Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
remove the completely pointless empty comments between header templates again, and de-smallise the FAQ (which was, in small mode, about 80 pages long)
Beary605 (talk | contribs)
37 edits
←Replaced content with 'barrack obama is and excellent peson. breast'
Line 1: Line 1:
barrack obama is and excellent peson. breast
{{skiptotoctalk}}<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG-SMALLER SCREEN LAPTOPS NEED IT TO NAVIGATE -->
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC|action1date=August 5, 2004|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama|action1result=Promoted|action1oldid=5297601
|maindate=August 18, 2004
|action2=FAR|action2date=09:53, 23 January 2007|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1|action2result=pass|action2oldid=102622704
|action3=FAR|action3date=22:24, July 26, 2007|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2|action3result=pass|action3oldid=147098144
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=
{{WPBiography|class=FA|priority=high|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Obama, Barack|nested=yes}}
{{Project Congress|class=FA|subject=person|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Hawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg|nested=yes}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=FA|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Columbia University|class=FA|nested=yes}}
{{WPCD-People|class=FA|nested=yes}}
{{Project afro|class=FA|importance=low|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
}}
{{FAQ}}
{{pressmulti|small=yes|collapsed=yes
| title = On Wikipedia, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet
| author = Jose Antonio Vargas
| date = 2007-09-17
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html
| org = The Washington Post
| section = September
| title2 = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
| author2 = [[Alison Stewart]], Rachel Martin
| date2 = 2008-04-03
| url2 = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
| org2 = [[The Bryant Park Project]], NPR
| title3 = Editors in Chief
| author3 = [[Brooke Gladstone]], [[Bob Garfield]]
| date3 = 2008-04-04
| url3 = http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/04/04/02
| org3 = [[On The Media]], NPR
| title4 = Wiki Woman
| author4 = Eve Fairbanks
| date4 = 2008-04-09
| url4 = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f0c6aa3-3028-4ca4-a3b9-a053716ee53d&p=1
| org4 = The New Republic
| section4 = March
| title5= Hillary's Wiki Defender
| author5 = Jesse Brown
| date5= 2008-04-10
| url5=http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/04/this_weeks_show_april_1008.html
| org5= [[Search Engine (radio show)|Search Engine]], [[CBC Radio One]]
| title6= Wikipedia Wars
| author6 = [[Tom Foreman]]
| date6= 2008-04-12
| url6= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
| org6= [[This Week...]], [[CNN]]
| title7= Liberal Web
| author7 = [[John J. Miller]]
| date7= 2008-04
| url7=http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWM4Nzc3ODk3NDQxYWYyMjMzZjQ3NzEzM2JkMzM1OTk=
| org7= [[National Review]]
| section7=April 2008
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 17
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Barack Obama/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{messagebox|small=yes
| text = A '''[[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3|third Featured Article Review]]''' was commenced on this article on [[2008-03-26]]. It was closed without a specific result on [[2008-04-15]]. [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Obama FAR|Discussion]] is ongoing as to the result of the FAR.
}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=5|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot I|small=yes}}
{{TOClimit|limit=4}} <!-- PLEASE LEAVE THIS AS LIMIT=4; 2 IS TOO SMALL -->

== 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:

<blockquote>As an associate [[lawyer|attorney]] with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, [[employment discrimination law in the United States|discrimination]] claims, and [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]] cases.<ref>{{cite news | title=Law Graduate Obama Got His Start in Civil Rights Practice | date=[[February 19]] [[2007]] | publisher=International Herald Tribune | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/20/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Attorney-at-Law.php | work=Associated Press | accessdate=2008-01-04}}</ref></blockquote>

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:

<blockquote>As an associate [[lawyer|attorney]] with Miner Barnhill & Galland (fka Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, founded by attorney Allison Davis) from 1993 to 2003, he represented community organizers, [[employment discrimination law in the United States|discrimination]] claims, and [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]] cases.<ref>{{cite news | title=Law Graduate Obama Got His Start in Civil Rights Practice | date=[[February 19]] [[2007]] | publisher=''International Herald Tribune'' | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/20/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Attorney-at-Law.php | work=Associated Press | accessdate=2008-01-04}}</ref> While at the firm, Obama also worked on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp.<ref>{{cite news | title=Obama and his Rezko ties | date=[[April 23]] [[2007]] | publisher=''Chicago Sun-Times'' | url=http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article | work=Associated Press | accessdate=2008-03-30}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844634,obamasun031508.article | title=Obama explains Rezko relationship to Sun-Times | work=Chicago Sun-Times | author=Chris Fusco | coauthors=David McKinney, Tim Novak, and Abdon M. Pallasch | date=[[March 16]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-16}}</ref></blockquote>

{{details|Tony Rezko}}

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

This source[http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article] gives the firm's name as "Davis Miner Barnhill" (Davis, no commas, no Galland). As you say, Davis was important and I don't see any need to note subsequent name changes inline. Maybe a footnote. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 04:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

===Comments===
Interesting. What happened to the "slumlords" bit? [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
<br><small>(excuse me for refactoring this after and edit conflict -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC))</small>

:<del>The name of the law firm certainly needs to be corrected.</del> 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''. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.lawmbg.com/ 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. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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:
:::::::<blockquote>As an associate [[lawyer|attorney]] with Miner, Barnhill and Galland (fka ''Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland'') from 1993 to 2003, he represented community organizers, [[employment discrimination law in the United States|discrimination]] claims, and [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]] cases.<ref>{{cite news | title=Law Graduate Obama Got His Start in Civil Rights Practice | date=[[February 19]] [[2007]] | publisher=''International Herald Tribune'' | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/20/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Attorney-at-Law.php | work=Associated Press | accessdate=2008-01-04}}</ref> While at the firm, Obama also worked on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp.<ref>{{cite news | title=Obama and his Rezko ties | date=[[April 23]] [[2007]] | publisher=''Chicago Sun-Times'' | url=http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article | work=Associated Press | accessdate=2008-03-30}}</ref> owned by Daniel Mahru and Democratic Party fundraiser [[Tony Rezko]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844634,obamasun031508.article | title=Obama explains Rezko relationship to Sun-Times | work=Chicago Sun-Times | author=Chris Fusco | coauthors=David McKinney, Tim Novak, and Abdon M. Pallasch | date=[[March 16]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-16}}</ref></blockquote>
:::::::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. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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) [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk:72.0.180.2|talk]]) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::Could you point those out? '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="gold">11</font></b>]]''' 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. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 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. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
::None of his other clients have been indicted for political fundraising abuses. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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). --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 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 [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Obama+Rezko&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&scoring=n] are 4,556 Google news links between Obama and Rezko. Here [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&scoring=n&q=Obama+Rezko+trial&btnG=Search+News] are 3,831 Google news links between Obama and '''''the trial''''' of Rezko. If Rezko were merely controversial, he wouldn't be on trial. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 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) [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 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. [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk: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. [http://www.countercurrents.org/pringle280308.htm] 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. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Scjessey|Simon Jessey]] comments on the [[Talk:Barack Obama|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. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Here's an interesting tidbit. Obama admits that he brought the lot, which had been on the market for months, to the attention of Rezko when he asked Rezko for advice about buying the property. But the seller's broker remembers it differently. "Asked who approached her about the house, Schwan told Salon, 'I honestly don't remember. '''Tony Rezko lived across the street''', so ''he'd been interested'' in the lot.'" [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/print.html]. Obama moved in '''across the street''' from Rezko????? I mean, I assume it's not ''literally'' true, but how far from it? I think we have the intersection for Obama - anybody got Rezko's address? (nb: 72etc. This is OR. It's ok. We can't cite it, but we can use it to decide how hard we look for the significance of a quote we find in a RS.) [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 16:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT PERSONAL ADDRESSES ARE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A BLP VIOLATION ON TALK OR ANYWHERE ELSE. quit with the talk page spam andy like you have been told five times already at least. [[User:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats|talk]]) 06:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

== NPOV regarding Obama's church beliefs, etc. ==

It is sad that biased POV is preventing proper desciptions and understanding of Candidate Obama's religious beliefs, in regard to his association to [[Rev. Wright]], and his ethno-centric theology. Candidate Obama's church emphasis on [[Black liberation theology]], and the themes of [[Social justice]], "Praxis" (see [[Praxis school]]), and [[Precarity]] are significant. Also, the obvious links and historical roots of [[Marxism]], [[Liberation theology]], and Black liberation theology should be included. This is significant even without mentioning the current importance of [[Jeremiah Wright]] as mentor, Pastor, and friend to the large church congregation which includes Presidential Candidate Obama's family. The historical record should be clearly spelled out regarding these concepts and relationships. It would be best for all of us, for educational purposes if nothing else, to attempt NPOV and objectivity regarding these subjects. [[User:Dr. B. R. Lang|Dr. B. R. Lang]] ([[User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang|talk]]) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:You'll note that this article is about Barack Obama, and not a church's belief. Thank you. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::Indeed, the article is about Barack Obama, who has been a member of his church for twenty years. Barach and Michelle were married, and their daughters were baptized by [[Rev. Wright]]. This subject and it's ramifications are significant parts of Candidate Obama's bio. [[User:Dr. B. R. Lang|Dr. B. R. Lang]] ([[User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang|talk]]) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, he went to the church. But the details of his church, many of which you don't seem to understand, are ''not'' important in the sense of a biography of his ''entire'' life. Please see [[WP:BLP]] for policy regarding biographies of living persons. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama addresses this issue in his autobiography "Dreams of my Father" on book Page 293 (paperback edition):

'' '[T]he pastor (Jeremiah Wright) described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope.''

'' 'The painting depicts a harpist,' Reverend Wright explained, 'a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.''

'' It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, '''where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world!''' On which hope sits.' ''

'' And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House.' ... [E.A.]'' [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama has said his faith is very important to hims (I can get sources if you need them), he went to the church for twenty years and he named a book after one of Wrights sermons. Obama's faith according to him, is an important part of who he is and therefore should be included. [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

== Wright compromise at last? ==

It seems that we may, ''finally'' have reached a compromise over the wording in the paragraph concerning Jeremiah Wright. Let me summarize the three positions:
;'''"Pro-Obama" text''': In March 2008, a [[Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Rev._Jeremiah_Wright_controversy|controversy]] broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor [[Jeremiah Wright]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 | title=Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 | author=Brian Ross | publisher=''[[ABC News]]'' | date=[[March 13]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-17}}</ref><ref>Andrew Sullivan. [http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html For The Record] ''The Atlantic: The Daily Dish'', [[March 16]] [[2008]]. Retrieved on [[2008-03-18]]</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p25s01-uspo.html | title=Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union' | author=Barack Obama | work=The Christian Science Monitor | date=[[March 18]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-18}}</ref>
;'''"Anti-Obama" text''': Also in March, a [[Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Rev._Jeremiah_Wright_controversy|controversy]] broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, [[Jeremiah Wright]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 | title=Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 | author=Brian Ross | publisher=''[[ABC News]]'' | date=[[March 13]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-17}}</ref><ref>Andrew Sullivan. [http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html For The Record] ''The Atlantic: The Daily Dish'', [[March 16]] [[2008]]. Retrieved on [[2008-03-18]]</ref> Videos surfaced of some of Wright's sermons (in which he claimed, for example, that the [[AIDS origin theories|government invented]] the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2186860/|title=The AIDS Conspiracy Handbook|accessdate=2008-04-05|publisher=Slate.com|author=Lapidos, Juliet|date=March 19, 2008}}</ref> 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).<ref>{{cite news | url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/obamas-spiritual-adviser-questioned-us-role-in-spread-of-hiv-sept-11-attacks/ | title=Obama’s Pastor’s Sermon: ‘God Damn America’ | publisher=FOXNews | author=Jeff Goldblatt | date=[[March 14]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-04-04}}</ref><ref>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/</ref> Following negative media coverage and a drop in the polls,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3591359.ece|title=Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright|date=March 21, 2008|accessdate=2008-04-05|work=Times Newspapers, Ltd|author=Reid, Tim}}</ref> Obama responded by condemning some of Wright's remarks and cutting Wright's connections to his Presidential campaign. He also delivered [[A More Perfect Union| a speech]] devoted to the subject, which he sought to put it in the context of racial and other political divides in America.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p25s01-uspo.html | title=Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union' | author=Barack Obama | work=The Christian Science Monitor | date=[[March 18]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-18}}</ref><ref name="apracespeech">{{cite news | url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRloD01UY7O-mlm7HkoTEgFcoPJgD8VG3E500 | title= Obama confronts racial division | date=[[March 18]], [[2008]] | work=The Associated Press | author=Nedra Pickler, Matt Apuzzo | accessdate=2008-04-06}}</ref> Although the speech was generally well-received,<ref name="apracespeech" /><ref>{{cite news |title=Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html |publisher=The New York Times |date=2008-03-19 |accessdate=2008-03-19}}</ref> critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23743408/ | title=Obama's minister's remarks won't fade | date=[[March 21]], [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-26 | work=The Associated Press}}</ref><ref name=tpC20080318>{{cite news | title=Obama's racial problems transcend Wright | date=[[March 18]] [[2008]] | url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9111.html | work=The Politico | accessdate=2008-03-18}}</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</ref>
;'''Compromise text''': In March 2008, a [[Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy|controversy]] broke out concerning Obama's longterm relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, [[Jeremiah Wright]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 | title=Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 | author=Brian Ross | publisher=''[[ABC News]]'' | date=[[March 13]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-17}}</ref><ref>Andrew Sullivan. [http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html For The Record] ''The Atlantic: The Daily Dish'', [[March 16]] [[2008]]. Retrieved on [[2008-03-18]]</ref> ABC News found several racially and politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright, a former member of the US Marines and Navy, including his suggestion that the U.S. bore some responsibility for the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11 attacks]] due to past policies, and his questioning of the [[AIDS conspiracy theories|government's role in the spread of AIDS]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/obamas-spiritual-adviser-questioned-us-role-in-spread-of-hiv-sept-11-attacks/ | title=Obama’s Pastor’s Sermon: ‘God Damn America’ | publisher=FOXNews | author=Jeff Goldblatt | date=[[March 14]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-04-04}}</ref> Some of Wright's statements were widely interpreted as anti-American, though one report found precedents in an essay by [[Fredrick Douglass]].<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/07/080407fa_fact_sanneh | title = Project Trinity | work = The New Yorker | accessdate = 2008-04-08}}</ref> Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3591359.ece|title=Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright|date=March 21, 2008|accessdate=2008-04-05|work=Times Newspapers, Ltd|author=Reid, Tim}}</ref> Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "[[A More Perfect Union]]" at the Constitution Center in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p25s01-uspo.html | title=Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union' | author=Barack Obama | work=The Christian Science Monitor | date=[[March 18]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-18}}</ref> In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but refused to disown the man himself.<ref name="apracespeech">{{cite news | url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRloD01UY7O-mlm7HkoTEgFcoPJgD8VG3E500 | title= Obama confronts racial division | date=[[March 18]], [[2008]] | work=The Associated Press | author=Nedra Pickler, Matt Apuzzo | accessdate=2008-04-06}}</ref> Although the speech, which attempted to explain and contextualize the comments, was generally well-received,<ref name="apracespeech" /><ref>{{cite news |title=Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html |publisher=The New York Times |date=2008-03-19 |accessdate=2008-03-19}}</ref> some continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23743408/ | title=Obama's minister's remarks won't fade | date=[[March 21]], [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-26 | work=The Associated Press}}</ref><ref name=tpC20080318>{{cite news | title=Obama's racial problems transcend Wright | date=[[March 18]] [[2008]] | url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9111.html | work=The Politico | accessdate=2008-03-18}}</ref>
Have we now reached a satisfactory compromise that means we can put this issue to bed (unless it flares up again with new revelations, etc.) and move on to other things? -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:I may have spoken too soon (see above) -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::also even though the redirect works fine- frederick douglass is the proper spelling... if we end up keeping... [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk:72.0.180.2|talk]]) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:I think it should be mentioned that Obama went to this guy's church for 20 years.[[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, thank you. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::The "compromise" is an improvement, but is in one respect completely unacceptable. Wright didn't engage in "questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS". Yes, the anonymous FOXNews writer (not Goldblatt despite the template, which needs to be fixed -- Goldblatt merely "contributed") wrote "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." but supplies the quote he's referring to: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.” Wright isn't "questioning" anything. He makes an assertion. Twice. And it's about the invention, not the spread. Hard to understand how FOX got it so wrong, but we don't have to repeat it. The source for the Douglass reference, e.g., says: "...he has a weakness for theories that match his sense of outrage but not the facts, as when he repeated the popular conspiracy theory that “the government lied about inventing the H.I.V. virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”"[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/07/080407fa_fact_sanneh?currentPage=all] ((...and the msnbc.com reference says "Wright can be heard arguing"(sic; another RS falsehood)"that HIV-AIDS was a U.S. government plot to wipe out 'people of color'".[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23743408/]))
:::Speaking of the Douglass reference, it is based on this, by [[Kelefa Sanneh]]: <blockquote>Frederick Douglass, in an appendix to his “Narrative,” earnestly assures readers that he is not an atheist, then redoubles his attack on the theology of slaveholding America: “Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked.” (Or, rendered into cable-news crawl: “CONTROVERSIAL MEMOIRIST ATTACKS RELIGION. DOUGLASS: AMERICAN VALUES ‘WICKED.’ ”)</blockquote>
:::...which is a pretty weak reed with which to support "one report found precedents(sic) in an essay by Fredrick Douglass". It's only in Sanneh's mind that Douglass' comment about the Christianity of the white churches of the South (given what he - unlike Sanneh apparently - knew about the evangelical roots of abolitionism I cannot credit the notion that Douglass was speaking about ''all'' of America when he says "this land") has some meaningful parallel with Wright's ravings. "DOUGLASS: AMERICAN VALUES ‘WICKED.’" is false in a way in which "WRIGHT: 9/11 AMERICA'S FAULT" isn't.
:::And the business about Wright's military service, presumably inserted to offset the suggestion that Wright's remarks were "anti-American", really looks odd. It's questionable logic (there are other reasons to join the military than patriotism -- FancyCat's original RS says "But disenchanted by what he felt was an inadequate Christian response to the civil rights movement, he abruptly ended his pastoral pursuits and joined the U.S. Navy",[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-070121-relig_wright,1,271630.story] which is not like marching down to the recruiting office after 9/11), and the charge it answers is equally non-specific (most blame-America-firsters claim a patriotic loyalty to some vision of America). Note that there's nothing in the "anti-Obama" text about "anti-Americanism". One nice thing about a quote is it lets the reader supply the characterizations, so we don't have to argue about them.
:::But I've left both Douglass and the Navy in. Bad writing, but off my main point, which is that this recitation of this first storm over Wright be told in such a way as to not obscure why Wright is a problem for Obama. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Thanks for rejoining the conversation in a civil and productive manner, Andy. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:I have added the quote from the ''New York Times'' and a section header. It would be nice to have at least one quote in this article from someone who isn't singing hallelujah about Obama in four-part harmony. I hope the ''New York Times'' is sufficiently notable and reliable. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk:Kossack4Truth|talk]]) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::This sort of sarcasm and uncooperative attitude is '''not''' helpful, Kossack. Most of the editors here are trying to reach a compromise wording for the paragraph (and there does seem to be a real consensus that Wright deserves only one paragraph, and no section heading). Ignoring the discussion and jumping in with sarcastic remarks is disruptive. Try harder to remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::Well that's just '''''awesome'''''. You two have all but completely ignored the discussion and put your ''totally'' '''non-neutral''' wording back into the article without even paying lip service to consensus-building or anything difficult like that. Kossack's ''pathetic'' excuse was that the article sounded too positive, so he added all this negative stuff, in direct violation of Wikipedia policies, just to make it ''sound'' more negative. Everyone is trying ''really'' hard to make this work except you two, and I am now considering lending my support to mediation because anyone ''in their right mind'' will see your edits for what they truly are - a coordinated smear campaign designed to introduce negative bias to influence the democratic process. I'm so ''incensed'' by this that I'm going to turn my computer off for a few hours and find some inanimate object to destroy or something. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I think its time for you to take a few steps back. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Scjessey, I understand your frustration, but Arkon is right — reacting emotionally isn't going to help us get anywhere. As it happens, I think that Andy actually is trying to work with other editors here. Kossack's addition was less cooperative and less respectful of the consensus-building process, but it's not helpful to lump Andy and Kossack together. Let's all try to [[WP:COOL|remain cool]], OK? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

