Talk:Barack Obama

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)

how come there is no issue with mccains ranking in the political spectrum. its posted in his article which i'm for btw. i think obama's ranking in the political spectrum should also be posted. i think the issue here is that he is the #1 partisan senator and some of you see that as controversial. well the ranking is the ranking. if he was in the center i'm sure the information would be put in the article, since they were ok with putting mccain's ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, if the information confirmed the belief that he is non-partisan then it would've been included without question. As it stands, this article considers his left-handedness, smoking, and being voted "able to change the world" by a rag as more pertinent information. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:46, 3 April 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)

You and your friend accuse everyone of being sockpuppets merely because their opinions diverge from yours. You've stated that there is "little criticism" of Obama which is why there is none on the page. This article reads like it was written by his press secretary. Just keep on denying that anyone could possibly think differently. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:52, 3 April 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)

Please note that 72.196.233.224's comments above are as they were when they were made. [8],[9] I've no idea what the IP is talking about when he says his or her comments were edited. As for the article's neutrality, perhaps he or she would consider Conservapedia's effort to be better? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 3 April 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.25.97 (talk • contribs) 01:47, April 2, 2008

That's been the general view and practice here, although a vocal minority disagrees. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My contention is that it should be listed in the contents, since many people are interested in the subject. From there feel free to link it to an outside article. It is important and it is commonly sought information. It should be made easily acceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be mention of the controversy concerning Pastor Wright, but to call the church from which it came from a Hate Church is out of line. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:12, 4 April 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)

I think it should be reduced to a sentence or two. It is one of the glaring reasons this article is POV - it reads like the script of a campaign commercial. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:24, 3 April 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)

Josiah, thanks for doing that, and regarding Malia's birth year, there seems to be some dispute. According to Michelle Obama's page, Malia was born in 1999, and a Google search seems to lean toward 1999 as well. I have also seen her age listed as 8 in 2007 and 9 in 2008, making it 1999. Either way, she will probably be mentioned in the media more and more often if Obama is the nominee, so it should be easier to clear up as time goes on. --Mansley (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that most sources say Malia Obama was born in 1999, so if it is alright with everyone I will change it. --Mansley (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Malia Obama was born on July 4, 1998 (according to Obama's community blog). Must be cool to have a whole nation celebrate your birthday with fireworks and parades! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed Michelle Obama's page to 1998 to reflect that. --Mansley (talk) 22:12, 4 April 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)

Am going to demur on the merits here. The AIPAC link will already take you into the subject of the pro-Israel lobby, i.e. the application level of the term. I think the "lobby" link is better used to link to the definintional level, Lobbying or Advocacy group. Or maybe three links, with "pro-Israel" linking to Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States. Andyvphil (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. "In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, ..." might work, but it might be overlinking. Anyone else have an opinion on this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to make the change as I would have if the page wasn't locked as it was earlier. This change makes sense to me because it is linking the main term in this articles embedded short description of AIPAC, "a pro-Israel lobby." But now that I've said my piece and tried to be WP:BOLD, I'll back off now. This is a minor issue anyhow. --Lucretius (talk) 14:00, 4 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)

Wrong again. The NJ was someone else's addition. I added the ADA and Obama's "old politics" response. Andyvphil (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I concede I may be wrong about who originally added this piece of non-neutral, biased reporting but I am not wrong about who has consistently edit-warred over its inclusion, am I? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than you and the rest of the claque? Andyvphil (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that (a) I think your use of the word "claque" is inappropriate, and (b) I am a neutral editor. I am not part of any group or conspiracy or anything like that. If I were, would I be saying things like this? I simply want the article to be the best it can be so that readers are presented with facts, informed opinion and an urge to click blue links to find out more. It is clear from your editing record that your desire is to mislead and misrepresent. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 2 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)

Again, rejecting ahead of time any notion that this is a consensus version (it's completely inadequate, consisting of a poorly documented co-sponsorship measure by Govtrack, which doesn't even seem to offer a table of scores, merely a rather unclear diagram, and a party unity measure so wildly skewed -- the average Dem score is circa 95-96% -- that it allows very little distinction between Dems, and with the underlying link to the CQ PDF dead it's not well documented either), I nonetheless don't mind this addition, even though it's clearly intended to sneak soothing characterizations of Obama ("rank-and-file" and "loyalist") into the article without much examination of what they might mean. More info is better (like what's at Clinton, never mind if it's "ugly") and I won't POINTily hold yours hostage. Andyvphil (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That may be the least gracious acceptance of an edit proposal I've seen on Wikipedia. Most edit proposal rejections have less vitriol than that. I particularly like the way you managed to slip an accusation of bad faith in there. Deftly done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry I gave the impression I was slipping anything in. It's to the National Journal that we have a response by Obama, and its the ADA rating that has long pedigree, so that in my response to highlighting the obscure and the useless while ignoring those I intended my accusation of bad faith to be front and center and illuminated in neon. Will do better next time. Andyvphil (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really has any doubt about obvious disdain for virtually every editor involved with this article, Andy. As far as I can tell you actually assume bad faith, unless somebody unexpectedly agrees with you, whereupon you throttle back your contempt to just suspicion. -- Scjessey (talk)

How's this?

The nonpartisan publication CQ Weekly characterized Obama as a "loyal Democrat", based on Senate votes cast in 2005 through 2007.<ref>Nather, David (January 14 2008). "The Space Between Clinton and Obama". CQ Weekly. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: Curry, Tom (February 21 2008). "What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>

--HailFire (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

HailFire, if you're trying to placate Andy, you probably won't succeed until you've included that the National Journal found Obama to be "The most liberal senator in 2007" vs. 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006[23] and several other of the "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" ratings.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:43, 3 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: [24]. 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)

Although I disagree with your assertion that the University of Chicago Law School is a biased source on a simple matter of fact such as who is and is not a professor at that institution, I think that HailFire's simple "taught" is sufficient for the summary in this article. Early life and career of Barack Obama has the details now. (I trust that nobody objects to the wording there, which simply says the titles he held and notes what the University says about them.) Can we drop this rather pedantic parsing of definitions and move on to more substantive issues, please? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to adding "taught part-time" to his statement? TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for saying "part-time"? Not an interpretation of a definition, an actual source referring to Barack Obama's position as part-time? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun Times, and that press release people have been using from the university clearly states he didn't teach full time. If he didn't teach full time, then I can only assume he taught part-time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So were are talking about an implicit inference that he taught part-time, rather than some explicit factual data, correct? On that basis, I think it should be left as it is until such time the "part-time" status can be properly sourced. I'm not sure it's all that important anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude did you even read my sources? I took the time to find them so you could at least look at them before being dismissive. Both of my sources flat out say he worked part-time - they are both from respectable newspapers. I only mentioned the press release everyone ELSE had been using as a side note. If someone doesn't work full-time then they work part-time that part is pretty easy to understand. And yes I do think its important, I think there has been a strong bias to portray him as some great academic, and it is frankly offensive since he only worked part-time, didn't have an advanced degree and has never produced any academic writings TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Part-time

I would like to endorse the suggestion of TheGoodLocust that the term "part-time" be prepended to his description as a "lecturer of constitutional law". Therefore, the sentence in the "early life and career" section should read as follows:

"He was also a part-time lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, holding the professor-level title of Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004."

-- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the sources provided by Thegoodlocust, I'll endorse adding "part-time" to either the existing version or HailFire's shorter version, which would then read:

"He also taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004."

The three citations might seem like overkill, but I think that in this case it makes sense to show the different sources' viewpoints. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 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)

Now, now, let's not be premature — Inauguration Day isn't until January 20, 2009. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:01, 2 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)

Here's a suggestion: stifle any impulse you may have to suggest how I answer questions. I don't need or want your input. I said, accurately, that you hadn't made much of an impression, but the impression I did have is that is that you are sympathetic to the claque. Had I been online at the time and been able to review your contributions to this page I would have said it without reservation. Your censoring the POV-dispute-in-progress tag tells me all I need to know. Andyvphil (talk) 15:32, 3 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)

[out] Nice to meet you - I've stayed out of some of the arguing lately, but I've been a contributor here since the end of 2006. Look at the page stats. And I wasn't worried, I was just pointing out that an acceptable answer to a question one doesn't have the answer to is "I don't know". Which he doesn't. Tvoz |talk 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So, do we know when the story is likely to air, and on which NPR program? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy [25] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans. Well done, Tvoz! (And my apologies if I referred to you as "he" at some point!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (And if you did, I didn't notice.) Tvoz |talk 21:16, 3 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)
A full mainstream story about how he won his State Senate seat in 1996 is referenced below the simple statement of fact. As with stories of other politicians' election results.

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 completed in one year. Thegoodlocust (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Statements of any politician's legislation in wikipedia can be cross-referenced with all information about the representation by parties in the poltician's political career. Links here contain many opinions of Mr. Obama's bipartisanship, or lack of it.

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)
"buffing up a resume" is an unsourced potential defamation.67.163.141.14 (talk) 19:07, 2 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)

There is no necessary relationship between 'part-time' teaching and lack of commitment.67.163.141.14 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true in a mental sense, but I was meant "time commitment." Illinois State Senators have 52 scheduled work days for this year (08) - US Senate has around 215-230 workdays scheduled per year. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:59, 2 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)

The problem I see is that each of your proposed additions appear to be negatively-biased and unreferenced. It is like you made a wish list of bad things you want included, but without references to back them up. That's not the way we do things here. We like to present a neutral point of view with factual information of due weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposed additions have the references at the end - the only problem is that you have historically and repeatedly refused to read my sources. Everything I said was accurate and sourced, but this PROTECTED article has no problem including pointless praise like this, "An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world," the only politician included on the list."TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you are not understanding what I am saying, so let me make it more clear. If you want to make changes and additions the best way to do it is to put them on this talk page in the form you think they should be in, with the relevant references already in situ. You can see examples of this earlier in these comments. Once you have done that, people will be able to comment on your words, help you refine them or give you reasons why they think they are not appropriate. Respectfully, you must do your own muck raking. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By your own words, the number of "scheduled work days" for a State Senator is less than 25% of the scheduled work days of a US Senator.........So, by one measure you stress, his time as a State Senator is NOT the majority of his political career. (Although I think this is not an adequate way to measure the "work' of a State Senator---and irrelevant) 67.163.141.14 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting that is PER YEAR - he worked for about 8 years as a state senator. His US Senate career, or Presidential Campaign, whichever you want to call it, has been active since 2005. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not forgetting. less than 25% working time per year still means that 8 times State Senator career is less time, measured in work days, than his time as a US Senator.67.163.141.14 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was actually 7 years not 8, but the point still stands. Apparently I was mentally reducing his US Senate term since he appears to have spent the majority of it campaigning. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is my rough draft for the new State Legislature Section:

