Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Notes to admins

Note to admins who plan to speedy this article: with the Joe Biden dust-up yesterday, its pretty clear that the campaign have started; might as well report on it. — goethean ॐ 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This article sole purpose is to promote Obama's potential campaign. Now as goetheanpointed out the following....

"That's already covered on the barack obama page. if you'd like to move that section here, discuss it at talk:barack obama"...

So, you should be consistent and follow your own advice.

Thanks 75.44.39.2 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag

This article does not clearly fit speedy deletion criteria and so as an administrator I removed it. If there is still a dispute about this page please add it to articles for deletion in order to see if there is a community consensus to delete. Please do not place the tag back. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 21:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Campaign Staff

Here is a comprehensive list of Obama's campaign staff. I'm unsure on how to incorporate this into the article or even if it is necessary information. - PoliticalJunkie 22:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit and ref to this cite in. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Series

I've noticed in other Wikipedia articles that there are series/topical boxes in the upper right portion of some articles. Maybe one should be created to coordinate all articles connected with the 2008 presidential election? ~ Rollo44 05:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page, there's a template coordinating the main articles connected with the 2008 presidential election. - PoliticalJunkie 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. Thank you. I hadn't noticed that before. ~ Rollo44 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"...another 20,000 Australians"

"If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
Actually, based on the populations of Australia and the United States and Obama's estimates of troop numbers, Australia would need to send another 8156 troops to match the US's contribution per capita.
301,142,000 Americans divided by 140,000 troops = 1 soldier per 2151 Americans. 20,555,300 Australians divided by 1400 troops = 1 soldier per 14682 Australians. 20,555,300/9556 would match the American ratio.
For the record, I don't support Bush, Howard, or the war in Iraq. - Gobeirne 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i hear what ur saying. Aust is a major partner of the US in Iraq, and he's doesn't seem to know much. the number of troops is beyond aust capacity, and aust dont "call up" troops. i think obama's lack of partners knowledge should be reflected in the article Eevo 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a rhetorical point and I doubt very much that Obama was *seriously* asking Howard to send more troops (Obama opposes the surge, anyway). Obama's response is meant to demonstrate the absurdity of Howard's claims, not actually spur Australian action. Note the preface and post script on the Obama statement: "If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says . . ." and "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices." · j e r s y k o talk · 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

and Howard's statement is ment to show the lack of realism in Obama's statement regardinf Iraq. Eevo 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What? Obama's statement was after Howard's. It's perfectly clear what Howard was trying to say. Gobeirne is discussing Obama's response to Howard's attack, and that's what I'm discussing as well. My point is that statistical analyses like the one Gobeirne conducted are beside the point when Obama's response was meant to be rhetorical, not literal. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, Obama wasn't being literal. I was just pointing out the relative sizes of the contribution of each country - Gobeirne 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Howard

I find Howard's decision to involve himself bizzare but has no comentator pointed out that Bush similarly made a (less direct) inference during the last Australian general election? Nil Einne

Didn't you know? The United States is allowed to interfere with the political process of other countries. :P ~ Rollo44 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See Mark Latham, where it rates a mention. Slac speak up! 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

More to the point of editing the article for content, I lengthened the section header from "Howard incident" to "Incident with Australian Prime Minister John Howard" Howard is ambiguous and, for better or worse, the name John Howard probably doesn't ring many bells outside of Australia. I would actually think it was a basketball player for the Dallas Mavericks. Mykll42 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good move, it's true Howard is completely unknown in America let alone the world. This wierd attack on Obama and the involvement in Iraq is propably his biggest claim to fame outside of Australia. Ecostaz 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed header to "Comments by" - it wasn't really an incident. But are we sure these comments are really worthy of being in this article? Tvoz | talk 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should go. Mr. Howard will not even be voting in the election. Why should his opinions matter? They have probably been forgotten by now by 99% of American voters. If they heard of them in the first place. Steve Dufour 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll numbers

How about some polls that would show the placement of Obama for the nomination Ecostaz 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a section entitled "2006 Opinion Polling", although the poll numbers are about a month old. - PoliticalJunkie 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated the section with the latest Gallup poll (2/11/07): Clinton 40%, Obama 21%. - PoliticalJunkie 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt this new May poll info be updated on both this page and the intro of the Barak Obama page?:
In the latest Newsweek voter's Poll, Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat.
Marcus, Mabry The Elephant in the Room. Newsweek, May 5, 2007. [1] 75.57.105.133 20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, we only have Democratic nomination polling, although general election polling should probably be included. - PoliticalJunkie 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The anti-Hillary myspace ad.

I wonder about this section:

On March 5, 2007, a video mashup was posted on YouTube, mostly comprised of footage from Macintosh's famous 1984 commercial but with Hillary Clinton's face and words in place of Big Brother's. The clip received widespread coverage in the press and has been viewed over 1 million times as of March 21. Barack Obama's campaign has denied responsibility for the ad.

Does it need to be in the article? Also, the wording is POV. Stating that Obama's campaign "denied responsibity" is POV...there was never any evidence thery had anything to do with it. It became fodder for anti-Obama types to bash his clean image. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In Defence of Good ol' Johnny Howard...

Just so you know.. he doesn't hate Asians... as much. Just black people lol.

Campaign theme song?

Is it officially that Ben Harper song?—Wasabe3543 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. During his entrance for his announcement speech, U2's "City of Blinding Lights" was playing. - PoliticalJunkie 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

state-by-state polling data on candidate pages

The same set of charts providing state-by-state polling data has recently been added to the articles about several presidential campaigns (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008). I propose that the detailed state-by-state comparisons remain at the main article, Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. Please discuss this proposed change at this centralized discussion. -Fagles 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

my.barackobama.com history

Since the history for the my.barackobama.com section was not merged into this one, it can be found here. Created and amended largely by User:Italiavivi, with a couple of edits by others. Hopefully this suffices for GFDL requirements. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Campaign Advisors

I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkcuf (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many of the 2008 presidential campaign articles have specific sections on campaign advisors and policy teams, including now this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy??

Is it just me, or does there seem to be gaping hole in these presidential campaign articles on what the candidates' plans are for?

It's almost as if Wikipedia's like a second rate news-coverage, with opinion polls and campaign support - honestly though, although this is interesting, so what? To be an informed voter, surely people need to know the details of proposals. Otherwise elections turn into beauty contests.

What do people think? I'm inclined to say that the absence of policy shows reflects the fact that people in the US media are plain stupid or don't want to inform others. I wouldn't want to say the same for people on Wikipedia though!

Surely what's needed too, is some comparative page, where candidates positions can be measured against one another. Wikidea 11:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What you're missing is Political positions of Barack Obama; parallel articles exist for all of the major presidential candidates. A few months back someone tried to create a table-based comparison page that showed all the candidates' positions, but it suffered from being very oversimplistic and I think it got deleted. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed this! I keep hearing Hillary comment that Obama's health care plan leaves people uncovered, and then of course he says it doesn't, so it's probably true that it'd be hard to simplify things for a comparative graph. Makes it harder for voters though! Wikidea 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ex-gay minister controversy

I was trying to find out who the ex-gay minister was that Obama has campaigning for him. It's been met with much criticism from the LGBT community and I'm a bit surprised it's not even mentioned. Benjiboi 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Found it - Donnie McClurkin. Benjiboi 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections

File:Color.JPG

Editors of this article are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections.--STX 04:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mybarackobamaprofile.png

Image:Mybarackobamaprofile.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Article not up to date

This article looks like it was heavily worked on earlier this year, then editors lost interest. The Muslim rumor thing is the least of it. Just off the top of my head, the article is lacking coverage of:

• Obama falling way behind in the polls, then rebounding in the wake of Hillary's bad Philadelphia debate, to the point where he's now ahead in some Iowa polls
• Focused criticism on Hillary, now a daily back-and-forth
• His debate performances, and mixed reviews thereof
• Assessment of his rallies, enthusiasm of supporters, etc.
• The Oprah endorsement and campaigning for him
• Criticism re using the anti-gay southern preacher

And I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the "Muslim" rumor thing is now in, xferred from the article on it as a possible alternative to retention in the current AfD debate. Go ahead and fix the rest. ;-) Also the sentence saying opposition to him is mostly because he's a noob and suspected of being a Muslim needs work. Surely some people don't like his policies. And the table of endorsements should probably be positioned as an appendix. Andyvphil (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've hidden the list of endorsements as has been done on several of the other campaign article. Also, on the "Muslim" rumor thing, take a gander at whisper campaign. I think it covers the multitude of different rumors and what not quite well. A whisper campaign is by it's very nature, a series of rumors, innuendos, etc, etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't agree, on two grounds. (1) whisper campaign speaks of "...the source of the rumors...". Note the singular, "source". In this case there is no reason to believe there is a singular source. And, (2) it's not all whispering. Martin didn't whisper, Insight didn't whisper (though they allege the Clintonistas did), Couric didn't whisper, etc., etc. I kept "whispering campaignS" in the section head and wouldn't mind having it in the section, but that's not even most of what we're talking about here. On the other hand, what you did with the endorsements works better than my suggestion. Andyvphil (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time that there is a lot that needs updating and expanding in this article, but having a full-page section on "Opposition" that talks mainly about the Muslim rumor is giving undue weight to the rumor and is basically creating a troll-magnet "criticisms" section. The Muslim rumor is more of a media phenomenon than a "campaign development", and certainly isn't as important as "Fundraising" or "post-announcement development", with which it now has equivalent weighting. johnpseudo 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Every story in the media the last few days: Obama's joint appearances with Oprah before large audiences, Obama's resurgent campaign. Every edit to this article the last few days: rumor, whisper, rumor, whisper. You folks are really and truly missing the boat. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What part of "go ahead and fix the rest" didn't you understand? Andyvphil (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The "I'm already heavily involved with the Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, and Gravel articles and was hoping to not further extend myself" part ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're seeing is blowback from a POV-pushing AfD that was, as usual, a waste of time better spent on improving articles. But the way the media is handling the Muslim business is actually more interesting than Oprah or the horserace, IMHO. Andyvphil (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, from various peoples' edits and from copying/adapting material from other articles, most of the above is now covered. More could definitely be done, but at least most of the gaping holes are gone. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Muslim rumor section

From AndyvPhil edit summary re-adding the opposition section Got a dozen editors who disagree with you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama_Muslim_rumor. Go there and speak up.

I think it's pretty nonsensical to think that either side of the AfD discussion would see fit to include a massive section on the Muslim rumor on the Obama campaign main article. We should either relegate the rumor to its own article so as to have enough space to include all relevant content or simply content ourselves with the small, properly-weighted section in the campaign article. Putting a half-page section on the rumor on the campaign's main page, with the same weight as the entire "fundraising" section or "post-announcement campaign developments" section, is entirely inappropriate. Are you suggesting that this rumor on its own is as important/notable as the entire issue of Obama presidential fundraising? johnpseudo 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no opinion on that, but I reject any option that involves excluding relevant content about a notable subject on the grounds that there's no room on Wikipedia for it. And you are mistaken about at least part of the "deletion" side of the "Rumor" AfD. There are, as I said, multiple contributors to the AfD debate who have argued precisely for merging the material here. My response was that were that done the editors here would object to including that much content. Nonetheless, when one of the merge-here proponents (SouthernTexas) took up my challenge to show what such a merger would look like I found I did not disagree with his conclusion that it "fit well". (If the fundraising is more important some editor who is convinced of that can expand the treatment of that subject. That no editor has done that is a poor argument for artificially reducing the "rumors" material.) Therefor, and partly to demonstrate good faith, I worked a fair amount on the "rumors" material transcluded here by SouthernTexas. And I will certainly restore it in full measure if Barack Obama Muslim rumor is deleted. Andyvphil (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay- let's just hope that doesn't happen. johnpseudo 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we reduce the size of this section, now? johnpseudo 03:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, there were quite a few editors who wanted the material here, and I'd particularly prefer to have input from SouthernTexas, so I'd suggest not acting immediately on my say-so. But if they're not watching this page and don't weigh in... Sure, wait just a bit, then chop away. Despite its idiotic new title the material still exists (and is being developed further) and there's no need for a content fork. Andyvphil (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Uh, no. Read WP:POVFORK. You need a summary, not a tidbit". I'll concede that what I re-added might not have been a very good summary, but WP:POVFORK advises against duplicating content- something that we are doing a lot of right now. I've been working on a better summary - something I think should take only 1 paragraph instead of an entire page. johnpseudo 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Section structure

I've taken a stab at revising the section structure, to make it more flexible for additional material and more similar to that of the other 2008 presidential campaign articles. Alas, all the articles are somewhat different from each other, so there's no exact structure to match, but this is closer than what was there before. If people hate it, it can certainly be revised or backed out. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Info Box

Currently Candidate Photographs are being used in each candidates Info Box. There is a discussion on this topic at [[2]] if you have an input please discuss it there and refrain from changing the info box photo until that discussion reaches some type of consensus. This is nothing special to Barack Obama, it is applied to every 2008 presidential campaign page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtr10 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - see the discussion at the project page. Tvoz |talk 06:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First black president

I took this sentence out of the intro:

If elected, Obama would become the first black U.S. president.

I think that there are several problems with it. For one thing WP is not a crystal ball. This alone prevents us from making statements about what might happen in the future, if I understand the policy correctly. Secondly, although in the USA most people would consider Senator Obama "black", some people would not and in Africa and other parts of the world he would not be considered "black." In the third place, let me get back to you in a minute after more research. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The third reason is that probably some of the other presidents probably had black ancestors too, so they might be called "black" under the One drop rule. I have heard this said about President Buchanan, but couldn't find an online reference that said so. I think I read it in the book Before the Mayflower. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SENSE applies here. I could find 1,000 citations that would discuss him as the first African-American president if he gets elected. If you want to be pedantic and change that to "first person of noticeable color" instead, go ahead, but you'll just make the article look silly. If you want to say that his candidacy has no racial significance altogether, go ahead, but you'll just make the article look stupid. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% that this is one of the greatest importances of Obama's campaign. I just think that we can not say so according to WP policy. After he is elected and people make note of this then we can. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding WP:CRYSTAL. It prohibits us saying "Barack Obama will become the first African-American president." It does not prohibit us from saying, "If he wins the 2008 election, Barack Obama will become the first African-American president." That's true statement, not a prediction, unless the extremely unlikely takes place and four people die or become incapacitated within the next year and Condi becomes president. Again, WP:SENSE applies here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To me this is exactly the type of statement that does not belong here by WP:CRYSTAL. Besides my other objections, people who check out this article are aware of this point already and are looking for details of the campaign -- not a general statement about its importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. The main article says, "If elected, Obama would become the first black U.S. president.[105]" No problem. This article says anything at all, bad. I'm beyond caring. Maybe nasty aliens will land and conquer us weak earthlings and all these articles will go away. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillary's campaign article says: "No woman has ever been nominated by a major party to run for President in the history of U.S. presidential elections." I will try something like this as a compromise. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I completely disagree with your edit here and at Obama's main page. This has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL - nothing. Wasted has it right. We don't need a compromise because there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that if elected he would become xyz - and it would be fine for Hillary as well. And as for your argument that some people don't consider him to be black, well, that's just ridiculous, and I see no reason why we have to bend over backwards for that kind of POV. I'm reinstating the article the way it was - we don't need a compromise on this, we need common sense. Tvoz |talk 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I left my comments on the main Obama talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

tweaked to "first African American U.S. president" per main article although I don't think it's a particularly necessary chan ge. Tvoz |talk 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A fictional endorsement?

I've been reading Doonesbury lately with one of the characters, Alex Doonesbury, leanings towards Barack Obama and detesting the whole Muslim controversy as seen here: [3]. She used to have a Facebook account joining a One Million Strong Obama group before it was deactivated as the Facebook discussion ran its course for the strip. Should we count her as endorsement for Obama? Spongefan (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this could be worked into the article somehow. It would be an influencial endorsement, even if fictional. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements

Should the endorsement's of newspaper be added in the endorsement section. I don't mean every newspaper, but only the big ones. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Newspaper endorsements are often mentioned as being important. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Governors? They also vote as superdelegates. --Aranae (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I ran across a merge tag on Barack Obama drug controversy suggesting the content be brought into this article. It looks like the request wasn't fully formed as there was no discussion area setup. Trying to get it started here. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Not enough content to justify a separate article for what amounted to a two day flash in the news. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Merge. It seems to exist merely as a POV fork. Issue is barely noteworthy enough for inclusion in the campaign article, much less an article on its own. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I originally cleaned that page up (major cleanup), but nothing ever happened with the request for merge. Paisan30 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Headline?

Is there a reason that the title is so unwieldy? Could this article be moved to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, or something similar, or is this a WP convention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.14.55 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a convention, there are many articles titled in this way, see Category:United States presidential election, 2008 for some examples. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First Black President?

Shouldn't the beginning of the article be changed to say that he would be the first person of "two or more races" elected as president since he is white too?71.174.200.210 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• What's your angle here? He's identified as "black" or "African-American" in reliable sources, not as "two or more races." All that matters is what is verifiable. Bellwether ^B_C 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're denying that he's half White? I'm pretty sure the fact that his Mom was white would be pretty easy to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocratNanny (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice strawman argument. Anyway, this has been discussed to death. See the talk archives. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Coalition of Change

During the debate Obama made an interesting statement about a "coalition of change" which would involve Democrats, Independents and Republicans. I feel that in as few words as possible this summarizes his campaign much as the phrase "Ron Paul Revolution" recaps that campaign. I'd like to see a section with this title and have it be given a prominent role as "Ron Paul Revolution" is given in Ron Paul's article.--STX 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Googling the phrase "Ron Paul Revolution" returns 544,000 hits, while Obama and "coalition of change" returns just one relevant link, a blog post. I think we would have to wait until the phrase actually caught on before featuring it so prominently. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually misquoted it. It's Coalition for Change.--STX 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

False "Allegations" of being a muslim

I may be overreacting, but doesn't Allegations sound quite a bit like Accusations? To me that implies being a muslim is somethink bad. Just read the sentence "John was accused of being a christian." sounds a bit wrong, doesn't it? A bit like "John was accused of being a criminal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.63.44 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference to false "allegations" of being a Muslim have been removed. Wrote in a bias/unfair way. As stated above it is wrote in a accusation manner rather then in a neutral fair way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.24.139 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not overreacting – and the language throughout is inappropriate (and 'allegations' is still in twice, and 'accusatatory', 'rumours','claims' - they all add up). Why use language like 'debunk'? It makes me wonder what people are really thinking. Gentle, formal language is appropriate here - seeing as Islam is merely a religion to a billion people, and NO kind of slur in itself (various intentions withstanding). Religions are benign entities, the language should suit - if we want it to that is. I'll have a go at softening, though I'd be amazed if it sticks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just about to make an edit - it's quite a change in tone. Please all take it seriously and amend and improve it where it may need it. A straight revert wouldn't be helpful here I feel. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for edit mess up! I've inserted the change. Is there a better place for this than under 'Effect of the Internet'? --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was with you with the "these claims of him being muslim aren't slurs" idea, but you seem to have gone in a completely different direction with your edit. You've simply changed the section to be more ambiguous about Obama's faith and the false nature of the claims that were made. johnpseudo 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnpseudo. Those edits made the issue far less clear, not more clear (and in some cases actually create a false impression). For instance, saying that he was "accused of covering up his time in a madrassa" implies that he actually did spend time in a madrassa, and that the controversy is not that he was falsely accused of such whether he "covered it up." This is a variation of "when did you stop beating your wife." --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was going to have flaws, but I just don't get the revert. The section as it stands is gross - can't you improve what I had written? Most of it was surely better than what stood. We need to move forwards, or these things just get stuck for ages. I'll go for the last parag again and see if that sticks. Any ambiguity seems to have been at the start - there were lots of changes involved. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)#

What is weird about the first line is that it seems to be an excuse for where it's been placed - in a section on the internet. The article starts with this flaw - which ties it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How about moving it up to the bottom of Media coverage? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to post this once already, but oh well- the user making edits is in my opinion deleting with out adding in, and only deleting certain subject (but not much softening of language lol) so be ever vigilant folks. I will try to soften up the language a bit but I don't think large edits are helping the flow, info level, or pov. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're acting too quick - just relax and read what I've written. People round here revert like cowboys shooting cans. You people can change the odd line instead you know!!!! How else do we move forward? I'm softening it from the Muslims point of view, by the way. What do you mean by 'be vigilant' - that's twice you've had a go at me. I don't get it. Do you think I'm someone else?--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get "The idea of Obama being a Muslim developed a more astringent anti-Islamic tone when appearing..."? Source it, please. Secondly, the grammar is atrocious. Is it an "idea" developing a different tone, or is it the people spreading the rumor? johnpseudo 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just improve that line? It wasn't that hard to understand - the emails and flyers took it to a new level. Astringent wasn't best word - but you can change the odd line, you know. My principle idea of removing the negative 'gutter press' tone I will pursue - as I find it gross to read. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the first line's 'emails and the internet' wasn't covered in the citation 'from 2004' (it mentions them from a later date), so I re-wrote the line. I also rewrote the other line that was 'picked out' of my previous attempt - hopefully it's better. I've tried putting it in Media - it makes more sense in light of the email evidence being later on. Any good? It's mainly just the last 2 sentences that particularly offend me, but I've honestly think I've improved the rest too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the sentence "Smears connecting Obama to Islamic extremism" is as clear is it could be? As I understand it - and the sources cited in connection with this sentence seem to confirm this - the claims made about Obama are that he had attended an Islamic school at a young age, and possibly (by implication) is, or had been in the past, a Muslim. This is not the same as linking him to *extremism*, simply to Islam. The intention behind these rumours may perhaps have been to imply that he could be an extremist, but that's conjecture. Has there actually been any suggestion in anything that might vaguely be described as mainstream media that he could, even potentially, have any links to extremism? (Ie not just on white nationalist sites, where I am sure there's all sorts of awful stuff). My concern is that the article may currently be based on an assumption that attending an Islamic school is inherently extremist, which it is not. However there may just be something I have missed. To make it clear, this is not an attempt to challenge the claim that the suggestions he was a Muslim are false (although I think "False claims connecting Obama . . ." might be better than "Smears").Hobson (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I appreciate there have been reports of e-mails which *do* accuse him of extremism, but this is a very different claim to the claim, or suggestions, which surfaced in mainstream media.Hobson (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The line is covered in the citation at the end of the line - it's partly about someone called Andy Martin. It quotes; Martin raised all kinds of strange allegations about Obama but focused on him attempting to hide his Muslim past. "It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel," read Martin's statement. "His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles where Obama now enjoys support."

