Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Wiki help needed

Last night I wrote an article on Lolo Soetoro Obama's one time stepfather. Apparently this has been deleted in the past. This man was an important part of Obama's childhood. He is also part of a mis-information campaign about Obama claiming that Obama is a muslim extremist. His inclusion on Wikipedia is very important. Please help by adding your comments to Lolo Soetoro's talk page and contacting appropriate administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahredrock (talk • contribs)

I've declined the speedy. The previous AfD was before Obama became the likely President, and therefore this is not an open and shut case. AfD should be observed here; times have changed, and the family members of Obama are more high-profile now than they ever were. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware that there were different standards in the AfD process for people related to candidates and those related to presumptive nominees. It would seem that the same arguments are applicable. Other than a brief mention of his connection to Obama, there is nothing notable about him (and notability is not inherited). The notable aspects of his life are already addressed in this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, this never went to AfD in the first place. G4 does not cover speedies; only deletion discussions. It fails G4 and A7, because it asserts notability, and therefore should go to AfD anyway. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter is exactly right, if there are concerns about notability, take it to AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The article in question has incorrect and missing facts - all of which are amply covered here and inn Ann Dunham, and appears to be a coatrack for getting "Obama" and "Muslim" in the same place. Tvoz/talk 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Barack senior begat Barack junior...but only saw him once after Barry was a toddler, two years old: yes, a WP bio for BHO I; yet, from age five on, Barack junior's raised by Lolo (alongside Barack's mother Ann): no article, no dice; adding insult to injury, from age 10 on, Barry is raised by Madelyn and Stanley: deserving of treatment via a joint WP bio. Yet another case of shorsightedness here?

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate. ¶ The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally. ¶ “This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”----POLITICO'S BEN SMITH

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mountains and molehills and thinking about this for the long term

I want to make a general comment here which I hope is helpful both for the Rezko discussion and for future discussions of a similar nature (but you can also feel free to ignore it!). This is, right now, one of the more important and widely read articles on Wikipedia, one of the most widely read websites in the world. It's worth it to pause and read the preceding sentence again. An outsider looking at the talk page would see a bunch of folks bogged down in the minutiae of certain issues (but talking it out/staying civil of late which is great) and not so much actively working to better source the article (if that's necessary), provide better context for certain issues, improve clarity of writing, etc. In a way that's fine, at times it's important to focus on minutiae and hammer out agreements as we are doing now. But I hope we can all keep a larger picture in mind and think to the future, particularly as we debate nettlesome questions.

Barring exceptional circumstances, eight or so months from now (an eternity in Wikitime, but not long at all in the real world) Obama will either be in the first month of his first year as president of the U.S. or a failed presidential candidate back in the Senate. Try to imagine how different this article will look then. Certain sections (such as early life) will be similar, but probably we'll know even more details as further reporting is done. The campaign section will look completely different, and there might be a new section on his presidency. No doubt between now and then we, and the rest of the world, will have learned a lot more about Barack Obama and literally billions of words will be written about him in the months ahead. Why am I mentioning these obvious points? Just to suggest this: let's not sweat the small stuff too much, or get too bogged down in the details. Whatever we come up with now will evolve (vastly more than most Wiki articles) in the months and years ahead. Taking Tony Rezko as an example, we don't know what will happen. Will it never be much of an issue in the general election? Will more information come out which makes Obama look far worse and which actually contributes to his defeat? One, the other, or something else, we just don't know.

In reality most of the viewpoints being articulated on this and other questions are not wildly different (a paragraph in this section vs. that one, two sentences or five, this wording or that one, etc.). The tendency here on Wikipedia though, and I'm sure we can all admit to getting caught up in this at times, is to stake out a position and defend it like it was the damn Alamo (a lot of folks are open to compromise here which is great, but you get my point). One thing we should bear in mind as we debate about various issues, and which should serve as an inducement to flexibility, is that this will all change later. Let's all try to pick our battles and recognize that, in the grand scheme of the universe and even of this article, whether we talk about Rezko in section C or section F and whether he gets 3 lines or 6 is relatively unimportant. </sermony diatribe>

With that I'm going to start a new section on the Rezko issue (I know, too many already) as the discussion has become unfocused and all over the place so we should try to centralize it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I just discovered that I had missed some comments on the Rezko discussion several threads up. Modocc (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama II

We should make this the title of the page. He have Clinton with her middle name in the title, why can't we put Barack's middle name in the title? --Antonmaracel259 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons are titled with the common name of the subject, which is Barack Obama in this case. Rodham is the maiden name of Hillary Rodham Clinton, not her middle name (which is Diane). This has previously been discussed many times, so feel free to consult the extensive talk page archive in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why was this picture taken out? miranda 18:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The image was taken out because the entire section it was in was deleted.[1] See the above section for discussion of the sections removal. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious chronology @ infobox

Since John McCain's change from Episcopalian to Baptist is given in the infobox at "John McCain," I figured I'd fill out the religious information at "Barack Obama" to spell out that while Obama's been with the United Church of Christ since 1992, previously he'd retained what he termed in his 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech a "skepticism of organized religion," while acknowledging his maternal grandparents as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists." — Justmeherenow (   ) 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that, and don't believe I've ever seen anything like that in an infobox. This is precisely the kind of change you should discuss rather than just make, as it is significant and likely controversial. First of all I see no reason why we would refer to his grandparents' religion - the infobox is not about what church his grandparents did or did not go to (and why only mention his maternal grandparents?). Secondly, I don't believe we generally include earlier religious skepticism under the "religion" category of the infobox. George W. Bush became a born-again Christian in his early forties and continues to identify as such, but we don't explain in his infobox that he had a religious conversion (he switched from Episcopalian to United Methodist, which we explain in the article, not the infobox, though in that case we could probably mention that in the infobox). Thomas Jefferson was raised in the Church of England but we don't say that in the infobox, nor do we say that he was anti-Catholic nor that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus (again we discuss these things in the article). When Richard Nixon was young he believed in the inerrancy of the Bible but abandoned that later, and despite nominally being a Quaker he was pretty far from a pacifist, but in his infobox we simply say "Quaker" (one could argue whether that was even really true by the time he was president). McCain completely switched denominations which is worth mentioning, but in general that infobox should really just identify someone's current religion, not say "in his 20s he struggled to find his spiritual identity" which is basically the case with Obama and half the rest of the world. Where that can be discussed is in the article itself. It's already largely there, but I think we can slightly expand the last paragraph of the "personal life" section. I'm strongly tempted to revert your change but will hold off pending further discussion and actually hope you might self-revert. Again, in the future please discuss these kind of changes before making them. You're adding new material and if you have any sense it may be even minimally controversial you should bring it to the talk page first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Self-reverted, pending consensus----as it's conceivable some portion of it might be controversial. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll see what others think, but if you want folks to come around to your view you might want to find examples where we list "skepticism of organized religion" or something similar in an infobox to note that someone was not in a church their whole life. If there are few or no examples of that it would suggest we should not start doing it here. The other problem I didn't mention is the way it appears on the screen with "skepticism of organized religion" being the first thing someone would read. Because of the formatting it's not immediately clear you are talking about a former belief, so someone who casually peruses the infobox (which is probably exactly what most people do) might only notice the first line about skepticism. It doesn't make much sense to display his past belief (or lack thereof) more prominently than his religion of the past 16 years.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah-hah----yes! true. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is fine as is. Shem(talk) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Malik Obama, his half brother, says he was raised a muslim.Andycjp (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The word Muslim is only mentioned once in this entire article and that seems wholly absurd, given how much attention has been given to the issue of Obama's religiosity. Here are a couple of articles to considera

  • Was Barack Obama a Muslim?, Daniel Pipes Frontpagemagazine.com[1]
  • President Apostate, New York Times [2]

Obama's religion in infobox

The infobox lists Obama's church as the United Church of Christ, but he quit the church as reported here http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/obama.church/index.html. How come it's still listed as United Church of Christ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codwar (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trinity is the Church, United Church of Christ is the denomination. He quit the church but not the denomination. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the nomenclature of describing churches, you might conclude as I did that "United Church of Christ" is not in fact a "denomination" but an umbrella church. Its structural ethos is ecumenical and it's comprised mainly of congregational local churches. I think Obama's denomination is more accurately described as "Ecumenical-Congregational" than UCC. I would however, link to the UCC wiki page from the words "Ecumenical-Congregational". Thoughts? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bit pedantic. I think "Ecumenical-Congregational" is far too arcane of a description for an infobox and I'm not sure if it's even accurate. He still belongs to the United Church of Christ, so we should leave it as is. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The "United Church of Christ" is just that - a church, not a denomination. Also, I understand that some here take offense of the use of the word "pedantic". If that is true, why are you directing it at me? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Saying so over and over again doesn't make it so. I've cited multiple sources which state that UCC is a denomination. You've cited exactly none that say it isn't, despite the fact that I've asked for them. Also, there's a difference between calling a statement pedantic and calling a person pedantic. The first is acceptable, the second is a personal attack. --Clubjuggle T/C 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh, this point (as I stated below) is of no import to me. I can take it or leave it. I've shared my thoughts and so have you, now let's move on. By the way, I did feel you were calling me "pedantic" but I'll have you note, I was merely sarcastic in return, not attacking. The term I used (check the edit history to see) was "non-pedantic mind". I used that term to point out sarcastically that I was taken aback by your use of the word "pedantic" towards me. Anyway, it's good that we cleared that up. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. For whatever it's worth, though, the "pedantic" comment was not mine. In any case, I agree we should move on. --Clubjuggle T/C 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

United Church of Christ is a "mainline Protestant Christian denomination" (emphasis added), according to the Wikipedia article on same. --Clubjuggle T/C 05:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the McCain article religion note is imprecise. What type of Baptist is he? Southern? American? Actually though, the wiki article on UCC is simply wrong. The religion is Christinanity, the (macro) Denomination is Protestant and the Church is UCC. If UCC is the denomination, then what is the category "Protestant" as it relates to UCC? It's not the religion, Christianity is. I am not being obtuse here. UCC is not a religion and it's not a denomination - it's a church. UCC is not easy to categorize. It's not a traditional Protestant chuch. Rather, UCC churches have as their hallmark ecumenicalism. It's a newer key aspect of UCC and it's what sets them apart from other Protestant churches. Is this enough to call it a "denomination"? I don't think so. On the other hand, UCC may be positioning themselves as something somehwat unique - from their perspective at least. As I see it "Ecumenical-Congregational" would be more accurate, but on this point, I am content to drop it. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If the McCain article is imprecise, I suppose the proper fix for that is to find a more precise source and then fix the McCain article (thanks for giving me a challenge to work on!). UCC also self-identifies as a "mostly progressive denomination that unabashedly engages heart and mind". Protestantism encompasses many denominations (including Baptists) and would be extremely imprecise for exactly the same reason that the McCain article is imprecise. In any case this is all just my quick research to help resolve the discussion, so if you have sources that contradict the ones I'm finding, by all means please do share them. --Clubjuggle T/C 07:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and Political Image

I have read, or sometimes skimmed, this wiki several times, and I can't help finally saying something about this section, and the ridiculous part about him being a "cultural Rorschach test".

1) There are too many people you could say this about. And

2) It has the distinct feel of something written about him by a detractor, which isn't, I think, what wikipedia is about.

He is who he is. His persona is not a canard, as this section very precisely supposes. And it is very, very not "neutral".

The first quotation used to support this is a single word from a New Yorker article: "everyman". I checked out the link. It's a biographical story, about a how the son of a kenyan lawyer comes to run against Jack Ryan for an Illinois Senate seat. The word "everyman" appears exactly once, in the title.

Come on! I mean, I was nowhere near this computer when I suddenly thought about this wiki that i had read weeks ago and how badly this "Rorschach" passage reeked of a smear. Now here i am making a case - but it's sad how little i have to work. The first quotation? An entry of this magnitude must have standards.

I'll rock the second quote - let's see: wait...what? It's a few sentences about how diverse he is. A quote from his book, a speech, and on the Oprah show.

A diverse person is not a neutral canvass upon which we all cast our own souls. This is straight up bullarky.

Please either file this under "criticism" or something, or toss it. It's neither scientific, nor successfully observant. It's a delicate, belabored smear, designed to appear insightful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by72.150.142.103 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This section was added in November 2006 to replace a list of trivia. As the originator of the "Rorschach" and "everyman" texts, I can attest that they were not intended as smears. However, I agree with 72 that not only this text, but the rest of the section as well has outlived its usefulness. We can use the article space it occupies more productively. I have BOLDly removed it. Discussion welcome. --HailFire (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Given the tempestuous history of this article, you don't think WP:BRD is a tiny bit aggressive? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It has the whiff of a possible explosion. I don't think one post by an anon is quite a thorough discussion. That said, I tend to support HailFire's bold edit. The "Image" thing was a bit too informal in tone, and it's not clear that something as wiggly as that is really encyclopedic. However, call this weak support, since I'm also not convinced that there's not some good reclaimable material in there. LotLE×talk 18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I support HailFire's removal. Now that he's shown why this section was created in the first place, I can see how it's outlived its usefulness. Shem(talk) 03:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We should do something about it but I'm not sure what. I think it's a bad idea to have long "image" sections in each politician's bio because the material, as useful and insightful as it may be about understanding sociology and pop culture, tends to trivialize the understanding of the people themselves. Deleting it probably goes too far because there is well-sourced notable material in there but we should refactor it, condense it down to a paragraph or two, and/or split it off into its own article. Wikidemo (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

when i woke up this afternoon (i work nights) and read that the passage had been deleted, i really fet for a minute like i had changed the world for the better. i'm new to this, hence the unsigned post. funny the way wikipedia gives you a sense of civic duty. Anyway, I see it's still there, and seems to change here and there.

I accept that the section may not have been intended as a smear - it seems that claim was heavy-handed.

The latest edit is an admirable improvement.

My worry was, and is, that the passage seemed to lend undue credence to arguments that Mr. Obama is somehow an "empty suit". That is the thrust of the Podhoritz piece in the New York Post. It claims, as many of his detractors have, that he is an idea, and not a person, and by extension that his supporters are delusional or lack the depth of understanding to comprehend his meaninglessness. As such, i suppose i don't argue for this section's complete exclusion, but i sincerely wish it were placed in a section devoted to criticisms, both overt and sidways.

Rollback 4 hours

I apologize for any editors who have made good-faith changes today. I just rolled back to a version from earlier today. The server is unresponsive, so it's hard to look through edit histories, but someone dug up a really old version of the article, and inserted either the whole thing or large blocks of it.

The version prior to my restoration had material that was widely agreed on as obsolete, such as the digression on Blair and Ryan, the old "Jr." that consensus replaces with "II", old infobox material (e.g. how religion is noted), it lacks uncontroversial additions like the Illinois Project Vote! involvement, lacks links like "list of bills" that are nice to have, and so on.