===How to reach NPOV===
I think that some participants on both sides of this debate are trying to reach NPOV in a way that's unproductive. If the overall tone or wording of a summary seems biased in one direction or another, you're trying to balance the text by adding a positive or negative statement as a sort of counterweight. Scjessey and 72 want mention of Jeremiah Wright's military service and the Frederick Douglass comparison as a counterbalance to the accusations of anti-Americanism. Kossack wants details of how Obama's support has softened in some quarters as a counterbalance to the article being in his view "too fluffy and sweet". Both are using the same horse-trading approach, which is not how NPOV is supposed to work. If we approach this like we're haggling in the marketplace, adding a negative for a positive and a positive for a negative, we're going to end up with excessive detail that violates [[WP:WEIGHT]].

Instead, let's try to work together to find a succinct wording which acknowledges all the important elements of the controversy, describing it accurately without indicating who's right or wrong. (Or Wright.) I know that's not easy, but that's why I think that mediation would be helpful. I'm rather disappointed that Andy and Kossack haven't addressed the call for mediation above — if you really want to reach a neutrally worded version of the article, mediation is the way to go. But if you're just going to push for ''your'' version of the article, we're not going to get anywhere. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

====New attempt by Josiah====
I've tweaked the Wright paragraph yet again, trying to bring in elements from contributors with different perspectives. I don't know how successful I've been, and on reflection I probably should have worked this out here on the talk page rather than in the live article, but I'd like opinions on this version from the editors who've been most vocal and active. Does this cover the important angles neutrally and fairly, and with appropriate weight?

:In March 2008, a [[Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy|controversy]] broke out concerning Obama's longterm relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, [[Jeremiah Wright]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 | title=Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 | author=Brian Ross | publisher=''[[ABC News]]'' | date=[[March 13]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-17}}</ref><ref>Andrew Sullivan. [http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html For The Record] ''The Atlantic: The Daily Dish'', [[March 16]] [[2008]]. Retrieved on [[2008-03-18]]</ref> ABC News found and excerpted racially and politically charged [[soundbite]]s from sermons by Rev. Wright, including his suggestion that past U.S. policies were partially responsible for the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11 attacks]] and his assertion that "[t]he government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/obamas-spiritual-adviser-questioned-us-role-in-spread-of-hiv-sept-11-attacks/ | title=Obama’s Pastor’s Sermon: ‘God Damn America’ | publisher=FOXNews | author=Jeff Goldblatt | date=[[March 14]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-04-04}}</ref> Some of Wright's statements were widely criticized as anti-American.<ref name="usatoday">{{cite news |first=Ken |last=Dilanian |title=Defenders say Wright has love, righteous anger for USA |url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-18-obamawright_N.htm |work=[[USA Today]] |date=2008-03-18 |accessdate=2008-04-02 }}</ref><ref name="adubato-msnbc">{{cite news|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23745283/|title=Obama's reaction to Wright too little, too late|publisher=MSNBC|date=March 21, 2008|author=Adubato, Steve}}</ref> Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3591359.ece|title=Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright|date=March 21, 2008|accessdate=2008-04-05|work=Times Newspapers, Ltd|author=Reid, Tim}}</ref> Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "[[A More Perfect Union]]" at the Constitution Center in [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p25s01-uspo.html | title=Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union' | author=Barack Obama | work=The Christian Science Monitor | date=[[March 18]] [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-18}}</ref> In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine.<ref name="apracespeech">{{cite news | url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRloD01UY7O-mlm7HkoTEgFcoPJgD8VG3E500 | title= Obama confronts racial division | date=[[March 18]], [[2008]] | work=The Associated Press | author=Nedra Pickler, Matt Apuzzo | accessdate=2008-04-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Peggy |last=Noonan |authorlink=Peggy Noonan |title=A Thinking Man's Speech |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120604775960652829.html?mod=googlenews_wsj |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=2008-03-21 |accessdate=2008-04-11 }}</ref> Although the speech, which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was generally well-received,<ref name="apracespeech" /><ref>{{cite news |title=Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html |publisher=The New York Times |date=2008-03-19 |accessdate=2008-03-19}}</ref> critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23743408/ | title=Obama's minister's remarks won't fade | date=[[March 21]], [[2008]] | accessdate=2008-03-26 | work=The Associated Press}}</ref><ref name=tpC20080318>{{cite news | title=Obama's racial problems transcend Wright | date=[[March 18]] [[2008]] | url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9111.html | work=The Politico | accessdate=2008-03-18}}</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</ref>

I've moved the bit about Wright's military service to the sentence about "A More Perfect Union", because that's where it was first mentioned in the mainstream coverage; I also added mention of his service to the poor, which Obama also mentioned in the speech. By the way, it's cited to commentary by conservative commentator and former Reagan speechwriter [[Peggy Noonan]], who's not exactly an Obamabot.

I'd like to hear from as many regular contributors as possible about this version of the paragraph. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:Hmmm, question on the wording of the ABC News sentence.. Were the entire sermons racially and politically charged, or were just the excerpts that ABC News found? I haven't seen the speeches myself and haven't followed the whole controversy very closely, but I seem to remember that Wright's supporters were complaining that the excerpts and comments like them were just a small part of a fraction of Wright's sermons. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::Good point. I've changed "soundbites from racially and politically charged sermons" to "racially and politically charged soundbites from sermons". —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:I like it. It explains, in a very general nutshell, what happened: the media found these clips and played them; Obama temporarily dropped in the polls; Wright was cut off from the camp; he delivered a speech regarding race because of the controversy, where he denounced the comments but did not disown the pastor and tried to place the remarks in historical context; the speech was generally well received, but questions about his relationship with Wright still remain. I think it places a correct amount of weight in every aspect of the controversy. Good job Josiah. --[[User:Happyme22|Happyme22]] ([[User_talk:Happyme22|talk]]) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::To me, the word "critics" sounds a little weasely. It sort of implies that the only people who still have a problem with Obama/Wright are people who would be critical of Obama regardless of what he did. That may be the case, but it's better to try to be as specific as possible about who is still pressing those questions. [[User:Johnpseudo|'''johnpseudo''']] 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Okay.. You didn't just see that edit I made. *whistles innocently* Totally misread your comment. What do you mean by "specific as possible about who is still pressing those questions"? I don't think there is any specific category of people that is pressing the issue that can be distilled into a one or two word grouping. It's a pretty broad spectrum of people as diverse as Hillary supporters, conservative pundits and radio show hosts, random editorial boards, etc. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::::it reads really well. I like your use of the "soundbite" concept to contextualize the sermons. Also your method of using Obama's praise of Wright in order to balance the paragraph was very smart, keeping it very tight to BLP guidelines. I understand the douglass reference does not have consensus, but I would hope at some point we could use the Sanneh cite for something- its tertiary analysis (reporting on the reporting of the controversy) so I think at some point it might become valuable. So if we don't use Frederick Douglass that is fine, but are going to include any sense of precedent for the wright comments? many civil rights leaders, let alone other public figures, have made similar comments so I think it might also make sense "long-run" to consider a phrase to that effect.

::::but mostly I am glad someone produced such a bullet-proof paragraph. I can't see any way people can edit war over ''that''. [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk:72.0.180.2|talk]]) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::The tertiary source is probably more appropriate for [[Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy]] than here. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Agree with this point. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::You're right that simply removing the word "critics" would be a step in the wrong direction. Let's see... MNNBC uses "Reporters, talk-show hosts, and others", but they're referring to a ''prediction'' of who ''will'' continue to ask questions. And of the three sources given, that's the only one that really says anything about people continuing to question Obama's connection to Wright. If we can't find a better source for the statement, perhaps we should remove it entirely. I'm sure Andy or someone can come up with a source for "people are continuing to question Obama's relationship to Wright" so that we can specify ''which'' people they are and therefore establish their notability beyond simply being "critics". [[User:Johnpseudo|'''johnpseudo''']] 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: Happy to oblige. Added another example, from a different category of critic, or "people... continuing to question Obama's relationship to Wright", than Kristol: Lanny Davis(Clintonista) in WSJ. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 11:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::To be fair, the William Kristol piece (which should have a full citation, by the way) is an ''example'' of one of those critics continuing to press the issue. It's not the main thrust of that particular column, but he does say, "The real question, of course, is not why Obama joined Trinity, but why he stayed there for two decades, in the flock of a pastor who accused the U.S. government of “inventing the H.I.V. virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” and who suggested soon after 9/11 that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”" I think that can be fairly characterized as "questioning the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright". How about saying "critics and media representatives continued to question..."? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls,[126] Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign," - All the rest of the current paragraph on Wright seems to be very well-balanced, neutral, and accurate, but this one section is potentially misleading, as it suggests that Obama condemned Wright's remarks, which he'd previously been fine with, solely because of the poll drop and negative exposure: according to Obama himself, he was simply unaware of most of the remarks in question beforehand, and he had already condemned the remarks he admitted to knowing of back when they first received media attention (in 2007, I think). However, it is accurate to note that Wright retained his position in Obama's campaign until recently, despite Obama's earlier attempts to distance himself from the comments he admits he did know about. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] ([[User talk:Silence|talk]]) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that that clause could be read that way. Any suggestions on how to reword it succinctly? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::So we are saying that the current wording implies that Obama's actions were a reaction to negative media and polling, right? Well isn't that sort of true? I cannot imagine him condemning Wright's words and giving that speech, at that particular time, without some kind of an impetus. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Obama's actions may indeed have been a reaction to negative media and polling, but it is not Wikipedia's job to speculate about motivation: we should indeed report on the timing of his actions, but we should not fail to report on his own official explanation for why he waited so long to respond to Wright's more inflammatory comments (that being, he simply wasn't aware of them). We might personally be skeptical of how plausible his own explanation is, but it's not our job to weigh in on what we think a person's secret motives "really" were. For all we know, Obama would have removed Wright from his campaign years ago if he'd seen all the same clips that've been popularized nowadays. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] ([[User talk:Silence|talk]]) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::I agree. The official line seems to be that Obama knew that Wright went over the top occasionally, but hadn't seen or heard these ''particular'' sermons. But again, I'm unsure how to convey that succinctly. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:I've tweaked it a tiny bit ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=534366&diff=204993088&oldid=204992453 diff]), but on the whole I am very happy with this new version. I'm going to read it through a few more times, but it looks good so far. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, an improvement. But I don't think the "U.S. policies" bit quite captures Wright's "rhetorically forceful flair".[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-18-obamawright_N.htm] Wright taled about U.S. "terrorism" dating back to expulsion of the Indians and forward to suppoert of Israeli "state terrorism", and "U.S. policies were partially responsible" is unduly bloodless. And the unnecessary insertion of "temporary" in the "drop in the polls" sentence is misleading -- Obama lost at least some support permanently. No time to comment further now. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't think that it's necessary for us to try to capture Wright's "rhetorically forceful flair" in this article. If we did so, in order to satisfy NPOV we'd have to go into detail about the rhetorical styles used in the black church, which is well outside the purview of this article. We've already compromised quite a bit in admitting a direct quote from Wright in the AIDS conspiracy bit — part of me still says that it's silly to include comments made by someone else which Barack Obama wasn't even present for in the biographical article about Obama. You made the case that it was necessary to include the details of Wright's comments in order to explain the controversy. Are you now saying that we need to replicate Wright's ''style'' as well? That seems ridiculous to me, akin to noting that someone's brother speaks with a lisp or someone's business partner has a tendency to raise his voice. The style really isn't relevant — the content is what's important, and that's now given in plenty of detail. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think anybody can say he ''permanently'' lost support. Hillary had a 30 point lead in PA before the Wright stuff...now Obama's only down by 6. If what you said is true, he certainly isn't reflecting that way. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::Well, that would be among Democrats, Grsz, not the general populace, and are you sure about Hillary's previous lead? I don't recall 30 points - certainly not last month - which would be quite extraordinary. But I may not be remembering accurately. IN any case if we haven't yet learned that polls are unreliable this year we should have. Truth is, we can't say one way or the other about whether the support he lost is temporary or permanent, so I would agree with Andy on that. How about ''Following negative media coverage and [[an initial drop]] in the polls'' instead of ''Following negative media coverage and [[during a temporary drop]] in the polls''? <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC) <small> For some reason edit summaries aren't appearing - mine was: ''I'll assume the removal of my comment was accidental - I am reinstating my reply to Grsz and my suggestion for improving that sentence'' <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small>
:::Hillary had a [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html#polls 30-point lead] in Pennsylvania ''last year''. In early March, before the Wright story broke, she had an 18-point lead; around the 16th that jumped to 26 points, and now it's down to about 7. The [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls national polls] are similar. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It reads ''very'' well and summarizes the controversy about as accurately and neutrally as possible. Great work Josiah. --[[User:Ubiq|Ubiq]] ([[User talk:Ubiq|talk]]) 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:Whether or not his drop in the polls was temporary is not our job to determine&mdash;Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps it was a temporary dip, or perhaps it was a "permanent" one and we're just seeing a temporarily rise in his poll numbers because of some of the recent criticisms of Clinton. Just note that his poll numbers dipped. That aside, I think the current wording is entirely accurate and clear. We can't quote every single inflammatory word choice Wright used in this one paragraph (that's what the daughter article is for). At most, perhaps changing "U.S. policies were" to "U.S. "terrorism" was" might help better capture the inflammatory language that Wright used; going into specific quotations in any more detail than that would come across as POVed in the opposite direction than this article usually suffers from. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] ([[User talk:Silence|talk]]) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
::Right - that's why I'm suggesting "Following negative media coverage and an initial drop" instead of "during a temporary drop". There was an initial drop, and it doesn't comment on whether it was temporary or permanent; also "during" suggests motivation which we shouldn't speculate on. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 03:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree that initial is the best phrasing option. [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk:72.0.180.2|talk]]) 21:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't read "temporary" as saying that his poll numbers will never go down again; I see it as saying that they went down and then went back up again. Would "short-lived" be any better than "temporary"? I'm not sure that "initial" is very clear. Alternatively, perhaps we could just say "a drop in the polls" and avoid any suggestion about what happened after the speech. After all, pretty soon we'll have the Pennsylvania results to add, and then North Carolina and Indiana. The only reason to indicate "temporary" or "short-lived" is to say "the story isn't over yet", which is kind of unnecessary. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[out/ec with Ubiq] Overall, I think this is a very big improvement. I may have a couple of other comments, but one quick thought is that his refusal to disown the man himself was not only because of Wright's other good works and that he was a marine (I like that you worked this in where you did, by the way), but also that he has a personal connection to him - the "old uncle" or invocation of his grandmother. Might try something like ''but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine [[as well as their close, almost familial connection]].'' or something like that. NOt sure, but I stumbled on that sentence a little bit as it didn't feel like it was telling the whole story about the refusal to disown. But again, overall I think this revised paragraph is very well balanced and a big improvement. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:Perhaps, if it could be worded correctly. I'd be very cautious about it, though: Obama's close connection to Wright isn't really meant to ''justify'' his continued acceptance of the man, so much as it is meant simply to explain it. I'd also be very wary about paraphrasing such a thing&mdash;wording like "noting... their close, almost familial connection" comes across sounding like sentimentality-laden advocacy. Use Obama's own words if possible, e.g., "saying that Wright was "like family" to him". -[[User:Silence|Silence]] ([[User talk:Silence|talk]]) 02:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
::I think "almost familial" is the same as "like family", but have no problem at all with using his own words. My point is that he refused to disown the man himself not only by noting his service to community and country, but also, prominently, that he could not disown him because he was like family. I think we need that as well as what we have, that's all. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 03:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:::How about "...refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor, past service as a US Marine, and role in Obama's personal faith journey."? That would avoid the sentimentality that concerns Silence, and it also cuts both ways. To some supporters, the fact that Obama refused to reject the man who brought him to Christ is a positive; to some opponents, the fact that Obama's faith is closely associated with ''this'' particular individual is a negative. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:What's the point of saying longterm relationship instead of giving the actual number of years? Longterm could be 5, 6, 11, 23, or any number of years to different people. And maybe the "God damn America" quote should be added too. To someone reading the paragraph and finding this stuff out for the first time, it doesn't sound nearly as controversial as it was and is. I doubt I can edit this or anything else into the article without Grsz unleashing the revert within seconds, though. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thezirk|Thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thezirk|contribs]]) 05:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The article does say, in the "Personal life" section, that Obama joined Trinity UCC in 1988. As for the "God damn America" line, I thought about that but decided that there's no way to put that in succinctly that's both fair to the furore the phrase caused when played out of context ''and'' conveys the context of Wright's "God and Government" sermon. Per Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we'd have to do '''both''' of those things if we mention it at all. The wording prior to your edit says "including" the 9/11 remarks and the AIDS conspiracy — that allows for the fact that he said other offensive things too. We can't go into every detail. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 06:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