You certainly have to know what 'smear' means - and it's not yet Wiki-linked, thinking about it. It's always been hard to find the right wording with this, but all I can say is that this subject had an article all to itself for 3 months before it finally got deleted! At the root of it all are smears (with Insight smearing Clinton for allegedly planning to smear Obama etc). The madrassa part is a non-issue anyway (as CNN and Obama himself made clear) - but the Arabic name sounds loaded, and its unsurprisingly been used stir up conjecture, even on WP. It's all mud based on conjecture and inference, but it does need a short parag or two in the relevant articles (and no more IMO). This one covers the most, as it's about how it effected Obama specifically, and it needs to include those emails too (right-wing nutjobs aside, would those particular emails have occured on their own?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Running the numbers

I changed the percentages in Iowa and NH to the exact percentages quoted in the New York Times and used it as a source for both states - if 29.5% = 29 for Clinton in Iowa then we can't have 36.5 equalling 37 in NH for Obama. Tvoz |talk 01:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I favor including the decimal rather than rounding. It's more encyclopedic that way. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan Controversy

Does anyone have any information on the ongoing Reagan controversy they can add to the article? [14:18, 18 January 2008 24.3.20.5]

Meaningless to-and-fro campaign blather, happens all the time, media outlets play it up to fill the news cycle. Unless you think that Nancy Reagan's astrological connections have somehow gotten a projection channeling of The Gipper into Obama's head. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also too recent to truly understand if it will have an impact on his campaign and, if it has an impact, what kind of impact it will have. Obama is an appealing alternative to independents and Republicans and he was mostly throwing a bone to them while dissing Bill Clinton at the same time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead makes a good point; wait a while on adding campaign developments to make sure they have some significance. Of course that goes against the WP ethos of instant updating ... Wasted Time R (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CSM article

I just came accross this article: [4]. It seems to me that it might be worth adding some of its info to the article. I also started a new section for 2008 developments. I hope that is okay. Redddogg (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of that article's material is already covered in the South Carolina section, but you can see there's more that should go in. I clarified the sectioning; "Campaign developments" is just for 2007, while "Caucuses and primaries" covers all 2008 developments, interwoven with the primary and caucuses themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I missed that. Redddogg (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement

Can somebody please add that Obama has also been endorsed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch? I would but I don't know how to use all the fancy coding and everything.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/121FA9A750C5E018862573DC0003A07F?OpenDocument —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.192.226 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy

Just to note, I added Ted Kennedy to the text under endorsements (rather than just the list) considering that he is the most prominent Democrat to endorse besides Bill Clinton. It also seems to makes sense to have the Caroline Kennedy NYT piece in the same sentence, unless anyone disagrees. Joshdboz (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Really major endorsements, which Ted Kennedy's certainly is, deserve to go into the mainline narrative, which I've now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm new to this article. Joshdboz (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama is leading... (excluding superdelegates)

Is there some reason why we are excluding superdelegates in the lede? It makes more sense to me to give the overall state of the delegate race. I made this change, but it was deleted. johnpseudo 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A simple solution is to give both ... estimated delegates from the primaries and caucuses so far, and estimated delegates overall including estimated superdelegates. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem with that solution is that the breakdown is already given below in the table. We don't need to provide all of the information in the lede, we just need to give the most important top-level information, which (in my opinion) is the total delegate count. johnpseudo 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with listing superdelegates is that the vast majority of them are uncommitted or undecided and even amongst those that have voiced support for one candidate, many of them can end up supporting another candidate, depending on events. Right now it's just an opinion poll, not actual primary results. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What you say is also true of delegates from caucus states — where state conventions have yet to happen — and even delegates from some primary states. It's a deliberately imprecise business, but one that if you're trying to measure progress towards the nomination, you have to engage in. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever figure we choose to give, we need to clarify if the figure includes or excludes pledged superdelegates. --Ezeu (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if I can reason why we have to use the word Muslim

ok, so I changed every thing from Muslim to Islamic. fine to revert but please say why. And about me adding the bit about indonesia- its the truth and and I think the truth behind the rumor is important, and proves the inaccuracy of the main allegations in a new way. anyways if this person was reading the talk page they would realize I am just trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.110.83 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced information by User:Johnpseudo

Johnpseudo deleted information relating to Obama's Pakistan comments here claiming this event is not relevent to this article describing Obama's presidential campaign. There are references describing how it is notable and how it was commentated on by rivals and major news carriers. There is no doubt that such a major policy shift from the current administration is noteworthy. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your text overstated the case when it said "After weeks of discourse surrounding the policy ..." In fact your two cites are only six days apart (Aug 1 to Aug 7). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume you read the references, in particular this one, which states in its lead paragraph; "Comments he made regarding sending U.S. troops into Pakistan stayed with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for a second week.". Even if you disagree that that the two weeks mentioned can be classified as "weeks" does this disqualify the entire section? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, his Pakistan statements are already addressed in the Political positions article, as one of the other editors' edit summary pointed out. This kind of back-and-forth on policy questions goes on all the time during campaigns; only the most critical ones that really affect the shape and course of the campaign need to be described in this article, and I don't think the Pakistan question meets that bar. For example, this article doesn't even discuss the debate over whether Obama's health care plan offers universal coverage, which has attracted far more attention during the campaign and the Democratic debates than his Pakistan comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this reasoning based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Just because something you believe is important is not in the article means this should not be in the article? I don't think wikipedia qualifies that as a valid argument. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As you yourself said- this story is a "policy shift". There has been a LOT of policy shifting on the part of all the campaigns, and those policies belong on the "Political positions" page. johnpseudo 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So even though this article is Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 we are not to include the policies and discussion he creates during the campaign? Is this article resigned to only contain inane cruft like this;

In March 2007, Obama posted a question on Yahoo! Answers, entitled: "How can we engage more people in the democratic process?" which ultimately drew in over 17,000 responses. On 12 April 2007, Bo Dietl, a regular guest on Imus in the Morning, repeatedly called attention to Obama's middle name (Hussein, as in Saddam Hussein) during an interview with Rebecca Gomez, and Imus in the Morning producer Bernard McGuirk was quoted as saying Obama had a "Jew-hating name." This is possible retaliation for Obama's call for the shows host, Don Imus to be fired after the Rutgers basketball incident.

Are really going to present an article this inane? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

After reworking the Pakistan passage to suit previous User:Johnpseudo requirements referenced relevant information has again been deleted again here. This time using the edit summary reasoning of "This wasn't a "campaign development". Here is copy of the text deleted for disscussion;

On August 1 when making his foreign policy speech Obama created controversy by declaring that the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, with or without the consent of the Pakistani government. He stated that if elected, "If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will".Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama ABC News described the policy speech as "counterintuitive", and commented on how "one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush"[5] After weeks of discourse surrounding the policy, Obama said there was "misreporting" of his comments, claiming that, "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." He clarified that rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a "diplomatic surge" and that if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.[6]

Was this really not a campain development? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree a weakness of our campaign articles is a focus on horserace material rather than policy material. In part, that's because the policy material tends to accumulate in the Political positions articles rather than here, in part it's because the press covers horserace more too. However, my argument about including Pakistan and not bangings over health care coverage and other top issues isn't "other stuff exists", it's WP:Undue weight. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Delegate Count

In the last updated delegate count in the lede[7], Obama's total went from 182 down to 158 and Clinton's lead went from 78 down to 74. I am just wondering how in 4 days he could have lost delagates and gained on Clinton. Jons63 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody had the first number wrong. johnpseudo 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jons63 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More referenced information deleted by User:Johnpseudo

User:Johnpseudo has again deleted referenced information here, this time regarding comments made by the top three leading candidates on Ronald Reagan. His edit summary was "Deleting Reagan comments again. This is a very minor occurence, he wasn't praising Reagan (find a source), and it wasn't a controversy (find a source))". Here is the text deleted complete with the references from MSNBC and the New York Times;

In mid January 2008 comments made by Obama that appeared to praise the legacy of former Republican president Ronald Reagan attracted rebuke from rivals and dissection from all sections of the media. Obama had stated in an interview that; "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."[8] Hillary Clinton ridiculed the idea that the Republicans were the party of ideas, suggesting Mr. Obama had said that the Republicans had “better” ideas, which he did not. [9] The New York Times January 21 2008 Senator John Edwards criticized Obama specifically for referring to Ronald Reagan as an agent of change stating in a newspaper interview that; “I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change,”[10]

Here the paragraph includes comments from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in the NewYork Times, and MSBC, both of which go on to describe the controversy it created. Is it disingenuous to say these sources do not meet WP:RS? Is there another word other than "praise" that could be used to describe Obama's comments? Does the fact that, in the opinion of User:Johnpseudo he was not "praising Reagan" justify removal of the entire section? Has this been deleted under a policy as flimsy as WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would include the Reagan/Republican-ideas material. It falls under the category of, "Candidate A makes the mistake of saying something thoughtful and arguably true that doesn't conform to party orthodoxy, candidate B jumps all over candidate A with feigned outrage." This stuff goes on all the time during campaigns, usually over minor junk that isn't worth remembering but sometimes over matters more substantial, which I think this is. A somewhat similar example in the other direction was Hillary's comment about MLK and LBJ, for which she also got jumped on. The Reagan/Repub bit is an example of how Obama view things and an example of the kind of discourse level the primary battle took place at. But if you do include it, you should put in Obama's full quote with all necessary context, as we've done for the Hillary MLK-LBJ quote. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The original version of this section contained the full quote yet was deleted by User:Johnpseudo here using the edit summary "This is not a notable development, the quote is mischaracterized, and it's far too long of a quotation", I trimmed down the quote and he deleted it again using dubious rational that ran counterintuitive to the sources (see my comments above). Given that this section has been restored by another editor User:Allstarecho here, and copyedited by yet another editor User:Isfisk here it seems like there is a consensus to keep this information in. It is only User:Johnpseudo who is removing it. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit- I was out-of-line deleting the Pakistan section, and I should have been better at assuming good faith. The Pakistan comment he made really did generate enough stir to be considered a "development". The Reagan comment I still disagree with how much weight it was given and how it was phrased. The Australian citation I think it out of the mainstream in claiming that Obama was praising Reagan. That mis-characterizes his comments just as Hillary did, and I think a lot of sources out there acknowledge that distortion of his words from his opponents. johnpseudo 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the Reagan comments are notable, having been commented on by all and sundry. There is no doubt that you yourself Johnpseudo, have the ability to help rework the paragraph into something that reflects the positions of all parties involved, including sections on misrepresentations. I implore you to help "build" the section rather than outright delete. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we supposed to include everything that the news media and/or candidates comment on? Weren't you just arguing that the article should be less trivial? You may be believe that there is no doubt the Reagan comments are notable, but I think that wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should be a step up from the echo chamber of mainstream media. I agree with Wasted Time above- Clinton picks a brief snippet of an Obama speech, takes it out of context and criticizes it (or was it Bill?), this gets repeated by the news and Edwards, and it finally dies down when people realize it wasn't praise at all. In the end- there wasn't actually a story, or if there was a story, it was that Clinton mis-characterized Obama's comments. johnpseudo 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't make this just about me. It is shown above with diffs above how this section has been restored by multiple editors after you outright deleted it and how it has been copyedited by different editors before you again unilaterally deleted it. There are multiple editors trying to bulid an encyclopedia and there is a single solitary editor deleting User:Johnpseudo. Given that Obamas comments were made in an interview and not a speech as you claim makes me wonder if you know anything about this incident at all? Couple this with the fact you don't know if it was Bill or Hillary which takes it out of context. Have you read the references in this section we are talking about? Have you read anything at all about the incident in question or is it just as you say "echo chamber"? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So there were a couple people who corrected misspellings and another person who restored your content. What's your point? johnpseudo 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is there is only one single solitary editor who unilaterally deletes this section. i.e. You. Everyone else seems to agree with its inclusion and is willing to help copyedit the section to wiki standard. I am going to restore the section per WP:CONSENSUS, while accommodating your stated concerns by removing prose describing Obamas comments as "praise" Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton ridiculed the idea that the Republicans were the party of ideas, suggesting Mr. Obama had said that the Republicans had “better” ideas, which he did not.". Does this mean Obama did not say it or that Reagan did not have better ideas? If the latter, "he" should read "they", as it is referring to the Republicans.Hobson (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can reply to this? Note that I am not making any comment about whether this section should be in the article or what the article should say. I am simply trying to work out what the sentence currently in the article means. I don't believe the meaning is clear, as it is not clear who or what "he" refers to at the end of the sentence.Hobson (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The "he" is in reference to Obama, not Reagan or the Republican Party. Basically a poorly constructed sentence. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the quote in full;

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 1960s and '70s and, you know, government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think ... he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Johnpseudo originally deleted the whole passage under the rational that the quote was too long. It is currently in the article with only the first sentence, which I tend to believe is acceptable, however Wasted Time R has indicated above he would like to see the entire quote. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Half 2007

There is a description in the first paragraph of section Second Half 2007 of abc declaring Obama's foreign policy on pakistan as more aggressive than George Bush. Now, if this opinion was stated and has thus been cited properly I can understand the relevance it holds as to how the media is viewing Obama; however, for the purposes of a npov it might be proper either to delete the line completely or add in easily citable information, Guardian WSJ NYtimes Washingtonpost, that on two instances now the military or CIA has used predator drones to try to take out targets - which, if I am not mistaken would contradict the statement highlighting an ABC point of view. Just a thought, I will let the usual editors of this article decide. (PhilipDSullivan (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

MoveOn endorsement

MoveOn has endorsed Obama - I place it here for consideration for inclusion (or not). [11] KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs and External Links

Where'd they go? They seem to be missing now. HoosierState^Talk 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They are hidden in Unions and political groups endorsing Barack Obama, not sure how fix that though. Jons63 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The MoveOn endorsement's "ref name" didn't have quotes around it, nor a '/' before the closing '>'. Abscr (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

List of endorsements

What is everyone's thoughts on just shunting the list of people/organizations that are endorsing Obama for the primary to a List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, or some other article title that is similar, and just leave a very short list of the "heavy hitting" endorsements. There are 260+ references in that section alone and if we add much more it's bound to start messing with the templates in the rest of the article. The full list of endorsements is already unimportant enough that they are hidden from the main article, doesn't seem like that big of a leap to move them off to their own article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You have my 100% support for that. I just contributed to the problem by adding one. :-) Redddogg (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally enough, I was just typing out the announcement that I had moved the endorsement list to List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements. I've split the list into endorsements for the primary and if/when Obama wins the Dem's primary, a new section can be created for the general election. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

4Q 2007 Fundraising Is On FEC website

It appears that the fourth quarter fundraising data for presidential and house and senate campaigns are up on the FEC website. Anyone can add the new info to all of the campaign pages, but I'm too lazy/sleepy right now...Collegebookworm (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

False claims etc

Isn't it erring towards POV to have a section with this title? Why not just "Claims concerning Obama's religious background"? And then just state the evidence. Wikipedia in general should just state the evidence and not actually decide things categorically. Evercat (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE

Whatever the title is - if someone makes a change, they ought to make it too in the articles that anchor-link to it.

This title has always been difficult (on each of the pages surrounding it) but at least it settled here for a bit. I'm happy with or without the 'false' tag - as long as the words underneath are right. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bah. I've never liked anchor-linking, for this very reason. Evercat (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The template {{anchor}} is available to help resolve such problems. -- Visviva (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Complete absence of Criticism section?

After reviewing the Clinton campaign Wikipedia page and this one, it is more than apparent to me that the complete absence of any Criticism on Obama's campaign page is unjustified. I also feel that much of this page reads to me as being NPOV and that there is much fanboyism going on here. I among others who I've been corresponding with on Wiki will be proposing and adding a criticism section in the upcoming week. I believe that this should be a balanced article, and to have a large criticism section under Clinton while there is none here, suggests that Wiki editing always reflects the interests and biases of those who edit. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine

Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 does not have a "large criticism section". It has a fairly small section called "Opposition", which details some of the 2007 objections to her candidacy from assorted people. It's kind of a mishmash, and not something I'd especially recommend emulating. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't an opposition section pretty much a criticism/controversy section under a different name? Hillary's section seems to have attracted a lot of crap. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you should be proposing is dismantling the criticism section on the Clinton page, not degrading other articles by adding one for "balance." Criticism sections are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia for multiple reasons. They are unencyclopedic and read poorly, and in practice they tend to just turn into coatracks for any POV comment or attack that can be "sourced" by finding an editorial or blog written by opponents of the subject. Wikipedia style guides point out that it is far better (albeit harder) to weave the criticism into relevant sections throughout the article. If you were to propose dismantling the criticism section of Clinton's article, I for one would strongly support it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the 2008 prez campaign articles have 'Opposition' sections, not just Hillary. I think the idea originally was to describe why people who you might normally would support the candidate, don't. Not sure how successful it's been. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a terrible idea for reasons already stated. In the Clinton article specifically, it's just a collection of POV quotes and links that have little or anything to do with her campaign (which is ostensibly the subject of the article). Is there really anyone out there that feels it's encyclopedic to mention that there is a "stop hillary" group on Facebook? Reading through that section makes it very clear that we should not repeat the same mistake here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the HRC campaign 'Oppositions' section has been dismantled. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a history article or a news site?

I find this edit made today troubling. Is the lead section of this article supposed to give a summary of the history of the campaign, or an up-to-the-minute status on the campaign? The edit is doing the latter, while I view the purpose of the article as the former. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found my edit troubling. I agree with you that this article should detail the history of the campaign, but the lead shouldn't become a running list of updates to the status of the Obama vs. Hillary delegate race. At one point it made sense to list the balance of wins and losses in each individual contest, but now I think that there have been too many contests for it to be practical. The reason I have the "After the contests of February 9th and 10th" preface is just to include some hint of how recent the article has been updated. johnpseudo 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking out the running delegates count is one thing. You also took out the description of who won the first four caucuses/primaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel there is room for a couple more phrases or sentences to give the intro a more historical tone. I am glad we are using both styles of delegate count as it takes up almost no extra space, and you know what a stickler for accuracy I yam lol 208.100.144.69 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been ~31 primary contests at this point. Should we list the results of each one in the lead? What makes the first four more important than the rest? The play-by-play of the momentum swings for the primaries should go in the details below, not in the lead. johnpseudo 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews

Could the monkey who keeps removing the link to the wikinews article settle down? I don't think he knows what he is doing and I suggest he looks over an addition before mindlessly reverting it. I don't want any trouble so I ask for the monkey to please revert his revision.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from namecalling (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but its his name, LooneyMonkey ... I think. No apologies needed. I'd like for the monkey to reply. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates endorsing

Could we add a section on superdelegates endorsing Obama. I don't know if there is verifiable information about the superdelegates that have endorsed him,but I think it would be useful to add. Remember (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"The subject of Obama's connections to Islam"

Let me just make clear what my gripes are with this sentence before I make another attempt to change it and get reverted: When you begin the sentence by referring to "Obama's connections to Islam" it implies that Obama has notable connections to Islam and leaves the reader asking what those connections are. We need to make clear that the statements made by Kouric, Savage, and Kerrey were all related (or interpreted to be related in the case of Kerrey) to false rumors. johnpseudo 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You might consider taking the whole sentence out, since the section it's in is about "false allegations". Redddogg (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. The topic being discussed was false rumors being spread against Obama, not every instance of when someone said something (true or false) about his connections to Islam during his childhood. Redddogg (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And 72.0.187.153 reverted you, then proceeded to insert another version that doesn't clarify the facts of the case, so I reverted him back to the version that doesn't go into detail but at least doesn't misstate facts.

Redd, you are quite right that the true things said in the media about Obama's religion don't belong in a section entitled "Fabrications concerning Obama's religious background", but that's not a reason to delete mention of media coverage of his religious background -- its a reason to put the relevant cited material under a different subheader of "Media coverage" or to change the existing subheader to match the material it heads. The latter is simpler, so I've done it: "Media coverage of Obama's religious background".