Anyone who has made helpful piecewise changes, please make them again in this restored (roughly agreed-upon) version. I know the work is annoying, but it seems like the only way to get back all the non-controversial improvements of the last couple weeks. LotLE×talk 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Seconding Lulu's request. An appeal here. If you want to make a bold edit or bold reversion, please think twice first of all and consider discussing it here first, and if people object don't re-revert whether that's an addition or deletion of material. Also, for goodness sake, please take the time to edit in or out exactly what you think should be changed and don't simply revert or cut-and-paste old language. Reverting mass deletions and additions has the tendency to mung things up so it takes a lot of hand effort to clean up and re-apply all kinds of constructive uncontroversial edits that you didn't mean to reverse. That's what Lulu is trying to do at the moment after a series of reversions. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Following up, it looks like it is this edit that created the mess. I'm pretty sure that it is just a direct revert to an exact version from about two weeks ago. However, I don't know an easy way to determine what exact version that was. FWIW, the editor User:US - Jimmy Slade does not seem to have edited this page other than this mass reversion. The account itself has edited a variety of other pages (I haven't looked at the quality of those edits). LotLE×talk 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In an indicator that I have too much time on my hands, it seems to be a reversion back to this May 14 edit by Scjessey.Diff A mere 1,187 edits ago.... --Bobblehead (rants) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Odd. There isn't any obvious vandalism in that user's edit history and he's been around for over a year (mostly doing housekeeping on sports and entertainment related articles). I believe it was a good faith edit, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I wonder if he did it by mistake? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it was an accidental save? Either that, or an edit he made not realizing he was looking at a diff? --Clubjuggle T/C 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
How on earth did you determine that, Bobblehead (the specific past version)? I suppose I'd know how to write a tool to the WP API to do diffs against version ranges (I've created a semi-bot in the past), but writing it would be almost as much work as figuring it out manually :-). LotLE×talk 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Presidential campaign section only mentioned Obama pulling ahead in superdelegates on May 12 and didn't include the West Virginia results so it had to be sometime between May 12 and May 14. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Bobble's being modest. Truth is, he is a wizard. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Tvoz/talk 16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning campaign section

We've made good steps now that Obama is presumptive nomineed, but I think it's worth trimming some more from the primary contest details to make room for the general campaign. It's definitely notable that Clinton and Obama ran a tightly contested primary race, and some of the major themes that arose in the primary. However, it feels like more of the details on who won this state versus that state should now only live in the campaign child article. LotLE×talk 02:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Race

The opening of this article states the following "He is the first African American to be a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States". While this is true and I do not disagree with it's useage, I think the sentence should be changed to state the following "He is the first African American and the first Arab American to be a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States. Obama's father had both African and Arab lineage. According to both the wikipedia articles on African Americans and on Arab Americans the terms apply to anyone who has ancestory which traces back to either the black racial groups in Africa or one or more of the countries in the Arab world, respectively. If his Arab ancestory is considered irrelevant for the purposes of this artical, then likewise so should his African ancestory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.101.1.5 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Going back four generations (great-grandparents) I cannot find evidence of Arab lineage.[2] I can't find reliable records on his father's side going back farther than that. In any case, I doubt anyone who has perhaps a single arab-american relative five generations back would identify themselves as Arab-American, just as I doubt anyone with, for example, a single african ancestor five generations back would self-identify as African-American. --Clubjuggle T/C 16:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Clubjuggle, the "Obama's an Arab" meme is a fringe theory based on Obama's paternal grandfather and grandmother having "Arabic names" (Hussein Onyango and Akumu Obama). The claim is that in the Luo tribe "Arab Africans" are given Arabic names and "Black Africans" are given Christian names. Granted, Obama's grandfather was born Onyango Obama and added Hussein following his conversion to Islam and Onyango and Akumu are both uniquely African names, but why let the facts get in your way? --Bobblehead (rants) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I suspected as much, but WP:AGF and all... --Clubjuggle T/C 17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pls add IW link

[[wuu:白拉克 欧白马]]

- Thanks !! 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done Shem(talk) 04:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Campaign material?

Some recent edits added the below to the Cultural and Political Image section, but also somehow messed up the page rendering to lose the references and bottom infoboxes. I assume the latter issue was an innocent side effect of something like an unclosed tag. The added material, however, seems questionable to me; it reads more like campaign promotion than like neutral encyclopedic material:

In April 2008 hundreds of posters carrying a red, white, and blue image of Obama's face transposed above the words PROGRESS, HOPE, or CHANGE and designed by Los Angeles-based street artist Shepard Fairey were made and distributed through the Obama campaign web site.[191]

Does anyone want to argue for this material. I've taken it out as part of that edit for formatting, for now. LotLE×talk 01:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll argue for the campaign section addition. Shepard Fairey is a major street, pop, and political artist, and his images have become the major symbol of the campaign, repeated on t-shirts, stickers, etc. It's not a promotion of Obama, but speaks of the origins of the viral and artistic nature and origins of the culture and political material featured in his campaign. The reference deleting error was an innocent mistake. I am unaware as to what caused it, but I assure you it was unintentional. Resubmitting submission with cleaned ref links and better phrasing. Aaron Sawyer (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I've never heard of Shepard Fairey, so doubt that his contribution of work for the campaign is terribly biographically significant for Obama. Perhaps for the campaign child article, but not for general biography. It also appears that the only edits Aaronsawyer has made to this article is the insertion of this mention (in good faith, the first insertion was caught up in some bad reversions, so a second try can be treated as de novo). LotLE×talk 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Lulu here - I'm not convinced that this makes the cut for the main biography either - it seems more suited to the campaign article. Tvoz/talk 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I would just rename the picture and incl. Shepard Fairey as WP-link and cut out the paragraph about it. --Floridianed (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, I don't object to the photo being in the article, just think the description that's now in the text is getting too much weight for a general bio. Tvoz/talk 03:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

Barack's interesting step-father

There is heated debate and editing over at Lolo Soetoro, Barack's one-time stepfather. I only mention it here because of the obvious connection, not to propose any edits to Soetoro on Obama's page. Those following the Wiki-record of Obama may want to know about this separate mini-epic Wiki project.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko problems

I am returning from my self-imposed exile to make a point about why the Rezko stuff is proving so difficult to include. Various attempts have been made to add the Rezko-related information, and they have all failed. The problem has been identified by Wikidemo, actually, although his proposed solution hasn't been any more successful than previous attempts. The facts are these:

  1. Tony Rezko played a fairly significant role in the earlier part of Obama's career, chiefly as a fundraiser - nothing wrong with that.
  2. Obama bought a house, and Rezko bought a vacant lot next door because the sellers wanted to sell both at the same time - nothing wrong with that.
  3. Rezko sold a strip of land to Obama, which helped to improve the Obama property - nothing wrong with that, although Obama himself indicated that Rezko was "doing him a favor".
  4. During the course of Rezko's fundraising activities he engaged in illegal activities, for which he was indicted and later convicted - big alarm bells ringing, extensive coverage at Tony Rezko.
  5. Worried about how this might look, Obama gave a couple of interviews explaining his actions, and donated the estimated sum of Rezko-sourced funds to charity - nothing wrong with that.

Taken individually, there is nothing improper (or even notable) about any of Obama's actions. It is only when these disparate facts are combined that some form of "controversy" unfolds. The "controversy" relies on the details surrounding Rezko's indictment, none of which involved Obama. By cramming all of these details into a single section, we are essentially talking about manufacturing a controversy. This has been described by some editors as "context", but really it is just conflation. It would be one thing if this "controversy" received masses of media attention, but it has barely received a mention.

But if we separate the details and "weave" them into the article, as suggested by WorkerBee74, the details fade into insignificance because none of them are really notable. The difficulty of fitting this stuff in is because it really isn't appropriate. The "negative" stuff revolves around Tony Rezko, with Obama only catching a whiff of it. It is for this reason that I think the details (or "context") should not be in this BLP. We should refer to the association as having drawn scrutiny during the primary season, but we should provide a hyperlink to Tony Rezko where the actual details can be found. This should appear in the campaign section, preferably as a single, concise sentence. And that is all there should be for the time being. Obviously it is possible that this will becoming a bigger issue during the general election campaign, but we should reevaluate if and when that happens.

So what we need is for the various interested parties to get together and try to come up with a sentence for the campaign section that can do this without violating WP:NPOV. I've been thinking about it, but I'm struggling to come up with something succinct. Does anyone have any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The above editor's repeated statements to the effect of "nothing wrong with that" make clear that his editing conduct is fair game to raise as an issue hre. The term "nothing wrong with that" is not a fact-based statement, nor is it neutral. It is clearly conclusionary and it's also clearly POV. "Wrong" or "right" are inherently POV viewpoints. By stating "nothing wrong with that" Scjessey is clearly making 'conclusions' and sitting as judge. We are not judges and we do not render opinions. Whther or not Scjessey thinks there's "nothing wrong" wiht something is irrelevant to whther or not it should be mentioned in this article. I challenge Scjessey to show me where in wiki editing guidelines it's written that we are free to exclude mention of things, notable or not, if we feel there's "nothing wrong with that". I feel that Scjessey is trying to insert his moral opinions as a screen and use them to filter content from the article based on that screening. I believe that this is a user conduct issue and I feel that I am within bounds to draw attention to that. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — 216.153.214.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
In the article, we currently have two long sentences: "...The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, a fundraiser for several prominent Illinois politicians from both major political parties[156], and the transaction later drew scrutiny from news outlets over Obama's dealings with Rezko. While Obama was never accused of wrongdoing, Rezko was under investigation for and later convicted of unrelated corruption charges, and Obama donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.[157]". Thus, I don't think we can manage with fewer words than this, and Lots of details we could get rid of, but just about anything is too much weight in the campaign section. Its also not all that relevant to his personal life section, but Rezko is somewhat relevant to tarnishing his political image as viewed by some. So we could breakup the last paragraph in the cultural and political image section and include whatever is needed there. Modocc (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
After rereading your comment, I agree that we could lose many of the details. Perhaps editors that have wanted to add something to the cultural and political image section can come up with what is needed. Modocc (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources

Scjessey and Modocc, you are not reflecting the broad consensus out there on this issue, so please do some reading. I went to the Tony Rezko article and found some of these sources, and I did a simple Google and Google News search and found some of the others, so I think this is a pretty good representative sample of 23 sources. This gives you an idea of the shape of the coverage. Note the importance of the point that the Rezko relationship raises questions about Obama's judgment:

I know, this is just a dump of links, but I'll be referring to these later and there's a lot here, so you may want to look them over. This doesn't mean I want to use a lot of information, but note that while they're just about all reliable sources, they're all over the map in terms of type of source: they're both commentary (including Mother Jones and National Review) and straight news reporting, and yet they are remarkably in agreement: Obama did a stupid thing, he continued associating with a guy, and got into a real estate deal with him, after it became obvious the guy was under investigation, and this raises questions about Obama's judgment. Some (not all) say it raises questions about his ethics. Even two media supporters say this raises questions about his judgment (Chicago Trib editorial and David Corn in Mother Jones). I'll make a proposal later and give some quotes from these sources and provide specific links at that time, but feel free to look over just about my whole database, even just to pick through it at random, and come up with your own conclusions. Some supporters say this whole thing is not important, but that's not the consensus view that I found. Noroton (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Obama's association/involvement with Rezko matters. Here's an example to illustrate how I see it: If you have a college roommate when you are 20 years old and 10 years later, he turns out to be an embezzler, that's not on you. But, if you are running for the office of City Auditor (a position requiring probity) and it becomes public knowledge that you were associated with your ex-rommate and did deals with him, even AFTER there was public news of his being in problems, then it becomes clear that this is a controversy that involves YOUR reputation also. The presidency is a role that requires great probity. Anyone who aspires to it, is naturally held to a standard of very strict scrutiny. To deny that the Rezko/Obama link is notable, is foolhardy and turns a blind eye to the fact that this obviously does matter. All notable public leaders seeking high elective office are ALWAYS called on the carpet for "controversial associations". The Obama/Rezko association is controverial and therefore notable in regards to Obama. The association AND the controversy (in brief) must be mentioned in THIS article or this article is a farce. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Noroton, I'm not sure what broad consensus there is that I, for one, am not reflecting, but there is considerable rhetoric that I tend to ignore. I've been reading as requested, and so far its pretty much repetitive stuff. I was struck though by how many of the sources questioned the affairs' importance, asking if the trial or Rezko himself will reveal anything, and asking if it is Obama's Achilles heal. The "appearance of impropriety", the scrutiny and the scattered coverage are not a manufactured political stunt. Yet it is still a minor affair and we can prevent redundancy, further instability and too much weight by selecting just the most relevant article section, and I still think the political image section is best. Content there is more likely to stay put and we won't have to rehash the issue of "either too few or too many details" (which I assume are important to some extent) or argue about its relative importance to other events when the campaign section needs significant revision again. Modocc (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
All four of you are missing a crucial point, which is that it is not our job as Wikipedians to come up with the "correct" POV and decide whether Obama is in the right or in the wrong concerning Rezko or anything else. Our job is simply to report relevant and notable POVs that exist concerning Obama. Can we please focus on that and leave the political discussions aside? No one is manufacturing a controversy. The controversy exists. It's a fact. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about whether it should or should not exist. Our job is to report it because it is there. Part of that is making it clear what the controversy is about by displaying the pertinent details (which are also facts). --Floorsheim (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, Wikipedia should report notable and relevant POV. The issue here is that the "controversy" only exists when a group of disparate facts concerning Rezko and Obama are conflated. Even if we assume for a second that this approach is legitimate, it seems to be a very Illinois-specific issue. It has received very little media attention outside of Chicago, with almost all national sources simply regurgitating the Tribune/SunTimes stuff. Reporting both "sides" is only important if what you are reporting is notable, otherwise you are just giving something non-notable undue weight. The order of precedence here is WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and then WP:NPOV. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the national sources are 'regurgitating' is irrelevant. The plain fact is that the issue has received significant media attention on the state of Illinois and national levels, including the front page of cnn.com. We are obliged to discuss it in the article. Commentary about why it has received this attention could be appropriate for the article as well, provided there were enough secondary sources making the commentary. --Floorsheim (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
He's a senator from Illinois; the subject of the article is Illinois-specific. The sources are both Illinois-specific and national. It has received enormous national coverage, with probably every daily newspaper in the country running at least an AP article on the trial results. I agree with Floorsheim that we're not here to argue the politics, but I did want to demonstrate that it's an important aspect of Obama's life, a matter that's been public not just because he's in a campaign, but because ethical issues have been raised. I won't beat a dead horse. Noroton (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"It has received enormous national coverage"
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. I've seen hardly any coverage at all, and I watch political programming for pleasure. By way of comparison, I've seen considerably more coverage of McCain's Shia/Sunni mistake, and orders of magnitude more for his "100 years" in Iraq. Even the "bittergate" nonsense has received more coverage than Rezko, even though it was just a misstatement. This is simply a gross overstatement of importance, and I think the text I have proposed below is more than adequate coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue raises bona-fide questions about Obama's probity. It's not good that leaving it out is even being considered. I think we need to invoke a formal procedure such as asking the wider community to discuss this. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry

I'd encourage other editors to ignore this IP sock's goading. It's only made two edits to this Talk discussion, but is clearly familiar with the page's participants. Don't feed the troll. Shem(talk) 05:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Shem, I think you are leaping to conclusions and are doing precisely what you said I was doing, that being "attacking" and "goading". I have carefully read and responded to each of your comments. Please see my comments regarding SCJessey's "nothing wrong with that" moral conclusions. There is an issue with SJC's approach here and I feel that it's within bounds to draw attention to it. No less so than you attempting (nay, lobbying) to draw attention to (or actually away from) my edits. Neither SCJ nor you "own" this page and I am also able to edit here. Furthermore, I am making a full effort to hear and and dialog witth you - but you are not. You made one overture - a threatening one, then you quickly lambasted me again and posted a note on this page actively lobbying against me all within a few minutes. No reasonable person can think through and respond fast enough to keep up with your leaping at me. Frankly, you should strike your provocative plea to "ignore" my edits and reconsider your approach. Perhaps the tension on this page stems from the approach of several "camping" editors here - rather than the prespective of the few new ones who dare to try to stick a toe in the water. That said, as you can see, I have stricken my text which you say offends. I ask that you do likewise to yours [3] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you are just an IP editor (although it is obvious from your editing history that you are an experienced one), you should be aware that my comments above were the first I had made in days following a self-imposed break, sp I completely reject your baseless accusations of bias. My "nothing wrong with that" statements were carefully-considered conclusions based on the facts. Using these conclusions, I port forward a very reasonable proposal for Rezko language which has attracted some support. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit in with your personal point-of-view. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There really needs to be a cease-fire on this page on all of these sockpuppetry accusations. A couple of editors who are clearly in the minority, and fighting a losing battle against consensus, have reached the conclusion that the only way they can win the edit war is to delegitimize their opponents. Any new editor who disagrees with them is, by definition, a sockpuppet. If this handful of editors can get enough people who disagree with them blocked or topic banned, they will be in the majority. So they make these false accusations. Take your accusations to WP:SSP and WP:RFCU, present your evidence and see if you can get an admin to block the alleged puppets.
Furthermore, only one account here has been proven via RFCU to be a sockpuppet and blocked. It was an account that was taking the side of the same editors who are hurling these accusations. So if anyone should be talking about the sockpuppetry of others and making accusations, perhaps it should be Noroton, Floorsheim, Justmeherenow and Kossack4Truth.
Making your accusations and insinuations here on this page, particularly when the accusations are unaccompanied by a filed case supported by strong evidence at WP:SSP, is an outrageous violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Take your accusations to WP:SSP, or keep them to yourselves and try to stick to the merits of your argument about content. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, if there ever is actual block evasion or other sockpuppetry it does need to be found and dealt with because it tends to undermine consensus and the entire editing process. A well-founded sockpuppetry accusation can never be considered a breach of assuming good faith, and refraining from it (much less tolerating sockpuppets) should never be a term of a truce in an edit war. However, I'm at a loss for how and where such things should be brought up. It's pretty normal for editors to discuss among themselves their suspicions about sockpuppetry in order to do a reality check and gather evidence before filing a formal case. Perhaps we could use some administrative guidance on how to deal with suspicions of sockpuppetry without stirring up trouble here on this page. Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
So says WorkerBee74, the account clearly masquerading as a new ("So how do I get started?") editor. Heck, even those in agreement with your POV have chided you for your poor theatrics. Shem Shem(talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, User:Fovean Author just received a six-month block for sockpuppetry and disruption. Shem(talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a completely unrelated and irrelevant note, since the single alleged sockpuppetry incident happened in an AfD discussion three months ago, not on this article. The one and only proven incident of sockpuppetry on this article was by User:Life.temp, proven by Checkuser to be the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, who twice tried to erase any sign of controversy from this article. A friend of yours, Shem? WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep making attacks, my dear "So how do I get started?" single-purpose account. Right now, you're riding in the same lane as Andyvphil and Fovean Author. Shem(talk) 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks like a threat to me. Bullying will get you nowhere. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic

SCJ, you are again *missing* the point. By your most recent comment, you ADMIT that you are making "conclusions" and indeed the conclusions you are making are moral ones. There is nothing which fits the definition of "moral" more closely than to say something is "right" or something is "wrong". I am amazed that you are defending your efforts in that regard. The point is that YOU ARE NOT THE JUDGE of whether or not Rezko's/Obama's behavior/associations are "wrong" or "right". I implore you, please stop lecturing us on your opinion (your POV) that there's "nothing wrong" with the various things which have been reported regarding Resko. It is the job of THE READERS to draw their own conclusions on this - not for you to spoon feed them (or withhold information). We have established that you ADMIT you are making conclusions about the morality of Resko's actions (as described by the public facts) and you are, I contend, in error for doing that. It is of no interest to me WHATSOEVER (nor should it be to you) if Obama/Rezko are good or bad or have done right ot wrong. Rather, what we as editors MUST DO is compose a cogent article which conveys the relevant known facts regarding Obama in a manner which informs the readers. I contend that these issues regarding Resko are relevant to this article and I have stated my reasons: They are notable and verifiable and they directly inform the readers regarding Obama's association with an possibly in-trouble person. It is up to the readers to decide if that matters or if it's "wrong", not you. I will repeat my request: Please step back from this article and recuse yourself. You have over-stepped the bounds of good editing - you are insisting that we abide by your personal moral conclusions. Such actions by an editor are pure POV and must not stand. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "216." If there's conflation, it's being done by a wide swath of media, from Talking Points Memo and Mother Jones on the left, to National Review on the right, and the entire neutral mainstream news media community in between. The secondary sources have overruled the objection by SCJ. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
We're each free to reach conclusions and state them here, even to have POV biases and admit them here as part of the discussion. The goal is a result for the article that is well supported and neutral, not that every argument has to be. Instead of calling foul, why not simply say thank you for your contribution but I disagree and think it is unsupported and would bias the neutrality of the article? You can read "nothing wrong with that" in at least three ways: (1) shorthand for "I conclude that this statement is okay to include in the article"; (2) shorthand for "this fact does not by itself suggest that Obama engaged in unethical conduct"; or (3) shorthand for "obama did nothing wrong in taking this action". It's only the last one, I think, that miscasts this talk page discussion into a debate about Obama's worthiness. Why not ask SJC in what sense he means it, and if it is the last version say that you don't think we should be evaluating each fact for whehter Obama is "wrong"? Wikidemo (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's quite evident from his post that SJC meant precisely that, #3). Indeed he goes on at length to argue against allowing the facts in because they don't matter - and because they don't matter, we ought not to allow them to be "conflated" together in the article. My point is that SJC is not (and neither are we) the judge of what matters or not. If it's notable and verifiable, it belongs in the article. Frankly, I feel that the probity of Presidential Candidates/Senators is of paramount concern to many readers. And frankly yes, I feel that this information could reflect poorly on Obama's probity, but the fairness answer to that is to not give it undue or excessive weight. On the other had, to cavalierly dismiss it as not mattering via a there's "nothing wrong with that", is to insert our judgement for the readers. Let the readers decide for themselves. Our duty is to avoid taking sides for or against Obama and not try to pile on over this issue. Even so, the Resko connection/issue as reported in the media must be in this article or as I said, this is a farce. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a solid argument, that it's up to the sources and not us editors to decide what is important and that we should not dismiss and refuse to report things that are issues to the public as a whole. I won't bother restating my position here, which is somewhere in between. You don't have much to worry about the "farce" version being the outcome - it looks pretty likely that the Rezko information will be in the article in some form, so the only question is how much of it, how it's worded, and where it's put. People seem to be coalescing around a 3-5 (I'm not going to bother counting) sentence version that's pretty dry and factual. And for the details they can follow the links and citations. Wikidemo (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

I question the merit of this section. It seems like puffery to me. Unless there is a wiki standard plan of having a "Cultural and political image" section for all major US politicians, it would seem we are putting undue weight on dissecting viewpoints about Mr. Obama. And if this section stays, the photo should go - it's a compaign poster/mural and doesn't belong here. Also, why are we conflating Mr. Obama's "Cultural" and "Political" images in the same section? Isn't it true that a "cultural" image is an image of someone that's held in the mind of the public - it's conclusions they've drawn of their own accord. But a "political" image is essentially an advertising image which is advanced by the supporters of a politician. That mural photo is sheer political advertising - and it's only prevelant in public preceptions because Mr. Obama's supporters are pushing it. My word - it's practically an Andy Wharhol! I see no reason that the poster/mural photo is anymore indicative of Mr. Obama's cultural image than say this photo. I'd like some disscusion on this point. 7390r0g (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The "mural" is essentially a photograph of a campaign advertisement. While it is a nicely done photo, I'm also a little surprised it has stayed up in an article about a current candidate for President on Wikipedia for so long. I've seen variations of this logo where the word "Hope" has been photoshopped to "Hype". I'll agree with you that either version of Obama, Hope or Hype, is inappropriate here. Both are pushing a viewpoint of the candidate. I think it should definitely be removed. As for the "Cultural and political image" section, it's not much better than a trivia section...it appears to be being used to dump factoids or viewpoints that can't or haven't been incorporated into the article elsewhere. They should either be added elsewhere in the piece or deleted. With that sweeping comment, I'd also like to add my kudos to long time editors here...I know how tough it is to edit a political piece like this, and you deserve a lot of credit for holding it together so far. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I think I mostly agree with 13790r0g. Nicely put. Arkon (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the section would be fine if it were more balanced and included some negative viewpoints of Obama, such as those concerning the "bitter" comment and the views of white blue collar workers he had so much trouble with in the later primaries. Agree that the mural is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a campaign ad. --Floorsheim (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This section is completely a wikipedia editor(s) opinion and should be removed. The politician has many images, most of them not mentioned. On the negative side, he is often called an elitist and inexperienced in foreign policy. There are reliable sources to back this up. I am not out to smear the man but these are legitimate additions. There's also the Majic Negro image (not my term) which is covered. This is a positive image.

It's wrong to advertise or campaign for the politician by having only positive images. It's also wrong to allow text to advertise for the politician even if that isn't your intent. Adding positive and negative images is likely to cause conflict so the better way would be to completely eliminate this un-encyclopedia section. FridayCell7 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone who actually supports the inclusion of the photo of the mural/poster in the article? I think while the discussion of how the section on "Cultural and political image" is to be handled, at the very least we can start the process of getting that photo out. It really strikes me as (possibly inadvertent) advertising for the candidate and looks bad, especially in an article where the editors go to so much trouble to remain neutral. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any real opposition in this thread, I'd say go for it and clean it up. Arkon (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As the page is currently semi-protected, a registered user will need to make that edit. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good. And now that you have expressed your (reasonable) concerns here and the image was removed you might as well point them out at the McCain article regarding the advertising screen shot from McCain's website about "pork barrel spending". --Floridianed (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section

The article category "Political positions" appears to have too much content. Shouldn't this material be more succinct? We already have a full article on Obama's positions. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should remove the second, ninth and tenth paragraphs completely. They all cover specifics that don't need to be in the main article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please delete those sections post haste. It would be a good start and may in fact be enough for now. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor for it as long as there is a consensus built on which paragraphs to remove. --Floridianed (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Besides reverting obvious vandalism and correcting minor formatting issues, I would prefer not to get involved with editing the article itself. Deleting these three paragraphs, as I have proposed, could potentially spark a revert war that I would not wish to get involved with. It would be nice to get the opinions of others before cutting those out, although HailFire might be game! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I edit Howard Dean's article. There is no "political positions" section. This makes that article better than the Obama article. The political positions section is just advertising, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. It is also selective. All politicians have some good positions and some bad positions. The bad positions are not explained. The fair thing would be to remove the section or summarize it to 2-3 sentences. FridayCell7 (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at other pages too? --Floridianed (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is a politician. The policies and proposals that he chooses to advocate as leading issues are the defining characteristic of his professional life, and they belong in this article. Improve the section if you will, but put the wrecking ball aside, please. I would suggest, however, that this section, previously titled "Political advocacy", needs a more descriptive header. Barack Obama#Policies and proposals would be my choice. --HailFire (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Deeds, not words. What did the politician do. That's a biography. What is his campagin platform? That's an advertisement. Besides, how are you going to write a section comprehensively? What is his position of Sudan? Very important. How about his position on Iran? Iraq? Israel? Syria? All different Middle East issues. How about trade with Mexico? Trade with Canada? Trade with South Korea and the beef problem? How about foreign relations with Russia? How about drug traffic? How about farm subsidies? How about federal court vacancies? How about oil drilling? This is just one percent of the issues. There are other serious and important issues. All of these are not part of a biography but part of a campaign or political commentary, not suited for this Wikipedia article. As a compromise, you can put it in a separate article. FridayCell7 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Proof this the section can be advertising

Barack Obama is a politician. The policies and proposals that he chooses to advocate as leading issues wrote HailFire.

This shows that the politician can choose what we should include in Wikipedia. This would be advertising. Thus, we must proceed with caution if we include it. The smarter thing to do would be to eliminate this very non-biographical section. FridayCell7 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we would need to change it on all pages, especially the more recent ones but since there seems to be consensus established for the way they're now I don't see a need to argue for rewriting all affected articles. --Floridianed (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Floridianed, I'm using the same argument on the Rezko material: that well-established practice on the Wikipedia biographies of politicians compels us to decide a certain way on content issues. I'm glad you see things my way: that where there is precedent, and a well-established way of doing things, we are required to follow it. Established practice frequently creates a section on political positions. It's the Wikipedia way. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point. A politician's positions are different things for different purposes. First there's their record of actual legislation sponsored, voted, alliances, amendments offered, etc., which reflects what they want and believe but also their deal-making, party loyalty, respect for constituent opinions, and so on. Second there's their agenda of legislation they want, endorse, or promise. Third there is their position (public, or in terms of beliefs) on what should be. Finally there is their platform of announced positions and campaign promises in the context of an election - a highly stylized set of advertisements / talking points, which may or may not be what they do, and which may or may not even be within their range of responsibilities in office. They are all potentially notable and encyclopedic, but we might have to tease these out because they belong in different articles. I do agree that we should shorten this section considerably, and concentrate on the actual record of accomplishments rather than campaign promises - especially because we have other articles for those. I am wondering if this article is stable enough to get started, though. Wikidemo (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Race redux

I haven't been following this article, but why is there no mention of Obama as bi-racial. As an encyclopedia article, I think his ethnicity is not something to leave out. If there is such a debate as to whether he is the first bi-racial candidate, why is there no mention of that? I believe that his bi-racial status should be addressed and should be from a neutral viewpoint. I do not think it should be derogatory, and I do not think it should be attempted to be covered by Obama supporters. I assume that this has been discussed before, but I have not found it yet in the archives. I did see something about Arab decsent, but I am speaking of his mother, not his father. I do not intend to start anything, it is just an honest inquisition. Brinkley32 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. The article lede calls Obama "the first African American to be a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States", but this is no less and no more accurate than to call him "the first bi-racial candidate to be a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States.". I am however, concerned that "biracial" inserted instead of "African American" may sound derisive/snide.

I would re-write that sentence this way:

Born of an American mother and a Kenyan father, Barack Obama is both the first biracial and first African American to be a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States.

