama's voting record until you make such an argument. What is it? Andyvphil (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that this is a user conduct issue, then I would suggest going to WP:RFC/U rather than blaming one specific user for the edit war that got this article edit protected. Placing blame here is not going to resolve a conduct issue. Having said that, if your reasoning is sound, what harm comes from opening up a WP:RFC/P and/or WP:RFC/BIO? --Bobblehead (rants) 02:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't excuse myself from fault or point fingers. However, I do think that sometimes the problem with trying to build consensus is getting everyone to take part in good faith. Where does the questioned edit belong during the time that consensus is being discussed? If someone puts it into the article, those that feel it doesn't belong revert summarizing, "no consensus for this inclusion (see talk)". If it's taken out, those who feel it does belong revert summarizing, "no consensus for this removal (see talk)". →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the policies and guidelines, the threshold has been in the absence of consensus, the default is to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to work for consensus from there. Having said that, in practice it has either required an edit protection, or it has always fallen upon one side of the disagreement to step up and allow the version that they do not prefer to remain in existence until consensus is reached on what the wording should be. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I do agree for protection, but not a FULL protection. There's too much new information that's coming in about Obama, most importantly the democratic primary information. I believe a partial block, to get rid of the anon's who want include b.s. things, such as he did crack and gave a guy a bj, and any other b.s. stories, but it shouldn't be prvented from EVERYONE editing it. there's just too much going on. Trying to put a full protection on this page, is like putting a full protection on the calender, there's too much going on to not be able to edit it. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
c'mon, what's wrong with a little b.j. talk from the IPs every now and again? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Many of 72's edits have been better than those of non-IP editors. The edit war which caused the current block involved mostly established users. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
at this point I am considering getting a username so I can participate on this and the HRC page. sometimes it just seems too awesome to pass up. but usually I like just being an IP because everyone underestimates you. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested "Personal life" section rollback

How about we return the Barack Obama#Personal life section to this version dating from 14 January, agreeing to seek prior consensus here on any proposed additions to that section, at least until things have settled? Any support, fellow editors? --HailFire (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

☒N Not done -- there is no consensus for this. Please use this template only where there is consensus or the edit is cmopletely uncontroversial. - Revolving Bugbear 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So one tendentious editor torpedoes consensus? I didn't realize that. Bellwether BC 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Description: The 14 January version of the Barack Obama#Personal life section's concluding paragraph had a stable edit history dating back at least as far as this article's most recent featured article review in July 2007.[5] There having been no objections in the last six and a half hours to a proposal for its restoration, I would define its content as uncontroversial and I am requesting its placement into the article. I've prepared a draft of the replacement text here for easy cut and paste by any admin who can assist. The aim of this action is to help return this featured article to unprotected or semi-protected status as soon as possible. --HailFire (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I definitely support this action. Bellwether BC 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the protected version is the censored version, with no mention of Trinity's Afrocentrism or controversial politics, I'm not sure why HailFire wants to do this. Organize a diff, please. Anyway, demanding a "prior consensus here on any proposed additions to that section" looks to me looks to me like wanting to see a preferred POV version protected by a prior restraint veto on content addition. LOL. Andyvphil (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Because each day that this article remains fully protected or a victim of edit wars, it fails featured article criteria 1(e). Editors intent on improving Wikipedia will agree that the loss of our FA rating would be a bad thing. Editors who have been here a long time will also know that I have been consistently opposed to applying any form of protection on this article. When it became clear that I was the only editor with this view, I suspended my protests. Do you have any specific objection to the text of 14 January? If not, your support for its restoration will bring us a step closer to reopening the article to editing and preserving FA status. Please help. --HailFire (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One good thing about the full protection is that it's revealing you for the POV-warrior you are. Consensus-building is what the project is about, and what keeps it from being a undiscernible muddle of various POVs. The information about Trinity Church belongs in their article, wikilinked at Obama's. Bellwether BC 05:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil believes that this article is biased and I trust that his intent is to improve it. Until he states otherwise, I also trust that he does not want to see us lose the FA rating that has been attached to this article since 2004, more than two years before I began editing here. Please stay cool, and let's hope a helpful admin will advance us on the road to dispute resolution by granting the above edit request. --HailFire (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's correct that I think the article is biased and that my intent is to improve it. To the point that it deserves FA status, if possible. But I don't want it to have undeserved FA status unless its POV flaws are corrected.
Here's the diff I requested:[6]. The substantial effect appears to be to delete the current last paragraph, consisting of two sentences: "He joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988.[138] A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ.[138]" Hardly seems to advance us in any helpful direction.
Look, Obama was hired to go to Chicago to serve as the black front man for some white (mostly Jewish) guys who wanted to enlist black Chicago churches in Saul Alinsky-syle community organizing, which is to say, a particular form of politics.[7] A lot of pastors recruited him,[8] but he settled on Trinity, an Afrocentric and highly politically active church dominated by Jeremiah Wright. It turns out that the politics he thereby chose to associate himself with, and which were the foundation of his own entry into politics, are controversial (see the page-1 story in the New York Times a week ago.[9]; and see [10]), and is bound to get more controversial if and when he has to start running against someone who isn't, like he, in the most reliably liberal quintile of the Senate and when he's competing for the center rather than the left wing of the electorate. You can't keep this out of his bio and deserve FA, and unless he loses to Clinton events are bound to overtake you anyway. Andyvphil (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't need your "improving" to be FA. It's been one for a long time, and the only thing threatening that status are POV warriors, of which you are one of the biggest. I say again, information about Trinity's politics belongs in Trinity's article. Put it there, not here. Bellwether BC 12:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama has been involved with Trinity's politics since 1985. That connection may have some embarassing aspects for him now, but it's a significant part of his biography and must be treated in an NPOV fashion if this article is to deserve FA. Right now, it doesn't. Andyvphil (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Information about Trinity goes in the article about them, not in Obama's article. Bellwether BC 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, please specify the POV flaws that you find in this paragraph that would prevent you from endorsing it as an agreed resume point for seeking consensus. --HailFire (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is POV about Andyvphil's edit ? That's the version that is protected, right? --Rajah (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've understood that Andyvphil considers the currently protected version to be biased or incomplete and therefore requiring revision for improved neutrality. This is why I have suggested we rollback to an earlier, more condensed text that passed FAR in July 2007 and remained unchanged until this edit on 22 January. As Bobblehead wrote, the default is to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to work for consensus from there. Let's wait for Andyvphil's response to my question, please. --HailFire (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
First, what Rajah refers to as "Andyvphil's edit" is actually Hailfire's proposed edit, shown in reverse. My edit to this section is this one. I believe HailFire has objected that this information is in the wrong section, to which my reply was that in the article as currently written this information fits best here as it is the section where Obama's connection to Trinity and Wright is described, but that I have no prior objection to someone reorganizing the material. The current organization of the article should not be used as a Procrustean bed to force the deletion of material that ought to be in Obama's bio.
As I've pointed out, since the protected version is the one without my addition the only significant effect on the text of the rollback is to delete the two sentences stating that Obama joined Trinity in 1988 and that Trinity is a megachurch with 10,000 members. This has two tactical advantages: it obviates my observation that the fact that Wright's teachings and politics are Afrocentric and controversial is at least as relevant to Obama's bio as its size, and introduces to the defense of the current version of the paragraph the fact that it passed FA.
So, to answer Hailfire's question, my objection to the rollback is not that it introduces POV flaws not found in the current version, but that it disimproves the current version by deleting two facts that ought to be in the article without any advance in fixing the POV flaw of the section, seen in the context of the article as a whole, which is one of omission.
Perhaps, like Rosywounds, the FA reviewer thought "the word 'controversy' is not mentioned in this article because there are few controversies surrounding Barack Obama." If so, he was wrong. Obama walks on water in this article because it's la-la land, kept that way by a determined cadre of Obama admirers, determined to stamp out any introduction of the Neutral Point of View. Explaining why Obama's 23-year connection to Wright should be mentioned and characterized takes background that you won't find by reading this article's text, but explaining why a politician's bio should make some effort to place him on the political spectrum should not. Yet even the ADA's admiring account of his record is kept out, lest such potentially inconvenient facts come a potential voter's attention. Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting an Obama campaign document. He's got his own website for that. But it is hosting such a document. And it's scandalous. Andyvphil (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your Procrustean bed analogy does not fit, because the specifications for improving this article since its creation in 2004 are not secrets. They are described in fine detail here and here, among other places, and they are the product of years of collaborative effort among our fellow editors, all of it conducted in plain view. Please consider initiating a Featured Article Review to seek consensus for the view that this article no longer merits a featured article rating and to specify any necessary improvements. --HailFire (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Unlike the glove, it does indeed fit, since I referred to the "current organization", not the general specifications. Your complaint was that "Afrocentric" and "distanced from Wright" didn't fit in "Personal Life" and apparently your solution was to chop them off and leave them lying on the floor, exactly Procrustes procedure. This is, of course, antithetical to the WP:FACR specification that a "'featured article ... In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles [is]...(b) 'Comprehensive' means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." Major facts and details like the fact that Obama has always been in the most reliably liberal quintile in the Senate, or that his most important early political patron, who came within an eyelash of hosting his declaration of candidacy, has a record of praising Farrakhan's "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." (Maybe Wright didn't mean Farrakhan's "analysis" pointing to Jews' dominant role in the slave trade? Or, maybe he did. Wikipedia takes the NPOV and lets its readers decide -- in theory.) Andyvphil (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just wanting to make sure you realize this is Obama's article, not Wright's or Farrakhan's. Those morsels of fact belong in their articles, not his. The only point in including them here is a "guilt-by-association" smear. Bellwether BC 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not "Obama's article". It's Wikipedia's biography of a politician. What he is as a politician (incl. left, right, or center as characterized by numerous RS) and information about what his his political alliances have been very much belongs here. Andyvphil (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Facts can be hard to pin down sometimes. The web site GovTrack.us categorizes Senator Obama as a "Rank and File Democrat" using a statistical analysis that offers a compelling case for being NPOV.[11] As for the notion that there was ever any plan for Trinity UCC to host Obama's presidential campaign announcement, you may want to double check that. --HailFire (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your cite, but I very much suppose that I would support including it. I happen to think that the National Jornal mischaracterized its results, btw. They conflated a measure of orthodoxy with a measure of extremeness and I hope that a RS can be found to make that point. My position all along has been that we need to follow the instruction in WP:DR - balance it, don't just delete it.
Oh, and you may be right that I have to check my memory of Kantor. I remember something about the steps of UCCT being the "natural place" to announce a candidacy, but someplace else (City Hall?) being used instead. But I may be conflating campaigns. I do not claim to be an expert on Obama. The omissions from this article are glaring. The ability of a non-expert to substantially improve an article is a characteristic of a stub, not an FA. Or should be. Andyvphil (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR nomination