::::The very pro-Obama MSNBC[http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/02/is_msnbc_and_al.php] puts it:"Wright can be heard arguing... that God should 'damn' the United States for its racist policies."[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23743408/] Don't see the NPOV problem with this. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Okay, but the article doesn't mention that Wright was the pastor of TUCC when he made those comments. Why should a person have to go down the page to a different section to find out how long he went to Wright's church, when you could replace a single word and make it less ambiguous. Also, Obama's relationship with Wright is longer than his attendance of that church.
:::Further, regarding the "God damn America" comment, the controversy wasn't the sermon, but that excerpt from it. The article isn't about Wright, why is it necessary to provide context to that comment? Plus, I think that comment by Wright was a lot more controversial than saying the government's policies might have caused 9/11; most people can agree with that to some degree. [[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 06:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

::::It's 20 years in TUCC, 23 years knowing Wright... Saying that "past U.S. policies were partially responsible for the September 11 attacks" is barely controversial if you don't expand on the intended meaning of "responsible". Of course the hijackers had reasons in US policy to attack us -- Bin Laden was really upset by US support of the Saudi regime, and threw in support of Israel to get a wider response -- but Wright appeared to sympathize with the hijackers in asserting that what the hijackers were responding to were in fact really evil policies and part of a long tradition of evil policies dating back to the expropriation of the continent from the Indians. Now, there were white leftists too whose response to 9/11 was "Why do they hate us? We must be doing something wrong.", but that doesn't sell politically either. So, the "partially responsible" text obscures ''why'' the sermon was controversial. Maybe the way to go is just noting that one controversial sermon was Wright quoting Malcolm X on the Sunday after 9/11 to say the attack was "America's chickens coming home to roost", and leave it at that for the blame-America-first dimension. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:I haven't read through all the responses but your initial version seems fine. Thanks for including me in the discussion. It seems to cover all the major points on the issue, without any noticable attempt to whitewash. As I've said previously, this isn't a big issue for me since most people know about it and have made up their mind one way or the other. Although, if anyone is interested [[Monique Davis]] is also a politician who goes to Trinity, and she's recently been in the news for her bigotry too. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::Citing a relatively obscure metaphor and historical reference would hardly help illuminate the matter for the vast majority of our readers. The "America's chickens coming home to roost" is, if anything, the worst idea I've seen yet for how to concisely articulate the substance of the controversy for our readers, since it is ''less'' clear and to-the-point than the current wording. However, as I already noted above, if we want to make the inflammatory nature of his criticism of the U.S. more obvious, we should simply change "U.S. policies were" to "U.S. "terrorism" was" (with a citation to whichever comments of his refer to the U.S.'s acts as "terrorism") and thus satisfy both requirements.
:::::As for why we can't specifically cite Wright's "God damn America" comment without providing context, even in a section about the controversy those comments stirred up rather than about Wright himself, it's because any encyclopedia's job is to inform and educate, not to parrot misleading information just because other sources have done the same. It would be misleading and POVed here to blindly repeat the media's out-of-context quote when doing so with context and doing so without context could have very different effects on readers' interpretations and understandings. This is not to say that the quote is any more acceptable or palatable when placed in context&mdash;nor is it to agree with Obama that this specific comment is unrepresentative of Wright's broader "message," whatever that might be. It simply isn't Wikipedia's job to weigh in on either of those issues itself. But it is Wikipedia's job to avoid out-of-context quoting of sources regardless of the situation. For [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]], it is good Wikipedia policy, when we must err at all, to always err on the side of being too restrained rather than too willy-nilly with potentially misleading or disputed out-of-context quotes. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] ([[User talk:Silence|talk]]) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Exactly. It would be necessary to provide context precisely because the comment was presented outside of its original context. See [[Fallacy of quoting out of context]]. If we incorporated "God damn America" without any further explanation, then we'd be feeding the emotional response to the out-of-context statement, rather than educating the public. I agree that providing the context is not equivalent to saying that the context justifies the remark — but there's a difference between a reasoned rejection of an articulated position and a knee-jerk reaction to an inflammatory remark. Politics feeds on the latter, but Wikipedia shouldn't.
::::::I'm similarly doubtful about us using Wright's "terrorism" language, both because its inflammatory nature would require further explication to satisfy NPOV and because in Wright's litany of American sins, he used "terrorism" to refer to some offenses (the extermination of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans) and called the treatment of the Palestinians "state terrorism", but he also listed many actions (e.g. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) without calling them "terrorism". Now, I don't know whether that was a deliberate distinction, but I think that it might be misrepresenting Wright's words if we imply that he blamed 9/11 on American "terrorism" alone. I think that we can go into that question at [[Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy]], but I don't see how we can do so here without introducing undue weight. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Seemed pretty clear to me that A-bombing Japan was in Wright's view a terroristic act. I'll take another look. Also, ''what'' is the "context" that shows MSNBC's "that God should 'damn' the United States for its racist policies" to be misleading? Just looks accurate to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Enlighten me. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I found it enlightening to read that MLK said "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive." ; [[http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-04-02-dyson-mlk_N.htm]]. even more context to the genocide claims, not surprisingly... don't think we should include it but people should know its there... the precedents of two civil-rights leaders now. [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk:72.0.180.2|talk]]) 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry that I'm a bit late to this party, but I didn't know it was going on until the changes here were transferred to the [[Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008]] article. Anyway, I believe that the use of the term "soundbites" conveys hidden meaning that the term "excerpts" does not, namely that the term "soundbites" conveys unprofessionalism on the part of the reporter or unfair excerpting of the speaker's words. (The same concept of conveyance of hidden meaning is discussed for other loaded terms in [[Wikipedia:AVOID#Words_with_controversial_or_multiple_meanings|this guideline]].) In addition, the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" constitutes analysis that goes beyond the cited sources, and, therefore, is [[WP:OR|original research]]). There may be a better way to fix this, but my initial suggestions would be to remove the term "soundbites" in favor of the term "excerpts", and simply to remove the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" altogether. (On that second phrase, I would also suggest that that sort of analysis, even if properly sourced, would be extremely difficult to adequately summarize here, and it may be better to simply refer readers to the other article where the matter can be handled in greater depth.) --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 09:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::My main concern when I transferred there the version found here was to get rid of the "AIDS questioned" falsehood. The pro-Obama POV that Wright's remarks would be better "understood" in context, and that Obama supplied such ameliorating context I left untouched. But you're right that "soundbites" is snide and ~"placed in historical context"~ is taking Obama at his own evaluation. Stick around. We could use more editors here that notice that that sort of thing isn't NPOV. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Is there a viewpoint from reliable sources which opposes the statement that Obama's speech "placed Wright's anger in historical context"? [http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-24-voa46.cfm Voice of America News] says, "Obama also '''sought to explain Wright's statements in the context''' of a generation where the memories of racial humiliation and fear remain fresh." The conservative ''[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-obama_19edi.ART.State.Edition1.46399fe.html Dallas Morning News]'' wrote in an editorial, "Mr. Obama explained that '''black anger has a historic context''' and cannot be denied." A [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/the-obama-wright-factor/ ''New York Times' news blog] says, "the controversial videos of Mr. Wright will probably haunt Mr. Obama’s campaign, despite his efforts earlier this week in his speech '''to put his relationship in a deeper context of race in America.'''" Other sources talking about how the speech placed Wright in a larger context include [http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/18/obamas-race-speech-heralded-as-historic.html U.S. News and World Report], [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/20kristof.html?_r=1&em&ex=1206158400&en=cd02deeeb508e822&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin Nicholas Kristof in the NYT], columnist [http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Roger+Simon+(Politico.com)%3A+Obama+tried+to+put+racial+issues+into+context&articleId=3c5ed43c-4e75-45df-9cc6-827f888ad7db Roger Simon], and many others. If adding one of these sources to the sentence would help avoid the appearance of OR, we can of course do so; but I'm really not sure that there is anything OR or POV about that wording. It really seems to me like a factual description of the content of Obama's speech: he put Wright's anger in context. People can differ on whether that context is sufficient to explain or justify the remarks and the anger underlying them, but I don't think that there should be any question about whether the speech provided context or not. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::What's missing is the qualifiers "sought", "efforts" and (Simon) "tried". It is Obama's ''argument'' that the offensiveness and stupidity of Wright's remarks is somehow excused by a historical justification of his anger. The alternative POV is that being angry is no excuse for being offensive and stupid in the way that Wright put on display, and that thge "context" is irrelevant to the issue and therefor not really "context" at all, properly speaking. The relevance of the "context" is assumed in the current wording, which is therefor POV. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, you are right about that. I could swear it said "sought" before, in fact. I have changed the wording accordingly. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. Using the qualifier "sought" keeps us from drawing a conclusion about the effectiveness of Obama's speech, but still lets us indicate what Obama's intentions were. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, Scjessey. Just beat me to it, in the middle of our latest edit war. You need to leave undoing my last revert to someone else, btw. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice, and it appears you've ''already'' had 3 (even ''with'' consecutive edits accounted for), whereas I've only reverted twice (if you include the "Hamas" nonsense, which probably doesn't count). -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, reverting the list of endorsements that included Hamas did indeed count. The rvv exemption only applies to clear cases of vandalism. The Hamas endorsement is real,[http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php] and deciding whether to mention it is simply a content dispute. Then you reverted my addition and I reverted you, repeated thrice. Put me at three, you at four and into clear 3RR violation. In the future, count your reverts, don't assume any questionable exemptions, and stop at three. I don't want to waste my time reporting you again, but I will not allow you to sop up more of my edits than you are entitled to. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I am sorry, Andy, but you are quite wrong. The Hamas endorsement was reverted for a BLP violation (lack of reliable sources) and that doesn't count towards 3RR. Thereafter the staggeringly-difficult math involving counting to 2 has proved beyond your ability. Scrutinize my edits again, and you will see only 1 revert + the Hamas thing. The other edits were not reversions, but actual content edits involving formatting, sentence positioning and text corrections. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::[[WP:3RR]]:''"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."'' Including "actual content edits involving formatting, sentence positioning and text corrections" while simultaneously "undoing the actions of another editor" does not result in the revert not counting. You reverted my edit, I reverted you, you reverted my edit, I reverted you, you reverted my edit, I reverted you. Three each. But you also reverted the ''entire'' "endorsements" edit ''including'' the parts cited to, e.g., CNN, not just the poorly sourced parts. Strike four. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 13:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::You can say whatever you like and quote whatever policies you wish, but I'm still going to disagree with your math because I think you are completely wrong. If you think I've broken the three-revert rule, report me, but stop wasting time and space with your childish posturing and threats. And stop pushing your biased POV while you're at it. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh and don't forget the "endorsements" where ALL BLP violations. They don't belong in this article, and they never have done. The quality of their sources (one of which was somebody's blog) isn't significant. - [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that "sought to" is necessary, since I think that saying "placed in context" doesn't necessarily imply that the context was exculpatory. But I'll yield to the apparent consensus on this. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

==="Critics continue to question"===
I feel like I wasn't as clear as I could have been about this point. When we say that "critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright." and source that directly to the critics who are questioning the implications, that's original research. We don't have a source that says that critics continued to question the implications. It's similar to saying "YouTube users continued to post material about Ron Paul even after he had dropped out of the race" and linking that directly to the youtube videos. In this case, we can't link directly to the critics, we need a RS that talks ''about'' the critics. Or else we can simply say "Kristol continues to criticize..." or something like that. Generalizing a few articles into saying that "critics" are doing something is synthesis. [[User:Johnpseudo|'''johnpseudo''']] 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not even sure that Kristol cite passes [[WP:RS]] muster. Firstly, it's an op-ed piece instead of some actual journalism. Secondly, this is Bill Kristol we are talking about here - the same Bill Kristol who thinks the Iraq "war" is a good idea, who made false claims about Obama's church attendance, who praised Bush's second inaugural address without disclosing he was involved in writing it, and who is co-founder of the [[Project for the New American Century]] (evil bunch of empire-building, oil-grabbing, war-mongering folks). How is a guy like this ever expected to offer a fair criticism of Obama's relationship with Wright, may I ask? -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::::We're not in the business of saying whether criticism is fair or not. We just need to report what reliable sources say. Kristol isn't a neutral source, but he is a noteworthy opinion writer. As such, I think that when he criticizes Obama he can be used as a source for us noting what critics of Obama say. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::It is uncontroversial that critics continued to question Obama's relationship with Wright, and saying so doesn't "advance a position", merely reports a relevant fact. And the NYT is a RS that Kristol said it. Scjessey has a real problem getting his mind around the concept that it is necessary to report the existance of the POV of people he disagrees with. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 14:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:::From [[WP:RS]]: "''When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.''" I'm not disputing that the parent website is from a reliable source, but I am suggesting that this cite is from an "opinion piece" (as Wikipedia defines it) from an ''extremely biased'' source. It is important to distinguish between critics of the Obama/Wright relationship and critics of Obama himself. It's not a big deal, but since the sentence of over-cited already, why not consider dropping it? Andy has a real problem getting his mind around the concept that the Kristol piece IS opinion, not ''reported'' opinion. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::I'd say a guy like Kristol is more likely to offer a "fair criticism" of Obama's relationship with Wright than people like you are, Scjessey. There continues to be doubts about Obama's relationship with Wright, and Wright continues to defend Obama and speak out in sermons or at funerals or whatever opportunity presents itself against those who question Obama's relationship with him. To pretend like it has suddenly become a complete non-issue is misleading. [[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Re: "he can be used as a source for us noting what critics of Obama say"- I think this is the key question here. We are trying to use Kristol's opinion piece to cite a broader trend: that "critics" are continuing to question Obama. But Kristol doesn't even claim this! So what is the source for this claim? It's simply our synthesis of 1-2 critical sources. The only way to sufficiently source this claim is to have a reliable source that makes a statement similar to our claim (e.g. if the MSNBC were making a current-events statement instead of a prediction, or if Kristol were to state that he is only one of ''many'' critics that are continuing to question Obama). It might be possible to find this kind of source, since there are in fact critics that are continuing to question Obama, but in order to distinguish whether the remarks of those critics constitute a notable trend, we need a source. I'm making this statement Kristol-specific in the meantime. [[User:Johnpseudo|'''johnpseudo''']] 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Can we say "...critics such as [[Bill Kristol]] and [[Lanny Davis]] continued to question..."? That would indicate that they're not alone (as evidenced by last night's debate) without saying more about whether they're part of a larger trend or not. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's worth noting that these "critics" would be critical of Obama if Jesus Christ himself was his pastor. One is a strong McCain supporter and the other is a strong Clinton supporter. Aren't there any ''independent'' critics we can use? And as I said before, the Kristol piece is not journalism and arguably not a reliable source. It is an op-ed piece - opinion rather than reported opinion. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Kristol in't being used as a RS for any statement of fact. The NYTimes is being used as a RS for the fact that Kristol wrote it, and the info at his blue link justifies the notability of his criticism. The "truth" of his criticism is not at issue and the fact that the the two cites are to McCain and Clinton supporters is ''exactly why they are selected as examples''. Further, a subject being reported in multiple RS is a criterion for article creation, not for inclusion of a fact. We have Kristol and Davis as examples, and dozens of others could be provided. At some point ordinary editorial discretion allows you to replace "A, B, C, D, E,....ZZ all criticized Obama for..." with "Critics criticized Obama for...". And the current "Kristol and Davis..." which makes it sound as if they were the only two is truly stupid. Plus it shouldn't be hard to find some RS mentioning on the fact that not everyone agrees that Obama put the subject to rest with his "context" argument, particularly since the statement is so uncontroversial (see last night's debate). johnpseudo is simply refusing to perform the idiotic task he wants to set us. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032000964.html a column] from last month by the Washington Post's [[Howard Kurtz]] which summarizes media responses to the speech and the Wright issue. It could be used to support a more general "critics continued to question" wording, but it also indicates a more general liberal/conservative split over the reactions to the speech than our wording might seem to indicate. Specifically, Kurtz says, "Not surprisingly, most liberals loved the speech and many conservatives -- though not all -- lambasted it." Perhaps we should change the wording to something like this:<blockquote>Although the speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was well-received by liberal sources and some conservatives,<ref name="apracespeech" /><ref>{{cite news |title=Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html |publisher=The New York Times |date=2008-03-19 |accessdate=2008-03-19}}</ref><ref name="kurtzspeechanalysis">{{cite news |first=Howard |last=Kurtz |authorlink=Howard Kurtz |title=Obama's Speech, Sliced and Diced |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032000964.html |work=[[The Washington Post]] |date=2008-03-20 |accessdate=2008-04-19 }}</ref> other conservative commentators and some Clinton supporters continued to question the implications of Obama's long relationship with Wright.<ref name="kurtzspeechanalysis" /><ref>{{cite news |first=Bill |last=Kristol |authorlink=Bill Kristol |title=Let's Not, and Say We Did |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24kristol.html?em&ex=1206504000&en=116b0da3e79179f5&ei=5087%0A |work=New York Times |date=[[2008-03-24]] |accessdate=2008-03-25 }} See also: {{cite news | url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770107738700007.html | title=Obama's Minister Problem | work=The Wall Street Journal | accessdate=2008-04-12 | last=Davis | first=Lanny J. | date=[[April 9]], [[2008]]}}</ref><br>{{reflist}}</blockquote>
(Sorry about the massive reflist — just wanted to show the sources as they would appear in the article.) —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