Any other ideas on this? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable change. But without a big discussion on this talk page, as soon as you change it someone will probably revert it and claim it is vandalism. Brinkley32 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We already had a very long discussion about his race. Please search the archives for it. --Floridianed (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is not about Obama's race, it's about us having an NPOV and accurate article. I think my suggestion is more accurate that what we have now, but does not in any way inpugn Obama. Please go back and re-read what I am suggesting. The fact that Obama is biracial is an equally important first as the fact that he's African American. If we omit this fact, we do the personal history of Obama a disservice. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see this discussion or go to the archive index for all the discussion on Obama's race and how it is referenced here. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again: this suggstion of mine is not about race, per se. Rather it's about making clear that Obama is not only African American, which is a big first for a pres nominee - he's also biracial, which is another big 1st. Why would I want to slog through a whole huge archive? There are simple questions here that beg answering: By omitting the fact that Omaba is biracial, are we saying that we are ashamed of him becuase of that? Are we saying that it's insulting to him to mention that? There is nothing negative in any way on this point. On the contrary, it's a very notable 1st and whatever you discussed previously is mooted by the fact that Obama's current status in having captured the nomination makes his biracialness notable - because it's now a 1st. It's notably the 1st time ever in America this has been achived and it warrants a mention. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The article body obviously explains that Obama has a white mother and a black father, which is sometimes referred to as being "biracial." Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. As others have mentioned, this has been discussed multiple times in the last week or so, and who knows how many times in the last few months. Racial categories are complex and subjective and we are, per Wikipedia policies, going here with the racial term reliable sources and the subject himself generally use. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said and succinct, Bigtimepeace. I've added your comments here to the article's FAQ [4]. Shem(talk) 16:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for a thoughtful response, as opposed to Bobblehead. That discussion he mentioned actually supports my original question, and nothing was ever resolved, it just died. Bigtime's response is understandable, however, please show me how the article "obviously says that Obama has a white mother". Yes, it mentions his father's ethnicity, but just says what city and state his mother is from. There is no mention of her ethnicity, nor is it even hinted at that his parents were of different races. I do not think it is something that needs to be the highlight of his biographical information, but I think it is important, and as of yet it is not "obviously explained". The only thing I can think of at the moment is to change it to "and Anne Dunnham, a Caucasion from". I am not sure if that flows well, but I do not want it be a headline statement. I do not want to make it seem like a derogative aspect of his life, but I think it needs to be included. Do you have any suggestions as to who it should best be included? As far as other sources, I will look and will bring it up if I have anything relevant. Again, thank you for your response. Brinkley32 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Brinkley32 here. We definitely need something on Ann Dunham being "white" in the bio text. For a while it had some stuff about her mostly-English, some-Irish, blah, blah ancestry... that seemed to cover the needed point, but was probably removed because it was more verbose than needed for Obama's bio. However, at least a word or two that incdicates Dunham was "European-American" or the like would definitely help clarify things. LotLE×talk 19:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Initially, I was also wanting to include something about "First Bi-Racial Candidate", but it didn't look like that was going anywhere. For now, the clarity on the mother will suffice. I still don't know the best way to integrate it smoothly, but for now I do not see anything wrong with your edit. Thanks. Brinkley32 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll also have to agree with you here. Despite what the FAQ says ("Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body"), they actually don't. If anything the details provided and the strange "code" wording chosen simply confuses the issue even more. Is it that big of a deal to simply say he had a white (or Caucasian) mom and a black (or African American) dad, and that (sadly) in America today, to some people that is still an issue? That type of description of his race appears in numerous article about Obama, it's hardly a secret. If I had been stranded on a desert island for the last two years and while being rescued asked what had happened in American politics while I was gone, I'm betting the boat's captain would describe Obama that way. While arguably inelegant, it would be more accurate than the skirting around the issue we have now. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
With my recent edit to mention Dunham is European-American, I think that gap is remedied. I assume that when the FAQ was written, it was at one of those edits where the information was there (maybe in the overly verbose version that had quite a bit about Dunham's ancestors). We should not, however, say that Obama had an African-American dad because... well, because he did not. Obama Sr. was just plain African, not an American of whatever sort. Having a visa in good standing isn't the same as citizenship.
FWIW, I think European-American is a bit better than "white." I'm not sure the former is actually any less fuzzy in its boundries, but it is the current US Census language, so that has a certain semi-official meaning to it. LotLE×talk 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I had never even heard of that term until you just used it. The Wikipedia article on it says that it isn't being used by most government bodies. When I went to the federal government's census page here. I was given dozens of ethnic choices, but that wasn't one of them. For some reason, I don't think cops are suddenly going start announcing that a suspect is a six foot tall European American. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's absurd to call him African-American. It would be more accurate to say "half African-American." Of course there is a long history in the U.S. toward this sort of strange bias. If someone has a trace of black heritage they tend to be known as black or African-American or whatever the popular term of the day happens to be. Such biases leave out his white half. Is this racist? I don't think so, but it is a cultural problem/issue.--Utahredrock (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting dialog to have on race at the right place and time, but realistically, Obama is African-American: by his self-identification, the common usage of the term in the United States, and by the vast majority of reliable sources. Words mean whatever we agree them to mean, and for now the term "African-American" is applied to US residents with a significant degree of black African ancestry (or something like that - matters of race are rarely precise). Someday people will have a more subtle understanding of race but we cannot invent that for the world. The term, as applied to people of mixed ancestry, is not generally considered racist. There's not a whole lot more we can do. Anyway, this matter has been discussed for a while and will no doubt be discussed again. Wikidemo (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Significant degree of black ancestry as in %50 black and %50 white? Brinkley32 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On this very wiki, there seems to be no doubt that clearly stating "white mother" and "black father" is the correct, most accurate standard. Please check the photo and description for Halle Berry on the Multiracial page. In fact, on the Wikipedia page for Mulatto we currently find a photo of Halle Berry and guess who? Barack Obama! This being the case, I see no reason why we are to obfuscate facts in this Obama article itself. That said, no one here is calling for the use of the term "Mulatto" in this article but on the other hand, "biracial" is perfectly NPOV and accurate - with no past usage bigot stigma that "Mulatto" might have. As I see it, it is a deceit of omission if we call Obama "African-American" but refuse to acknowledge that his mother is white. In essence, we are deligitimizing the skin color of his mother and falsely omitting known facts about Obama. And if you actually go to read the Halle Berry article itself, you will see that her mother is clearly described as being Caucasian and her father as African-American 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider how many people regard themselves, or are referred to, as "Irish Americans" when they may be several generations removed from anyone who was Irish. An African American is someone "having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa," as Barack Obama has, and the term should not be confused with black people. Calling Obama an African-American is not a "deceit of omission" at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In case you haven't followed this discussion, the direction of this discussion is not whethere Obama can be referred to as African American. The initial inquiry was not about removing African American but adding the fact that he was first bi-racial candidate. Now the discussion has turned to including the fact that his mother was not of African descent, but was white. If you are not trying to cover up anything and you do not deny the fact that she was right, why should this not be included as a fact? What kind of encyclopedia would this be if relevant facts were intentionally left out? Brinkley32 (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant what people consider themsleves, it's relevant what they actually are. If I consider myself Swedish, but I am also 1/2 Norweigian, it's correct to call me Scandinavian in my bio, but not Swedish nor Norweigian exclusively. Same with Obama, unless of course, we are going by what Obama considers himself. And in that case, we have to make it clear that it's what Obama considers himself (if we can cite that to a reliable source). But back on point, I have pointed to several established wiki pages that have already addressed this question and have developed a wiki editorial convention. Clearly, the correct wiki convention as I show above, is to include the fact that Obama's mother is white. Any omission of this is a deviation of estabished wiki standard methods. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been sufficiently explained at this point. Reliable sourcing and self-identification are clear that Obama is African-American. We have indeed discussed this several times before and always reached the same conclusion, (1) that there is no reason to avoid the term African-American, which is how he should be described at the beginning of the lead, and (2) that further details of Obama's racial / ethnic heritage, including his being biracial, are suitable for inclusion later in the lead and/or the body of the article. It's a perennial proposal at this point and likely to come up again and again, so rather than rehashing it constantly we should probably create a sub-page or a FAQ page for this matter. Wikidemo (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemo, I agree with you that Obama has the right to self identify himself with any ethnic group he chooses, and that giving more precise details of his ethnic heritage later in the article is a good solution. I think the question now is how to define his parent's racial heritage in the article. I think its important, especially in a political article, because politicians frequently define themselves in ways (ie. "An Education President", "An Environmental President", etc.) that may be at odds with many people's perceptions of their real actions. Basically, I think we are having a variation of this discussion elsewhere in this Talk page...is a candidate's stated political positions or actual legislative choices/actions what should be included in his biography? As for Obama's choice of describing himself as African American, it probably wouldn't make a lot of sense that some political commentators at the beginning of the election thought he "wasn't black enough" (and now humorously enough, some think he is "too black") if you didn't also know that his mother was "white". The term African American definitely needs some context here. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we describe Obama as something other than African-American (rather than in addition-to). On the contrary, the issue at hand is to get editors agreement on the fact Obama's mother is white - agreement that this fact should be explcitly communicated in the article, not just alluded to. The wiki convention for that, as shown on the Halle Berry page is to use the term "Caucasian". The other issue is to get agreement that Obama, beyond calling himself "African-American" is also "Biracial". However, if we explcitly state "Caucasian" in regards to Obama's mother, that could suffice on the "Biracial" point. However, the aticle, as it stands now, is not up to wiki standards as per how it's done on the page of another famous "African-American" with a white mother and black father - that being Halle Berry. If the term "Caucasian" is used in regards to Obama's mother, I feel that would resolve this issue. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How this article used to handle this matter

I have said several other times that this has been discussed that for a long time we also included a quote from Obama - Of his early childhood, Obama writes: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind." (I can dig out the citation) which I think was a good way of including this information in the article without our making distinctions about what is black or what is white or what is African-American. I'd favor adding this to an appropriate place in the article and leaving the other descriptions of his parents as they have been - a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas. "European-American" is not a commonly used term and it seems to me it raises more questions than it answers. Tvoz/talk 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know why that quote was removed from the article? I'm just wondering what any objection would have been. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't recall - I'll have to look back in the archives, unless Bobblehead or HailFire or any other long-time editor of this page like me remembers. My guess is the section it was in was revamped, but I'll check why. I always thought it was a non-controversial way of getting information in, so I'd like to see it back instead of the more awkward wording that has been inserted. Tvoz/talk 22:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The quote was removed in this edit (by Bobblehead), as part of moving the details of the "Early life and ccareer" section to Early life and career of Barack Obama (where the quote remains). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Rick - I thought it was something like that, not any specific objection to that wording. So does anyone have any comment about this possibility? Tvoz/talk 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems like an elegant solution to the problem to me. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian mother

As per the wiki standards used to compose the page for Halle Berry, I hereby propose we insert the word "Caucasian" into this article to describe Obama's mother, as per how it's done on the Halle Berry page.

Support

  • Support Either white or Caucasian is fine with me as a descriptor. 96.238.177.90 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support but don't make it sticking out that much that people start questioning his African-American naming/heritage (again). --Floridianed (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm also leaning to Wikidemo's comment below. --Floridianed (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer white over Caucasian, but either is fine. Kman543210 (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

The lead of the Berry article contains: ...becoming the first and still only woman of African-American descent to have won the award for Best Actress.' Family background gives more detailed description of her parents. In other words, as much as different bios can be similar, Obama and Berry follow a very similar pattern currently. LotLE×talk 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot tell what the specific proposal is, and I don't think we should be rushing to a vote on things. But I do think the article is a little obscure / confusing on the question of Obama's white ancestry, so unless I am missing something I do agree that we should be clearer somewhere in a section near the end of the lead, on race, or on his parentage, to say that his mother is white (or whatever the right term is to use, I just don't know) and that he is bi-racial. Wikidemo (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Somebody wanted to call Ann English-American within the mainspace. But in order not to slight other countries of her ancestral origin, (since maybe three-quarters of her forebears were from England while another one-and-a-half-eights were German----presumably from what's now the Federal Republic of Germany----another sixteenth each from Ireland and Scotland and a thirty-secondth from Wales and a sixty-fourth, France), I modestly propose we call her Anglo-Teuton-Hiberno-Scots-Welsh-Gallic-American. — Justmeherenow (   ) 07:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Objection to reversion--Obama has many famous relatives these need inclusion

There is well sourced information on relatives of Obama including Dick Cheney, Harry Truman, Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Duvall, etc. This is the kind of information that is normally included in biographies and yet before I could keep adding it, my edits were reverted due to supposed insignificance.

The common ancestor is Mareen Duvall. These facts are already well sourced on Wikipedia.

Why is there an aversion to adding such important facts to a bio?--Utahredrock (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

At a minimum a new article needs to be created on Obama's fascinating lineage--that includes his many famous relatives (mentioned above). The Bush's and Kennedy's are not the only storied American political families.--Utahredrock (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See: WP:IINFO. These very, very distant relatives barely ascend to trivia, and definitely not to biography. LotLE×talk 10:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Lulu - this article is already very long and we have a great deal of territory to cover. This genealogy material is at best peripheral and much of it is so obscure that it is unnotable trivia. Tvoz/talk 03:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnotable trivia?!? Tv you're killing me. ; ) While I'll admit it's trivial, I am a Mayflower descendant through William Brewster (Pilgrim) and I think at minimum that's cool trivia. (Be sure to look at my Great x12 grandfather's wiki-article.)

Since Barack is slightly more notable than me, he deserves to have this sort of interesting triva known. All inquiring minds deserve to have this information more readily available. This is, after all, an online encyclopedia. Space is not an issue. Cheers, --Utahredrock (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I wasn't making an argument based on space being an issue in terms of bandwidth or anything like that - I am well aware that we're not paper. I was pointing out (admittedly in shorthand) that this is a featured article, and operates under size recommendations - there is a lot of information about this individual that has had to be moved out of this article so that we can keep it to what is considered a reasonable length to retain its FA status. Details about ancestors just doesn't make the cut - it is, I am sorry, trivia, and not notable. You misunderstand the purpose of the article, I think - it's not a repository of interesting facts about the guy - it's a biography. Tvoz/talk 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a sound argument. All the more reason to do a separate article. I know there is an article on the Bush family. With famous relatives, even if they're distant, Obama deserves equal treatment for these notable facts.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per six degrees of separation.......

... ... Comment moved from this page to here. ... ...

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of putting all this stuff on the talk page, exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Scjessey, since Redrock and I will surely eventually get around to creating an subarticle ("stub") on (President...<smiles>) Obama's family tree, I'm just putting some potentially àpropos information here to see if it generates any comment (even such as yours, sir). Peace. — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it not be more appropriate to dump this kind of stuff in your sandbox? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
that's an option. However----
  1. how would I then get wide comment, or find collaboration from among readers of B's main-bio's Talk page?........
  2. I sincerely anticipated that some fellow contributors might find this info I've presented, yes, fun.  — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
How? Set up something in your sandbox and leave one note here letting people know - don't fill this talk page with material that's not directly about improving this main article. We already have a great deal of material to deal with here. Please move this. Tvoz/talk 03:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well. Yet note that while I've gone ahead and moved an initial treatment of B's family tree to /Family tree sandbox, I've left the remainder of the commentary on the subject here (until such time as its potential daughter article would have its own talkpage). — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Tvoz/talk 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to be the one to complain, but just in case you don't know, the WP:NFCC policy prohibits non-free images except on main article space. I think I saw a few copyrighted photos of famous people in there. The six degrees stuff is really cool even if it's not right for this article. I'm not sure where it would go. There could be some opposition to having it at all because once you open the floodgates to articles about these things you'll probably find that everyone is connected to everyone. That's the point isn't it? Anyway, it's definitely interesting info. Wikidemo (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(Thanks. It was just in the name of...fun. Oh and no pix were fair use; all were public domain except two taken I guess amateurs of the two actors and uploaded on WikiMedia licensed for free use.) Although I often don't complete the projects I start, I do happen to be working on something less six degreesish about B's family tree----  — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting? Yes, of course but maybe not enogh. Make that sub more comprehensive to be worth linking to it. Hope you get my point.--Floridianed (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are his siblings missing from this article?

Obama has a fascinating and large family that according to Obama himself played a key role in shaping him as a man.

Why aren't his sibling mentioned here? Why does only his half-sister from his mother and Lolo Soetoro have a wiki-article? Why not his half-siblings on his father's side?

These are rich and wonderful human beings who help illuminate who Obama is as a man. He writes about them in his book (I am only on his first book still).