I am preparing to nominate this article for a third featured article review on the grounds that it now fails featured article criteria 1(e) which states in part: the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process. If Andyvphil or any other editor who may hold additional concerns about the article wishes to make the nomination before I do, that is OK by me. --HailFire (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) -- Strikeouts added, per guidance from SandyGeorgia. --HailFire (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)] -- OUT. --HailFire (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This is extremely unfortunate. That we as a community allow a couple of POV-warriors to de-feature a great article, simply by the force of their warring is a great disappointment. Bellwether BC 14:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the edit protection prevent edit wars? I think the article the way it is now is fine, and perhaps the protection should be extended. Of course it will need to be updated at some point. JonErber (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree. This article, and the process editors have used to protect it from facts, definitely exhibits POV. --Davidp (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your statement is a classic example of a POV-warriors justification: "You're trying to prevent me from revealing/exposing/illuminating/whatever the truth. Bellwether BC 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. User:Davidp's assertion that the article exhibits POV is nonsense. With the exception of an overabundance of information about his church the article is in excellent condition. I can see no POV at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's funny. I believe you you see no POV because your vantage point is skewed by favoritism. My main point of contention is that the article's fan-editors (Bellwether and maybe others) have blocked the widely-reported ranking by National Journal of Obama as the most liberal. This may sound problematic to a fan who is also afraid of the pejorative connotation of "liberal" to about 50% of the public. However, in the face of similar noteworthy ranking information debated and then presented on the other presidential candidate articles, this obstructionism constitutes POV in favor of Obama. Please try to consider this objectively. --Davidp (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't even know what "most liberal" is supposed to mean. I'm not a US citizen so the term "liberal" has no negative connotations to me; however, it is clear by the qualifier "most" that it is intended as a derogatory term. If this is the case, it has no business in a Wikipedia article any more than "most conservative" would. As far as I can tell, your motivation for having it included is purely based on your personal feelings on Barack Obama, rather than any attempt to be encyclopedic. Furthermore, your "fan-editor" characterization is clearly a personal attack that attempts to belittle the voluntary efforts of some of the article's most prolific editors. Please try to make positive contributions and confine your negativity to yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Asserting that adding a qualifier of "most" to some adjective has derogatory connotations is just utter nonsense. Also, I find Obama a likable and intelligent candidate. Some folks here are being extremely defensive. --Davidp (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait until the protection is removed and then see what happens with the article before nominating it for a featured article review? I know it's wishful thinking, but there's a slim chance that we can learn to get along. If we can't, then proceed. But, not before. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that this is a proposal to rescind or review featured article status. I was confused too at first. JonErber (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The rescind would come as a result of a failed review. A review is what is being proposed here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how one "gets along" with an editor who's made it abundantly clear that they're going to see irrelevant information about a friend of a friend of Obama's (Farakkhan) and slanted details about Obama's church that instead belong at the church itself's article. When it's clear they won't listen to reason, how do you "get along" with them? Bellwether BC 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We need to seek something outside of edit warring. There's WP:RFC and enforcement of WP:3RR, if applicable. I just don't want to see the article lose FA status because of this nonsense. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see Davidp's personal attacks above ("fan-editors"), and his determination to continue to try to push through his POV against talkpage consensus. Bellwether BC 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFC. I really don't know what to say. There has to be a better way than edit warring. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's please try to correct a misunderstanding. Wikipedia:Featured article review is NOT where articles go to be de-featured, it's where they go to be improved. We've been through it twice now and always this article has come out of the process better than before. I hesitate before taking that step because the skilled editors who invest their time in addressing FAR issues are already an overworked bunch, and it doesn't seem right to distract them from work on articles that need urgent attention just because minor segments of this article are gyrating back and forth and failing WP:FACR 1(e).

But it is Andyvphil who has claimed more substantive faults with this article by stating plainly: I don't want it to have undeserved FA status unless its POV flaws are corrected. Because of this, he really is the editor best placed to lead us into a more meaningful FAR. And in case anyone may have missed this nuance, articles undergoing FAR must be made available for editing. --HailFire (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

so it can't keep featured status if its totally locked? because its only a few editors who we have a problem with. Can't we do a subject or article block on them instead? I feel like a locked consensus version is not such a terrible thing, but I don't know about these things. Some would argue that its good to have a slow addition process on bio pages, because we should have an eye for what will be notable in a decade, not anything more recent. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Let's just block those bad editors who don't recognize that Obama is deserving of a fansite here.
HailFire, the claque here is numerous and active and won't be reasoned with. I welcome wider attention, including RfC, FAR, or anything else that will dilute their POV. So please go ahead with your nom. Andyvphil (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing you should all be aware of: anyone who thinks FAR may be a quick fix will be sadly disappointed. Articles are at FAR for at least a month, more like two. I strongly recommend that you all try to work this out without a FAR. Most of the people who regularly review articles there are experienced enough to understand that it is expected that this article will see some tough times this year and will be slow to defeature it simply because of election year differences. If the article has to be protected because of the circumstances, that's not a good reason for defeaturing, and more importantly, won't solve your underlying differences. I suggest you try other options in dispute resolution first, like request for comment, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

error

{{editprotected}} Says Washingon instead of Washington

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Present" Votes.... Again

Still waiting for an answer.

"THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career." -http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

He voted present on a wide range of issues including many which garnered bipartisan support. Why isn't this information included? How is this information not relevant? This article and the wiki administrators are incredibly biased.

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#South Carolina. –– Lid(Talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lid, thanks for the reply but I don't understand why that information did not make it into this article under the State Leg. section. Also, it's not just a campaign issue or something that was brought up by Obama's opponent in the context of a South Carolina debate. This (the fact that he voted present 129 times) is a demonstrable fact and as it notes above, a present vote accounted for 1 out of every 31 votes he cast over his 8 year tenure. This was a consistent pattern that emerges from his voting record as a State Legislator. Of course, the fact that Obama gives reasons justifying these votes is no reason not to include this information and there is no reason why his own justifications cannot be included as well (though in certain cases he was the only state senator not to vote yes). Candidates give reasons for all sorts of things it doesn't make past actions just go away. These are all relevant facts (not opinions) regarding his voting record and he has been criticized widely by Democrats and Republicans alike. There is absolutely no good reason why this crucial aspect of his voting record should be ignored or obscured by the administrators of this page. It seems as though editors of this page are getting their direction from the Obama campaign. If the reason is simply that most of you support Obama or that the Obama campaign is contributing to this article than please just say so. At least that would be a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason that the present votes are not any further detailed in that section of this WP:BLP is more nuanced than that. Of course, conspiracy theory is much easier and often more convenient to grasp. The abortion and parental notification votes are what has drawn most of the attention, and those are the ones that are detailed in the text. If you think there should be more, please propose something. Thanks for contributing. --HailFire (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hailfire, thanks for the response. I only made the conspiracy theory comment because nobody was giving any reasons and I simply wanted an explanation. That's all. I did propose that more information be added (in the discussion above) and I cited specific sources. Here are some relevant articles:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528491.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=obama+present+votes&st=nyt&oref=slogin

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/Story?id=4339659&page=2


At the very least the fact that he voted "present" 129 times out of 4,00 votes in the state senate should be included. There should also be some elaboration as to some of the other issues/bills he voted present on as well as a statement to this effect from the Times article above.

"An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy."

There should be some mention of the fact that he has been widely criticized by both Democrats and Republicans alike (including Clinton) for excercisng this neutral political option which is often viewed as a way to "take political cover". There is no reason why Obama's defense cannot also be included as well as a larger picture of why this option is fairly common in Illinois state politics in order to give some fair perspective. There are plenty of direct quotations and facts from the articles above but if you'd rather I draw up the exact language I'm willing to do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Go read my reply under the original topic heading. My reply there applies here as well. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

K. Kellogg-Smith,

Thankyou for your reply and as I said there's no reason why you cannot include Obama's defense. Did you miss the part where I said his defense should be included? It should definitely be included. But why not include the facts as well as the defense? Simply because the Obama campaign has an official defense does not mean that the information should not be included or is not relevant. It is widely known, among Democrats and Republicans alike, that the "present" vote can be used as an option for politicians to "take political cover" as one commentator in the NY Times said. That is to say, the present vote is a convenient way for Illinois state politicians to avoid taking a stand on controversial votes that could potentially have political ramifications in the future. There are also other purposes served by this option, some of which you addressed. This information should also be included and it should be up to individuals to decide how they weigh this information. You don't have to do the work of Obama's campaign for him. Simply state the facts and both sides of this important and relevant issue and let individual users form their own opinions. Why ignore or obscure these undeniable facts? Introducing these information about his voting record does not introduce POV. It's simply a reporting of the facts. Fact: Obama voted present 129 times out of 4,00 votes. Fact: This accounts for 1/31 votes cast. Fact: Partial birth abortion and parental notification issues are not the only issues which votes present nor the only present votes for which he has been criticized, as the article implies now. Fact: Obama has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for voting present so many times. Fact: Obama and his campaign have a defense and a justification for these votes.

Why not include all of these facts in the State Leg. section? Its 1 out of 31 votes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor detials about his campaign don't belong here. See the campaign article. That is the only place it might belong. Yahel Guhan 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Amen.
In the Illinois General Assembly (Illinois Senate and Illinois House), and some other legislative bodies, bills require an absolute majority of 'yes' votes to pass, therefore 'no' and 'present' votes are both equivalently votes against passage. 'Present' votes are used to signal your legislative colleagues that you have a concern about a bill that you are effectively voting against.
In the U.S. Congress (U.S. Senate and U.S. House), and most other legislative bodies, bills require only a simple majority of 'yes' votes of those present and voting ('yes' or 'no') of a quorum to pass, therefore only 'no' votes are votes against passage, 'present' votes are worse than neutral because they reduce by one the number of 'yes' votes needed for passage. 'Present' votes are used to signal a pair.
This is something reporters for out-of-state newspapers apparently have difficulty understanding:
The Clinton campaign organized a conference call for reporters with Clinton campaign co-chair Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) and two Clinton supporters from New York, Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Joe Crowley (D-NY), to regurgitate that day's inaccurate and misleading New York Times story and add their own willfully uninformed anti-Obama spin.
Attacking 'present' votes of Illinois legislators (both Democrats and Republicans) is a perennial political gimmick used in campaigns by political opponents willfully uninformed about the Illinois General Assembly voting system mandated by the Illinois Constitution.
This political gimmick was was used in 2004 and 2008 by desperate former front-runners when they found themselves losing to Obama:
Regarding the Washington, D.C.-based Nightline story:

Obama's campaign has argued that he voted "present" either to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy, often characterizing the practice as an Illinois Senate tradition. Senators in the minority often vote present as a way to force the majority party to negotiate. Obama was in the minority party for six of his eight years in the state Senate.

Illinois state Sen. Daniel Cronin calls that characterization a "big overstatement," and believes that voting "present" is a practice that is only "employed on rare occasions."

"You just have to vote 'yes' or 'no,'" Cronin said. "You got to stand up and be counted."

Cronin believes that Obama's votes demonstrate an indecisiveness that is at odds with being an effective commander in chief.

"I don't know whether he was planning for the future, whether he was calculating what his next move was," Cronin said. "Whatever it was, he didn't want to stick his neck out, he didn't want to risk alienating some group. And that sort of ambivalence is sort of scary when you think about a guy who wants to become commander in chief."

Cronin has also voted "present" approximately 100 times.