Johnp: Yes, Obama does have notable connections to Islam. WP:NOTABLE connections in fact -- addressed in a multiplicity of RS. Name, paternal grandparents, stepfather, enrollment as a Muslim in elementary schools as a Muslim resulting in training in the religion, almost certain participation in Muslim prayer and ritual in school and mosque (albeit probably as a sceptic), living in a Muslim-majority country, and a brother who has adopted the religion. Maybe more I forgot to mention. And you are right that mentioning it "leaves the reader asking what those connections are". But the spinout article Redd created to answer those questions was deleted as a POVFORK (which it wasn't) so I guess the official consensus of the Wikipedian community is that such curiosity will have to go unsatisfied.

Further, I don't have any objection to clarifying how the Couric and Kerry (and other) events related to the false statements about Obama... but I insist on some clarity in the clarification. "False rumors attempting to connect Obama to radical Islam have appeared on the CBS Evening News..." is purely misleading. They "appeared" only in the sense that Couric decried them. Her handlers then supplied some falsehoods of their own when they took down the video and "corrected" the transcript, but those weren't directed at Obama... Andyvphil (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes. To me the rumors themselves are the main topic. For one thing they are still flying around and people will be coming to WP to find out the true facts. Redddogg (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

so now that we're making progress on this section I want to note a couple things. I think it might be a good idea to try to do a better job distinguishing between essentially factually-oriented stuff about his childhood and the more hyperbolic "extremism" claims. the terms get mixed up a bit and I think in this world we all live in, unnecessary use of terms like radical islam etc is a bad bad idea. they are basically weasel words in the past decade, and even reading those types of words gets a strong emotional reaction in many people. We obviously need to use them sometimes, but only in the most sanitary academic sense please. I think some editors of this section want it all "off-limits" and considered false, where others want every rumor to seem an "open-question". So I am going to try and seperate out the two- but I think for too long this section of the article has been home to bits and pieces of POV agenda because terms are getting conflated and references are getting crossed. anyways I will try hard but I hope you guys do too. Secondly- I am going to mention the fact that indonesia has a majority islamic population. you are right when you say "people will hear rumors and come here to get the truth" and I think one of the kernels of truth behind this whole thing is that fact. In a certain sense, therefore, saying public school in indonesia IS analogous to saying islamic school, due to the larger cultural context of the school and the nation. It is exactly the same as saying that public schools in parts of the US are diluted christian schools (more true 50 years ago) due to larger cultural effects, which I think most people who have watched the evolution of US public schools will at least acknowledge. so I am adding a mention of indonesia's islamic population. 72.0.187.153 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Andyvphil- Yes, it's a shame that the sub-article on this topic got ousted for knee-jerk reasons. When I said "notable connections to Islam" I meant notable in reference to this particular article, which is what the criteria should be. Of course if the sub-article still existed, Obama's laundry list of vague Islam-related connections might be pertinent, but here in this article, the language "Obama's connections to Islam" with no explanation is too misleading. johnpseudo 05:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"72" (is there some reason you don't register and get a handle that can be remembered?), I definitely think that there's a problem getting distinctions into the text. My theory is that problem is the number of editors (and more importantly, journalists) who, faced with Katie Couric's question "Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?" and convinced that the answer ought to be yes, but knowing that the answer may be no, decide to be less than forthcoming about the truth. And one of the ways to do that is not make distinctions -- to declare that any mention of Obama's connections with Islam is support for the cause of those who have lied about it. And one problem is that there's a kernel of truth in that. When Obama was campaigning in South Carolina he declared that he had been raised by his mother, that she was a Christian from Kansas, and that he had therefor always been a Christian. Which is a fib. His mother was a skeptic who apparently raised him as a skeptic, and he said as much back before he started campaigning in the Bible Belt. So Obama's judgement as a successful professional politician is that too much truth can lose him votes. Who are we to disagree?

Btw, in one of his memoirs Obama does refer to Mentang Besuki as a "Muslim school" (elsewhere he refers to it more accurately as a "predominantly Muslim school"). And, registered as a Muslim because the head of family -- his stepfather -- was one, he got two hours a week of training in Islamic prayer, surah recitation, and so forth. So it was a lot more Muslim than American schools were Christian 50 years ago. At least in my part of the US the prayers said over milk and graham crackers 50 years ago weren't specific that the God in question was Jesus's, and we didn't get two hours a week of training in prayer to the God of our parents' choice.

But I deleted your mention of the Indonesian constitution as a step too far removed from the subject, as currently developed.

Johnp, again, I'm not opposed to clarification. By all means, go ahead. But get it right. And I think the subject is very much "notable in reference to this particular article". Identity -- how it's deployed, represented, misrepresented, avoided -- has been and will remain a central element in the success of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. And religion is a part of that (not as important as race, but still important). And Islam is a part of that (overrepresented in the previous spinout; because of its origin in the Insight brouhaha the Christian and Skeptic parts were underrepresented). It sits rather uneasily in the same article as the horse race stuff, but it can't be accused of being a POV fork so long as it does. Andyvphil (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Although my article was deleted from WP its title, "Barack Obama Muslim rumor", lives on at the Huffington Post: [12] :-) Redddogg (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

First sentence, Muslim allegations section

fter checking the cite from the first sentence, I am becoming convinced the cite does not support the text we currently use. specifically I read the whole nation article which supposedly supports that "the smear connected Obama to radical islam". In fact the article seems to only show that "the smear connected Obama's childhood education to supposed radical islam" (wahabbism). The same education brawl being fought out on this page every day, and thats it. And considering it is the only text with even a sixth-degree connection to anything remotely radical-islamic (whatever that is)- basically I think even the current text is weasel-text if you will. The strongest statements I think the source permits should always refer to his childhood in regards to the smears. I have seen no attacks or research or connections between adult obama and any strain of Muslim ethos. and i think thats notable indeed. All I think it needs right now is the addition of the one word "childhood" into the first sentence. go team 72.0.187.153 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)---- so I wrote this last night but forgot to post it so dug it up out of the cache... I noticed there had been some skirmishes about Obama's grandmother today- I am going to start applying this child/adult standard when and where I can, and start seperating out the extremist claims versus the more legitimate ones.

regarding religion in the US schools, i think its different everywhere but where I was in the NE catholics could get out once a week to go to CCD (i don't know what that is) and everyone could opt out of sex ed, among other things. and this was in elementary school in the 80's. I am talking more about how you could go to the most secular school in the world, but if its in a place thats 86% christian, and the other kids are 86% christian, its kind of like going to a christian school. or a muslim school etc. also I hear lots of talk about Obama's "2 hours of muslim education" a week but I haven't seen a direct source or quote about that (like "obama had two hours of muslim education a week") Instead what I am seeing are connections between official policy of the menteng school, and Obama's background. Can we get something direct on this? Because again I feel like the more facts behind it we can post, the less weight these supposed rumors have, and especially the "extremism" ones. 72.0.187.153 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 date comes from the Nation and refers to the Andy Martin attack (www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts) which posits "a threat to the Jewish community" from "Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion". So saying Martin "connected Obama to radical islam" doesn't look wrong to me. Nor does he say anything about Obama's childhood. The connection to the Insight piece is pure speculation on the part of Hayes. The two-hours-a-week is from the Chi Trib,[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story,0,7180545.story

], I believe. And why Kerrey mentioned the grandmother rather than the grandfather, who dictated when the family was Muslim and when it wasn't, is hard to understand. Hope this helps. Andyvphil (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend people read current cite #133- i stand by my statement that nothing there makes a current muslim connection case. If you want to try keeping that leadoff you will need to find a new source. It is martin making the case that obama's education was radicalized, and furthermore martin claiming that this education somehow (somehow...) applies to his current views. I have read the source several times and that is what I find. a childhood connection and thats all anyone seems to claim on either side. And this is a PERFECT example of inflammatory words that don't really need to be here, staying in (for some reason...). I think 'extremism' is even worse than 'radical' and 'extremism' is what we're currently using. anyways... why are we continuing to use language that is needlessly vague, and leaves open implication against Obama's adult character, when all reputable sources on any side of the issue say its a closed issue, a heritage issue? Furthermore and VERY IMPORTANTLY- let us remember that when Barry O was attending Menteng 01, the words "radical islam" and "islamic extremism" did not exist, or at least were not used in the current politicized and highly charged sense. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is martin making the case that obama's education was radicalized, and furthermore martin claiming that this education somehow (somehow...) applies to his current views. No, the current first sentence of this article, "A series of right-wing smear campaigns falsely attempting to connect Obama's childhood education to radical Islamic sects began in 2004,..." is simply factually untrue. Hayes("cite#133"[13]): "Within a few days of Martin's press conference, the conservative site Free Republic had picked it up, attracting a long comment thread, but after that small blip the specious 'questions' about Obama's background disappeared. Then, in the fall of 2006,..." 2004 is Martin (and FreeRepublic[(www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts)]) and Martin doesn't mention "Obama's childhood education". As the second sentence of WP:BLP says, "We must get the article right." Try a little harder to do that, ok? Andyvphil (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

lol all those cites you just dropped are all only childhood references...still... why am I not surprised? considering consensus is starting to form up agreeing that these are smears against child-Obama and not adult obama, I wish you would be a little more judicious with the rv button. Oh well I think you really need to re-read those cites. you seem to either mis-understand or willfully ignore what other (multiple other) users mean when they frame this discussion from Obama's childhood perspective. I will keep trying synonyms until one sticks but please realize the longer you make barely justified knee-jerk edits that go against consensus- the more it looks like pov pushing on the page. show me some connections to Obama as an adult please or stop making these crazy claims I can't find in any of your sources... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What "crazy claims"? Please supply quotes. Andyvphil (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

crazy claim number one- that this whole obama religion thing IS NOT totally about his childhood, and implications of things that happened then- not an adult issue. yet again and again I check the page only to find new language added which attempts to re-open the idea that ADULT obama is connected to islam (and until very recently islamic extremism). yes that is a crazy idea and it needs to get unequivocably squashed for the good of the page. i asked you to show me some connection to adult obama, and you responded (typically) with your own "rubber/glue" style request for MY "quotes". So----, I've played this game before, its late and I'm not in the mood. my quotes are not what you should be reading, its the quotes of others who agree with me on the childhood issue and are building consensus on this page. frankly I wouldn't care IF my subtle language mods concerning public schools and WOT buzzwords were going directly against consensus- but I'm not the the one with a user name lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you can't quote me making any "crazy claims", presumably because I haven't made any. Nor have you supplied any diffs for your new false claim that my edits "attempt to re-open the idea that ADULT obama is connected to islam [or] islamic extremism". In other words, you're full of s**t. Pardonnez-moi. Can't say that even if it's true. WP:CIVIL, you know. Andyvphil (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

i just did quote you making a crazy claim- and I noticed you've stopped rv-ing without cause so I think we both know which way the wind is blowing... anyways thanks for recognizing consensus. like I said before I am perfectly willing to explore "stronger" language (since thats what you seem to want so badly) but the cites need to support that language. As you can see there are at least two users who are having trouble understanding your interpretation of the references, specifically the martin one. So maybe it would be beneficial for you to explain you interpretation them, on the talk page so instead of edit warring we can actually try to build further consensus. ps good luck with the admins72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your trumphalism is premature, and the consensus not what you imagine it to be. Nor are "quotes" what you must imagine them to be if you think you "just did quote" me. A "quote" would be finding something in one of my posts that you think is a "crazy claim" and reproducing it here surrounded by quote marks. You haven't done that. And I don't know what your problem is understanding that when Martin says "Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion"(www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts) he is speaking in what is called in the English language the present tense and not about Obama's childhood. Or what to make of your bizarre suggestion that "it would be beneficial for you to explain you interpretation them, on the talk page" since this is the third time I have supplied the link to Martin's press release and pointed out that he does exactly what you denied when you said "i stand by my statement that nothing there makes a current muslim connection case". (That 's what a "quote" looks like, btw.) And, again, he says nothing about Obama's education. Andyvphil (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts this] is not a reliable source. WNDL42 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

all that and more... yes martin says obama is a muslim, BECAUSE of his heritage and childhood experiences. You still haven't produced anything which even squarely CLAIMS he is a muslim NOW. yet that that is language you keep forcing into the text. if you want to use present-tense language you need to find a present-tense source, which the martin thing is not (as other contributors agree). A source indicting muslim activity in the last 10-20 years conceivably could qualify as present-tense, but not from this one cite we keep bickering about. I am expecting some actual text here at some point, because like I have said consensus is building against your interpretation and the burden is on you to make your argument- not on WP to accept POV language 'tweaks" on a topic that the main article presents as false. "Obama is a muslim"- that is a good start but you need to back it up with other text from the article if you think it rises above the general notability of the rumor section and the consensus presentation which portrays this subject as an outgrowth of Obama's childhood and family history. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Seems to me that the entire treatment here somehow missed the larger point. The whole concoction was dreampt up by right-wing neocon opponents in an attempt to radicalize the Democratic Party, to (a) paint Senator Obama as a "closet islamofacist" and to (b) paint Senator Clinton as the architect of this neocon smear campaign. Let's try to remember where the whole thing started. I've made some major changes this evening, awaiting comments. WNDL42 (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Andy Martin a neocon? Paleo-, maybe. Neo-, not a chance. Neoconservatism. Look it up. Move your lips if you must. Andyvphil (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm game...(a) what does Andy Martin have to do with the Insight/Moon-church "smear" of Obama/Clinton?, and (b) are you talking about this Andy Martin? Hardly a "paleoconservative" by Cato Institute standards. In fact, the paleoconservative-libertarian Cato Institute uses quite stronger words to describe his ilk, which you may wish to browse by clicking here. WNDL42 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone is too much of a jackass to recognize how poorly they are faring in a battle of wits... well, you might call that "game", but it's really a misnomer. I'd explain why, but you've already shown that distinctions are wasted on you. As to what Andy Martin (yes, that Andy Martin) has to do with the Insight article, the answer is "nothing much" (I've said repeatedly above that he doesn't talk about Obama's childhood... the implication of that was lost on you as well, obviously), but the Nation magazine tried to make a connection, and this article follows right along. Read the first sentence of Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#Media_coverage_of_Obama.27s_religious_background. Follow the cite. Find "Andy Martin". *duh*

And "paleoconservative-libertarian" is a non sequitur. Different articles, different folks. Paleocon is, e.g., Pat Buchanan. The founding neocons are left wing Jews mugged by reality, e.g. Podhoritz pere. Andy Martin has nothing in common with the latter. Which won't stop you from calling him a "neocon" tomorrow, I know. In one ear and out the other. Vacuum in between, evidently. Andyvphil (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Andyv, my response is here at the Witiquette notice board. WNDL42 (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a response. That's trying to change the subject. But it will be noticed that you don't have a response on the substance. Andyvphil (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a contrary view on the whole issue. I don't think we can include it in the article however since it seems to be only a letter to the editor. Redddogg (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the same sentiment expressed elsewhere, but it's wrongheaded. Calling Obama a secret Muslim is a smear because those who think it might be true mostly won't vote for him. He probably has said somewhere that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but he'd have to have a deathwish for his campaign to make that the centerpiece of his response. Andyvphil (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Deval-Gate/Che-on-Cuban-flag-Gate/First-time-Michelle-REALLY-proud-Gate/ad infinitum?

(No, not regarding that sure-shot Dick Cheney is the blacksheep of the family descended from Barack's "eight-times-great-" grandfather Maureen Duvall...)

...ABC, back in December, has a soundbite of Barack saying:

"And this argument is being pushed by the way by a candidate who starts off with a 47% disapproval rating," Obama continued. "You know, so, I’m not going to mention names but I mean the notion that a viability or an electability argument is being made by somebody who starts off with almost half the country not being able to vote for (pause and laughter) them doesn’t make sense.

"But you know in the end, don’t vote your fears. I’m stealing this line from my buddy (Massachusetts Gov.) Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it’s the right one, don’t vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe." --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK... You lost me. What would you like done? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the article's mention of Clinton camp whininess about stuff like Barack's:

- Kindergarten essay about growing up to be president (whether of the United States or Indonesia)

- Admitted theft of lines and allowing his own lines to be stolen amongst lefty politicos

- etc.? --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it all falls under "Who cares?" and trivial crap that comes up in a campaign. The essay stopped being notable months ago and politicians using lines that are also used by other politicians is common place. Your source doesn't seem to make any comment on Obama's "admission".--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to The Politico: "The Clinton campaign circulated a pair of YouTube links of the two speeches on Sunday."

But, guess the NYT says it's much ado, too. (And the Associated Press's saying the Clinton campaign is trying to imply the newsmedia dug up the allegations on its own.)

The Nation: "But memories of another rhetorically-powerful candidate, Joe Biden, getting in trouble for using parts of a speech by British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock in the run-up to the 1988 Democratic presidential race, linger. Biden actually got knocked out of the 1988 race on something of an unfair rap -- he usually credited Kinnock but got taped one time when he failed to do so. But all anyone remembers is that the senator from Delaware was charged with stealing a speech.

"The Clinton camp is counting on a similar mark against Obama, who has been charged previously with borrowing lines from Patrick. But the Obama camp is betting that their man is in a far different position now than was Joe Biden in 1987, and that voters will not be moved by what seems to be a desperate ploy late in a campaign season that is trending Obama's way."

And the Boston Globe had noticed the self-same shared riff between the two all of eleven months ago.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh.. So apparently I have missed the latest meme by the Clinton campaign. It just came out, best to let it develop some to see if it has any traction. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Guevarakorda3.jpg

"Radical chic" image of El Che (See vintage footage) used by Obama precint captain to decorate a non-official and volunteer-funded campaign office generated angry commentary in conservative blogosphere

And don't forget Guevara-Gate or the overwrought brouhaha concerning the YouTube of Michell's new adult-life feelings of HOPE (and her for the first time being REALLY proud of America, blah blah), etc., too. --Justmeherenow (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Give it time.. Give it time.. So far none of this seems to be making any traction, but doesn't mean it won't turn into a huge firestorm by the time Texas and Ohio arrive. It simply is too soon to include these things because it isn't known what impact they'll have on the campaign. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of Obama staffer Maria Isabel with Che on Cuban flag on her office wall

Justmeherenow, you need to find an actual reliable source to include "Che-gate" in this article. Just because some right-wing blog gets its knickers in a twist because some volunteer in an Obama campaign office puts up a Cuban flag with Che's image on it does not mean it is notable. Additionally, you need to brush up on WP:NFCC, particularly #5 and #8. The image itself is not notable (no reliable sources have brought it up) so it fails #5, the image also does not have anything to do with the text that it is associated with so it fails #8. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, pictures do help. I'm not asserting notability for this story since I can't recall having seen it mentioned anywhere else but here, but were we to cover it I would hope we would do a better job than the interviewer of Ms. Isabel who keeps asking her about the "Cuban flag" (you refer to it that way as well) hung up at her desk and never mentions Che Guevera. The flag is not the Cuban flag , is it? Or does the fabric poster under the (added? was this always there?) US Flag incorporate a different Cuban flag? The general obtuseness of this group of Obama volunteers in not recognizing that associating Obama with someone who some potential supporters see as a totalitarian murderer is striking, but not unexpected in a group few of which may have been exposed to more about Che than t-shirts and Motorcycle Diaries. (As a Cuban Ms. Isabel may know more, but she doesn't appear to be the brightest of bulbs.) Andyvphil (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald in Salon analyzes the stuff I've posted in this section this way:

[Greenwald's speaking IRONICALLY]: Over the last week, we learned that: (a) Obama is a closet socialist as evidenced by the Che Guevara picture a volunteer posted on a campaign office wall; (b) Obama's wife, Michelle, is both self-absorbed and subversive, as she secretly hates the U.S. and will only believe it's a good country if her husband becomes President; (c) Obama is a thief and a plagiarist; and,

(d) in one of the most repulsive screeds in memory, courtesy of National Review's Lisa Schiffren, former Dan Quayle aide, the fact that Obama's parents are a mixed-race couple strongly suggests they were probably Communists, because who else, besides Communists, would marry outside of their own race? She cited an equally repellent article by AIM's Cliff Kinkaid, entitled Obama's Communist Mentor, which "reveals" that "through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA."........
... ... ...
The real question is whether Obama, as he did this week, will be able to render these attacks impotent, even cause them to backfire, because they and their propagators will appear to be so ugly and small and irrelevant in light of the type of candidate he is, the rhetoric he produces, the vision to which he aspires.
... ... ...
And that is what Michelle Obama herself meant as the campaign clarified her "proud" comment:
"Anyone who heard her remarks. . . would understand that she was commenting on our politics -- not on America itself."
Understood that way, who could argue with that?
... ... ...
So, to recap, just from the last few days: Obama is the candidate of The Arabs who hates The Jews and has an "ease around Israel animus." He's basically just a soft-spoken Al Sharpton. His wife might deserve a "lynching party" for her radical anti-American hatred. And, of course, he's a closeted Muslim and Che Guevara fan. And that's just so far, with eight more months and many hundreds of millions of dollars to go.
The point isn't that this reflects poorly on Obama's electability -- it doesn't, at all (it might do the opposite). The point is that that one should expect what's coming, and realize -- most importantly -- that our establishment press takes its cues in all sorts of ways from exactly the dark crevices from which this filth spews and they will lead the way in helping to spread it.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it is ok that instead of the proper image or none, we use the "standard-Che" pic with essentially no commentary or context. The text is fine but the pic caption is not; also that pic is HIGHLY CHARGED and granted the limited connection it has to the 2008 US presidential race, it needs to go. That pic has a set of pages it would work on, but this is not one of them. That being said, I really think we need to find version of the original- its a notable topic but it needs to be done right. The original pic puts it in perfect context without the need for extensive text. the new pic requires A LOT of explanation and still doesn't work. ALL that being said- this is WP not flickr so we usually make do with just text anyways, right? (especially in a zero-sum situation like this lol)72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This one is just ridiculous. It has nothing to do with Obama or his campaign and has no notability whatsoever. If it actually turns into an issue (don't count on it) we can include it, but until then it's just more blog chatter. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pic, caption and text moved here: Image:CheFlagGate.jpg "Controversial screenshots from a Houston, Texas, news program showed that the image of Argentine-Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara had been used by a local Obama volunteer campaign staffer to decorate her office."