George W. Bush's siblings are mentioned in his article. Is someone suggesting they are more important in Bush's life than Obama's are in his?--Utahredrock (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Work on a "half sisters and brothers" stub, Utahredrock, then submit a summary, or else just their passing mention, for inclusion in B's main bio. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The same kind of question might be, Why aren't Kara Anne Kennedy Allen, along with her husband and two children; Sydney Maleia Lawford McKevley, with husband and four offspring; Victoria Francis Lawford Pender, husband and three kids; Robin Elizabeth Lawford; Stephen Edward Smith, Jr.; Amanda Mary Smith Hood, husband and child; and Kym Maria Smith Tucker and her husband mentioned in Jack Kennedy's Wikipedia biography? Answer: because so far they're only deemed to merit mentions in the Wikipedia article for the "Kennedy Family." — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the article - they are indeed mentioned in the personal life section. No independent notability has been demonstrated warranting separate articles about them; in fact it's not clear that he had any relationship with the Obama half-siblings at all. He lived with Maya Soetoro for some years in his childhood/adolescence, but even so I question the need for a separate article for her. As for their being "rich and wonderful human beings" - I don't know how you know that, but in any case it doesn't make them notable. Tvoz/talk 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ease up there Tv, if you look at the edit history they were just added. Obama writes about his siblings in his books and he seems to think of them as an important part of his life.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC) This was initially deleted by Utahredrock,[5] but re-added and struck through by me so it doesn't look like I'm talking to myself. --Bobblehead (rants) 07:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they have been in the Personal life section for almost a month (May 25) and were in the article when you complained about them not being mentioned. I wouldn't call that just added. Obama's paternal half-siblings have played very little to no part in his life. The first time he met them was during his visit to Kenya in 1988 and he has seen them only periodically since then. Not exactly important parts of his life. --Bobblehead (rants) 07:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's official . . . I am an idiot. I strongly disagree though that just because he didn't meet most of them till he was an adult, that they are not important to him and to his self-identity. As I keep saying, he writes a lot about them in his book. They deserve further wiki treatment Also, he had met two of them in the U.S. prior to visiting Kenya.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Obama's siblings don't meet the notability requirements for a standalone article. --Bobblehead (rants) 08:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance nobody else has

I'm posting this. — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, this was already posted and widely discussed. Please don't let me search the archive for that. --Floridianed (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Check reference 22 on the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion was around June 9 --Floridianed (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Length

130kb seems a tad on the long side for a single article. I think I'd like to aim for around 60kb as a maximum for this kind of article. As much of it is of ephemeral interest (current political positions, ongoing campaigns, etc) perhaps the article should concentrate on biographical matters, including summaries of past political involvement. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While I support shortening wherever possible, cutting out more than half the article seems a bit extreme, don't you think? Keep in mind this article was confirmed as feature-article status at 125k on 15 April. The articles on John McCain and John Kerry are 117k and 95k, respectively. --Clubjuggle T/C 12:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Anticipation, welcome to the discussion. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. There's a link to the Wikipedia guidelines on length. They refer to "readable prose," and much of the length you describe here consists of footnotes and photos, not readable prose. Considering the importance of the subject matter, a biography about a front-running candidate for head of state in the most powerful country in the world, this length is reasonable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Please ignore the edit byte size displayed at the top of the edit section. Unfortunately it is no longer an accurate indicator of the size of an article and with the advent of section editing isn't really that useful. Call it the appendix of Wikipedia. It once had a purpose, but is now mostly vestigial and just causes problems from time to time. The only thing it measures is the amount of text in the edit field and does not measure the readable prose (~36kb), nor the downloadable size (~519kb). The primary cause of the number of bytes that are displayed in editing this article is the 180+ references and the rather large template section at the end of the page. As WorkerBee74 says above, WP:SIZE measures by readable prose and at 37kb, this article is well within the guidelines. May I suggest adding Dr pda's prosize tool so that you can measure the readable text and total file size of the page more accurately. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 16:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The longer the better! I say double the length. Arbitrary size limits make sense in print, but not online. We should be able to make this as long as we like and include all of the details we can find. Good organization should be the focus, not length.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Randomly changing images

I guess it doesn't really make any difference... but what's the story with all the editors who keep adding and removing images of Obama that are mostly neither better nor worse than the ones that were there before? Plus random seeming size changes in the ones that are there, random movements between left and right alignment, etc? As edits go, it's probably harmless enough, but it seems so pointless.

Oh, but one thing, consistent with an edit I just made: Let's not stick in images that fail to portray Obama himself (or at least some other topic of central significance). A vague crowd scene that may or may not have Obama in a few pixels doesn't do anything to inform readers. LotLE×talk 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored all but one image (which is a real improvement). Hopefully we can agree on leaving it that way and bring new picture suggestions to the talk page first to prevent further "back-and-forward" edits. --Floridianed (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

was: Slightly tweaked Noroton version

For the confused among us, five sections that were here have been reorganized and now appear above, at #Slightly tweaked Noroton version and subsequent sections. I'd revert this but more comments have been added so I think reverting would make it even more confusing. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

I've requested semi-protection of this page to stop the recent vandalism by IP socks. --Clubjuggle T/C 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected 8 hours. Tan | 39 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both. Arkon (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The current crop of IP vandalism is obviously from a single individual using different IP addresses. Can we use blocks/bans instead of protection? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If any administrators are reading this, could we please block any editor on sight without warning for adding the n-word to the article or discussion? There's absolutely no excuse and it's terribly demoralizing, more than a mere annoyance. The editor is not on a stable IP, so as long as they want to continue we should keep the article safe. I don't think African Americans reading or editing this material (or anyone else for that matter) should be subject to the same racist taunts that have kept them down for decades, particularly not in an article about the first black leader who has a chance at breaking through one of the final race barriers in America.Wikidemo (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

New York Times article on Obama's "snubbing" of Muslims

I would like to add the following material in the cultural image segment of the article but it has been questioned by a couple of users. This is an important issue and must be provided for objective analysis. Any thoughts on how to make it "wikipedia-acceptable?"

Obama has strongly distanced himself from Muslim communities in many of his speeches. The New York Times reported on June 24, 2008 that Muslim voters felt "snubbed" by Obama and were concerned about his deliberate apathy towards them despite their willingness to help with his campaign.Saleemhali (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Andrea Elliot, "Muslim Leaders detect a Snub from Obama," The New York Times, June 24, 2008

I would say that this a campaign-specific matter, and belongs in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me of minimal biographical significance also. Possibly in the campaign article, but even there it's really just one reporter trying to find an interesting spin for what is (at least so far) a complete non-issue. Given all the other stuff that's gone on here, I confess I also have extra suspicion about such a new account proposing this addition (however, Saleemhali seems to have edited a number of non-Obama things; so I'll assume s/he is just a newish editor who will come to do much good for WP). LotLE×talk 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
LotLE. Please be careful with your "extra suspicion. I made that mistake yesterday with reversed his 2nd edit attempt w/o really looking into it. I apologized and felt pretty embarrassed about my actions. So don't fall into the same hole as I did and assume good faith. ;) --Floridianed (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's quite reasonable to guess that less experienced editors have less familiarity with WP guidelines, and a less refined sense of weight, tone, and balance. I think that's the case with Saleemhali's edit, which is completely in line with WP:AGF. S/he probably found the NYT opinion piece "interesting", but lacks a certain nuance about what really ascends to main-bio importance.... hence my prior comment about his/her promising future editing. (I don't remotely suspect this editor of being a vandal or sockpuppet, just new-ish). LotLE×talk 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This probably does deserve a brief mention at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. --Clubjuggle T/C 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


The side box summary of Obama has one web site--it's his senate site.

As the presumptive nominee I recommend we put his campaign site there instead.

Being a candidate (even if not yet officially) of one of America's two great political parties is far more significant than just being a U.S. senator. Also, readers are almost certainly interested in him because of his presidential campaign, not because he is a senator.

I know his campaign site is linked to elsewhere, but I think it should be the web site of note in the side box.

I encourage an Obama editor with clout to make this change. McCain should get equal treatment.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Obama is still an active and voting member of the U.S. Senate, a position that includes important roles on committees (including a chairing position). This has already been discussed previously (see the archive). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm the lowliest of contributors* hereabouts but have added B's private, eponymous campaign website to his U.S. Senatorial website to the infobox as Utahredrock has suggested. *But then I'm not afraid of being reverted in this particular instance, either! — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Scjessey here. The campaign web site is largely for fund raising. At various times in the campaign the entire opening page of that site has been taken over by "important" requests for donations and getting past that to the rest of the site for real information is made deliberately confusing. For example, during some of the primaries clicking a very small box in the bottom corner of the opening page was the only way to get past donation requests to get to the rest of the site, something a novice Internet user might never figure out. At the moment that I write this the layout of his campaign site is better, but I'm assuming it will change back and forth like it has in the past, and his Senate one is definitely more informative and less about raising cash. Also, his "real" job is still Senator. Assuming that the prior discussion for this was for the inclusion of his Senate site, I'm thinking it should be reverted to that unless a consensus builds for putting the campaign site there. Quenn (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The Senate website is the appropriate one for this article. This is a biography of the whole life of a notable person, not a piece about a presidential candidate, as has been expressed repeatedly. His primary job and identification is as US Senator, and that should be followed through in the infobox as it has been for a very long time. Wikipedia style is to have the highest and/or most recent position as the primary ID - hence John Edwards is also shown as a US Senator with the start and end dates. It doesn't matter which website looks better - it's a matter of consistency to use the Senate site in this article. His presidential campaign article has the campaign website, as is appropriate. I'll revert if it hasn't been already, and please leave it as such. unless there is some kind of encyclopedia-wide change in this matter of style. Tvoz/talk 03:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking further I see that "Presumptive nominee" has been added to both Obama and McCain 's infoboxes - I'm going to check further to see if there was any discussion of this, but my first reaction is both should be removed - they are Senators, and that is the way I think their infoboxes should read- nominee isn't a job, and even after Senators, governors, presidents etc leave office Wikipedia lists that job as their highest position. We wouldn't have "Previous nominee" in an infobox and I don't think we should have nominee. Whoever gets elected will have President added above Senator. Any thoughts on this? Obviously I think we should handle both infoboxes in the same way - infoboxes should be consistent across articles, even though articles can vary in content according to the individual subject and editors' choices. Tvoz/talk 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure they are senators, but they are both nominees (in waiting) of the two major parties for an office that many consider to be the highest elective office in the world.

It is highly absurd to assert that their biographies should reflect anything less than this.--Utahredrock (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Utahredrock. If Obama wasn't running for president, he would be just another freshman senator. He would only be more notable than Jon Tester by virtue of being African American and having published a couple of books. It is the presidential campaign that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester and the appropriate subject of a far longer biography than Jon Tester. The presidential campaign section should be a lot longer.
Wikipedia style is to have the highest and/or most recent position as the primary ID ... I couldn't agree more. The well-established Wikipedia style for biographies of famous politicians must be followed. Floridianed also used the same reasoning on another content issue. I'm so glad you agree, Tvoz, that established Wikipedia biography style must be followed.
This is why the inclusion of more criticism and controversy is necessary in this article. The style of all other biographies about prominent politicians in a race for the highest office in government - George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John McCain, Stephen Harper, Hillary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, John Howard and many, many more - is well-established. The critics of the politician are cited repeatedly and quoted in the biography. Controversies, even where the politician was completely exonerated, even where there are separate WP articles specifically covering those controversies, even where the politician was only peripherally involved, get a detailed examination in the politician's biography. It is not a BLP violation or an NPOV violation to report these controversies and cite these criticisms. These other WP biographies represent the consensus of thousands of well established editors.
Compare Barack Obama to the many other biographies I've linked here and you will immediately notice a severe shortage of criticism compared to the other biographies. It is not in the best interests of the Wikipedia project to show favoritism to Barack Obama. He must be treated exactly like the rest of these prominent politicians. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not fair, blah blah blah. Where do you see a criticism section for Clinton? Grsztalk 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and none of the articles you link -- George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John McCain, Stephen Harper, Hillary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, John Howard -- have managed to reach Featured Article status, likely in part due to their "controversy" peddling. Shem(talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There's that Featured Article canard again: "This is a Featured Article, so we must avoid any mention of the word 'criticism.' " Shem, the word "likely" signals the moment where you departed from fact and entered your unproven opinion. This article attained FA status in 2004, years before Obama's relationships with Rezko, Wright or Ayers had become targets of criticism. If it was a new candidate for FA status today, I believe it would fail because it doesn't give enough space to the abundant controversies. NPOV requires, and BLP allows, controversy about the subject of a biography if it is notable and published in a reliable source, and criticism of Obama satisfies both requirements many times over, yet we don't see it in this article. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way Shem, George W. Bush was an FA candidate in February 2006 and failed. See discussion here. No mention of "too much controversy peddling" whatsoever. The main worry was article stability. Tony Blair achieved FA status in December 2004 and lost it in June 2007, with discussion here. Again, absolutely not one word about "too much controversy peddling." Concerns were article stability and a dozen "citation needed" tags. So you see, lots and lots of controversy is consistent with FA status. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
And yet none (0) of your examples're Featured Articles, and none of your proposed additions've garnered anything even remotely resembling consensus. It's time to accept that you won't be getting your way with this article, WorkerBee, IP socks and vote-stacking be damned. Shem(talk) 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
They failed, or were once FA but demoted, for other reasons unrelated to coverage of controversy. Once again, you run and hide behind your false accusations. Once again, the fact that you do so underscores the weakness of your arguments on the merits. You've unnecessarily created heat rather than light, and it is most unhelpful - not only to the project, but to you. The evidence shows that an extensive coverage of controversy is not inconsistent with FA status. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I've said this before, but it was taken out of context by Andvphil. One of the reasons that the Obama article lacks criticism is that, as a relative newcomer, he has not had the chance to accumulate much criticism. Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, etc., have been in the game much longer. Blair, Bush, Putin and Cheney have all been highly controversial, criminally-negligent politicians who have occupied some of the highest offices in the world. No doubt 8 years of being POTUS will give us much to criticize Obama about, and I fully expect this BLP will evolve accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Your claim that Bush, Blair and Cheney are "criminally negligent" suggests bias and may even be a BLP violation. And while a "newcomer" defense would have worked four months ago, it doesn't work any more. Obama has now accumulated abundant criticism, even at several certifiably progressive-biased sites like TPM. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't create a BLP violation on a talk page. And anyone living in the US or UK will be well aware of what these three morons have done to ruin our lives, our countries, and our standing in the world. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Lost in the ruins ye shall find that... Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Not that there are any major faults here though. Carry on. Modocc (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[out] Thanks a lot for hijacking the thread. This thread had nothing whatsoever to do with criticism or controversy or BLP concerns - have your argument somewhere else. This is a simple matter of infoboxes, and I am discussing it on McCain as well - this infobox addition has apparently not been discussed by anyone and I'm told was added by one editor who's going around adding it around the encyclopedia. I think that we should remove it from here and from McCain's main bio, as I said, because "presumptive nominee" and "nominee" are not positions that belong in infoboxes. In biographies of politicians, the style of the encyclopedia has been that they are used to identify the most recent position the individual has held, even after they are no longer in office. I'd like some opinions from editors, but only if you can stick to the point. Tvoz/talk 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would keep it the way it is now. It doesn't hurt if both sites contain the same. I myself don't know how it was handled before, just got your word and of course believe you, yet it doesn't have to be this way this time, but I have no problem either way if consensus would be against my stance. --Floridianed (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
See Wasted Time R's comments [6] on Talk: John McCain. Tvoz/talk 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that and as I said before, I can go and support either way. No veto from my side to expect. --Floridianed (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair on the day it became a Featured Article

Here it is, packed with criticism and controversy. There's an entire section devoted to the impeachment that never happened, and never even gained significant support. The second paragraph of the article lead provides a loud amplification to "critics of the left [who] feel that ... he has compromised [the Labour Party's] founders' principles, and that government places insufficient emphasis on the redistribution of wealth." Trotskyism, anyone?

And in the heart of the article we find this: "Several anti-war pressure groups want to try Blair for war crimes in Iraq at the International Criminal Court ..." Another left-wing fantasy comeuppance that has never even looked like it stood a chance of materializing. But there it is, loud and proud, in a Wikipedia biography that was being granted FA status that day.