Note of willfully uninformed political sniping by Hillary Clinton and her surrogates in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign about Barack Obama's 'present' votes in the Illinois Senate belongs, if anywhere at all, where it is now, in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 articles, not in this biographical article about Obama.
Newross (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of attacking his campaign, nor is this just a "campaign issue" brought up solely in a South Carolina debate (as that article would have you believe). Its simply a matter of reporting an element of his voting record in the state leg; a factual, public record. You have a section in the article on his tenure in the state leg and he voted present 129 times over an 8 year span. As the article is written now, the present vote is articulated in a misleading and an incomplete fashion. This is not the whole story. Just give the facts, give some of the criticism, give Obama's defense and give a little persepctive. The Cronin issue is irrelevant as he's not the one running for the highest leadership office in the world. Does Obama's voting record distinguish himself as a leader? That should not be for you guys (the administrators) to decide. It's utterly inappropriate for wikipedia to do the work of Obama's campaign for him. Whether you personally feel that its a small issue, the fact remains that there are many who disagree with you and you should simply let his record speak for itself without editing or ignoring details of which you (and Obama) may be a little uncomfortable. Is Obama's campaign manager in the house? Has money exchanged hands here? I've never seen such a biased, one dimensionally positive article of a public figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Basketball picture

There is no way on Earth that the picture in the article is of Obama. He is making a shot, yet he is not looking towards the hoop. The skin tone on the arms is not Obama's. His facial expression also doesn't lend itself to the picture. THe picture is most definitely photoshopped. wjs23 -19:52 EST 12 March 2008

Apparently, the DoD is behind this vast conspiracy. [12]. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
He's not making a shot; he's pulling down a rebound. I think the feds have better things to do with their time than doctor pictures of Obama playing basketball. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as the skin tone on the arms goes.. I believe it is called a farmer's tan. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


William Ayers association

Why is there no mention of association with Bill Ayers of the Weathermen terrorist group? This has been a significant source of controversy duing his campaign and deserves to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.70.195 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been established no association of note with William Ayers, and this has not "been a significant source of controversy during his campaign," as evidenced by the fact that no one campaigning against him has bothered with it. The Ayers "story" is found in a limited number of places, none of them particularly reputable or journalistic in nature. Pseudo-smears or (particularly weak) attempted guilt-by-association attacks aren't taken seriously or even put forth in the first place by anyone besides those with an anti-Obama or anti-Hillary agenda

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Yet more partisanship. Hillary's page is - and says - 'Hillary RODHAM Clinton'. This page CONVENIENTLY hides 'Hussein'. If Obama was ashamed of this name he would have changed his name long ago. STOP RUNNING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR HIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.136.204 (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is consistent with either Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary uses both Clinton and Rodham Clinton as her surnames, Rodham being her unmarried name and Clinton being her husband's name. Rodham is not her middle name.
You can't claim the Clinton page as support for renaming this page unless it is Hillary Diane Clinton or Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Klippa (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody here doesn't know the difference between a "middle" name and a maiden surname. WNDL42 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The first four words of the article are "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." So I'm not sure who's "hiding" anything. Fishal (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In bold type, no less. Paisan30 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Come on.. We can't expect the trolls to actually read the article before complaining about it, can we?</sarcasm> --Bobblehead (rants) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we have some angry Hillary fans on the talk pages, huh? C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What the <Insert your favorite rude word>! This article has plenty of Emphasis on Obamas middle name, also what does it matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.150.30 (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All three top-tier Prez candidates' articles currently are consistent in that they state their full name in bold, and that's the way it should stay. — AMK1211talk! 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}}Please remove Obama's middle name, Hussein. It is only there to defame him, since middle names are rarely present at the beginning of articles about people. SteveSims (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - I believe you're wrong about what's usually wrong - see the first line of Bill Clinton, for example. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it is defamation. First of all, there is absolutely nothing wrong about having Hussein as a middle name, and the people who think so are prejudiced and most likely unintelligent. Now it would be wrong to have Hussein in every mention of his name.

Michaelk08 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also check out the pages for John Sidney McCain III and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Not to mention Ronald Wilson Reagan, etc. It's the man's name, not defamation. Paisan30 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Protected edit request

{{editprotected}}

Please add this uncontroversial info to the end of his Presidential campaign section:

Barack Obama's secret service codename is Renegade.[1]

Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable? --HailFire (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Tvoz |talk 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting one-off trivia, and a harmless enough fact, I figured. The Secret Services names for those under their protection usually end up as historical notes, and usually tend to be fairly accurate of their personalities and general perception of them. Bill Clinton was Eagle, Frank Sinatra was Napoleon, Ronald Reagon was Reliant, John F. Kennedy was Lancer. Lawrence § t/e 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More info at Secret Service codename. Lawrence § t/e 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done, somewhat modified. Sandstein (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on what evidence of consensus, please? Perhaps you have a different interpretation of the rules? If so, please explain. --HailFire (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • On the basis that nobody explicitly opposed the inclusion of this datum for three days. Two people questioned its notability, which at any rate is an "inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article", and so would not seem to apply to the matter of the inclusion of a fact in an existing article. If many people here say that they do not want this sentence in the article, then another request to remove it will certainly be successful. Sandstein (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't say anything, but I don't see any real need to include simple trivia in the article. It just clutters up an article that was FA quality not long ago, and still may be if the POV pushers can be resisted. Bellwether BC 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Had another look, and though the addition does read as trivia, the cited source that was added with it is current and informative, making the edit more useful overall. So I'm OK with it (but please no future editorializing on any alleged "significance" of the codename, waste of article space). I am more concerned about our use of full protection and the unnecessary strain it puts on editors, admins, and especially the readers (for example, when innocent typos or grammar errors that can be easily fixed in seconds remain because of the time it takes to "discuss" them, and when simple updates take days to perform--see request for a delegate count update that is STILL not in the article). Please, let's not go for one week next time, it's overkill, 2 days is plenty to force a pause and reflect among editors who can't contain their enthusiasms, and blocking the worst offenders is a far less intrusive and more traditional first resort to address such problems. We have SandyGeorgia's assurance that this article is unlikely to lose FA status just because passions have been raised in an election year, and I'd bet few editors understand the WP:FAR process better than she does. So anyone aiming to de-feature this article through constant pestering is unlike to get their hoped for result. --HailFire (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Improvement suggestion/research

Please research details (access legal records in Hawaii,etc...) as to date and venue/auspices of parent's marriage & circumstances of separation & divorce.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk • contribs)

Adding these kind of details would be considered original research unless another source, like a newspaper etc., considered them important enough to mention. Redddogg (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}} Today is the 14th. Can I edit yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add a non-controversial template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What template do you want to add? If you are asking for an admin to make an edit, you need to specify what that edit is. I have removed the template - feel free to reinstate it if you make a specific request ... although in about 10 hours, you will be able to do it yourself. --B (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I like to make my own edits. When is the ten hours up exactly?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It has expired now - I have removed the template. FYI, for future reference, only administrators have the ability to edit a fully protected page so if you use the {{editprotected}} template, you have to say what it is you want done. If you are asking that protection be removed (so that all users can edit the page), the place to make that request is WP:RFP, although if a page is protected because of a dispute, an admin is unlikely to shorten the protection unless it is demonstrated that the dispute is resolved. --B (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW

If He Hadn't Been In The Presidential Race This Article Wouldnt Be Featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.151.71 (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama has been a featured article since August 2004, before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. Since then it has been improved steadily, seen a favorable mention in the Washington Post, been through two WP:FAR reviews, and not once been listed as a featured article removal candidate. Wow indeed. --HailFire (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hailfire, you are a wonderful person. However, WP featured article status means nothing in the real world. This article is not an example of good writing. In good writing the interests of the reader are put first. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, I've appreciated you and your contributions too. As for our readers, if you trust these statistics, there were approximately 2.6 million of them at last count. Hmmm... what percentage is that? Significant in any case, I'd guess? --HailFire (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be willing to bet that this is the number one article viewed on WP recently. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's possible. We were ranked number 3 in January according to this source. --HailFire (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I've just located this. Hope you put a lot of money on that bet! :) --HailFire (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, he even beat out Miley Cyrus. Fishal (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT article by Jodi Kantor

Regarding the fairness of this edit, Loonymonkey, Andyvphil, and other interested editors should be sure to read Wright's letter to the New York Times dated March 11, 2007. It's published in the this edition of the TUCC Bulletin at page 10. --HailFire (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. Wright confirms that Obama deemed it unwise to announce his candidacy at the church because it would highlight his connection to Wright (bottom of left column, p.11). So whatever the other faults Wright alleges in the article it was indeed reliable for the assertion that Obama has distanced himself from Wright. The comment tha the church is Afrocentric and political doesn't seem to me controversial either. Hardly explicit enough, in fact. I didn't miss the reference to the NYT writer's Jewish faith, something that is going to catch one's attention coming from someone who has recently honored Louis Farrakan as "Man of the Year". We indicate that Wright inspired the name of Obama's book and that it is a large successful church that has played a major role in Obama's life. We can't leave it at that. Smacks of concealing important information. Add something or I will. Andyvphil (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil, the text that you are proposing does not fit the personal life section of this BLP. Where is the notability in this context? Why is it important to mention here that Wright was invited and then uninvited to speak at Obama's presidential campaign announcement in Springfield over one year ago? Personal life is about things like marriage, children, home, savings, habits, recreational activities, and religious beliefs. The section covers all of that with appropriate weight as judged by long-term consensus among the contributors to this article. --HailFire (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC) damn right hes a great man so fuck all yall haters
I didn't mention that Wright was disinvited -- I said merely that Obama had distanced himself from Wright, whom we already note inspired the title of Obama's memoir. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the fact that the church has 10,000 members is more relevant to Obama's religious beliefs than its Afrocentric tenets? Anyway, I don't care what section you put it in, but that's where the article currently focuses on Wright and his church, so that's where I'm readding the material, since you've failed to address its absence. If you think it belongs elsewhere in the article, move it there. Simply removing this information from the article is not ok. Andyvphil (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I trust you will continue discussing before making edits that have not yet attracted consensus. The "distancing" was explicitly political, not personal, and the entire incident revolves around a one-time event that happened in February 2007. It's not notable anywhere in this biography article, but could possibly fit somewhere in the campaign article. --HailFire (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You're not serious, right? It's not a problem to find other cites than Feb 2007 for Obama replying to questions about Wright re Farrakhan etc., but I don't think for a moment that supplying them will satisfy you. However, I will be happy to supply them if you say it will cause you to drop your opposition to this very anodyne sentence.[13] Anyway, the idea that we can describe the church and pastor as important to Obama's personal life, and give details like the number of members and the pastor's influence of the name of Obama's book, without describing their more interesting characteristics in any way is obviously absurd. I've given you an extended opportunity to do it in a way completely acceptable to you. Time's up. Andyvphil (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Andyvphil, please don't put "see talk" in your edit summaries, when "Talk" doesn't contain anything remotely resembling consensus for your edit. Develop consensus and then make your insertion. Bellwether BC 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just yesterday been instructed by an admin "You seem to be under the mistaken impression that editors have to discuss their changes. That's not the case. Not even when the content is "long-standing". Not even when more than one editor wants them to stop. Our policy on consensus states that the main way consensus is to be sought is through bold editing and active change." Sauce for the goose... And policy on "rough consensus" involves weighing the strength of the arguments. Feel free to make yours and I'll weigh them appropriately. WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments don't get much weight in determining "rough consensus", even if numerous like minded editors form a claque to protect a favored subject from intrusions of NPOV. Discussion on the talk page is the first step in conflict resolution, and editors who offer reverts but not reasons are not participating in the process. Andyvphil (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Andy, you don't get to "weigh them appropriately." You get to attempt to build consensus for your change, and then make it. Period. Attempting to force in the material over serious objections, and without any form of consensus is abusing the process. Please stop. Bellwether BC 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, you'll stop with the bad faith assumptions about "numerous like minded editors" who form a "claque to protect a favored subject from intrusions of NPOV." That is such a gross violation of WP:AGF that it's quite breathtaking that you most likely typed it with a straight face. Bellwether BC 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop with the bullet point formatting, already. You can make do with indenting just like everyone else. Your self-importance is showing.
What are the "serious objections"? You still haven't made any. And Hailfire's three points, that the contents of the quote have been debunked, that the "distancing" was a one-off in Feb 2007, and that the information is in the wrong section are in sequence, false and fully debunked by my response, false and easily debunked - which I have said I will willingly do if that is truly his objection, and answered by my offer to let him place this information or its equivalent in any secion he desires, so that we may see if it fits better there.
You need to actually read AGF. It doesn't say you have to continue to AGF in the face of convincing evidence. Continuing to attempt to keep out any hint of the controversial political nature of the pastor and church who have been, by Obama's own testimony and the other text, so important to Obama's life and thus biography is, when I have first made that point ABOUT THE TEXT and not the editors, and you have failed to respond, primae facae evidence that you are pushing a POV, and I am not obliged to ignore that fact. If you feel otherwise, feel free to file an AGF complaint. Andyvphil (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll format my comments however the hell I want to. And you'll assume good faith of your co-editors, or you will be reported and blocked from editing if you continue to refuse to do so. Bellwether BC 05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF:"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Your reverts combined with a continued refusal to engage in the first step of content conflict resolution, which is to attempt to justify your content preferences or answer my arguments is "evidence to the contrary".
Looneymonkey has said that I am "cherry picking" Kantor's article in order to demonstrate that Obama's church is less mainstream than it is. Actually I am just quoting Kantor in a way which exactly represents Kantor's meaning, and Kantor's meaning seems to align quite nicely with reality, which is why I quote her. The idea that a church which names Louis Farrakhan "Man of the Year" is mainstream is naturally controversial and if we are to address that specifically NPOV requires that both sides of the argument be presented. I haven't chosen to do that (nor was I the one who deleted LM's expanded choice of quotes) merely noting that the church is Afrocentric and political and that those qualities are reflective of Jeremiah Wright and that Obama has distanced himself from Wright. All uncontroversial and inoffensive observations, and necessary in the bio of a man for whom this church and pastor is so important. If I'm wrong about that, make your argument. If I'm uncontroverted but you still insist on censoring this information from the article your motivations do indeed come into question. If you think that observation is actionable, please, please complain. Such a complaint will be in a venue where devotedly pro-Obama sentiment is less dominant, and the result may not be what you want. Andyvphil (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I can cite numerous instances of Looneymonkey twisting wikipedia rules to slant articles, or defend them against critique. I am apalled at the degree individuals (i.e. looneymonkey) are going to protect Obama's article from any appearance of critique. I'm certain its obvious to numerous people. 24.18.108.5 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Repeatedly inserting the same material, over and over, against consensus is also blockable, just so you know. Bellwether BC 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And Looney's right: you are cherry-picking the article to make Obama's church seem extreme. You'll be reverted as the sentence is now phrased, since this is a featured article, and many good editors have their eyes on it to protect it from just this kind of thing. Bellwether BC 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Consensus is determined by weighing the strength of arguments.("To [find the actual consensus] you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves...") Would help if you made some. Are you arguing that I am misrepresenting Kantor? That the NYTimes is a WP:FRINGE source? The degree to which Obama's church is mainstream is, as I have written, subject to NPOV policy, which states that all POV be represented, not that the existance of disagreement may be suppressed. You think the sentence implies that Trinity is "extreme" -- I think it merely says what what it says, and that what it says is true. But if you think something is missing that would offset the implication you detect, go ahead and add it. "Rather than disagreeing by reverting, see if you can improve on other's changes." But, "Don't ignore the arguments of other editors in a conflict though, or a healthy bold, revert, discuss cycle quickly turns into disruptive editing." If you're the one ignoring, then you're the one disrupting. Andyvphil (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the addition discussed above because (a) the information was added to the wrong place, since it is not related to Barack Obama's personal life, (b) the quoted source requires registration, and these sources are strongly discouraged and (c) the information does not appear to reflect the source's intended meaning - it would appear that the information presented has been taken slightly out of context, perhaps in an attempt to satisfy Andyvphil's personal agenda. Reading the comments above, it seems clear that the reasons I have given have already been discussed and my reversion should never have been necessary. Perhaps Andyvphil should take a step back an let others weigh in on the matter for a bit? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that the alleged "Afro-centricism" of Trinity Church should be mentioned in the article, along with the fact that the neighborhood it is in is mainly black. It's not as if they are excluding non-blacks, just trying to take care of their people. This is common for other congregations as well. Redddogg (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Lest you think the "Afrocentrism" is merely alleged by Kantor, consider this quote from the New Republic:

The church's motto is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian," and sunlight streams through stained glass windows depicting the life of a black Jesus. The Reverend Doctor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Trinity's pastor since 1972, flies a red, black, and green flag near his altar and often preaches in a dashiki. He has spent decades writing about the African roots of Christianity, partly as a way to convince young blacks tempted by Islam that Christianity is not "a white man's religion."[14]

Andyvphil (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And here's another characterization of the church as "Afrocentric", this time from the Chicago Tribune: "Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who is retiring after 36 years at the church, built Trinity into a phenomenon by stressing Afrocentric worship and activism,..." [15] Andyvphil (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally disagree. A discussion about Trinity Church belongs in an article about Trinity Church, and not in a biography of a living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just silly to think we can mention Trinity but can't describe it. Or rather that we can describe it as having 10,000 members but can't mention its political orientation. Not as breathtakingly out-of-this-world as suggesting that use of the website of the New York Times is "strongly discouraged", but close. And in what way do you suggest that the sentence I have provided ("The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama has distanced himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired pastor Jeremiah Wright.") misrepresents the source's intended meaning? Kantor writes "the church is also more Afrocentric and politically active than standard black congregations" and "Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama’s decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright...". Hard for me to imagine how I could hew any closer to "the source's intended meaning". Please clarify. Andyvphil (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Andyvphil, you are treading dangerously close to tendentious editing with your continued consensus-less insertions, and edit summaries that state "see talk" when there's nothing to "see" at talk but your waging a one man battle against consensus. Bellwether BC 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've pointed out, you need more than reverts to establish consensus. You need arguments. Which you have simply refused to offer. And, since I agree with Redddog, it appears I am no longer alone in battling not consensus but a group of editors who seem determined not to let too much information of a sort they don't like to be be revealed to seep into this article. Andyvphil (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We've told you why. You've ignored us. Two editors don't make consensus. And your thinking you're right doesn't make it so. You cherry-pick Kantor's article to insert a slanted sentence, designed only to portray Obama and his church in a negative light. There's consensus against inclusion. The sooner you deal with that, the better off we'll all be. (On a side note, I noticed that since you couldn't get your negative info in, you've decided to jump in on the side of the "most-liberal senator" warriors. I'm not really very surprised at all.) Bellwether BC 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you are trying to keep that "negative information" out as well. I've already pointed out that Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires that disagreements found in reliable sources about significant subjects (such as whether Obama's politics are centrist or left-wing) are to be handled by presenting the evidence advanced by both sides in a neutral fashion, not by suppressing any mention of the disagreement. And a basic question like that cannot be exiled to a subarticle, since policy requires that spinout articles be accurately summarized in the root article. And, no, I haven't ignored any argument that has been advanced against mentioning that Obama has distanced himself from the non-centrist views of his pastor. He has done so and saying so is not "slanted". I am not aware of any RS claiming that he has not done so, but if you can find one I am open to your quoting it, with the caveat that if what you quote is misleading the question may have to be developed until NPOV is again reached. And, no, I haven't "failed" to insert the sentence. I have merely once again waited in vain for for you or like-minded editors to show your good faith by either working on the text I have advanced or offering an alternative. Andyvphil (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Our "alternative" is that it stays out. Cherry-picke quotes, designed only to place an article subject in a negative light, don't belong. And, as our alternative (no inclusion of your material) has consensus, you need to stop trying to force your views anyway. Bellwether BC 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"The 'distancing' was explicitly political, not personal, and the entire incident revolves around a one-time event that happened in February 2007. It's not notable anywhere in this biography article... --HailFire (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) I thought the Wright stuff might not seriously hit the fan until/unless Obama had an opponent who wasn't worrying about alienating the votes of those who like him, but it was coming. I told you so. Andyvphil (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Delegate count estimate by AP

{{editprotected}} Description: This update contains the post-Wyoming delegate count as estimated by the Associated Press. Inclusion of current AP delegate estimates in the last line of the Barack Obama#Presidential campaign summary section has not been disputed. --HailFire (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Similar description as above, new update. Still no dispute on talk about making these updates. --HailFire (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And this one still waiting after 24 hours. Full protection is a failed experiment, not to be repeated. --HailFire (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
{{not done}} Page is no longer fully-protected. Incidentally, I agree that fully-protecting a page in need of such regular maintenance is unhelpful to say the least. Happy‑melon 18:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This request is kind of hidden because it is so far up on the talk page, but hopefully the editprotected tag will draw attention to it - it is now four days after the primary! 199.125.109.36 (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms Section?

Came to this article looking to finally get myself educated about the candidates for the upcoming election and primaries. The article definitely has some good information about Senator Obama and his positions, many of which I am fond of given what I have read so far. But where are the criticisms? Anyone who is a significant player in the primary race of a major political party is bound to have lots of criticisms floating around about him, justified or not. Why aren't they represented here in an easy to find way? --Floorsheim (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<irony>Welcome to Wikipedia.</irony>--Justmeherenow (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but its discouraged by wikipedia policy. You should probably try merging the info from other candidates into their respective pages, if it is the disparity between different candidate pages which bothers you. that would be the best way to deal with the issue you raise, while still conforming to WP guidelines.72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • <cough><sneeze>disingenous<cough><sneeze> Bellwether BC 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms sections are generally seen as completely unencyclopedic, that's why they have been eliminated even from the most controversial articles such as atheism and global warming. Aaron Bowen (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • After reviewing other sites of those involved in the 2008 election, I agree with the fact that none of them contain criticism sections. However, there are many convenient omissions from this article, most notably the controversies surrounding Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. Also, I disagree with the statement about their being a lack of criticism articles on Wikipedia, simply look up criticism of... and the first political figures to pop up are the following: Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, and Criticism of Hugo Chavez. I think that it would be a good idea to begin a Criticism of Barack Obama page, for I fear the masters of this page will not allow for any of his blights to be posted. And yes, Bellwether, there is even a page, Criticism of Atheism. Dough007 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Can someone tell me why the following images have been removed from the page:

  1. Image:2102130452 fdf1e34434.jpg
  2. Image:2101345479 5b9127e1ec.jpg
  3. Image:Barack Obama Smile.jpg
  4. Image:Barakobama.jpg
  5. Image:Barack Obama Round Table.jpg--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't know, but in regards to the first two, if you have a flickr image, please upload it to Commons and tag it with {{flickrreview}}. That way, a bot or an admin will review the licensing and confirm that it is correct. If you upload a flickr image here (instead of Commons) and the flickr user changes the license, we have no evidence that the old one was ever correct and have to delete it. --B (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What B said, and also this: Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic. Let's try to be selective, use only the best images, and not clutter the article. For summary sections where article space is most limited, one image is probably best. Others can go in the daughter article where there is more room to expand into sub sections. We should use images to illustrate article content in a way that helps our readers understand the adjoining text. Adding more and more images just because they are available is not really helpful. We've had lots of discussions here about changing, moving, or deleting images, and these discussions have always been cordial. If you have an idea about how to improve the article please tell us, or just go for it. But please don't be offended if our illustration of that particular text already has a previous discussion history, and editors here ask that we pick up the previous discussion where it left off to consider the proposed change. Open to other views. --HailFire (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sign your comments!

I'd like to recommend that any comments added to this talk page that have not been signed in the usual manner be completely ignored from now on. Almost all of them appear to be anti-Obama demands for the inclusion of things that simply don't belong here. There. I've said it. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

so we have to assume that his parents weren't married, since you won't research this - how typical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk • contribs)
No, actually, we are left to comply with Wikipedia's policies to not conduct original research and verify our content with reliable sources. All reliable sources indicate that Obama's parents were married at the time of his birth and then divorced several years later. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil and his attempts to make large, unilateral changes to the article without discussion

Something has to give here. Andyvphil continues to make sweeping changes to the article without posting his proposed large revisions for discussion at the talkpage. There's nothing remotely resembling consensus here for such changes. I'm struggling to figure out why it's so difficult to simply write up what you want to see included (especially with such huge changes), let others discuss, tweak, and work with your proposed changes, and then, after building consensus, post the changes. Why is that so difficult to do? If he won't do it, then I may post the proposed changes here, to get a feel for whether or not there is actual consensus to make such changes to the article. Bellwether BC 15:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he's afraid consensus won't agree with him? Warring over those POV changes are what go the article locked last go around. They need to be excluded until we can come to an agreement. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I consent to the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Game

What on earth does the start of this article mean?? Is it locked-in vandalism? Site Admins. please advise. 69.69.80.201 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How much longer can this article ignore Jeremiah Wright?