In February 2008, after screenshots from the local Fox News station's news reports showed the use of an image of Che Guevara by a volunteer staffer in Houston, Texas, to decorate her office, the Obama campaign responded: "We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban Americans and Americans of all backgrounds, and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views."

--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved non- campaign issue sub-sections "Obama Girl"/ "Yes We Can Song" here (subsequently moved below) to the talkpage from the article. --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

-- i know you're PO'ed about getting your work repeatedly rv-ed, but this is not an effective or accurate counter-strategy. like I said before the che-event itself is notable if your write it up correctly, but that totally inflammatory pic is not notable because it is a modern-day cliche (among other reasons). So concentrate on the words which have a higher standard of revision than pics. Also by extension what you did claims that the "yes we can" song is not notable or part of the campaign, which pokes big holes in this e-protest you seem to be creating. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, 72.0.180.2.

But, no, I wasn't trying so much also to be an ostrich so much as I figured, "Hey, maybe we editors oughtta discuss the new-media related stuff all of a piece?" However, since the Black Eyed Peas have summarily been reinstated without discussion back into the article, I too have been been bold and have formed an embryo subsection, under the "Effect of the Internet" heading, for cataloguing campaign responses to whatever widespread right-wing chatter as comes up! Peace out. --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow, I reverted your removal. No one has had a problem with that text. You were just upset that your addition of the "Che flag" image kept being reverted so you decided to hack out a portion of the article in protest. The part you took out is notable. The part you want in is of a one-time occurance of a non-sanctioned action by a volunteer (do we even know her name?). There is a difference. I left the text you added but if someone decides it needs to go, I won't disagree. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the volunteer precinct captain enduring her 15 min. of blogospheric fame (front row, 2nd from left) is Maria Isabel (MyFox-Houston on YouTube) (...and ironically, Could the (non-?/)controversy conceivably help Obama in South Texas?)--Justmeherenow (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (updated Justmeherenow (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

With whom? Are there a lot of folks who think Fidel is a hero in South Texas? Not in the general election, I don't think. Red state? Anyway,

"María Isabel has been identified as being Captain 002 of Obama's Houston campaign, and she is also president of the Houston Obama Leadership Team." "Sen. Barack Obama's campaign said...We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban Americans and Americans of all backgrounds, and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views, the Democratic presidential hopeful's campaign said in a press release to El Nuevo Herald." "...the image of the deceased Argentine revolutionary, whom the majority of Cuban exiles in the United States holds responsible for the executions of hundreds...became the target of numerous conservative blogs and the main topic of discussion on Miami's Cuban radio stations."

If Isabel doesn't say it was an ignorant mistake and/or Obama doesn't distance himself from her as well as the image (and he really needs to say it's offensive to him) this one becomes a legit issue against him. In fact any delay in one or both happening is a problem. Btw, American POWs were tortured by Cuban agents in Vietnam,[14] so it's hard to imagine McCain supporters leaving this one alone. If Obama had been debating McCain rather than Clinton when the subject of talking to Raul came up, and Obama hadn't done any more than he has to distance himself from Isabel... well, I'm not a speechwriter. But I know a fat opportunity for a sound bite when I see one. McCain might whiff it, but it would be a home run opportunity in the "You're no Jack Kennedy" range. (Try "Maybe you don't recognize who is an enemy of the United States. You don't have a lot of experience. But when I was in the Hanoi Hilton friends of mine were beaten to death by Cuban agents just like Che Guevera. Is that why this flag wasn't personally offensive to you?")

This picture[15] (from this video [16]) seems a better match to the Miami Herald text, "The office where the image was located..." The other image looks like its on the inside of a roll-down door somewhere. Maybe Isabel was dragging it everywhere she set up a table... Andyvphil (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's where the "garage door" image came from.[17] More on who Isabel is -- not a small cog in the Obama's campain in Houston, evidently. The Fox reporters again don't notice the Che image. Andyvphil (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

...and if your decor isn't complete without a flag just like Maria's: [18]. Andyvphil (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Andy, this isn't the place to debate your opinions of Obama or his campaign strategy. Please stick to the topic.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The topic is the significance of the Che image to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. I don't believe I expressed an opinion of Obama -- I merely supplied a scenario where it could become very significant, very fast, when we will want to have command of the facts and resources. Andyvphil (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph needs to give historical perspective, right?

it needs to be more than a pile of numbers and links etc. So that sentance needs to stay because it allows to article to flow. You are welcome to provide another sentance that neutrally explains the flow of the campaign post super-tuesday, but I think after 10 straight wins by one candidate and continued block-buster financial numbers, any sentence anyone writes is going to look essentially the same. if you have a problem with use of the word "momentum"- i know what you mean, but seriously what other word can we use? the current state of the race is basically the definition of the word lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with the speculation that it was Obama's "grassroots fundraising" and previous electoral gains that led to his 10-state winning streak. That speculation and the idea of "momentum" is entirely POV and, like I said, needs a strong reference. I'll try to change the wording to include mention of Obama's fundraising success. johnpseudo 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

and the 10-state win streak please... also keep in mind I can find mainstream news cites using the word "momentum" until the cows come home (its not POV its google lol)72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, they all talk about momentum, but it's just an idea, not necessarily anything real. johnpseudo 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

I notice the page has been protected without explanation or deploying the usual template. Seems WNDL42 requested it and got 2 days. [19] The protecting admin has written the following on his user page, "If you have the capability to unprotect something, I trust you to determine whether a page I protected should be unprotected or not. No need to ask."[20] So if you've got an admin bit and recognize WNDL42's request for the tendentious nonsense it is, go right ahead. Andyvphil (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed the edit warring seems to have ended about 24 hrs ago. Don't really see the point of blocking the page especially now. there have always been plenty of concerned users monitoring the vandalism and I dont feel there is even that much vandalism in the first place. Also I don't think a couple dozen edits of the course of a week or two counts as an edit war...72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deval-gate redux

I'm sure the most quoted part of the Clinton-Obama debate will be ~"change by Xerox-machine"~ line. Was, on NPR and, I think, BBC this morning. Won't move votes, I don't think. Had traction against Biden because it was so ridiculous for him to be talking about his ancestors working in the coal mines when he didn't have any, whereas what Obama said was just as valid coming from him as from Patrick, and everybody uses speechwriters. But it ought to go in the article for awhile as valid current-event recentism. But wait, we can't. Protected article. Thank you, WNDL42. Andyvphil (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Could an editor of the article who is an administrator (if there is one) put an improved version of the following into the article somewhere?

_______

In February 2008 Clinton accused Obama of having plagiarized a passage of oratory once used by governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick, a confidant of the Obama campaign. The following sparring (See spliced clip) occured at the Austin CNN-Univision debate.

Obama: "Now, the notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who's one of my national co-chairs -- who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think is silly. And -- you know, but -- but -- but this is where we start getting into silly season in politics, and I think people start getting discouraged about it...."

Clinton (a short time later in the debate): "Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition. And you know -- you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox. And I just don't think -- "

Obama: "Oh, but that -- that's not what happened there -- "

Clinton: "No, but -- you know, but Barack, it is, because if -- you know, if you look -- if you look -- if you look -- if you look at the YouTube of these videos, it does raise questions."

________

--Justmeherenow (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Done. --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reprinting extended quotes in transcript format isn't correct style at all. Plus, the notability of this exchange to Obama's campaign is not really clear. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Spell Check

Will somebody please spell check the article.

(Among other things, 'Mayor' is not spelled M-A-Y-E-R.)

71.168.142.89 (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The only "Mayer" I see in the article now is somebody's name. Got any more? Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

edit warring

ok, I thought we had some consensus text BEFORE the block, but now that its lifted some people are making the same exact edit from like a week ago, not even rv-ing back to the immediate pre-block versions, but going back further to more controversial edits. WHY why why? andyvphil, in case you didn't notice, all that sturm and drang you have been involved in over the past week has not changed the fact that the first source of the muslim text DOES NOT support the text you keep re-inserting. I have told you that, others have told you that. Maybe it would be a bit easier FOR ALL OF US if you would simply go find a better cite instead of using up bandwidth by repeatedly adding text which is guaranteed to be rv-ed? at this point it might save everyone some time. Also you keep adding in the most ridiculous use of a "weasel word" I have ever seen- islamic instruction vs catholic education. that is sad on so many levels and again YOU KNOW it will get rv-ed so why bother? finally who ever is deleting ref's from major US newspapers needs to stop. specifically one from the seattle post-intelligencer. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What text is not supported? Supply one sentence. Please try to use an actual quote. Andyvphil (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"rumors that Barck Obama IS a muslim"- thats the first wrong thing you keep posting. where is your cite for that? you can't say martin because as this talk page shows, no one but you agrees with that interpretation of martin! Also your insistence on the word instruction instead of education. CITE THAT PLEASE! especially as applies to a child under 10! Please answer the direct question of why use more inflammatory language when a less charged alternative is readily applicable? I am starting to lose my patience with these games... why Andyvphil, did you feel the need go back beyond the block, beyond the consensus text you seemed to agree with as well a few days ago, to more partisan versions? After reading your comment page I'm not really inclined to keep ""assuming good faith" with you if it seems like so many other users are questioning your motives as well. Basically I don't even know what to say- serious question how many contributors have to disagree with you before you acknowledge consensus? I am just trying to figure out how long this situation is going to last... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't got a handle on the "quote" thing. First you find something I've written, then you copy it here, put it between quotemarks, and confront me with it. I've never used the phrase "rumors that Barck Obama IS a muslim", with or without the misspelling and miscapitalization, that I can recall. What I most recently "posted"(sic) reads "A false allegation, that Obama was raised as a Muslim, was made by self-described 'independent contrarian columnist' Andy Martin in a press release in 2004." What Martin wrote, as I've pointed out several times already, is "Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion... His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles..." I don't know what you mean by "no one but you agrees with that interpretation of martin!" -- no interpretation is required. He says it straight out. Twice. There is no question as to the identity or content of the Martin press release referred to by Hayes, who for the purposes of this discussion I will consider a reliable secondary source. Nor is there any question that on Wikipedia you can, when a primary source is referred to by a secondary RS consult a primary source for its content:

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Any any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can see that Martin says Obama is a Muslim. Confirming that he says it doesn't require any analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation. "Fact: Obama is a Muslim..."-Andy Martin. Doesn't require much education either. All that's left is "reasonable". You're not being reasonable. Andyvphil (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion - edit warring

I already explained this in my third opinion in the section below, but since a separate opinion was asked with reference to this section, I will say: It is appropriate to quote a critic of Obama using that critic's own words. The fact is, Martin wrote "Obama is a Muslim". It is important to state it as what Martin wrote, and not make it sound like Wikipedia is claiming Obama is currrently a Muslim. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin Text

lets do this andy- here's the FULL TEXT of martin. show me were it says or even implies that Obama is currently a muslim or currently a "closet muslim" which is what your constantly re-inserted text invariably implies. >>>>>>>>> Columnist Says Barack Obama 'Lied To The American People;' Asks Publisher to Withdraw Obama's Book

Tuesday August 10, 9:22 pm ET

NEW YORK, Aug. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Out2.com's independent contrarian columnist, Andy Martin, will publish a column and hold simultaneous news conferences in New York and London on Wednesday, August 11th to disclose he believes Barack Obama is a political fraud who "lied to the American people." Martin has asked Crown Books to stop sales of Obama's book because of its fraudulent content. Martin says Obama may be a threat to the Jewish community.

NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS: New York: Time/date: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:00 A.M. Location: Northeast Corner of Fifth Avenue and 65th Street (Temple Emanu-El) London: Time/date: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 4:00 P.M. Location: 2 Dryden Mansions, Queens Club Gardens London W14

"I feel sad having to expose Barack Obama," says Martin, "but the man is a complete fraud. The truth is going to surprise, and disappoint, and outrage many people who were drawn to him. He has lied to the American people, and he has sought to misrepresent his own heritage.

"Obama's life story is vastly different from the one he portrays. My point: if he will lie about his mother and father, what else is he lying about? Can we expect 'bimbo eruptions?'

"Fiction: Obama stated in his Convention speech: 'My father ... grew up herding goats.' The 'goat herder' claim has been repeated endlessly. It is a lie. Fact: Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama was a prominent and wealthy farmer. His son, Obama's father, was a child of privilege, not privation. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman.

"Fiction: Obama was given an 'African' name. Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion. I am a strong supporter of the Muslim community, and I believe Muslims have been scapegoated. Obama has a great opportunity to be forthright. Instead, he has treated his Muslim heritage as a dark secret. His grandfather was named 'Hussein.' That is an Arabic-Muslim, not African, name. Hussein was a devout Muslim and named his son, Barack Senior, 'Baraka.' Baraka is an Arabic word meaning 'blessed.' Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa.

"Barack Senior was also a devoted Muslim, and also chose a Muslim name for his son, our own Barack Obama, Junior. Again, his name was an Arabic and Koranic.

Obama has spent a lifetime running from his family heritage and religious heritage. Would his father have given his son a Koranic name if the father was not a devout Muslim? Obama's stepfather was also a Muslim. Obama will be the first Muslim-heritage senator; he should be proud of that fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of in any of the three great Abrahamic religions.

"Fiction: Obama Senior was a harmless student 'immigrant' who came to the United States only to study. Fact: Obama was part of one of the most corrupt and violent organizations in Africa: the Kenyatta regime. Obama's father ran back to Kenya soon after the British left. It is likely Obama's father had Mau Mau sympathies or connections, or he would not have been welcomed into the murderous inner circle of rapists, murderers, and arsonists. I believe Obama's secret shame at his family history of rape, murder and arson is what actualizes him. Our research is not yet complete. We are seeking to examine British colonial records. Our investigation to date has drawn on information on three continents.

"And what about Obama's beloved Kenyan brothers and sisters? None of his family was invited to Boston to share his prominence. Are his relatives being kept in the closet? Where are they? More secrecy, more prevarication.

"It is time for Barack Obama to stop presenting a fantasy to the American people. We are forgiving and many would still support him. It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel. His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles where Obama now enjoys support," Martin states.

"Our investigation is continuing. In he meantime, Crown Books should stop selling Obama's novelization of his life. We have asked Crown to do that. Obama is living a lie."

RESOURCES: Martin's columns at Out2.com (Govt & Politics); E-mail: [email protected] Source: Andy Martin Worldwide Communications >>>>>>>>>>>

"you made me do that" as killface would say lol. so anyways considering the Hayes article specifically uses the word heritage (as your refuse to do andy)- this I guess is your big chance to show why the islamic-slur subject is NOT a heritage issue, why it needs to be in present tense as opposed to past tense. I'm still not seeing it, so I would be happy it would get pointed out to me. Also I am considering the idea of using a direct quote from Martin instead of a summary of his words, because clearly, agreeing on a concise and accurate summary sentence is currently impossible. I put that quote you keep throwing around in italics, so that people can see it in context and realize (sorry andy) that it is inescapably a heritage issue. even martin uses the word HERITAGE in the same paragraph as your vaunted "obama is a muslim who has concealed his religion"!!!!! So we can use a direct, contextual quote from martin OR you can accept the use of the word "heritage" in your hallowed "summary sentence." But what we cannot use is the current (sadly current...) text of "rumors that Obama is a muslim" 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are still having a hard time with the idea of a "quote". "rumors that Obama is a muslim" appears nowhere in the article. The only sentence describing what Martin wrote is "A false allegation, that Obama is a Muslim, was made by self-described 'independent contrarian columnist' Andy Martin in a press release in 2004." The context of Martin saying Obama is a Muslim is indeed Martin saying that Obama's father didn't tend goats but was wealthy and politically connected to a corrupt regime and a Mau Mau past, that both father and stepfather were devout Muslims, that Obama was given an Arabic not "African" name and that he's hiding his Muslim relatives. But that doesn't mean he doesn't also say and conclude "Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion... His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles." You say "show me were it says or even implies that Obama is currently a muslim" then quote him saying so outright. Twice. Not "implying". Saying it. Your demand is so bizarre as to render questionable any possibility of rational discourse. Andyvphil (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A plea was posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here we go:

• Martin says explicitly: "Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion."
• The sentence under dispute is "A false allegation, that Obama is a Muslim, was made by self-described 'independent contrarian columnist' Andy Martin in a press release in 2004." I see the following problems with this sentence:
  • "A false allegation" - is it really false? How do you prove it? All you can say about Martin's words is that he made an allegation. Whether it's false or not is neither established nor relevant, as far as I can tell, and using the word "false" just invites arguments. Removing it adheres better to the WP:NPOV policy.
  • Similarly "self-described" is used in a denigrating way. Just call him a columnist, without the biased adjectives.
• I make no judgment on whether the sentence is worth including in the article. But a more neutral way to say it is "An allegation that Obama is a Muslim was made by columnist Andy Martin in a press release in 2004."

Would that be acceptable to both parties? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

do you have any comment on use of present vs past tense? (obama was a muslim vs obama is a muslim if you will)?72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do. The latter is what Martin said. The former isn't. Amatulic quotes him: "Martin says explicitly: "Fact: Obama is a Muslim.... What part of "is" don't you understand? Andyvphil (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My answer: If you are going to quote someone, you shouldn't change the quotation. Martin didn't say Obama was a Muslim; he said Obama is a Muslim. The only place past tense would be appropriate is to say Martin said, rather than Martin says (in this case "Martin wrote" may be better, because he wasn't speaking, but writing). ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat acceptable to me. It's a fringe idea to think that what Martin said is true, but since we provide a lot of evidence that it's false it's redundant to also say that it's false. However I don't see "self-described" as denegrative, here. But keeping the self-description isn't important to me. Anyway, whoever asked for the 3rd opinion didn't make it clear that the real alternative to the sentence you quote is something like "A series of right-wing smear campaigns making false claims concerning Obama's heritage and speculations about childhood connections to Islam began with perennial Republican Senate candidate and self-described 'independent contrarian columnist' Andy Martin in a press release in 2004...", where the real problem is that Martin's press release wasn't a "campaign" at all (it was a one-off wet squib), "series" implies a connectedness that is not in evidence, what went on was allegations not speculations, and the subjects were not merely heritage and childhood connections (e.g., Martin talks about Obama hiding his relatives right now). Oh, and the previous text I'm quoting gives the misleading impression that Republicans might at some point have selected Martin as their candidate for some office. Pretty impressive list of faults for just one sentence, don't you think? Andyvphil (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence you describe there isn't acceptable. It's loaded with non-neutral language like "right-wing", "smear", "false claims", "perennial", "self-described 'independent contrarian columnist'", etc. -- all of which would need a citation. The sentence would be acceptable if the loaded adjectives were removed; e.g. "A series of campaigns making claims concerning Obama's heritage and speculations about childhood connections to Islam began with columnist Andy Martin's press release in 2004..." which is much more neutral. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that it wasn't a "campaign". Martin issued a press release. It was ignored by practically everyone. Not only did it get NO mentions in MSM, not a single blogger picked it up. One individual posted it on the FreeRepublic bulletin board and it got a thread of, what, a couple dozen replies? When Insightgate or the emails made a splash a year later one blog Googled it up and reposted it. That's it. Until Hayes dug it up and went on and on about Martin as a way of smearing his other targets with the association with a jew-baiting litigation abuser. The only reason to mention Martin here is to clear up the misapprehension someone may get from reading Hayes that Martin is someone of importance in this story. So, no, "A series of campaigns..." is not acceptable. Kuhner was wrong to believe his source about Obama, or wronger still to make it all up (if that is true) as the Clinton campaign claimed (though why they they would think they know that none of their 700 workers spun a story to Kuhner if they don't know if any of them sent the Obama-in-a-turban image to Drudge is beyond me) but there is no known connection between him and Martin or the email originator, and none should be implied. Andyvphil (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You stated a sentence; I simply rephrased it to be semantically neutral without regard to the content of that sentence.