Claiming that FAs just aren't allowed to contain criticism or controversy is just plain false. Claiming that the case against Blair was stronger than the case against Obama requires original research. Furthermore, it's not our job at Wikipedia to judge the relative merits of anti-Blair versus anti-Obama. It is only our job to report that notable and substantial criticism from respected voices is out there, that there's a lot of it, and that it has a solid basis in the facts. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be told? We follow Wikipedia's policies. We might look to other articles for guidance in terms of structure, formatting, etc., but not for content decisions. Apart from articles like Main page, this is by far the most popular article on Wikipedia. It must be maintained to the highest possible standard, which is why we are so strict about following the rules and not letting bias creep in. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. We must follow the policies that say, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article - even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." And we must be strict about following the rules and not letting bias creep in. That includes pro-Obama bias.
There is an allegation that Obama's associations with not only Rezko, but also Wright and Ayers, raise questions about his judgment. It is notable. It is relevant. And it is well-documented by reliable published sources. It belongs in the article. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
But even well-sourced information can be over-reported, and that violates WP:WEIGHT. When you add well-sourced, but disproportionately-weighted details you create bias. Bombastically repeating that "it is notable" and "relevant" will not answer these weight concerns, which is why it is necessary to discuss the details and build a consensus for what is fair and neutral. You need to respect all the applicable Wikipedia policies, not just the ones that help you to advance your cause. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's WP:WEIGHT: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Is it your position that "raised questions about Obama's judgment" or "criticized Obama" represents a tiny-minority or fringe view? Because that's the only excuse for excluding it from this biography based on weight.
Jimmy Wales has an answer for you, SCJ. From WP:WEIGHT:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ...
Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.
So it's "prevalence in reliable sources" that should be the determining factor, and Noroton has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is an extremely prevalent viewpoint. For one thing, Obama shares this viewpoint himself. (Cf. "boneheaded move.") For another thing, it's also shared by the New York Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Miami Herald, the Boston Globe ABC News, Mother Jones, The Nation, Talking Points Memo and the Wall Street Journal. It isn't just the National Review (although it's shared by that publication as well). In fact, it's hard to find a major news media source (or even a certifiably progressive-biased source like TPM) that uses the words "Obama" and "Rezko" without also using the word "judgment" at some point, in at least one article, and I've been using Nexis.
For any "fringe POV" defense based on WP:WEIGHT, Noroton has blown you out of the water as badly as the HMS Hood. This has "prevalent" written all over it, SCJ. Please review another policy called WP:WELLKNOWN, talk it over with your wife and get back to me in the morning. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again you have misinterpreted Wikipedia policy and misrepresented facts. The number of reliable sources is not directly proportional to the notability of a viewpoint. We have already come up with a version of the text which everyone seems to think is neutral and fair, taking into account public opinion as well as press opinion, but you remain fixated on shoving particular negative terminology into the text to support your POV. Your repetition of the same, tired arguments is no longer constructive and is now best ignored by the neutral editors who are moving on.
One more thing: Your last comment comes dangerously close to using my wife as a tool to make a personal attack. Do that again and I will have you dragged in front of the administrators faster than you can say "single-purpose account". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you have misrepresented Wikipedia policy and misrepresented the facts. You must be a disciple of Saul Alinsky. In "Rules for Radicals" he advised left-wing revolutionaries to accuse their opponents of exactly the same misbehavior that the left-wing revolutionaries themselves were committing.
The number of reliable sources is not directly proportional to the notability of a viewpoint. Numbers alone might be arguable, but in this case, we also have the notability of the sources themselves: New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, Agence France Press, indeed most of the prominent news sources in the Western world.
We have already come up with a version of the text which everyone seems to think is neutral and fair ... That is yet another of your endless stream of misrepresentations. Not everyone thinks it's neutral and fair. Noroton doesn't. I don't. When they come back, Andy and K4T won't. I'm sure there are others as well. Your rush to create a "done deal" here and present Andy and K4T with a fait accompli when they return is a transparent ploy.
One more thing: Your last comment ... Gimme a break SCJ. You're not that sensitive. If you feel that you have been personally attacked, file your complaint at WP:ANI but I'll bet that in the privacy of their homes and offices, a lot of admins will be pointing their fingers at their monitors and laughing at you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done --Clubjuggle T/C 05:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
With that latest incivility, I think we should ask WorkerBee74 to take a break from this article, and if he(she?) won't we should ask an administrator to make it happen. He also accused me of "misreprentation" in the last few minutes, in a comment[7] I deleted. There's really no point further responding to the editor's disruptions. Wikidemo (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't be removing other editors' comments like that. When you make a false statement that's material to the discussion, it shouldn't be ignored. But calling it a "lie," while accurate and entirely fair, would be awfully harsh. Maybe I should just say that you don't have your facts straight. Would that be considered a personal attack? WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the other part of the insult, but you have just accused but you are still accusing me again of lying. Are you going to leave that personal attack or remove it? I ask you to please remove it.Wikidemo (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (text edited in response to partial retraction of insult - Wikidemo (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Wikidemo, your attacks on Workerbee74 seem overly personal and frankly uncalled for. Please try to be civil in your discussions, that's a hallmark of wiki-editing.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. WB74 and others on the inclusionist side have been subjected to a steady barrage of disagree/ provoke/ report. What you see here, Red, is the "provoke" stage. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
One fix to disagree/ provoke/ report is the same approach many parents use. When kids are quarrelling it doesn't matter that "Jenny called me a mommy's boy!" or "Stevey started it!," they're both going their rooms. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That's one reason the behavior of these two editors is so disruptive. The "disagree / provoke / report" claim is just more game playing, and their meat-puppeting behavior to harass me with that claim elsewhere on the project is yet more stirring of trouble. Think of what they're saying - yes, they're misbehaving but only because I provoked them. That's hogwash. In the above exchange WorkerBee74 takes a dig at another editor's wife and accuses me of lying (something he repeated elsewhere) and having a "hypersensitive, quivering, fragile little ego". Where's the provocation in that? I am mommy in this situation. I am a neutral, good faith, longstanding productive editor who is arguing cogently, participating in consensus, trying to make peace, appealing for civility, and not socking, disrupting, or calling names. Elsewhere on the project I have uncovered quite a few sockpuppets, and it's almost certain that's been happening here. Mommy and daddy do not get sent to their rooms by the children. They're blowing smoke by trying to make it look like there's a dispute - there isn't. There's only tendentious behavior, and a need for administrative oversight.Wikidemo (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What I am seeing is that as soon as K4T and WB74 returned to editing, everything got personal again. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A widely ranging discussion on the info box

Suspected Socks

There are a large number of votes and comments on this talk page by banned sock-puppets or suspected sock-puppets. This is, obviously, extremely disruptive of editing. The large number of IP addresses who show up to cast (identical) votes on polls greatly raises my suspicion that there is yet more not-yet-reported sock-puppetry going on. An incomplete list:

... Alleged puppet master was blocked four years ago. No proof offered, besides a similarity in IP addresses. Edits have not been problematic. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
... for a double vote on an AfD three months ago. (Not this article.) No evidence of sockpuppetry by FA in this article space; in fact, no other evidence of sockpuppetry by FA at all. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(below by Wikidemo) Add, in the interest of completeness:

... Editwarring is not sockpuppetry; "multiple" in this case means "two" and they expired a long time ago. Andy will be back in two weeks. The report has been sitting around at SSP for three weeks without an RFCU. Request a Checkuser or drop it. You have no evidence. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
... Also blocked multiple times for editwars; "multiple" in this case means "a lot more than two." It's interesting that you somehow overlooked this important fact. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
... This is the only proven case of sockpuppetry on this article and it was User:Life.temp, who tried on two separate occasions, despite warnings from admins, to delete every trace of Rezko, Wright and Ayers from this article. Again, it's interesting that you somehow overlooked this. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's just a complete fantasy. What about Improve2009 and Dereks1x? Both have been very active editors of this article with their various accounts. The former has done everything possible to spoil this article, and the latter spent most of the time edit warring on the Jeremiah Wright and Iraq War-related material to make it sound bad, right up until a couple of days ago. Now either you are just unaware of these facts because you haven't done your homework properly, or you are just ignoring these facts because they don't fit in with your argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget DianeFinn, another sock that spent about 14 hours a day attempting to add every detail imaginable about the lives of Ayers and Rezko until getting blocked last month. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
DianeFinn was one of the Dereks1x socks. Also Watchingobama. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances it is discouraging to participate in the discussion and hard to gage the legitimacy of any apparent consensus. Unless we have some confident that most editors here are legitimate there doesn't seem to be much point. It would be useful if someone with a lot of expertise in sockpuppet attacks could help us address this whole thing at once rather than piecemeal. Wikidemo (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there really isn't a way to approach it except piecemeal. The high visibility and high emotions around Obama and his campaign are bound to unleash the sock hordes. This means that it is incumbent upon the established editors on this page to mark any new accounts/IP addresses with {{spa}} so that their opinion on the matter can be weighted accordingly and to keep an eye out for socks as they crop up and try to squish them just as quickly. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting philosophical. Martialists must defend against aggression, pacifists being useless for the job. Yet once a martialist, deciding what's right and making war to defend it, to complain about counter-aggression is rank hypocrisy: a death penalty for user A for assertions via edit warring, when User B remains to edit war another day, B's same behavior in self-described defense of the status quo. Rather than diss others' tactics that are the same as our own----sure, set down rules of engagement and adjudicate by em, but more importantly, let's debate what should be assaulted in an article and what defended.

Red sox, green sox, kind sox, mean sox. WB74 is a new account. I've no idea if it's a sock or even the exact particulars under which sox would be disallowed; however WB74's comments about not being able to cut and paste remind me of when I first I contributed to WP a dozen moons ago. I went to a contributor's talk page to comment, only to happen to read a private discussion expressing conviction that I myself must be a "sockpuppet," a term itself new to me then----reason being, I sure knew my way around Wikipedia for somebody supposedly a brand new account. I chuckled, knowing that, as WorkerBee's described, I still typed stuff all the way out to quote it, ignorant of the mysteries of how to "paint" text and then cut and paste it. I ignored the accusation except dismissively to deny it; yet here I'd come to Wikipedia to address its encyclopedic coverage of a particular issue----one that a faction of editors also championed, resulting in some more-or-less-agreed-upon blocks of text that remains to this day----only to find it was whether I was a jason voorhees that dominated my opponents' consciousness as much or more than the issues at hand. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "rules of engagement" are pretty simple. Edit under one identity and don't come in under another identity or IP address to support your own position, or to argue with it for that matter (sometimes done trying to throw people off your trail). Follow the restrictions on number of reverts allowed in a day - and don't come in under another identity or IP address to do a few more reverts. If you're blocked for some misbehavior, don't come in under a different identity or IP address to continue editing. It's really not that complicated - editing an article under more than one account without disclosing that fact gives an impression that there are multiple people taking a position when in fact there may be only one, and doing so to evade any restrictions that have been placed on you or on everyone is deceitful and has no place here. Tvoz/talk 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz has it right, the rules are quite simple. Definitively detecting sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry can of course be more difficult. I'm not an expert, nor a total novice, on sockpuppetry investigations but if anyone has concerns they can feel free to bring them to me and I'll have a quick look when I get a chance (I've been a bit busy the last few days and will continue to be for the next week or so, but will have more time after that). Of course there's also always the option to file a report at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU, but in contentious situations like this that can often serve only to escalate tensions. Basically there are no easy answers for dealing with socks on a page like this, and we just have to take it case by case.
One thing I would say, when having discussions like the one on Rezko above, I think the comments of random (i.e. not regularly contributing) IP addresses and brand new accounts (particularly the former) should be taken with large grains of salt. I'm all in favor of anonymous editors and am sure a lot of new accounts will show up to edit this page and go on to make good contributions (I take WP:BITE very seriously), but there's nothing wrong with giving far more weight to the opinions of established users, be they editors with accounts or IP editors who have made a number of contributions. I say this only for lengthy discussions like the Rezko one above, which involve knotty and ongoing issues. We'll see lots of IPs and fairly new accounts show up and start new discussion topics and/or edit the page out of the blue and we should of course assume good faith of those users. When we're trying to have a focused discussion on a thorny problem though I think it's fine (and even necessary) to keep the conversation largely among established users.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"[I] think it's fine (and even necessary) to keep the conversation largely among established users."... Needless to say, this is a carte blanche to pick & choose one's honest brokering; which of course, defeats the purpose of being an honest broker. Editors here have duty to address the merits of all reasonable comments on this page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The sock solution is easy. All accusations of socks must stop. All mention of consensus should only include the logic of an edit or the logic of a delete. Saying "I agree" should be discounted. If an edit can be explained as fair and neutral, even one person saying it is enough. If 100 established people favor a biased edit, even if they are in 100 countries, such violates Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. Since it is very easy for campaign supporters (even Ralph Nader has 100 supporters) to form a "consensus", we must judge edits on neutrality and not say it's a consensus if I agree and a sock if I disagree. FridayCell7 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion's become a parody of itself. An account which joined 22 hours ago and has only made 18 edits is now demanding no one highlight the barrage of SPA/sockpuppet activity taking place. Shem(talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
(EC X 2 - I wonder if we're being trolled, and not just socked). The IP editor above is, if you follow the second SSP report in the list, a case in point. Either the editor is, or is not, a block-evading IP sock of a user who has been gone, involuntarily, for years. If the editor is a sock, then the IP use is not for avoiding "drama" it is for avoiding detection, and clearly they should not be posting all over this page. It's a fallacious argument many ways over to say that we should evaluate the edits, and not the editor, when considering editors who are not entitled to be here at all. Most of those under suspicion are making bad edits too, so the question is not whether to dismiss good contributions but how to deal with the disruption. If the IP editor is not a sock, the lack of an account name or edit history leave us sorely unable to evaluate the editor's legitimacy or quality of contributions. Wikidemo (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WD, you wrote: "If the IP editor is not a sock, the lack of an account name or edit history leave us sorely unable to evaluate the editor's legitimacy or quality of contributions." I am not persuaded by this sentence. If an IP editor comes to wiki and writes one sentence: "Water is a liquid at room temperature." - that sentence can be evaluated on it's merits. No outside reference to the editors account name or edit history is required. Likewise, if I an editor writes on this page, "I think we must make explicitly clear that Obama is biracial, with a white parent and a black parent" and then goes on to cite reasons; again, that sentence and the supporting reasons, can be evaluated on their merits. I do not see the merit of as sound argument changing based on who makes the argument (or on what we know about that editor). 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you or are you not the person who formerly edited under the account name Rex071404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and others? Until we answer that question everything else is moot. Wikidemo (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe he can be compelled to answer. His edits have not even been slightly problematic. AGF in this case, or run a Checkuser and rely on the result. In all these cases, we need to resolve these accusations. Run Checkusers or apologize for your false accusations and drop it. If the Checkusers prove sockpuppetry, block them. If they don't, apologize for your false accusations and drop it.
These false accusations are poisoning the well, destroying civility and the cooperative atmosphere necessary for good editing. Resolve these accusations, one way or the other, and let's move on. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of sockpuppeting..[8] It seems that it is possible per CU that WorkerBee74 has done his fair share of vote stacking. And people wonder why it's hard to get consensus on this page... --Bobblehead (rants) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
A report has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. Any further comments should be added there so we can keep this page focused on improving the article. --Clubjuggle T/C 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo wrote: "Until we answer that question everything else is moot.". This kind of approach comes as a surprise to me. It seems that WD is more interested in cross-examining IP editors - with the aim of persuing personal indentity suspicions, than he is in editing this article. Word to WD: You are not the arbiter of relevance to this community. Nor are you the gatekeeper of editor access. Frankly, I am beginning to think that WorkerBee has a point: Various article content arguments have been recently made on this page by new editors and yet, several of those points have gone unanswered by certain long time editors here. But at the same time - those non-responding editors are focusing their activity on attempting to exclude these other editors from having access. I am not at all impressed with this type of behaviour. To me, it's shameless protectionism of the status-quo: Rather than admit that various article changes being suggested here are meritious (or counter-arguing agaisnt them), status-quo editors are trying to exclude the editors who are the source of the differing suggestions. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that those inclined to express elitism or perceived superiority over IP address editors should just can it. What you're saying is that a 15-year-old high school sophomore with 1,000 edits has more value in this discussion than a 34-year-old with a master's degree in political science who has made 100 edits. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit looks suspiciously like our old friend to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

HuffPo "socks," indeed

The HuffPo's easy flinging of socks at folks who'd add Barack's full name to his article certainly says more about HuffPo's attitude than that of such contributors to Wikipedia. (Same goes for fellow contributors who'd adopt this mindset....)

