Talk:Barack Obama

Why is their a controversy section with Clinton and not Obama ?

It was not answered in the FAQ.

Socialist?

It bothered me that Obama's socialist views were not even hinted at in this article. It seems like the editors are trying to avoid negative information about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.84.60 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like you need to research some things before you bring it up. Grsz 11 16:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would not call Obama's views "socialist." Liberal and socialist are not the same thing. And second, I also would not agree with your characterization of "socialist" as "negative." Kathy (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

His "socialist" views are not mentioned here because they do not exist. Yahel Guhan 04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Obama have any views? I wasn't aware of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.208.165 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If only he were socialist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Categorization and ranking of Obama's politics

Do voting record-based categorizations and rankings from partisan or nonpartisan sources help improve readers' understanding of Barack Obama's Senate career or his politics? An example of the disputed text is linked here.

Pointers to earlier discussion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Liberal
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Requested full protection
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 13#Andyvphil and his attempts to make large, unilateral changes to the article without discussion
• Talk:Barack Obama#Andyvphil’s proposed changes

Summary statements by editors who are parties to this dispute

• One nonpartisan source lists Barack Obama as a "Rank and File Democrat".[4][5] How is this notable to our purpose here? Readers' understanding of Obama's career or his politics will not be supported by a series of political rankings provided from either partisan or nonpartisan sources. Statistical analysis of voting records is easily manipulated and such surveys almost always reflect some kind of partisan POV. Also, categorizations and rankings derived from such analysis risk conveying a false impression of neutrality. Stringing together a series of such surveys that reach different conclusions does not in any way assist readers' understanding of the underlying complex decisionmaking and negotiating processes that go into determining votes on proposed legislation. "Findings" of these surveys should not be included in Obama's lead biography article, and their usefulness in other political articles is also doubtful. Let readers decide for themselves where a politician fits according to their own criteria and analysis of the issues. --HailFire (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Obama dismisses such political labels as “old politics”,[6] but you don't get to impose his obfuscatory POV here. RS characterize, and report characterizations of, him as "progressive", "liberal" or even, apparently, "rank and file". Our job is to reflect the RS, not hide his ADA rating from readers lest they be too dumb to reach their own conclusions about what it means, no matter how carefully we explain it to them,[7] or maybe smart enough to decide they know that what it means is that they don't want to vote for Obama. Andyvphil (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Commentary by editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute

• I'm not personally a big believer in the political spectrum, but many readers and commentators are, so I think it's useful to include a variety of measures of a political figure's placement on such spectrums. It can also be useful to include a variety of interest group assessments ("Jane Smith has a lifetime 85% rating from Americans for Eating Radishes", that sort of thing). Again, not perfect but usually tells you something. It's important to include a variety of these measures and metrics, not just one, and to use lifetime averages, or give the results for several years, as any particular year can easily be an outlier. For the three senators currently running, 2007 is especially problematic for such ratings, since they all missed a lot of votes due to campaigning and thus the sample size is even smaller than usual. Examples of the approach that I think is valid and useful are in Hillary Rodham Clinton#Political positions and Political positions of John McCain#Organizational ratings. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editors could show their sincerity by visiting some articles about conservative politicians and removing the word "conservative" there. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  conservatives are generally proud of that label however- there are been no effort to find a "new" euphamism like there has been for liberal/progressive. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  How or whether Obama self-identifies on a party or spectrum basis is not really what was being asked here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Surveys are, to a large extent, in this case very subjective. Often they have a political agenda behind their creation. They are to a large extent an attempt to group him in a category. That said, I think the label should be included given as little weight in the article as possible. The original text was way too long, and should be summarized as to be given no more than two or three small sentences covering the whole idea, maybe something like this:

According to the National Journal Senator Obama was labeled the most liberal senator in 2007. According to the Americans for Democratic Action In the sixty votes used by the ADA to measure a legislator's political liberalism during Obama's career in the Senate he has voted for the non-"liberal" result only once.

Yahel Guhan 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever decision is made regarding the label 'liberal' and Mr. Obama, it seems important to link to his recent disavowal of that label..?....(or is that too partisan coming from him? perhaps partly for political reasons?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.141.14 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New discussion on political categorization

Sharing this blog entry to help illustrate why some of the editors here (myself included) consider votes-based "political spectrum" categorizations (or characterizations), non-notable at best, or at worst, unnecessarily misleading. Comments welcome. --HailFire (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's considerably more to MSNBC's analysis of Obama's voting record than your blog suggests. And, of course, the existance of an article on the subject in a RS demonstrates, by definition, the opposite of "non-notability". You don't get to censor the POV, found in multiple RS, that Obama's voting record can be meaningfully analyzed to determine where he stands on the political spectrum merely because you think such analysis is misleading. We are supposed to reflect RS, not overrule them. Andyvphil (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV The Neutrality of this Article is Challenged

User:Scjessey admits that only favorable information is allowed on this page.

On his and my talk page, User:scjessey explains that only favorable information belongs on the Barack Obama page. Information about Obama's voting record, information about Obama's yearlong denial of his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons does not have "any place in the BLP. That should be on the campaign page, if anywhere." User:Scjessey talk

This of course is a clear admission that the Barrack Obama page violates the NPOV policy. Jwvoiland (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)jwvoiland

This article has been flagged for violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Jwvoiland (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please paste here where Scjessey made the statements you claim he made. I see you accusing him of such but I'm missing the part where he states that no negative information may be added. Also, I think you are using the tag as a weapon because you are having a disagreement with other editors. Therefore, it should be removed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Jwvoiland is using the neutrality tag as a weapon in a content dispute, a clear no-no among experienced editors. I presume this is because he/she is a new user with few edits. Let's not bite. --HailFire (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone to comply with WP:3RR, to not edit war, and to use the dispute resolution process. If you find your additions being reverted by multiple users, chances are, your changes are not going to get in the article and you should really not revert it back into the article, but rather come to the talk page and try to work with the other editors to find a consensus. If you are still unable to get your content added to the article, proceed up the chain of dispute resolution. Conversely, for the editors that are reverting additions, please remember that consensus can change and don't automatically kill a discussion by saying, "We've already reached consensus on this!" Rather, point them to the consensus agreement and ask if they are willing to follow it. If they are not willing to comply and there isn't much interest on the page to rediscuss their changes, suggest they create an RFC. If they fail to comply by the consensus while they are trying to change the consensus, you should start down the disruptive editing path to get community and administrator support. This fairly constant fighting over content is unproductive and detrimental to the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag for a second time, as there is no justification for it being there. Controversies regarding the presidential campaign are discussed in the article for the presidential campaign. Blocks will be issued for continued disruptive behavior. Grsz 11 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't put the tag back on. It's a featured article. It's highly viewed. Tagging is disruptive. Will ^(talk) 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just came back from being out and found this little discussion. It seems pretty clear that I didn't say anything about only allowing favorable information on this article from my editing history. Anyway, it looks like someone else has taken care of this problem already. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, until tomorrow at least, if the user comes back and continues along the same tact, just pop over to AN/I and see if anyone is willing to implement some preventative measures again. The threshold is usually lower than four reverts if they are coming off a block for edit-warring. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The flag isn't necessary. Anyone who reads it, and compares it to the articles about George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, can easily see tha tit's an NPOV violation. Without criticism, it's a hagiography. Banishing controversial material to other articles that no one will ever read is a whitewash. Let's be neutral about the subject. Kossack4Truth (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The quality of an article has nothing to do with how it compares to other articles, and the key criticisms of Obama (Rezko, Wright) have been adequately covered. Besides, the three individuals you are comparing Obama too are more worthy of criticism by a considerable margin. Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because editors are trying to protect Obama? There is abundant criticism of Obama available from several notable sources. Specifically, this Jeremiah Wright problem has been a major gaffe for Obama, because he first denied having heard Wright say anything inflammatory. Then, when confronted with the evidence, he admitted it just a few days later. It is reasonable to include a representative sample of this criticism. To make room for it in an article this long (recommended length of Wikipedia articles is 32 KB plus photos, see WP:SIZE), we should cut back on some of the fawning praise that we see so very much of in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have considered that possibility, but I have discarded it. I am a neutral editor of this article - I am not a US Citizen and I cannot vote in any elections. My interest in this article is based on its popularity, and the desire to make sure that such an important article maintains the highest possible standard. This "abundant criticism" you speak of that comes from "notable sources" - well I can think of many notable sources that are also unreliable and/or partisan sources. The "major gaffe for Obama" is your personal opinion, inflated by partisan views from partisan sources. Compare this minor case of misspeaking with the McCain's recent confusion over religious factions in the Middle East, for example. Seriously - compared to McCain, Bush and perhaps the Clintons, Obama (if you'll forgive the irony of this expression) is whiter than white! -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your neutral opnion is that Obama is a prince. No need to hold an election, just do the right thing and coronate him. Hey!... wasn't that the Saturday Night Live sketch last night? But it's too pathetic to be funny when the person writing the material doesn't realize it's a howler. Or would be, if I were a better person. Andyvphil (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Hard to disagree, with several having said so in this section. "Please see the discussion on the talk page." That's here. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." It isn't. Don't. Andyvphil (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a true "consensus" as to this page's neutrality, why do several editors keep undoing information that sees Senator Obama in a not so favorable light? A number of editors have included information that a number of others continue to undo, claiming "consensus" against it. The NPOV of this article is clearly challenged. It is not consistent with the NPOV mandate to rule that material about particular controversies must be moved off of this article and into a separate page. Muls1103 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103

This isn't Wright's article! That's the consensus, not to put such a great detail of Wright information here when he has his own page to add it to. Clearly you aren't the new user you seem to be. Grsz 11 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::What is the personal insult "Clearly you aren't the new user you seem to be" supposed to mean ? The editors of this page continue to show their hostility to NPOV in favor of Obama-spin. (had been logged out, signing now Muls1103 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103)12.145.168.6 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)muls1103

User:Muls1103 has been blocked (along with User:Letveritas as an abusive sockpuppet of User:Jwvoiland. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with portraying Obama in a "favorable light". It is entirely about undue weight. The existing sentences covering these matters neatly summarize what occurred, and include links to related articles that cover the "controversy" in exhaustive detail. Since this is a biography about Barack Obama, the article is primarily about the person. The additions proposed are, instead, detailed (and biased) accounts of a specific week of Obama's nomination campaign. Certain editors, such as Andyvphil, refuse to accept the prevailing consensus (and downright common sense) that adding such detail, regardless of its accuracy, is ascribing far too much weight to a single event of Obama's life. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article does seem fairly pro-Obama to me. Articles about other politicians don't avoid controversies. Why should this one? An article's credibility is damaged when it appears to be biased in either direction. Obama is clearly dealing with some criticism. Of course some of it is partisan. But most controversies are partisan. That has not prevented them being included in other articles about politicians. So, why should it here? About the above labeling of the Wright controversy being about "a week" of Obama's life. That is really not very accurate. The Wright controversy is a about a man who has been influential to Obama for nearly half his life, and most of his adult life. This is not inconsequential. The way it is currently portrayed in the article does feel somewhat cleansed and incomplete. ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of worrying about our alleged POV violations, you should worry about familiarizing yourself with certain guidelines that Scjessey mentioned, as you are a new user. Grsz 11 16:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm accused of hostility, while the other side is using sockpuppets! Ha! Grsz 11 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone here contend - with an actual argument - that, despite the discussions littering this talk page and archived versions, that the neutrality of this article is somehow not in dispute? I have re-added the NPOV tag to reflect this. --Davidp (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the neutrality of the article is not currently in dispute. The only complainants appear to be the various sock puppets of Jwvoiland and the extraordinarily biased Andyvphil. Everyone else seems to be happy with the article in its current form. Please remove the NPOV tag unless you have identified a specific POV item (in which case, a sectional NPOV tag would be more appropriate anyway). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the neutrality of the aricle in currently in dispute. See the FA review], in progress. Andyvphil (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that factual information is left out of this article when it is a negative (no mention of challenging ballots in illinois, but extensive discussion of his fed senate race) and that an entire block is dedicated to his DNC speech (positive, non-bio) and includes a non-factual statement that it's when most americans were introduced to obama, I find the neutrality of this article to be clearly lacking. --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.161.234 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a controversy section

This is ridiculous, and reeks of Obama supporters trying to hide any critical information. You don't have to agree that something is "controversial," but it was still a controversy focused by the media, and the public. This article is getting pretty laughable. This isn't going to last long. Before you know it, a million people are going swarm here, and start yet another edit war will ensue. Why not just make a section, and keep it in one place, before a bunch of people start fighting over where to place it, and whether or not they "agree" that something was a big enough story. This isn't suppose to be a fan page. Almost all other politicians, have had a criticism, or controversy portion of their article to get it all out there, and not to have people sliding stuff into the other portions, where others might miss it. This is the easiest solution to move past the "bias" assessment. Things like the "no hand over heart during the national anthem," "won't wear a flag pin," stories, are still notable, whether you find them ridiculous or not. My point is, it's better to agree on these controversies/criticisms now, give them a spot, and move on. This back and forth is getting tiresome. 07:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

um, no. That is not necessary. None of the candidates have a criticism section, and if they do, it is a sign that it needs to be cleaned up and possibly removed or merged into other parts of the article. Yahel Guhan 07:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel has it right. Or as Gzkn commented a while back, consider what would be said if we decided to have "praise" sections in these articles. Tvoz |talk