State legislature Draft 1

Obama was elected unopposed to the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. His first foray into politics divided longtime political activists in Chicago when he challenged the nominating petitions of every other candidate, removing their names from the ballot, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, who was a veteran progressive activist in the area. [[26]] [[27]] In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002 (when the 13th District was redrawn to span Chicago lakefront neighborhoods from the Gold Coast south to South Chicago). In January 2003, Obama was appointed chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate. The new majority leader Emil Jones angered other, more senior legislators, when he appointed Obama the sponsor of important legislation they had been working on for years – substantially boosting his record in a single year. [[28]] [[29]] He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate. As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. Criticism of Obama voting “present” and pushing the wrong button when voting is generally flawed – such techniques are commonly employed in the Illinois State Senate and for a variety of reasons. [[30]]

TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the term "unopposed" should be added in the first sentence; however, I would object to the explanation of this that you added later because I believe the details of the nominating petition system of the Illinois State Senate are too specific for this biography, particularly when the wording implies Obama somehow gamed the system. Nor is it for a BLP to provide specifics about the incumbent (like the fact she was "popular" and a "veteran progressive activist") - such things would be for a biography of Alice Palmer (if such a thing existed). I also think the substitution of the final sentence on parental notification and late-term abortions in favor of an ambiguous sentence using the phrase "for a variety of reasons" is a bit strange, and I cannot imagine it would win much support in that form. So in summary, the only thing I would change from the existing section is the addition of "unopposed" to the text. I agree that this section probably needs more discussion though. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the nominating petition sentence is well-within the scope of this article. After all, his US Senate election has a very large section dedicated to it in this very article - explaining how he got elected unopposed is really small in comparison. It may sound like he "gamed" the system, but that is entirely the impression I got from reading the sourced articles and I could've expanded on it immensely instead of the blurb I used. I removed the last two sentences because they referred to his 2004 US Senate campaign - and I thought it was odd to include the fact that he was endorsed by a certain entity. Who endorsed him throughout his entire career, and why, is pretty irrelevant - especially since it wasn't for his state career. I accept that the last sentence can be improved and I am willing to briefly explain the "variety of reasons." TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, because his US Senate election actually had a campaign to describe, whereas his election to the State Senate was unopposed due to procedural maneuvering - there isn't really anything to talk about. If anything the US Senate campaign section needs to be cut down, or folded into the Senate career section. I imagine that this will probably happen in the future anyway, and perhaps be pushed into Early life and career of Barack Obama as details about his inevitable Presidency begin to take precedence. I agree that the penultimate sentence about the Fraternal Order of Police appears completely misplaced. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

His initial state senate campaign was quite interesting - my description of it was the essence of succinctness. The "procedural maneuvering" as you call it was initiated by Barack Obama, and it allowed him to get elected without anyone else on the ballot - this annoyed a lot of people in Chicago politics at the time. And yes, I do agree that the US Senate campaign should be cut down - especially since it links directly to the main article. I also think the giant promo for him, the 2004 keynote speech, should be drastically cut down to a sentence or two. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources do make clear that Barack obama initiated the petition challenges, but potential candidates would not have been eliminated had there not been real legal reasons. A lawyer was used, as you, thegoodlocust, have said and everything was done legally----which must be conveyed in the article. Otherwise it would be like implying George Bush was elected for reasons that were not legal, despite the Supreme Court's decision. (judging that event is a separate article, for sure). 67.163.141.14 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the sources most of the candidates had twice the required signatures, but when Barack challenged the nominations, he used a very up-to-date list that knocked off many names. Many of those knocked off were only done so by about 50 signatures. I'm not sure why the legality needs to be conveyed, I didn't accuse him of doing anything illegal. I just said he challenged the nominating petitions - doesn't sound like a criminal accusation to me. I'm open to being convinced, but it seems unnecessary and a bit pandering to say, "well, he did such and such, but its okay to do it because its legal." The Church of Scientology has used the law as a weapon against people without the resources to defends themselves - just because it is legal doesn't make it right (which is what the implication would be if we added the "legal sidenote). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that your redone article has much in it that would improve the Obama article. There are facts that can be succinctly stated with no POV that matter to the start of his elected political career, which is very important in a wikipedia bio for more than the hours literally paid for "working" as a State Senator..... My point above on the "legality" I did not envision as a sidenote but just as a truth that needed to be buried in the phrasing about his campaign. As Scjessey wrote, what you wrote does give the impression that he gamed the system. The article can not convey that. For example, Obama did not "remove" names from the nominating process; the process he initiated did that legally and inevitably. Objectively, the reader has to be able to understand the option that Obama might not have started the process unless he felt that the situation as it existed with other wannabe candidates was flawed. But, then he did run unopposed. 67.163.141.14 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take another look at it and see what I can to do. I need to rest my eyes for a bit though.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

State legislature Draft 2

Obama was elected unopposed to the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. His first foray into politics divided longtime political activists in Chicago when he made a legal challenge aganist the nominating petitions of every other candidate, which led to the removal of their names from the ballot, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, who was a veteran progressive activist in the area. [31] [32] In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002 (when the 13th District was redrawn to span Chicago lakefront neighborhoods from the Gold Coast south to South Chicago). In January 2003, Obama was appointed chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate. The new majority leader Emil Jones angered other, more senior legislators, when he also appointed Obama the sponsor of important legislation they had been working on for years – substantially boosting his record in a single year. [33] [34] He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate. As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. Criticism of Obama voting “present” and pushing the wrong button when voting, specifically on the issue of abortion[35], is generally flawed – such techniques are commonly employed in the Illinois State Senate to not only mitigate potential political fallout, but, as stated by Obama, as a way of protesting the specifics of legislation while agreeing with the general principles. [36] While still in the State Senate, Obama was first introduced to most Americans when he gave his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which was both well-received by the attendees and covered by the national media. [37]

In this draft I tried to address some of the previous criticisms, and I also added an appropriate mention of his keynote speech, which should entirely replace the huge section that is currently devoted to it since such huge quotations are in obvious violation of WP: NPS.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should be in early life or campaign 08 page- also you need to make clear in your text that Obama was challenging irregular petitions, not all of them. And the "present-vote" section is far too editorial and POV. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama was not "unopposed" in the 1996 general election:

• Illinois Senate endorsements (October 16, 1996) Chicago Tribune, p. 22:

  13th District (South Side): Democrat Barack Obama, an attorney, law professor and community activist, is a worthy successor to retiring Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama has potential as a political leader and is endorsed over Republican Rosette Peyton and the Harold Washington Party's David Whitehead.

• Our endorsements for Illinois Senate (October 27, 1996) Chicago Sun-Times, p. 39:

  13th District (South and Southwest sides): Democrat Barack Obama, a lawyer and community activist, is the clear choice over Republican Rosette Caldwell Peyton and Harold Washington candidate David Whitehead.

Todd Spivak's inaccurate and biased story "Obama and Me" in the the February 28, 2008 Dallas Observer and Houston Press is not an appropriate source for this WP:BLP (see: Texas alternative papers publish hit job on Obama).

Newross (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotes you list aren't in the links you provide - I couldn't find any mention of Obama or his supposed opponent. You say the articles I showed are hack jobs, but you try to prove this with a well-known liberal blog? You sources and argument are entirely unconvincing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Newross's links are to the newspapers' paid archive. If you pay for the article, you'll find the quotations he mentions. Obama was unopposed in the Democratic primary (due to procedural maneuvering), but faced opponents in the general election. Now, it's probably true that in that particular district gaining the Democratic nomination is tantamount to winning the election, but if the article says he "was elected unopposed", that still creates a false impression. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find it interesting that these facts are unavailable to me, since I am unwilling to spend money to confirm, or more likely debunk his claims. Here is an article from the New York Times that says essentially the same as my other articles. My sources however, are free for all to see, and credible, rather than some unsubtatiated claims with unavailable sources. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also the Chicago Tribune clearly states he had no opponents on the ballot. In fact, it clearly quotes Obama stating this - whoever this "Newross" guy is, he is just trying to bring doubt to well-established claims. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading your Chicago Tribune source. It says, "Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he routed token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete in the primary if necessary." The comment "we weren't going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody" is in reference to the primary, not the general election.

Once again: Obama was unopposed in the Democratic primary (due to procedural maneuvering), but faced opponents in the general election. The Tribune characterizes those opponents as "token opposition", but if we say he "was elected unopposed" we're introducing a falsehood. We can decide whether it's appropriate to go into further detail about Obama's election to the state senate, but it's important that we remain accurate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama said in that article, "We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren't going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody," Obama said. "I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm." Your quote about "token opposition" could mean anything - opposition doesn't necessarily mean he had a specific opponent, nor that they appeared on the ballot. Obama said nobody else appeared on the ballot. Nevertheless, if you feel "essentially unopposed" would be better phrasing then I am fine with that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote about nobody else appearing on the ballot is in reference to the primary. Obama ran unopposed in the primary election to determine the Democratic Party's nominee for the state senate seat. In the general election, he was opposed by a Republican and a representative of the Harold Washington Party, as evidenced by the articles in the paid archives. Even if the other two candidates in the general election stood only a ghost of a chance, we can't conflate the primary with the general election. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a good argument, but I want to actually see some sources - not some paid crap that I can't confirm with my own eyes.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot say "essentially unopposed" because "essentially" constitutes an unsubstantiated characterization. It needs to be factually accurate and free of characterization. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine let's use the phrasing of the article then - token opposition. While we are at it, we might as well that phrasing to his election against Alan Keyes - right now it sounds like Obama won some fantastic victory over him because he was just such a great candidate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Token" is just as bad. It is better just to exclude terms like that and only have the facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Would be easier to take what you had to say seriously if you didn't say you wish you had a "can of raid" to use on me. "Essentially unopposed" or "token opposition" is descriptive,accurate and well-sourced.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care whether you take me seriously or not, to be brutally honest; however, "essentially" and "token" are characterizations that are not appropriate or encyclopedic. The only way you could use those words would be in an actual quote. Therefore, it is better to exclude such characterizations completely. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not characterization - the only inaccuracy is potraying a sham of an election as something it wasn't. Elections imply real choices and options - what he did took away those options and this should be made clear. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Like it should be made clear that Hillary Clinton wants to break party rules and seat the delegates of two states who decided to ignore Democratic Party rules? That kind of clear? You want to add your point-of-view, that's what is clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand - I have previously stated my bias, but I try not to let it affect what should go into or stay out of this article. Please try to stay on topic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:11, 4 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)

I believe that photo is his official Senate portrait. At least, it was taken from the U.S. Senate website. Would you prefer this one, from the same source? ;-) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:35, 3 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)

overseas viewpoint - article is biased and too pro-Obama, also has misleading information

As a person not in the America, I find this article hopelessly bias and pro-Obama. I am neutral, not for or against the man. Bias suggests that NPOV controls at wikipedia are not working.

1. The state legislature section is biased with misleading information. The man is known for voting "present" instead of yes or no, probably because he wanted to avoid taking a stand.