I recently surfed from a user's talkpage barnstar to a few-months-old HuffPo bits of interviews with a couple of regular contributors here on the WP Obama and HRC bios. I thought, "Hey, Wikipedia talkpages' denizens allege biases of the Right (eg asserting the influence of partisan Hannity upon the MSM's Stephanopoulos), while an apparent unity of purpose among "Hannitys" of the Left such as the New Republic and HuffPo with Wikipedia talkpages' denizens goes unremarked upon?"

In any case, the piece's writer conflated stuff to the point of using a ridiculously offhand shorthand equating folks' adding the obviously[?] superfluous Jr. to Barack's name with WP's technical usage of........."socks."

"That's interesting," I thought, "seeing as I myself had wondered why Jr. was missing (...Um, all other "juniors" throughout WP get the name added without there being flung charges of perversity...) and had added it to Barack's full name in the lede!"

What happened then was a regular contributor (conjecture-ably influenced by the HuffPo's authority?) immediately reverted the addition, saying via edit summary and quick talkpage bromide that Barack doesn't use the name and the matter had been authoritatively settled in some discussion accessible only in the archives.

"Geez, whatever happened to footnotes?" I thought. I surfed the archive and the only thing there was one contributor's offhand suggestion, Hey, maybe WP ought to go with Barack's own practice here. Upon which I Google Obama and Jr. and among the bizillion hits----are ones to Encylopaedia Britannica's entry on Obama and another to a sidebar bio in the New York Times. — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

All of this debate about criticism is nice, but my initial point was that we should link to Obama's campaign site instead of (or in addition to?) his senate site in the side box.

Despite a user's asserting that "Presumptive Nominee" be removed from the box (luckily there didn't seem to be much agreement), Sen. Obama has achieve a rare and high place in American politics. Linking [just] to his senate web site in the side box seems limited given who he is.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That was already discussed, and the prevailing view was that linking to his campaign website would be wholly inappropriate. It is primarily a fundraising tool and has very little to do with his political career (or even his biography). Obama is a still-serving senator, so the infobox is pointing to the correct place. Assuming Obama becomes President, the box will be changed to the appropriate site after his inauguration. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That is correct, and furthermore I am suggesting that we return the infobox to the style of the encyclopedia as it has been for biographies - listing actual positions held. There wasn't much discussion because the thread was hijacked as I said above. For the hundredth time, this is a biography of a notable individual - his whole life and career - and should not be skewed to the current campaign. I say the same thing about McCain's article, and I have said it about Clinton, Edwards, and several other Republicans. This is not a partisan issue. See Wasted Time R's comments [9] on Talk: John McCain. Tvoz/talk 01:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
We should definitely restore the infobox that correctly describes Obama's actual job as Jr. Senator for IL, and leave the unofficial "presumptive nominee" (or even candidate in a month) out of the infobox. Including that in the lead is obviously correct, but an infobox should be reserved for an actual position... even "candidate" is not a "job", just an application process for one. LotLE×talk 19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
We should definitely leave presumptive nominee, because as Tvoz points out a biography looks at the broader scope of a person's life and very few people in the course of American history have reached such a pinnacle. While he certainly is the junior senator from Illinois, his electoral success in this presidential election cycle is a much bigger accomplishment than his other big accomplishment of becoming senator.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Utahredrock, you are once again misunderstanding the role of the infoboxes and misinterpreting my words. No one is questioning whether it is an accomplishment to be a nominee or suggesting de-emphasizing it in the lead or the article, but it is not an actual position, and those are what are in infoboxes. That's why you'll find John Edwards listed as senator from North Carolina as the top item in his infobox, and his Senate photo used, even though he isn't that now. And until this one editor started adding these items to infoboxes a few months ago there was, correctly, no mention in his infobox that he was the Democratic VP nominee in 2004, nor did any other articles have this. It was slipped in, probably well-intentioned, but it is not right and I believe is confusing and should be removed everywhere. Note that George Bush is not listed as the Republican nominee for president in 2000 and 2004 - when he got the job, he got the infobox item. His infobox doesn't say who his opponent was - how is this balanced if Gore's and Kerry's list Bush? Do you see the problem? The concept of "preceding" and "succeeding" are not quite right for candidates either - those apply for actual positions, where people actually succeed one another. For example, saying that John McCain succeeded Bush in his infobox is certainly confusing - it implies that he already won the election which he has not. The infobox isn't there to evaluate which accomplishment is greater than another - it's purely chronological, and it reflects actual positions held. No one is taking anything away from either candidate for their wonderful accomplishments; the infobox is just not where it should be until he or she gets the job. So far I don't see your point of view getting any support in this discussion - and if we change McCain's we will certainly change Obama's. Tvoz/talk 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
My Dearest Tvoz, When have I ever misrepresented any of your comments? I don't see how you could make such a claim. We disagree, sure, but misrepresent? I certainly hope this has never been true. Your points here don't make much sense. Please see Geraldine Ferraro her info box includes her status as the Dem VP nominee in 1984. If it's missing from John Edwards then that is a gross oversight that you (or someone) should immediately correct. I reiterate my claim that it is highly illogical to deny anyone--in their infoboxes, or elsewhere--key biographical facts. Win or lose being a nominee (or presumptive) for the highest offices in the American political system is indeed a major accomplishment in anyone's life. Do you deny this? Or do you just have a narrow definition for the infoboxes? Your arguments often confuse me, however, I do not believe I have ever misrepresented your statements. With warmest and highest regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"While he certainly is the junior senator from Illinois, his electoral success in this presidential election cycle is a much bigger accomplishment than his other big accomplishment of becoming senator."
Perhaps you should think about it this way - being an actual senator is a much bigger accomplishment than what is essentially an extended job interview. So far, he's beaten out all but one of the rival candidates for the position, but he hasn't won the job yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If that were the case I doubt if any of us would be concerned about editing this article. It defies logic.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of us started editing this article prior to Obama being a presidential candidate. Consider your logic defied. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. And some of us continue to edit Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards and Fred Thompson and Ron Paul even though they're all (at the moment) out of this race. Hell, I edit Nelson Rockefeller and he's been dead for nearly thirty years and out of office even longer. We are talking only about infobox style. Tvoz/talk 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I mispoke again (miswrote to be accurate). Regardless of the articles you edit or for how long or whether you've been nurturing this article since Obama was a state legislator--it is just plain silly to argue to remove "presumptive nominee" from the info box. As somebody pointed out on another page, "voting" isn't the definitive guide on wiki-editing. All the same, if you feel so strongly about it, then just remove that "interview" like title from the info box and be done with it. To call the process Obama and McCain are going through an extended job interview trivializes their accomplishments and the political process.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess somebody already took that fateful and ill-advised step. Talk about short-sidedness. It will be corrected soon enough I am sure. Maybe not till he's the official nominee, but someone will come along and see how this misrepresents his true--if unofficial--position.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Fast edits appear to have been occurring as I've been commenting on this including when I wrote the above. It is at least encouraging to see, despite the dominant comments here, that on the actual article there is a reluctance to remove "presumptive nominee." Beyond my comments here, I am not interested in making any actual edits on this highly volatile page, especially on this particular (silly) topic. Yes, I too, can get caught up in obscure arguments.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a party's presidential nomination is amazingly prestigious; still, actual office of service would seem to merit primary mention (per Lulu's current iteration, which I believe correctly applies guidelines re attempting a longish view). — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning both benches (a note to all parties in the Rezko discussion)

Please stop. Take a deep breath, reread your recent posts, and consider whether they could have been worded in ways that would be less abrasive. I understand tensions are high at the moment, not least of which is because a disruptive editor has recently been blocked. Please assume good faith and debate your points on their merits. I do not wish to turn this matter over to ArbCom, in part because I do not wish to subject them to this whole mess, but more importantly because I believe a consensus is still achievable if all parties drop the personal attacks. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/C 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Everthing else

Barack Obama rips off the PRESIDENTIAL SEAL!

[10] Should this be added, too? Angie Y. (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that attack videos on YouTube count a reliable sources. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Know what's cute about this particular artificial fuss? Obama is hardly alone in using something inspired by or based on the Presidential or Great Seals: [11]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"If I was the theoretical staffer who came up with or approved this logo," I thought to myself, "you know it'd take approximately forever to live this un down."
Then I read the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: [..."I]f you were to exchange brains with your typical Obama staffer, you can kind of see how designing a new seal seems cool and presidential, and you can also realize that those closest to the candidate don't vet every single stage prop that appears with the candidate, and you can feel a little sympathy for the staffer who has to explain to Valerie Jarrett just what the hell he or she was thinking when the seal was approved." Lol. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama & the Corporate Elites

Apparently, Bilderberg corporate elitist James A. Johnson will be selecting Barack Obama's running matewww.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/052308_bilderberg_luminary.htm] for the 2008 election in the vice-president selection process.

Also, a secret meeting between Hillary & Obama at Bilderbergwww.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/060608_hillary_obama.htm] ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs)

James A. Johnson has not been a part of the Obama campaign since June 11, so this is old news. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Best place for template discussion

Is at Template_talk:Infobox_Officeholder#Nominee/Candidate_section.

Whatever the resolution of the matter, it is about how we should present (presumptive) candidates and office holders in a general way, not about the specific achievements or status of Obama specifically. In truth, WP lacks a real consistency in its use of office-holder infoboxes, and promoting a greater stylistic consistency would benefit the encyclopedia generally. LotLE×talk 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. "Whatever the resolution of the matter'?! Two days after posting his 'complaint', LotLE had an Admin (who bragged he couldn't be bothered to read the discussion for himself to determine consensus, let alone check the current number of translocutions to identify the impact) delete ALL the nominee fields so ALL the articles about primary contest winners no longer make any sense. Nothing appears in the infobox about the office, election date, opponent, incumbent, runningmate etc. The name of the Infobox is "Congressional Candidate', which is what it was being used for 99 % of the time. Now he's claiming all those had to be trashed in order for him to 'make a point' with some of the Wikipedians working on the Barack Obama article. Yeah right. Happy Fourth of July. Flatterworld (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The infobox Template:Infobox Candidate was not affected by any of the changes made after the consensus discussion on Template:Infobox Officeholder. It is possible that some articles had mistakenly used the Officeholder box rather than the available Candidate infobox to describe a candidacy. While that concerns articles other than this one, if you see an example where the wrong box was used, by all means fix it. However, please see the discussions on relevant template talk pages as to where usage of each is desirable or appropriate. LotLE×talk 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is handedness relevant?

I'm wondering if this newly added information[12] (that he is left handed but uses his right hand for some things) is relevant and sufficiently weighty to include. Maybe this would better be included (if at all) by simply adding Obama to the list or category of left-handed Americans or some other apt category, if there is one. Any thoughts? Wikidemo (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the addition is a bit trivial, but not any more than other stuff in the section (chili cooking). A general paring of the section seems worthwhile. Left-handed doesn't seem like the most important thing there, but it also doesn't seem like the least important thing... so depending on how much one were to pare. LotLE×talk 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be willing to help pare down some text, if you'd like to bring the section in question to the talk page we could work on it. Beam 02:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing troops?

What do editors think of this edit? User:CJK added several things today re-characterizing or commenting on Obama's political positions. Two of the additions struck me as definitely WP:OR and/or soapboxing. The above edit that re-characterized Obama's position from "Ending the Iraq War" to "Withdrawing US troops from Iraq" feels borderline to me, but not obviously less accurate (possibly better, I'm uncertain). LotLE×talk 01:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If not removed it should include both, the ending of the war and withdrawing the troops but that wouldn't make sense or better said, more information than needed. My guess is that this edit is the result of some confusion after the McCain campaign tried to misinterpret a remark Obama made which he then had to clarify twice. --Floridianed (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Here we come again to the difference between platforms, promises, beliefs, positions, talking points, etc. Whether or not Obama's actual position has changed, his rhetoric about the war seems to have shifted as a matter of appealing to the general electorate, now that he has the Democratic nomination tied up. I can't find the cites but that language issue has been covered, e.g. on NPR this morning. Keeping in mind that this is a bio article rather than a campaign article I think we should use the most general, neutral term, for his advocating winding down the war effort, whichever one that is. Wikidemo (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He recently reiterated his stance, using the phrase, "bring the troops home." Do we have any recent quotes of him saying "end the war" or something similar? Beam 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth certificate controversy

Should we write something about this strange story? [13] [14] 0xFFFF (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No. It's a fringe conspiracy theory from the outer reaches of the blogosphere. It would have to have some validity and become a much bigger story for it to warrant a mention in the biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Race

Obama is not Black, so why should he be identified as African American? His father was African, with Arab and Black ancestry, but his mother was White. Why is someone who is less than half Black identified as African American? He is of no single race and it is misleading to refer to him as African American, while disregarding his mother's ethnicity completely. Talmage (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please expand and review the FAQ portion at the top of this page for a discussion on the subject. Wikidemo (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Obama's family

See Abongo Obama which is currently up for deletion. Abongo is a half-brother of Barack's and is mentioned at length in Dreams from my Father. The deletionsists argue primarily that Abongo (formerly Roy and possibly also known as Malik too) is not notable. Beyond Barack's book, where he is discussed at length, sources do seem limited, however, there are some available. A link to the call for deletion is available on Abongo's page, while the page lives. It's been deleted before.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Abongo Obama was deleted but then quickly revived as Malik Abongo Obama. This guy goes by a lot of names (including Roy). Maybe that alone makes him notable.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Radical Roots

As journalists examine Barack Obama more closely, they have been discovering that he has ties to many radical figures. The article had only a passing reference to this fact and so I decided a section needed to be created to document these ties. Syntacticus (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Which I reverted due to (a) a lack of anything approaching a reliable source, and (b) violations of WP:BLP concerning guilt-by-association, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and a host of other policies. You will find this matter has been extensively discussed if you review the talk page archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey: You are not being reasonable and are using the rules of Wikipedia selectively to censor my work. I am not trying to convict Obama of anything here. I am merely pointing out that these issues of significance have been raised. And how dare you say Foundation Watch is not a reliable source. It is published by Capital Research Center, a Washington, DC think tank established in 1984. You should be ashamed of yourself. Syntacticus (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies concerning the biographies of living persons before accusing anyone of "censoring [your] work". You may also wish to read WP:RS to see what is considered a reliable source. Furthermore, please refrain from editing the userpage of other editors. You will note that I have left civil warnings on your talk page, and your response has been personal attacks. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
All Washington think tanks are not created equal, not even those founded in 1984. As for Obama's ties, he has 'ties' of some sort to hundreds if not thousands of people, of all possible backgrounds and views. You could just as well write about his ties to the-opposite-of-radicals Paul Volcker and Warren Buffet. He's worked more closely with conservative Senator Tom Coburn than he ever did with Bill Ayers, although I don't see a rush of Wikipedians intent on 'exposing' that. So...you obviously have a pre-set agenda, the rest of us have had this discussion about Bill Ayers innumerable times already at Wikipedia, and you can't even be bothered to read any of the Talk archives. Just so you understand why you're not likely to get a lot of sympathy. We've been there, done that, have the t-shirt. Flatterworld (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
For the convenience of those concerned, this is just part of the archived Ayers discussion. It demonstrates how exhaustively the matter has been discussed, and the fact that no consensus was reached for including any information about the relationship (or lack thereof) in the article. Any addition would need to first build a consensus here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey: I see now. Unless there is a consensus, no negative information about Obama gets posted. How enlightened. My agenda is balance. The Obama page is what in journalistic circles is called a puff piece. There is virtually no derogatory information about him on it and yet media outlets have reported so much negative information about him in recent months. To ignore this information is to do the public a disservice. I am aware of the rules and have been editing on Wikipedia for nearly two years. You are lawyering those rules and are not acting in good faith and the record reflects that you have a history of protecting the Barack Obama page from derogatory information you apparently don't like. The Capital Research Center meets all the criteria for being a "reliable source" in the policy, and besides the article extensively cites other reliable sources throughout. If you believe that think tank is less than credible, the burden is on you to make your case rather than to imperiously, arbitrarily, and capriciously strike down edits you object to. The NYT and WashPost are not the only credible sources of information in the United States. I also note how you keep referring to policies without actually engaging in argument. If you have a specific objection, cite it instead of referring to some policy document that covers multiple topics. Syntacticus (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The editor wishing to add or alter information on an article, particularly a BLP, has the burden of proving the information is both accurate and properly cited with a reliable source. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to be a constructive editor. It is not beholden on other editors to educate you. As I said before, you will find all the information you need at WP:BLP. Pay particular attention to the following:
"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."
"Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."
"Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."
These words will give you some idea of why your inclusion is inappropriate, but other policies also apply. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Syntacticus, Please moderate your tone and attitude if you wish to contribute to this conversation. This article has been the subject of a lot of edit warring, incivility, and shenanigans, as well as a number of editors on long term blocks. Please edit constructively, and do not stir up trouble. In the above post you have accused an editor of bad faith and wikilawyering, called the article a puff piece, said you want to insert derogatory information for balance - all as an editor new to this page fresh into the article after an attempt to edit war. I am not willing to go along with that kind of editing. The editors on this page have made an informal agreement to consider the Ayers material, but only after dealing with another disputed content proposal regarding Rezko. As such, I oppose any change or addition to the Ayers section at this time. That's likely my final word on this until we're ready to deal with it, and I suggest we mark this discussion closed. Wikidemo (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Syntacticus, this is the Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade. You see what they're doing here? The longer they can drag out the Rezko discussion - by resorting to tactics as ludicrous as arguing against the use of NYT, LAT & WaPo as reliable sources - the longer they can avoid a discussion about Ayers. They're hoping to prevent the appearance of the word "criticism" on this page until after the election. Discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss. Spend three or four days moving the word "nonetheless" around so that it makes anyone who criticizes Obama's judgment look as stupid as possible. Oh gosh, it isn't consensus until we hear from Shem! But we can certainly have consensus without anyone who disagrees with Shem. See how this works, Syntacticus? And if you think that's funny, report the worst of them at WP:ANI and watch him get a free pass. Try giving one of them a warning and get blocked for 72 hours. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Baracknophobia