This article is typical example of the bias that pervades every corner of Wikipedia. Compare and contrast Jeremiah Wright's mention in this article (and glowing biography) to the entire section devoted to the Keating Five on John McCain's page. The nut-jobs who admin this site don't understand that they undermine their own credibility with this sort of "fairness". Admittedly, Wikipedia is a great resource if you need to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle or who wrote the 14th episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That said, Wikipedia is a political joke, philosophically broken and scientifically faulty. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since that was only your second contribution to Wikipedia, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If you think something is wrong, improve it! Regarding your comparison of this article with the biography of John McCain, the problem may lie with the McCain article itself. When evaluating whether or not to include material in a biography, one must consider the significance of that material. If you think the "Keating 5" section is given too much weight within the scope of McCain's life, raise objections on that article's talk page. That is far more productive and useful than simply calling people "nut-jobs" and referring to Wikipedia as a "joke". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, there is very little point in trying to improve it. The people who made it this way are hovering over their favorite articles, because they made them that way and they want them to stay that way. Because there is an entire section on the Keating Five in John McCain's article, and an entire section on Whitewater in the Hillary Clinton article, there must, I repeat must,' be an entire section on the Wright controversy in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the other stuff essay is about deletion discussions but it also applies here. Just because things exist in other articles doesn't mean something must exist in this article. Jons63 (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And as I have said before, what happens in other articles has no bearing on what happens in this one. At the moment, the "Wright controversy" is only significant to Obama's campaign at the moment. As such, it receives plenty of attention in the appropriate article. As far as his biography is concerned, however, it is (currently) of little significance, so it receives the necessary concise summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The things cited as 'controversies' here hardly hold any bearing on his potential policies or ability to govern the country. If he becomes embroiled in an actual scandal, sure, maybe adding it is worthwhile. But not putting his hand on his heart? That's not a controversy. It's an overblown issue which is only prolonged by adding fuel to the fire by mentioning it further. Belfunk (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article was definitely written by Obama fans. 138.67.4.87 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You say it and run away, but can you back up what you say and provide instances where this article favors Obama? Grsz 11 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Very simply put: any time there's criticism or controversy, it is banished to a satellite article that no one will ever read. There are numerous examples on this page and in the archives. The presidential campaign is the one major notable event in Obama's life. Four years ago, he was a mediocre state senator in Springfield, Illinois. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not being "banished". Trying to cover the full scope of a candidate's campaign in their biographical article would make the article ridiculously long. By giving the campaign its own article, it enables Wikipedia to offer a more in-depth coverage of every aspect of the campaign - including the "Wright controversy" that you seem to hold so dear. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion was made that I make edits. As has been said above and elsewhere that is a futile effort. For simply questioning the bias of Wikipedia, I've already been threatened with a muzzle. If that's the response I get from a talk page, then I'm quite certain that if I commit the crime of editing an article I will be hammered into oblivion. The Stalinists who run Wikipedia do not seem to have much tolerance for diversity of opinion. That said, I'll give Wikipedia its props. If you want to know the difference between cylons and stormtroopers, you've found the place. If you want to know what the progressive/liberal talking point is, this is the place to go. But if you want a fair and impartial political resource: this is not the reference you want. I submit this article as proof of that thesis. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since then my comments have been edited by someone else to insert typographical errors and ridiculous and insulting assertions. But I will leave them stand as edited and as further proof of what is wrong with Jokipedia. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hate church

There should be some mention of the hate church he has belonged to for the last 20 years in the introduction - what Christopher Hitchens called Obama's "dumb, nasty, ethnic rock 'n' roll racist church" - and the role of hate preacher Jeremiah Wright, Obama's priest. HillaryFan (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned, although without all your equally hateful intolerance and one-dimensional point-of-view. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling. That's what Encyclopedia Dramatica is for. Belfunk (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't characterize it as a "hate church". But it is true that the one mention of the "racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor" is inadequate coverage of this subject. Andyvphil (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

At least pretend like you're objective and come up with a name other than "HillaryFan". The article calls Wright his "longtime pastor and religious mentor", and Wright has his own article, which is linked. Paisan30 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia content that respect the ex-Pastor Wright should be directed to his page?

Puerto Rico (Governor) as example of Issues regarding senator Barack Obama endorsements that have been accepted by Sen. Obama

Could themes like this be considered so the article is more balanced, even from the perspective of persons who have favourable or neutral positions on Sen. Barack Obama's supporters?

Suggested draft of text:

"Barack Obama has distributed a document expressing his appreciation for the endorsement he received from the indicted-Governor of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, charged with 19 counts (reportedly including election fraud and corruption) by the United States Department of Justice. "

My Boxing Ring (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no. This article is about Obama, not Vila or Puerto Rico. Grsz 11 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that critical views should be included. However, this is not fair. Nobody would expect him to turn down an endorsement. I'm sure that some bad people also endorsed Clinton and McCain, but their articles shouldn't make a point of that either. Borock (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer endorsed Clinton. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Change to Presidential campaign requested

Q1This needs to be removed from the Political Campaigning section, 3rd paragraph " Clinton, in turn, had support from the poor and the less educated, as well as those who have not paid as much attention to the race: This is bias and alludes to Clinton supporters as being uneducated, poor, and unknowledgeable about the primary race! This is absurd! This is exactly the type of information that hinders people from being able to learn something without other peoples personal opinions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyscijunky (talk • contribs) March 27, 2008 copied from Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ.[8]--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is sourced. Grsz 11 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(Not that I'm saying it should stay) Grsz 11 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the citations given after that sentence don't really support it. I do seem to recall some exit polls after Iowa saying that Clinton had more support among lower-income voters and voters who had not been following the race closely, but that citation isn't in the article, so the sentence had to go. Even if the sentence had been properly cited, its wording was far from neutral. If someone wants to find the Iowa exit poll info and find an actually neutral way to mention that, properly cited, maybe it can be reinstated. As is, it's gone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

well I don't know about Iowa sources, but I know there are later sources for that claim. It has been pretty much all over the news, prolly the most prevalent was after wisconsin, when Obama picked up lower-income, less educated voters which commentators where not sure he could reach out to. And then again in Ohio when he lost lower income and less educated voters back to her... so anyways plenty of sources for this in general. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you found some of those sources and provided them with a new proposed wording, Josiah would be willing to reinsert the new wording into the section. Telling him that the sources are out there isn't going to change his mind. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help McCain win nothing could be better than to bash Clinton's supporters in this article. :-) Borock (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

well there are lots of these type of statements: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/clinton_obama_need_to_cool_it.html

"Clinton will win Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky -- states which are in line with her base; heavily blue collar, lower income, and with large numbers of older voters.

Obama will win North Carolina with its large black population and concentrations of upscale professional voters, and Oregon, home to large numbers of educated, higher-income voters with a younger electorate. Also, expect Obama to win the primaries in both South Dakota and Montana."

and by the way I was under the impression Clinton was promoting these factors in an effort to solidify her base. I don't know if thats "true" or not though.

also true if we use any of this the language needs to be more neutral... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If we want to restore the information in the context of Iowa (which was where it was before), we should have a source referring to the people who voted for Clinton in Iowa. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care if we re-add it or not- i am just making sure people realize those concepts do have sources somewhere... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

minor fix

{{editprotected}} The first reference's source is "Inoglo". It is supposed to be "Inogolo" Σαι ( Talk) 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done God is this article really protected again?? Happy‑melon 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

U of Chicago - Senior Lecturer

This should be clarified as it's been brought up that Obama's not an actual professor (he is): http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

Statement Regarding Professor Barack Obama

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Flatterworld (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course he is. Anybody who teaches at a college is a professor. Grsz 11 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some colleges and universities reserve the name "professor" for tenure-track faculty, or even for faculty members with tenure. But not all, and apparently UChicago is one of the ones that don't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The University of Chicago recently issued a disclaimer. The text is as above -albeit, the above section lacks needed parentheses. See the following politico.com March 28, 2008 article by Ben Smith [9] Dogru144 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little more detail to the relevant section, and cited the University's statement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

obama muslim?

theres article fails to mention any of the current issues regarding how obama hows to defend the fact hes not muslim. i am not talking about his muslim background but its a big deal when someone has to defend themselves they are not a muslim. www.obamamuslim.com can be used as a great reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.208.7 (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's covered in his campaign article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Position on Abortion?

I notice there is only two sentences on his position for this issue. After watching today's town hall meeting I'm still confused as to his true position as I'm sure others are. Would someone be willing to expand a bit on this? 216.220.15.211 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• He's strongly and consistently pro-choice. NRLC rates him zero. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• See Political positions of Barack Obama. There's a recent things don't go in-depth here. Grsz 11 19:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2004 keynote: undue weight?

While we're talking about undue weight, I'm wondering whether the section on the 2004 DNC keynote address could be trimmed a bit. It's true that the speech was most Americans' first exposure to Obama, but does its significance in his biography really merit as much detail as we're giving it? Could we make the same biographical point more succinctly? I wonder whether we need the first two block quotes. It's the red state/blue state bit that seems to have lingered in the public consciousness. (Well, at least it's the bit that I remember from that speech.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

be bold then sir... I don't think anyone is worried you're an "ip vandal" lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want anyone to think that I was using my admin status to put changes in without consensus while the page was protected. I'll wait a bit to see if there are other opinions before trimming the section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

As nobody who thinks the tag belongs can explain why the tag belongs/that the article is POV, it should be removed. It's been argued countless time why it should not be there, and now the editors who keep adding it seem to be adding it just for the heck of it, or because they don't agree with the consensus. Grsz 11 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is correct - no credible arguments have been presented that the article, or the section, is not neutral. Tags are not to be used as POV weapons. I'm removing the tag. Tvoz |talk 07:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As I explained, ...A purposely short and vague description of a controversy of fundamental and demonstrated importance to Obama's career, answered solely by Obama's spin, with no other POV on the subject allowed... we also have the enforcement of Obama's POV that such "old politics" characterizations of his record as favorable ADA ratings must be excluded. The POV tag says what it means and means what it says. A dispute about the neutrality of this article is in progress... Andyvphil (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I'm readding the POV tag. Andyvphil (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the articles for the campaign or Jeremiah Wright. Covering this issue with as much detail as is done there is a violation of recentism. If you can address the issue subtly, as it should be, feel free. But you haven't. You just go and add a lot of inappropriate information that is already adequetely covered elsewhere. The section has a {{main}} tag, leading the reader to the campaign article, where they are better off finding more information on the campaign, and the controversy is covered in depth. I moved the POV tag, as the article is NOT in violation of POV. I left it on the section, rather than starting an edit war. Grsz 11 13:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is only of "fundamental and demonstrated importance" if you read conservative blogs, listen to conservative talk radio, or hang on the words of Clinton's spin machine. Most commentators agree that Obama's speech, for the most part, answered the questions asked by his association with Jeremiah Wright. Regardless of whether or not this fact is true, the full extent of the details and discussions surrounding this particular issue are far beyond the scope of a BLP like this. Trying to cover it in this article, with the necessary brevity, wouldn't do it the kind of justice you are looking for anyway. It is much better suited to the related articles A More Perfect Union, Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph a bit. It links directly to the section to Wright in the campaign article. Let me know how it works. Grsz 11 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Which bit is POV?

Instead of just wacking in NPOV tags all over the place without comment, kindly explain exactly which bits are POV so that we can try to address them. Give us specifics, rather than simply generalities. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not reporting Obama's vote ratings is POV. Not reporting that the church he chose to join and support for 20 years was and is known for Black Liberation theology/politics, and not making clear what that is, is POV. Reporting his speech in response to the Wright firestorm only in terms of his own characterization of it is POV. The POV of this article is disputed -- attempting to conceal that by removing the POV tag is POV. Andyvphil (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It has already been established that the vote ratings for ALL candidates in 2007 are thoroughly misleading when indicating career voting behavior because the statistics are distorted by the lack of data. Obama's religion and church are covered adequately in numerous places within the article. The controversy surrounding the pastor of that church is exhaustively covered in the relevant related articles and a satisfactory summary, agreed upon by overwhelming consensus, links to those related articles. The NPOV tag was removed after consensus had been reached, and only re-added today with no specific reason given. It is in fact your own edits that destroy the neutrality of this article, by adding biased and misleading data. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The material you deleted on ratings cover all three years and addressed the missed votes issue. The church and pastor are not covered "adequately", and your assertion to the contrary does not address the omissions I specified. No POV critical of Obama on the Wright issue remains in the article. Material in related articles does not address omission of balancing POV here, and there can be no legitimate "consensus" to overrule NPOV requirements. NPOV is POLICY. It is simply a lie to say the NPOV tag "was removed after consensus had been reached" -- it was removed immediately and repeatedly by edit warring without any consensus. Your assertion that the material you are removing is "biased and misleading" is simply an unsupported and unconvincing assertion. And coming from an editor who has written "Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama?" any claim from you about anti-Obama bias requires proof. And, btw, your self-revert only got you back to 4 reverts in 24 hours. Be more careful in the future. Andyvphil (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Andy, but you are completely wrong about this. The stuff you have been trying to add doesn't balance anything - it skews it in a negative direction to satisfy your desires. And like I said before, I can't even vote! How can I be pro anybody if I have vested interest? Also, unlike you I don't monitor my contributions to make sure I don't violate 3RR. I just do what I think needs to be done. Your record of "hit and run" every 24 hours is different. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned. You were reported. You offered to accept a penalty, and that offer was accepted. You are on parole. Start monitoring yourself. As to your suggestion that you can't be biased in favor of Obama because you can't vote for him... well, civil words fail me. I would think you were pulling my leg, except you are so consistent. See ~"There is no criticism of Obama because he's so perfect."~ Not ROFL. Just stunned pity at the obliviousness, maybe. Andyvphil (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