2. The state legislature section states that he got bipartisan support then mentions his police endorsement. That is outright propaganda. The accurate statement would be to say that the police endorsed his OPPONENT then only supported the winning Democrat (Obama) because he won the primary. Very different from an initial endorsement.

3. Convention speech. Is this an ad? Mention that the speech was his first exposure to America but given text of the speech makes the article an advertisement.

4. Reverend Wright is very controversial so it should refer to him as the controversial Revenrend Wright.

5. There is no mention of his continued opposition of the occupation of Iraq in the senate section (ok, political advocacy but a little misplaced). This is a key point of the man so there should be mention of it.

5/6. He is very different than others as he wants increased soliders in Afghanistan and is willing to invade Pakistan. This needs to be mentioned.

7. Rezko controversy is very, very significant but it is hidden (intentionally according to previous talk pages). There is no mention that he keeps on returning more money. More important was that he had a deal to buy his house. Since he called it boneheaded that makes him actually look good.

8. There could be mention that the primaries have been very contentious with he advocating steps to help his campaign, such as denying the florida and michgan voters a voice. Thats not defamation as all candidates do this.

overall, keep a questionable eye on the article and you can improve it.121.246.24.167 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to sign in. I'm KVS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.24.167 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Every point you make has already been exhaustively discussed on this talk page (see the extensive archive). There are plenty of neutral editors (like myself) who have carefully examined the article for bias (both for and against) and done our best to eliminate it. We have carefully checked citations to make sure the article reflects the references and we have (in some cases) compared the article to the articles of the other candidates to try to get some level of consistency. Obviously the article is very detailed with a significant body of references, so it constantly evolves as sections are updated and refined. I think you will find that the bulk of the regular editors will disagree with your findings because, and you'll have to forgive me for this, they seem far from your claim of "I am neutral" to be honest; nevertheless, I am sure your comments will be taken into consideration as the article develops further. By the way, I could not find a user called "KVS", so perhaps you would like to login and re-sign your comment? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the "regular" editors, if they don't have a bias towards Obama, then they appear to have bias towards keeping this article static. I thought several points he made were quite valid. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend waiting until the article is unprotected to bring up questionale phrases; that is what I will be doing as well. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ACTUALLY PLEASE DO IT NOW- the reason this damn page is always protected, is exactly because people misinterpret be bold and edit without effectively using talk. Being forced to use talk is good for the page AND good for the editors. Advocating NOT using talk, in any sense, really bothers me, even in a "not now" sense. If you can show me an editor who thinks his neutral writing skills and neutral citation skills are better when pages are unprotected or semi protected- I can show you an edit war waiting to happen lol.

Anything minor involving the campaign (such as the things you pointed out) should be covered in the campaign article. And specifically regarding #8, you might want to take that up with the Democratic National Convention and Howard Dean. Accusations that Obama is solely responsible for the failed revotes in Florida and Michigan is laughable. Maybe they should have listened to the DNC and not moved their primary in the first place. Grsz 11 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't as laughable as you may think - Howard Dean said the only way a revote would occur is if both campaigns agreed on the terms. Hillary has said Barack is holding up the negotiations (so shocker there). [[38]] [[39]] TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He's also said he wants the campaign to end...but Hillary seems to be holding that up. Expecting Obama just to say "Okay that's fine even though I wasn't on the ballot," however, is laughable. But we digress. Grsz 11 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny I read an article about how he conspired with the other campaigns to take his name off the ballot, of the deadline to do so, in an effort to make Hillary look bad and to give him a boost in the traditional early state (e.g. New Hampshire). Also, it is well-documented that he campaigned in Michigan, through surrogate radio and paper ads, to get people to vote uncommitted so the uncommitted delegates could chose to vote for him at the convention. He has blocked attempts at revotes in both places (his name was on the ballot in Florida) - this is consistent with his pattern of undermining the democratic process. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And you have the gall to criticize my "moral decency" regarding my bias. Grsz 11 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Which part do you disagree with? I'm only trying to insert part of that into the article and it is well-sourced. You may not like it, but it is the truth, it is relevant, and it is far more important than a lot of the fluff in this article. If there is any bias then it is your refusal to openly look at the facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, your claims are much more relevant when you provide reliable citations to back them up. Happyme22 (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I'm not trying to insert this information into the article, except for how he hired a lawyer to knock off all the candidates off the ballot when he first ran for state senate and I provided good documentation for those assertions. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of advice. Editors are likely not going to take you very seriously with lines like "this is consistent with his pattern of undermining the democratic process." --Ubiq (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

and there goes any chance of goodlocust's edits not getting reverted lol. next time at least mention that both sides "campaigned in michigan" according to the other campaign, if you're going for clarity (that IS what you're going for, right?)

More to the point- I hope everyone noticed the switch from fake accent to relatively perfect written english in approx. the third sentence of the OP. fyi...72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, I reread it carefully after reading this, and I came to two conlcusions. First, the guy made a few typos and second, you are paranoid. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If that can't take that fact seriously then I don't expect them to take me seriously. He knocked off 4 people from the ballot so he could get elected unopposed. He opposes revotes in Michigan and Florida and proposes they be seated "50/50" - which makes their elections and voice essentially worthless. His record is clearly anti-democratic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Those that support 50/50 in Michgan and Florida should also support a 50/50 split for the other 48 states. If there is a reliable source for "anti-democratic", this could be a good fact for the campaign article of obama.122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Oh !@#%, forgot to sign in again, I am KVS, a neutral (not for or against Obama) person and an observer of American politics. I am from India.122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #8 and the accusations that TheGoodLocust has been making against Obama: Where's the proof? Where are the reputable sources? Obama was repeatedly asked about whether the Florida and Michigan votes should count, and his response was always that he would abide by the DNC's decision. He did point out that he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, but rather that some conspiracy like TheGoodLocust suggests, it was simply because Michigan's votes weren't supposed to count. Regarding revotes, again Obama simply said that he'd abide by what the states decided. The notion that it couldn't happen without Obama's approval is absurd, because it was up to the individual states to hold revotes. Florida has a Republican controlled legislature that wasn't about to do any favors for the Democrats, and the revote proposal fell apart in the Michigan legislature. But to suggest that Obama was behind-the-scenes pulling all the strings requires some sort of proof, especially when he consistently stated that he would abide by whatever the DNC and states decided to do. -Eisnel (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Point #2 is in the archives. POV pushers refused to listen than banned the person with the sock excuse. This is proof of POV pushing at this article. 122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, the user who insisted on the police union edit was banned because he was abusing Wikipedia with multiple sock puppets. As he has continued to do - but don't worry, he will be stopped again. Tvoz |talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not threaten me. This is proof that POV pushers are trying to censor. I am KVS and I am from India. I can prove my identity. My name is Kumar. a non-POV pusher would just look at the content of the edit, not try to ban people. I do not know who Derk Benedict is but if he said what I am saying (don't know if he did) then the thought and idea is correct. Thank you.122.164.134.73 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is some proof for you - the Obama camp wants to split Michigan and Florida 50/50, which makes all the votes there worthess. If you want proof about his past anti-democratic behavior (his pattern) then look in at my proposed state legislature changes. He took his name off the ballot - he wasn't asked to do this. Hillary was polling well-ahead of every other candidate in Michigan - which is why they all pulled out on the last day to do so. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What you seem to have conveniently forgotten is that Florida and Michigan broke Democratic party rules. Whether or not you consider their situation to be undemocratic is entirely irrelevant. Why should Obama's camp approve of the bending of party rules if it would hinder his candidacy in any way? He is perfectly within his rights to object to any such fudge that may do harm to his campaign, and just because Hillary Clinton now thinks that breaking the rules she agreed to is okay does not mean Obama is suddenly being anti-democratic. Any suggestion that your comments offer a neutral point of view in this regard are ludicrous, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they "broke the rules" - so did black people who couldn't vote because they didn't pay their poll tax. Rules don't equal morality. Obama feels well within his rights trying to make superdelegates vote for him, even though they aren't obligated to - guess it is only when the rules suite him. The guy has run on a ticket of unifying the country and giving people a voice - but he has historically suppressed people's right to choose during elections. And, for the record, I don't think I ever claimed to be neutral. My measured bias is a needed counterweight to the reckless bias of the regular editors here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be making a lot of accusations despite calling yourself "neutral". Grsz11 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #2, the proposed rewording tries to suggest that the police endorsement was insignificant and meaningless. It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret whether or not an endorsement has significance. Wording it like that would be an obvious attempt to downplay the endorsement. It would be like going to a Republican candidate's page, finding a mention of an endorsement, and appending it with: "but those guys always endorse the Republican nominee, so it's no big deal". -Eisnel (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That endorsement doesn't even belong here. Politicians get hundreds of endorsements, and highlighting this one is merely another example of the POV issues of this article. This "police endorsement" mention is merely an attempt to strengthen his rather weak image - he comes off as a wuss. Hell, I propose we mention his endorsement by the New Black Panther Party and Louis Farrakhan - it is about as relevant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #1: This article does mention his "present" votes for two abortion-related bills. I'm not sure if more about his "present" votes warrant mention, but if they do, it shouldn't be used as an attempt to portray the man as "known for voting present". First, it seems that the "present" vote is common in the Illinois legislature, so we'd need a reliable source to suggest that Obama did it a lot more than his fellow legislators. Second, it would need to be pointed out that he voted present 129 times (is that the number?) out of a total of around 4000 votes. Without citing the total number of times Obama voted in Illinois, this is just an obvious ploy to convince readers that "he wanted to avoid taking a stand". There are people out there who would like to suggest to uninformed readers that Obama was a serial "present" voter, when in fact he voted "present" 3% of the time. Is 3% a remarkably high number? I don't know, but that's not up to us to decide. I think the notable part is the controversy (from reliable sources) over his "present" votes on two abortion-related bills, and that's already in the article. -Eisnel (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, he is "known for voting present", but it isn't really a valid criticism. I mention this in my proposed edit for the State Legislature section (even though it can be improved a bit). Since he is known for this, it should be mentioned, but also it should be explained that this is a common practice in Chicago politics. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not clear on this: If voting "present" is a common practice in Illinois politics, then what did Obama do to get a reputation for voting "present"? Did he vote "present" more than other legislators? Do we have sources that say he had such a reputation at the time? If so, that might warrant inclusion in his Illinois Senate article (and if it was a defining feature of his Illinois Senate career, it might warrant mention in the corresponding section on this article). Any such assertion would require reliable sources. But instead, this might be something that only came up during his presidential bid, as a negative attack by his opponents. If the 2008 media coverage of his "present" votes was notable, then that media criticism could be noted, but we can't portray the facts incorrectly: If this article were to imply that Obama cast a remarkably high number of "present" votes, when it turns out that his voting pattern was in line with all other legislators, then we'd effectively be lying (I don't know if that's the case, which is why I want to see sources). And keep in mind: his controversial "present" votes on two abortion-related bills is already covered in this article. Also, if the "present" vote thing is only notable in the context of criticisms made in 2008, then it belongs in the 2008 campaign article -Eisnel (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to police endorsement, the misleading information part