:In the absence of any objection, I think I'll be '''bold''' and add this — the Kurtz article seems to me to remove the objections about characterizing groups of opinion. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 03:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

== Elitist / Racist Remarks ==

Why no mention of Obama's remarks? <ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89588766&ft=1&f=1001</ref>

::''It's not surprising then they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.''

These remarks are very telling when put in the context of the twenty-year Rev. Wright relationship. [[Special:Contributions/72.196.233.224|72.196.233.224]] ([[User talk:72.196.233.224|talk]]) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. And it's turning into quite an issue for him. According to a poll I saw today, Hillary was up 20 points in Pennsylvania, and 25% of people in Penn. said they would never vote for Obama. People have been calling Obama arrogant for a while now, and this doesn't help his case. This will haunt Obama in the general election too, no doubt. [[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah! And where's the mention of his Muslim upbringing? --[[User:Ubiq|Ubiq]] ([[User talk:Ubiq|talk]]) 11:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Sarcasm does not serve you well, Ubiq. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk:Kossack4Truth|talk]]) 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, really? Your opinion means so much to me. Well I guess in that case I'll never use it again. Thanks for the heads up. --[[User:Ubiq|Ubiq4Truth]] ([[User talk:Ubiq|talk]]) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on guys, do we need to have a snark fight for every thing? This section brings up a reasonable question, answer it or not, but stop being jerks. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
: We don't need to mention it because we do not need to mention every single misstep/remark made by any candidate. If we were to do that, we'd be no better than any blog which has been dissecting this for days. Currently, the remarks have made no marked impact beyond being talked about by the Media. Until they do, it doesn't need to be brought up. In addition, the polling data cited above is just plain wrong. Unrelated, but I had to mention... ;) [[User:Lyellin|Lyellin]] ([[User talk:Lyellin|talk]]) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::There was ''one'' poll that gave Clinton a 20-point lead in PA, but it certainly stuck out there on the end of a very long limb. Nationally, Obama has actually [http://www.gallup.com/poll/106537/Gallup-Daily-Obama-51-Clinton-40.aspx improved] since this all blew up. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Yep. Quinnipac has it unchanged (6pt difference), SUSA has a 14 pt different, moving towards Obama, Rasmussan a 9pt, moving towards Clinton, and Susquehanna a 3pt moving towards Obama. [[User:Lyellin|Lyellin]] ([[User talk:Lyellin|talk]])

As far as I'm concerned, this issue is '''closed'''. Clinton had a 20-point lead before Wright, which deteriorated to a 6-point lead. Now with these "elitist" comments, nothing has happened! '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have sure not seen any polls lately with a 20-point spread. The SurveyUSA thing is the only one I've seen over 10. The latest Public Policy Polling [http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_041408.pdf survey of North Carolina] does have Obama 20 points ahead there, though. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] ([[User talk:Paisan30|talk]]) 18:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:Yep. And [http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080415/pl_politico/9617 here's] an article describing this lack of change/shift. --[[User:Ubiq|Ubiq]] ([[User talk:Ubiq|talk]]) 18:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a weird standard being applied here. The effect of the comments (if there is one) can be noted in the article, but the comments themselves are obviously quite notable and have been covered in a large amount RS's. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If this quote belongs, doesn't it belong in the presidential campaign article for Obama and not the general biography article? [[User:Remember|Remember]] ([[User talk:Remember|talk]]) 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
: That is correct. This is related to the campaign and should be discussed at that article's talk. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:::That is irresponsible. If it wasn't for the presidential campaign, he would just be a freshman senator from Illinois, that almost nobody outside of Illinois has ever heard of. The presidential campaign is what makes him more notable than an ordinary freshman senator. Therefore any event that is worth reporting in the campaign article should be seriously considered for this one, and any event that has a substantial impact on the campaign should be reported here, including the "bitter" remark and its fallout that everyone except Wikipedia has noticed. At the debate a couple of nights ago, for the first 45 minutes both moderators were ripping into Obama for that remark, for Jeremiah Wright, for Tony Rezko and for Obama's close association with [[Weather Underground]] veteran [[William Ayers]], whose association with Obama we haven't even started to discuss. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk:Kossack4Truth|talk]]) 11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::::That is wrong, Kossack. It was his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, while still only a State senator, that catapulted Obama into the political stratosphere. People around the ''world'' took note, and his election to the US Senate was [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3985981.stm big news internationally], long before his Presidential campaign came to fruition. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

::It is not surprising that the same cast of characters who said that Wright was a non-issue say that Obama's own words don't matter.

::Guess what? '''''Words matter.'''''

::The saddest part is that the partisans who are busy trying to shield Obama's words, associations and left-wing ideology from the light of day actually think they are ''helping'' the Democratic party. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certain members of the media and very agressive editors of this article are busy leading the lemmings to a 49+ state landslide loss that will make McGovern look strong.

::Newsflash: if you don't vet your own candidate, the other guy will do it for you---and that's the last thing any party wants.

::But, here's the editorial questions. Is the opinion of a selected group of pro-Obama editors the definitive standard by which Wikipedia now decides what is reportable in an Obama article? Is a cherry-picked poll the gauge by which you measure the newsworthiness of an issue on Wikipedia? Do words ever matter?

::In the end, if the Wikipedia editorial consensus is that selected "words don't matter" when Obama and his preacher say them, then I suppose that is a valuable testament to the viewpoint of Wikipedia. If "words don't matter" when a particular candidate generalizes about the religion and motivations of others, then that will stand as an indicator---a forty foot tall flashing animated neon indicator---to warn others of the bias pervading this resource. That in and of itself is a service to the Internet. [[Special:Contributions/72.196.233.224|72.196.233.224]] ([[User talk:72.196.233.224|talk]]) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing. I said I saw a poll on TV. I didn't recall it's name, but clearly none of you bothered to make any effort to google the poll and find out if it actually exists. So in about 5 seconds, I found it at "http://www.americanresearchgroup.com". Now I don't know how credible it is, but it exists.
[[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:Here are the actual [http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/padem8-705.html poll specifics], and they describe a sample size of only 600 likely voters in Pennsylvania. A poll like this is probably good news for the Obama campaign because it lowers expectations, although it doesn't seem to agree with other metrics. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:CNN has '''5%'''. So the single-digit polls largely outweigh the single 20-point poll. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

::'''What does your interpretation of a handpicked poll have to do with it?'''

::Are you actually trying to maintain that this candidate's words are measured by what certain pro-Obama Wikipedia editors glean from their favorite polls? If that is your position---and by all accounts it seems to be your position---then this article is exposed as a sham. If this is not your position, then please explain why the words which came of out Obama's own mouth are not important when juxtaposed with his pastor's hate-speech and his wife's pride for the "first-time" in America.

::This man is running for the President of the United States of America and he has almost no public record (as compared to say John McCain or Ted Kennedy). Therefore every public speech which reveals more about the man and his worldview is very important. [[Special:Contributions/72.196.233.224|72.196.233.224]] ([[User talk:72.196.233.224|talk]]) 10:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, I agree with you. But certain editors are going to say that Obama's words don't show arrogance or a negative opinions of guns and religion, and that it belongs in the campaign article. I think it should be mentioned in both. Even if only briefly in this article, as it's gotten a lot of coverage, and Hillary has even based an entire ad on the comments. [[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

::::I think it's still too soon to determine whether this "elitist" flap merits inclusion in this article or not (it's appropriately covered in the campaign article). Time will tell whether this is remembered and becomes a lasting part of Obama's image, like Hillary's line about "baking cookies" (which is mentioned in her article), or if it's merely a footnote, like Bush asking "Is our children learning?" or talking about gynecologists practicing their love with women. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::(That last one was a classic, however. Do we have a subarticle for Bush's malapropisms ? If not, we should.) I agree with Josiah's point, however - it certainly belongs in the campaign article, and may or may not belong here - I'm guessing it will last, in which case it will belong here, but it is too soon to know. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 02:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Wikiquote has two pages with select Bushisms, one at [[wikiquote:George W. Bush|George W. Bush]] (in a section curiously called "grammatical errors" — a lot of them are syntactical or vocabulary errors rather than grammatical errors — but I digress) and another at [[wikiquote:Bushisms|Bushisms]], which is apparently supposed to be merged into the former. Here on Wikipedia there's [[Bushism]], which you'd think might have a few examples, but apparently they weren't properly cited and got deleted. But we're way off topic now. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 08:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


:::Despite the fact that other editors agree with me and despite the fact that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolis agree with me regarding this issue, I have been threatened for making "disruptive edits". This is just one more example of the tactics that certain editors use to maintain their control of the POV of articles. But, if they somehow manage to prevent me from editing or commenting, this will only prove the bias of this reference and this article. [[Special:Contributions/72.196.233.224|72.196.233.224]] ([[User talk:72.196.233.224|talk]]) 10:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially now considering Hillary won the important Pennsylvania primary by 10 points, an unexpectedly large victory, regaining momentum, and because this controversy and the Wright issues obviously outweighed Obama massively outspending Hillary, and because the issue was even covered in the debate, I'd say the remarks and the surrounding controversy deserve to be mentioned in this article. [[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:You mean unexpectedly large as in she was up by 20 points, and was expected to win. I saw exit polls that said Hillary won non-college graduates ("bitter" people) by the same exact margin in Pennsylvania as she did a month ago in Ohio. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font></b>]]''' 06:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PADEM PA] and [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#OHDEM OH]. Also, I'm not sure losing by 10% in a single state in a single election is worthy of mention in a biography covering a 45+ year life. Campaign article is a different thing than this. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font></b>]]''' 06:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

== search for Barack Obama ==

When you search for Barack Obama, you only reach the presidential candidate and current US Senator, however, on wikipedia, there are actually two Barak Obamas: 1. Barack Obama, Jr. (the US Senator and Presidential Candiate), and 2. Barack Obama, Sr. (father of Barack Obama, Jr.).

My question is: when you search for Barack Obama should you get to a page which list links to both? People who are search for the father, are going to have to go out of their way to find the father's profile. If you search for George Brett, you find four listings: A baseball player, a WWII American General, and 2 publishers (father and son).

If is is proper to list all Barack Obamas in the wiki search, how would we do this, or could a more experience user than me make this change?

thanks [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, could Jr. be added to Barack Obama name so that this wiki page is distinguished from his father Barack Obama,Sr. [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::See my comment below about this - both names come up on wiki search. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:Typically, this would be handled with a "for X, see Y" link at the top of the page, similar to the disambig links that are already present. I'm fairly ambivalent on whether to include an extra one of these, because both of the current disambig pages have links to both the Sr. and Jr. articles. As for changing the name of the article by adding "Jr.", [[Barack Obama, Jr.]] already redirects to this page. Since almost all people visiting the page will be interested in this Barack Obama rather than his father, it's probably appropriate to keep the article where it is. (On a side note, a Google search for "[http://www.google.com/search?q=barack+obama+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org barack obama site:en.wikipedia.org]" returns both of them in the first page of results.) --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 02:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that there's no call for a name change, but a disambiguating hatnote would probably be appropriate. Something like this, perhaps:
:::{{about|the American Senator and presidential candidate|his father, the Kenyan economist|Barack Obama, Sr.}}
::—[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 03:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

::Here is the issue, when you search for Barack Obama, you only get Barack Obama, Jr., you should be able to search Barack Obama and get listing for al Barack Obamas, which is the case are 2 Barack Obamas, father and son. If you search for George Brett, you get 4 different people (even though you are probably looking for the baseball player).
::Why do you get 4 George Brett listing on a wiki search, because there are 4 different people named George Brett who have articles on wiki. Being able to search Barack Obama and get all accurate listings, in this case 2 people, is a fair and reasonable request. Unless, someone, thinks Obama, Sr. isn't noteworthy, and therefore shouldn't even have a wiki article, which is not what I am advocating at all. I think if wiki articles exist, you should be able to find them when you search for the person by name. [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Barack Obama, Sr. is notable, but his notability comes almost completely from his son. (Correct me if there are other articles about Kenyan civil servants on Wikipedia.) The vast majority of people searching for "Barack Obama" will be looking for Barack Obama, Jr. In cases like this, the [[WP:PRIMARYUSAGE|Wikipedia guideline]] is to leave the article at the primary topic, and have a hatnote at the top for the benefit of people looking for the secondary topic. This is closer to the examples of [[Winston Churchill]], [[Winston Churchill (1620-1688)]] and [[Winston Churchill (novelist)]] than the George Brett example. (I don't follow baseball, and might have been as likely to look for the World War II general as the baseball player.)
:::The only question is whether the current hatnotes pointing to [[Barack (disambiguation)]] and [[Obama (disambiguation)]] are sufficient for someone looking for the Kenyan economist, or if there should be an additional line directing people to [[Barack Obama, Sr.]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I think their should should be a line added to direct people to Barack Obama, Sr., I just don't know how to created on. Could someone add this line? [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Josiah had already formulated the proper template above (thanks!), so I just went ahead and dropped it into place. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not a useful edit. I've removed it. --[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] ([[User talk:HailFire|talk]]) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::HailFire, what is an appropriate solution to find Barack Obama's father if someone searches for him on wikipedia? I suggested if you search for Barack Obama two results come up for father and son. Dachannien suggested the solution of having a hat on Barack Obama Jr. profile. If that is not a helpful edit, do you have another solution. It seams a reasonable request that is someone has a wiki article you should be able to find them through wiki search. Am I missing something? I am a fairly new user, so I admit I do have a lot to learn. I am indiffent to the solution, other then you should be any to find is article through a reasonable way, search, hat, or a good solution you may have. thanks [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 21:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There are four ways: (1+2) follow [[Barack (disambiguation)]] or [[Obama (disambiguation)]] at the top of the page, (3) click [[Barack Obama, Sr.]] in the early life and career section, or (4) use the [[Template:Barack_Obama|navigation box]] at the bottom of the page. --[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] ([[User talk:HailFire|talk]]) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:(after invitation from the disambiguation talk page) There should also be no problem with an additional hatnote since there are two people named "Barack Obama". I'd suggest {{tlx|For|the Kenyan economist|Barack Obama, Sr.}} before or after the current redirect hatnote. See also [[William Shakespeare]]. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::I was the one who asked for clarification at [[Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation]], and the consensus there seemed to be that there should be two hatnotes (one to cover alternate meanings of "Barack" and "Obama", and another to cover the alternate meaning of "Barack Obama"). I've restored the hatnote. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 03:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Josiah, I disagree with your restoration of this hatnote during a pending discussion where concerns about its usefulness are still being expressed. Please compare [[John F. Kennedy, Jr.]] and reflect. For now, I have condensed it by removing "the Kenyan economist", as notability derives from Sr. being the Senator's father. Also not sure that the two full stops after Sr. are MoS compliant. This hatnote is ''not'' a useful edit and I ask that editors reconsider its addition here. Thanks. --[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] ([[User talk:HailFire|talk]]) 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry if the restoration was inappropriate; I thought that the matter was fairly unimportant and that the discussion on the disambiguation talk page would suffice to resolve your concerns about whether it was appropriate to have two hatnotes. I'm not sure what you were indicating by the reference to [[John F. Kennedy, Jr.]], which also has two hatnotes. I'd think that example would support the idea of adding a line for Barack Obama, Sr.