andy you seem to have the worst understanding of 3rr policy I've ever seen. Obviously reverting a drive-by POV tag vandal, on a main Biography page, goes pretty close to the BLP guidelines and any user making good faith edits with proper interpretation of BLP as a goal, that is a good faith argument that temporizes any dastardly dangerous violations of 3rr, which surely is the most important issue this page currently has. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So adding your own POV somehow makes the article more neutral? I don't think so. Grsz 11 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding balancing POV is exactly what WP:NPOV calls for. Read it. It's "core" policy: Articles must represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Such as the significant view that Obama's choice of Wright tells us something important about Obama. Where is it in the article? It not being there is an NPOV violation. Andyvphil (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in his campaign article, because it's relevant to his campaign! Should I start adding Ferraro's and Carville's statements to Clinton's main page? Or her lies about Bosnia? Grsz 11 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It also is a bit excessive. How much needs to be said about how he voted? It doesn't disserve the weight you gave to the issue. His voting record is not that important to his biography. Why don't you try summarizing it, as a compromise? Yahel Guhan 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "According to analysis by GovTrack of the bills that Obama has sponsored, Obama is a "rank and file Democrat".[10]" --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What part of "all significant views" are you not getting? You can have that POV in the article, you just can't keep out the others. Andyvphil (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy on article size states that an article over 100KB should "almost certainly" be broken up. This article is at 484. Adding information that is already quite thoroughly covered elsewhere violates the Manual of Style in this regard. Grsz 11 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, as I couldn't see size on the edit page. Regardless, these are unneeded additions where there are other relevant articles where they can be better addressed. Wright controversey → Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; Reviews of his political positions → Political positions of Barack Obama. Grsz 11 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:SIZE. The guideline is for readable text, not for total page size. This article has 37k of readable text. This is well below the 100k "almost certainly" be broken up threshold and it is also below the 50k generally applied to FA. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See here - I get 35K of readable prose. Even if it's 37K, it is well within all guidelines. But we have worked hard to keep it at about that size - so I agree that the approach taken here, as in all of these types of articles, of having shorter summary sections in the main article and longer daughter articles for major areas makes sense and conforms with policy. The Presidential campaign article goes into great detail about many things surrounding the Obama campaign, including the Wright matter and much more. That is appropriate and doesn't make this main article any less neutral. But a reminder: this is supposed to be a biography of a notable person - his entire life and career - not an article specifically about a presidential candidate. Therefore we have to keep this aspect of his biography in perspective, just as we do on all of the other biographies. That is not POV, that is policy. Tvoz |talk 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And that is precisely what I thought we had already worked out in various consensus discussions. The problem is that users like Andyvphil don't like this approach because they want the article to have a more negative and controversial feel about it. They confuse efforts to maintain a normal WP:BLP style with POV editing. The kind of reportage they are looking for is more suited to the campaign article which tends to report everything in often exhaustive detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary style guidelines require that the summary left in the main article be NPOV. The notion that Wright's political activities are so unimportant to Obama's bio that the controvery about him is properly summarized by saying only that there is a controversy, and that Obama has give a speech to address it, is laughable. There is another significant POV found in reliable sources, and this article need to reflect it. Further, the idea that Obama's place on the political spectrum is both to some degree determinable and significant hasn't been spun out, merely censored. Andyvphil (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise wording can be worked out? Something in between the two sentences favored by one faction and the up to six paragraphs favored by another faction? Perhaps something that includes a summary of the impact of the controversy? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

you make it sound like two sentences is somehow inappropriate , when in fact it seems a little long considering the new WSJ/NBC poll which shows Obama lost two points of positive and gained four of negative- to come to a pos/neg of 49/32 (early march was 51/28) where as Clinton got slammed during the same period and lost EIGHT points of positive and picked up five of negative to go from 45/43 to 37/48 (thats 11 points of negative spread BTW) [[11]]

long story short- folks the Wright issue is DOA until (lol Bobblehead) something breaks in the story, which hasn't happened in a while. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we're discussing polls, would you like to discuss Gallup's rolling five-day average? Obama has gone from two points ahead of McCain to three points behind in just two weeks, and shows no sign of regaining the lead. In a race this close, the "DOA" Wright issue could very easily cost Obama the White House. It doesn't get any more notable than that. But there are people here who believe that even two sentences with no section header is too much. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

yes you're right most editors do choose two sentences as their consensus version lol. Someone with such vast knowledge of polls as you should then know two things: this is a campaign issue, hence the majority of WP coverage is on the campaign page. You should also know that cited McCain figures is disingenuous when he is essentially not campaigning until the democratic race is over. Your claims about the "White House" are a joke compared to WP is not a crystal ball... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm by no means saying that two sentences is inappropriate, nor am I saying that six paragraphs is inappropriate. What I'm saying is that the incessant edit warring over the content and the blatant lack of good faith on all sides is ludicrous and has to stop. Unless the factions start to actually discussing a compromise that they find acceptable this article will continue to see edit warring and more rounds of full protection. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I think some of the concerns over NPOV (specifically involving his political stance and voting record) are valid, I think as a general rule, this article, by the subject's nature, is going to read more pro-Obama than against him, largely because there is little to criticize HIM about (read that carefully, I do not include Rev Wright or the issues of any other associate to be the same as criticism of him). This is true across the board. For instance, someone like Mother Theresa is going to have an overwhelmingly positive article because there is little to criticize her over. However, someone like say Adolf Hitler is going to have an overwhelmingly negative bias because the vast, vast majority of the globe is of the belief that what he did is wrong (minus Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I can't think of a current leader of a nation that does not condemn the actions of the Nazis). The Wright issue should ideally be about how it effected HIM as a person, and how it effected his Campaign not in terms of the people, but in terms of both his feelings about it, and his politics. -- False Prophet (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy - Bobblehead's effort

Just to throw an idea out there:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright.[12][13] In the days following the revelation of Wright's sermons, Clinton took her first statistically significant lead of 7 percent in Gallup's Democratic national polling since shortly after Super Tuesday.[14] In an attempt to stave off the controversy, Obama delivered a speech titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in which he sought to explain and contextualize Wright's comments[15] while trying to expand the discussion to include race relations in general.[16] Following Obama's speech, Clinton's lead in Gallup's polling began to recede until the two were virtually tied, but, after leading in the poll by 6 percent the previous week, Obama's campaign had not fully recovered from the damage caused by the Wright controversy.[17]

Just throwing that out there as a start. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Bobblehead's effort

That seems okay to me, although I still think there is more detail in there than necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

not very ok with me, but I'm a pain anyways so take it for what its worth... I give you one set of numbers, you go with another and don't even mention the interpretation I put forth. Fine, but please know that two separate news broadcasts I watch LED OFF today with a story essentially saying that the polling they expected to show the Obama/Wright problem, in fact showed Clinton doing far worse than Obama. So again write what you want for the hypothetical paragraph, but I would hope it might work toward a more neutral direction. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is by no means the final version that has to be used and is put out there only as a starting point to get some sort of consensus discussion going to put an end to this edit warring. If you don't think my proposal is acceptable, then propose an alternative. It really isn't that difficult. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

in this case your assumptions were probably correct lol, I am a pledged and oath-taken supporter of the current two-sentence version. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. The point of consensus building is to make compromises in such a manner that while you may not agree with the end result, you at least find it acceptable. It is apparent that the two sentence alternative (as it currently exists) is not acceptable to at least one group of editors and as such, clinging to that wording is a non-starter in consensus building. Conversely, clinging to the six paragraph alternative is also a non-starter. If any editor is not willing to find a consensus/compromise that is acceptable to the various groups, then we can start ignoring their contributions to the discussion while the rest try to get consensus. Given that, what's your compromise alternative wording? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

to clarify, I guess if you want to make the two sentences more critical of Obama, fine I guess. But there really should be no more than two sentences. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think two sentences is unacceptable, given the amount of attention that has been given to this issue by notable sources, and the effect it has had on Obama's chances to win the White House. I think meeting halfway, at two or three paragraphs, would be a fair compromise. I think Bobblehead's paragraph is a good place to start, and adding the Mark Steyn quotation (as representative of the abundant criticism that is out there in notable sources) is a good way to move it toward completion. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems decent to me. My only beef is the polls, as this is not Clinton's article. This article is a biography of Obama, and therefore should only include biographical information about him. I doubt this would appease the other side, as there idea of making it neutral was two or three paragraphs of some terrible Fox News slant, or something along those lines. Grsz 11 01:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with the poll bit, is it even worth noting here that Clinton took the lead for what...four days? Something as miniscule as that can certainly be ignored here and taken to the other article. Grsz 11 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More still, the two sentences in the article now, that I rewrote earlier are completely neutral. They mention that there was a controversy, what it was about, and that Obama responded. It makes no judgement on the nature of Wright's statements, or Obama's speech. I can't see anything wrong with this, as it summarizes and directs the reader to the campaign article where numerous different viewpoints are addressed. Grsz 11 01:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy - Kossack4Truth's effort

Here is my suggested three-paragraph version of the new Wright section. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. In them, Wright accused the federal government of selling drugs to blacks, creating the HIV virus to infect blacks, and perpetuating racism that led to disproportionate imprisonment of blacks. In one sermon, Wright said that the United States was responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks and urged black Americans to ask God to "damn America." Following the story, Obama faced criticism for referring to Wright as his "spiritual advisor," attending the church for 20 years, and maintaining close personal ties to the minister. Wright presided over Obama's wedding and baptized both of his daughters; Obama points to Wright as the inspiration for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and placed Wright on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee in December 2007.

Obama had begun distancing himself from Wright when he withdrew a request that Wright deliver a speech at the announcement of his presidential bid in February 2008, but when several videos of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube in the first week of March 2008, Obama released a statement "vehemently disagree[ing with] and strongly condemn[ing] ... inflammatory and appalling remarks Wright made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents." Obama said the remarks had come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign but that because Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of Obama's strong links to the Trinity faith community, he had not thought it "appropriate" to leave the church. After the publicity of March, the campaign announced that Wright has left its African American Religious Leadership Committee. On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race.

In the speech, Obama referred to his white grandmother and later explained that "she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know ... there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way." ABC News reported that "buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons." Critics have found the response not only contradictory, but inadequate. For example, Mark Steyn, writing in the National Review observed,

"Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race ... Yet since his early twenties [Obama]’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster ... the Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old."

Discussion on Kossack4Truth's effort

Comments about the three-paragraph version down here please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the main article? Entirely too long. Tvoz |talk 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Grsz 11 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The main section in the campaign article is 6 paragraphs...how can you think this is appropriate here? Grsz 11 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable, I'm afraid. The first two paragraphs are all about Jeremiah Wright and what he said. This is a biography of Barack Obama, in case you didn't notice. I still think a single paragraph is way too long, so a three-paragraph tome about some other dude is never going to work for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Three paras is a bit long for the main article, IMHO. I'd really like to keep it to one para at the most. So far it seems the issue hasn't really had a lasting impact on the campaign (well, as far as the primary is concerned). Sure it knocked him down a few points in the polls initially, but he's pretty much recovered from that. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't be expanded if the impact is greater later. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just provide links to the appropriate pages ?--Die4Dixie 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Wright controversy - Scjessey's effort

Here's my attempt at a compromise. This is a combination of some ideas from User:Bobblehead and the original text from 72.0.180.2:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Following significant negative media coverage, Obama chose to respond to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments while trying to expand the discussion to include race relations in general, the decision not to repudiate Reverend Wright failed to definitively end the matter.

I believe this satisfies the need for brevity, yet still manages to include more of the negative aspects that are desired by some. The references are intact if a wholesale copy/paste is needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Scjessey's effort

It's awesome! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC) </sarcasm>

Ha - but I agree. Works for me. Tvoz |talk 02:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Couple of thoughts here. The comment that by not repudiate Wright is extending the controversy is the opinion of the guy that created the Swift Boat ads and we should really attribute it to him as that's the first I've heard of that opinion. General opinion that I've seen is that no matter what Obama does it will stick to him in some measure and that this will be added to the general "Obama is anti-American" meme. Second thought is that the most recent source in this version is from the 21st. Perhaps a source from the last few days would be a better judge of the results of Obama's speech and the lasting impact of the controversy? I'd also like to see something that reflects the (temporary) drop in polls as a result. Without mentioning that drop it's hard to assess just why Obama gave the speech (negative press is common in a campaign). Perhaps something like "Due to a drop in polls as a result of the negative media coverage,[source] Obama chose to respond to the controversy..." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would argue that Obama's speech was responding to the negative press more than the poll drop. The polls were already evening out by the time that speech was given, and usually the internal campaign polls are a couple days ahead of the public ones. bla bla bla etc. Its a minor issue. More importantly, I agree with Bobblehead about the last sentence. If you want to mention the "staying-power" of the controversy, I might suggest saying (to the effect): his descision not to repudiate drew praise from some and criticism from others, including HRC who kept the issue topical into the new week, by saying that Wright "would not be her pastor." again or some jibber jabber to that effect. But again both efforts on a rewrite have been good... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Wright controversy has little effect on the polls (short or long term) with respect to the Democratic nomination. It has seem to have made a difference with respect to the General Election, but Clinton has suffered by pretty much the same amount. The polling seems to be more a reflection of Democratic in-fighting than anything specific, so I don't think including the polling data is necessary. Agreed on all other points. I'd like to see some feedback from the "other side" though. The whole point of this is to try to negotiate a compromise. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Any acceptable version is going to have to be clearer about what was controversial and about why Obama's image is affected by the controversy. "Racially and politically charged" doesn't cut it. His problem, and the biographical fact that has to be clear in his biography article, is not that he didn't repudiate Wright now, it's that he signed on and sat there for twenty years while Wright preached from day one in a way that that a lot of potential Obama voters see as hostile raving, and that this is not compatable with Obama's carefully cultivated image as someone who transcends black hostility. And you are going to have to allow some mention of the POV that his response was an attempt to change the subject, not merely put everything in "perspective". Andyvphil (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is a biography of Obama and not of Jeremiah Wright. The level of detail you are expecting simply isn't appropriate. Secondly, it has become apparent from Obama's own words and the exhaustive investigation of the mainstream media that the candidate was not in church at the times Wright made the controversial statements that have been reported (although Obama admits he was aware that statements may have been made). Thirdly, we are talking about a handful of controversial statements made over a thirty year period that began during a time of great racial tension and black oppression. This fact doesn't excuse Wright's words, but it does offer context in which it is easy to understand how such statements could surface. Fourthly, it is worth noting that Barack Obama's good character and inclusive stance has evolved despite his relationship with Reverend Wright. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, in the context of Obama's entire life it is now clear that the controversy surrounding Wright has not been of much significance to Obama or his campaign, which is why no more than a brief summary that points to a more exhaustive explanation is all that is needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to your POV, you just don't get to impose it on the article. "Obama's... inclusive stance" may be real or it may be a pose exposed by his voluntary adherence to Wright's church. You may believe that Obama wasn't in Trinity on any occasion when Jeremiah Wright went raving over the edge, and never learned about such an occasion with any promptitude, but there's a different POV that doesn't believe that Obama began lying about this only 13 months ago. And Obama didn't have to be in church to find out that Wright had said Louis Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness." That was in the Trumpet. As I said, your version is a non-starter. Andyvphil (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. We are trying to resolve the dispute, Andy. Have you nothing constructive to offer the discussion? The facts are these: although the Wright controversy continues to be discussed, it has had almost no effect on voters. It may yet surface again if Obama goes on to win the nomination and run against McCain, but until then it is adequately covered without undue weight. I have tried to come up with an "extended" paragraph with what I believe to be a more neutral tone, building on the work of other editors. Rather than dismiss the paragraph as a "non-starter", why not come up with your own reasonable version of the paragraph so that we can see how far apart we are? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you would like half of this article about Wright. Grsz 11 13:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