I proposed changing the police union endorsement part because it is factually inaccurate and misleading. The goodlucust agrees with me that the current version is no good. There is consensus for this. There is no consensus for the current version except from Tvoz who opposes wikipedia users and vows to ban anyone who supports this reasonable change. Please, NPOV! We can work together! 122.164.134.73 (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Add Category:DADT

Since this article is apparently locked to editing, I'm writing to request that Category:DADT be added.--Robapalooza (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?, looking through the article there is no mention of the policy anywhere. Jons63 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is mentioned in an article on the subject, along with the other candidates. Does WP:WEIGHT apply to categorization? I am not at all familiar with category guidelines concerning people, but it seems like this doesn't seem significant enough for any of the candidate biographies. Anyone else got any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add something else, it seems like Category:DADT is a brand new and rapidly-growing category. Frankly I doubt it will have longevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first issue I see with the category is that it's an acronym (I had no idea what DADT was until I followed the link), but there's a move request, so that won't be an issue for long. The second point is that,, except that he has apparently said it should be repealed, it doesn't really have anything to do with Barack Obama. We really shouldn't have a category for every political position he has on this article (especially a generic one) or else the category section will be longer than the article itself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be nixed from the articles of other candidates as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If the category stays, perhaps it should be moved to the political positions articles. They at least mention the candidates political positions, rather than the main article? Granted, in the cas of Obama, his wanting to repeal it isn't even mentioned there... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

2 things here: 1, its hilarious that ten years ago being "pro DADT" (sounds like a fancy breadmaker btw) was considered PRO gay rights! and now here we are, ten whole years later, and the word is being thrown around like a half-baked political slash. 2- I suggest the regular editor get ready for more claims in this vein. At the last rally I attended, someone was holding up a (very homemade) "homos for hillary" sign so I think there is some pressure coming from the top on this general subject. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war and protection policy

HailFire's commitment

1. I will oppose page protection.^[40]
2. I will not edit war.
3. I will be bold and I will discuss.
4. I will be civil, and I will never confuse "claque" with community.

--HailFire (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very noble, I approve! I have a question though: If someone promises not to edit war, how can that person defend this page against those who are perfectly willing to ignore discussion and engage in edit wars? -Eisnel (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can answer that, because I have faced the same dilemma. The answer is simply to let someone else fight the battle. People who don't get involved in edit wars (and I am ashamed to say I have done so in the past) find themselves commanding more respect from fellow editors. The really good and well-respected editors may eventually get to become administrators, at which point they can squash the warring scumbags like the little bugs they are! -- Scjessey (trying hard to sound like Invader Zim) 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I actually did re-read that while trying to do a subvocal Zim impression. :) --Eisnel (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub pages

It's interesting to see the argument has developed on this page. I wondered when it would come. One thing the full time editors should do with this page is to make every section link to a main page. To my mind this is not only good practice, it's common sense with big subjects. So, every section must have a main page where the details can be fleshed/thrashed out. At the moment this isn't the case for the sections: state legislature, keynote address (shouldn't this be a subsection of the Illinois senate career section?), personal life, cultural and political image. Why not?

I think I can't put it in when it's protected, but a subpage is dead easy for the books section. Please do it for the rest. Also, why is there a section devoted to recognitions and honours? It's pretty mundane information, and well worthy of a subpage which I'm talking about. I mean, the man will probably be the President, and the list is really insignificant.

The main advantage of all this is that when you have a proper system of subpages, your main page is more likely to stay FA, and can stay unchanged (without 'recentism' problems, etc). That's because if there's vandalism, people trying to shove in the latest scandal from 1994 or whatever, you just say, "well it's not relevant enough for the main page. Take it to the sub page." Wikidea 13:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add, this page is of course very good indeed, and it's a real credit to the original authors that it's one of very few politicians that is starred. Sort of like Obama himself. Everything gleams. Wikidea 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the wisdom of this suggestion, and I am sure that the article will eventually evolve into a summary and "hub" for sub pages in the manner that you describe. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already evolved. That's the point of writing the above. It needs them now. Everything on this page is necessarily a summary. Wikidea 09:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the page has opened up from full protection, I've done what I've said. As I said above, the point is that when there are skirmishes about what to include or not, it can be taken to the sub pages. I think that whatever was here when the article was featured should stay as it was for the sections that do not cover something recent (and that includes "new revelations" about his past, e.g. the Jeremiah Wright controversy, whatever shady Chicago socialist law the Republicans dig up or whatever). All that stuff can be taken to the sub pages. Somebody removed the quotes from the Keynote address. I don't agree with that is necessary, but I'm not changing it back. I've put up the full quotes on the Illinois page. I'm not sure what to do about the personal life/cultural image sections. The latter is really complete waffle and media speculation. The former, I'm not sure it should have a whole page devoted to it - because I personally do not care what politicians do in their private lives (Americans, sadly, seem to I suppose). For recognitions and honours, seeing as that was previously in the Senate section but has been separated, I put it on the sub page for his Senate career. I think it's probably something that should be axed from this page altogether. Again, waffle, and it's media driven. How many Americans actually know the New Statesman anyway!? Wikidea 10:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Addition - He bowled a 37

I mean, it makes about as much sense to put in here as the fact that he likes "chili," is a "decent poker player," thinks "architect" is a good alternate career for him, has relatives that look like Bernie Mac, or is left-handed. Might as well fill it to the brim with vacuous and harmless nonsense so serious issues can't be put in here.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The chili, poker player, architect, and left-handedness are definitely candidates for deletion, but the Bernie Mac quote is applicable to the article because Obama's cultural diversity is an important part of his history, so that should probably stay.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobble, I agree that left-handed isn't necessary, but let's not judge chili and architect too quickly. The cited source was written as a human interest story and earns its bytes, I think.[41] If you still have doubts about keeping the chili another day, please check this (browse ½ way down the page). As for poker, I'd say that one is a definite hold.[42] --HailFire (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have chopped-out the left-handed sentence (or should that be "I've chopped off his left hand"?), but I agree that the other stuff should probably stay since they are things he specifically mentioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just becaues "he specifically mentioned" something doesn't make it material for an encyclopedia. This article has well over 500 words of direct quotations from Barack Obama - the article on William Shakespeare, Master of the English Language, doesn't have anywhere near that. This crap is what makes this article look so unprofessional. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if y'all want to keep it, go crazy. I was more looking at it in "importance" compared to the rest of the article, but I'm not attached to the other things staying or leaving. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bernie Mac quote was to highlight the fact that this article seems to have a preternatural fascination with quoting Barack Obama. His "cultural diversity" is highlighted just fine in the early life section and adjoining article. Not only that, you are making the assumption that it IS an important part of his history. Politicians say a lot of silly things, this article has a tendency to put essentially meaningless quotes in here - it looks lazy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That it looks lazy is merely your opinion though. Some people probably consider it a relief to have such tidbits in an article, especially one of this length that's replete with history/policy. --Ubiq (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it is shoddy - this artcle has over 500 words of direct quotations from Barack. The articles of Clinton and McCain only have brief snippets. Quoting a politician, of all people, as examples of his personal beliefs or policy advocation is quite simply ridiculous. The "tidbits" of his rhetoric have crowded out other, more valid, information that should be included in this article, but is simply quite lacking.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I trust that you have a policy or guideline that says the subject of an article can be used as a reference for themselves, except if they are politician, then they are an unreliable source.. All of the policies and guidelines I've seen seem to indicate that the subject of an article is a reliable source regardless of their chosen profession. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPS - this article clearly fails under that criteria. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPS is to include an entire primary source as an article, it does not mean that you can't not use short quotes, which is why it tells you to use Wikisource for that purpose. Suggest you re-read that guideline. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A further guideline about use of primary sources is here. It says that an example of a primary source is an eyewitness account of a traffic accident. This would include a quoted sentence from an eyewitness, or an entire interview of an eyewitness.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm misinterpreting WP:PSTS and its location within WP:NOR it is saying that we should not use a primary source to support an analysis, synthesis, etc. and is not applicable to the use of quotes.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS is applicable to quotes if the quote is from a primary source. It's fine to use them "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." As you say, the main thing is not to use them to support an analysis, synthesis, etc.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Great source, I didn't know about that policy, and it really helps to communicate what I was trying to get across. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this is not a discussion forum. Since your "proposed addition" was clearly facetious and intended simply to make a point there isn't much point in continuing this topic. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as you keep in my that I'm just using MY communication style to highlight the fat that needs to be cut from this bloated article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is unfair, he only played 7 frames. Maybe if the game was finished... Grsz11 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested list of recommendations

I commented on the FAC review, and stated my belief that there are many POV phrases throughout the article. With encouragement from User:HailFire, I have compiled a list. I hope this list creates a forum for central discussion. For those of you who may be in question about me: I am not some sort of crazy, partisan out to slander Obama; I am a neutral POV editor dedicated to making Wikipedia a more reliable reference. As an outsider to this article, I hope you take my claims seriously, and I encourage you to remove any pro-Obama bias that may exist (if only when looking over this list :) ). I think this article deserves to be featured as much as the next guy, but there are significant flaws and failures with it when it comes to adhering to Wikipedia policy that need to be fixed.

General issues:

• There are too many quotes by Barack Obama, especially in the political advocacy section. I understand that they are his views on current topics/issues, but our job as Wikipedia editors is not to let Obama tell his story (that's something that you would find on his campaign website), but to write about his views in a neutral manner. This is a big problem, and one that cetainly should demand immediate attention, as it technically fails WP:NPS. The quotes need to be paraphrased, so that the info is coming from us, not him directly.
  • NPS does not cover the inclusion of quotes from primary sources. It's for copying an entire (or a significant portion) of a primary source into an article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using limited quotes. NPS would prevent us from creating an article on his 2004 Democratic convention speech and then creating a section called "The speech" and copying in the entirety of the speech, it does not, however, prevent us from quoting the source of the article in the article itself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using limited quotes.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "limited" about these quotes. There are many, many ways in which this article does not fare well in a comparison with articles about other prominent politicians, such as George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John McCain. This is just one of them. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completed with Kossack.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • A further guideline about use of primary sources is here. It says that an example of a primary source is an eyewitness account of a traffic accident. This would include a quoted sentence from an eyewitness, or an entire interview of an eyewitness.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • My mistake; thank you for the correction. With the NPS point aside, would you agree that there are too many quotes by Obama currently being used (my reasoning is outlined above), and that many need to be paraphrased? Happyme22 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • There are too many block quotes from Obama, yes, but I have absolutely no problem using a quote from Obama to support his own viewpoints. Any interpretation of his viewpoints (particularly if they rely upon his quotes alone) are prone to be influenced by biases and incorrect interpretation. In the unique situation of Obama speaking on his opinions and viewpoints, a quote by Obama would be superior to our own paraphrasing of that quote. That being said, there are situations like the following from the political advocacy section where an Obama quote followed by a summary sentence is redundant and one could be trimmed without losing content: "Obama said: "Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution." He proposed a cap and trade auction system to restrict carbon emissions and a ten-year program of investments in new energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, well we are going to disagree there; it's probably best if we wait to get others' viewpoints on this matter as well. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
            • For what it's worth, I don't think the article has excessive quotation, especially now that the lengthy quotes from the 2004 DNC keynote have been removed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
              • I entirely disagree, my long post on the FAR put condensed a bunch of the unnecessary, and often self-serving quotes. Also, I still think the DNC section should be trimmed down or reworded, since, it really isn't important enough to warrant a sub-section.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                • It was Obama's first appearance on the national stage, and as such merits attention. I think that the current small subsection is appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • But it was essentially a speech, it did nothing in and of itself other than to make Obama famous. I think my sentence or two in my State Legislature section is entirely adequate since it links to the full text of the speech.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • GoodLocust, it was merely a speech. But did largely launch Obama's political career, and that in itself is important. I think the section's current length is just fine. Regarding using quotes to display the positions: I have no problem using quotes to do just that; it only becomes a problem when they are descrbing just about everything, and the editors are letting Obama speak for himself. Happyme22 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • I understand it was important, but it objectively it doesn't have enough substance to really discuss, and so the paragraph ends up with pointless sections like, Obama also called for national unity, rejecting the division of the United States by race or into red states and blue states: "We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." In the larger scheme of things, this is competely worthless - what politician doesn't talk about unity? George Bush himself ran on being a "uniter not a divider," but that certainly isn't what he'll be remembered for. Also, the overuse of quotes is a violation of WP: PSTS since Barack Obama is indeed his own primary source. This reliance is most blatantly obivious in the political advocacy section, but the personal life and cultural image sections show it a bit as well. In fact, both of those sections should be tagged as:

TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • Worthless in your opinion. That appeal to unity is something that commentators still cite as a large reason for Obama's success to date. I suppose that if you don't "get" that, that may explain some of your hostility. And you're still misreading WP:PSTS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• What about the Republicans? What do they say about Obama? We have a lot of quotes by fellow Democrats and too many by Obama himself, but the only thing I see from Republicans is the "he has been praised by conservative commentators" phrase, which, as I have outlined below, is an unacceptable phrase.

Keynote address:

• In a word, the section is fluff. The three quotes here do not need to be here; I would create a Wikisource article on the speech, include the full text there, and interwikilink it to here. Take the general idea of the speech, such as the major points, and include them in the "State legislature" section. Take the Ronald Reagan article, one that I have worked on immensely and continuously for the past year. Reagan won the nickname "the great communicator"; do you know how many speeches I could pull quotes from and put on his page due to them being "keynote addresses"? Literally hundreds, yet there are few. As a featured article, I expect the same from Obama's article as from Reagan's (also featured), among others.

• • I agree that this is fluff, and I advocated removing it in favor of the version I put forth in the second draft of my State Legislature section - it is also clearly a violation of WP:NPS. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Totally agree this section could be trimmed quite a bit, including an elimination of most of the block quotes. It needs to focus more on the impact of the speech rather than the speech itself. The guy went from an unknown state senator to presidential campaign candidate, largely due to this speech. The speech itself is probably worth a paragraph at most considering the importance of it to his political trajectory. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I think a paragraph would be perfect, outling the major points of the speech and the impact it had on Obama's political career. Happyme22 (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the reason there is quite a lot about this keynote speech is that it was added to the article at a much earlier time, when it was basically the most significant event in Obama's career. Obviously now that he is running for President, it is somewhat less significant than it was. Similar problems exist with other parts of the article that have become less significant as time passes, and Obama's career matures. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, I think we have it well established that the section should be trimmed down to roughly a single paragraph, outlining the major points of his speech and maybe a quote. Are we agreed on this issue so far? Happyme22 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly am. Although, question is, which section should it be put in? He gave the speech while he was a state legislator, but it was also when he was campaigning for US senate, so the question is, which is the speech most associated with? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I was bold and redid the section. I made it as a level three heading under "state legislator" section, because he gave the address when stil holding that office. Happyme22 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better IMO, good work. --Ubiq (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it is too long for something that is essentially meaningless. The main thing is that it made him famous, everything else is just standard populist and political rhetoric. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the single biggest event in his political career before he began running for President. How is that meaningless? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, it was essentially just words, the speech did nothing other than make him famous. My coverage of it in my proposed State Legislature section is succinct, and it links to the full text.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It made him famous and made a lot of commentators note him as a political rising star. It put him on the national radar. That's worth a section of its own, in my view. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly more significant than Wright's statements, though you want to quote those. Grsz11 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Political advocacy:

• (in bold) "His plan would eliminate taxes for senior citizens with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, repeal tax cuts said to favor the wealthy, close corporate..." - said by whom? said by the Democrats, and Mr. Obama. That needs to be stated, otherwise it is misleading.

• • It is another example of this article's over-reliance on primary sources and it is essentially self-serving. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Said by the Congressional Budget Office here, the Brookings Institution here, said by this chart (though I don't know what it's from), says these charts from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the New York Times using data from the IRS here. And that's just the first two pages of a Yahoo search. Grsz11 03:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I apologize because I have always believed that it was said that Bush's tax cuts favored the wealthy, never proved. But I guess I'm wrong on thsi one. I apologize for the inconvenience. Happyme22 (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Books:

• "Time magazine's Joe Klein wrote that the book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." - ok, this is probably the most POV statement that I found throughout the entire article. It gives the opinion of one magazine columnist, out of thousands worldwide. It's great that Mr. Klein thinks that, but he does not speak for every magazine columnist and surely not every American. This quote needs to be removed because it is factually and historically innacurate; it is the POV of one single magazine columnist.

It's POV in the sense that it is indeed, someone's point of view, but it's sort of the standard to include people's/critic's direct quotes on books. Further, it's quite easy to label something "factually and historically inaccurate", especially when such an assertion is unfalsifiable. As you said, it's merely one columnist's opinion. To compare, it'd be like if someone said my opinion that Larry David is one of the funniest people alive is factually and historically inaccurate. There'd simply be no way to prove this. --Ubiq (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there is no way to prove that *this* quote is factually and historically accurate; even including another quote with the opposite POV would only create two stark contrasts, not giving anything to the readers. Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• "It was an immediate bestseller and rose to the top of the New York Times Best Seller list by early November 2006." - I'm not so sure "immediate bestseller" is the right way to characterize the book. Perhaps, "it sold many copies quickly and rose to the top...."

If it indeed rose very quickly to the bestseller list (by early November 2006 the article says) then it appears to be an accurate description. Whether or not this is "the right way to characterize the book" is up for debate I guess though, but I can't imagine that the wording here would be that contentious. --Ubiq (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with this sentence. It was an immediate bestseller; that's fact not opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've condensed the book section quite a bit to the bare details of the books.. Thoughts? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that went a little too far- your descriptions hardly had a mention of the purpose/main points of Audacity of Hope. I wouldn't be opposed to removing a POV sentence or two of the reviews, but it should maintain how the book relates to his presidential run. johnpseudo 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a really good job - it actually reads like an encyclopedia article now without the excessive praise.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a nice section; however, I do not think this line is necessary (per WP:RECENT): "As of April 6, 2008, the book had spent thirteen weeks on the paperback nonfiction best seller list." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - It is much better now. I would get rid of the "As of April 6, 2008, the book had spent eighty-eight weeks on the New York Times Paperback NonFiction Best Seller list" phrase, because that will change next week, and the week after, etc., which means that it will quickly become outdated unless continually updated. Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have left some descriptors about Audacity, if there actually were any. The Dreams paragraph includes a brief synopsis of what the book is about, but the Audacity paragraph had none of that and it really needs it. I even looked on the main article for Audacity and there isn't one there. I haven't read the book myself, so I don't know enough of what it is about to do a brief synopsis, so if someone that has read the book could do that... As for the paperback having to be updated weekly.. I don't see a problem with that. That's why I included the "As of" so that it could be readily identified as something that needs to be updated. Seriously, though, making it onto the NY Times best seller list is notable in itself and being on there for 88 weeks (that's over a year and a half) is even more so. There's only three paperbacks that have been on the nonfiction best seller list for longer and none of the others are ranked as highly as Dreams.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Former presidential candidate Gary Hart describes the book as Obama's "thesis submission" for the U.S. presidency: "It presents a man of relative youth yet maturity, a wise observer of the human condition, a figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur." - A quote like this never would have been accepted on the Ronald Reagan article. I don't think it is that bad, and I'm willing to let it stay as long as some of these page editors eventually back me up if I want to put in a somewhat-flattering quote on Reagan's page ;) I do like the other quote that follows it better, and it probably better adhere's to NPOV as well: "Reviewer Michael Tomasky writes that it does not contain "boldly innovative policy prescriptions that will lead the Democrats out of their wilderness," but does show Obama's potential to "construct a new politics that is progressive but grounded in civic traditions that speak to a wider range of Americans."

The Reagan comparison doesn't quite help, and I'm sure if you found a quote that contributed to that article, it wouldn't be much of a problem to include it. --Ubiq (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you wouldn't believe some of the stuff the goes on over there :) Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• "An Italian edition was published in April 2007 with a preface by Walter Veltroni, former Mayor of Rome, currently leader of Italy's Democratic Party and one of Obama's earliest supporters overseas, who met the Illinois Senator in Washington in 2005 and has been referred to as "Obama's European counterpart." Spanish and German translations were published in June 2007; the French edition, subtitled une nouvelle conception de la politique américaine, was published in October 2007." - This is just extra fluff which portrays Obama as a very prolific writer, and thus is POV. The Mayor of Rome's support for Obama probably does belong in the article, but this is not the place. Perhaps in the presidential campaign section, or separate article.

Doesn't look POV at all to me. Says nothing about Obama's writing and I can't see why you think it "portrays Obama as a very prolific writer". It merely discusses different translations of the book. --Ubiq (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I really don't understand what your objection to this is. How is discussing the print run and foreign editions (which is standard when writing about published books) POV? How does that "portray Obama as a very prolific writer?" Nobody said he wrote new material for each of those editions, it's just a translation. What does it have to do with being prolific? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of his proposed edits to the book section. In regards to the various language versions, this is pointless to include - most people assume popular books are translated into other languages. It comes off as self-serving and as fluff. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image:

• "Supporters and critics have likened Obama's popular image to a cultural Rorschach test, a neutral persona on whom people can project their personal histories and aspirations." - What a swell guy! He makes everyone feel great! - POV! And that is what this is implying. It is saying that he is a neutral figure who everyone can talk to and he can make you feel better. That is completely POV. This phrase needs to be restructured and have a balanced side to it, reflecting how others, who are not so flattered by the senator, may feel.
  • Actually, I see the "Rorschach test" line as cutting both ways. It can be seen as flattering, as you suggest, but it can also be seen as saying that Obama has little substance save what is projected on him by the expectations of others, like Chauncey Gardner in Being There. I think this sentence is important, as it explains part of why Obama's appeal has been broader than other African-American politicians. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is another way to say the same thing, but in a less flattering tone? Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • "Rorschach test" is not flattering or unflattering ... it's just means that people read into him what they like, good bad or otherwise, just as people see pictures out of a blob of ink. Saying this doesn't describe Obama, it describes peoples' reactions to Obama. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Speaking to an elderly Jewish audience during his 2004 campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama linked the linguistic root of his East African first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning "blessed."" - the only point I see here is to say that he is blessed. I don't see any other reason to include this than to encourage that point.