Note that in my third opinion above, I made no judgment about whether the sentence should be included in the article, because I didn't perceive the third opinion request to be about the existence of the sentence, but rather the wording. If I was mistaken in that perception, then I'd say that a columnist making an allegation that's so non-notable that no reliable, verifiable sources pick up on it (and blogs don't qualify), then it fails the WP:UNDUE guidelines, and isn't worth including. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all only talking about martin because, as the first reported heritage attack against obama, it merits a mention on those grounds (and those only i think). so we are warring over how to best characterize that claim, most neutrally and accurately I hope- other than that- you are right it wouldn't be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Second, a CBS News poll in August found that, in response to an open-ended question about Obama’s faith, 7 percent of Americans identified him as a Muslim — more than any other response. The right answer, Protestant, was second at 6 percent. (Most didn’t know or wouldn’t say.)[21]

"7 percent of Americans" includes a lot of Internet scribblers.

To be fair, Politico offers this as evidence that the chain emails are having an impact. But they offer no evidence that this isn't simply a result of Obama's name, a fact to which many more people are exposed than the emails. Many more people Google "Obama muslim" than have received the emails, so it is inherently unlikely that the subject went unmentioned before Martin. I've pointed out the probable reason Hayes made the assertion that Martin was "first" -- we shouldn't accept such an improbable claim without good evidence. I don't have time now... but isn't there a way to Google "obama muslim" with a date cutoff in the "advanced" version?

Anyway, I never saw the third opinion request. The actual problem is that there is a user (WNDL42) pushing the view (not only here - at the Insight article, Kuhner's, Journalism Scandals, maybe more) that Wikipedia can say Kuhner smeared both Clinton and Obama ("double smear") at the behest of the Moonie church, implying ("unsourced", etc.) that he lied about having a source "near" the Clinton campaign, without making the necessary distinction that while Kuhner wrote in a way that indicated he believed his source (without adequate reason to do so, it turned out) it is not a known fact that he didn't have one, and NPOV (and BLP) requires that make clear distinctions between what is known and what is alleged. I don't see why the Clinton campaign denial, in the Obama-in-a-turban flap, that they control the actions of each of their 700 workers doesn't have force here. And were the "Deep Throat" stories "unsourced"? We shouldn't use a term than can be interpreted as alleging a specific falsehood if the falsehood isn't a known fact.

If you need a request to supply your opinion on the broader issue, consider this it.

Again, I don't see "independent contrarian" as a denigration. If your objection is to "self-identified", would "...Martin, who identifies himself as an 'independent contrarian',..." also be objectionable? As I said, keeping this is not important to me. But I"m a bit puzzled that you see much POV in it. Andyvphil (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a general note: although any one of us editors may well have the "POV's" a certain disputed contention is true or false, we aren't allowed to have Wikipedia say the controversial arguement is true or false. Wikipedia can only "neutrally say what faction or source believes it to be false. (But, at the moment, I'm too lazy to try to align text in the article to this standard. Sorry, Andyvphil.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

all talk page "third-hand" polling speculation (from AFTER the e-mails were released lol) aside, i think the fact I try and work around andy's text and include it in the larger article, shows my commitment, while andy's usual behavior of rv-ing, often without adequate justification, and occasionally using a misleading edit summary- shows his motivations. I am totally happy with the edits and edit summries I have made throughout this process, and I would not be the least bit ashamed to bring all the diffs to whatever committee arbitrates these things. I think there is some POV pushing which might not be considered such IF it was accompanied by valid edit summaries or effective compromising on the talk page- but I'm not seeing any of that (I see A LOT of pov whispering on talk from user:Andyvphil...) so anyways lately I see the goalposts getting changed a lot lately; you cast doubt on the hayes cite and the nation, but then you don't want an accurate summary of martin, and you don't want a quote FROM martin. 3-O recommends removing the entire thing, but you don't do that either. All you seem to want is one phrase taken (obviously) out of context from martin, and you constantly rv back to that exact phrase without ever working with the MULTIPLE other editors who express concerns with your text. So I am happy to be one of A GROUP of editors who feel you are crossing a line- and I am happy to take this as far as it needs to go, but please don't keep using talk for OT speculation and then go and ignore actual talk consensus almost every time you post. Its a precious resource and I wish you would recognize that! 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay- enough of this. Honestly, the difference between the two sides on this edit war is very small, but if I had to choose, I'd go with Andyvphil's version, because it's more straight-forward about the claim that was made. Using vague terms like "public claims concerning Barack Obama's religion" when Martin really just came out and said he was Muslim is just poor form. johnpseudo 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

it makes me think you haven't read the martin press release if you say that. When martin "comes out and says" that obama is a muslim, he does it in the same paragraph where he discusses Obama's heritage. So call me crazy for thinking that including a weasel-phrase, when a less inflammatory alternative is provided BY THE ORIGINAL SOURCE, is poor form. I would love for ANYONE besides andyvphil and myself to put some work into that first sentence. So please johnpsuedo, be bold and refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. Write your own text! 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin a "Republican"?

The Nation source does seem to support the "perennial Republican Senate candidate" reference to Andy Martin, Andyvphil. So not sure why you removed it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true or not that Martin often files to run in Republican primaries. He's done it twice, that we know of, in two different states (Florida & Illinois). But if he describes himself as "independent" and if, when he runs in Republican primaries, he gets negligible votes, it's misleading to describe him as a "perennial Republican candidate" when what he's really known for is tortuous litigation and Jew-baiting. The Nation (magazine) is a highly partisan left-wing source and in my judgement Hayes' description is a drive-by guilt-by-association smear of Republicans. The whole subject of his press-release is non-notable: he's got mentions by Hayes and only two blog listings (compare with dozens for the Che flag). And there is no known connection, other than his self-important quote to Hayes, between him and the viral email or the Insight story. It's not as if the idea of connecting someone named Barack Hussein Obama to Islam is such a wild idea that it could only occur once and all subsequent occurrances must be causally connected. Even one paragraph is too much to devote to him, in terms of his significance to this article. So, show me that he's significant in Illinois Republican politics with some more convincing evidence than the Nation 's smear and I'll reconsider whether it's worth the extra words. Otherwise, let's leave it out. Andyvphil (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet and radio criticism section

Just to continue my general opposition to criticism sections in general, I've gone ahead and shuffled the notable content of the internet and radio criticism section into the rest of the article.[22] The only part that I did not re-incorporate was the comment by Jonathan Martin. There is already a rather large section on the Muslim rumor and I believe this section already adequately covers the topic. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All interested parties are invited to document objections or source counter arguments to the referenced material below or else cite policy disallowing its contribution to the article due its own sourcing. Thanks.

________

In early February 2008 a Cuban flag with a superimposed image of Che Guevera appeared in a local TV report showing the newly opened Obama campaign office in Houston. It belonged to María Isabel Norman, a Cuban-American, Captain 002 of Obama's Houston campaign and president of the Houston Obama Leadership Team, but an unpaid volunteer, who was among those who had been charged with opening the office in preparation for the arrival of paid staff to work on the March 4 primary. The image of the deceased Argentine revolutionary, responsible for the execution of hundreds, attracted the attention of numerous conservative blogs and became the main topic of discussion on Miami's Cuban radio stations. The Obama campaign responded: "We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban Americans and Americans of all backgrounds, and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views." (ref: miamiherald.com)

________

--Justmeherenow (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about this story in a few days. I am thinking it might be one of those flash in the pan media things that doesn't matter in the long run. The big story this weekend seems to be "misleading campaign pamphlets" so maybe you might want to switch over to that lol. recentism 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Content needs to be notable, as the IP above says, the Che Guevera flag is just a flash in the pan moment that has not had any lasting effect upon the campaign so far. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Which, Justmeherenow, goes to show that just because something can be sourced doesn't automatically make it notable. That's why several editors removed it from the article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the text you quote because the Che image scandal was already in the article and needed to be right. It could turn out to be quite significant, but I'm not going to insist on it remaining in maintext until more MSM coverage turns up. Andyvphil (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

...Which it may do. There's this[23], responded to by this[24]. Note that despite the Fox report saying Ms. Isabel had been tasked with opening the offices in preparation for the arrival of paid staffers ("paid staffers are expected to man the offices by the end of the week."[25]) the Obama campaign now says it's not an official campaign office.[26] Their site lists one office in Houston, at 3710 Travis,[27] but I guess it would take OR to see if that was Ms. Isabel's. Andyvphil (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Add [28], [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293]. And this one says "The office was set up by unpaid volunteers and is not a campaign office... Fox has since acknowledged its error."[29] Anybody got a link to that retraction? Anyway, Miami Herald, London Times, National Review, Investors Business Daily, Media Matters... I think we're starting to talk "notability", folks. Andyvphil (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the notability issue is concerned: My $.02 is I myself would see nothing amiss with WP's quick mention of widespread back-and-forth commentary in radio, online and print media about Ms. Norman's "Che chic"-Gate; nonetheless I agree the issue isn't a burning issue yet, as well -so my "editorial judgement" would be to not to really care whether it gets full, partial, or non- WP coverage, at the moment.

(Yet, on the separate issue regarding WP guidelines about use of questionable sources: We know, in practice these are the more alternative or partisan ones, yet they are still highly appropriate when pertaining to informations about themselves. Sure, solid, secondarily-sourced mentions are best, but primarily sourced stuff can be quite appropriate, providing their info's not contested. For example, should we in the present case find Che-Gate sufficiently notable, our referencing of NewsBusters then could conceivably be appropriate since indeed we'd be sourcing "commentatary on events covered in the MSM" by conservatives - through NewsBusters, who themselves are conservative commentators on events covered in the MSM!) --Justmeherenow (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Watching how campaign addresses various issues

"Pro-Palestinian" before?

And I think some of Obama's newly calibrating language, as he continues basically to bolster his being-to-the-right-of-Nader bonefides--e/g with regard his pastor the Rev. Wright and his prominent campaign advisor re Nat'l Security Brzezinski (whom I myself agree with, though this go-round I'm no Naderite)--as instances of it become covered in the MSM, deserve place in the article somewhere (along with contexts) too.

[...] Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has created problems for Obama in Jewish circles. A magazine connected to Wright honored [... Farrakhan], and last month Obama said he condemned "the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan" and disagreed with a decision to honor him. - ¶ - Wright, Obama said Sunday, "is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with, including, on occasion, directed at African Americans. ... I am not suggesting that's definitive." - ¶ - Obama also distanced himself from [...Brzezinski]. - ¶ - "I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally," Obama said. "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. [...] - ¶ - The Republican Jewish Coalition has been critical of Obama's plan, if elected president, to call "a summit in the Muslim world." [...] (ref: Jonathan Martin)

--Justmeherenow (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (Misattribution. Chi Sun-Times)'' --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to take more than a blog post on the subject for this to be considered notable enough to include. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but the print version of The Politico is said to have a circulation of 25,000. --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So? Many partisan blogs have readership in the hundreds of thousands, but that doesn't mean that their claims are reliable or that their opinions are notable. Hundreds of editorials are written about the candidates every day. An issue must rise to a larger level of notability before we can even consider mentioning such opinion pieces in these articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that due care needs to be taken with regard to reporters' bias. While the Politico allows its reporters to editorialize (as in the British style e/g in the Economist or Guardian or Financial Times) it is still both a newspaper and often a published source of news. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC) While I appreciate your oft-demonstrated editorial expertise, Monkey, its your habit of flipping out generalized pronouncements instead of constructive and specific criticisms (e/g arguing how the Jonathan Martin reportage might be biased) that's a bit, well, "Judge Roy Bean"! lol :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[...Ralph Nader said Obama] "was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate." ¶ Asked to react, the Obama campaign said, "Barack Obama's long-standing support for Israel's security is rooted in hi s belief that no civilians should have to live with the threat of terrorism." ¶ [...] ¶ The Obama campaign Sunday afternoon revealed that the Ohio meeting took place, attended by about 100 Jewish community activists, including some rabbis, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and Eric Lynn, the Obama campaign's Jewish liaison, and Obama. The campaign provided a transcript[... [which includes the self-same quotes picked out by Jonathan Martin, referenced just above]]. (ref: ChiSun-Times)

--Justmeherenow (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyde Park weather report

And, overly broad "Hyde Park" paintstrokes trying to paint Obama " ":

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. - ¶ - While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. (ref: Ben Smith)

--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[...Clinton campaign spokesman Singer re Hyde Park:] "...No follow-up on the part of the Obama traveling press corps." (ref: WaPo)

--Justmeherenow (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all clear what you are proposing for the article. You seem to be straying from strict purpose of this talk page and veering into general comments about or discussion of Barack Obama or his campaign.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the article with your frequent posting of quotes here, or are you just posting them here to post them here? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When I veer from discussions toward improving maintext, please specify. (Sorry!) Still, while, Loonymonkey, it's fine you revert "questionably sourced material" much, constructively extend the courtesy to post such conscientiously documented submissions to the discussion page for vetting not so much - Do enlighten us as to wotcher beef is that other editors discuss contentions here before distilled submissions to main text. --Justmeherenow (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. You've still lost me, Justmeherenow. What would you like us to do with these quotes you've posted on the talk page? The only purpose for this talk page is to discuss improvements to the main text. If you're posting the quotes for any other reason, then please discontinue posting them on this talk page. Using this page as a discussion board for Obama's campaign is not an appropriate use. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me try the imperative tense. Please show me the guideline where it says that talkpages are for lazily and unspecifically generalizing how another editor's suggested material has nothing in it worthy to contribute, rather than specififying what, if anything, out of it does not belong in the article and why. In any case, I will henceforth only respond to specific criticisms of my posted subject mater (and not to non-specific "Whatch doin' here!" blather.) Thankyou. --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want us to add the above to the article, then we can discuss it, you just need to be clearer about it. Perhaps something along the lines of "Should we could include information about how Barack Obama received donations from a member of Weatherman (organization)..." To which we can respond.. Umm.. How is that important? You don't need the full on quotes to get your point across. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll try that tack. :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pic be-turbaned

A problem keeps coming up of editors editing who have not first read WP's guidelines or are lazy: e/g this image Image:Barack Hussein Obama.jpg of Obama (in garb of a Kenyan clan---analogous to donning a ceremonial kilt during a diplomatic trip to the U.K.) was removed but not posted here. Or it of course could have been left in but with the claimed-faulty caption (which was "Obama wearing a muslim dress during a 2006 visit to his native Kenya") altered or some rationale given why the image itself was to be deleted. Let's try not to keep falling off the hay rack, fellow Wiki- farmers/co-operative members! :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note Image:25campaign-obama250.jpg‎ is a higher quality image, so I've nominated Image:Barack Hussein Obama.jpg for speedy deletion. There really isn't a point to having two of the image on WP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over the inclusion of the image of Obama in traditional Somali clothing

First of all, the notability of even mentioning this little flap is highly questionable. It's just another blog item of the day that will be completely forgotten in a week. But there especially isn't any reason to add the photo. The whole reason that a few websites have tried to circulate that photo is that it plays directly into misperceptions that it is some kind of Muslim garb which fuels misconceptions about Obama's religion (just today it was added with the caption "Obama wearing a Muslim dress.") I can see why the Drudgereport would want as many people as possible to see this photo, but there are no similar partisan agendas here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just circulating on a few blogs. This is being shown and written about in the mainstream media. What is your problem with the image?--STX 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why did you add it to the section dealing with Obama's religion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because that is where it is discussed.--STX 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo is only being circulated for one reason, to increase misperceptions about Obama's religion. In general, the media is not taking the bait. There is passing mention of the spat between the two campaigns, but can you name a major American newspaper that has printed the photo? Why do you feel it is necessary to include? What is your argument for inclusion in this article? (and "they showed it on Fox and Friends" isn't an argument) --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. I've seen the image on the internet for newspapers. Wikipedia is not censored and the image has received a fair amount of press, its addition improves the article so readers can see and judge for themselves what that particular paragraph is talking about.--STX 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are clearly intent on starting an edit war, so I'll leave it to other editors to revert your repeated addition of this (you are one step away from violating WP:3RR, btw). You should note also that the burden for inclusion is on you (by your comments you seem to be confused on that point).--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to add the image. Read my comments above this.--STX 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The burden for inclusion is that the submission is encyclopedic and adaquately referenced. For deletion, an editor is burdened to make the case (somebody help me here) that the material would give undue weight...to the subject's part-African ethnicity? However, we must remember that Wikipedia is not censored and its coverage may offend certain parties (of course with the sole exception of encyclopedic content that's illegal to publish in the sunshine State of Florida. Go Gaters!)--Justmeherenow (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. "Encyclopedic" is a pretty subjective catch-all term and sourcing isn't rally the issue here. As always, there needs to be a an actual reason to include new material. It has to be necessary to the article. Simply sourcing it and then pointing to the fact that it is sourced as the sole rationale for inclusion isn't enough. Note, also, that the entire burden of argument is placed on the editor seeking to add material. The issue has nothing to do with censorship, that's just a spurious argument. But as I said, I'm not going to be baited into an edit war so I'm going to leave it to other editors to add or remove the material. This one has already risen to the level where STX is leaving personal attacks on my user page, so I'll sit out and just offer my opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the image needs to be included. Censoring images is not the Wikipedia way, even if it might offend - in this case - the Obama lobby that we include the image. Harry Barrow (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Its addition improves the article so readers can see and judge for themselves what that particular paragraph is talking about. I never left personal attacks on anybody's talk page. Please strike out your unsubstantiated claim and talk about the issue at hand.--STX 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It has no place in the article. It is non-notable copyvio and likely being placed into the article to cause readers to be prejudicial again Mr. Obama. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Non-notable"? What a laughable argument. Harry Barrow (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Wordbuilder's statements sound like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The story and image are very notable and I don't see any copyright violations.--STX 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

actually if any of the three of you did your homework you would have seen that there is a long-standing situation with new users not knowing what "recentism" means and trying to add whatever random thing is being spun that day or week. If it has legs, don't worry it will get mentioned- usually in a text reference. For pictures the standard is higher- and either way it will need consistent reporting for a week or more before it will even be considered. and let me tell you the two users you three are starting trouble with are much faster with their rv-buttons than you will ever be. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever just made the above comments ought to log in to avoid the perception that somebody is trying to give the look of more broad opposition than there really is.--STX 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The opposition seems to come from one or two members of the Obama following, and be based solely on the fact that they don't want the already world-famous picture to be available on Wikipedia. The opposition may be compared to the recent controversy related to pictures of Muhammed. Harry Barrow (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The onus isn't on me to explain why it isn't notable. The onus is on you to explain why it is notable. So far all we have is "Non-nontable'? What a laughable argument." and "The story and image are very notable..." with no explanation as to why. I remember the time George W. Bush fell off of a Segway. It was carried by reputable sources. Was that somehow notable, too? The anon editor brings up a good point as well. You don't get to just ignore it because he/she hasn't created an account or isn't logged in. Oh, as far as copyvio goes... The image was copied from the web. Since it is not notable, it doesn't pass fair-use and should not be used here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

STX, the IP address is a regular editor independent of Wordbuilder and LoonyMonkey. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

actually all the regulars know who I am but I love the idea of being bad so keep thinking I am some dangerous dirty sock pleez! anyhoo it looks like the hilary people have finally given up but here are all the new mc-cain guys. welcome (yay) and please keep making POV edits as MUCH as possible because it helps us, the regulars, "seperate the wheat from the chaff if you will." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I think Barck looks pretty good in the Somalian tribal elder get-up. Anyway, I'm (A) on the Nader side of the political spectrum (although I support Barack anyway) (B) remain neutral as to whether the image proves to be encyclopedic at the moment and don't think WP needs to be in any hurry necessarily to include it. Peace out. --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL27073547.html
• http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F5A2FA5C-8EE2-4CF1-B05E-6808110E3BB9.htm
• http://www.thestar.com/USElection/article/306853
• http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-080226-obama-turban,0,2618155.htmlstory
• http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0227pagefeb27,0,4357669.column
• http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080225/obama_kenya_080225/20080225?hub=CTVNewsAt11
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502784.html?hpid=topnews

This is not a prominent part of the article, its just a paragraph and a relevant image that has been circulating all over the internet. It is very notable as proven by the all the above links and it represents the height of the "Obama is Muslim" allegations, which are in no way recentism.--STX 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, the fact that the photo is sourced is not in itself an argument for inclusion. There are millions and millions of photographs and comments which are just as reliably sourced yet also don't have any reason for inclusion. Other than "it's sourced" you you haven't really come up with any rationale for why this needs to be included. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, that has already been explained. Lets look at what the regular user Bobblehead stated, "it is definitely notable enough to be included in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article". --STX 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

there is a very good argument for why the pic is non-notable from an encyclopedic perspective but you are bringing up so many ethnic- and racially- charged reasons that I will concentrate on that instead- the pics is from SOMAILIA not kenya so any claim to a obama heritage connection is tenuous at best. you saying that is proof in my mind that this pic is being used for POV reasons and editors needs to be wary. There is is absolutely no way it is proper to connect traditional somali clothing with "muslim clothing" and hence to Obama's background. Not every one on Somalia is a muslim, we have no way of knowing, with the current info, what tribe the clothing is from (ANOTHER reason to wait before knee-jerk posting). The only conceivable reference is to OTHER obama SMEARS, in which case a text mention might be merited, but not the original source of the problem lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The image is of Somali tribesmen in Kenya. Somalia is almost 100% Islamic. Your facts are wrong.--STX 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: (1) The people are ethnic Somalis living in Kenya. (2) It is true that they are almost certainly Muslim, but the clothing is not "muslim clothing" (whatever that's supposed to mean). (3) Obama Sr. was a Luo, not a Somali, so he belonged to a different heritage and his family would not have worn the Somali style of clothing.--Pharos (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You have proven sourced recentism. You have not proven notability. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is very notable as proven by the all the above links and it represents the height of the 'Obama is Muslim' allegations, which are in no way recentism". Plus it's not prominent in the article, it's a very minor part.--STX 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are only making the case that the controversy surrounding the photograph should be mentioned. You haven't made any case as to why we actually need to put the photograph in this article. The standard is very high for that. You'll need to come up with a reason much better than "letting the reader see it and judge for themselves." --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

also I forgot to mention, think of all the world leaders who wear local clothing- I have seen pics of Bush, Prince Charles, Merkel, all wearing crazy things because of some sort of official ceremony. so again recentism recentism recentism. also for you to make the heritage case, using your facts, Obama would have to have heritage from a "somali living in Kenya?" ok, but isn't kenya far LESS muslim than somalia? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The image is the most controversial facet of the controversy. It just illustrates the very minor point that is being made in the body for the readers to see.--STX 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is a "very minor point" is an argument against notability and, therefore, an argument against the inclusion of the image. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? If an image is being discussed wouldn't it make sense to show the image if it is available and if space is available?--STX 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

because, chance are, a week from now it will not be mentioned in ANY media outlet and no one will care, except when someone comes here for info and instead there is a massive attack section full of old non-sequitur since moved past. Then it will get deleted anyways- so I guess we are just saving YOU some time. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's really weird and that so many contributors here state their personal opinions about what events have "legs" and will become historical as if their opinions are absolute fact. It really undercuts their entire argument because everybody knows that when it comes to politics, nobody knows what's gonna stick next week or next year. e.g."Ask not what your country can do for you...", and a bunch of burglars caught in an office building named "Watergate". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On the topic, it seems as if there is a quite predictable effort underway to associate Obama with the muslim religion. He's even been asked recently by media "are you a muslim". This photo might be included in a section covering that part of the campaign or maybe not. But I'd say that it could be seen in that broader "dirty tricks" type of campaign context. Mr.grantevans2 (talk)

Viral videos (viz. ones pro)

What is encyclopedic to be distilled from the referenced info below?--Justmeherenow (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama Girl On June 13 2007 a video from Barely Political entitled "I Got a Crush... on Obama", starring Amber Lee Ettinger, otherwise known as "Obama Girl", received national media attention. It was followed by "Debate '08: Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl" and, most recently prior to Super Tuesday, "Super Obama Girl." These comedic videos were not produced by the Obama campaign.