""The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability" from WP:BLP#Criticism. Did people not know of Obama before this? Maybe a few extermely ignorant individuals, but hardly a significant number. Grsz 11 13:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked, "Did people not know of Obama before this?" Four years ago, Obama was an obscure state senator (translation: provincial legislator) in Springfield, Illinois. This presidential campaign is the most noteworthy event of his life. Nothing else even comes close. Scjessey said, "it has had almost no effect on voters." This is a close race, and in the Gallup five-day rolling average, Obama has dropped from two points ahead of McCain to 2-3 points behind and stayed there. Granted, a 4-5 point move can be described as "almost no effect." But going from "ahead of McCain" to "behind McCain" cannot reasonably be described as "almost no effect." Obama himself, who has never previously shown the slightest sign of faltering, admitted that the controversy over Wright has left him "shaken." Scjessey's version doesn't give this cpontroversy the attention it deserves. Add the mark Steyn quote and a "Wright controversy" section header and it would be acceptable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Two articles from the nonpartisan Pew Research Centre might shed some light on this. On the one hand, this poll shows that the Wright matter hasn't had a significant effect on Obama's support. On the other hand, this poll notes that the speech and the Wright videos were the two most widely covered items in the 2008 presidential campaign to date. I'd say that means that it merits more coverage than the article currently gives, but I'm not sure that the Mark Steyn quote is particularly representative of people's responses to the controversy and speech. If we were to add the Steyn quote, I think that we would also have to add a balancing quotation from one of the many pundits and commentators who have praised the speech. Would that place undue weight on the matter? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There's more detail on the effect of the Wright matter and the speech on the polls at A More Perfect Union#Effect on voters. Looks to me as if the net effect was more or less negligible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - I agree that this election is the most noteworthy event in Obama's political life, and that is why it warrants its own article. That is why Josiah's suggestion of pruning the 2004 speech makes sense. The most recent Pew Research Center poll continues to show that Obama (and Clinton) have a statistically significant lead over McCain, so using polls as an argument for including more of the "Wright controversy" isn't useful. As for Mark Steyn, I certainly don't think the personal opinion of a well-known liberal-hating conservative has any place in a brief summary of what is still only a footnote of Obama's entire campaign. After two weeks, the only people talking about Wright are right-wingers who are never going to vote for any Democrat anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times today is about Wright/Obama, and the desperate effort to force Hillary out of the race before she can capitalize on Wright/Obama. Read it. [18] It's clear that Dowd is not a right-winger and that she's going to vote for a Democrat. There are many, many other examples I could provide: genuinely progressive, even left-wing political commentary from notable sources who aren't just talking about Wright/Obama, but seem unable to talk about much of anything else. This controversy merits its own section, including criticism from someone who isn't going to vote for a Democrat, because they deserve to be heard and there are a lot of them, and it merits a section header. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kossack- your post there was totally misleading fyi. I mean you might win some awards for a fish story, but as far as commentary on Maureen Dowd, you maybe missed the boat a little. The word "Wright" was used exactly once that I saw, so maybe other's should read that article as well (the word desperate was NOT used ever in that article of course...Maureen keeps it classy regardless of what you think.) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Wright affair has been heavily featured in the media for the past couple of weeks, and it probably deserves more than the two sentences the article currently gives it. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that it deserves its own section, though — it's not as if the Wright affair or even the speech (which, let's remember, has its own article) was one of the key incidents or themes of the man's life. It's an important episode in the campaign, but it's not as important as the campaign itself, or his time in the Senate. To say otherwise is recentism. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to replacing the current paragraph with Scjessey's version? I know that Andyvphil doesn't think it's adequate, but surely from his perspective Scjessey's version would be an improvement over what's there now. I realize that this won't resolve the issue for Andyvphil, but if we want to keep good faith on all sides we should acknowledge when good faith efforts are being made. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a substantial number of more in favor than not. Grsz 11 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If moving Scjessey's proposal onto the article would end the edit war, I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure it will resolve the dispute based on the comments above of the editors that disagree with it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but I would agree that the last line needs work. We can't assume that the situation would have been "definitively ended" if Obama had "repudiated" Wright. Paisan30 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Josiah's tweak of Scjessey's proposal

Paisan30 makes a good point about what would or wouldn't have "definitively ended" the controversy. I do think it's worth noting that Obama rejected Wright's offensive statements while refusing to repudiate the man. How's this variant on Scjessey's theme? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Following significant negative media coverage, Obama chose to respond to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but declined to disown the man himself. Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments, some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.

best yet... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up. Grsz 11 05:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Then make the edit. As time goes on, and as it becomes more and more obvious that this issue will cost Obama the White House, perhaps you'll reconsider giving it more than one paragraph without a section header. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If Obama wins the nomination, I am sure the Republicans will try to milk this Wright thing for all it's worth (despite the fact that McCain enjoys the endorsement of some pretty awful religious nut-jobs himeself). However, I think you will find that once the Democrats have settled on and united behind a candidate, McCain doesn't stand a chance with his pro-war and ignore-economy stance. But this is not the place to debate such matters... - This is the best version yet and I would imagine that the concluding sentence and citations will mollify those insisting on more negativity. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, this article is a hagiography. Every valid, well-grounded criticism gets one or two sentences and banishment to a satellite article that no one ever reads. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears that dozens (if not hundreds) of other Wikipedians disagree with you. This article reads like a normal biography to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about dozens, but False Prophet agrees with you that there shouldn't be much criticism of Obama. The comparison with Mother Teresa made me think it was you writing, but I was surprised by the signature.

Anyway, the controversy isn't "concerning the sermons". It's concerning Obama's joining, and then failing to disassociate himself from, a church in which blaming the CIA for AIDS, etc., is considered within the range of normal discourse, rather than raving insanity. And Obama's now added that had Wright not retired he would have left Trinity, so his "declining to disown" in the Philly speech is a defensive position that has already fallen. Now that he's conceeded that Wright is reason enough to leave he's going to have a hard time justifying sticking around as long as he did. Wright's sermons have been broadcast for some time. Gotta be tapes out there, from well before 9/11. And what was well received in the speech was not the "attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments". The ones who praise the speech don't praise it for that.

So, some tweaks are in order. But as K4T says, if Obama gets the nom attacks by those less inhibited than Hillary will put the Wright business front and center, and the defenders of the pro-Obama POV won't have enough thumbs to keep the dikes from leaking. I'd rather talk about the ADA ratings. Need to put some flesh on his self-identification as "progressive". Andyvphil (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The only people making a fuss about this are Hillary fans (who have conveniently forgotten how helpful Wright was to Bill Clinton) and staunch Republicans who would never vote for any Democrat. Even the electorate is bored of it, according to all the recent polls. Even McCain thinks this has blown up out of all proportion. Wright came to prominence in a time when black people were treated like sub-humans, and it is hardly surprising that he still has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about it. But regardless of his controversial comments (which I personally find either ludicrous, disgusting or both) he has done a tremendous amount of good for his community, and he has been a positive influence on Barack Obama. You guys are fixated on the tiny island of bad in a gigantic ocean of good. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[out] I'm fine with Josiah's rework of Scjessey's attempt. Tvoz |talk 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that discussion over this isn't over, but this seems like the closest we've gotten to a consensus so far. It's certainly in keeping with the description here:

a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'.

So I guess I'll put this version in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear to me that your action is not out of policy in terms of an edit to a protected page. I am hereby demurring in advance from any assertion that your version of the Wright issue is the "consensus version". The only consensus is that it is an improvement on the two sentence version. The issue that needs to be faced in Obama's biography is that 20 years ago Obama chose to join a church whose politics are shaped by a pastor with, as Obama knew at the time and as Scjessey (following Huckabee) says, a "chip on his shoulder". Obama's appeal as a national figure is predicated on his not having such a chip. Well-concealed doesn't cut it. Your version fails to make it clear that that's the issue. It is the issue. That's why Clinton's response was to say that Wright would not have remained her pastor. And it is a question about Obama's life and outlook. This is the article where it must be addressed. But it must first be named before we can gather points of view on the question in order to assemble an NPOV treatment. Your edit is still in the obstructive mode, denying by implication that the question even exists. Not good enough. Andyvphil (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK — (deep breath) — I made my edit to the protected page after leaving two days for discussion. In that time, you said "some tweaks are in order" and "I'd rather talk about the ADA ratings". I took that to indicate that although you disagreed with some details of my proposed wording, in the phrasing of WP:PRACTICAL, you "didn't agree but gave low priority to the given issue". That's why I made the change. The protection policy says "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove inappropriate material or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." I thought there was consensus on this — perhaps I was wrong, but I would appreciate it if you assumed good faith. I've got some ideas about how to proceed, which I'll add below, but I didn't want this charge of policy abuse to go unanswered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a charge of policy abuse. Reread my first sentence. I am concerned about the prospect of this article being kept in protected mode with only the most jejeune edits being allowed through to mainspace. Since the current state of the article is not NPOV, and that needs to change, a process which keeps the rate of change glacial is not neutral. It is defensive of a POV status quo. And a misuse of protected status. I read the template and understood your argument. But I'm expressing reservations. Andyvphil (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that is just nonsense, Andy. The article is currently in excellent shape, expressing a neutral point of view despite the quantity and complexity of the content. You are one of maybe 2 or 3 individuals who insist on adding bias to the article to mislead people and misrepresent the individual. You claim you are working to create a NPOV when in fact you are doing the opposite. You then attack anyone who disagrees with you, using every possible argument and trick you can think of. When none of that works, you wait for a few days for things to die down and then you do an arbitrary revert back to your biased version of whatever you want to say and restart the same arguments over and over again. I'm sorry if this seems rather personal for an article talk page, but it had to be said. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what relevant, lasting impression this "incident" has had on Obama's life as a whole (ie, the article's subject)? It hasn't cost him his popularity, it certainly hasn't cost him his campaign. To say, to insist, that this so-called controversy be covered in as much detail (you'd probably want more) than his time in the Illinois Senate is pretty outlandish. Grsz 11 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the closest to what you desire would be Kossack's attempt. That section was as long as both the sections on the 109th and 110th Congress, meaning to say it's more important to his life as a whole than those two topics. Completely unnecessary. 06:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright done for now?

Okay, with Josiah's modified version of Scjessey's proposal in the article does this close the edit war about how much content should be included about the Wright controversy in the main article for now? Obviously if new developments occur in the future more content will need to be discussed/added, but for now, is everyone at least willing to not edit war over the content in the Wright paragraph? There is another point of contention to discuss (his voting record). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the JRowe version is:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Following significant negative media coverage, Obama responded to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but declined to disown the man himself. Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments, some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.

But no, the JRowe version is insufficiently clear on what the controversy is about, and its place in Obama's biography. I propose something more like the following...

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Videos surfaced of some of Wright's sermons (in which he claimed, for example, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color" and attributed the 9/11 attacks to American faults ranging from taking the country from the Indian tribes by terror, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libya, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and supporting state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa) and Obama responded by condemning some of Wright's remarks and cutting Wright's connections to his Presidential campaign. He also delivered a speech devoted to the subject, which he sought to put it in the context of racial and other political divides in America. Although the speech was generally well-received, critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.