It looks to me to be an explanation as to the meaning of his first name. I doubt it carries that much weight in the mind of anyone reading this. I'm sure if the name Adolf happened to mean "lovely", it wouldn't much influence people's opinion of Adolf Hitler. --Ubiq (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does carry much weight, at least on a concious level, but it is essentially fluff and trivia, and is entirely unnecessary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the GoodLocust on this one; it is purley trivial. Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So you agree with GoodLocust when he says that he agrees with you? Well, that's certainly informative. Quick! GoodLocust! Post a response to Happyme22 saying that you agree with his agreement of your agreement with his statement! Keep in mind that consensus is not reached by two people repeatedly responding "I agree" to each other. That's log-rolling, not discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir, perhaps you should act in better faith. I did not even here of GoodLocust before coming to this talk page, and I have never communicated with him before. I never said that concensus is formed by two people; it can be, but not in this case. In fact, I have never said anything about a concensus on this talk page at all. Let's discuss the issues at hand, not take shots at other people. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Writing about Obama's political image in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s." - What about the other side's argument? According to WP:NPOV, both sides arguments need to be present, and that is not the case here. I see that there is a phrase attributed to Peggy Noonan below this one, but that phrase is not sufficient because it is not giving an opinion of Obama himself, but rather a "warning" to Republicans to not get too caught up in him. There definitely needs to be more balace here.

Keep in mind this is a BLP and that we're not exactly looking to make every praise countered by a criticism or vice versa. The "balance" you're looking for might be more well-suited for subjects of a different nature, like for areas where a particular controversy happened (e.g., including criticism over a scandal and making sure to include defense/rebuttal where it applies). --Ubiq (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We cannot simply discard this argument. I understand that it is a BLP, but the praise far outweighs the criticism on this page. Please keep in mind that I am an outsider to this page, with no particular strong feelings of Obama either way. Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to go out of your way to convince me or anyone else you're neutral in this matter. I do my best not to make assumptions about people's views. As far as the "praise far outweighing the criticism", I think that both praise and criticism could be removed from the article. If you compare the John McCain article with this, you'll notice that McCain's article has pretty much no criticsm or controversy. It only mentions his perceived level of conservatism/liberalism (which I happen to think should not be included in a wiki article). However, it also has far less praise than Obama has in his article. I tend to think this discrepency is due to the fact that McCain has had a very long career, which is much easier to write about. By contrast, Obama has had a shorter career, and much of his image has been shaped and defined by the attention he's gotten during this time. --Ubiq (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so he has had a short career compared to McCain. Many people like him, that's true. But there are those that don't. And their arguments deserve a voice here too. It is a flattering quote of Obama with only one view represented; I see no indication of another side's view. And BLP or not, it only shows the POV of one side. I'm not asking for this quote to be removed, or cut down at all; all that I am asking for is equal representaion, perhaps a quote, or even a sentence about what someone who is not so wooed by Obama might think. Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "...and has been praised by conservative commentators, including George Will who encouraged him to run for president." - I brought this up on the FAR page as an example of the POV, and User:HailFire agreed that it needs to be reworded/fixed, because it is lumping all Republican commentators (including conservatives) into this category. Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Neil Boortz, and other Republican commentators deserve their own voice too, and cannot be spoken for by only George Will, one of few conservatives to support Obama.

I agree about the "lumping", though I'm sure it wasn't intended to sound this way. If anything it could be removed or perhaps reworded to state "...and has been praised by some conservative commentators, including..." or "...and has even been praised by some conservative commentators, including..." As for the Sean Hannity et. al. deserving "their own voice too", I'll just point to my above point about this being a BLP. --Ubiq (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoah whoah whoah, Ubiq, you come across to me as a very dedicated editor who strives for the best. And I am honestly shocked that you don't even see how POV this is without an adequate representation of both sides! Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The prose in this article has a neutral tone, and nowhere do I see evidence of editors' point of view being injected into the article. I think what you're referring to is undue weight, which impedes upon NPOV. On that page is a quote that applies to this situation: "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." and further down: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I can't quite see how adding the opinions of random anti-Obama conservatives helps the reader better to understand who Obama is or what he's done/accomplished in his life (this is the point of a biography in my opinion). I also don't think it would do anything to help balance his biography out. Like I stated above, I think balancing would involve removing some praise and some criticism, but that's just my personal opinion and I'm sure many people would disagree with me on that. --Ubiq (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all the prose in this article has a neutral tone; if it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because I wouldn't have brought any of it up. I do not see how fixing this false statement is adding undue weight. It is simply a lie: not all conservative commentators like Obama and this statement is misleading. We cannot throw it out the window because Obama is living. Happyme22 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood some things. Notice above that I was receptive to your initial suggestion and recommended either removing the sentence or introducing the word some into the mix. My undue weight comments were more so a categorization of your complaints--that you felt there was undue weight (i.e., too much praise vs. criticism). I took it that you felt inserting a criticism from the likes of Sean Hannity would counter that unbalanced weight. I was just stating that I disagreed and explained why.

Also, (and I'm totally being anal here) I'm not so much buying the logic in: if the article had a neutral tone, we wouldn't be having this discussion (but we are having it, so it must not have a neutral tone) --Ubiq (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks for that. I would favor removing it altogether and adding in a paragraph on how Republicans feel about the senator (as outlined in "general issues" section above). And I most certainly do not feel that a quote by Sean Hannity should be inserted to counter this. I do feel, however, that there needs to be a paragraph, at the least, on what the mainstream Republican party thinks about Obama. So I would nix this statement because it is a lie; a quick Google search reveals that there is not much more to pursue on this matter. Happyme22 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the word some but on a side note I think it's a big stretch to call the statement "[Obama] has been praised by conservative commentators" a lie. It only means logically that: There exist conservative commentators that have praised Obama. The some is implicit in that statement (it does not imply all), but adding some to be more clear shouldn't hurt. I didn't want to remove it entirely because I feel a change that dramatic would probably need some consensus, and I don't want to disrupt the flow of the paragraph. I'm largely opposed to adding a paragraph devoted purely to Republican criticism of him and I can't imagine that idea would pick up too much steam. I can't find a pres. candidate that has the equivalent of such a paragraph/section, and besides, there's already criticism interspersed throughout the article. But who knows, other editors may be receptive to it. You may want to make a new section proposing something if you really think it would improve the article. I've really got to get some sleep though, night. --Ubiq (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I expect discussion to occur on these items, but I hope that sufficient action is taken once the article is unprotected. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Happyme22 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with everything you have said. I've brought up some of these issues elsewhere and others I'd meant to bring up but haven't had the time to articulate yet. Thanks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

the "rorshach test" bit is also on the HRC page fyi... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rezko and Wright

A user called Kossack something added some rubbish about these two hopeless points of "controversy". I've deleted them, and given reasons in the edits. I would remind other editors (a) the sub pages are there for a reason (b) pointing stuff out on the main page of Wikipedia is not going to influence the course of the election. This page, in the grand scheme of things is pretty unimportant. And what's even less important than this page is silly attempts to shove in some partisan rubbish that the user happens at 2 o'clock on a Thursday to decide people really need to know. I think I'd better "unwatch" this page, because it'll get too frustrating. Again, my credit to those who have been maintaining the page up till now. Wikidea 13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rezko and Wright should be easily accesible and discussed briefly. After all, they are at least as important as his 2004 keynote speech - and that has far too much space dedicated to it and it is linked in the contents as well. Of all the people coming here, I doubt they really care more about a speech than his 20 years at a controversial church. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Rezko and Wright have their own articles for exploring their particular issues. They should only be mentioned in this article where their circumstances specifically and significantly intersect with Barack Obama's. The speech was orders of magnitude more important to Obama's life than (for example) how much money Rezko raised for Obama's Senate campaign once. You are just trying to introduce your personal opinion, as usual. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree - his speech made him famous and that's it. He went to that church for 20 years - and took his children there. I think it has had a very large impact on his life, and it may very well him the general election. It should be linked in the contents since people are more interested in that aspect of his life than a silly speech. Again, I could take you more seriously if you didn't say you wanted a "can of raid" to deal with me.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had the same hairstyle for 20 years, and even though people have said some bad things about it I can no more repudiate it than I can my own fingers and toes. It has had a very large impact on my life and it may very well cost me some future job interview. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He chose , as an adult, to go to that church, he chose to continue going to that church after hearing some nasty things by that man. He chose to give that church thousands of dollars. He chose to take his children there. He chose to defend that man. This is not guilt by association - this is guilt by participation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well so what? Oprah Winfrey chooses to go to that church as well, but I don't hear anyone questioning her judgment. We are talking about a good church that does good things for the community, for charities and the needy. So what if some wack-job pastor threw out a few dumb comments over his 30-year position. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Oprah had the sense to quit going to that church - but she didn't have enough sense to not get pregnant at the age of 14. Yes it is a "good" church they help the "needy" and the "homeless" - do they help the white needy? Or is it just the black needy? Gee those questions never get asked. That church is based off the racist writings James Hal Cone and his "Black Liberation Theology" - it is a complete joke TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your dreadful comment above: I've noted the evolution of your comment above (diff1, diff2, diff3) and I am disgusted. I thought about putting some kind of warning on your talk page but I realized from your choice of image (diff) that it wouldn't do any good. Any shred of credibility you may have been clinging to has now gone. What an appallingly unpleasant thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Really nice how you included my "minor edit" there as a "version" - if you have any problem with the facts that I stated above then say something substantial. This faux outrage of yours is just more proof of your prejudice towards me and adds nothing to the discussion.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to avoid being prejudice when you act the way you do. Grsz11 03:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't feel much sympathy for you either since you seem to think I hurt your chances for adminship - your bias is quite clear as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the bias that personally messaged Andy to give my approval of his Wright addition, that bias? Please. You've lost a lot of respect because of your hostility towards other editors and unwillingness to play by the rules. Grsz11 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if I broke any rules then I'm sure you could help me out as a new user in learning them. And yeah, I think its obvious that you are biased, but that's not the problem, the problem is you seem unable to prevent your bias from affecting your behavior in a professional manner. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Earlier I challenged you to show me where I made an edit without a valid reason. You failed to do so. I think it's highly inappropriate for you to criticize mine and others bias when you sit here on your high horse like your POV is the word of God himself. Grsz11 03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall you "challenging" me to find some edit of yours - you were likely being overemotional and I was giving you a chance to cool off. Regardless, your bias has been plain from your blanket rejections of my reasoned attempts at adding some much needed counterweight to this article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna step away from this one before it gets worse. Grsz11 03:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I regret the "can of raid" joke I made on someone else's talk page. I should have said "flame thrower" or something. Are you monitoring my contributions, or Grsz11's talk page? Either way it seems a bit creepy, like a stalker or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Charming. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I thought this page was edit protected. JonErber (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see now the edit protection has been taken off. Back to the edit wars which I'm sure will continue.JonErber (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Kossack's edit is any indicator, yes, they will.. Kossack even accepted (didn't agree with it, mind you, just accepted) the wording that's out there, but still went ahead and added his preferred wording. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection and FAR