Yes We Can Song On February 2, 2008, Black Eyed Peas singer will.i.am released "Yes We Can", a black-and-white internet music video featuring numerous celebrities with lyrics based on quotations from Sen. Obama's concession speech at the New Hampshire primary. While it was neither produced by nor co-ordinated with the Obama campaign, it was promptly featured on the campaign's community blog upon its release. In the two weeks following its initial YouTube posting, the main video already had over four million views, and numerous exact copies had been posted by other users, a total approaching ten million views.

Si Se Puede Cambiar On February 22, 2008, "Si Se Puede Cambiar" was released on YouTube. The original Spanish language music video was the creation of a volunteer network of Obama supporters known as UnitedForObama and was written and performed by artist Andres Useche and directed by Eric Byler. The video, and song, criticizes the Bush administration while presenting Obama as the candidate for change in the 2008 election. The video features footage of Useche singing and performing on acoustic guitar, intercut with images critical of Bush—images intended to exemplify some of his failed policies, such as soldiers in Iraq and victims of Hurricane Katrina, and images in support of Obama, such as volunteers at work for his campaign, and supporters at his political rallies. Celebrities who appear in the video include Kelly Hu, Ken Leung and Kal Penn.

__________

--Justmeherenow (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

having been over this before with you, the "yes we can" video is notable at least. The obama girl thing might also be notable because it brought attention to obama back when no-one cared. don't know abut the last one 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always felt that there was far too much emphasis placed on these videos (and the tone of it is a little too promotional in the pro-Obama sense). Maybe a sentence or two describing the first two could be included as they are referenced quite frequently, even now. The third one is completely non-notable and should be removed entirely. Also, we should remove the YouTube links per WP:EL.--Loonymonkey (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For balance, we've got to apply las tácticas guerrilleras de La Uve-Doble De Efe (Wikipedia's Deleciónista fr-r-ront) equally toward both pro- and anti-Obama recentisms. (This, despite my own sympathies towards it, along with my knowledge that Wikipedia actually encourages it, when it's well done. Think: broadcasting fare during public television's membership drives. :^) ) --Justmeherenow (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way is "Yes we can" named after Cesar Chavez chants? Do you think the makers of that video even know who Cesar Chavez is? johnpseudo 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that either until I re-wrote the paragraph- that what the yes we can page says itself- I guess it started out as si se puede before it was translated. How ironic is that? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No- my point is that the video has nothing to do with Chavez and everything to do with the use of the slogan in the Obama campaign. johnpseudo 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama, as a community organizer for many years, is a logical successor to the Chavez legacy on one level. on another he has been trying to get Latino votes since this campaign began- another logical reason to re-claim a popular and recognizable phrase. I think there are many reasons the two are entertwined, not the least of which is that even justifiably-borrowed words from a friend has been used against Obama, so obviously it is vitally clear there is not a similar false charge of plagarism here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Logic doesn't play a part in trying to draw a connection between Obama's use of "Yes we can" and "Si se puede", particularly in regards to the Will.i.am's video. Will.i.am's video is not named after Cesar Chavez's slogan, its named after the speech. The video does have a portion in Spanish, but it also has a part in Hebrew and American Sign Language. While it is true that "Si se puede" generally means "Yes we can" the term is ubiquitous enough that drawing a tie between the two slogans is tortured at best. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the obama camp at least has been very specific at least that they are trying to MAKE a connection, for political reasons if not idealogical ones. And the use of the term in speeches and chants by obama has been intentionally connected to chavez and 'the movement' by the campaign. Its not like this is happening in a vacuum--- Chavez invents it, it becomes a union slogan, many union supporters are democrats, it becomes a democratic slogan, obama starts using it (as a union and community organizer like Chavez). So I think the Chavez ref. should be there as a sign of respect for Chavez, not as an attempt to promote the video for Obama, which is what it seems you guys are concerned about (?) Anyways I'm not going to throw a big fit about this obviously but I would like others' opinions if they have them. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not about respect or disrespect to Chavez, it's about verifiability. Do you have a source that says the Obama campaign is making the connection between their use of "Yes we can" and Chavez's and UFW's use of "Si se puede"? Obama started using "Yes we can" before the Latino vote even became an issue in this race and the first I heard of the connection to Si se puede was when Obama's campaign (foolishly) accused Hillary's campaign of co-opting the phrase from Obama's speeches. Of course, I'm not reading every press release/article on the race, so it is entirely possible the campaign's use of "Yes we can" is intentionally a riff on "Si se puede", just need a reliable source to support the claim before we can draw the connection in the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

like i have said I am just going on what the "yes we can" song page says, which links back to the "yes we can" chant page, which links to chavez. So just read the diff. pages quick before I wrote the new viral video blurb, to give it what I assumed was some context and color. Obviously it has been a problem so I am not worried about the current version, but I think there is a connection. I think the key here is that the chant was co-opted by all sorts of democrats before Obama got to it. So there is not first degree connection between the two but there are a lot of second and third degree connections. Anyways none of this is a secret, people can click twice and figure it out themselves. I just thought some color and info might be good for the page, allow people to get context without following links left and right. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising

The Fundraising section states, "Obama's fundraising prowess has matched that of Hillary Clinton's and, financially speaking, is staying competitive with her."

While that was accurate early in the race, I think it is fair to say that now his "fundraising prowess" exceeds Clinton's far beyond "staying competitive". As is later stated in the article, >1,000,000 individual donors is a record for a presidential primary race. His one-day total of $6.5 million speaks for itself. Her campaign is $8 million in debt, and while she is expected to take in $30mil in February, this is eclipsed by the Obama campaign's estimate of over $50 million for February.

I think the above-mentioned sentence should be revised to reflect the current situation. 65.198.5.140 (talk) 00:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

then go for it, this page ain't locked! and enjoy it because this is one of the few that allows free edits. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Religious Background" section needs to be trimmed.

It is giving far too much weight to something which, while a noteworthy issue, certainly isn't the biggest issue of the campaign. In particular, the first paragraph is completely unnecessary. Why does it matter who the first person to lie about Obama's religion was? And why are we even mentioning freerepublic forum posts? Other paragraphs could be trimmed or merged (the emails are mentioned in three separate paragraphs). So, for starters, other than Andyvphil (who has made this his own personal crusade), does anyone feel this first paragraph adds anything to the article and, if so, why? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

after looking at the page, trying to figure out how to merge it all, I will say a couple things: 110% on the reactor possible, but not recommended. ie: a total mergeout would work, but it would be messy and put there would still be enough chunks around to maybe give the appearance of more weight to the issue believe it or not. The page is currently chronological, and so breaking up the religion section by timeline gets hairy. again, doable but messy. The same areas of conflict will possibly still exist, and by spreading it around we possibly create the chance for more vandalism. And this brings me to the first paragraphs.They exist the way they do because we are currently doing the chrono. thing. And so some explanation of the genesis of the attacks has to be given. Even if we merge there will have to be a beginning to it all, and here were are: i have tried, as you may have noticed (lol) every type of of summary statement, referring to a "series" or a "campaign" or whatever else I can think of, and it all gets reverted. So oh well but I guess if other people also think that paragraph blows, it would be great for them to start figuring out how to say it better. I don't revert good-faith stuff, (even though it seems like all I do is edit war), and believe me I would be much less likely to rv stuff that others write, besides me and andy.

In short you are right all those blog links etc are not cool, but I have yet to successfully tell the story of these rumors in a way not mentioning the first semi-uncitable instances. Maybe starting with "the nation" article (hayes) would be the way, but that brings us pretty far into the campaign, well after the point where the muslim attacks were an issue, chronologically. I would love it if someone could write the religion section non-chronologically but I don't know if that type of edit would last without locking the page or something, unfortunately. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right that the freerepublic post is insignificant. But it's just about Martin's only claim to fame and if you start with Hayes, who wastes half his Obama/muslim ink on Martin, you have to, if you are going to attempt being encyclopedic, explain why you mention Martin. And freerepublic plus "Infidel Bloggers Alliance" is all there is. Hiding that fact behind balderdash like "A series of campaigns to smear Obama began with a press release..." isn't going to cut it. Andyvphil (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how any of the Martin stuff is significant at all. It doesn't matter that he was "first," that would only be notable if his specific allegation was the one thing that snowballed into a larger story. The only notable and reliable source for him is the fact that he was mentioned in the Nation article. That's a pretty thin claim to notability. I think that paragraph should be removed, but at the very least trimmed to a sentence or two. I'll try that first. I disagree about the whole "chronology" strategy. That becomes an invitation for the section not to briefly describe the controversy and its notable events, but to become a coat rack of mentions wherever they can be found. This is what has happened. It gives undue weight to a relatively fringe issue of the campaign. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

possibly it would work if we broke it into thematic sub-sections. That would eliminate the chronology a little bit, if that is we want. The three I am seeing right now are "allegations concerning heritage," "allegations concerning education," and "allegations during the primary campaign." So far everything fits in those three. I think it brings up a subquestion of how we want to handle the specific allegations. Right now we address most if not all, individually. I agree we might be able to strip things down to a set of consensus summary statements, but as you might guess I think finding that consensus is going be tough. If we want to reduce length, regardless if we change formats or merge, we will have to summarize content as well. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just reread the section, and I'm reasonably happy with it just as it is. Seems reasonably NPOV and makes all the necessary distinctions. And I haven't had to edit war over it to keep it that way for more than 24 hours. Leave it alone. Andyvphil (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

so that would make it 2-1 in favor of modification? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When Gore endorses Obama, do we have to say "Nobel laureate"?

Ppl can find this (his receiving the peace prize [--ed.]) out about Gore at his WP artcle. And the same, re Will.i.am('s particular award [--ed.]). --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They can find out that Will.i.am is a Nobel laureate? Really? What? →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If context didn't supply your answer, you could have tried something radical and clicked Will.i.am's link to find out if he was a Nobel laureate. But, just in case you'd actually done that and were still confused----although I'm not a miracle worker, I've put in a parethetical emendation above. --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

actually its a great idea. Also it would be "tangential" if you say Will.i.am had simply endoresed obama or something. BUT he wrote a song, which I think means mentioning his credentials in the field is wholly appropriate. It is something people use to make sense of things, and knowing who is good and who is bad in the world. No one over 40 knows who Will.i.am is, and i think it gives them a MUCH better understanding of the viral video section if they realize that he is not just some random garage-musician. Like I said I know for whatever you reason you are attempting to nickel-and-dime the viral video section into deletion, but again sorry. I try especially hard to work around YOUR edits but I am beginning to question that. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS has Gore endorsed Obama? I went to go write that up but I could find anything about who he endorsed? Also that endorsement list at the bottom of the page is confusing to be, so does anyone just know?? I looked up Jimmy Carter too but no dice. still only march lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. But he will (after Hillary drops out.)

BTW, you sold me with the people over 40 argument (despite my being 51).

(And, for those meditating in Tibet for the past few years, no Will.i.am didn't fly to Oslo to share in that particular laurel leaf! ((Still, when anti recentisms are so quickly delecionistaed, it's odd to argue so vociferously in favor of the "pro" pop culture stuff. But I'm the one who's not working in good faith toward NPOV? Please specify. Thx.))) --Justmeherenow (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, my actress friend works alongside a Grammy Winner, to drop names. (I suppose Alexander Graham Bell's anyway. I live near NYC.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

well thanks for understandin'- as far as recentism goes, the Grammy thing in fact is the exact opposite because there is only one per category per YEAR, so it is an appellation that lasts. We may know nothing else about some artists, but history will preserve the fact that they won a grammy or an oscar, or in fact a darwin if that be the case.

re: your problem with the viral video section: I don't know if you have one or not, but you campaigned REAL hard to get it dropped down from three paragraphs to one, a decision I was not 100% supporting myself even though I made the edit. Oh well but that seemingly did not even satisfy you, you keep picking away at it! So Oh well again but maybe make your own text but please stop stripping other's down until it barely makes sense (especially when your rv's leave in typos left and right) and then getting mad when they try to fix it. and the way you edit the "Crush" video section makes me think you actually haven't seen the video. that thing is very silly and certainly is SO flimsy that it supports no POV in the first place. So pardon me for getting a little puckered when you delete essentially any description of the thing under the guise of NPOV. Thats why it seems like you are very concerned with certain... things about a very small section of the article

the girl is hot, the girl is half naked, I am being as npov as I can believe me... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I like her lots, too. Hell, WP can say she's hot without reliance on secondary sources, just by linking to the primary source of the vid, eh? Yeah, Saw her---Giuliani Girl------the writer of "Crush" (who's really talented. Have you seen her self-sung music vid about Ann Coulter and a lot of other things?) But, still thought "Crush" merited only mention by name and description as off-topic parody. More is OK too, though (and drives lots of reader interest, that being the nature of recentism). But what's good for the goose (re how crazy ppl get about recentisms around here) is good for the gander. P.S. As I'm sure you're aware, the Viral Vid section is extremely well crafted; it shines, while lots of other sections suffer by comparison re their readibility, concision and flow.

As for the discussion you had about sourcing. Apparently your assertion with regard to Chavez is controversial. In which case you simply reference it (while you can't use other WP articles as its source, ironically). I actually think it belongs in there. For these reasons:

• The importance for Barack to attract the Hispanic vote
• It helps to color in the picture of Barack as a true laborite, community organizer, champion of the struggling masses.
• Chavez and his cause were amazing. --Justmeherenow (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess recentisms for me are all the other you tube videos that are far far less famous lol. Obama girl has earned her place, so to say. and the yes we can video which accomplished nothing before super tuesday but in the intervening month has proved its worth to me. you are right the third video is a recentism and keeps trying to ride the coattails of its big brother and sister. anyways that chavez things sound likes a perfect project for you to add some text of your own! personally i kind of gave up on that a while ago; i figure most people who would matter would make the extra clicks anyways- but I am all for it if you add a source. some of this I think may be moot 48 hrs from now anyways... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To seriously answer the question: No, if and when he endorses Obama, you don't have to mention that Gore was given an award by some like-minded European politicians. If he were an economist, it might be different. It's misguided to think that the imprimatur of a bunch of socialists said much about the value of Milton Friedman's work, but as shorthand for expressing the undeniable nature of his greatness the award from his opponents was invaluable. (Einstein's fame, on the other hand, transcended the Nobel given him for fairly minor work -- the photoelectric effect -- and it usually gives the Nobel he got undue reflected weight when mentioning his name.) Gore is a former Veep, failed Democrat nominee for President, and current global warming crusader. Nobel laureate doesn't really make the cut.

And who the fuck is Will.i.am? (I'm 57 tomorrow.) Andyvphil (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

this is Will.i.am: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk (grammy winner lol) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivial (?) item removed

I removed:

On 12 April 2007, Bo Dietl, a regular guest on Imus in the Morning, repeatedly called attention to Obama's middle name, Hussein, during an interview with Rebecca Gomez, and Imus in the Morning producer Bernard McGuirk was quoted as saying Obama had a "Jew-hating name." This is possible retaliation for Obama's call for the shows host, Don Imus to be fired after the Rutgers basketball incident.

Does anyone think it was an important event in Obama's campaign? Redddogg (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

fundraising

who ever keeps deleting this section should stop or attempt a clean up. My information is triple sourced and if need be I will provide the FEC sheets if necessary. Hillary has an exhaustive analysis of her fundraising with a tremendous amount of scrutiny. IT isn't biased just because it contradicts your viewpoint of your candidate. the fact that you are using a blocked ip adrress makes it kind of obvious.

moved this post to where new posts usually go; you make a bunch of great points. yes everyone would love to see your "fec sheets" and all that other stuff. what we would also like to see is proper grammar and etiguette from you when you make sweeping changes to a page many of us take pride in. You think this is about our POV and your NPOV, but please rest assured that none of us even think about that until we see things properly formatted, spelled, and sourced with something more than two cites for an entire paragraph. Then and only then will consensus address whether your text meets neutrality standards. basically- please don't post dupe sections- if nothing else it makes the page ugly and wrong regardless of what the FEC says. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama referred to Canada's Prime Minister as the "President" of Canada

1: Where should this go? It happened last August[30] and is particularly important,maybe, because he was a politician in a border state and should have known better, perhaps. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Same reposnse as your question at Talk:Barack Obama, Yes he should have known better, but a single instance of someone making a mistake is not significant enough for placing in the article. IMO it does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was notable every time a politician misspoke, then a certain current leader might have a whole article dedicated to the subject. But, alas, it is not. I'm sure he does know better. We all say one thing when we mean another. I agree with Jons63. Doesn't belong. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree except for the whole issue of "Day 1 Preparedness" which seems to becoming an important part of the campaign. I mean, if the front runner in the race for Prime Minister of Canada referred to the U.S. President as "Prime Minister of the United States" would that be a significant enough of a "mistake" to place in that article? Of course it also depends upon whether it was a mistake (mis-spoke)or a lack of knowledge and that's not for us to assume either way, I'd say. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It would not be of significance to place a Prime minister misspeaking either, the same logic applies to that arguement. Just because he mispoke/didn't know does not mean he isn't prepared to lead the US. Jons63 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone President versus Prime Minister or vice versa is not a particularly good indicator of "Day 1 Preparedness", particularly given that in the context in which this misstatement was used the terms are essentially identical in that they both mean the person that is the head of government and in current practice head of state. Canada's head of state is technically the Queen of England and her proxy, the Governor General of Canada, but the position is mostly ceremonial now and while certain powers, ie commander in chief, are legally vested in the Governor General, in practice they are carried out by the PM. Now, if Obama had made the misstatement in regards to a country like Lebanon, where the Prime Minister and President both exist and hold completely different functions it might be significant, but in relation to Canada it isn't that significant. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is also taking place at Talk:Barack Obama. At the very least, the matter falls under Wikipedia:Recentism and doesn't belong in any article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