...and I will not be deterred from changing the current airbrushed version by bogus claims of "consensus", no matter how vigorously the pro-Obama cabal bobble their heads at each other. If you feel your POV is insufficiently represented, add some more of it. But I don't think any less detail than this is acceptable. Andyvphil (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

undue weight and WTA probelms andy, which the Jrowe version does not suffer from. better luck next time... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the undue weightlessness that's the NPOV problem in this article. Neutral editors at the FAR agree, btw. What WTA? If there's a real problem, I'll address it. If your only objection is IDONTLIKEIT, I'll discount your complaints accordingly. Andyvphil (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Andy, but the specifics of what Jeremiah Wright said are not important enough to include in this BLP of Obama. There is plenty of detail behind the blue links. As I said earlier in this conversation, we are trying to compromise to stop an edit war. Your so-called "Obama cabal/claque" (which I think is extremely disrespectful to the hordes of neutral editors who contribute, by the way) has compromised significantly by allowing negative (and even provocative) wording in the new paragraph to appease the 2 or 3 editors who agree with your point of view. Now it is time for you to compromise, and bombastic threats like "I will not be deterred from changing the current airbrushed version by bogus claims of 'consensus'" will win you no support at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright" ... What's unclear about that? Grsz 11 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The controversy isn't about the sermons. It's about Obama not walking out. Your wording is obfuscatory. And you intend it to be. And, Scjessey, the specifics of what Wright said are exactly what is necessary to idicate why Obama's not walking out is significant. Not all highly "charged" sermons rise to the level of Wright's. You just want to conceal exactly how wildly he raves. There is no compromise to be had short of some semblance of NPOV. And I am not deluded that the cabal will support that. But I can make clear that you are bereft of any real arguments. And I have. Andyvphil (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying conceal anything at all, and I resent that implication. I simply believe (and Wikipedia's own conventions back me up on this) that Wright's controversial statements belong in the Jeremiah Wright article, not in a biography of someone else. Perhaps Obama's ties with the people and community associated with his church are more significant than the particular statements Wright made that are so controversial? His church is clearly important to him, and maybe he didn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like I said before, I am an atheist who finds anything like this repugnant; however, I can see the Obama's logic and I can understand his emotional dilemma. But I cannot understand your need to conduct this crusade of negativity. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Minor correction: I would suggest changing the last instance of "Wright" (as in "some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.") to just "him", since we have already identified his name earlier in the sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to change "Wright's comments" to "the comments" in that sentence, because there's a reference to "Wright's offensive comments" in the previous sentence. But since my good faith in making what I thought were consensus-backed changes has been challenged, I'm not going to edit the article until the temperature cools. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. I knew that the two instances of the surname seemed wrong, but you have correctly identified which needs to be excised. As far as Andyvphil's comment above is concerned, I am both saddened and appalled. My own efforts to become a less confrontational and more compromise-seeking editor have been inspired in large part by what you have been doing in this group of articles recently. His challenge of your intentions and motivations is entirely unwarranted, but not entirely surprising. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, it would probably make sense to change "Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments, some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright." to "Although the speech, which attempted to explain and contextualize the comments, was generally well-received, some critics..." That would remove the objection that it wasn't the contextualization that was well-received. (Although some critics did praise the contextualization, that wasn't the sole focus of the critical praise.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible way forward?

I think that the current version of the Wright paragraph of the "presidential campaign" section gives the matter about as much weight and detail as the section can take. I specifically reject the suggestion that the details of Wright's 9/11 sermon or HIV conspiracy claims are important enough to the life story of Barack Obama to merit inclusion in his biography. Obama wasn't even in the congregation when the 9/11 sermon was made, and the suggestion that he's responsible for a specific statement that his minister said when he wasn't even there is on the face of it absurd.

However, there is a larger argument which has slightly more validity, which is that the offensive statements seen in the Wright clips were representative of an anti-American strain in the theological tradition to which Obama chose to ally himself. I don't happen to think that that strain is terribly important to Obama's life, but it's clear that Trinity United Church of Christ was important in his personal and political development, and any treatment of that should indicate (succinctly!) that the church is controversial.

Therefore, let me suggest another way to incorporate more context for the Wright controversy into the article: Either we add a sentence or two about Obama's religious journey to the "Early life and career" section, or expand the discussion of religion under "Personal life", possibly into a section of its own. The idea would be to succinctly indicate the role that Wright and Trinity played in Obama's journey to Christianity, and while doing so identify their controversial association with black theology. I'm sure that with a little research we could find a reliable source criticizing Obama and Trinity in these terms. That, together with the sections from Dreams from My Father in which Obama talks about Trinity, and this excerpt from The Audacity of Hope, could form the backbone of a (short!) section on Obama's religious views and the way they've intersected with issues of race. If we can sketch the contours of Obama's relationship with Trinity and Wright in that context, perhaps that would give enough of an indication of why some commentators are still objecting to the fact that Obama didn't end his longstanding religious affiliation.

Do we think this might be a way forward? Quoting Wright directly is simply outside the purview of a brief biography of Barack Obama. But a thumbnail sketch of Obama's religious journey, including his association with a church based on black theology, isn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach to me. In fact, it is a similar approach to that taken by Obama himself when he sought to put his relationship with Wright into context during his A More Perfect Union speech. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

also Jrowe- please remember your earlier citation of the WP policy on rough consensus. One or two obviously partisan editors do not, in any way, reduce consensus. I know you have not been watching these pages as long as some editors, but I would like to tell you that this style of consensus will be the best you can find. Certain styles of rhetoric rely on repetition of obvious falsehoods, such as that "there is no consensus for this text." Yes we hear that al the time, but it doesn't mean its automatically true. It also doesn't mean there is some rising creshendo of demands for a more NPOV treatments. I know consensus does not equate with voting- but a quick look at the numbers will show they are lopsided to say the least. And much of the debate from one camp is by "one-time" posters, so take it for what you will. I admire your efforts to accommodate minority viewpoints, and indeed agree that the minority viewpoints are often the more important ones- but in this case I am worried that we are in fact giving undue weight to a wp:fringe theory, something we need to be extremely wary of.

regarding the insertion of more TUCC info- I disagree. To me it seems that the controversy is in fact almost exclusively concerning Rev. Wright. As we all know many of the news reports do not even specify what church Obama attends, simply referring to "his pastor." Yes there is some discussion of the connection, but not nearly enough weight to make it valuable to the obama BLP. I think if any editor feels the issue has yet to reach "due weight," then they need to consider more Wright text and not TUCC text (which not only obama but most of chicago stands behind)

we would not be having this discussion if Andy's suggested Wright text had been successful. This is essentially discussion of a compromise towards him. So lets look at what he wants to add in the first place. Inflammatory words like (9/11, AIDS, terror, etc) are his goal. Notice of our combined efforts to add more Wright criticism without using such words, and how andy always shoots those down. It is not the text itself he wants, it is the inflammatory words which catch the eye and "poison the well" if you will. WP: Words to Avoid is, in fact, quite clear on this subject

"It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label"

so this is why I disagree with working towards TUCC. There is no need for it- Wright is where the media action is, not the former church, and so if CONSENSUS (not just andy and kossack) want a longer paragraph- then they can have more Wright. And regardless of what certain users claim, neutral, non-inflammatory summary of Wright's positions and activities is the RECOMMENDED way of doing it. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He makes a good point there. We are essentially bending over backwards to accommodate just 2 users. Unless are far greater number of established editors adopt the Andy/Kossack point-of-view, there really isn't any reason to change what we already have. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I.e., you think you can win an edit war, so why bother with consensus. Which, per policy, is to be determined by evaluating strength of argument, not counting noses. We'll see. I remember when mentioning that TUCC was political, Afrocentric and that Obama had distanced himself from Wright was repeatedly removed as an unacceptable smear, but facts on the ground changed.

JRowe: "Quoting Wright directly is simply outside the purview of a brief biography of Barack Obama." Not when the quotes are the issue. There are a lot of quotes in this article that throw a lot less light on Obama's bio than Wrights'. You really need to reconsider this sentence.

There is no meaningful distinction between TUCC and Wright. He was pastor for 36 years and took the operation from 87 members to 6,500 or so. He remains senior minister and his offspring, not counting the one that joined Sharpton, still do things like run the Trumpet, and he hand-picked his successor. And there is no reason to think his sermons were any less "charged" when he was younger. And there is no one else at TUCC that Obama had described having a similar connection with. JRowe, there some commentary by Linda Chavez that may be the beginning of what you're looking for.[19] But it's not a substitute for accurately conveying Wright's tenor in the remarks at issue.

72etc, WTA doesn't apply when the inflammatory nature of the remarks is the essence of their notability. This was explained to you at length, including by admin B, if I remember correctly, when he rejected your bogus claim of a BLP exemption in the process of blocking and refusing to unblock you. Martin said Obama was a Muslim, and Wright said the "government" invented AIDS. Saying that what Wright said was "racially and politically charged" doesn't communicate its significance. Andyvphil (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the top of my page says "Talk:Barack Obama"...why are we talking about quoting Jeremiah Wright again? Grsz 11 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoth Andyvphil:

There are a lot of quotes in this article that throw a lot less light on Obama's bio than Wrights'.

Please name one. I've just looked through all the quotes in the article. Every quotation is either something Obama himself said, or (in a very few cases) a quotation of a notable commentator speaking or writing about Obama. Wright's sermons were not about Obama, and Obama was not present when the most offensive snippets were uttered. In the context of the campaign, the details of what Wright said are important. But since there is no evidence that Barack Obama believes that the CIA developed the AIDS virus, or 9/11 represented America's chickens coming home to roost, the Wright comments are irrelevant to the biography of Barack Obama. As I suggested at the top of this section, an argument can be made for a balanced portrait of Barack Obama's religious life and the theology of his chosen church. (By the way, I don't know where you get the idea that anyone was trying to distinguish between Wright and Trinity UCC.) But there is no reason to include the details of Jeremiah Wright's jeremiads in Obama's biographical article, any more than there's a reason to include "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" in Hillary Clinton's. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional thought: Andy, earlier you said, "The issue that needs to be faced in Obama's biography is that 20 years ago Obama chose to join a church whose politics are shaped by a pastor with, as Obama knew at the time and as Scjessey (following Huckabee) says, a "chip on his shoulder"." and "... it is a question about Obama's life and outlook. This is the article where it must be addressed." My suggestion above was an attempt to find a way that addressed these concerns while still remaining focused on Obama himself, rather than comments made by somebody else. If the point is the politics of the church Obama chose to attend, then that's what we should be focusing on. Not something Jeremiah Wright said when Obama wasn't even present.

Your fixation on including Wright's inflammatory remarks and refusal to respond to a good-faith effort to address your concerns makes me question your good faith. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The fixation on obscuring the wildly fringe nature of Wright's remarks (currently described merely, and completely inadequately, as "racially and politically charged") again confirms that the pro-Obama cabal that censors the content of this article has forfeited any credibility to their pretense of editing in good faith. Obama himself credited Wright's attitudes to the experiences of his youth, not some onset of craziness as he approached retirement. We don't know what craziness was spoken in Obama's presence, but there's no reason at all to believe that it's a new phenomenon, or that he always restrained himself when in Obama's presence, or that Obama could be entirely unaware of what Wright said when not in his presence, over a period of 23 years. The stories about Obama retracting the invitation to Wright to make the invocation at Obama's candidacy announcement quote Wright as saying he was told the reason was that he got "a bit rough" in his sermons. Now we know what that means. But not from reading this article, if you have your way. Andyvphil (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not addressing my question. Why is a quotation of something Wright said when Obama may or may not have been present relevant to a biographical article about Barack Obama? Surely a neutrally worded description of the church's theology and style would shed more light on Obama's life and character than an inflammatory quotation which he has explicitly rejected.

You object to the characterization of Wright's sermons as "racially and politically charged". Do you have a different succinct description which reflects the characterizations used in reliable sources? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note here that andyvphil just put forth the finest argument I have yet seen from him, regarding WTA and my horrible miscomprehension of it. Its a great argument for why the Martin issue was applicable to the Obama campaign page- the inflammatory words themselves might have been the essence of their notability. And your argument is equally applicable here- as a reason why we should be summarizing wright's remarks and not regurgitating them whole cloth. The ONE instance of using ONE word, yes it was notable on the campaign page- however using a great mass of inflammatory words, regularly in sermons and elsewhere, creates such a number that to cherry pick a few examples here is far more disingenuous than to make a summarizing blanket statement.

Also, while Martin made his remarks specifically AT Obama, Wrights sermons has a much less direct connection to Obama, as they were made generally in public addresses or in press conferences, etc; and they are not statements about Obama, or mentioning Obama- again totally unlike the Martin situation. So, how sweet to misleading posit that we should ignore WTA issues because of some mythical blanket policy from a different page- but as you may remember the next admin unblocked me five minutes later, so dear andy I would hope you understand: the WTA here is still open for debate. again thanks for the misleading editing but that's why we love you. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Children in infobox

Should his children be mentioned in the infobox as they are with John McCain and Hillary Clinton? Just wondering for the sake of consistency, it doesn't really matter. -Mansley (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that they are named in the personal life section, it's probably alright if they are included in the infobox.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. If someone wants to do it that's fine, but again, it's no big deal. --Mansley (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable; added. Incidentally, the online cited source in the "Personal life" section gave ages for Malia and Sasha, but didn't mention their birth years. I don't have copies of Obama's books to hand, to see if their birth years were mentioned in them, as the citation would suggest. I put the years in the infobox on the assumption that the "Personal life" section was correct, but couldn't verify without the books at hand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Early life and career"

This is a proposed correction to the "Early life and career" section of the article. The name of the law firm where Obama worked for a decade is incorrect. It is Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, and it is a small, 12-attorney firm that represents slumlords. Also, the article says that Obama only worked there for three years. The fact is that Obama worked there for ten years. The current single sentence reads like this:

As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.

Leaving out the name "Davis" confounds most search attempts and divorces Obama from the firm's founder and godfather, Allison Davis, a notorious slumlords' attorney in Chicago. I propose replacing that sentence with these two sentences and a link:

As an associate attorney with Miner Barnhill & Galland (fka Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, founded by attorney Allison Davis) from 1993 to 2003, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. While at the firm, Obama also worked on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp. owned by Daniel Mahru and the now-indicted Democratic Party fundraiser Tony Rezko, who has raised a total of over $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns.