The article now links to Baracknophobia on Wiktionary; if you object to the neologism, please take it up on Wiktionary, not here. So long as an entry exists on Wiktionary, a link to it belongs here. --Una Smith (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We rarely have external links in articles to Wiktionary entries for related concepts. When there's a Wiktionary entry for the exact same term we often provide that, though. Wikidemo (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. --Una Smith (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Profession

Someone added Politician to Attorney, in the Profession field; someone else deleted the addition. For the record, politics is not a profession. --Una Smith (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some lifelong politicians would be disappointed to learn that their career is not a profession. In any event, I did some spot checking and most senators have "politician" or "senator" listed in their profession along with lawyer or whatever their early training may be. Wikidemo (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could redefine Profession, but what does Barack Obama say is his profession? Many people use "profession" as a synonym for "occupation", but people who have attained a profession (eg, by passing the bar) tend to respect the difference. --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, hasn't it been called the second-oldest profession? Just kidding, just kidding. Noroton (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Abongo Obama----

is nominated for deletion here. As a side comment to Tvoz: to abide by good Wikietiquette, since I'm myself not in favor of its deletion, were no contributors to show up to in fact advocate for deletion, I'll withdraw its nomination if poss. soz no resolution might be considered a formal "keep"(?) Anyway, if all interested parties would chime in there, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Welsh ancestry

I am bringing this to the talk page, seeing as people are clearly more interested in just revert warring and throwing around warning templates (seriously, what the hell is wrong with all the people who edit this page always doing that for the tiniest things: are you all 10 years old?). This edit is pure trivia, and has no place in this article, given that it is already way too long. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your charge of triviality for that edit is misplaced, The Evil Spartan, as you will see from the history? Yes, this single article is too long - thats why splitting has already been suggested. But I thought Obama himself valued his ancestry quite highly? I must have been imagining a future American President, with an ancestry spread across the globe, bringing nations together. Hmmmm, pure trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
We already have the general idea of Obama's diverse ancestry well discussed without a little factoid about one specific distant ancestor. Moreover, you have already violated 3RR in the reinsertion of your favored trivia, Martinevans123. Please stop if you'd like to avoid being blocked. LotLE×talk 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So, Lulu, Reitwiesner's research work on Obama's ancestry is "a little factoid"? Did you actually look? Who else has mapped out that family tree so completely? But I imagine your insult was squarely aimed at me, not him. I altered my edits, in good faith, to try and accommodate the responses, but apparently that make a violator. Perhaps general ideas occasionally arise from facts, however small. Feel free to block. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Well LotLE, at least I am not the only one you get personal with. Do you often threaten to block people or take even futher steps? It's a wiki-style that for the first time ever has made me wonder if I should waste my time on Wikipedia--which in general is a great resource and is often quite fun to edit.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A couple observations - I've left an edit warring caution on one of the editors pages[15], which I'll forego as moot in the case of User:Martinevans123 because MV123 is now on the talk page discussing. Please do not edit war, particularly on this article. Also, Evil Spartan, your frustration is understandable but please keep it calm. This is a mild issue that probably won't explode but there are lots of issues on this page that do get out of hand. With that in mind, ancestral background outside of the immediate family tree is generally not seen as important enough to include in a major politician's bio article, unless that politician makes it an issue. Some people call it "trivia" and it is a trivia-like factoid, in that it does not explain much about the person, their life and career, etc. People are more and more aware of genealogy given the online tools available and the scrutiny on major politicians. If we went down that path every bio article would have a "family tree tidbits" section and people just aren't going for that. Obama's family is unusually diverse, and that observation has come to define him to some extent. But there is a limit, obviously. As an example people have repeatedly rejected inserting the material about Obama being distant cousins with Dick Cheney. Wikidemo (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Wikidemo for your sensible mediation. I'd agree that ancestry beyond even two generations usually tells us nothing of the person. For those who are interested the link is http://www.wargs.com/political/obama.html. It's regrettable that a fact thought significant by Ieuan Wyn Jones should not deserve not even a word in the article. I have no political axe to grind, just a factual one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
There has been a recent spate of editors adding insignificant genealogical details about Obama, so regular editors are probably a bit more "revert happy" than you might expect. That being said, it is unclear why you would think that the opinions of Ieuan Wyn Jones (not exactly a world-renowned politician, largely unknown beyond the Welsh border) are a significant enough detail to be included in a summary of Barack Obama's entire life. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, US Presidents, even their Deputies, tend to get known far beyond their own borders, don't they. Perhaps because they're so good? But Ieuan should certainly take none of the blame for my foolhardy edit. Maybe here in tiny Wales Reitwiesner's research is news only because of Wyn Jones' reaction. But to me that work looks somehow definitive, regardless of Welsh politicians, Welsh ancestry and any insignificances which may have preceeded it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, Reitwiesner's research is (a) not a reliable source and (b) factually inaccurate (Obama's birth certificate says "Barack Hussein Obama II", not "Barack Hussein Obama Jr"). And like I said before, this is a summary of Obama's entire life, in which his Welsh ancestry is of little significance (ditto Irish, Dutch, German, et al). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(a) please outline why Reitwiesner's research is not reliable source and (b) although I don't know how or why a Jr should not also be a II for the purposes of genealogy, I think were are talking about the same person here, so your observation seems a little pedantic. And like I said before I am defending the addition of the genealogy link regardless of individual ancestors Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As with Scjessey, I cannot see any special importance of mentioning Jones. Obama has met lots of foreign politicians, and has many ancestors from different places. Singling out some particular one doesn't seem important, unless (hypothetically) Obama or someone around him (e.g. a political supporter or opponent) were to make some big point of a particular relative. Given that isn't the case, it's not main-bio level material. LotLE×talk 00:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I quite agree with that, Lulu. Forget about Ynys Mon, forget about Ieuan Wyn Jones but what about Reitwiesner? In any other bio article that kind of factual information would get a mention, or if not, at least an external link. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note the 23:08 comment on the 5th regarding Reitwiesner's research. The comment was removed by the racist IP vandal and somehow got missed in the restoration process. It would still be considered trivia, so an external link would be inappropriate even if it was accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Without speaking to the reliability of the specific source, I would not object to a footnote to a genealogy. Probably next to the quote about "our family looks like the United Nations". The footnote could use a short clause introducing the link (in the note, not in the article body), and have a URL for the external genealogy (assuming the source met WP:RS of course). LotLE×talk 20:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That sounds perfectly fair, Lulu, but we await any details from Scjessey of why the source does not meet WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfotunately, I have tried clicking on the URL you give a number of times, spaced out over hours. I always get a time-out error on that page. Since I can't get to the page, I can't make any judgment about its reliability (but if it stays a broken link, we can't really use the source anyway). LotLE×talk 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. I guess sabottage though not impossible, is unlikely. I don't suppose anyone has actually asked Mr Reitwiesner if he wanted his research linking to this article, so it might be his idea. Googling "Reitwiesner Obama" still gives about 2,930 hits, so obviously some general interest has been created, not just in Anglesey. I must admit I could give no expert opinion on the material anyway, given that Genealogy is certainly not an exact science and having just assumed the author's integrity. Guess we'll just have to wait. At least ancestors can't ever disappear (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that you are suggesting that the Reitwiesner page should be regarded as a reliable source because the author is a scholar of some kind (it does not fall under any of the other WP:RS categories), I am bound to point out that (a) scholarly material must be vetted by peers (no indication is given that this one has been), and (b) this text is labeled by the author as only a "draft" document. Therefore, it cannot be considered a reliable source. In fact, this source would not be acceptable for a footnote for the same reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was suggesting that. Seems the link is working again. So (a) we'll just have to wait for some "vetting" by a "fellow genealogist". Not sure how a family tree is completey "vetted" other than by checking all the links again from scratch, assuming all the source info is in public domain. Not many peer-reviewed Geneaology journals out there, are there. But (b), it seems strange that you'd attach more weight if the author simply removed his own "first draft" description. Although once it's not draft, wouldn't be likely to become copyrighted? Do all the existing ancestry facts pass on these criteria? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that I can see the link again also, I'm inclined to think it doesn't meet WP:RS. The author states at the top: The following material on the immediate ancestry of Barack Obama should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft. Until or unless this is published somewhere more officially, I don't think we can use it. I'm happy to stipulate that Reitwiesner is a relevant expert, but he himself warns against putting too much weight on this particular informal publication. FWIW, the issue has nothing to do with copyright: under Berne, all works are copyrighted "at birth", so the material is already under copyright (but fair use and citation cannot be prohibited by copyright). LotLE×talk 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to interject something in there. While I think it is interesting that Obama has Welsh ancestry and is distantly related to Dick Cheney, I've got to ask is it really important to include in an article about Obama's Life? No. Is it even worth a mention in the article? No. I've got a variety of ancestors from around the world including French, Russian, German, Polish, English, Irish, Scottish, and even a small bit of Native American (I completely consider myself and American first and foremost with no ties to any other country then America!). Can I speak any of those languages other then English? No. Do I know any of my really distant relatives in any of those countries, no. Have anyone of them shaped my life, No. So would it be even worth making a comment about it or adding a category to an article about me, no. The same thing applies to Obama's page. He has made no mention of any Welsh descent, he has not mentioned that it has shaped his life, or even made mention that he even knew that he is distantly related to some Welsh person. I would like that there would be better more important things to discuss and add to the article then this. Brothejr (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wise words Brotherjr, with which I tend to agree. And thanks for the information. I suppose the real sugnificance of any `genetic contribution' is going to be controverial, although in general terms Obama himself seems to attach some importance to the variety of his own. Maybe those with more restricted ancestry attach more significance to unexpected discoveries. But I wholly agree that there should be more important issues to discuss. Before this toptic is concluded I'd still welcome assurance that the sources for the existing ancestral details pass the WP:RS criteria. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
But so glad we can all trust The Press as a WP:RS - look where "The Baltimore Sun" got its info (in the extisting footnote)...! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the existing footnote we have quite a mixed bag. The Chicago Sun-Times cites "... interviews with family members and genealogists, a study of archives and records, and Obama's book...", The Washington Post cites "... Stephen Neill, a local Anglican rector... " and The Baltimore Sun cites only "... Reitwiesner's Web site [which] carries a disclaimer that it is a "first draft... ". Who are the "scholarly peers" here? Could you explain the WP:RS logic? And what exactly are the criteria for the "notabality" of ancestors"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that WP:RS states:

  • "However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."

I had thought I was being more diligent by using the source "facts" but the concensus now seems to be that these facts are an unreliable and non-scholarly "first draft". But still reliable enough for The Washington Post? Could someone please explain? Perhaps one or more of the existing newspaper references should be removed (as "trivia"?) to save space in this article? But I fear I might get more threats of blocking if I did that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are still banging on about this. It has already been explained to you, several times, that Obama's "Welsh ancestry" is too insignificant a detail for a summary of his entire life. Not only is it insignificant, but its inclusion would also present problems because we would also have to document his ancestral ties to dozens of other countries for balance. Furthermore, it has already been argued that the source you wish to use does not pass WP:RS muster because it has not received any sort of scholarly review. Newspaper reporters are not scholars - "scholarly review" means a review by peers (other respectable genealogists and experts on ancestry). Any newspaper presenting "facts" based on a draft document that has not been either completed or verified is basically being extremely sloppy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC

Scjessey I am not "banging on", I am asking some serious questions - did you not read them? It was not I who entitled this section "Welsh ancestry". My questions are about that source in general. Why does the current article cite newspaper material which you describe as "extremely sloppy". But it's a relief that you won't be responding to me again, since the tone of your responses have been both offensive and patronising Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper, especially one of well-known repute, is generally a reliable source under WP's meaning of WP:RS (please read that guideline, since it already answers all your questions on this page). A personal publication that is explicitly described by the author as "not authoritative" just isn't WP:RS. The meaning of "reliable" for WP is not "true", which might be your confusion (again, read the guideline). If a respected source like Washington Post nonetheless does sloppy reporting, we might in our own minds have doubt about its truth, but that doesn't change the nature of the source for WP purposes (if other WP:RS's contradict the Post, then it becomes more complicated to weigh conflicting sources).
In terms of the narrow issue you ask about facts are not reliable or unreliable in the WP meaning (again, read WP:RS), sources are. If the Post reports that the moon is made of green cheese, and mentions a blog that makes the same claim we: (a) can cite the Post on WP, but not the blog; (b) do not make independent judgment or research about whether the moon really is made of green cheese; (c) assume that "behind the scene" the Post did fact checking beyond reading the blog mentioned. LotLE×talk 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Lulu, for a clear and polite explanation. Yes, I seem to have confused reliabilty of "facts" with "sources". Am still a little puzzled, though, on the relative notability of different ancestors. Is this a reliable newpaper source: Western Mail article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Western Mail look like it meets WP:RS perfectly well. The issue the Scjessey has is primarily of relevance. It's not worth the words in this article to discuss one particular great-great-... whatever. We don't do that in relation to any other of his 2^8 great-(x6)-grandparents. However, the Western Mail article itself describes this relative with the same sort of "maybe/possibly" that Reitwiesner does, so that isn't WP:RS either. Still, even if a source said "with 100% certainty, Obama has this great-great-... ancestor, it wouldn't be relevant without additional motivating context. The general "diversity" covers the point perfectly well. LotLE×talk 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree. Although fascinating to the individual, ANY ancestors that distant, unless famous, really are just names. But I'll keep an eye on Reitwiesner and maybe return when the new President eventually takes office, green or otherwise. (In retrospect, meats looks more appropriate). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Was Barack Obama a Muslim?, December 24th, 2007
  2. ^ President Apostate, New York Times May 12, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_26&oldid=1136296686"