I respectfully submit that this article should not be locked down while the current featured article review is still in progress. Instability during the FAR process is as expected, and if full protection is applied, I will (again, respectfully) request its removal. --HailFire (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between instability and edit warring. The article getting a number of edits during FAR is okay, but if those edits are basically people reverting each other, then that isn't acceptable. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Two hours to destroy it

I've been away from my computer for just two hours. In that time, hordes of right-wing lunatics and their sock puppet friends have all but destroyed this article. Improperly cited right-wing or anti-Obama bias now soils every section. I'm so demoralized, I'm just going to leave it alone for a bit and hope some of those who are more dedicated than I can restore this article to something approaching the quality and neutrality it had earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

Regarding this edit by Bobblehead: (a) The controversy is about Obama's relationship with Wright. No one would care about what Wright said if that weren't the question. (b) "...suggesting the U.S.'s foreign policy led to the September 11 attacks..." doesn't quite catch the flavor, and is any way false. Terrorizing the Indians wasn't "foreign policy" (the US mostly bought or claimed the land first) and he's mosdtly talking about actions, not policy. (c) "questioning the role the government played in the spread of HIV/AIDS"?????? ""The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color" is an assertion, not a question. Sheesh. Weasel, weasel, weasel. And not even "true" weasels. Andyvphil (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*Andy, the wording is from the sources you provided. The FOXNews article says "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks." Although, I did just reword it to more align with the sources.[43] Better? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. FOX News’ Jeff Goldblatt is peculiarly gentle in describing Wright's sermons, but he supplies enough actual text (e.g., “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”) so the result is not in the end misleading. Your version is simply a falsehood. Wright's clear meaning is "the government...invent[ed] the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." You simply can't seriously contest this and maintain any plausible pretense of good faith. Andyvphil (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And this one. Bobblehead: "Rezko's charges are not related to political contribution, they are corruption charges for demanding kickbacks to do business with the state." False distinction. "The criminal case against Rezko appears to center in part on his efforts to provide contributions to Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions. The federal investigation, dubbed Operation Board Game, produced allegations that Rezko and others sought to squeeze kickbacks from firms doing business before state boards. One oversees public schoolteacher pension investments. Another authorizes permits for hospitals."[44] Andyvphil (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with Obama? Nobody has suggested that Obama was in any way involved in any of those allegations. You're basically trying to a) establish a connection between the two (which does exist) and then b) list all of the allegations against Rezko in order to imply a connection between those allegations and Obama (which does NOT exist). This article is about Obama, not Rezko. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's actually a new claim that I hadn't heard of before (and I've read way too much on Rezko and the like). All of the press I've seen on Rezko seem to be more inline with this article by the Washington Post,[45] which indicates that Rezko's charges are related to getting kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with the state. At this point, there aren't any charges related to Rezko using his contributions to get Blagojevich to let him appoint people to boards and commissions. If you want, we can reword the political corruption to better reflect the actual charges if you'd like, but his political contributions are not one of the charges. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Rezko's contributions - it's the contributions he bundled that were in part extorted. And it is not true that no one has suggested that he probably did for Obama the same kind of thing he did for Blagovich. It's unreasonable to assert that he would be squeaky clean for Obama if he's willing to break the law for Blagovich. The only real question is what he got in return. We can't and shouldn't say that there is any proof that Rezko got anything back for putting Obama in his debt, but it is unacceptable not to mention that Obama is significantly in his debt and that he has a history of collecting on that kind of debt. Let the reader decide what he wants to believe. But don't withold the facts. Andyvphil (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fancy cats seems to favor reducing the number of details pertaining to the Rezko land swap, citing WP:RECENT. I have no idea what he means by that, and replacing concrete details of the incident (including the information that Obama hasn't been accused of anything illegal/unethical) with a vague, un-sourced allegation that the transaction was "ill-timed" seems improper. If you have an explanation for why mentioning the incident, but leaving out the details somehow better-complies with WP:RECENT, please let me know. johnpseudo 04:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, John, I agree that "ill-timed" is inappropriate, and that it's important to keep the sentence indicating that Obama has not been accused of breaking any laws or committing any ethics violations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just mean burdening the section with boilerplate about how he's NOT under investigation actually gives MORE weight to the issue than just not mentioning it at all. I mean, obviously if he was, it would get more than one sentence, so the whole bit strikes me as uneccessary and possibly redundant. I think there should only be one sentence no matter what. The details of rezko need to go on the rezko page. Its undue weight, on a BIO page, to give rezko more than the standard level of explanation- and considering he has yet to be convicted, I agree with others that it is a violation of wp:crystal to ascribe him too much weight. "Ill-timed" was simply an attempt to convey the controversy without assessing any blame, but I can see thats an argument for a different crowd... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

"Barack Obama was never a practitioner of the Muslim faith"
"NEVER a practitioner" - Is that 100% true? ^8thstar 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He NEVER prayed as a muslim? ^8thstar 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. See below. Andyvphil (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

—What, never? —No, never. —What, never? —Well, hardly ever. Hardly ever ever praised Allah...

While it's true that Barack Obama was never an active practitioner of the Muslim faith, it's possible that he may have bowed his head in a mosque a few times between the ages of 6 and 10. His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was not religious, but did occasionally attend mosque for community events, just as a non-religious American might occasionally attend a community event in a church. Young Barry sometimes tagged along with his friends when they went to the mosque on Friday, but that hardly makes him a Muslim — I sometimes went to synagogue with my Jewish friends when I was a kid, but I'm not Jewish.

So there's a tiny bit of wiggle room here — but not a lot. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can make any claims about the meaning of something done at the age of six. I don't even think that's wiggle room. I think its just OR mostly... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to different wording in that answer, but in the parlance that I've heard in regards to a "practitioner" of a faith it is for people that are more than attended a few times, it is used in reference to a person that is actually a follower of the faith. So a person that attends a religious ceremony a few times throughout their life would not be considered a "practitioner". Although, perhaps it should just be "Obama was never of follower of the Muslim faith", rather than a practitioner of the Muslim faith.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the wording "never a practitioner" is fine. 8thstar asked two questions. It's true by any reasonable definition of "practitioner" that Obama was never a practitioner of the Muslim faith. However, the second question (Did he ever pray as a Muslim?) is slightly more ambiguous, because there's a little wiggle room about what it means to "pray as a Muslim". When my 11-year-old self bowed my head and said the Sh'ma, you could say that I was "praying as a Jew". But I was never actually a Jew. I was a goy showing my respect, sympathy and interest in the Jewish faith. (There's a funny story connected with that, but it's even more irrelevant than this digression.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Obama was a "practitioner of the Muslim faith", but was probably not a believer at the time. His mother was a religious skeptic, and Obama was as well at a very young age. He tells in his autobiography of being required (despite being registered as a Muslim) to engage in Catholic prayer at his first elementary school, and of peeking around when he was supposed to be keeping his eyes closed and seeing no angels, with the clear implication that he thought it was just mumbo jumbo. In his second elementary school he received two hours of training a week in Muslim practice and Koranic recitation, and that includes actual prayer, as could be seen (briefly) in an ABC video of such a class at "Government Elementary School Number 4", showing all of the kids lined up on their prayer mats bobbing up and down, bowing in the direction of Mecca. So, at Mentang Besuki he was both a Muslim(enrolled as such), and practicing (engaging in the practica), but as far as I can tell no more a believer than he was at St. Francis Assisi. Also, he did not just tag along to Friday prayers with his friends, a Christian among the Muslims, going through the motions to show respect, as JRowe suggests, nor was his stepfather "not religious", another JRowe suggestion. The Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and San Francisco Examiner stories all reported that Obama's stepfather was a practicing, though not pious, Muslim. Indeed, Obama himself had written “Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths..."[46][47] His stepsister, Maya Soetoro, also confirmed that her father was a practicing Muslim, in the process of denying that he was a very observent one: "My father never went to prayer services except for big communal events. I am absolutely certain that he did not go to services every Friday."[48] Maybe not every Friday, but some Fridays. The Baltimore Sun wrote "childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque" and childhood acquaintance Zulfan Adi is quoted, "Sometimes, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo and Barry would walk to the makeshift mosque together... 'His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque,...'"[49]. Even the obscurantist Kim Barker, who reminds me of some of the pro-Obama editors here in her attempts to conceal facts, admits "In their first neighborhood, Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said."[50]

Bottom line: Saying Obama was never a practicing Muslim is misleading and controversial and shouldn't be in an unsigned FAQ. It's just not that simple. If you say it's mentioned that his father was a lapsed Muslim, that he's denied ever being a Muslim or (at least his campaign has denied) ever praying in a mosque (btw, he's also falsely said he was "always a Christian" and that his mother was "a Christian from Kansas", which indicates why this isn't dispositive), and that his connections to Islam while he was in Indonesia haven't so far been deemed sufficiently important to mention... that may be sufficiently uncontroversial for an unsigned FAQ. Andyvphil (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Since myself and several other editors believe this article is too POV the the tag should placed up top. I think this should be for the entire article since, while the effusive self-serving praise tends to be later in the article, the POV for the earlier sections are due omission. The only people who seem to think this article is fair and balanced are those who like Obama. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Wright issue was resolved. What else is there? Grsz11 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no no - YOU say the Wright issue is resolved. I disagree completely. Plus, this article has self-serving and unsubstantiated quotes of Obama all over the place (especially at the end) instead of relying on secondary sources. The state senate section omitts how he legally strong-arms all his opponents off the ballot. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The current paragraph on Wright was added by Andy. Grsz11 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am responsible for splitting the Wright material from the paragraph that preceeds it, but I am not responsible for the "current paragraph" as of 20:15 on 4 April, which I describe in the section below, "Nonsense". Andyvphil (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice the new section - it should be linked in the contents as a section of his presidential campaign. Nevertheless, my other points still stand until they are also resolved. Mainly, the overuse of self-serving quotes needs to be drastically cut down. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should the Wright affair have a sub-section header? It was an important event in the campaign, but I'm not clear on why it should be considered more important than, say, Obama's victories in Iowa or Super Tuesday. Putting a sub-section header on the Wright business would be recentism. Indeed, it seems to me to be a case of exactly the kind of thing noted in the list of examples: "A political candidate's biography article may become bloated with specific details related to a particular election season despite that politician having a career outside that election." I have no serious problem with the Wright section as it now stands (save the small quibble below), but I would oppose an effort to give it its own header. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm letting my bias guide me too much in this matter. Seems like it should be in a seperate criticism section, since this article has an "honors and awards" section - which includes some ridiculous praise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Small quibble

While on the whole I think that the current version of the Wright paragraph is fine, I have a small quibble with one clause: "...including suggesting the U.S. bore some responsibility for the September 11 attacks due to its support of "terrorism"..." It's true that the Jeremiah Wright sermons (or at least the clips from them played incessantly on Fox News) have been widely interpreted as saying that, but I'm not sure that interpretation is either neutral or accurate. It depends on your interpretation of the proverb "chickens coming home to roost". The alternative reading is that Wright was merely pointing out that as terrible as the September 11 attacks were, America has also done terrible things, so we should not feel that our newfound status as victims of violence gives us any moral superiority. This is not the same as saying that America bears responsibility for the attacks — it's saying that while we were victims of attacks on September 11, we have also been the perpetrators of attacks in the past.