Further information: Tony Rezko

Please add your comments below. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Interesting. What happened to the "slumlords" bit? Andyvphil (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(excuse me for refactoring this after and edit conflict -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

The name of the law firm certainly needs to be corrected. I think the rest of it is okay as long as you omit the words "now-indicted" (per WP:RECENT), the phrase "who has raised a total of over $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns" (per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT), and the unnecessary extra Rezko link. Also, the first Sun-Times citation is inaccurately attributed to the Associated Press. I've changed the heading of this section because this is actually a proposed change masquerading as a correction. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rezko isn't just "now-indicted." His federal felony trial started on March 14. The news has been eclipsed by this Wright controversy. Rezko has been under indictment since October 2006, more than 17 months, therefore defeating your WP:RECENT objection. WP:WEIGHT isn't violated because prior to this brief mention, the Rezko/Obama relationship isn't even mentioned. Obama has now admitted that there were periods when he was on the phone with Rezko every day. Like the Wright controversy, this one has been banished to satillite articles that no one will ever read. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my comment about the name of the law firm. It appears that the law firm is called "Miner, Barnhill and Galland" (see their website) so it would be completely wrong to make it something else just to alter search engine results. The issues surrounding Rezko are for the Tony Rezko article. Whether or not he is currently indicted is not important to this article because it is not a biographical detail and it violates WP:RECENT because the fact is transient. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The law firm is currently named Miner Barnhill & Galland because the notorious slumlords' attorney who founded it, Allison Davis, has recently retired. During the 10 years Obama worked there, it was called Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland. If you'd like to alter the proposed pair of new sentences to read "Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland (now renamed Miner Barnhill & Galland due to retirement of its senior partner, Allison Davis)," I would certainly agree. Efforts to divorce Obama from both Allison Davis and Tony Rezko in this article are not in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it should say "Miner, Barnhill and Galland (fka Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland)" to follow the usual convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now made that change and added the name of the firm's founder, Allison Davis. See above. Obama's close association with an indicted fundraiser, who is currently on trial for federal felonies associated with political fundraising, is very important to this article, Scjessey. Leaving it out would be just another example of efforts to make a hagiography where a biography belongs. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That is simply not acceptable since it is adding details about other people to a biography. This would be better:

As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill and Galland (fka Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland) from 1993 to 2003, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. While at the firm, Obama also worked on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp. owned by Daniel Mahru and Democratic Party fundraiser Tony Rezko.

And that's it. That's all you would need to satisfy a neutral point of view. The links contained within the paragraph offer plenty of extra detail if the reader is sufficiently interested. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

conceivably the addition of something like "tainted democratic party fundraiser" would be a clearer presentation. that is, IF we add anything about Rezko at all. It think there is a big undue weight problem here. It doesn't matter how busy rezko's life is, or even how often he was on the phone with Obama five years ago. Those things do not confer "due weight." What would, if it existed, would be consistent RS analysis of the topic, consistent and continued to the point where it was an issue in Obama's 40-something year LIFE. Which again, does not exist. What does is exist is campaign reporting from 07 and 08, based on the events of 06 and after. So again you have two or three years of on-again-off-again reporting, all within the context of Obama's rising political fortunes. Its on the campaign page, where it belongs. (I added it there just like I added the Wright text here lol) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have lengthy sections, with section headers, devoted to their controversies and scandals. Negative words appear. Here, we find none of that. It's sanitized and shrink-wrapped. Anything controversial or negative has been banished to a satellite article. The pattern just keeps repeating itself. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we are all very sorry that Obama has not yet had a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate his actions as first spouse, or gotten involved in a Savings and Loan bribery scandal, but that lack of long-term controversy does not magically give more weight to Rev. Wright (an issue some argue is fundamentally mediated by the freedom of religion clause) or Tony Rezko (who is innocent until proven guilty in some jurisdictions). We mention Wright which I think is fine but may well fall to the recentism axe in the long run- regardless your notion that we need to balance length or negativity, would make sense if that balance existed in reality- but it don't. That "lack of balance" is a big part of how a black dude won 95% white Iowa, so I think its fine to "call attention" to it in our formatting (by not having a big controversy section), and its fine for us to ignore your theory that we should make this page uglier just because Obama has a higher moral record than some other politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you point those out? Grsz 11 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the version Scjessey proposes, with the change of "Democratic Party fundraiser Tony Rezko" to "controversial Illinois businessman and political fundraiser Tony Rezko". "Democratic Party fundraiser" is inaccurate, since Rezko also raised money for Republicans (incl. George W. Bush). The phrase "controversial Illinois businessman" is in the article now under "Personal life". If we move it up to "Early life and career" we might not need to identify Rezko further in the "Personal life" section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Question on the weighting of his work. Obama only put in a few hours working on Rezmar cases while at DMB&G and it's getting the same amount of weight as nine years of working on civil rights and discrimination cases. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

None of his other clients have been indicted for political fundraising abuses. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why it is okay to include that he worked on the loans, etc, but he also worked on cases that forced the state of Illinois to implement a federal law that was designed to make it easier for people to register to vote, a whistleblowers wrongful termination suit that netted the woman $5 million, and another lawsuit that forced the city of Chicago to redraw its wards (among others). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A term such as "indicted" would be more appropriate than "controversial" when talking about Tony Rezko. Britney Spears is controversial. Tony Rezko is indicted. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but close observers say he's going to prison. One of his co-conspirators is going to testify against him, and the feds also have wiretap evidence. The prosecutor is Patrick Fitzgerald, the same one who obtained a conviction against Scooter Libby. Here [20] are 4,556 Google news links between Obama and Rezko. Here [21] are 3,831 Google news links between Obama and the trial of Rezko. If Rezko were merely controversial, he wouldn't be on trial. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point, but we should be careful that the wording doesn't suggest that Rezko was indicted when Obama worked for his company, or for any dealings that Obama had anything to do with. WP:BLP says, "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." To be accurate and in keeping with BLP, we'd probably have to say "Illinois businessman and political fundraiser Tony Rezko, who was later indicted for activities unrelated to Obama." But I worry that that's too wordy, and places undue weight on an association that isn't all that important to Obama's biography. It's important in the campaign, yes, but is his association with Rezko really so important in the man's life that it merits nearly as much verbiage as his mother gets? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"... but we should be careful that the wording doesn't suggest that Rezko was indicted when Obama worked for his company ..." Yes, of course. That's why I believe we should use "now-indicted" to indicate that he wasn't yet indicted at that time.

or "tainted" (like i suggested before, I really think it works) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's important in the campaign, yes, but is his association with Rezko really so important in the man's life that it merits nearly as much verbiage as his mother gets?" Yes, of course. Information about Obama's mother can be used in Early life and career of Barack Obama. Right now, there are two controversies surrounding Obama. Despite the fact that a four-sentence paragraph has been agreed upon for the Jeremiah Wright (reluctantly since half a loaf is better than none), that section still sits at just two sentences. And there is still zero mention of Tony Rezko in the article mainspace. So we have two major controversies, which merit thousands of articles in the world's news sources, and they get a total of two sentences between them in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Er... Rezko is mentioned in the "Personal life" section, and the four-sentence version of the Wright matter has been introduced to the article. Do you need to refresh the page? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

also rezko only has one sentence even on the campaign WP, so that means it has like... a phrases worth?... of notability here, if any. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The failure of the campaign article to give it the attention it deserves is not binding here. The Rezko scandal, and Obama's other links to the profoundly corrupt Daley political machine in Chicago, are major news. It doesn't just affect the campaign. I said earlier that these scandals could easily end up costing Obama the White House, and that it doesn't get any more notable than that in a biography. Read this. [22] It's a blog, but it's written by reliable investigative journalists from the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

Obama has been taking dirty money from Rezko for many years. He knew that Rezko was under investigation for crimes related to political fundraising.

If Rezko were on trial for crimes completely unrelated to politics, you would have a point. But he was under investigation, and is now on trial, for crimes related to political fundraising. The feds have him on tape, in numerous conversations. One of his co-conspirators has already been convicted, and is testifying against Rezko hoping to get a reduced sentence. Rezko's scam was approaching contractors who hope to get work with the government of the state of Illinois. He would tell them, "If you make a nice, fat campaign contribution to this particular politician, you're a lot more likely to get the contract. But if you don't make the contribution, there's no way in hell you'll get the contract." That is a felony, just as it should be and Rezko is virtually certain to go to prison for it.

After he is convicted, he will be under pressure (just like the co-conspirator who is now testifying against him) to give up some bigger fish in return for a reduced sentence. He will probably give up Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is in this sewage up to his neck. But he may also give up Obama, and testify against him. Suppressing any mention of this is an obvious whitewash. Also, there has been abundant criticism of Obama from notable sources but there is zero criticism in this article. It looks like it was written by his campaign staff. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that attempting to divorce these political scandals from Obama's biography, by banishing them to satellite articles that have been proven to be read by virtually nobody, and claiming that "it's about the campaign, not about Obama," is more than a bit disingenuous. Obama's life has been devoted to politics. If he'd never run for office, he might merit a stub as a community activist. Serving in political office is his career. It is what makes him notable. Therefore notable scandals and controversies in his campaign deserve prominent and detailed discussion right here, in this biography. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've already said that. I'm afraid that is just how Wikipedia (or indeed any encyclopedia). Otherwise we'd have one giant long page that started with the Big Bang and ended with:

"13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC) : Wikipedia user Simon Jessey comments on the Barack Obama talk page about how awesome blue links are."

And I think even "tainted" might be problematic, because it may expose Wikipedia to accusations of a defamatory nature. Better to let the blue link handle it anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rezko isn't "controversial". He's on trial for extorting political contributions. And he's delivered over $250k in political contributions to Obama. Including almost $40k that was crucial to the start of Obama's Senate run. Not to mention the part he played in the purchase of Obama's house. But he couldn't have expected or asked for or got anything back for his money, right? Just investing in good government, right? Anyway, he's notorious now, and the fact that Obama has connections to a notorious figure wouldn't get so little attention in any non-promotional bio. Andyvphil (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rezko may yet be exonerated (although this seems unlikely), so even if it where logical to put the extra detail in about him (which it isn't) we cannot assume he is going to be convicted or we would be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, he contributed to both parties. Oh, and the house thing is already covered in the "Personal life" section. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"The house purchase and subsequent acquisition of an adjoining strip of land drew media scrutiny in November 2006 because of financial links with controversial Illinois businessman Tony Rezko.[144]" is the only menton of Rezko in the article. What did you think we were talking about? Obama invited Rezko to walk through his proposed purchase, which couldn't go forward unless the lot next door was sold too, and then Rezko, a pro in the development business, plunked down the full asking price of the lot while Obama got a price reduction. And now Obame has a really big side yard (he pays for the landscaping) until some indefinate future time when the purchaser decides that getting some return on his capital is worth depriving the Senator of his view of the trees. All an arms-length transaction, of course. The fact that Rezko gave to both parties is surely proof positive that his only concern is policy, not favors. Uhhh.... Wait a second. Did that last make sense? You seem to think it does. I dunno. Andyvphil (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(very) minor editing suggestion?

Is not one a lecturer on constitutional law, not of constitutional law? 67.163.141.14 (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I believe that "of" is the correct usage (even though it sounds kinda weird). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.....then perhaps the word "lecturer" should be capitalized to show his official academic title (then) and specialty?...Lecturer of Constitutional Law... Without that, I see usages such as this:

2. he is a lecturer in French"
synonyms: university teacher, college teacher, tutor, reader, instructor, academic, academician.

Thank You,

mark Kohut 67.163.141.14 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The difficult thing is that when you say "he was a lecturer" you're describing his job in general terms, but when you say "he was a Lecturer" you're referring to a rank and title in the academic system. In terms of his title, Obama was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004. But he was a "lecturer" for all that time.

As for "constitutional law" vs. "Constitutional Law", to me the former suggests a field of study while the latter suggests a specific course. I see usages of the lowercase around the web: "lecturer of business law", "lecturer of philosophy and aesthetics", "lecturer of fixed prosthodontics" (the last one being in reference to a Dr. Harry R. Potter — who knew?).

"A lecturer in" does get more Google hits than "a lecturer of", though that includes usages like "a lecturer in San Diego" or "began his career as a lecturer in 1847". More of the "lecturer of" usages seem to be referring to a specific field or department in academia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Do people think we can unprotect the page now, or would the unresolved issues (categorizing Obama's political history, etc.) bring us another edit war? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like we both asked somewhat the same question, just different sections. I think we need to resolve the categorization of Obama's political history before the article can be moved back to semi-protected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

lets figure out everything here first before we unprotect, so certain users can't come complain in the future... as far as voting record goes, I heard there was a difference opinion on 10 votes between him and Clinton- so I don't see why we are going to bother with adding that to the BLP (again campaign page people) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

Why is this page really protected? I'm not buying the "He's a politician currently running for office...blah blah blah" when the other two candidates, McCain and Hillary are unprotected. The argument isn't made. Not to mention Hillary's page has some interesting text at the top that should be removed.