May be it does not belong in the article but I can't see where recentism would be the problem since the event happened 10 months ago? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. You are correct on that. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

however the current reporting on this talk IS an example of recentism, and because it clearly does not meet the ten-year rule, inclusion is still discouraged. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

somali pic redux

still non-notable because the reporting has died down on that specific aspect of the muslim story. It has a text mention which is all it merits. The pic is not even recentism at this point, its just mudslinging. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please revert. I'm coming too close to 3RR. The image was deleted and will be again. If the editor who added it reverts you, he will be in violation of 3RR or close to it. Same goes for the Barack Obama article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

can't edit main BO because its blocked to IPs lol. I will see what I can do though.. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is ironic or sad or whatever considering what is going on here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. The image has been redeleted from Wikipedia. According to the admin who performed the deletes, the user uploaded it yet again so has been blocked for a week. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The first occurrence of this image was deleted as a result of this discussion. At least two uploads of it have been deleted since and the current version should be bound by the discussion as well since it is the same. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for deletion was at least in part that the image wasn't in use, an objection automatically obviated any time it is used. Nor does the discussion make clear why this image fails the fair use rationale that enables us to use other copyrighted images under appropriate conditions. The closest I see is howcheng's assertion of the hypothetical "If [the copyright holder is] a news agency (AP, AFP, etc), there's no way we can keep this." But he doesn't explain why normal fair use of copyrighted media doesn't apply in that case which, as I say, is merely hypothetical. It is difficult to see why the result of a discussion that fails such a basic test should be considered binding. And, btw, the uploader, user:James_Luftan, has never been blocked. Please clarify. Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

also it violates recentism by giving undue weight to a subject that has not been reported on by anyone since last tuesday at least, prolly far longer. if you are so convinced it belongs on the page surely you could have put in some effort (in the intervening weeks) besides getting mad, after the fact, when someone else attempts an upload. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been "intervening weeks" and I haven't "[gotten] mad, after the fact, when someone else attempts an upload." It's hard to divine what you might mean, if anything. Andyvphil (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

just the weeks since when 'harry barrow' first appeared on the seen uploading it, and now here we are with you supporting (some of) the actions of a user with a 7-day block. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, what does James_Luftan have to do with this? →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He uploaded the image which the discussion was about. There was a comment which seemed to imply ("the user uploaded it yet again so has been blocked") he'd been blocked. Didn't happen. Hence my request for clarification. Mainly I'd like clarification of why, putting aside any content disagreements about undue weight or suchlike, it didn't meet fair use criteria. The discussion you said should govern didn't make that case, so far as I can see. Andyvphil (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

even if it wasn't a copyvio, it wouldn't be on the page because of the undue weight problem it has. so why try and save it if its an instant orphan?72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The blocked user is Harry Barrow, who re-uploaded the image after it had been deleted. He was warned to not uploaded it again after that but failed to heed the warning. Fair use cannot be asserted in the absence of notability. This event is not notable based on WP:Recentism. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RECENTISM is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it is less negative on the subject of the appropriateless and usefulness of recentism than many editors, who cite the word or bluelink it without evidently having read the essay, seem to think. The narrative of an ongoing political campaign seems precisely a place where recentism is appropriate, as contemplated in the essay. WP:N has no direct application here. As the guideline says, "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." The sentence "Fair use cannot be asserted in the absence of notability" is a non sequitur. Try again. Andyvphil (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

just finished reading it too. yes the picture is not notable because of lack of current reporting, weasel-status, etc. all of which you have misunderstood, because of your recentist myopia. which is why we keep telling you about it, because you keep seeming like you don't understand the concept, as you just did right there... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) think about this "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the difficulty in understanding you comes from the fact that you don't yourself know what you're talking about. "Lack of current reporting"? It was a big fuss within the last two weeks. All the reporting is "current" by any reasonable definition. "weasel-status"? Perfect example of you being unable to communicate because you have nothing to communicate. "coverage of that individual..." What individual? We're talking about providing an image discussed by the text, not an individual.

Here's the applicable guidelines for unacceptable use [31]:

5. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)
6. A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example).

Note that neither applies, since the photo is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and does not have its own article which can be linked to as a substitute for displaying it here. Andyvphil (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

why on earth are you quoting inapplicable arguments for why something shouldn't be used? didn't momma teach you two wrongs don't make a right lol? anyways you're welcome to go try and find out what consensus is on that image lol. you've been talking big game, but you haven't dared rv yet and we all know why. you and me also both know that the image gives undue weight to a subject- and that is the essential reason you won't win on this issue. Undue weight because, as you are about right with "two weeks" but that was also when the first reporting came out. So if we devoted a separate pic to every three days of the Obama campaign the page would be draggin' ass (as they say).

also I have been reading a little Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terms_that_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint and I wouldn't expect a lot of your edits in "media coverage of religious background" to maintain consensus much longer. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quoting "arguments". I'm quoting an official "Guideline example" stating that "if the image has its own article" then it's an exception to the general rule that "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image" is fair use. The example obviously makes no sense unless the latter is true. Andyvphil (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

which doesn't answer nuthin' about undue weight (for the third time) I know I know, maybe if you keep pretending I didn't say it, it will just go away, huh? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One subject at a time. First the copyvio allegation, then whether Obama-in-a-turban is of less significance than Obama-with-a-mike. People whose thinking is clearer than yours try not to turn every question into goulash. Andyvphil (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When there's a disagreement, it's about coming to a consensus. Though you may not agree with it, Andyvphil, this matter has been decided. That's why the picture was deleted in the first place. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. "...when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree." Or, in this case, image, not article. I did not participate in the image deletion discussion and do not see that the argument that it is allowed under the WP:NONFREE guideline was either developed or answered. There's a legitimate concern that the copyright holder has not been properly identified, but if that's done I see no other copyright concern in the fair use of this image. And my opinion is that the passage discussing the image is significantly enhanced by showing the image here, rather than making the reader follow a link to see for himself what is being mentioned. If you disagree, that's just a content dispute, not copyright policy enforcement. Andyvphil (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

consensus can change, but consensus is still opposing you. please remember that the last person advocating use of this image got a seven-day block through the actions of four separate editors who I can remember of the top of my head. let me know if you think two weeks is enough time for one user (you) to totally outweigh what others have been doing for weeks. You have lost this battle repeatedly on the content issue and on the free-rights issue. which is why you can't win an rv war and aren't even trying lol. Basically a pic is not "enhancing" a section if the pic only refers to an extremely small portion to the section text, let alone the entire articles text. this is doubly true for a pic that is open to misinterpretation and was used in a libelous and POV way in the past. Also the lack of any current reporting on the subject (or past reporting outside of a month) indicates that its notability is currently served adequately by the text reference, portraying it as part of the other smear campaigns.

again andy, in the future please find four other editors who agree with your theories before you start spamming the page with anti-consensus arguments that are just wasting time and bandwidth unless verified by other more neutral users. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The one thing I can usually rely upon is that anything you say will be wrong. User:Hux uploaded the image and Wordbuilder reverted, I restored it, and Wordbuilder reverted again, pointing to the discussion here. As far as I know, Hux hasn't been blocked. Nor have I "lost" the battles on content (the "Media coverage of Obama's religious background" now makes the distinctions I insisted upon) or..."free-rights"? Whazzat? I doubt if I've "lost any battles" over it, whatever it is. And it's hard to "misinterpret" a pic labelled "This photo of Obama dressed in ethnic Somali clothing appeared on the Drudge Report, attributed to a Clinton staffer."[32] The image clearly illuminates the text ("The photo was interpreted as suggesting Muslim garb,...") and your suggested criteria, that an image is appropriate only if it somehow illustrates a entire section, doesn't appear to fit anything except the first head shot. As to the lack of current reporting, you are merely ignorant of it. E.g., [33], [34]. And that's not really important anyway. The real test will be seeing if when the next time the subject of the section becomes the flavor of the day (Currently still the Clinton-is-a-monster advisor resignation? Replaced the Canada-I-don't-really-mean-what-I'm-saying-about-NAFTA flap. Obama-in-a-turban is several flavors back.) will Obama-in-a-turban get a mention. If it does, this article ought to provide inquiring web surfers NPOV on what that mention is about. And the image would be helpful. Andyvphil (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

andy I hope you realize that providing two "cites" there when they are carbon-copies, one a wire service report and the other a reprint- thats misleading editing ok? Not like I care but someone keeps asking me to bring "diffs" over to the "sockpuppet page" whatever that all means... so you managed to find one piece of reporting, in fact not campaign reporting, and in fact the title of which directly contradicts the thrust of your arguments concerning the pic. you must've looked pretty hard for that, and thats the best you could find, so I can only imagine how this applies to the "ten-year" notability guideline from wp:recentism (a tome I know you love andy) which gets discussed below. and I think we will need more than a "soft two" cites to verify recent reporting72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Also the lack of any current reporting on the subject..." Emphasis in original. One cite was sufficient to prove that you were once again wrong. And it was easy to find. I was trying spock.com for the first time and it popped right up. And wrong again that the title("Kenyan Elder Says Obama Dress Cultural") "directly contradicts the thrust of [my] arguments" -- what part of "This photo of Obama dressed in ethnic Somali clothing..." did you miss? And your reading of the "ten-year test" mentioned in wp:recentism is a misunderstanding as well. "For example, in 2004 devoting more time on George W. Bush's page to the ongoing election rather than his previous one may have seemed logical. However, in ten years, when neither event is fresh, readers will benefit from a similar level of detail in both articles" and "After 'recentist' articles have calmed down... concerned Wikipedians ought to initiate comprehensive rewrites." This article is still in the 2004/recentist phase. Save your "ten year test" for the rewrite when the campaign is over. Do you go through life being wrong about everything? Andyvphil (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ah the ten-year test. you forget that this is a campaign article, not the main bio page. So we need to ask ourselves a decade from now, will the multi-year campaign, and its entire heritage debates, be best summed up by pic from a smear campaign, a subject which does not have anywhere near a majority or plurality of text in the section, which was actively reported for a fortnight at most? the answer being no, and I didn't need to post duplicate cites to prove that. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from the editor who recently added the photo

Wow! I see there's quite a bit of discussion on this. Hopefully I can add something constructive to it. First, however, please note that (for what it's worth) I was the one who recently added the image to the article (though I did not upload the image; my involvement in this stems from this PUI entry). Please also note (again, for what it's worth) that I am planning to vote for Obama in my state's upcoming primary.
So, that said, I see two issues here:

1. Should the image be allowed on Wikipedia in general?
2. Should the image be included in this article?

Point #1 is a no brainer: according to Wikipedia policy on the use of non-free content, a copyrighted image of a living person can be used in order to illustrate an article (or part of an article) that is specifically about that image, provided that the image is tagged as copyrighted and a detailed Fair Use rationale is given for that specific article on which it is used. This image clearly satisfies that policy.
Point #2, however, is more debatable. To address the question properly, I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of someone reading this article a year from now and ask ourselves: was this photo notable in this campaign? Surely the answer has to be "yes", doesn't it? I mean it's clearly very notable right now - a Google News search for "Obama" and "Somali" yields over a thousand results, pretty much all of which look to be about that specific photo in some way - and I think in the long run it will remain as a point of discussion when people go back and examine the campaign. Whether or not Obama is a Muslim has been a major part of this primary campaign, one that Obama himself has addressed many times in response to such "accusations". This photo represents the focal point of that issue, illustrating the way in which the issue has been used as a political smear against him. To draw a parallel, eight years ago the Bush campaign smeared John McCain by implying that he had fathered an illegitimate black child (in fact, he and his wife had adopted an orphaned girl from Bangladesh). People are still talking about that as an aspect of McCain's 2000 presidential bid, so there's every reason to expect that people will be talking about this photo and the "Obama is a Muslim" smear when they reflect back on this campaign.
In addition to the above, I think it's also important to point something out: if the consensus is that the photo is not sufficiently notable then, implicitly, the part of the article that discusses the photo is equally non-notable. There's no logic for justifying the inclusion of one but not the other; either the incident is notable enough or it isn't. If it is - and people certainly seem to think so given that nobody is trying to delete the text - then the photo should be there as well.
I think I make a pretty decent case for keeping the photo in the article and I welcome any comments the rest of you may have. I think there's a good chance that we can reach a solid consensus here. -- Hux (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

well you are totally wrong about this pic being the focal point of the muslim issue. Considering he has been campaigning for over a year, with muslim discussion all the time, the appearance of the pic only a few weeks ago means... you are wrong on that. Maybe you should read the long, heavily-cited section where all of these situations are analyzed, so you would know what the history is of the subject you claim to speak. (focal point of the issue, lol). And regarding your "one-year-from-now" theory, WP:Recentism advocates, in fact, a ten-year window and I find the image fails that test. Also you seem to show a limited knowledge of the image context. The image is in fact, a POOR illustration of the obama/muslim controversy, because it is a pic of him wearing the clothes of a different tribe and different ethnicity from those of his muslim father, a Kenyan Luo (thanx pharos) not a Somali at all. So that image is only connected to Obama's heritage by those who "get in wrong" and improperly connect one tribes dress, with the actual tribe of Obama's heritage, and THEN FURTHERMORE connect these ceremonial clothes with actual muslim religious clothes. As you can see a series of false connections are being made, and while some believe these connections, and others promote them, it does not make it right. What it falls to level of, like so much else these days, is campaign literature. We are not in the habit of printing the text or images of campaign flyers and other literature on the WP, and I don't think this is a great argument for an exception. Considering the numerous inherent factual errors and misinterpretations in general-use of that picture, I doubt it illuminates or provides any context for the larger muslim rumors section, which currently in both our section text, and in media buzz, seems to find the Indonesia thing the "focal point of the issue", not the again-deleted, borderline BLP-violating pic. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

72.0.180.2: I would appreciate it if, rather than jumping immediately to the conclusion that I am ignorant, you assume good faith and consider the possibility that a) I do actually know what I'm talking about, and b) you might just have the wrong end of the stick here. Allow me to explain:

• "you are totally wrong about this pic being the focal point of the muslim issue" - I didn't say that it's the focal point of the Muslim issue. I said it represents the focal point of that issue, i.e. that it sums up in ways that mere words cannot the way in which Obama has been smeared about being a Muslim. I probably could've worded that part better though, so apologies for causing you to misunderstand.
• "regarding your "one-year-from-now" theory, WP:Recentism advocates" - WP:Recentism is an essay, not policy. As it says right at the top, "editors are not obliged to follow it". If you believe that it is (or should be) treated as gospel then you're completely entitled to that opinion, of course, but until it actually becomes policy it's not reasonable for you to cite it as though it is.
• "The image is in fact, a POOR illustration of the obama/muslim controversy, because it is a pic of him wearing the clothes of a different tribe and different ethnicity from those of his muslim father" - With respect, you're missing the point. The precise type of clothing and what that clothing implies to people who have knowledge of Somali dress is irrelevant here. The incident we are discussing is the use of this photo to smear Obama and the photo was distributed precisely for that purpose. It wouldn't matter if he was wearing traditional Saudi, Kuwaiti, or Jordanian clothing; the justification for its inclusion would be the same because the result - fooling ignorant people into thinking he's a Muslim - would've been the same. See what I mean?
• "What it falls to level of, like so much else these days, is campaign literature. We are not in the habit of printing the text or images of campaign flyers and other literature on the WP, and I don't think this is a great argument for an exception." - This assertion makes no sense given that this image has never appeared in any campaign literature, nor is it associated with any campaign beyond the level of allegation. Further, I disagree strongly with your argument in general, given that it implicitly advocates the removal of all information about contentious campaign incidents that might be seen as having a negative effect on that campaign. That kind of censorship is not remotely in accordance with Wikipedia's mission, a mission whose focus is notability and verifiability, two factors that eminently apply to this image.
• "I doubt it illuminates or provides any context for the larger muslim rumors section" - Your opinion does not jibe with Wikipedia's, which strongly encourages editors to make use of images specifically because they illustrate a topic in an immediate, striking way that words alone cannot. This particular image (with an appropriate caption) instantly conveys a story to the reader: the story of Obama being smeared as a Muslim, a story that is undeniably notable. An good parallel here is this image of Gary Hart, which as you can see is being used to illustrate an almost identical incident. According to your argument, this image should also be deleted. To me that makes no sense, just as it makes no sense to discuss the notability of the Obama image in this article, but not actually include the image itself so that people can better see what's going on. -- Hux (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

no need to jump to conclusions, your writing speaks for itself. after reading your screed I feel the need to remind you that this issue DOES have a full paragraph of text and has been that way for weeks. you even admit that "the photo was distributed precisely for that purpose. [to smear]". So I just don't think WP is in the business of further distributing smear pics.

• You have made no argument for what NPOV, academic concept that pic illustrates.
• You have made no argument for why the negative of extreme ease of misinterpretation, is outweighed by the greater positive of "illustration" or "understanding" of the issue.
• You have made no argument for notability, considering again the equivalent text in the article is only a small minority of the total text from that section
• You have made no argument for notability, considering Andyvphil has provided exactly one instance of recent reporting on the pic, and you have provided zero instances.
• You have made no argument against undue weight, specifically that this pic does not violate it

While I am glad you have read wp:recentism, I am worried that you seem so comfortable with disregarding pragmatic advice if not outright WP:policy. Especially when I don't think this image has a good case for an exception, which is I think what you guys are looking for.

Like I said on the image page, BLP requires us to edit conservatively, with regard for privacy. Someone who has regular questions about his religion anyways, who posses a politically-charged heritage from day one, who's very appearance generates visceral reactions in many of his fellow citizens let alone the worldwide responses, I feel expects and deserves from this privacy the idea that WP will treat "conservatively" images of that person when they concern all the previously mentioned, highly-charged situations.

Also, if the copyvio situation ever gets figured out, and you do somehow discover a notability consensus on this, please remember that this image will need accompanying text and caption, all which will have to conform exactly to the standards referenced above including notability, npov, and blp. And it will have to explain proper context including actual obama heritage, perceived obama heritage, and actual facts concerning kenyan somaili's, etc. All this have to be done concisely, and even in the caption, or we will run an unacceptable risk of propagating the same misunderstanding you claim to be trying so hard to clear-up. And I think all of this text is possible, but not with the page's current set of editors and secretive wierdo IPs. I just think some people might try to coatrack the shit out that text, pardon the french. And I will be unhappy indeed. expect a bit of trouble if that text isn't bulletproof from day one- IF that pic ever lasts past a five-minute upload lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

72.0.180.2: I would appreciate it if you could adopt a more civil attitude. Implying that I'm ignorant and dismissing my efforts to improve this article as mere "screed" is unhelpful and unproductive. It's clear that we disagree on this but I see no reason why we cannot discuss this like respectful adults.

"I just don't think WP is in the business of further distributing smear pics" - Correct. However, when such images transcend their original purpose and crossover to become broadly notable and internationally newsworthy in and of themselves, WP absolutely is in the business of discussing them, as it does with the Gary Hart image I mentioned in my last post. Another example is this image of Marion Barry. Clearly there is a precedent here.

ps- both of those pics have no reasonable possibility of misinterpretation tho. 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"You have made no argument for what NPOV, academic concept that pic illustrates" - The fact that coverage specifically about the effect of the photo release has appeared all over the mainstream media proves that this is not a NPOV issue.

"You have made no argument for why the negative of extreme ease of misinterpretation, is outweighed by the greater positive of "illustration" or "understanding" of the issue" - On the contrary, I've done just that in my last several posts, where I focus on the notability of the photo, which imo trumps its potential misinterpretation. In any case, you yourself outline ways in which any potential misinterpretation could be eliminated by presenting it correctly in Wikipedia, so this is a non-issue.

"You have made no argument for notability, considering again the equivalent text in the article is only a small minority of the total text from that section" - I don't think this argument is relevant. There is no rule in situations like this where the text describing the photo must represent greater than X% of the whole. If the incident is sufficiently notable to talk about then the photo that the incident is all about is sufficiently notable too.

"You have made no argument for notability, considering Andyvphil has provided exactly one instance of recent reporting on the pic, and you have provided zero instances" - That is not correct. I have mentioned the incident's notability by pointing to the 1,000+ stories about it on Google News. But if you need specific links to reliable sources: BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian, Associated Press (via MSNBC), Reuters, The Times, CNN. Significantly, I've yet to find a major news outlet that has not covered this incident, so dismissing this on the basis of non-notability simply doesn't fly.

"You have made no argument against undue weight, specifically that this pic does not violate it" - The section talking about the various attacks on Obama's religion and heritage is currently running at almost 1,000 words. There is no way that adding this photo in order to illustrate the discussion about this photo and about those attacks in general constitutes undue weight.

"BLP requires us to edit conservatively, with regard for privacy." - Privacy is a non-issue here given that, once again, this photo has appeared in and been discussed all over the mainstream media.

"if the copyvio situation ever gets figured out" - It is already sorted out. There is no copyvio problem with including a copyrighted photo in an article section about that photo, under a proper Fair Use rationale. This is a non-issue.

Regarding how to fairly present the photo, I agree that such fairness is important, but imo you go way overboard in what constitutes such fairness. As long as the caption makes it clear a) what the photo is, and b) that it was used as a political smear, then that's perfectly adequate given that the broader explanation of the photo appears in the text. There is no need for the caption (or the text for that matter) to say anything about the fact that the clothes worn in the photo are unrelated to Obama's African heritage because such heritage has nothing to do with the nature of the smear, which is what the story is about.