Now, I'm not saying that I support this reading of Wright's remarks, but I have seen it made in reliable sources. (I'll try to find them later, although it may be tomorrow before I get the chance.) My point is that the current phrasing is not entirely neutral, and we should try to find another wording which better reflects the ambiguity of interpretation of Wright's "chickens". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying - I think it has been a general pattern of his defense to say that we don't understand the "context." However, the context never seems to be adequately explained, it is like simply using the magic word "context" suddenly makes everything okay. If you want I wouldn't be opposed to a proper modification that perhaps quoted him, as saying that 9/11 was a result of the US's "chicken's coming home to roost."TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more than one conclusion can be drawn from Wright's words, and it is not for Wikipedia to try to interpret which. I believe that the only way around it is to include references to the other interpretations as well. Since this will burden the article with unnecessary detail, it may be better to avoid that particular comment completely and pick an alternative, less ambiguous comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an attempt at whitewash to me. The comment is fine, and can be easily interpreted, however, anyone can give excuses for anything someone says. Maybe in Britain they don't have the phrase about "chickens coming home to roost" - but it quite clear what he meant to me and to most other Americans. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not well-versed in such phrases, but I do know it appeared in Chaucer in the 14th century. It may even have been used earlier than that, but it certain predates your colony. My suggestion of substitution was more about the difficulty of interpreting Wright's meaning, and not about interpreting the phrase itself. Just because you say it is okay does not make it so. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure my "colony" has significantly changed the usage since the 14th century. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we just quote what was said and let the reader make their own judgement. Arkon (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, and while I don't think small quotations are bad, I think this article tends to rely on them too much. Ideally, secondary sources should be used instead of his actual speechs. Plus, if we start quoting him, then some people will say the quotes are too small to show the "context," while others, like myself, will think the quotes are too big. This information should be communicated, but it should be done professionally and succinctly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

well our colony sure has its share of turkeys and their roosts, if nothing else. again I argue this is a perfect example of WTA- which recommends use of summary language instead of actual quotes, in the case of inflammatory or biased language. And I agree there are several interpretations possible and WP cannot be in the position of presenting one over the other. So we need to find consensus on a short summary version, if people think its important enough and does not violate undue weight. Because the Wright quote is in fact based on a quote from someone else (Peck). So again direct inclusion of the quote is looking pretty tricky because of all these misinterpretive possibilities/ 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in theory, I don't think we should include fringe "interpretations" of his speech. Also, just to clarify, while what he said was based on a quotation of Peck, it is clear from watching the speech, that he made those words entirely his own. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording is in response to Andy's complaints in the section a couple up. Granted, he may be back once the 24 hours are up to put his preferred version back into the article, but I was hoping to get a more neutral version into the article that would placate him. There may be multiple interpretations that one can make about Wright's comments in regards to 9/11 (particularly since he was quoting someone), but we're bound by WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR to only include interpretations that have been made by a reliable source and except for one minor source, I haven't seen anyone making an interpretation other than Wright was saying that the US was partially responsible for bringing the attack upon itself... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found the source I was thinking of yet, but I did find this article from Salon which said:

But if Wright's "chickens" sermon was unpleasant, the fact is that it was also largely right. He had the bad taste, and the courage, to say exactly what America did not want to hear at that moment. He said that although those who were murdered by terrorists were innocent, America itself was far from innocent. He placed 9/11 in a historical context, instead of pretending that it emerged out of nowhere. Critically, he said that lashing out in vengeful anger, however tempting, was not a wise or just response. To make this point, he used the Bible against itself, citing the terrible Verse 9 of Psalm 137, in which David, speaking in imagination to his Babylonian captors, gives voice to his people's desire for vengeance: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." This path, Wright pointed out, had biblical sanction. But it was not the right one.

However, that article also characterizes Wright's position as saying that "U.S. actions were partly responsible for the attacks", so that would support the current wording. I'll keep looking to find the article I was thinking of. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me give another quote from the same Salon/Gary Kamiya article:

This isn't a brief for Wright. I'm not a fan of Sharpton-style black demagoguery, with its knee-jerk grievance and identity politics. I don't know Wright's political philosophy or racial views well enough to place him on the vast spectrum of black leaders. Based on the few clips I've seen and the excerpts I've read, Wright certainly has his shortcomings. His preaching can be over-the-top, crude and ludicrous. His assertion that the U.S. government spread AIDS in the black population is a caricature of paranoid black demagoguery. In his "chickens coming home to roost" sermon, when he thundered that America's sins were being revisited upon us, he failed to make the essential distinction between saying U.S. actions were partly responsible for the attacks and saying that we deserved the attacks. At times his aggressive, almost gloating tone and delivery made it seem like that's exactly what he was saying.

Now, Kamiya does go on to prove how out of touch he is by saying "...America would have been better off if his uncomfortable sermon had echoed through every church in the country after 9/11...". Most Americans rightly think that if some group kills 3,000 of their countrymen the first order of business is to kill them rather than to worry about whether they have genuine grievances, still less to suggest that American "terrorism" against Indian tribes, Grenada, Panama, Khadaffi, Japan, Palestinians and South Africa is somehow the first thing that should be on our minds. The point is that Obama is in trouble over Wright because Wright comes off as a "Sharpton-style, paranoid, black demagogue" who is "over-the-top, crude and ludicrous", not just someone who makes "charged" sermons. If we don't convey that truth we're just not doing our job. Andyvphil (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

I object to the FAQ being removed from this talk page without discussion, and then removed again after it was reverted. No one is prevented from commenting here on talk, but it is unreasonable and unnecessary to expect the editors to write up responses to the same questions asked over and over again, when answers can be pointed to in a FAQ. Tvoz |talk 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. FAQ's are not at all uncommon in articles that get a lot of traffic (there is also one on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, among many others. It was removed unilaterally by one editor without discussion, and has since been restored. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Political Advocacy

This section includes several examples of his "advocacy" which are really just campaign speeches. This is pretty obvious for the ones cited in late '07 and if you look at those sources then it becomes glaringly apparent.

These campaign speeches should be removed from the political advocacy section or moved to the presidential campaign section.

"Meeting with Google employees in November 2007, Obama pledged to appoint a Chief Technology Officer to oversee the U.S. government's management of IT resources and promote wider access to government information and decision making.[115] Reaffirming his commitment to net neutrality legislation, Obama said "once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose."[116] Campaigning in New Hampshire, he announced an $18 billion plan for investments in early childhood education, math and science education, and expanded summer learning opportunities.[117] Obama's campaign distinguished his proposals to reward teachers for performance from traditional merit pay systems, assuring unions that changes would be pursued through the collective bargaining process.[118]"

"At the Tax Policy Center in September 2007, he blamed special interests for distorting the U.S. tax code. "We are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," Obama said. "We've lost the balance between work and wealth."[119] His plan would eliminate taxes for senior citizens with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, repeal tax cuts said to favor the wealthy, close corporate tax loopholes and restrict offshore tax havens, and simplify filing of income tax returns by pre-filling wage and bank information already collected by the IRS.[120] Announcing his presidential campaign's energy plan in October 2007, Obama said: "Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution." He proposed a cap and trade auction system to restrict carbon emissions and a ten-year program of investments in new energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.[121]"

"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."[132] Detailing his strategy for fighting global terrorism in August 2007, Obama said "it was a terrible mistake to fail to act" against a 2005 meeting of al-Qaeda leaders that U.S. intelligence had confirmed to be taking place in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. He said that as president he would not miss a similar opportunity, even without the support of the Pakistani government"

Again, his "political advocacy" should be evidenced by more than mere campaign speeches.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it make any difference if the section were titled "Political positions", as its daughter article is?

(Incidentally, I think the bit about appointing a chief technology officer and net neutrality can be moved to the daughter article — they're not the issues that are getting the top coverage.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sudanese Divestment - Poor sources and misrepresentation

"In a December 2005 Washington Post opinion column, and at the Save Darfur rally in April 2006, Obama called for more assertive action to oppose genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.[132] He has divested $180,000 in personal holdings of Sudan-related stock, and has urged divestment from companies doing business in Iran.[133] In the July-August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Obama called for an outward looking post-Iraq War foreign policy and the renewal of American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership in the world. Saying "we can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission," he called on Americans to "lead the world, by deed and by example."[134]"

I removed this entire section for two reasons. The first is that all of the sources, except one, are directly authored by Barack Obama (should use secondary not primary sources). Second, the highlighted sentence gives the impression that he urged people to divest from Sudan-related stocks in some sort of leadership position - this is not shown anywhere in the source and in fact he was not the first presidential candidate to do so. The cited source actually is two sources, one independent and one from Barack Obama himself - the self-authored one implies he urged divestment from Iranian sources but doesn't mention Sudan at all. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Review consensus: This is a hagiography

Featured Article review is here. The consensus in this FAR is that in order to keep FA status, the article must be transformed from a hagiography into a true biography, that shows the flaws in Obama that his supporters are trying to hide. Josiah Rowe has agreed that quotes from Obama's critics should be included: "Rather than removing encyclopedic material about Obama using his own words, it's more productive to focus on adding encyclopedic material covering the viewpoints of notable critics."

So my message to the Obama supporters is this: when you see one of us adding a quotation from a notable critic, or a mention of one of Obama's less than storybook-perfect associates such a Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright, please don't exercise your usual revert reflex. We are not trying to attack Obama or tear him down. We are trying to restore NPOV to this article and serve the interests of the Wikipedia project, rather than the Obama campaign, with this article. This is a last-ditch effort to preserve Featured Article status, which will be lost unless it achieves NPOV, and I encourage you to support this effort. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

intl opinion

Mr. Obama's aggressive stance in considering the invasion of Pakistan and sending more troops to Afganistan should be added to his Senate career section. Go get 'em, Obama. 122.164.121.238 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)