This page is not accurate about his life, past or present and is grossly biased. I thought Wiki was concerned with the truth but it doesn't appear so, at least on this page. All of the information should be made available for all to see, not just part out of ideology. I am quite concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddanger (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is edit protected due to edit warring. Once the disagreements that caused the edit war has been resolved, it will be unprotected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what Kiddanger thinks is "not accurate" in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Probably just another troll. Grsz 11 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Highly probable, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need for Criticisms Section

Despite the fact that Obama's supporters are diligent in removing anything remotely unfavorable on this article, there should be a section for criticisms as they do exist and they are legitimate. Anyone else believe that this is necessary for an unbiased article?Rgwilliams (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Grsz 11 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see answer 3 in the FAQ at the top of discussion page. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Link change request: Lobbying in the United States to Israel lobby in the United States

In the "political advocacy" section on Barack Obama's page there is a sentence in the 8th paragraph that reads:

In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that while the U.S. "should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

Currently, it is the term "lobby" in the above sentence that is linked to the article "Lobbying in the United States." I would recommend that it is better to link the whole phrase "pro-Israel lobby" to the better developed and more appropriate article "Israel lobby in the United States." The end result would then read and look like:

In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that while the U.S. "should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

--Lucretius (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to make this change if Andyvphil doesn't think it would be a "misuse of protected status" (see discussion above). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Josiah. I appreciate the attention as there really is a lot going on here on this particular talk page. --Lucretius (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill sponsorship and voting record

Bill sponsorship and voting record - HailFire's effort

How about this for inclusion at the end of the first Barack Obama#Senate career paragraph, just above the Barack Obama#109th Congress subsection:

Nonpartisan analyses of bill sponsorship and voting records have placed him as a "rank-and-file Democrat" and "Democratic Party loyalist."<ref>"Members of Congress: Barack Obama". GovTrack. Retrieved 2008-03-31. Curry, Tom (February 21 2008). "What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-03-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> The U.S. Senate Historical Office lists him as the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, the third to have been popularly elected, and the only African American currently serving in the Senate.<ref>"Breaking New Ground: African American Senators". U.S. Senate Historical Office. Retrieved 2008-02-11.</ref>

--HailFire (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on HailFire's effort

• Agreed: I think that is an important addition, and it will certainly please Andy (who has been trying to get Obama's voting record in for ages). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• activate text insertion 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Works for me. I also wouldn't object to a brief mention of the "most liberal" ranking as suggested by Yahel Guhan above under "Commentary by editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is ok, but I also agree with Wasted Time R above here) when he says that it's a good idea to include a variety of measurements over a career of votes - why would that be a problem here? Tvoz |talk 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using a number of measurements, but on an aesthetic level I hope we could do better than this, which is just ugly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would object to the use of "most liberal" for the following reasons:

1. That ranking was based on a lack of voting due to campaigning
2. To some people (Republicans, mostly) the term is intended to be derogatory. It's meaning has been co-opted by the right wing to indicate some sort of negative factor
3. When plenty of other data sources exist, this one seems superfluous

Incidentally, this particular "metric" was originally suggested by Andy and has been featured in numerous edit wars (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5 et al ad infinitum) -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As one positive step toward possibly lifting full protection before it expires naturally, I suggest we tag the above proposed text with template:editprotected and request its inclusion as an uncontroversial edit supported by (hopefully, more than temporary) consensus. Is it OK? --HailFire (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: I have no objection to the text in its current proposed form. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an improvement to the article, and that its addition should be uncontroversial. (Again, I'm abstaining from editing the article while it's currently protected; another admin can make the edit if we agree that there's a consensus supporting it.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Professor-level title"

Describing his position as "professor-level" is deceptive, at best, and in well in line with the heavily pro-Obama stance of this article that edits out his many negatives and sends them off to obscure articles that people are less likely to read.

If you look at the wikipedia article on professors, in the US, then it is clear that he doesn't qualify since he lacks not only a PhD, but a Masters as well. His JD is a professional degree, not an academic one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

"Professor-level" needs to be removed from this biased article. Thegoodlocust (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the basics of how Wikipedia works - we strive to keep articles at a manageable size, and big topics such as this biography will always have daughter articles that go into more detail than the main article can. This is just as true for Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, so stop accusing the hard-working editors here of bias, or of being deceptive or pro-anything. It is insulting, uncalled for, and against a prime tenet of our collaborative editing, which is to assume good faith. But I am finding it hard, myself, to apply that principle to your comments, I must admit. (By the way, many law school professors do not have PhDs. But don't be distracted by facts.) Tvoz |talk 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[ec]:And, by the way, rather than looking at the Wikipedia article on professors, try reading what the University of Chicago Law School has to say about Obama's status in their school - here. Your apology for the above will be forthcoming I'm sure. Tvoz |talk 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts are that most Law professors have an advanced degree in law or substantial experience as a lawyer - Barack's 3 years of part-time work as a lawyer do not qualify him. UoC is being polite in calling him a professor and trying to kill the controversy, but it is clear he is in no way qualified to be a professor. More to the point, there is no reason to call his position "professor-level" other than to pander to his campaign which has come under fire for the "liberal" use of the term when refering to Barack. Thegoodlocust (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't for you to decide how the Unversity names their faculty. Next time, I'll make sure they call you beforehand. Grsz 11 04:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Locust, do you have a reliable source indicating something contrary to what the University of Chicago says about its own faculty positions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

UoC refering to him as a professor in a press release isn't reliable. You may as well ask a wife to testify against her husband for murder - sure she can, but she doesn't have to and she may have a strong bias to protect her husband.

The article you cite doesn't refer to his position as "professor-level" it said it "signifies adjunct status", but if that was the case then why didn't he HAVE adjunct status? The term can be confusing since "professor" is sometimes used as a term of respect.

However, the main point is this, there is NO REASON to put "professor-level" in there, especially when you guys are saying the article needs to be limited in length. It inserts bias, and it is controversial. It is really quite simple - just use his official title at the time. Anything else is simply pro-Obama propaganda. Thegoodlocust (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there's no reason to put "professor-level" when they do in fact say he was a professor. I'm continuted amazed at the anti-Obama crowd that think replacing what they allege is POV with their POV suddenly makes in neutral. Grsz 11 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You are rewriting history and taking their definition of professor, which is at odds with the unbiased definition hopefully provided by wikipedia. You are ignoring the argument and adding necessary and controversial adjectives to describe his former job.

Professor#Adjunct - "Someone who does not have a permanent position at the academic institution. This may be someone with a job outside the academic institution teaching courses in a specialized field; or it may refer to persons hired to teach courses on a contractual basis (frequently renewable contracts). It is generally a part-time position..." Grsz 11 06:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All across the internet the Obama crowd is in full force. I joined a couple of discussions on IMDB, and on their Barack Obama board they would delete all news articles or polls that cast Obama in a negative light. You are too biased to even admit there is no reason to add such unnecessary descriptors.

If we feel the need to add such unnecessary descriptors, then why don't we add the fact that he was a PART-TIME senior lecturer (as shown by the article you provided)? Why don't we mention that he worked less than 2 months a year as a state senator? Why don't we mention that he never went to trial as a lawyer? Why is there no reference in this article to how he knocked off every name on the ballot to get elected (unopposed) when he first ran as State Senator? Aren't those things more important than grasping onto the "professor-level" descriptor? Of course not, because that information doesn't cast him in a positive light.

How is what is written now any more unnecessary than what you would want? I'm sorry that you have a problem with reliable sources, but I'm fairly certain we can categorize the University as such, and provide what they title him as here. Grsz 11 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, when you look at the history, people were asking where the "controversy" section for this article was, and the response was that there was no controversy. Now, the bar has been moved, the criteria have changed, and all controversy is shuffled off to other areas because there is "no room" here. Bull.

That's not true and you know it. You twist other's words to fit your own POV. The Wright issue has been sufficiently addressed. Grsz 11 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should have a NPOV tag, but it has obviously been taken over by his fanatical followers or workers at his campaign office like nearly every other site on the internet.Thegoodlocust (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, replacing what you call a POV with another biased POV does not make it neutral, sorry to dissappoint. Grsz 11 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to remove an unnecessary and controversial adjective isn't POV. Your argument is identical to those that say atheist is a religion. Removing the descriptor removes the POV, it doesn't add one.Thegoodlocust (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, the University of Chicago Law School has said explicitly that "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track" and noted that "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." (Emphasis added.) "Professor-level" was an attempt to reflect this succinctly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very easy for you to throw out your criticism with no supporting evidence (as your first edit, if I might add) and run away. Instead of insulting other editors, why don't you come back and try to provide your argument with some substinence. If not, you're just another POV-troll and/or sockpuppet. Grsz 11 03:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I brought this question up in the first place (March 28), came back to check the status - and found this 'discussion' minus my post. Great "assume good faith" work, guys - no wonder this page is always locked. Whatever you do (as I have neither the time nor inclination to check this page every five minutes), I expect you to include this as a footnote: Univerity of Chicago Statement Regarding Professor Barack Obama Surely the U of C should be considered the expert when it comes to their own academic terms! I would expect you to either use his official title (Senior Lecturer, with caps) or his informal title (a professor, without caps). I consider 'professor-level' to be a swoose. Flatterworld (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What does "swooze" mean? It's not in my dictionary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, Flatterworld, the previous discussion you made was deleted last night by MiszaBot: [23]. I'm not sure why it wasn't moved to the latest archive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A swoose is "not a swan and not a goose". iow, a meaningless thing. Obama was "a professor" or he was a "Senior Lecturer", but there's no such thing as a "professor-level" person. While you're at it, you may want to reflect that in a short article, the most important point is the subject we was teaching: Constitutional Law (for ten years) - not what his precise title was or wasn't, and whether or not each and every law school uses the same definition. Relevancy first! In the lead paragraph, use "university lecturer in constitutional law". Then in the Early life paragraph, perhaps replace "He was also a lecturer of constitutional law..." with "He taught constitutional law" because you provide his Senior Lecturer title afterwards. Flatterworld (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That makes some sense. (Although my understanding is that he taught at the Law School, and to American ears "university lecturer" could be interpreted as an undergraduate instructor.) I was the one who inserted the term "professor-level", and I did it in an effort to summarize the Law School's statement:

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

I thought that "professor-level" was equivalent to "regarded as professors". If in my attempt to introduce precision and accuracy I instead introduced confusion, I apologize. Unfortunately, although as an administrator I have the capability to edit the page while it's protected, I'm refraining from doing so at the moment because the last significant edit I made was challenged. So we'll have to wait until either the page is unprotected or another administrator comes along before we can introduce a more felicitous phrasing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the wiki article on professors, it says that sometimes it is used as a "polite form of address" for lecturers. I think when they said, "regarded as professors" then they may have been refering to this meaning of the word. Thegoodlocust (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Except we aren't saying he was a professor. The article says professor-level. And you point out the Unversity's statement, which says: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." . . . "He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year." If teaching three courses doesn't make him a professor, pray tell me what does! Grsz 11 03:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also: "The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status." - meaning adjunct professor. A professor that doesn't hold a full-time position. It's clear you didn't even read the article. Grsz 11 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, please take a deep breath and then read what I wrote, as opposed to what you apparently expected to read.Flatterworld (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the grizza is probably just having a hard time figuring out who is flaming and who is serious, considering that the five million dollar loan seems to have gone directly to spamming this talk page... anyways flatterworld, you seem to be the only outside editor who seems to have an legitimate opinion on this. You seem to advocate simple accuracy, whether it be "lecturer" or "professor"- and I think some of the problem is that "professor" has two definitions. like someone said before, upper case (someone with a PhD) and lower case (someone who teaches at a US college or a University). So you're right we need to choose one and stick with it. I think the problem centers round the extremely loose UC press release which the editors are (and should) be using to generate this text. Personally I think lecturer is fine, although I understand the view that this maybe does not give adequate weight to someone who taught for 12 years and was offered tenure track repeatedly. So that's where "professor-level" comes from which I think is getting a bit overly-maligned right about now. Because UC itself calls him a professor, and all the hordes of pro-Obama zombies could conceivably close ranks around that perhaps less-accurate, but totally sourced term, if they existed lol. However instead we see the regular editors using less-praiseful language specifically to present the most clear version (one extra word BTW)- so the post and run crowd needs to stop throwing around the letters POV like its their first day in alphabet class please. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

UC is using the term professor, but they are only using it now after Obama received negative press on the subject. It is pretty easy to look up other professors of law and their qualifications - Obama doesn't have an advanced degree in law, nor does he have any great or lengthy experience as a lawyer to make up for that deficiency. He has either no or very few academic writings - which is a main component of academia, regardless of your field. Calling a part-time lecturer "professor-level" is unnecessary and a misleading boost to his credentials. Thegoodlocust (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you're welcome to provide a reliable source that indicates he received this title whereas others in an equivalent position did not. Otherwise, you saying he isn't is original research. Grsz 11 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to provide. You keep on making the claim he is "professor-level" but this phrase appears nowhere in any source you have mentioned. You provided this claim - you provide the proof. Showing the respectful use of the term "professor" does not mean or imply he is "professor-level" - this term is non-existent. Thegoodlocust (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

From the U of C: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Professor-level is implying even less than they claim. Grsz 11 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep ignoring what I'm saying - in that instance they are using "professor" as a respectful way of referring to a lecturer. This is STATED as a use in the wiki article on professors. His actual title though, was Senior Lecturer, and he doesn't have the advanced degree or experience necessary to be considered a professor or "professor-level" - just read the article on professors and their requirements instead of ignoring what I'm writing and being obtuse. Thegoodlocust (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure? The Wikipedia article says: Professor#Adjunct - "Someone who does not have a permanent position at the academic institution. This may be someone with a job outside the academic institution teaching courses in a specialized field; or it may refer to persons hired to teach courses on a contractual basis (frequently renewable contracts). It is generally a part-time position..." Grsz 11 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude just read the article it says, "individuals often use the term professor as a polite form of address for any lecturer." Even that biased press release only had enough balls to "signify" his adjunct status. Signify means to imply and implying something is different than stating something. Shouldn't this article be as accurate as possible? If we wrote down everything that was "implied" then we'd have his listed as a Nation of Islam.Thegoodlocust (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For this summary section, how about we try:

He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.[21]

There's a whole other article for including any further specifics that are deemed notable. --HailFire (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There shouldn't be an argument over removed such unnecessary and controversial descriptors. Thegoodlocust (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who introduced the phrase "professor-level title", I'm happy to go with HailFire's suggestion of leaving the details to Early life and career of Barack Obama. I still don't think that the phrase should be controversial, but the "Early life" article has more room, and we can go into details there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Tvoz |talk 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, another alternative is to use the wording of UofC press release and say that from 1992 to 2004 Obama was a non-tenured professor and leave it up to the early life and career article to detail that from 1992 to 1996 he was a Lecturer and from 1996 to 2004 he was a Senior Lecturer. I have no idea why we're giving into what is obviously a POV pushing sockpuppet on this. We have a reliable source that supports calling Obama a professor and he's got a pile of POV BS that is not supported by any reliable sources. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It says he was "regarded" as a professor it doesn't say he was a "non-tenured Professor" - you keep reading and adding into it. It is simple enough for a child to understand - refer to him by his official title - no more and no less. And quit insulting me as a new user - all my sources are well-regarded.Thegoodlocust (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided a single reliable source (follow the link and read what qualifies) that says that Barack Obama was anything but a non-tenured professor at UofC. As for what UofC said, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." I think that is pretty clear on Obama's status according to UofC. The addition of non-tenured was an attempt on my attempt to dodge what I was sure you would counter with. But if you'd prefer, we can stick directly with that the UofC says and just say that from 1992 to 2004 he was a professor at the UofC. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, remain civil and assume good faith. Thegoodlocust, you're clearly familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices, so you should understand why some users are suspicious of a new account who dives into a fractious talk page debate already knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia. It's not appropriate for Bobblehead to call you a sockpuppet, but since you clearly have Wikipedia experience it would be easier to trust your intentions if you edited from an established account or IP.