::::I agree that the two full stops look ugly. I suppose we could type the hatnote out instead of using the template, which adds a period at the end. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::I have removed the hatnote again. Please review the article at [[John F. Kennedy]], where no hatnote has been included for [[John F. Kennedy, Jr.]], and discuss why this article does not merit similar treatment. Thanks. --[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] ([[User talk:HailFire|talk]]) 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm gonna go with [[WP:CONSENSUS]] as justification for this one, given the absence of other policies or guidelines in this case. You seem to be the only person opposed to inclusion of the hatnote. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] Not the only one - I was otherwise occupied the last 2 days and didn't see this discussion until now. I agree with HailFire that the JFK example is instructive. JFK Jr was ''far more notable'' than Barack Obama Sr, and the fact that even so, the JFK article does not have a hatnote regarding JFK Jr, but instead relies on the disambiguation page and wikilinking JFK Jr, is a very strong argument against the hatnote here. Obama Sr was ''not at all'' notable as an economist: his sole notability is as the senator's father, so the disambiguation page and the wikilinking within this article are more than enough. I'm removing it again, pending the outcome of this conversation, as is appropriate. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:'''Further comment''' The top of this section suggests that a search on "Barack Obama" only yields the Senator; I just searched on "Barack Obama" using the "Search" box in the left column of this page and got [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Barack+Obama&fulltext=Search this], which clearly ''does'' give '''Barack Obama, Sr.''' right there under the presidential campaign hits. So I think the whole basis of this request was not particularly valid. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:: As long as Obama, Sr. can be found through the search, I am in favor of removing the hat. [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't really feel very strongly about this, but it's worth noting what [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate]] says:<blockquote>Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "[[Wikipedia:Go button|Go]]", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? For example, when someone looks up [[Joker]], would they expect to find information on comedians? On a card? On [[Batman]]'s nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band? When there is risk of confusion, there should be a way to take the reader from an ambiguous page and title/term to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term; either the top of the page should have one or more disambiguation links, or the page itself should be a disambiguation page.</blockquote>Note that the guideline doesn't refer to the "Search" button, but the "Go" button. Now, I suppose that the [[John F. Kennedy]] example is relevant (please note that HailFire's earlier reference was to [[John F. Kennedy, Jr.]], which does have two different hatnotes), but there's still a small chance that someone looking for information on Obama the elder might not realize that they can reach that article by clicking through to [[Barack (disambiguation)]] or [[Obama (disambiguation)]]. Of course, if they read this article they'll find the link to [[Barack Obama, Sr.]] in the first line under "Early life and career", so I suppose that's OK. As I said, I don't really care about this all that much, but still, I don't think the decision to include or exclude a hatnote linking to [[Barack Obama, Sr.]] is as clear-cut as some editors seem to be suggesting. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Josiah Rowe, it makes sense what you are saying about go versus search. I am ok either way. [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 04:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

== 23-year or longterm? ==

"23-year" was recently added to the Wright paragraph to specify the length of Obama's relationship, but I restored it back to "longterm". I figure that specifying the length of the relationship either (a) dates the article, or (b) indicates the relationship is at an end. Although Wright is no longer Obama's pastor, I don't believe there are any sources to indicate their relationship has actually ''ended''. That leaves us in a position where using "longterm" prevents us from having to come back and add a year to the length of the relationship. Besides, I think specifying the actual length of the relationship is an unnecessary detail (rather than being "informative" as was suggested). I entreat Andy and his fellow warriors to stop edit warring over this. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:I think I was the first to add "longterm" instead of "23-year" and I did it for the reasons you describe above. Another alternative would be to include the year that their "relationship" began. Something like "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's relationship, which began in 1985, with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright." Granted, I have no idea if that is the correct year, just subtracted 23 from the current year. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::If we can find an RS for the actual year, that works for me (although I still think it is an unnecessary detail). -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::But not really worth edit warring over. Heh. Check out the fourth paragraph:[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-070121-relig_wright,1,271630.story] I'm a little hesitant to use the Tribune though because their articles become non-free after a period of time (not sure how long). --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel like going into the details of exactly when Obama met Wright, when he joined Trinity, and so forth is heading a bit towards undue weight. This sort of detail, along with Wright performing Obama's wedding and baptizing his children, belongs in [[Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy]]. I see that article doesn't actually have any detail about Wright's relationship with Obama, which is important context for why the comments got as much play as they did — someone should add a section there summarizing the history of the relationship, including Obama's more recent distancing from Wright.

Speaking of that distancing, at the Compassion Forum last Sunday, Obama said, "Now, I have to say that, you know, in reports subsequently, there's been this notion that he was, by various terms, my spiritual adviser or my spiritual mentor. You know, he's been my pastor." Given Obama's apparent disputing of the term "mentor", we should either find a RS which describes Wright in those terms or find another phrasing to describe the relationship.

As for "longterm" versus "23-year" — I agree that "longterm" is better encyclopedic style, for the reasons mentioned by Scjessey, but I also agree that it's not worth edit warring over.—[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

:I changed it from longterm to 23-year. Otherwise, it seems as if their relationship began and ended with his attendance of the church, but that isn't the case. And it isn't dating the article, it's only dating the controversy. Controversy broke out regarding his 23-year relationship with Wright. Whether or not that relationship is ongoing, the criticism was about the 23-years prior moreso than the current relationship, since Obama has sort of distanced himself from Wright. 3 years is a long time, and justifies clarification. [[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

== Updating external links ==

There are a couple of dead links and some problems with other external links which i'll try and get round to fixing asap. In the meantime here's a [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/view/Main_Page tool] for updating external links and - after waiting about half a minute to load for all the Obama article's external links - this [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Barack_Obama link] enables you to fix the problems with the Obama article external links. You need to go through each suggested solution to make sure it works. cheers [[User:Tpbradbury|Tom]] ([[User talk:Tpbradbury|talk]]) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

== Millionaire? ==

is he a millionaire? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:86.31.102.112|86.31.102.112]] ([[User talk:86.31.102.112|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.31.102.112|contribs]]) 20:05, April 18, 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->

:According to [http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5.html CNNMoney.com], Obama's net worth is $1.3 million. A lot of that came from recent sales of his books; he hasn't been a millionaire for long. He's certainly nowhere near Clinton ($34.9 million, largely from Bill's speaking fees) or McCain ($40.4 million, a lot of which comes from his wife's beer inheritance). —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::PLEASE NOTE: THIS CNNMONEY.COM ARTICLE IS EXTREMELY OUTDATED FROM EARLY 2007, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALL OF THE MAJOR CANDIDATES HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE ITS PUBLICATION.--[[User:InaMaka|InaMaka]] ([[User talk:InaMaka|talk]]) 01:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I stand corrected. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Actually, for accuracy sake, they estimate John and Cindy McCain's net worth as over $100 million. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 00:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::Yep, Bill gets about 250 to 300K per speech. Of course, he spoke here on Wednesday for free. Cheney's worth between 30 and 100 million. It's estimated Al Gore is worth $100 million, up from $1 million in 2001. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Also, for accuracy sake, Hillary Clinton just disclosed her tax returns and other financial documents and the Clinton's net worth was approximately $100 million also, not the $34.9 million that was reported above.--[[User:InaMaka|InaMaka]] ([[User talk:InaMaka|talk]]) 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::For even more accuracy, it is important to point out that the Obama's earned over $4.2 million last year so the claim above by Josiah Rowe, quoting CNNMoney.com, is clearly incorrect. The Financial Times of London on April 18, 2008, indicated that the Obama's went way past $4 million USD in one year. That mag also indicates that the Clinton's have earned $109 million in the last ten years. Also, Grsz11 claims that Clinton "spoke here" for free. I seriously doubt that claim. I don't know what that is based upon. I'm sure that he got a fee somewhere and he will disclosed it in due time--just dispelling typical Wikipedian rumours.--[[User:InaMaka|InaMaka]] ([[User talk:InaMaka|talk]]) 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Here, meaning my university - for free, because he was campaigning. Please review [[WP:CIVIL]]. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 02:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::No. No need to review civil. Clinton did not speak for free. He was there to get campaign contributions.--[[User:InaMaka|InaMaka]] ([[User talk:InaMaka|talk]]) 03:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::He was there to get votes. He wasn't there lecturing, which is what he makes a lot of money for. No need for ''you'' to basically call every other user here a liar. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info guys, i keep hearing them all referred to as millionaires and was just interested, but i couldn't find it in the article, you should probably pop his net worth there, and thanks again!

:In case a current source is needed, [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/obama-reports-earning-42-million-in-2007-tax-return/ here's one]. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 12:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::Isn't ''everyone'' a millionaire nowadays? $1 million is barely enough to fill my gas tank. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

== Bias Problems ==

Despite the fact that other editors have agreed with my position and despite the fact that the very issues which I have raised were raised by George Stephanopolis and Charlie Gibson in the most recent debate, the Wiki-Gestapo have threatened to haul me away for disruptive edits. If my account is shut down it will stand as a testament to the bias problems with Wikipedia, rather than just the bias problems with this article. The big issue that this article currently ignores is the "clings to religion and guns" speech by Obama. Clearly, some people think this is a big issue because it was front and center in the most recent debate. And yet this article makes no mention of words which came directly from the candidate's own mouth.

Fine.

Can some please explain this sentence to me:

::''Although the speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was generally well-received,[111][112] conservative commentators and Lanny Davis continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.''

Just exactly ''who'' generally well received this speech? Clearly it was not well received by Lanny Davis or conservative commentators? Who is left? The article references the NY Times, one of the most liberal papers in the country. I suppose that implies that it was generally well received by the liberal media, but poorly received by the conservative media and by some liberals such as Lanny Davis. If the speech was generally well received by Air America, Chris Matthews and the NY Times that does mean it was "generally well received". Here's a more fair statement:
::''Obama's speech sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context. Left-leaning and/or traditional media such as the NY Times and the Associated Press generally gave the speech good reviews and felt that the controversy was put to bed.[111][112] On the other hand, Fox News, conservative commentators and some liberals such as Lanny Davis continue to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright. Polling seemed to indicated a drop in popularity as the issue came to light, but the long-term effects of the Wright controversy are still unclear.'' [[Special:Contributions/72.196.233.224|72.196.233.224]] ([[User talk:72.196.233.224|talk]]) 10:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

:::The paragraph has been carefully worked out over the last few weeks, and a consensus has been reached among the various editors. Everything is properly sourced. Your suggested version fails because it constitutes original research. You offer no sources for your statements, and you characterize certain groups and individuals as "left-leaning" or "conservative" without justification. This sort of thing would be fine in a blog or something like that, but not an encyclopedia. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Actually, I think the problem here is that the "generally well-received" statement is horribly sourced. The idea seems to be that the good reception was among Americans in general, not specific media outlets. What we need is a source referring to polling data about the speech itself. I know several editors around here are more familiar with the article about Obama's speech than I am, so if those editors already know of such a reference, I'd recommend including it here (and changing the text here to conform to any such source). On a side note, the second half of the sentence is missing sources as well. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 12:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::If a poll would be helpful, there's some data from Pew [http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=407 here] — it doesn't refer specifically to the speech, but it shows that 51% of those who had been following the Wright matter closely called Obama's handling of the situation "excellent" or "good", while 42% called it "fair" or "poor". It looks as if there is some [[confirmation bias]] at work here: Republicans and Clinton supporters were generally dissatisfied, and Obama supporters were generally satisfied. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 15:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::Additionally, a look at [[A More Perfect Union#Initial response]] would seem to confirm the notion that the speech was "generally well received", although it would be a synthesis of opinion to say so in the article. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested another possible wording, with better sourcing, above at [[#"Critics continue to question"]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

== Tax returns ==

I've just reverted Andy's addition of the Obamas' tax return information on the basis that (a) it is not noteworthy enough for a [[WP:BLP|BLP]], and (b) even if it were noteworthy, it would be a campaign-related issue and would, therefore, need to be in the campaign article. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:As usual, Andy has again reverted without any attempt at meaningful discussion. What do other, less contentious editors think? Should the Obamas' income be mentioned in his biography, and in the "personal life" section no less? Or is this information more suited to the campaign article, since it is only noteworthy from a campaign perspective? -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::I have similarly proposed that tax details like this don't belong in [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] either, for reasons of [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:RECENT]]. Is this level of detail notable enough in the context of Obama's entire life? I think not. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I tend to disagree — I think that income is a relevant biographical datum, especially when it's been widely publicized. I agree that we don't want to give it too much weight, so it might be better stylistically to combine the income and net worth into a single sentence — but I don't have a problem with income being mentioned. I don't think Obama's income is primarily a campaign issue, since none of the campaigns have really made a big deal about it (understandably, since Clinton and McCain are both substantially wealthier than Obama). —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::It does belong in the HRC article, as I've stated at [[Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton]]. That article includes information about the Clintons' financial well-being throughout their marriage; it was her worries about their lack of wealth in the 1970s that led to the Whitewater investment and cattle futures trading episodes, for example. And yes, wealth is a legit topic for public elected figures; how much do they have, where did it come from, what did they do to get it, etc. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree with Josiah. Income and wealth are most definitely biographical information if such information is made public in reliable sources. Lots of bio articles have info on the subjects' wealth, and most of those people aren't running for President (or, for that matter, any public office), so I don't see how wealth is strictly a campaign issue. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::I agree it has been widely publicized, but this has only been the case [[WP:RECENT|recently]], and only within the context of the campaign. It seems to me that the only reason that the tax returns are being mentioned here is because Clinton's and McCain's have also been discussed, which does indeed make it a campaign-related issue (rather than a "personal life" issue). I also think that it is important to ask oneself '''why''' we need to include the wealth/income information, rather than approach it from the perspective of '''why not'''. Surely it is an insignificant detail, and therefore potentially falls foul of [[WP:WEIGHT]] in what is already a pretty long article. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Huh? This is factual information with no agenda attached. Including it doesn't provide undue weight to any POV. In addition, being able to cite current sources for current data is a ''virtue''. When Bill Gates's fortune changes in girth, we don't neglect his article due to some specious claim of recentism - we update it. Same thing applies here. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::All I am saying is that since this has only recently made the headlines, and in connection with the Presidential campaign, it may fall under the auspices of [[WP:RECENT]] and probably should been moved into the campaign section of the article. There is nothing specious about my "claim" at all. All I wanted was an open discussion about this recent addition to the article, which is a perfectly reasonable request. That being said, I think you are being a bit naïve if you think that this new information wasn't added as part of an agenda. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It's true that the ''income'' info has only recently been made public, but the ''net worth'' was reported back in '07, and has been part of this article for some time. I'm not sure how you can say that net worth is relevant biographical info but income is solely campaign-driven. They seem to me to fall into the same category of information. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, I don't think ''either'' are particularly relevant. I've been looking around at articles of other politicians (US and beyond), and so far I have noted only a minority of them cover net worth or income. In fact, details such as these only usually figure in the articles of politicians where these details are significant because of some other context (such as charges of corruption, etc.). Anyway, this is no big deal. If there is a consensus for inclusion that is fine with me, but I do think that it should be framed in the context of the campaign, since that is why the income has become notable. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::As I've mentioned earlier, there are numerous bio articles of people who have never held or run for public office, but whose income and wealth are still mentioned in their articles, sometimes prominently. I would also conjecture that the reason that many articles about politicians ''lack'' such information is because either the info isn't readily available, or nobody has thought to add it yet. As for your POV concerns and my supposed naivete, one could just as easily make the accusation that you're trying to censor this information because you think it makes Obama look bad. That's one reason we're supposed to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], to prevent edit discussions from descending into a series of ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

== 2004 Campaign ==

The <em>New York Times</em> has done some good reporting about Obama's 2004 US Senate campaign, and so maybe this stuff should go in this Wikipedia article:

<blockquote>The Obama camp had worked aggressively behind the scenes to push the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' to publish the story about Blair Hull's divorce proceedings, which ended up destroying the Hull campaign.[1] Later, when the ''Chicago Tribune'' successfully sued to open [[Child custody laws in the United States|child custody]] files from Jack Ryan's divorce, Obama made this public statement: "Those are issues of personal morality. The issues I'm focused on are public morality."[2]</blockquote>

[1]Wallace-Wells, Ben. [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=765f1fc42884f6d3&ex=1177905600&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all "Obama’s Narrator"], ''New York Times'' ([[2007-04-01]]).

[2]Kinzer, Stephen; Napolitano, Jo. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E3D71039F930A15755C0A9629C8B63&scp=1&sq=Jack+Ryan+Jeri+Ryan&st=nyt “Illinois Senate Campaign Thrown Into Prurient Turmoil”], ''New York Times'' ([[2004-06-23]]).