This is hugely relevant. The church that Obama has attended for 20 years, got married in, had his children baptised by, and is quoted as being a mentor to Obama....mysteriously nothing about Wright is in Obama's article. Is wikipedia deliberately leaving out Jeremiah Wright? This man is the subject of huge controversey, far and away noteworthy of inclusion being that he is Obama's pastor of 20 years and now officially part of his campaign. What is the justification for Wright's censorship in this article? I'm certain that as time goes on, the widespread press will compel wiki by force to mention him just to save face, but if we can be honest right now (before that happens), I think it would be prudent to make mention of this in the Obama article (not the campaign article) as his Pastor and his massive controversey is relevant to his personal life, hence, relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is indeed the antithesis of censorship. For information regarding Jeremiah Wright, see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright . You would suggest a section on Jeremiah Wright? Consisting of...what exactly? That Obama has attended Wright's church for 20 years? That would open the doorway for a section on Obama's physician, dentist, membership at a particular gym, etc. My best advice to you is to contribute any information you may have to the Jeremiah Wright article. If Wright were as relevant as you allege, he would most certainly be a part of this article.

To compare the influence of Wright to a dentist or doctor is absurd. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the title of his autobiography was inspired by his proctologist. Jeremiah Wright has been Obama's spiritual mentor for some 20 years now and Obama himself has indentified Wright as one of the people that has most shaped and determined his spiritual and moral outlook. Wright, of course, married Barack and Michelle and was the inspiration for tehn title of Obama's autobiography. In other words, in order to really know Barack Obama one has to know a little something about Jeremiah Wright and that's why a biographical sketch that barely mentions Jeremiah Wright is incomplete and even a little silly. Wright is essential in Obama's formation and that should be the primary criterion for inclusion. Given the close spiritual relationship the two have shared for some 20 years now, the fact that Wright has, over the years, engaged in Black Panther type, anti-American rhetoric is something that every biographical sketch should include. This is all part of the essential formation of Obama's character and worldview. The facts should be presented and readers should be left to judge for themselves how they feel about the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Put the disparaging information you're looking to include in the project in the Jeremiah Wright article. His therapist, his high school basketball coach, and presumably many others have had as much or more influence on his life and thinking as Wright. Just as we don't need to include treatises on whether his basketball coach was a wife-beater, and his therapist turned out to be a quack (neither is true, to my knowledge, but even if they were, it wouldn't matter to this article) neither does the Obama article need treatises on Jeremiah Wright included. Bellwether BC 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, the difference is that in the case of his basketball coach, therapist etc., you are "presuming." There is no presumption required in the case of Wright. Obama himself has explicitly stated his admiration for Wright and he has emphasized the importance of their relationship and Wright's spiritual mentoring over the years. The title of his autobiography was inspired by one of Wright's sermons for God's sake! Whether its "disparaging" or not is not for you to decide and the fact that it may be perceived as disparaging is not a sufficient reason not to include these objective facts. Again, one cannot know Barack Obama without knowing a little something about Wright but this does not at all imply that Obama necessarily identifies with this Black Panther type rhetoric. In fact, the article should also include Obama's comments to the effect that he often disagrees with Wright's political views. Why don't you guys do a little less worrying about how things might, possibly be perceived and a little more straightforward reporting. Instead of avoiding controversies why don't you give an accurate and fair representation? You guys are way behind the curve on this one and you will have to, at some point, address this issue. Mark my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether writes "His therapist, his high school basketball coach, and presumably many others have had as much or more influence on [Obama's] life and thinking as Wright." But the Wikipedia article on Obama's "personal manifesto for his 2008 campaign for the Presidency" notes "The title of 'The Audacity of Hope' was taken from a sermon written by Obama's religious and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright." And, I would add, not merely his religious mentor. Despite being himself a skeptic Obama came to Chicago because he got a job fronting for some white guys, disciples of Saul Alinsky, who wanted to organize the local politics of Chicago's black churches. An obvious asset, Obama was recruited by a number of ministers, but chose about three years later to align himself with Jeremiah Wright's Trinity UCC. Jodi Kantor writes in the NY Times", "Still, Mr. Obama was entranced by Mr. Wright, whose sermons fused analysis of the Bible with outrage at what he saw as the racism of everything from daily life in Chicago to American foreign policy. Mr. Obama had never met a minister who made pilgrimages to Africa, welcomed women leaders and gay members and crooned Teddy Pendergrass rhythm and blues from the pulpit. Mr. Wright was making Trinity a social force, initiating day care, drug counseling, legal aid and tutoring. He was also interested in the world beyond his own; in 1984, he traveled to Cuba to teach Christians about the value of nonviolent protest and to Libya to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, along with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan..."[16] In other words, what attracted Obama to Trinity UCC was as much or more Wright's politics as any trancendental appeal. To pretend that Wright's politics are now irrelevant to Obama's biography is the determined blindness of someone who will not see what he doesn't want to see. Andyvphil (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No one's "pretending" anything. Most of us just understand that information belonging in the Jeremiah Wright article belongs there and not here. No amount of pontificating will change this fact. Bellwether BC 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you are simply ignoring what Obama himself has stated repeatedly. If you want to know Obama you have to know a little bit about Pastor Wright and no amount of sophistry will change this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No, I'm not. If people want to know "a little bit about Pastor Wright" the article Jeremiah Wright is clearly wikilinked in the article. Also, I'll thank you to stop with the insults ("sophistry"). It's not appreciated, and not acceptable. Bellwether BC 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
msnbc led off at noon with this today, so it may be gaining long-term notability. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If it starts being covered regularly, perhaps it should be covered more extensively in the campaign article. Bellwether
the lead-off on the pro-obama news channel prolly confers a fair degree of notability. You' re very right all the "controversy/debate" stuff should come over to BO 2008- but I think a small mention, properly adhering to BLP's requirements of a conservative edit with respect for privacy, is not out of the question. I think the real lesson here is that:
  • This issue would not have become notable any faster no matter how much some user's spammed the talk page and started one-sided edit wars. There is a certain time basis for notability as well as volume of reporting, and all the bitching and moaning and getting pages locked-out by some people, did not change one single thing in the long run. WP operated according to proceedure, and got the story RIGHT as usual (no help from some people), and yes it took like one (!) extra week, which I think is acceptable delay considering the WP:Recentism ten-year rule of thumb. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

BC 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Bellweather, you accused a couple of us of "pontificating," (to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner) which is at least as much of an insult as "sophistry". It's probably worse. The only difference is that my description was accurate. Do you really think "sophistry" is an insult? My God you are a Democrat aren't you? Also, as I said before, there will come the day, sooner or later, when you will be forced to include a better explanation of Obama's link with Wright IN THIS ARTICLE. I do appreciate the fact that you at least offer a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Bellwether's logic (who, btw, began the insults with using the accusation of pontificating). According to Bellwether, we should not include mention of Wright for the same reason that we wouldn't mention "His therapist, his high school basketball coach"....to me this is a grave fallacy. If we use that logic, then we shouldn't mention his wife, his children, or ANY significant individual that has an important and highly esteemed place in his life. How can anyone reasonably state that all the individuals in someone's life should be equivocated to the level of importance as a therapist? Obviously Obama himself has stated the significant influence and place Wright has had in his life. TO leave out this monumentous detail, or to relegate it to the equivalency of some passerby Obama once saw on a bus is a very poor approach to writing. If we are attempting a biography here, then any individual who has significantly shaped Obama (especially when Obama himself states it) is worth mentioning. And 20 years of influence, mentoring and spiritual shaping is something very much worth noting. Honestly, I smell a deliberate attempt to protect Obama here, at the expense of genuine neutrality. No matter how much any of us like a candidate, we must not attempt to censor relevant information. Wright's influence on Obama goes far beyond his campaign...20 years worth. Putting wright in the campaign article is irrelevant. Waiting for media coverage is irrelevant....Wright is a major influence on Obama. Period. This is from Obama himself. No matter what the media does or does not do with Wright, this is a very important component of Obama's life. Wright has such an influence on Obama, he wrote a book after one of his sermons, and in that book Wright is highly esteemed. Basketball coach? Cmon...seriously, are we taking wikipedia to the level of playing a charrade? I cannot believe, given the self-stated significance of Wright in Obama's life, that an editor would postulate that he is of equal weight as some long forgotten basketball coach. Really, such notions to me just waste space on this forum. Is that honestly the consensus here? That Wright's importance in Obama's life should be treated the same as a high school coach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • So then: write up a well-sourced, NPOV paragraph about it. Put it here for review and then there will something to talk about. Wright's influence is strong -- and Obama's comments and condemnations of Wright's more intemperate statements is also strong and interesting. Might want to wait a few days until there's some well-sourced commentary regarding Obama's latest statement about Wright. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My view is that Wright's name is wikilinked in the article. I also hold the view that those arguing vociferously for including Wright's more extreme views are attempting a "guilt by association" smear. While this might be acceptable in a show like the O'Reilly Factor, or a personal blog, this is utterly unacceptable in a BLP on Wikipedia. Wright has his own article. His name is wikilinked in Obama's article. No one's censoring anything. If folks want to learn about Wright's views, they should read his article. Bellwether BC 05:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, yeah, but Obama claims him as a major influence. So, regardless of whether Wright's inflammatory statements might serve Obama's opponents, we can't understate Wright's importance to Obama if we're going to mention his moral influences at all. What's the right amount of weight to put on Wright in the article? Obama describes him as an "old uncle who sometimes says things I disagree with"...Anyway, the anonymous editor might wish to actually write something proper for Wikipedia rather than suggesting others do it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Be less gutless than to attack unregistered editors like that. The article is semi-protected which means they HAVE to request the change rather than just doing it by themself.