Regarding your comments about other editors, I don't think they are appropriate. But in any case, imo there are not currently enough eyes on this discussion to reach a decent consensus so I think what I'll do is put out an RfC and see if we can't get some more opinions. -- Hux (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

so begins your waterloo perhaps. I have been itching for a rfc for weeks but as an IP I didn't have the nuts. thank god someone else does. And I know I have treated most other editors on this page with total kindness so that should tell you something.

notability- boy I sure jumped into this discussion without doing any research huh? I mean if I could miss such a basic thing like number of google news hits. You are right there are over 1000 hits for "Obama Somali" and other such variations, but guess what there are over 6000 for "obama muslim" so again i don't think that something representing (at most) 1/6th of the discourse, is in fact "representing the discourse," if you follow me. and you plow right over all my other non-notable arguments so again thank god for the RFC. And there still isn't any evidence of recent reporting (andyvphil at least tried but you did not). Maybe why I am a bit short with you is because I have been watching people show up and try to post analysis from both sides on this page, again and again for months, and we always use the same standard no matter what the "spin" is. The edit must involve a consistent, several-week long reporting record, which this image just does not meet. If you have looked at the google news hits then you know that the first few pages of most recent hits are almost all "tertiary" type reporting on the larger muslim issue, which mentions the somali pic as part of larger phenomena. there is very little reporting any more on the actual image itself. Yes it was reported for a week by all those fabulous mainstream sources you mentioned, but then what?

Don't you think that if the image was legitimately still an issue in the campaign, with campaign effort or widespread public discussion still occuring on it, don't you think maybe you would have a better rationale for inclusion? It seems like all you have right now is "it exists" and "it was reported on at the time". I guess I feel that if it really was a campaign issue, it would have some third event confirming the first two. And I think that if anti-obama forces were still getting play on the image, they would have found a way to re-introduce it again. But no, all we have is original event and the intervening echoes, originally in the "real" media and now here, This RFC is hopefully one of the last dim reverberations of the whole issue. Again, it is a perfect example as part of the heritage controversy, where most of the allegations get their "five minutes". You have made no headway or even an attempt at headway on how this image is more notable than all the other instances, which is what WP would imply by giving it a pic. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the "PS" comment you inserted into my previous post is baseless by your own admission: once again, you yourself have asserted that any "misinterpretation" would be obviated by an adequate caption wherever this image would be used. So, as I already stated earlier, that one is a non-issue.

Second, your objection to the Google News search for "Obama somali" makes no sense. I specifically cited that particular search term because it appears to bring up articles only about this photo (obviously I didn't check out every single one of the 1,000+ links, but I checked at least the first fifty and every single one of them was about the photo. Given that all I was trying to show was the fact that it has been widely discussed that, along with the direct links I posted, was clearly sufficient.

Third, you make the argument that although the photo has been widely discussed in the media, it is too recent to know whether it will remain notable and that therefore it should not be in the article. This is one point of view, based on the "recentism" essay, and you're entitled to it, but I say again: it is not policy. I happen to disagree on the overall Wikiphilosophy argument that you and the "recentism" essay make. That's another point of view and I'm entitled to that. Neither of our viewpoints represents policy. The difference between the two is that you are presenting yours as if it is. That is not reasonable.

Fourth, you ignored this when I first mentioned it so I'll say it again: if you're arguing for the non-appearance of this photo on the basis of recentism then you must also be arguing for the non-appearance of any description of it in the text on the same basis. Either the story of this image is notable enough for inclusion or it isn't. If it is then both the text and the image can be in the article. If it's not then neither can be.

Fifth, here are a few more analogous photos currently in use that serve as precedents for the Obama one: Donald Rumsfeld greets Saddam Hussein; John Kerry and Jane Fonda; Michael Dukakis in a tank. (Thank you for pointing me to that last one; I was not planning to link to the one I uploaded myself since that would've been dishonest, but if it hadn't been for this silliness I never would've known that a version already existed.) -- Hux (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

the difference being all those refs are from press releases, but not the obama one. So pray tell why did you upload the dukakis image then lol? finally please check your definition of recent reporting! you seem to think that several weeks prior counts as recent reporting, which is not the standard this page has been using, since well before you starting editing here. So again please start using the consensus terms if you expect to reach consensus. Finally since when have I said wp:recent is policy?? jeez man don't they say get it right? How bout this little rasberry from me-"WP:Recentism advocates" and gosh jimminy I think I do know the difference between the word advocate and the word require (3 days ago no less)

finally I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner to your idea that the whole ENTIRE "obama heritage" section falls under the undue weight umbrella of recentism- I didn't realize you were serious. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what press releases have to do anything. The salient point is that all the photos I mentioned caused in controversy over the images themselves and had some kind of a negative effect on their subjects. Of the ones I listed, the two that are virtually identically analogous to the Obama photo are the Gary Hart and John Kerry images. Both were released by those who wanted to bring down their respective presidential campaigns, and both resulted in widespread reporting in the mainstream media. The next most analogous photo is the Dukakis one, the only difference being that his campaign deliberately released it in the hope that it would boost his campaign, when in fact it backfired spectacularly. The Marion Barry and Donald Rumsfeld photos are slightly different (but still somewhat analogous) since they were released by official sources and were thus not smear attempts as such (although the latter has been used to smear its subject long after the fact).

So as far as I can tell, we have two almost precisely analogous photos that are considered perfectly fine on Wikipedia. The only significant difference between them and the Obama photo is that significant time has passed between now and the time of the initial controversy, cementing their notability. You strongly believe that this is a critical factor and that the Obama photo should therefore not be used. I strongly disagree. It is difficult to see how we will be able to reach consensus on this.

Regarding your comment, "since when have I said wp:recent is policy??" Please note that I never said you did. I said that you have been citing the "Recentism" essay as if it were policy, i.e. in a way that suggests it is inarguable. (If you don't agree then fine.) Believe it or not, I choose my words carefully and I mean exactly what I say.

Finally, I don't think that "the whole ENTIRE "obama heritage" section falls under the undue weight umbrella of recentism". I'm not sure where you got that from. I think the existing weight in the text given to discussion of this photo versus the broader, "is Obama a Muslim", smear controversy is perfectly adequate and I don't think that adding this photo in order to help readers better understand what is being discussed would make any difference to that. -- Hux (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

it saddens me that i am again in the position of providing you with the same section of the BLP REQUIREMENTS: "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

other than hart, all your pics were originally from official gov't or campaigns. Hence inherently free-rights, unlike (AGAIN) the obama pic! all other pics besides marion barry were taken with the consent of the subjects. the obama pic was also taken without his consent.

This is very crux of privacy!- whether we use a non-consenting pic (in low-res copyrighted style) simply because it illustrates 1/6 of one section? And we all know that is not "conservative" and it is not prudent. Yes there is a bar for acceptance of non-consenting, paparazzi-style smear pics (somewhere), but I just don't think your argument has met that bar yet.72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It saddens me that I am again in the position of explaining to you how you are totally misinterpreting the BLP requirements: the point of the privacy/tabloid/sensationalist part is to forbid the inclusion of tabloid-style material that is only there for a sensationalist purpose. This is not such an example. This is an image that has, undeniably, received attention across the entire spectrum of the mainstream and non-mainstream media. As Bigtimepeace notes below: "the picture is the story". When the photo has been featured in every single major media outlet on the planet, citing privacy concerns is self-evidently a non-issue. In addition, as WP:BLP itself notes: "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" (bold emphasis mine). The crux of this is not privacy and BLP clearly does not support your position here. The crux is notability.

Regarding the analogous images I linked, whether or not they are freely usable or copyrighted is wholly irrelevant here; we've already dealt with the copyvio issue perfectly adequately. In addition, you are mistaken that the Kerry photo is from an official government or campaign source. It is a composite of two separate photos that was released deliberately as a smear against the Kerry campaign, just like the Hart image was released as a smear against the Hart campaign, just like the Obama image was released as a smear against the Obama campaign. That is the salient issue here.

Finally: "the obama pic was also taken without his consent" - Do you have proof of this? Because given that he was on an official visit and given that it looks very much like he is doing something official in that photo - i.e. being shown an example of local clothing and accoutrements - it strikes me as rather more likely that this was some kind of local press photo, or a snapshot from a bystander. -- Hux (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

well if it is "a snapshot from a bystander" that is exactly what I mean by "non-consenting paparazzi style" and as far as notability goes why don't you check the history of this page for the past few months so you might know what our consistent notability standards ACTUALLY ARE. I can see from your edit history that you don't edit the current political pages much. Probably a wise decision on your part. But what you would know if you did edit them, is that the HRC, McCain, and Obama pges all use the same standards for notability, especially on the fast-moving 2008 campaign pages. The tony rezko pic never got on the HRC campaign page, and I feel this is a very similar situation in some ways. There is a standard of long-term reporting which I keep telling you and you keep not responding to. We have not and do not, provide undue weight to any story which is reported on and then moved past by media outlets. If it lasts a week or two it gets mentioned in the proper text section. If it lasts longer than that it often appears in a new section or a re-styled section. If it appears likely to last it is often pre-emptively added. As happened with the text of the somali event. Everything happened according to proceedure until you two showed up and claimed some "higher-degree" of notability for this one smear out of so many, we the regular editors, have dealt with over the long campaign. So again, please check out some edit histories across the different campaign pages and get a feel for how we use notability on these pages. You will find that simple volume of reporting is less important than the volume of reporting over time, and compared to overall volume of campaign reporting. neither attempted upload has met these standards for one second.

ps- you'd think if I was so POV I would have challenged that somali-pic text more. But I have never touched it or many other negative (for obama) sections of text. As you might know from talking with andyvphil, I am actually an inclusionist when it comes to text. I just feel that images have a higher standard, especially possibly inflammatory ones. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"There is a standard of long-term reporting which I keep telling you and you keep not responding to. We have not and do not, provide undue weight to any story which is reported on and then moved past by media outlets." - On the contrary, I've responded to it a number of times; I simply don't agree with you. Your implied assertion that you (in the form of the royal "we") own this page is prima facie nonsense. You have your opinion about what deserves to be included. I have mine. A group of editors enforcing their own interpretation of policy, creating immutable "procedure" based on their shared agreement of what some essay suggests, then fighting against all contrary viewpoints is precisely what Wikipedia is not about.

(Of course, you say "we the regular editors", but to be honest I only see you and one other person who agrees with you, and since you've already exhibited a tendency to talk as if representing a mass of silent, like-minded people when no such mass actually exists...)

"Everything happened according to proceedure until you two showed up and claimed some "higher-degree" of notability for this one smear out of so many" - Not once have I argued that the image should be included based on a "higher degree" of notability. I have consistently argued that if discussion of the image is sufficiently notable for the article, then the image the discussion is about is sufficiently notable for the article. I've said this a number of times and every time you've just ignored it.

"you'd think if I was so POV I would have challenged that somali-pic text more" - I fail to see the relevance of this. I haven't raised any POV issue whatsoever in this entire conversation. Perhaps the lady doth protest too much. -- Hux (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

yes the lady doth protest A LOT when people spam the talk page and they have never edited here before! and they don't seem very inclined to FIGURING OUT procedure on this page or others like it. Then the lady doth stalk people's edit history lol. and catch them doing dirty deeds...LOL.

anyways yes I am the only one willing to bang out 6,000 words on an already deleted and current not verified for fair-use pic- besides you of course. But you seem to forget the result of the actual edits involving that pic, eh? If I rememebr, you and a couple others got rv-ed out the door on several separate occasions, by more editors than just me. A lot more. Some people have better sense than to waste their evenings on talk pages, and those people probably make better edits too- just because they are silent does not mean they are wrong. Boy I sure wish I was powerful enough to disrupt consensus by myself, but that is just a fantasy. Surely some other editor out of your hypothetical "silent mass" would have re-attempted an upload, if they felt it was such a slam dunk as you do, and if the "silent majority" agreed with you as you claim. But instead the "silent majority" shows itself to be- 5 different editors who rv the uploads, 2 editors who argue on the talk page against it, and 2 others who delete the files. compared to your "three or so" supported I think clearly what we have is "consensus is not a yes/no vote" ha ha! but those are the numbers, even if they don't count (like michigan) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems you're unaware of the meaning of "the lady doth protest too much". Oh well. And I think it's a bit rich that you of all people are trying to imply that I make poor edits. What percentage of yours are even in article space? 5% at best? And the bulk of those appear to be reversions. Impressive!

In any case, contrary to your dishonest attempt to paint a false picture of my actions, I uploaded the image and added it to the article precisely once, without any knowledge of the preceding discussion about said image, or the fact that it had been uploaded and reverted previously. I didn't attempt to force it in there again because - duh! - edit warring is unreasonable and unproductive. But the fact that I didn't try to do that says absolutely nothing about the strength of the argument for its inclusion, nor does it imply any consensus whatsoever against such inclusion. The fact that until this issue I hadn't edited this particular article also says absolutely nothing about the strength of the argument for the image's inclusion. Oh and I've never argued that there is a "silent majority" supporting my position - you're the only one who's relied on that fallacy.

Right now, there is zero consensus either way on this. All we have are two editors who disagree, another two who do not appear interested in taking part in the discussion, and one outside editor who agrees with my position. Hopefully, the RfC and my request at the BLP talk page will prompt more editors to give their opinions and then hopefully we can make some headway on this. Right now though, we are at an impasse, however much you may like to portray yourself as a the flag bearer for the One True Perspective. -- Hux (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

and the view is beautiful from up here! ps- consensus is defined in many ways by editing actions and not talk (be bold etc). so when you make your "editor-tallies" please keep in mind the numerous souls besides me who have "voted with their feet" in regards to that image, true some before you were active on this page. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Break- Somali pic

I agree with 72. Using the picture to illustrate or even suggest any Obama-Muslim connection is inaccurate. As an encyclopedia, that is precisely what Wikipedia should avoid even the hint of. The clothing is cultural, not religious. It would be as rediculous as saying a Somali tribal leader dressed in a Western-style three-piece suit is automatically a Christian simply because that is a predominant religion of the region. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The texts, both of caption and illustrated, does not suggest an actual Obama-Muslim connection. The latter says "The photo was interpreted as suggesting Muslim garb,..."(this point directly supported by the cite) "... and the Obama campaign accused the Clinton campaign of “shameful, offensive fear-mongering”". Would an inserted "...photo of what was Somali cultural and not religious garb...", adding suspenders to the belt already in place, satisfy you? Andyvphil (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hux, what you say all sounds sensible to me, but what you call a "no-brainer" hasn't stopped someone from deleting the image you supplied a rationale for, apparently without waiting the number of days specified as correct procedure and with an explantion (G4: recreation of deleted material) that explicitly does not apply to what was originally a speedy deletion. The original incarnation of this image was deleted with the comment: "The result of the debate was speedy deletion per CSD G12, C5. Image is plainly a copyright violation and is unused. ChrisO (talk) 08:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)".[35]

As I observed above, the "unused" part is obviated by using it, and the delay should have served to prevent obstructive deletion during this content dispute. I have left a message on ChrisO's talk page asking him to expand on why or if he disagrees with us about fair use policy. Andyvphil (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It one sense it is odd that Delecionistas can keep an otherwise appropriate image from appearing on Wikipedia due their repeated votes through their keyboard backspace keys.

But---let's think about it... The suppressed image is "like Paris Hilton: famous for being famous"---and by this measure is certainly more "notable" than 99% of the pix on Wikipedia. And while the controversy that the pic illustrates, if tangentially, is also notable and while the arguments that the pic Cannot!!/is unable to be used are pretty weak; still, the argument that it ought be used is still really an editorial judgment call.

Which now leads us back to the Delecionista-guerrillas-versus-the-Inclusionista-conscripts back-and-forth we're here experiencing on Wikipedia. And the simple fact is that the guirrillas will win (as long as the campaign is being waged) and that's just the nature of the game (because "pro" folks will naturally dominate the editing of a popular, liberal politician on a public-access online encyclopedia). And so be it. After all, what's the loss, really? A pic of a politician in ethnic garb somewhere? Big deal! (PS, I'll save User Wasted Time R the trouble and post what's sure to be yet again his response here: "Huh?" <lol>)--Justmeherenow (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But what about the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's? Your deletionist/inclusionist summary is clearly nothing but a bigoted false dichotomy! :-) -- Hux (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting here as an outsider who has not worked on the article. I don't think this is a clear cut case, but assuming the image can be used (in terms of fair use and all that) I definitely lean toward allowing it in the article (full disclosure: though I may or may not ultimately vote for him, I do hope Obama wins the presidency). What is critical is that the article text and the caption provide background information for the reader. For one thing, it should be definitively determined if the garb worn by Obama is "religious" in any sense or merely standard tribal clothing. How is it viewed by folks who typically wear it? It's worth it to take some time to figure that out.

The reason I think the picture ought to be included though is that the picture is the story. Of all the nonsensical assertions about Obama's secret Muslim identity, this is the only one that was solely based on a photograph - without it there simply is no story. We should also look at this from a historical point of view. Certainly if one were to think back on key images from the 2008 campaign years from now, this photo of Obama will (unfortunately) leap to mind (I'm sure it will be re-printed in books in the future). We ought not keep it out (given its importance to the topic being discussed in the article) simply because the whole Muslim baloney is baloney and because Obama obviously would prefer it if this photo was seen less and less. Instead, the text should quote sources that explain that it's standard for politicians to dress in local garb when travelling (see this, for example) and note the negative reaction to the photo from a number of commentators. So long as we frame it properly (i.e. by explaining the context and keeping it NPOV), inclusion of the photo adds to this section of the article in my opinion. I'll end my thoughts on this by noting that this is the only photo we mention in this section of the article, thus obviously it's not such a stretch to think that we would actually include it.

Incidentally, this story actually bounced back to Africa and resulted in protests in an ethnically Somali section of Kenya (see this Reuters story). Seems like an interesting tidbit perhaps worthy of mention in a quick sentence at the end of the paragraph.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

we need more outsiders here! I would love to hear you suggestions for how to "frame it properly (i.e. by explaining the context and keeping it NPOV)" because that is something causing a lot of edit warring here, so we need outside help. if you could put together some text that explains the facts of the pic and its interpretation, that would be a big help, for comparison's sake if nothing else. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply create a new article on the subject(?) --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

no current reporting = not notable outside of muslim rumors section 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please source your argument. I argue

• no current reporting ≠ not notable outside of Muslim rumors section

Proof?

• no current reporting = /A/ and /B/, with /A/ = your unsourced criteria (ie your idiosyncratic standard that "pro" WP Delecionistas made up as a broad-brushed catch-all to delete events they don't like by affixing the label of "not historically notable." This can be checked by applying the formula to historical notable events in general and seeing if the definition is elegant. It's not.) and /B/ = ...even if it were a valid measure, even the most cursory Google search brings up umpteen media references, thus...a false contention in the first place. (Which shows this particular cabal aren't really trying to argue from the facts in any case?) --Justmeherenow (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• The logical contortions that this page's Deletionista cabal must resort to in order for them to argue say this alleged smear and alleged leak of the photo--along with the photo allegedly, uh, so leaked--aren't deserving of encyclopedic coverage are really amazing to behold. I.e., what exactly would "no current reporting" be supposed to mean? Not in headlined articles on the subject featured above the fold on the front page of all the daily newspapers? Or not henceforth referenced in the media as an importantly historical event of the campaign? To propose the former criteria would be patently ridiculous. And to propose the latter? Why, we will be left with the leak-of-the-photograph-of-Obama-in-Somali-garb incident's extremely easily shown to be notable!

Here's one from less than an hour ago. "Then there was [HRC's] patently Republican-esque scare tactic of leaking pictures of Obama in traditional Somali garb to--to what? Imply that he is Muslim? To invoke fears that he will bring on an al-Qaeda lovefest?" --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

well considering that quote is clearly from an article discussing larger issues than just the somali pic, you have actually proved my point (thank you). You can't find recent reporting on the issue, and the most recent stuff you can find simply mentions the pic as part of larger analysis. Just like what we are doing oddly enough. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

<waves white flag> Truce! --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you all for taking on this subject. And it's only the primary! Wow - what you have in store for you (better to shore up page policies now, I guess).

Anyhoo, I don't quite see what the point of the photo is. It could be useful in the context of an article directed toward insider-baseball political controversies or perhaps an article on patterns of media coverage etc., but I don't see what this has to do with Barack Obama in particular. It just doesn't seem to have any particular relevance. I'm sure every senator who's traveled has photos in tribal clothing. Fine. But you don't see those photos as a rule -- and certainly not in their wikipages. To post this for BHO's wikipage seems both wildly atypical and fraught with built-in baggage (given his ethnicity and that his father was Muslim). I just don't see the benefit of the image compared to the instant POV that accompanies it.

I'm an outsider here and first time contributor, so take my opinion for what it's worth. IMHO. --Scantron2 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

prolly worth more than all of our's combined... thank god for outside editors lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring fair use issues for the moment, I'm actually rather inclined to support Bigtimepeace's view, in particular that "the picture is the story." Obviously we've decided this particular incident bears mention in the article. Obviously the incident revolves around a particular photo. Obviously we have the ability to show readers that photo in context, so that they can better understand said incident. Note the key, there: in context. This shouldn't just be thrown out there naked. We'll be accused of political grandstanding whether we include or exclude the photo -- why are we so afraid to let readers see the facts and decide on their own? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

absolutely no reporting on this in nearly month means... wait for it... drumroll please... its an undue weight violation, fer sure now 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly an angle to consider. I'd been figuring "complete coverage is good coverage" if we're covering it at all. On the Barack Obama article, I'd probably agree with you right off, but this article has a far narrower scope and can go into greater detail. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)