I'll be bold and insert this, and see what happens.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
*Any particular reason to have it here rather just in the article about the 2004 campaign? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::Something like Obama's recent comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians properly don't belong in this article, because it's not yet clear that those recent comments will actually affect any election outcome. In contrast, it's clear that publication of divorce records destroyed the campaigns of two of Obama's US Senate opponents, and Obama had a hand in that. So, it seems very notable.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

:::The question is whether this is at the core of a neutral summary of Obama's 2004 Senate campaign (in which case it belongs here), or a detail which belongs in the 2004 campaign article. Prior to this addition, the article already noted that the candidacies of Hull and Ryan collapsed after allegations from their respective ex-wives became public. I'm not sure that saying the Obama team worked aggressively behind the scenes to push the story of Hull's allegations adds much of value — don't we expect politicians' campaign teams to push negative stories about their opponents? And the juxtaposition of the "worked aggressively" re: Hull and the Obama quote re: Ryan seems a bit like we're pushing an agenda of our own, [[WP:SYN|synthesizing]] two different points in the 2004 campaign to give an appearance of hypocrisy. It's worth noting that the Hull allegation was of actual physical abuse, whereas the Ryan allegation was of a taste for kinky public sex — it's possible that one might feel that the former was fair game, but the latter was private, albeit tacky. It's also worth noting that neither of the sources quoted (the [http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/check-bounce/ Chris Hayes blog] and the [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=2&ei=5070&en=765f1fc42884f6d3&ex=1177905600&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin New York Times article]) attribute Obama's victory over Hull solely to the divorce revelations — the NYT centers on Axelrod's advertising campaign and focused messaging, while the Chris Hayes blog (by the way, is that really a reliable source?) gives much of the credit to Obama's use of McCain-Feingold.

:::I'm concerned that the newly added sentences may place [[WP:WEIGHT|undue weight]] on these divorce revelations. What do other folks think? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 01:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Josiah, I'm not the one who inserted the Chris Hayes blog, but it seems legit. It merely reprints an article that was published on March 17, 2004 for The New Republic. Anyway, you say that none of the cited sources attribute Obama's victory over Hull solely to the divorce revelations, but that's incorrect. The NYT Magazine article says "the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory".[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I've added a further reference from the Chicago Tribune confirming that Obama's campaign worked aggressively to get the Hull divorce material published. That Tribune article also makes the Hull-Ryan juxtaposition: “Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings.” It seems very notable that Obama was a driving force behind the destruction of the Hull campaign.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::Revert poorly sourced, inaccurate and misleading edit that violates [[WP:BLP]]; see: [[Talk:United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]].
:::::[[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::Pray tell, what is poorly sourced or inaccurate about the following?

::::::Mendell, David. [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0406240383jun24,1,1916376.story “Obama lets opponent do talking”], Chicago Tribune ([[2004-06-24]]): “Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings.”[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::Hello?[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I was in the process of rewording FL's addition when Newross reverted, but I'm thinking that the amount of detail is a bit of undue weight for a summary of this article and better placed in the senate campaign article and I'm also concerned with the implication that is raised by including the Tribune's suing for Ryan's court proceedings as neither article seems to mention that Obama's campaign was involved in that. Including Ryan's court proceedings in the same article appears to give the impression that Obama's campaign was involved in that reveal as well. Perhaps a much smaller half sentence could be added on to the end of the existing sentence about Hull's ex-wife's domestic abuse allegations? Something along the lines of "which Obama's campaign worked behind the scenes to have reported on" at the end of the sentence or in the middle of the sentence? --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, a much smaller half-sentence would be okay for now. Frankly, I was not aware of the Mendell article until after I already put all this stuff into this Wikipedia article. The Mendell article (unlike the sources I was relying upon) clearly characterizes Obama as a bystander in the Tribune's (extremely sleazy) suit to unseal the Ryan files. I'm not convinced that Mendell is correct about that, but I have no reliable source that says otherwise.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm fine with the clause "which Obama's campaign worked behind the scenes to have publicized." — it seems appropriate and not undue weight. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:I'm NOT fine with a [[lie|false statement]] using a poor outdated second-hand source that violates [[WP:BLP]] and uses a clause: "which Obama's campaign worked behind the scenes to have publicized." that is not supported a [[WP:RS|reliable source]].
:David Mendell, the reporter who covered the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary campaigns and then Obama's 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate general election campaign for the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' and "revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection."
:* Mendell, David (February 15, 2004). [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/545259451.html?dids=545259451:545259451&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT Political novice Hull uneasy in spotlight] ''Chicago Tribune'', p. 1 (Metro)
:devoted a dozen chapters (156 pages; pp. 147–302) in his 2007 [[biography]] of Obama to the [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004|2004 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign]].
:* Mendell, David (August 14, 2007). [http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060858209/Obama/index.aspx Obama: From Promise to Power] New York: Amistad/HarperCollins ISBN 0060858206 (hardcover):
:* Mendell, David (April 15, 2008). [http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060858216/Obama/index.aspx Obama: From Promise to Power] New York: Amistad/HarperCollins ISBN 0060858214 (paperback):
:** Chapter 15. Hull on Wheels, p. 209:<blockquote>Most campaign strategists were aiming to get their candidate to 30 percent. With so many contenders, this thinking went, the first candidate to reach 30 would be hard to stop. It was increasingly looking as if only three candidates had a shot at getting to this point: Hynes, Hull and Obama.<br /><br />But Hull's rapid ascent had put Hynes and his staff into a mild panic. The problem for Hynes: Hull was grabbing voters downstate and in other rural corners of Illinois, where life was slower and his television advertising was seeping into the public consciousness. In Chicago, his ads were more likely to get lost amid the urban frenzy. But Hull's name and message were gaining notice in these small towns even though he had never set foot in them. These were voters that Hynes was counting on. Obama would draw blacks in and around Chicago, lakefront liberals and perhaps college students. But if Hynes was to win, he needed rural voters on his side.</blockquote>
:** Chapter 15. Hull on Wheels, pp. 212–3:<blockquote>Nevertheless, Hull's ads were working. And when Hynes quick hit of television had no effect, the Hynes brain trust began worrying even more about Hull. Hynes's campaign spokesperson, Chris Mather, stepped up her phone calls to me and other reporters in hopes of slowing the Hull momentum. However, the intense lobbying effort actually had the opposite effect with me. Hynes's obvious fear gave Hull even more credibility. At about this time, I met with a Hynes operative for lunch. When I had gone to meet Mather earlier in the campaign season, we convened near Hynes's office. But this operative wanted to come to me, so we gathered at a North Michigan Avenue restaurant just a couple of doors from the Tribune Tower. Before I had taken a bite of my grilled chicken sandwich, I was handed a folder of opposition research on Hull. Among the papers was a copy of the outside sheet of the filing of one of Hull's two divorces in Illinois. Hull, in fact, had been divorced three times. He was married to his first wife for nearly thirty years, raising three children with her. After moving to Chicago, he then twice married and divorced the same woman. The rest of the divorce file had been sealed, and this vague court order was the only document publicly available. The order contained only one salient fact: Hull's second wife, Brenda Sexton, had once been granted an order of protection against him.<br /><br />As this was occurring behind the scenes, Hull continued ascending in the polls, cruising past Hynes and the rest of the field. Hull was nearing the 30 percent mark when I interviewed him for my Sunday profile of him and his candidacy.<br /><br />He steadfastly refused to discuss the circumstances of his marriages, divorces or the court order, saying they were private matters. Because he had been reluctant to explain these issues, particularly the court order, I felt compelled to include this in my profile. I placed this nugget fairly deep inside the story, but it served the purpose of the other candidates--the behind-the-scenes gossip had now slipped into the largest circulation newspaper in the state. Other political reporters and pundits jumped at the tasty morsel.</blockquote>
:** Chapter 15. Hull on Wheels, p. 214:<blockquote>It was not long before the Hulls' divorce story assumed a life of its own, dominating the headlines, leading newscasts and consuming public debates. At a televised candidates' forum on public television, Hull was peppered with questions about the sealed divorce files--and he stammered no-comments when prompted to talk about the issue.</blockquote>
:In his April 1, 2007 ''[[The New York Times Magazine|New York Times Magazine]]'' profile[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=765f1fc42884f6d3&ex=1177905600&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all] of [[David Axelrod]], ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' contributing editor Ben Wallace-Wells (who was not a reporter who covered the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign and does not demonstrate much knowledge about it), tried to make make Axelrod seem more Machiavellian by '''''falsely''''' (see above) insinuating that Axelrod leaked the publicly available information that Democratic candidate [[Blair Hull]]'s second wife had obtained an order of protection against him, noting:<blockquote>The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had "worked aggressively behind the scenes" to push the story.</blockquote>
:referring to a June 24, 2004 ''Chicago Tribune'' article [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/654712601.html?dids=654712601:654712601&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT Obama lets opponent do talking] by David Mendell that was published three days after records from Republican candidate [[Jack Ryan]]'s 2000 and 2001 California child custody battle with actress [[Jeri Ryan]] were unsealed:<blockquote>In the Democratic primary, Obama found himself the overwhelming beneficiary when the campaign of former securities trader Blair Hull crashed in the aftermath of Hull's release of court files from a messy divorce. Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings.</blockquote>
:as did the other six Democratic candidates: Dan Hynes, Gery Chico, Maria Pappas, Joyce Washington, Nancy Skinner; though only the three women publicly called on Hull to unseal his divorce records:
:* Fornek, Scott; Griffy, Leslie; Main, Frank (February 24, 2004). [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(Hull%20says%20he's%20OK%20with%20releasing%20divorce%20record%20)%20AND%20date(2/24/2004%20to%202/24/2004)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2/24/2004%20to%202/24/2004)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Hull%20says%20he's%20OK%20with%20releasing%20divorce%20record%20)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Hull says he's OK with releasing divorce record; But insists decision ultimately rests with ex-wife.] ''Chicago Sun-Times'', p. 6:<blockquote>Joining Pappas in calling for Hull to seek to make the records public were radio personality Nancy Skinner and health care consultant Joyce Washington.<br /><br />"This brings up an opportunity to talk about something that is so tragic in our society when you're talking about domestic violence," Washington said. "This should be eradicated. And every time there is an opportunity to bring it up over and over again, we need to deal with that straight on."<br /><br />Skinner said the Republicans will raise the issue in the general election if Hull wins the March 16 primary.<br /><br />Two other candidates, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and state Sen. Barack Obama, said the decision is up to Hull. Former Chicago School Board president Gery Chico did not take a position but said, "There's a very small range of issues that are off limits."<br /><br />"My own personal philosophy is that I think you have to answer all the questions put to you," Chico said.</blockquote>

:Re: Jack Ryan:
:* Fornek, Scott; Herrmann, Andrew (March 4, 2004). [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(Senate%20rivals%20urge%20Ryan%20to%20unseal%20divorce%20records)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Senate%20rivals%20urge%20Ryan%20to%20unseal%20divorce%20records)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Senate rivals urge Ryan to unseal divorce records.] ''Chicago Sun-Times'', p. 9:<blockquote>The emotionally charged question of sealed divorce records moved into the Republican primary for U.S. Senate Wednesday as four [John Borling, Jim Oberweis, Steve Rauschenberger, Andy McKenna Jr.] of the GOP hopefuls called on front-runner Jack Ryan to make public all the documents from his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan.<blockquote>
:* editorial (March 5, 2004). [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(Why%20Jack%20Ryan's%20divorce%20files%20should%20remain%20sealed)%20AND%20date(3/5/2004%20to%203/5/2004)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=3/5/2004%20to%203/5/2004)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Why%20Jack%20Ryan's%20divorce%20files%20should%20remain%20sealed)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Why Jack Ryan's divorce files should remain sealed.] ''Chicago Sun-Times'', p. 41:<blockquote>In the game of politics, there is frequently an echo effect. When Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Blair Hull was forced to unseal court records of his divorce, you could bet another candidate in the primaries would be asked to do the same thing. Wednesday, that bet paid off, unfortunately, when Jack Ryan, front-runner in the Republican Senate primary, was pressured to unseal documents from his divorce.<br /><br />In the case of Hull, there were reasons for demanding that the truth be revealed. The candidate had allegations of spousal abuse and a court order of protection spinning around him. Ultimately, it was revealed that his ex-wife, Brenda Sexton had accused him of calling her vile names and threatening to kill her -- and he acknowledges hitting her in the shin.<br /><br />But there were no such allegations, no calls to police, arising from Ryan 's 1999 divorce from actress Jeri Ryan. The portions of the divorce papers that remained sealed after Ryan made available the rest of them pertained to custody issues involving the couple's son, now 9. Custody issues can be unpleasant. Ryan says he wants to keep that information private for his son's sake and to protect the boy from the creep sentenced for stalking Jeri Ryan with sexually explicit e-mails and threatening violence to the man she lived with.</blockquote>
:* Fornek, Scott; Herrmann, Andrew (March 12, 2004). [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(Borling%20fires%20aide%20who%20leaked%20claims%20about%20Ryan)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Borling%20fires%20aide%20who%20leaked%20claims%20about%20Ryan)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Borling fires aide who leaked claims about Ryan; Former campaign chief says he thinks he saw divorce file documents.] ''Chicago Sun-Times'', p. 11:<blockquote>Republican Senate candidate John Borling asked for and received the resignation of his campaign chief Thursday, hours after the aide issued a statement detailing embarrassing allegations he said were contained in hidden documents from the divorce file of front-runner Jack Ryan.</blockquote>
:* Fornek, Scott (April 3, 2004). [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(Obama:%20Back%20off%20divorce%20files)%20AND%20date(4/3/2004%20to%204/3/2004)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=4/3/2004%20to%204/3/2004)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Obama:%20Back%20off%20divorce%20files)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Obama: Back off divorce files; Senate candidate asks Dems to lay off Ryan family records.] ''Chicago Sun-Times'', p. 4:<blockquote>Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barack Obama reversed his position on Republican rival Jack Ryan 's divorce file Friday, calling on fellow Democrats to refrain from trying to inject it into the campaign.<br /><br />"I don't think it's an appropriate topic for debate," Obama said.<br /><br />Obama has consistently said that his campaign would not focus on Ryan 's 1999 divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan.<br /><br />But when he first made that pledge, Obama refused to call on other Democrats to follow his lead.<br /><br />"It's going to be up to other people to determine what's appropriate and what's not," Obama said the day after his March primary victory.<br /><br />Since then, Mayor Daley called on Democrats and the news media to avoid delving into politicians' divorce records, and Ryan urged Obama to insist all Democrats lay off the matter.<br /><br />Speaking at a taping of the WBBM-AM radio program "At Issue" on Friday, Obama took that additional step and insisted he was not being inconsistent.<br /><br />"I'm not the policeman for what the media and everybody else does," Obama said. "What I can take responsibility for is my campaign and those people who are supporting me. And to the extent that people who are supporting me, including the Democratic National Committee or the Democratic [Senatorial Campaign] Committee are engaging in these kinds of things, I would urge them not to do so because I think Illinois voters really want to focus on those issues that are going to help them in their lives."</blockquote>
:[[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 12:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

::That's very informative. Thanks Newross. Do you think that any of this is notable or should be mentioned in the present article? You've pasted news reports here that describe Obama's role regarding Hull. Obama publicly said "the decision is up to Hull" but actually Obama "worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings". Is that correct? And did Obama ever say whether the ''Chicago Tribune'' should continue with its lawsuit to unseal the Ryan divorce files?[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I see from these sources that Obama's campaign did not ''originate'' the demands to release Hull's divorce records, and that the behind-the-scenes maneuvering was not limited to his campaign. That doesn't make the clause "which Obama's campaign worked behind the scenes to have publicized" a [[lie|false statement]], though it might be considered a [[half-truth]] since it doesn't convey the whole picture. That said, I think that the article is OK with or without the clause. I do think that the matter is tangential enough that any indepth coverage would give it [[WP:WEIGHT|undue weight]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've looked into this matter a bit more. It seems clear that Obama did work behind the scenes to publicize Hull's alleged abuse of his ex-wife. But I agree that this Hull matter is not as notable as the behind-the-scenes Democratic effort to inject Ryan's divorce records into the campaign, in order to boost Obama. Unlike in the Hull matter, there was no physical abuse alleged in the Ryan matter, and both Ryan and his ex-wife wanted the custody files to remain sealed.

Barack Obama eventually changed his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to stop injecting them into the campaign, and to stop emailing reporters about the Ryan divorce files.[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(Obama:%20Back%20off%20divorce%20files)%20AND%20date(4/3/2004%20to%204/3/2004)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=4/3/2004%20to%204/3/2004)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Obama:%20Back%20off%20divorce%20files)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no] But that change of policy occurred shortly ''after'' the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' succeeded in convincing Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider that some of the Ryans' custody records could be released.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0403300182mar30,1,7640086.story] Talk about a well-timed policy-shift! Anyway, I'll be curious if anyone else views this Ryan matter as noteworthy enough to mention in this article. It seems much more notable than the similar Hull matter.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:What exactly would you want to say about the Ryan divorce records that's directly related to Barack Obama? Although Obama clearly benefited from the release of Ryan's divorce records (as the article currently indicates), I don't see any evidence that he played a role in the ''Chicago Tribune'' lawsuit, or the California judge's decision to release the records. And you should re-read the passage Newross quoted above about exactly what the change in Obama's position was: he was consistent about saying that Ryan's divorce records shouldn't be a campaign issue. What changed was his willingness to extend that opinion from himself to other Democrats. At first he said that candidates should determine the boundaries of acceptable topics for themselves, but later he said, no, this really isn't an appropriate campaign issue. I don't see that change in policy as particularly significant — certainly not significant enough to mention here. It might have a place in [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]], but it seems too far from the central matter to be covered in this [[Wikipedia:summary style|summary style]] article. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::OK, thanks for thinking about it. And please check out the first link I provided.[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(Obama:%20Back%20off%20divorce%20files)%20AND%20date(4/3/2004%20to%204/3/2004)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=4/3/2004%20to%204/3/2004)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Obama:%20Back%20off%20divorce%20files)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no] What Obama seems to have done is allow his Democratic operatives to stir up reporters' interest in the issue, and then ---- only after reporters got a favorable court opinion --- did Obama say he wouldn't do it anymore. I've never heard of such an intrusion into a candidate's private life. Obviously, I'm not an Obama backer, but I would think that even an Obama backer would acknowledge that something very unusual happened to Ryan.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::P.S. here's part of the article that Newross didn't quote. Fornek, Scott (April 3, 2004). [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=(Obama:%20Back%20off%20divorce%20files)%20AND%20date(4/3/2004%20to%204/3/2004)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=4/3/2004%20to%204/3/2004)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Obama:%20Back%20off%20divorce%20files)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Obama: Back off divorce files; Senate candidate asks Dems to lay off Ryan family records.] ''Chicago Sun-Times'', p. 4

:::"[E]arlier this week, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that a court 'referee' would determine if any more of the file should be made public. Obama pledged Friday that even if the media uncovers something embarrassing, he would not try to capitalize on it. 'I can say unequivocally that this is not something that we are going to be focused on in our campaign,' Obama said. Ryan spokeswoman Kelli Phiel called Obama's remarks 'a bit hypocritical,' because the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has already e-mailed reporters copies of news media articles about the divorce controversy. 'But other than that, we agree voters do want to talk about issues,' she said. A Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee official said they would have no problem adhering to Obama's request. 'It's my recollection that it was [Ryan's] Republican opponents that were enamored with his divorce files,' spokesman Brad Woodhouse said. 'Other than our standard procedure of forwarding stories around to talkers and politicos about some races, I don't believe we've engaged in any on-the-record commentary about his divorce files,' he said."