  • See, that's what I'm saying, JP: this article mentions that Obama likes him tremendously, and respects him. It also wikilinks Wright's name. The only purpose including inflammatory Wright stuff in this article would serve is the guilt-by-association smear. My best friend since I'm five years old is a right-winger. I love the guy. He's been a big influence on my life. He holds views I don't agree with at all. If I ever become a notable politician, will my article have to include his views, since he's been such a big influence on my life for over 25 years? I wouldn't think so, but whadda I know? Bellwether BC 05:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Bellwether, since when did wikipedia EVER use controversey as reason not to include content? I beg to differ. I can cite dozens of politican articles on wikipedia that include important information that pointed to controversey (macaca anyone? or how about G.W. Bush's national guard service...the list goes on). Why are you protecting Obama? The information is completely relevant. You label it as "smear"...why? Wright is obviously not smear to Obama. Why are you calling Obama's mentor and spiritual advisor a smear source? Let readers decide if its smear. You subjectively conclude "smear", but thats you Bellwether...not me. I want truth. I want to learn about Obama...what shapes him, his influences, how we he came to be the man he is. I don't call it smear at all. In fact, the very fact that you call it smear, and others do not is justification that its NPOV and belongs in the article. It is not smear, Bellwether, it is the life shaping of Barack Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Then, if that's really your goal (which I doubt), by all means, click on Wright's name where it appears in blue. Read the article. I'm not calling the man himself a "smear", as you state. I'm calling the attempts to force Wright's most controversial views into this article a smear, which it is. Classic guilt-by-association smear, simple as that. `Bellwether BC 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
They are not 'select' views that are Wrights most controversial...they are wrights *defining* views. There is a basic law of logic commonly understood to most rational people: If A implies B, and B implies C, therefore A implies C. We know Wright is a *major* source of inspiration for Obama. We know Obama has been under the spiritual leadership of Wright for 20 years. We also know very little about Obama personally (indeed the article is mostly about the last 4 years of his life, very little before that). Since Obama has been shaped by Wright, therefore we can conlude that by knowing something of Wright, we can gain insight into Obama. This is how biographies are written. It is completely valid, biographically speaking, to gain insight into a man, by looking at those who shaped him. Wright has some *defining* views about him....that those defining views are controversial are not the fault of myself or anyone else here. Wright is Wright...he decided his views....and Obama esteems this man highly. I think (and most reasonable people would as well)....learning about Wright gives us insight into Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, whether or not it is "guilt by association" is irrelevant if, in fact, the relationship has been important to Obama's formation and development. We are not attempting to smear but you are deliberately omitting relevant and crucial biographical information. Obama himself has admitted on repeated occasions the importance of Wright's spiritual mentoring. Do you dispute Obama's own account? Why can't we just present the relevant facts; Obama's long time relationship with Wright and Wright's Church, the fact that Wright married Obama and his wife and baptized his children, the fact that his autobiography is titled after a sermon given by Wright and the fact that Obama has explicitly expressed the importance of his friendship with Pastor Wright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My best friend for 25+ years (since Kindergarten) is the person other than family that I am closest to. He holds far right wing views. Learning about him would tell you nothing about me. Putting his views into a hypothetical article about me would be an attempted guilt-by-association smear. Wright's name is wikilinked in the article. If people want to know more about him, it takes one click. The same goes for Trinity. Bellwether BC 02:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If Obama had joined Wright's church because he liked Wright's views on transubstantiation, then we should talk about Wright's views on transubstantiation in a biography of Obama to the extent that Obama's views on transubstantiation had been important in Obama's life. But I've already quoted Kantor to the effect that it was Wright's politics that drew him to Trinity. Now, how important is politics in Obama's bio? QED. Andyvphil (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, learning about your best friend for most of your life would indeed tell us something about you. Presumably you guys/girls share many of the same (or at least some of the same) insights, personality traits, interests and hobbies. I'll bet the two of you view the world more similarly than you realize. The fact that your political views are opposed only proves that you cannot reduce a person to his politics. But I would certainly argue that a biographical sketch of your life should include some decription of the relationship with your best friend and that there is no way that this relationship has not changed and affected you even if you do not share the same political worldview. I'm sure you would identify this friend as being important in your life and for that reason alone this friend is worth talking a little bit about. Without a brief description of Obama's relationship with Wright, this article is incomplete. Also, the fact that Obama has begun distancing himself from Wright only relatively recently is indeed telling and indicates a closer political worldview in the past and that his present positions are being affected by his campaign (to a certain extent). These are all things that have to be included and that voters have the RIGHT to know. Deliberate obfuscation is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[lengthy comment copied by author to "Jeremiah Wright" section, below] Jtextor (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This IS an encyclopedia...

Isn't it? 8thstar 23:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As 8thstar notes, the following was removed from this page by BellwetherBC with the AGF-impaired comment "rm-ed trolling":

Is it true that Obama's father and step father were muslims, or that he went to a predominantly muslim school? I mean, I read through the whole article but didn't find anything about this, kind of odd. 8thstar 15:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple sentences on this in the Personal Life" section, though they're easy to miss. More detailed answers to your questions will be found...um, most of it's at [17]. Bits about his fathers can be dug out of the deleted (alleged "POV split") article now found at [18]. It's pretty clear that he did pray at the mosque with his stepfather, despite the denial on his campaign website, but it's also probable that he was the skeptic his mother raised him to be at least until he decided in his 20's that he could be both doubtful and Christian, if I remember his words in "Audacity of Hope" correctly. So there's no reason to think his contacts with and connections to the Muslim religion are very important biographically. Andyvphil (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If you've been around here long enough, you know that those who pop up on the talk page to ask about the muslim thing are trolling. Period. Bellwether BC 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Or they could just be asking, on a page you think you WP:own. Andyvphil (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Fortunately, it isn't only Bellwether who sees through your obvious attempts to twist this article to suit your own personal agenda. It is a shame that your complete inability to see common sense and reason, and the continued and relentless attempts by supporters of rival Presidential Candidates and Nominees to introduce POV nonsense, may have scared off a dedicated and unbiased editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. This from the dedicated and unbiased Scjessey, who insisted I couldn't mention that Trinity was Afrocentric and unusually political and that (before the current flap) Obama had distanced himself from Wright... because the cite was to a website that required you to register to see the free content. The website of... the New York Times!!! Still ROFL over that one! Andyvphil (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What "Trinity" is or isn't is a matter for the article for that church, not for a BLP. And Wikipedia discourages the use of any reference that requires registration, regardless of how esteemed it is perceived to be. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Upon further review, you know what? I'm out. Those pushing for inclusion of the controversial material can find someone else to browbeat. De-watchlisting both this and the HRC article. Bellwether BC 02:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Upon checking in on the article this morning, I note that Andyvphil has taken it upon himself to unilaterally insert the above material without even attempting to achieve consensus for it. As I said, have fun with him guys, I'm done. Bellwether BC 09:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Buisness Deals

Favors For (and From) A Shady Chicago Businessman Barack Obama has been friends with Antoin ("Tony") Rezko since at least 1990. Barack interviewed with Rezko for a job in the early 1990s (offered, but declined), and has raised at least $150,000 for Obama's campaigns. Prosecutors charge that at least $10,000 of the money Rezko gave Obama was extorted in return for political favors by a different politician. In return, Barack arranged an internship in 2005 for John Aramanda, the son of a Rezko business associate (Joseph Aramanda, who himself gave Barack $11,500.) There's more. In June, 2005, Obama bought a house in Chicago for $1.65 million ($300,000 below the asking price). The same day, Rezko bought (in his wife's name) the vacant lot next door for $625,000, the full price asked. Seven months later, Rezko sold Barack a slice (1/6th) of his lot so the Obamas could have a bigger yard. There's no evidence that Rezko bought the vacant land for any other reason than to do Obama a favor. The seller would only sell the house if he could sell the lot on the same day. And the lot is only accessible through Obama's yard. Rezko and his wife sold the lot last year to someone they owed money to, and let that person keep the small profit he made. Here's the real problem: among other problems, Rezko is on trial in a federal government corruption case for demanding kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, another politician that Rezko has befriended and donated to. (Rezko is also under indictment for shaking down a Hollywood producer for $1.5 million in campaign contributions for Blagojevich. The guy takes care of his political friends.) In fact, Joseph Aramanda is an un indicted co-conspirator in one of the kickback cases. Obama has admitted that the land deal was a mistake, and donated money donated directly by Rezko to charity. His story has changed, though. When the land deal was first reported, Obama said his only contact with Rezko was asking him if it was a good deal. In February 2008, though, one of Obama's staffers admitted that the candidate walked around the house and lot with Rezko. Rezko has said he bought the lot to help the Obamas expand their backyard.

No date, time, signature or IP address yet? Are you saying you want this in the article(and I think you are the same person that put in the Cocaine section)? This discussion page isn't a forum to present allegations about Obama or even a general discussion. JonErber (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Delegate count estimate by AP after MS primary

{{editprotected}}

Similar description as above, new update. Still no dispute on talk about making these updates. --HailFire (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a dup of the request made above - it was just moved here to attract more attention. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've nowiki'ed the template, since the page is no longer full-protected and we do not have to flag down an admin to make the requested change. You could do it yourself if you registered. Andyvphil (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Present" Votes

There is only one mention of Obama voting "present" in the Illinois State legislature(in reference to late term abortion votes). The truth is that Obama voted "present" 130 times in the State legislature, on a wide range of issues (not just abortion) and this is something that has to be included in that section of the article. The text, as it stands right now, gives the impression that Obama was criticized only for his present votes with regard to the abortion issue. It does not convey the extent to which he employed this option; an option that is often viewed as a resort for those wishing to "take politcal cover" and to avoid controversial votes which might be held against candidates in their political future. This is an important issue and an essential aspect of his tenure in the State legislature. It is also an essential piece of the Obama political picture as he tries to distinguish himself as the next potential leader of the free world. Can somebody please explain why so much of this information is omitted? This article from the MSNBC/NY Times site can be referenced: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant? A present vote isn't a commitment either way, so maybe we should have a section about just how neutral that dastardly Obama is? 76.25.115.99 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"A present vote isn't a commitment either way." Exactly, that's the whole point and it is, in fact, very relevant. The fact that he refused to take a stand no less than 130 times in the State legislature is something that should be included in the State Leg. section. Can anyone else provide a good reason why this important information is not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk • contribs)

How many times did he take a stand in the same period? What issues didn't he take a stand on? Those to have direct bearing on whether it is important enough to include. Jons63 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I imagine we could find a writeup by a someone familiar with Illinois legislative practices; from what I understand, "present" votes are often a strategic move. It's pretty nuanced, which I guess is why it bothers the nuance-deaf class. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It also bothers those who want to use this article for their anti-Obama crusading. Bellwether BC 05:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jons63 asked:"How many times did he take a stand in the same period? What issues didn't he take a stand on?"

Well, here is more specific information:

"For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the "Audacity of Hope," on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares."-Wall Street Journal

"An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy.

For a juvenile-justice bill, lobbyists and fellow lawmakers say, a political calculus could have been behind Mr. Obama’s present vote. On other measures like the anti-abortion bills, which Republicans proposed, Mr. Obama voted present to help more vulnerable Democrats under pressure to cast “no” votes.

In other cases, Mr. Obama’s present votes stood out among widespread support as he tried to use them to register legal and other objections to parts of the bills.

In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.

“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”"-NY Times

"THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career." -http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

Does anyone actually have a good reason why this information should not be included or are we going to simply engage in ad hominems and claim that anyone who could possibly think that the fact that he voted a neutral present 130 (or 129 as he claims) times in the State legislature should be included is an "anti-Obama crusader?" It is true that other Illinois State senators take advantage of this unique political option and there is no reason why that cannot be stated in the article as well. Furthermore, simply because other senators excercised the same option does not render it insignificant. This is the guy running for the highest leadership office in the world. I'm not saying that Obama's defense cannot be included in the article but to omit such a crucial aspect of his tenure in the State Leg. is inexcuable and calls into serious question the political biases and motives of wikipedia. The editors and administrators of this page have to step up and do a little work here as the information is relatively easy to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has a good answer, huh?

  • Obama's explanation fort his "present" votes is that they were procedural, cast with other Democrats en bloc to allow otherwise good legislation to pass, even though that legislation included provisions that he and other Democrats found objectionable. In other words, the official record would not show the objecting Democrats as having defeated the otherwise good legislation by voting "no" because of a bill's unacceptable provisions, or show that they had voted "yes" to pass otherwise good legislation but which included some unacceptable provisions. Without including Obama's own explantation as to the reason for his "present" votes, the inference intended by ommiting Obama's explantation is that his "present" votes were independent and solely self-serving. That inference clearly injects bias into the article, and is good reason why the subject of Obama's "present" votes should not be included in this article if it doesn't include his explanation for those votes. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I copied my response from below:

K. Kellogg-Smith,

Thankyou for your reply and as I said there's no reason why you cannot include Obama's defense. Did you miss the part where I said his defense should be included? It should definitely be included. But why not include the facts as well as the defense? Simply because the Obama campaign has an official defense does not mean that the information should not be included or is not relevant. It is widely known, among Democrats and Republicans alike, that the "present" vote can be used as an option for politicians to "take political cover" as one commentator in the NY Times said. That is to say, the present vote is a convenient way for Illinois state politicians to avoid taking a stand on controversial votes that could potentially have political ramifications in the future. There are also other purposes served by this option, some of which you addressed. This information should also be included and it should be up to individuals to decide how they weigh this information. You don't have to do the work of Obama's campaign for him. Simply state the facts and both sides of this important and relevant issue and let individual users form their own opinions. Why ignore or obscure these undeniable facts? Introducing this information about his voting record does not introduce POV. It's simply a reporting of the facts. Fact: Obama voted present 129 times out of 4,00 votes. Fact: This accounts for 1/31 votes cast. Fact: Partial birth abortion and parental notification issues are not the only issues which votes present nor the only present votes for which he has been criticized, as the article implies now. Fact: Obama has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for voting present so many times. Fact: Obama and his campaign have a defense and a justification for these votes.