Incidentally, I don't think you've introduced any sources opposing the account given by the University of Chicago. I've put a more detailed account of Obama's teaching career at Early life and career of Barack Obama; given that, I support HailFire's suggestion that we can leave the wording for this article as "taught". Anti-Obama editors will object to the term "professor" (even though it's supported by the University's statement), and pro-Obama editors may object to its absence (as calling him solely "lecturer" might be read as supporting the claim that he wasn't really a professor). What's wrong with leaving the details in the spin-out article, where there's room for them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've provided a source - the wikipedia articles on lecturers and professors. They say professor can be used as a respectful way of refering to a lecturer. This is what UC did. Those articles also clearly state the requirements for being a professor - Phd or occasionally a Masters. Barack doesn't have the equivalent degrees for Law, and he doesn't have a prior extensive legal career that would otherwise justify the title (he only practiced law for 3 years and never even went to trial). If you want to put the details in the spin out article then fine, but I object to "professor-level" which is a misunderstanding or misrepresentaion of a short press release from a biased source. Thegoodlocust (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Like I said.. A reliable source. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is a self-published source. The Truth, unfortunately, is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The only things that matter are verifiability, No original research, and neutral point of view. Your opinion of what is required to be a professor and using articles on Wikipedia to support these claims violates at a minimum the verifiability and no original research policies. Seriously, mate, you're just being disruptive here. Until you can find a source that meets Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable source criteria, you simply don't have a leg to stand on here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professor "a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education." Barack Obama, while faculty, didn't have the highest academic rank (PhD or equivalent). Also, YOU are making the case that he is a professor, but you have only provided a biased source and you've misinterpreted and misrepresented what it says. You need to provide proof that he is "professor-level" in a formal sense, not just a respectful title.Thegoodlocust (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay... That would be a synthesis of published material to further a point. You can't do an "A+B=C" on Wikipedia, you actually have to find a source more reliable than Obama's employer that he was not a professor... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. I was providing a definition for "professor" - it is quite clear he doesn't meet that definition nor the ambiguous "professor-level." A press report from his alma mater is a biased source - you may has well ask his campaign press secretary if he'd make a good president. If you look at the other senior lecturers at Chicago ( http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/index.html ) then it is clear that most of them have advanced degrees in law, numerous academic writing on law or extensive experience in the field of law - Barack has neither of these things. In fact, if you look at the regular lecturers, then you'll find his experience more in line with those non-senior faculty. Thegoodlocust (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fool's joke

It has been proposed below that Barack Obama be renamed and moved to Professor Barack Obama.

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.

I've been waiting for that one.... but the problem is, sometimes it's hard to tell on this page. Tvoz |talk 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

may I suggest "Barack Obama, PhD"... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wny not "President Barack Obama". It'll save a rename later in the year. :-) DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"well-publicized" effort to quit smoking

This article says his efforts to quit smoking were "well-publicized" but an obscure article about him smoking does not make it "well-publicized." The article cited does not say it was "well-publicized." In fact, the article says he is quiting to make himself a more appealing presidential candidate, but that information, which is actually presented, is NOT shown in this article.

The term "well-publicized" makes it look like he is not trying to hide his smoking habit, but the article clearly states that is indeed his motivation for quitting. This description is biased and should be removed. Thegoodlocust (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually he quit because Michelle made that part of the deal. I expect his daughters were giving him a hard time about it too. Anyway, I recall it WAS well-publicized, but I certianly never heard anything about "making himself a more appealing presidential candidate." I do think it shows an amazing amount of will power to quit during a campaign, although his use of nicotine gum has also been well-publicized. Try http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+smoking if you want more or better articles.Flatterworld (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article states his reasons for quitting, and it is because smoking is viewed in a poor light - we don't elect smokers as presidents anymore.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0702060167feb06,0,373462.story

In fact Obama said, "On the cusp of a potential presidential bid seemed the right time to quit for good." And another person is the article said, ""I hope he makes it a public fight." This has not been well-publicized, and it has especially not been shown in the mainstream media. Thegoodlocust (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is the Chicago Tribune not part of the mainstream media? For what (little) it's worth, I recall hearing about Obama quitting cigarettes on NPR some time last year. Do you have any reliable sources indicating that Obama is trying to hide the fact that he was a smoker until fairly recently? (Because that seems to be your implication.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think little blurbs in a city paper are really "mainstream" and while NPR is a good news source, I'm not sure if I'd consider radio news to be "mainstream." Nevertheless, "well-publicized" mean, to me, a concentrated effort, over a decent period of time, to bring light to a subject - briefly talking about something doesn't make it well-publicized. Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright is well-publicized - how he hired a lawyer to challenge the nominating petitions and knock off every other name off the ballot to get elected unopposed as state senator was not well-publicized - despite being published in a mainstream paper.Thegoodlocust (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Coverage of Obama quitting: Chigago Trib, Washington Post, Boston Globe, ABC News via Huffington, LA Times. Grsz 11 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable objection. This conversation would have had much less drama and would have been more effective if you'd started with that parsing of the term "well-publicized" instead of introducing accusations of bias.

That said, the Chicago Tribune isn't just any city paper — it's the fifth largest newspaper in the United States. I don't actually have strong feelings about whether the phrase "well-publicized" should be in the article or not, but would you feel any different if more sources mentioning Obama quitting smoking were added? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not sure how someone can prove "well-publicized." I mean, I could probably provide 20 or 30 sources from "mainstream" media about some news that most of us haven't heard of. Not only that, it just seems like such an unnecessary descriptor that I think adds bias. Thegoodlocust (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the use of "well-publicized" would need eliminated everywhere. There's no argument that the Wright issue wasn't "well-publicized". Likewise here, we have ample sourcing about the issue. 06:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside whether "well-publicized" adds bias or not (a debate which I can't see being productive), does it add anything to the sentence? Wouldn't it be more succinct simply to say "Before announcing his presidential candidacy, he quit smoking", or, if that's too final (after all, my chain-smoking aunt has quit hundreds of times), "Before announcing his presidential candidacy, he announced his intentions to quit smoking"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

<digression into personal attacks removed by Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)>

OK, fellows, deep breath. Let's all try to assume good faith. First, it's entirely possible to edit neutrally even when one has a personal preference in favor of or in opposition to a subject. It might be good for everyone here to read (or re-read) WP:COOL. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On the topic, I never had a problem with removing the bit about making him a better candidate or however it's worded. But it certainly was "well-publicized". Grsz 11 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can say this, while I was at the rally outside the January Las Vegas debates- some lady was going around yelling about how Obama was a smoker, like it was proof he was a red or something. Anyways anecdotally yes it is well-publicized. ps I am starting a website its called anecdotipedia lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgent! NPR wants to speak to the most prolific contributors here!

I'm handling an OTRS ticket from NPR and they're looking to get to speak to someone who has been involved with keeping this article reasonably professional and within project guidelines. I've no response from their first choice, an editor who seems to be taking a break from the stress right now. So, are there any other candidates - preferably US based - who'd be interested in talking to them? This would be Tomorrow morning US time. Short notice, I know, but if you're happy to share a phone number and email address I'll forward them on. Either email me via the "mail this user" link or at press<at>wikimedia.org with the subject "RE: [Ticket#2008033110016646] NPR media request: editors info." --Brian McNeil /^talk 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

*cough* User:HailFire *cough* --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I nominate Andy. Grsz 11 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Though obsessively prolific, I don't think that anyone could reasonably argue that Andy has "has been involved with keeping this article reasonably professional and within project guidelines." Quite the opposite in fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm..am I the only one who thinks this is an April 1st joke? You guys aren't really taking this seriously are you? Thegoodlocust (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Which part, the interview or suggesting Andy for it? Tvoz |talk 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NPR also contacted me but I can't do it (other commitments). They're specifically looking for someone who is allowing their obsession with Wikipedia to interfere with their real job. And they said that when you contact NPR, you should provide a password to be patched right through to the people working on this matter. The password is: "Afghanistan Bananistan."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

andy is already famous in another national interview, so who knows? I could be joke but then wikinews is in on it...

72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I turned down the radio interview on the basis that is was going to be at 7:00am (when I am barely functioning) and I thought my British accent might be an impediment to clear understanding. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My wiki-obsession is interfering with my schoolwork, well, more like school is interfering with Wiki. Grsz 11 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've talked to the researcher, who contacted me without the ticket mumbo-jumbo. She said something about Thursday... She asked me if I thought of Tvoz as pro-Obama (she's obviously talked to Tvoz) and I had to say I wasn't much aware of Tvoz, but thought so. Asked me about interference with my life, but didn't pursue it that much. Maybe she got the quote she wanted early. Andyvphil (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm .... If you're not much aware of me, what gave you the idea that you should comment on whether I'm pro-Obama, whatever that means? Here's a suggestion: next time say "I don't know". Tvoz |talk 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

probably wouldn't worry what NPR hears third hand from andy about your political beliefs. PS- what page do you edit so much that NPR is wondering if you support Obama or not? Because I don't see you here or on BO 2008 a whole lot... since I have been watching at least. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot and dev/null

It looks like when the header section got "cleaned up" this weekend, the cleanup also broke MiszaBot so that it archived everything to dev/null that was older than 24 hours. I've restored the formatting of the MiszaBot template to the format MiszaBot likes and I think I've re-added all the discussions that MisazBot mistakenly purged. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving State Senate Section

The State Senate career of Barack Obama is woefully lacking. After all, it constitutes the majority of his political career (8 years), while his US Senate career, while more prestigious, has only been active since 2005. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Additions:

Barack Obama hired a lawyer, Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of all other candidates for the State Senate seat. They were knocked off the ballot, and he was therefore elected unopposed. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

His legislative record should include a footnote that he was unable to get most of his sponsored legislation passed until the democrats took control of the state senate. In other words, most of his accomplishments were not bipartisan and the vast majority of his State Senate career was without significant accomplishment. Most of his major accomplishments were all comleted in one year. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe include a footnote about how the Majority Leader "made" or "groomed" Barack into a US Senator by buffing up his resume. He made him the sponsor of good-looking legislation that others had been working on for years. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

May want to include the fact that it was a part-time job and didn't really require much of a commitment. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Modifications:

The wikipedia article states:

"As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws"

But the referenced source says:

"Along the way, he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform."

It seems to me that the ethics legislation was bipartisan, while the health-care reform was not. This is made more clear when you realize that the health care legislation he sponsored was when there was a democratic majority in the State Senate. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare." I'd like a better source for this sentence. The source states it, but it is vague. I'd like to know when, and specifically how he "negotiated" and "promoted." Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact when it said he sponsored the law for "low-income workers" my source says he "helped pass" it - not sponsor. In that same source it usually says he either sponsored or voted for specific legislation and I'd like to see what bill this was, when it was, and if he actually sponsored it. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-0704030881apr04,1,5477449.story http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a real ax to grind with Obama. The additions you are proposing are ridiculously POV and you seem to be seeking to add them, not to improve the article, but simply to support your views. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the information doesn't please you but it is accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you have any problem with the information, or you think underhanded election tactics in his first foray into politics are unimportant then feel free to make the case. Facts aren't POV.Thegoodlocust (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but the selective emphasis of them can be. I don't have time to go over these sources right now, but you might want to wait until other disputes are resolved before suggesting major and controversial changes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. There is a strong and selective emphasis on Barack's accomplishments in state senate, but it doesn't mention how, why and when these were passed - I think that is quite relevant since it is the majority of his political experience. I was initially going to wait, but when I realized how long it was going to take for simple word changes to get resolved, then I figured I might as well get started on the major omissions in his record and hope his record can be accurately portrayed in a decent amount of time.Thegoodlocust (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

as usual with you: SPECIFICS PLEASE... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifics on what? It is plain to see that the vast majority of the article talks about his accomplishments, but omitts the controversy, at the time, of how he was really made the sponsor of those bills. Many of his fellow legislators were annoyed with what he did. This statements are sourced if you'd care to read the articles. It is disingenuous of the article to list a bunch of accomplishments when there is a real question about how much he actually contributed. I suggest you cool off and read the articles without the emotion that seems to be coming off you. Thegoodlocust (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

if you expect to be taken seriously (and I'm not sure you do right now) you need to put together some sort of draft- or make an actual edit on one of the un-protected sub-pages. Show your sources and your text, either here or there, because otherwise this is getting really old. people want specifics on what you are talking about- because it seems like you just want to change individual words in several individual sentences, a borderline POV problem itself. So if you care about getting this text added, and not just talk-page spam, then nut up. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I showed my sources and the general additions/modifications I'd like made. I separated them by my signature so people could discuss each claim individually. If you have a problem with a specific statement then say so there. All my information is in the sources provided. My hope was that after each point was discussed then the process of modifying the entire section could begin.Thegoodlocust (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

I know this page is edit protected, but I can't help but noticing that for all the claims that the article is too pro-Obama, the photograph of Obama at the top of the article is not a good one. In some photographs Obama looks good but I don't think that he looks good in this photograph. In any event I thought I would add this opinion of mine to the various edit wars that are swirling around. JonErber (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

protect

Why can't we just protect articles of all the poltitical people? because people ALWAYS vandalize it anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.244.175 (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)