::So, it seems Obama changed course only after his operatives had succeeded in stirring up this issue to the point where a judge agreed to release the records. Only then did Obama agree to back off. But I won't press the issue if others don't think it's significant enough for this article.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

== State legislature ==

{{seealso|Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 17#State_legislature}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=206881348&oldid=206874996 Better]? --[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] ([[User talk:HailFire|talk]]) 13:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

''Discuss'', please. --[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] ([[User talk:HailFire|talk]]) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

== Relationship with William Ayers ==

Much as the Obama pundits have been deleting this, it's unavoidable that we include Obama's relationship with Ayers, which is going to be a talking point for the rest of his candidacy. Especially considering how poorly he handled the questions about Ayers, and Ayers past, there is no way there won't be questions about it, and people with questions about that will logically come here. {{unsigned|Fovean Author}}

:Regarding, "which is going to be a talking point", please note that [[WP:CRYSTAL|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]]. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 01:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::And regarding "pundit", I do not think that word means what you think it means. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:::A pundit (sometimes mispronounced pundant) is someone who offers mass-media opinion, analysis or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport), on which they are presumed to be knowledgeable. As the term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities lacking special expertise[attribution needed], however, it can be used in a derogative manner. Pundit is also a slang term for politically biased people attempting to be neutral.[citation needed]
:::Pretty much nailed it, I believe. You two clearly have no intention of allowing Obama's Wikipedia page to be anything but a pro-Obama puff piece. --[[User:Fovean Author|Fovean Author]]
::::Rather, can ''you'' state what relevance this has to his ''biography''? '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::::It probably more appropriate for the campaign article, unless it becomes more noteworthy. Obama's campaign has acknowledged they are "friendly", but Obama appears friendly with many people, to many to mention in a biography. [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's probably only appropriate if it becomes noteworthy at all. Politicians know lots of people. It's a simple [[guilt by association]] tactic that, [[WP:BLP#Criticism|according to policy]], should be deleted. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::Or it could be more appropriate in the IL state senate article, since they know each other from IL, but I am not sure when the relationship fits, but it has been talked about in context of the presidential campaign. [[User:It is me i think|It is me i think]] ([[User talk:It is me i think|talk]]) 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guilt by association is not sufficient to send someone to jail, but it's a useful and appropriate way to measure a man's character. If you associate with mafioso, you might not be mafia, but we know a little more about your character. If John McCain's 20 year pastor was a racist like David Duke and another long term friend was the Oklahoma bomber it would be newsworthy (at the least).

I don't know why anyone other than an Obama campaign volunteer like Grsz would actively try to hide Obama's associations with a racist (Wright) and a terrorist (Ayers). These two characters (and Obama's wife who is finally proud of America) give important insight into a man which we barely know. [[Special:Contributions/72.196.233.224|72.196.233.224]] ([[User talk:72.196.233.224|talk]]) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, and your point of view is oh so neutral. Was I the only one who argued against it? No. Thanks, '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

== Election results ==

Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and won. This article provides the election results.

Obama ran for the U.S. House in 2000 and lost. The election results are repeatedly deleted from this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=206996902][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=206974120&oldid=206971701]

Does anything else need to be said?[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:First, I have no issue posting the results, but wonder if those specific results add anything to the article. The fact that he ran in the primary and lost is mentioned, so why is there a need to mention the vote totals. Why not mention just the percent vote, like the 2004 race? I agree it seems selective to only mention the 2004 race, but the vote totals aren't mentioned for 2004, only percent, so any mention should be consistent. I think there is an argument to be made for including the 2004 percentages, given the notoriety of the race and extension coverage of Obama's win by a large margin. Then again, if results from one race are going to be mentioned, perhaps this article needs an "Electoral History" section, like [[Amy Klobuchar]], that includes every race for public office. Just a few suggestions.[[User:Dcmacnut|Dcmacnut]] ([[User talk:Dcmacnut|talk]]) 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:I just added "receiving just 30% of the primary vote." at the end of the section on the 2000 race. Mentioning results makes more sense as part of the opening sentence, rather than as an add on. Rush received 61%, but I don't know if that number is necessary, since the sentence says Obama lost. If we mention Rush's percentage or results, than we'd need to mention the other two candidates who also ran (there were 4 total). The link to the FEC page on the election should be sufficient for anyone wanting more detail.[[User:Dcmacnut|Dcmacnut]] ([[User talk:Dcmacnut|talk]]) 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Then I guess we'd better edit the following two sentences in this article:

:::"He received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, <s>emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.</s>"

:::"Obama received 70% of the vote <s>to Keyes's 27%</s>, the largest electoral victory in Illinois history."[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Giving details about the failed Congressional run, other than the fact that it was unsuccessful, seems to be [[WP:WEIGHT|undue weight]]. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::No, in this case it is providing useful and relevent information. [[WP:WEIGHT]] does not apply. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm unaware of any other politicians whose Wikipedia articles only describe their successful races and not their unsuccessful ones. This should be blindingly simple.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::It is neither useful (what can it be used for?) or relevant (he lost, years ago, so how is it relevant?) actually, so [[WP:WEIGHT]] absolutely applies. Apparently, this is another POV push. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::If these details really ''are'' important, incorporate all of them into an election record table section (like most other articles). -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I'm not aware that the election results for state legislature are available online. What are available online are election results for federal congressional races. Saying how much a person won or lost by, in a race for federal office, is about the most notable thing that could possibly be included in this article. Please beware of [[WP:recentism]]. Also, please try to show a modicum of neutrality here. If you're going to delete percentages for Obama's congressional race, then also please delete percentages for his US Senate race.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I disagree that the congressional race is notable, especially since he was a relatively unknown politician running against a popular 4-termer. In contrast, the Senate campaign is highly notable due to the landslide victory (although all the silly details about Jack Ryan's divorce are definitely ''not''). This is not a neutrality discussion here, but a discussion about excessive detail. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::If this were an article about something more general, then you might have a point about notability. But this article is about Barack Obama, and the topic under discussion here isn't whether he ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on Election Day in 2000. He ran for Congress, which would be a significant event in ''anybody's'' political career. It's pretty obvious that properly sourced material on his failed House run should be included, and I am completely mystified as to why you've arrived at the position you hold. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I am also mystified. My side of this conversation includes both notability and neutrality issues; the US House election results are notable and neutral. Obama lost a race for the United States House of Representatives in a landslide, and that obviously should be mentioned here in this article. It's plainly wrong to only mention landslides that a politician won and not those that the politician lost. Maybe we should accompany the 2000 election results with a statement that Obama was a relatively unknown politician running against a popular 4-termer, but to just whitewash the election results seems extremely non-neutral, especially considering some of the minutae that's already included in this article (e.g. Obama's summer job at a law firm, the University of Hawaii campus where his parents met, the resemblance of some of his relatives to Bernie Mac, the etymology of his first name, et cetera).[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How about:

<tt>
In July 1995, Obama announced plans to run for the [[Illinois Senate]] from Chicago's 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's [[South Side (Chicago)|South Side]], including [[Hyde Park, Chicago|Hyde Park]]-[[Kenwood, Chicago|Kenwood]] and [[South Shore, Chicago|South Shore]].<nowiki><ref name=Jackson20070403></nowiki>{{cite news | first=David | last=Jackson | coauthors=Ray Long | title=Showing His Bare Knuckles | date=[[April 4]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story | work=Chicago Tribune | accessdate=2008-04-20}}<nowiki></ref></nowiki> Following the surprise return of incumbent [[Alice J. Palmer|Alice Palmer]] to the contest in late 1995, Obama's campaign raised legal challenges to the nominations of Palmer and three other Democratic candidates, each of whose names were removed from the primary ballot due to petition irregularities.<nowiki><ref name=Jackson20070403 /></nowiki> 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]], receiving 30% of the vote to Rush's 61%.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>{{cite news | first=Janny | last=Scott | title=A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama | date=[[September 9]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html | work=The New York Times | accessdate=2008-04-20}}<nowiki></ref></nowiki> Rush and another rival candidate had charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>{{cite news | first=Edward | last=McClelland | title=How Obama Learned to Be a Natural | date=[[February 12]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/obama_natural/ | work=Salon | accessdate=2008-04-20}} See also: {{cite news | first=Richard | last=Wolffe | coauthors=Daren Briscoe | title=Across the Divide | date=[[July 16]] [[2007]] | publisher=MSNBC | url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/33156 | work=Newsweek | accessdate=2008-04-20}} {{cite news | first=Scott | last=Helman | title=Early Defeat Launched a Rapid Political Climb | date=[[October 12]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/12/early_defeat_launched_a_rapid_political_climb/ | work=Boston Globe | accessdate=2008-04-20}}<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
</tt>

--[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] ([[User talk:HailFire|talk]]) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::Looks fine to me. I'd put a paragraph break after the word "irregularities".[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:::The jump to the 2000 election is too abrupt. Perhaps include the 1995 results and a brief synopsis of Obama's IL senate career between 1995 and 2000 to ease the transition a bit. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your replies, Ferrylodge and Bobblehead. Any additional text from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=207141095#State_legislature Andy's longer version] that either of you feel merits inclusion/development in this summary section? --[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] ([[User talk:HailFire|talk]]) 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't see any other information in Andy's version that is necessary. It might be appropriate for the main article, but the detail is unnecessary for a summary section. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Bobblehead that the other stuff from Andy’s version is not necessary. However, there may be some more good stuff in the NY Times article by Janny Scott, to provide the transition that Bobblehead requested. For example: “he was frustrated at the Statehouse. He had distinguished himself as an ethics reformer there, but it was difficult for Democrats to get much done in a period of virtual Republican lockdown.” So he ran for Congress.

::::::Also, the notion that Obama was not suffieciently rooted in Chicago’s black neighborhoods seems to have been class-based rather than race-based. Janny Scott quotes Eric Adelstein, a media consultant in Chicago who worked on the Rush campaign: “It was much more a function of class, not race….Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park.”

::::::And lastly, there’s this nugget reported by Janny Scott: “President Clinton’s endorsement of Mr. Rush, an early supporter of Mr. Clinton, dealt a final blow. According to Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Clinton — after a personal request from Mr. Rush — overrode his own policy of not endorsing candidates in primaries.”

::::::I wouldn't delay making the edit you suggested, Hailfire, but you may want to subsequently tweak it to use some of this additional info.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

== Malia's birth year revisited ==

{{seealso|Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 15#Children in infobox}}

Malia Ann Obama's birth year in the infobox was recently changed from 1998 to 1999. I realized that our sources for 1998 weren't as solid as they might be. (They're a [http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/IowaHQ/Cv8V community blog] from Obama's campaign website, which has her celebrating her 9th birthday on July 4, 2007 and a ''[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/221458,CST-NWS-mich21.article Chicago Sun-Times]'' article which gives her age as 8 on January 20, 2007.) On the other hand, the 1999 birth year is widely found on the web, including on [http://www.gannettnewsservice.com/?cat=153 this page] from [[Gannett News Service]], which explicitly says that she was born in 1999. How do we resolve this contradiction? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::On a [[Factiva]] search I have found 4 newspaper articles giving 1999 as the birth date.
::* SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY THE CANDIDATES Augusta Chronicle, 25 January 2008, 381 words, (English)
::* NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY ; It's Obamarama in New Hampshire, Boston Herald, 6 January 2008, 634 words, MARGERY EAGAN
::*Building Blocs St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 December 2007, 1831 words, By Kevin McDermott
::* Obama history The State Journal-Register, 10 February 2007
--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

== Stupid edit war ==

I've blocked Scjessey and Andy for 12 hours for edit warring about the sentence "But it was not all civil rights work—he also appeared in court to defend a developer against charges it was failing to provide heat to tenants and another time to contest a demand that a healthcare corporation pay for baby-sitting (his client paid up)." As far as I can tell in all the reversions back and forth there was no attempt to discuss this or reach a compromise. That's not the way we do things here. If the pattern of edit warring and tendentious editing continues, I won't hesitate to block anyone (on either side of the dispute) for longer periods. It's quite simple: if you're reverted, especially if you're reverted more than once, discuss the edit on the talk page. That goes for everybody. OK? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:Not so silly. Scjessey was reverting considerably more than the sentence you mention.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=207140012] And while you accused both of us of violating 3RR, Scjessey did ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=206997329 00:27, 21 April 2008][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=207095852 11:40, 21 April 2008][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=207138470 16:03, 21 April 2008][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=207140012 16:10, 21 April 2008] and I did not ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=207002679 01:01, 21 April 2008][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=207111857 13:36, 21 April 2008][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=207139685 16:08, 21 April 2008]). And which of ''my'' edits are "tendentious editing"? [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

::I broke the rules, and I apologize. Josiah was perfectly correct to issue a 3RR block for my actions, and I see it as a reminder not to let the behavior of a [[User:Andyvphil|tendentious editor]] with more [[WP:GAME|experience]] get to me. To partially defend myself, I will say that I have tried to discuss the disputed content repeatedly over the last week or so, most recently in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=206702006 here], but I have been unable to get any response other than reversions. I have decided to let others fight this fight for the time being, and I will busy myself with other aspects of the article. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

::Er, Andy. At least one of those "examples" of mine is not a revert at all, and another is one of ''your'' edits. Besides, you take part in what I call "long game" edit warring whereby you add your biased text (or revert back to it) over and over again, taking care to spread it out so as not to get into 3RR trouble, and avoiding any discussion or consensus-building. And in answer to your question, almost ''all'' of your edits are tendentious. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I've corrected the diff that pointed to the wrong edit. The other three are all reverts, as is the corrected diff. Four in all. If you think that one wasn't you had best learn why you are wrong. And the question was not directed at you. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::::The first of my edits you list is a removal of content per [[WP:WEIGHT]], and not a reversion. Even if it ''were'' a reversion, it would be treated as a "consecutive" reversion - the same thing that enabled you to wriggle out of your last 3RR issues. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, Andy.. good to see you learned something from your short block.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=207377097&diffonly=1] Or not... Adding the exact same text that you were just blocked for edit warring over is a blockable offense. The general theory is that if a person is blocked for edit warring over something, they will learn to actually use the talk page instead of trying to force their preferred text onto (or keep unpreferred text off) an article. Both of you need to realize that three reverts is not a right and that you can (and will) get blocked for fewer than three reverts. This is particularly true if you are just recently got off a block and make the exact same edit without getting consensus on the talk page first. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm less interested in the letter of the 3RR than its spirit. As Scjessey pointed out on my talk page, [[WP:3RR]] says, "Editors may still be blocked ''even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period'', if their behavior is clearly disruptive." The back-and-forth over this material was clearly an edit war, and not the first on this page between these individuals. Scjessey did attempt some discussion on the matter of the tax returns, but I didn't see any prior discussion from anyone about the tenant and babysitter disputes now being discussed below. Previous attempts to get the parties to engage in discussion on other subjects had not been successful, so I decided to use administrative measures. If anyone disagrees with this decision, please feel free to start a discussion at [[WP:AN/I]] or, if you think the matter serious enough, open an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges| admin user conduct RfC]]. I'm a member of [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall|Wikipedia administrators open to recall]], and my understanding of what that means is [[User:Josiah Rowe/Recall|here]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

== Lawyer days ==

"But it was not all civil rights work—he also appeared in court to defend a developer against charges it was failing to provide heat to tenants and another time to contest a demand that a healthcare corporation pay for baby-sitting (his client paid up)." is what andyvphil wanted to add to the early life and career section. In its current form, it just makes him look like a civil right activist. Clearly it wasn't all positive, though. I think this edit deserves consideration, so as to balance out that section. [[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 05:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:The source for that sentence, [http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamalegal6apr06,0,6774732,full.story this article from the ''LA Times''], says, "Obama spent about 70% of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits." The question I'd ask is whether the current wording is an accurate portrayal of Obama's work as a lawyer. I think it probably is, and that the details of the babysitting case and the landlord/tenant dispute are too trivial for the main article. They're appropriate for [[Early life and career of Barack Obama]], but I don't really think they're noteworthy enough to merit inclusion here. To me it's not about balancing "positive" and "negative" cases, it's about including significant cases and leaving less significant cases for the daughter article. I'm open to arguments about why a babysitter suing for payment is as important as the implementation of the Motor Voter act. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:The sentence that andyvphil wanted to add, as you quoted it, is written in poor encyclopedic style. Aside from that, I agree with Josiah on the relative case notability. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