Why not include all of these facts in the State Leg. section? Its 1 out of 31 votes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1/31 = 3%. Somehow I don't think you've latched on to a decisive closing argument there, 136. --HailFire (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hailfire, it's really not for you to decide what the critical percentage should be. Just include the facts and let his record speak for itself without ignoring and hiding those aspects of his record which make you and the other Obamaniacs that administer this article a little uncomfortable. 129 times is a 129 times. And 3%, in this case, is not insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe. Certainly I would agree that it would be significant in this case.

--HailFire (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. 3% is significant there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Practical question: How is present different than 'no'? I thought in order to pass a bill needed a majority. "Present" and "no" do not add to the majority.


A very good question as well. It comes down to proceedure and practicality in any attempt to correct any provisions that are disliked later on. If one votes "yes" then they will be giving fodder to any arguements against correction later on. If one votes "no" then one is voting against what is likely a good bill, or one with good portions, that just needs corrections later on, or clarifications. By voting "Present" it keeps him in the debate for future corrections without hurting his own arguement. It's a mechanism to allow a politician to keep the dialog open on a particular issue. In addition, in some states (I don't know about Illinois) they require a minimum number of members of their houses to vote on an issue in order to pass. 'Present' gives them a vote, even if a non-commital one, to enable a legislation to pass. I cannot speak of why Obama chose this tactic, but I do know why some have in the past, including my own father who was a state rep for NH for 2 years. It keeps the dialog going, to enable compromize and correction further down the road from a position of strength rather than one of reversing ones own opinion or hurting otherwise good legislature that might contain some portions that need clarification or corrections later on.(Downix (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add: sl:Barack Obama. --AndrejJ (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done - Revolving Bugbear 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mother's ethnicity

When the article mentions his father's birth, it notes that he is of Luo ethnicity. I think it would be factually relevant to note, similarly, after mentioning his mother's birthplace that she is Caucasian or of white American ethnicity. I say this because his being mixed race seems a significant and interesting aspect of his early life and his background. It explains factually why the article refers to his "multiracial" heritage later. Admittedly, the article later backs into this fact by quoting him as comparing his mother's skin to milk, but that seems a back-door way to give a relevant fact. I raise this point with absolutely no hidden political agenda: I am not suggesting this go in as a way to make him look good or bad, instead I think it should go in because it is as relevant to who he is and to what he represents. 66.92.173.67 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This has been tried to be fixed by several editors already. The real problem is that the "watchdogs" of this article, although being honest, sincere, hardworking, patriotic, and all-around good people, are not professional writers.Redddogg (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned before that the way the sentence reads now, just saying that his mother is "American", could be offensive to some people -- it is to me-- because it seems to assume that a person reading "American" will think "white American." I agree with you on the unprofessionalism of the article -- it is not written with the reader in mind, what he or she is interested in or might want to know. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I just read the interesting New York Times piece today on his mother's influence, and how having a white mother and growing up in a biracial family (not really "multiracial" as the article has it) shaped who he is. I cannot quite figure out why the watchdogs of this article get upset about info that is relevant and would be of interest to the reader. I don't think it's a political motivation, because the info doesn't serve to make him look better or make him look worse, it merely helps describe his background. 205.219.45.3 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit it's rather offensive to me as well there. If you want to be technical, the only people that should be able to use "American" as an ethniticity are natives.(Downix (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Voting Record

Would anyone be willing to make a list of every bill Obama voted on, including how he voted? For me, personally, since Obama is a politician what he voted on and how he voted makes more of a difference than his personal history and aknowledged character traits, especially when it comes to deciding whether or not to vote for him as President. Thanks in advance to the person willing to take on the task.

PS: It doesn't look very good on the Obama campaign that they haven't created this list already. Are they attempting to ignore Obama's voting record? ~Alma Entity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.151.116 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The ADA lists 20 votes a year they consider significant, so there are 55 votes you can list there. The National Journal used... 99 votes a year? I'm not sure they've made the 2008 breakdown available yet. Does the "Congressional Journal" publish vote tables? It seems your proposal might make a good annex article, tho. Andyvphil (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You can get full records of voting and legislation history from thomas.loc.gov. For instance, see these two overview pieces:
you will ideally want to find some similarly con-Obama analyses of his legislation, but I haven't found any yet. +sj + 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright proposal

68 wrote: for that reason alone this friend is worth talking a little bit about. So maybe this dispute comes down to how we define the meaning of the word little. For me, this version that made a brief appearance earlier today had at least some consensus building potential. I would also suggest we add text linking the term black church to help interested readers put that term in historical and cultural context. Can we establish an interim consensus for restoring that version while discussion about any necessary additions continues? We need to hear from editors on both side of this ongoing condense/expand debate. Any support? --HailFire (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum my feeling is that ultimately the pastor business MUST be discussed. The article gives obama a glowing report much like the media. The fact that the page includes nothing for notibility or substance on the issue might hint to the bias of some editors. Realist2 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the controversy around Obama's former pastor must be discussed. I think the historical and cultural context of the black church should not be too emphasized but a link to the wikipedia article should be provided for those who want to read more. The main question wikipedia readers care about, really, is how much did Obama know about his pastor's fiery comments and condemnation of the U.S.? There may not be any definitive answers yet, but here are some articles. [19] [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954]RonCram (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

this version is not bad but it does not go quite far enough, IMO. There is far more to the relationship than that passage details. For example, they were close friends over a 20 year span, Wright baptized Obama and his children and married he and Michelle, Obama attended Church there regularly for some 14 years and Wright served (he just left this position a few days ago) with Obama's campaign ("African American Religious Leadership Committee"). Are we to believe that Obama was not regularly exposed to or familiar with Wright's inflammatory rhetoric? As someone said abov, those of us that attend Church regularly would have a hard time sitting through sermons we strongly disagree with and find offensive, week after week, year after year. This is not proof that Obama holds these views but it is "evidence" that would be admitted in a court of law. In any event, the facts should be included, in addition to Obama's recent denouncements and readers should be left to judge for themselves. The basic principle of this "guilt by association" factor is that though one is not responsible for the views of one's friends, we are responsible for how we react to the views of our friends and associates. Obama has certainly had many years of experience and friendship with Wright and thus he has had many opportunities to denounce Wright's extreme worldview and Wright's praise of Farakhan and others. The fact that he is only explicitly and publically doing so recently does raise questions. It's certainly possible to have friends and associates that one disagrees with but we are responsible for, at the very least, making our disagreements known and articulating the reasons for our disagreements. There is also a direct proportion between how evil and hateful the views expressed by others (especially friends) and how great is our responibility to speak out forecully against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No. "Our responsibility to speak out forcefully" must specifically exclude Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; our personal opinions are utterly irrelevant here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that wikipedia must speak out forcefully. I said that Barack Obama is responsible for the ways in which he reacted over the years to Wright's inflammatory and sometimes hate-filled and anti-American rhetoric. Some might say that his failure to speak out forcefully might imply some kind of tacit consent (this is of course speculation). In any event, Wikipedia IS responsible for reporting relevant facts and truths regardless of whether these facts or truths are controversial or uncomfortable for the Obama supporters that seem to control the content of this page. This article purports to be a biographical sketch and as such, should include the relevant details of Obama's longtime friendship and protege relationship with Wright. As it stands, the article is incomplete and misleading. It seems that the only "personal opinions that are relevant" are those of Obama's supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Any better? --HailFire (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Every other politician who has a biography I've read here at Wikipedia has a "Criticism and controversy" section. Where is the "Criticism and controversy" section in this article? Barack Obama has been the subject of a lot of criticism, especially in the past seven days with the Tony Rezko trial and the Jeremiah Wright controversy, but you'd never know it from reading this article. Let's do our best to be NPOV here. Who would like to step forward and draft the new section? Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

if SEVEN DAYS is your standard for notability then there is a few websites I would suggest before WP lol. PS you guys are very transparent when you keep requesting a criticism section even though WP discourages them. Its very amusing to see five different IPs post here every day with the same anti-WP statements and requests. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
and to the person who says "they were close friends over a 20 year span, Wright baptized Obama and his children and married he and Michelle, Obama attended Church there regularly for some 14 years" and thinks that is somehow different than saying he was Obama's pastor for 14 years. You need to re-read what you wrote! A Pastor's exact job description includes marriages and baptisms. Other than the first five years of their friendship, you make a lot of hot air but I'm not sure how much "there" is there for your claims. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't look at Hillary Clinton's or John McCain's pages. It's been discussed on several pages, and "Criticism" sections have gone away in most cases. Paisan30 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC)I trust you've noticed that John McCain, John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Dodd, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, etc. do not have a criticism and controversy section. But other than that, you're absolutely correct, every politician on Wikipedia has a criticism and controversy section.. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hillary Rodham Clinton has a section called "Whitewater and other investigations" which includes information on certain scandals where she was a subject of investigation, such as Travelgate. So, based on that article, am I correct in thinking that information that may be considered embarrassing is still appropriate for the article as long as the section is not called "Criticism"? If so, I think that is fine. If embarassing information is to be excluded, the article cannot be said to be NPOV. RonCram (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Other than the first five years of their friendship, you make a lot of hot air but I'm not sure how much "there" is there for your claims." You're not sure indeed. Obama himself has repeatedly admitted to the fact that Wright was his close friend and spiritual mentor for some 20 years and that he brought him to the Christian faith. Obama attended sermons there for 14 years(!) and Wright even served in Obama's campaign. As I'm sure you know, there is no law that one has to be married or baptized in one's hometown parish and that's exactly why people usually choose to be married by priests/pastors that they have a personal relationship with. And Obama titled his autobiogrpahy after a sermon given by Pastor Wright... Yes they were, in point of fact, very close friends and Obama has stated as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

5+14=19 which is what i meant... "people usually choose to be married by priests/pastors that they have a personal relationship with."--source that lol! its called advocacy on the talk page, and its against policy. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hailfire, to my mind that's a little better but there is still quite a bit missing and readers do not get an accurate sense of the depth of their relationship. I appreciate your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys - be real clear here: there are people out there who believe that you can't criticize Obama AT ALL, and they are never going to change their minds. Arguing with them is pointless. For this reason, you make a relevant change like the new one to the presidential campaign section, and defend it with facts. As you can see, you get some idiot who wants to 'revert to the last version that made sense,' however facts have this way of asserting themselves, and you can pretty much rely on them, no matter how big a skeptic you are.

Obama is a disciple of Wright. <BLP slander violation reverted (strike 2) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)>. The involvement of Wright in his campaign is relevant AND historical, and belongs in his record. To say that a man is not influenced by the opinions of his pastor of twenty years, who officiated his marriage and baptised his children, is ludicrous and the other campaigns are all over it. It isn't going away.(talk) 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

72.0.180.2, what's your point? Simply reporting and including the FACTS is not advocacy. Willfully, ignoring pertinent, relevant facts is advocacy. If your only point is that the fact that Wright baptized Obama, married he and his wife and baptized both his children is only an accident of Wright's capacity to perform the various sacramental functions of a pastor, I'm afraid you're still missing the main idea. It was his friendship and personal relationship with Wright that brought him to the United Church of Christ to begin with. This is a particular kind of Church; a Church which incorporates afrocentricisn and black power politics with the teachings of Christianity. Of course, were Obama only interested in the teachings of Christianity per se he could have been baptized into one of the more mainstream Christian branches like Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Southern Baptism or whatever. But he didn't, he joined this particular kind of Christian Church and he did so precisely because of his relationship with Wright. That Wright has been a part of so many of Obama's fundamental life experiences (wedding, baptisms etc.) is something which has only deepened their personal bond. Are you denying that the 2 shared a close friendship over the years? Are you denying that Wright was Obama's most important spiritual and religious influence? Are you denying that Obama attended Church services at that Church for some 14 years? Are you denying that Obama titled his autobiography after a sermon by Wright? Are you denying that Wright served, until just a few days ago, in Obama's campaign? What exactly are you saying? Was Wright not an important influence in Obama's life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.182 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

actually I am trying to explain to you, that you can't put unsourced slander even on the talk page per BLP. Also you are not supposed to re-add BLP issues without consensus on talk. Not like you to care much. Using the word "disciple" is far stronger than "follower" or "supporter" and it has a pre-eminent religious definition superseeding the causal definition you use. All of which you surely already know, which is why I rv-ed you again. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, those were pretty much my points —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Spam

I feel BLP policy allows us to RV talk page statements that do not discuss, or barely discuss, the actual article and are "drive-by" posted by IP's who do not otherwise participate. Specifically I feel this is a form of advocacy, prohibited on talk pages. It also, sometimes, bumps up against BLP content policies. So, like good editors, I feel we should discuss this before i start unilaterally making edits. lol andy. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC) also remember not to feed them people....

Obama and Hillary

I have read they are going to show a common candidature, with Obama as President and Hillary as Vicepresident.--Nopetro (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide any sources. It looks to me like nonsense. Hillary talked about naming Barack as her VP and he rejected the idea. I do not know of any offer by Barack to Hillary. RonCram (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rezko and Obama

Given all of the innuendo and discussion about Rezko and Obama in the media, I think we need to have a page somewhere (not on this page) that discusses this relationship in full so that we can link to it if people want the full information. I bring this up here so that those involved in the Obama articles can have some input. Also, the recent full interview he gave with the Chicago Tribune goes into great detail about what exactly happened and would be useful for anyone who wants to create a better description of the facts in wikipedia Link to story. Remember (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And why not on this page? It seems every politician and media pundit has a "controversies" section on thier Wiki bios. Why not Obama as well? Then again, considering it took a year to even get the briefest mention of Rezko on this page (mentions repeatedly got scrubbed), I guess the answer should be apparent.
There is certainly more to the Obama / Rezko issue than a single land deal (like the fact Obama has given back "Rezko cash" on several occassions, has mis-represented the amount he's received from Rezko, and the political connections between the two that this particular page just glosses over). Ynot4tony (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you have a far right ideology seen here and here refering to liberals as "Liberal twinks" do you honestly think we could care a less about your views? Oh and say bye to Bush for us while your at it. Realist2 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There isn't enough info for an entire article on the Obama-Rezko connection. I'm not even sure there is enough information for a Tony Rezko political connections article. One thought would be to expand the section in Rezko's article and if at some point it gets large enough, then it can be moved on to a different article. Although, the section needs to be expanded to include all of Rezko's connections, not just his connection to Obama. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Build consensus

Clearly this is a popular article at the moment. The normal procedure of making bold edits isn't going to work here because there is so much disagreement and controversy over every single edit. Please seek a broad consensus (from established editors) on this talk page for anything other than minor grammatical changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was long overdue an update on primary results etc, the article magically managed to avoids the fact that clinton had own anything lol. As for the stuff on his reverand, there has been discussion and the article provides a little snipet of info on the issue, it can be expanded latter but the bare bones of the story are down which is a good thing. Realist2 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of the edits you describe have reached any kind of consensus here. Furthermore, most of them were buried amongst the usual POV edits that crop up from time to time (when Andy's awake, mostly). Please also remember that this is a Biography of a Living Person, which means that information should be of a largely biographical nature. Campaign-related stuff should be considered for addition to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Please do not constantly revert back to the messed-up version of the article without first building a proper consensus for the individual edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Let others contribute to the artice. Let others join the debate. If everyone ages with you that its a load of rubbish then that fine by me, this is obviously a very controlled article. Let others express either viewpoint before you revert their work. Give it a day, if people hate it then revert it latter. Alternatively insert neutrality tags like i sugested. People will soon take care of them. Realist2 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not a simple as that. What is currently happening is that certain editors (like User:Andyvphil) are making sweeping changes to the article without first seeking consensus, and in fact completely against the established consensus. There are so many of these types of edits that they are becoming almost impossible to discuss and verify. We must promote a culture of caution and consensus-building on an article as important as this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey is engaging in mass unconsidered reverts with misleading edit summarys and falsely marking his reverts as minor.[20] [21][22][23][24]. He's restoring outright errors (the mistitling of the pronunciation cite and the misattribution and misquotation of Soetoro-Ng spring to mind) and deleting "pro-Obama" material (the community-organizer and voter registration are obvious examples) that I'm sure he would be quite happy with if he actually looked at it, as well as the NPOV stuff he doesn't want to see. And he's violated 3RR. Time to ask admin help, I think. Andyvphil (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Added another. Hes made 5 reverts. --Realist2 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. I've gone to great lengths to try to only revert those edits that conflict with the prevailing consensus here, as you will see in the article's edit history. It is extremely difficult to pick out the good from the bad because there are so many conflicting edits. If you could simply follow the accepted practice of seeking consensus, then this problem would not arise. I implore you to adopt a more cautious approach to your editing of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a load of crap if ever I heard one. You revert ANYTHING that isn't pro-Obama, and when you've done your three reverts, your sock-puppet accounts come out. There is NO WAY to discuss Obama and not discuss the influence of his minister of 20 years, who conducted his marriage, influenced his book and baptised his children -- Fovean Author (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My what? I don't have any sock puppets. Ask someone to do a check user on me if you don't believe me. My ONLY username is this one, and always has been. Furthermore, you are utterly and completely incorrect about your facts and assumptions. Being an atheist, I couldn't care less who had a relationship with who and for what. And being British, I cannot even vote in the US election. I'm only interested in ensuring that the article maintains the high standard required of a Featured Article. Any reversions I have made have been performed due to the addition of POV or misleading information, or information that is being duplicated in better locations, or information that is just plain made up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
also, even andyvphil admits you RV pro-Obama text as well, so claims of POV seem pretty thin.
love, the sockpuppets 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Scjessey describes me as a "moron" I will say, this is NOT the place to make accusations of sock puppetry!!!!!!!! Fovean Author, thing about what your saying when you make such accusations. If you have evidence to support your claims report it, but DONT bring it here. --Realist2 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well then, let me sock you no puppets and instead insert any historical information of the relationship between Wright and Obama (or anyone else for that matter) to a section which details the effect of increased scrutiny on Obama. Seeing as tomorrow we shall see Obama specifically deal with this issue in a speech (both of race and as a result of increased scrutiny), I believe that any argument that it is not a part of his biography is moot. -- Fovean Author (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about your content concerns but accusations of SP are a no no. --Realist2 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

you guys are crazy if you think a whole new section isn't undue weight, in a BIO page. and the title doesn't work on a bio page either. Like lots of users keep telling you, this is the exact reason the 2008 Obama campaign page exists, for fast moving documentation. If you think these edits (a whole new section for news of the past two weeks) are acceptable to the bio page of a 40-something man, you haven't read wp:recentism and it recommendation of a ten-year rule of thumb for inclusion (will the increased scrutiny section been notable as such in ten years? of course not) Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't belong here in the BIO. The version that Fovean is repeatedly trying to force contains as much information about the recent Wright furor as all events in the 2008 presidential campaign. If that's not undue weight, I don't know what is. This issue already has a perfectly weighted statement concerning Obama's relationship and later distancing from Jeremiah Wright. The details are only relevant to his campaign, and that's where they belong. johnpseudo 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I just created fancycats (first account ever yay) for the purposes of RV-ing fovean but it wouldn't let me edit for 4 days THANK GOD! So I can't get fully involved quite yet but I support your editing efforts. I f I could edit today I would be drastically cutting down on his txt...(maybe not a full rv) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me to be nonsense to talk about "prevailing consensus" at this point. Some editors evidently do not want anything negative about Barack. Others want to advocate against Barack's campaign. Neither POV is acceptable. The article has to be NPOV. The Rev. Wright has become an issue in the campaign. The article needs to deal with that but it needs to do so without inflammatory language and it needs to use only WP:RS written by established journalists and not politicians. You have to provide sources for any edits to the article. I suggest using these articles as sources. [25][http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][26]Can we all agree that the article needs to discuss Rev. Wright? Do we have consensus on that point? RonCram (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that the Rev. Wright issue has become important for the campaign; however, that becomes a matter for Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 rather than this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
RonCram, several of the pro-Obama claque (all except Hailfire, who is much the brightest of the group) have said repeatedly that info about Wright belongs only in Wright's bio. The only consensus we are goung to get is (WP:CON) "rough consensus", based of weighing the strength of arguments and discounting WP:IDONTLIKEITs.
Do you have problems with the sourcing or tone of this edit?[27] Will try to work with you on this. But not today. I've been at this too long, past when I should have slept. Andyvphil (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Wright is more than just a campaign issue. He was a major influence and inspiritation in Obama's life and spiritual formation. Knowing about the longtime relationship with Wright is certainly more important than knowing that Barack likes chili and is a "pretty good poker player." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we should also reinstate the removed information of their long standing friendship as well as the criticism obama recieved for not reacting strongly or swiftely. Realist2 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hello all. I didn't see the plea to build consensus on "anything other than minor grammatical changes" before I expanded the Wright controversy section and added some brief mention of related criticisms. I apologize. Under normal circumstances, I'd probably never go to a talk page for fixing an obvious problem like an oddly misdirected section topic. Basically, the previous title for the section (and subsequent prose) read: "The media were criticized for not criticizing Obama, so then they criticized him". I thought it was prudent to clarify that the section is about Obama, not the Media.

I also added a few sourced paragraphs for a greater "criticism during presidential campaign" section about related scrutiny. Objections? Okiefromokla questions? 04:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

yes- because this is a BLP, we have to meet those standards, and certainly Media is the easiest and most common way to get RS'es. So we tend towards a media perspective. Also verifiability is easier meet to say what has been reported and not what is True if you know what I mean. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

rogueIframe : avast Conspiracy for destabilize the credibility of barack obama.

A member's of the antivirus avast company, create hoax trojan rogueiframe. this member with desired will destabilize the credibility of the official website of barack obama to the presidency of the USA. for that it took the code which has to find on the site and to declare like important Trojan. the inofancif code of this hoax :

document.write('<iframe src="page.html" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" frameborder="0" height="1" scrolling="no" width="1"></iframe>')

March 17 this imaginary Trojan is set up, it will take 24 hours for the company of avast to react and remove this false information this day.

link RoguIframe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.248.230.186 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on his churches "black value system" and preacher

I just think this section is urgently needed. In the Ron Paul article one of the largest sections was in reference to the "newsletter controversy" which supposedly wasn't directly an act of Ron Paul, but associated with him. The controversy about Obama attending a black nationalist church and his preachers radical speeches could not be more similar to the Ron Paul controversy even in fiction. Tthe Ron Paul section was up as fast as the news broke, where is the info here? The Black Value System (now removed from his churches website but available on the web archive): 1. Commitment to God 2. Commitment to the Black Community 3. Commitment to the Black Family 4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education 5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence 7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’ 9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions 11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System 12. Personal commitment to embaracement of the Black Value System.’ Essentially switch the word black with aryan and you get the picture. It's breaking in the mainstream already. Some links to his preachers speechers would be handy in the article. The other candidates pages seem to include a lot more criticism where as this looks almost as though its a baseball card talking about his vast achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.211.229 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that, a section on his chruch's controversy is greaty needed KingsOfHearts (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bliss, Jeff (2008-03-11). "Obama-Clinton Race Creates Security Concerns for Secret Service". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2008-03-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_13&oldid=1136548457"