::The lede currently reads "A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004." As [http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamalegal6apr06,0,6774732,full.story the source] notes this representation ("civil rights lawyer") of this part of Obama's history "is fundamental to his autobiography, displayed on his campaign website and woven into his appeals for votes." The whole point of the LA Times article is that this is misleading, that his work for ''Davis, Miner'' was "not all civil rights" and other do-goodism, and that sometimes his representation was ''against'' the interests of the poor and powerless. The alleged wider significance of the cases is beside the point. The subject is the parameters of Obama's claim that he was a "civil rights lawyer". And NPOV requires that we not merely echo Obama's spin. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:::We are talking about detailing minor cases that come up in the normal course of any defense attorney's workload, and they are simply not notable enough for this BLP. Just cut out "civil rights" from that sentence of the introduction and leave all this pointless detail out of the article, thus restoring your perceived neutrality. I'd be cool with that, because I think that Obama was a "lawyer chiefly concerned with civil rights cases" as opposed to a "civil rights lawyer" (which I agree is misleading). -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

::::I approve of Grsz's removal of "civil rights" from the lede. I think that should satisfy the POV concerns. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree with Scjessey's solution here, as well as the assertion that "civil rights lawyer" carries special meaning beyond that of a lawyer who sometimes worked on civil rights cases. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Thezirk|Thezirk]] added this sentence again. I repeat my opinion that these cases aren't important enough for this summary style article, although they're appropriate for [[Early life and career of Barack Obama]]. Also, since the lede no longer says "civil rights lawyer", there's no assertion to "balance" with negative-seeming court cases. If there were "negative" cases as important as the Motor Voter or making sure that the ward boundaries were in keeping with the Civil Rights Act, I'd support their inclusion — but these two cases (a babysitter suing for wages and a tenant/landlord dispute) just aren't significant enough. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

== WWE ==

Should the fact he and his presidential candidate rivals were on Monday Night Raw as part of their campaign? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.172.41.225|58.172.41.225]] ([[User talk:58.172.41.225|talk]]) 10:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Not that notable for this article. Maybe for the [[Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008]] article, but even that is pushing it. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::You'd have to mention candidate appearances on The View, Ellen, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, The Today Show, and a whole bunch of others if you were going to include this "joke" appearance. Not notable in ''any'' article, to be frank. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

== New addition proposed ==

I think it's appropriate, to measure the character of this man, that we include the fact that many people believe he gave Hillary the finger during a speech the other day. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=DygBj4Zw6No Here] is a clip from YouTube we can use a source. It's important people know the truth behind this man. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]''' 13:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:LOL. That's pretty funny, Grsz. I was once threatened with being '''fired''' because I always use my middle finger to push my glasses back up my nose, although I don't even realize I'm doing it. I notice Obama isn't wearing a flag pin either. Shame on him! Seriously though, I would be vigorously opposed to the inclusion of this "incident" in the article, and indeed in ''any'' article, because it is obviously a nonsense claim made by a few desperate Clinton supporters. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::I'm assuming that Grsz is joking here, but we've had people trying to insert things just as absurd. So, just in case anyone thinks this is a serious proposal: video shot from another angle shows that Obama was scratching his face with two fingers, not one. See analysis by [[Media Matters for America|Media Matters]] and photo [http://mediamatters.org/items/200804180010?f=h_latest here]. And if you don't trust Media Matters because they're a liberal group, watch the raw video [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/355941 here] — the finger-scratch is at about 20:56. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Isn't there an obscene gesture in some countries involving two fingers? ;) Anyway, thanks for the levity, Grsz :) --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it wasn't meant that way. Why is anyone bringing it up and trying to analyze or defend it? Is it so important to you to make sure that ''everybody'' knows Obama was really just scratching his face? Waste of talk page space. [[User:Thezirk|thezirk]] ([[User talk:Thezirk|talk]]) 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

== State Legislature weight issues ==

Andy's current text:
<blockquote>In 1995 [[Alice J. Palmer|Alice Palmer]], [[Illinois Senate| Illinois State Senator]] for Chicago's 13th District, ran for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives seat then held by [[Mel Reynolds]], who had been indicted for sexual abuse of an underage campaign worker. With a degree of formality that is disputed, she anointed Obama as her chosen successor to represent the areas of Chicago's [[South Side (Chicago)|South Side]], including [[Hyde Park, Chicago|Hyde Park]]-[[Kenwood, Chicago|Kenwood]] and [[South Shore, Chicago|South Shore]], that constituted the 13th District. After she was defeated by [[Jesse Jackson, Jr.]] in a special election held November 2005 she filed to retain the Democratic nomination for her Senate seat. Obama challenged her petitions, and that of the other three candidates, and disqualified enough signatures so that he was unopposed in the March 1996 primary election. In the heavily Democratic 13th District the general election was a formality.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-0704030881apr04,1,3119388,print.story | title=Showing his bare knuckles | work=Chicago Tribune | author= David Jackson | coauthors= Ray Long | date=[[April 4]] [[2007]]| accessdate=2008-04-21}}</ref><ref name=Jackson20070403>{{cite news | first=David | last=Jackson | coauthors=Ray Long | title=Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot | date=[[April 3]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story | work=Chicago Tribune | accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref></blockquote>
Surely this is a gross violation of [[WP:WEIGHT]], given that it is mostly about [[Alice J. Palmer]] and her time in the Illinois State Senate. What was wrong with the previous version? And what has the Mel Reynolds sex abuse case got to do with Obama? -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:Nothing, as far as I can tell. As for the larger question, I'd think this material would be useful context for [[Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama]], but excessive detail here. The same goes for the detail about Obama's unsuccessful House race against Bobby Rush — I don't see how the death of Bobby Rush's son is important enough to merit inclusion here. All this should go in [[Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think it's a [[WP:WEIGHT]] problem, since it's presenting (mostly) facts rather than viewpoints. Still, as Josiah said, it does go into depth that is far beyond the scope of this article, including the detail concerning Mel Reynolds and the detailed info on what neighborhoods constitute the 13th district. There are also potential POV issues regarding the "anointing" of Obama and the "formality" of the general election, both of which are loaded terms not appropriate in this context. On a side note, was "2005" meant to be "1995"? --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 16:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The current text is <blockquote>In July 1995, Obama announced plans to run for the [[Illinois Senate]] from Chicago's 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's [[South Side (Chicago)|South Side]], including [[Hyde Park, Chicago|Hyde Park]]-[[Kenwood, Chicago|Kenwood]] and [[South Shore, Chicago|South Shore]].<ref name=Jackson20070403>{{cite news | first=David | last=Jackson | coauthors=Ray Long | title=Showing His Bare Knuckles | date=[[April 4]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story | work=Chicago Tribune | accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref> Following the surprise return of incumbent [[Alice J. Palmer|Alice Palmer]] to the contest in late 1995, Obama's campaign raised legal challenges to the nominations of Palmer and three other Democratic candidates, each of whose names were removed from the primary ballot due to petition irregularities.<ref name=Jackson20070403 /> 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]], receiving 30% of the vote to Rush's 61%.<ref>{{cite news | first=Janny | last=Scott | title=A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama | date=[[September 9]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html | work=The New York Times | accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref> Rush and another rival candidate had charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns.<ref>{{cite news | first=Edward | last=McClelland | title=How Obama Learned to Be a Natural | date=[[February 12]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/obama_natural/ | work=Salon | accessdate=2008-04-20}} See also: {{cite news | first=Richard | last=Wolffe | coauthors=Daren Briscoe | title=Across the Divide | date=[[July 16]] [[2007]] | publisher=MSNBC | url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/33156 | work=Newsweek | accessdate=2008-04-20}} {{cite news | first=Scott | last=Helman | title=Early Defeat Launched a Rapid Political Climb | date=[[October 12]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/12/early_defeat_launched_a_rapid_political_climb/ | work=Boston Globe | accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref></blockquote><br>
I am attempting, as a first step, to replace this with:<blockquote>In 1995 [[Alice J. Palmer|Alice Palmer]], [[Illinois Senate| Illinois State Senator]] for Chicago's 13th District, ran for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives seat then held by [[Mel Reynolds]], who had been indicted for sexual abuse of an underage campaign worker. With a degree of formality that is disputed, she anointed Obama as her chosen successor to represent the areas of Chicago's [[South Side (Chicago)|South Side]], including [[Hyde Park, Chicago|Hyde Park]]-[[Kenwood, Chicago|Kenwood]] and [[South Shore, Chicago|South Shore]], that constituted the 13th District. After she was defeated by [[Jesse Jackson, Jr.]] in a special election held November 1995 she filed to retain the Democratic nomination for her Senate seat. Obama challenged her petitions, and that of the other three candidates, and disqualified enough signatures so that he was unopposed in the March 1996 primary election. In the heavily Democratic 13th District the general election was a formality.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-0704030881apr04,1,3119388,print.story | title=Showing his bare knuckles | work=Chicago Tribune | author= David Jackson | coauthors= Ray Long | date=[[April 4]] [[2007]]| accessdate=2008-04-21}}</ref><ref name=Jackson20070403>{{cite news | first=David | last=Jackson | coauthors=Ray Long | title=Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot | date=[[April 3]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story | work=Chicago Tribune | accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref><br>
In 2000, Obama made a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate [[Bobby Rush]]. Rush had been badly defeated in the February 1999 Chicago Mayoral election by [[Richard M. Daley]] and was thought to be vulnerable. Rush charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns, and also benefitted from an outpouring of sympathy when his son was shot to death shortly before the election. Obama, who started with just a 10% name recognition, got only 31% of the votes, losing by a more than 2-to-1 margin despite winning among white voters.<ref>Federal Election Commission, [http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/ilh.htm 2000 U.S. House of Representatives Results]. See also: {{cite web|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14502364|title=Obama's Loss May Have Aided White House Bid}} and {{cite news | first=Janny | last=Scott | title=A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama | date=[[September 9]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html | work=The New York Times | accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref><ref name=McClelland20070212> {{cite news | first=Edward | last=McClelland | title=How Obama Learned to Be a Natural | date=[[February 12]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/obama_natural/ | work =Salon | accessdate=2008-04-20}} See also: {{cite news | first=Richard | last=Wolffe | coauthors= Daren Briscoe | title=Across the Divide | date=[[July 16]] [[2007]] | publisher=MSNBC | url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/33156 | work=Newsweek | accessdate=2008-04-20}} {{cite news | first=Scott | last=Helman | title=Early Defeat Launched a Rapid Political Climb | date=[[October 12]] [[2007]] | url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/12/early_defeat_launched_a_rapid_political_climb/ | work=Boston Globe | accessdate=2008-04-20}} and {{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-10-24-3157940059_x.htm|title=Obama learned from failed Congress run}}</ref></blockquote><br>First, Palmer's return was not a "surprise". She was the incumbent and had evinced no desire to retire from politics if she didn't win, so it could have been a surprise only if her loss had been a surprise. But she was facing both the Jesse Jackson and Emil Jones political machines and could be expected to and did finish third, and once the election was decided and filing for renomination was no longer a premature admission of loss she could be expected to and did so file. The idea that the seat was "vacant" and that her deciding to run for her own seat was a "suprise" is pro-Obama Kool-Aid designed to minimize the degree to which he is perceived to have stabbed her in the back.

Second, the idea that devoting more than two sentences apiece to Obama's first two runs for office is, in the biography of a politician, undue weight is absurd. The real problem is that the two paragraphs I've expanded to are as yet inadequate. No mention, e.g., of his wife's desire after the defeat that he retire and take up a foundation job instead.

Third, the idea that no details are important enough to mention -- he ran, he won, it was a long time ago, who cares -- is a view so idiotic that I would have thought only Scjessey was capable of expressing without embarassment. We should mention Rush's son getting shot for the same reason we mention Ryan's sex scandal: Obama's life was affected by these events. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

:Well first I'd like to thank you for the personal attack, Andy. I'd expect nothing less from you. Secondly, I must reiterate my comment above - in a biography of Barack Obama, why do you insist on trying to shoehorn details about other people into the text? First you want to tell us a bedtime story about Alice Palmer, then you want to regale us with details about her predecessor. What possible connection to Obama is the Mel Reynolds sex abuse stuff? Your justification for this is that the current text isn't long enough. So your solution is to add tangential (or completely unrelated) content as '''filler''' material? Maybe you should go back and read some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

== Senate Campaign, weight issues ==

The following excerpts from this section seem to have [[WP:WEIGHT]] issues. From the first paragraph:
<blockquote>Decisions by Republican incumbent [[Peter Fitzgerald]] and his Democratic predecessor [[Carol Moseley Braun]] not to contest the race launched wide-open Democratic and Republican primary contests involving fifteen candidates.<ref>{{cite news | last=Davey | first=Monica | title=Closely Watched Illinois Senate Race Attracts 7 Candidates in Millionaire Range | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/politics/campaign/07ILLI.html | work=The New York Times | date=[[March 7]] [[2004]] | accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref> In early opinion polls leading up to the Democratic primary, Obama trailed multimillionaire businessman [[Blair Hull]] and Illinois Comptroller [[Daniel Hynes]].<ref>{{cite news | first=David | last=Mendell | title=Obama Routs Democratic Foes; Ryan Tops Crowded GOP Field | date=[[March 17]] [[2004]] | url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0403170332mar17,1,1737252.story?coll=chi-news-hed | work=Chicago Tribune | accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref> However, Hull's popularity declined following reports of his ex-wife's allegations of domestic abuse.<ref>{{cite news | first=Christopher | last=Hayes | title=Check Bounce | date=[[March 17]] [[2004]] | url=http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/check-bounce/ | format=alternate link | work=TNR Online | accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref></blockquote>
And from the second paragraph:
<blockquote>Obama's opponent in the general election was expected to be Republican primary winner [[Jack Ryan (2004 U.S. Senate candidate)|Jack Ryan]]. However, Ryan withdrew from the race in June 2004, following disclosure of divorce records containing politically embarrassing charges by his ex-wife, actress [[Jeri Ryan]].<ref>{{cite news | title=Ryan Drops Out of Senate Race in Illinois | date=[[June 25]] [[2004]] | url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/25/il.ryan/ | work=CNN | accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref> In August 2004, with less than three months to go before election day, [[Alan Keyes]] accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.<ref>{{cite news | first=Maura Kelly | last=Lannan | title=Alan Keyes Enters U.S. Senate Race in Illinois Against Rising Democratic Star | date=[[August 9]], [[2004]] | publisher=Union-Tribune (San Diego) | url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040809-0849-illinoissenate.html | work=Associated Press | accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref></blockquote>
The first paragraph goes into detail about politicians who didn't even take part in the contest, and then details about another politician's alleged domestic abuse - details unrelated to Obama's life. The second paragraph needs to mention that Alan Keyes was a late entry to the race, but I don't understand why it needs to go into specifics about Jack Ryan's divorce - again, details unrelated to Obama's life. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:Scjessey, I'm not sure you're applying [[WP:UNDUE]] properly here. This is more an issue with the [[WP:SS|summary style]] guideline and what information from the main article should be summarized here. In the case of Hull's and Ryan's divorce issues, they appear to be eligible for inclusion in this article because they partially explain how a little known state senator was able to become one of the US senators for IL. That's not to say that Obama would not have won if Hull or Ryan didn't have their divorce issues, but a contributing factor to his victory was their implosion.--[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::Perhaps it is wise to consider the essay at [[WP:ROC]], where it says "''any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles.''" If you read those excerpts above, we can see that the details they present have very little (if anything) to do with Obama. At best they are indirectly relevant, which surely means they offer a level of detail only suited to their sub-article. With the current wording, you ''could'' say that Obama's success can partially be attributed to divorce and domestic abuse. Obviously that is an extreme interpretation, but can you see the slippery slope we are on here? Better to excise such tangential information from here and give them a fuller treatment in the sub-article, thus removing any chance of misinterpretation. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm kind of on the fence on this one. The details of Ryan's messy divorce causing him to drop out of the race may be too far afield to include here (though they are certainly relevant in the linked "see also" article on the US Senate election), and the same might go for the domestic abuse allegations against Hull. That's a fairly limited trim, however, and the rest of the details there seem relevant enough to keep. As for citing [[WP:ROC]], I personally don't like to cite essays as justification for edits, though sometimes I use them for personal guidance when editing ([[WP:BEANS]] is one of my favorites). In this case, though, there is a style editing guideline at [[WP:TOPIC]] which reminds us all to stay on topic. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<font color="Black">Dachannien</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Dachannien|<font color="Blue">''Talk''</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dachannien|<font color="Green">''Contrib''</font>]]</sub> 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Doubtless you will note I have not actually ''performed'' any edits related to this discussion (or the Legislature discussion earlier) thus far. I wanted to get a general sense of how other editors viewed the sections before making any sort of attempt. This has become such a volatile editing zone that I no longer think [[WP:BOLD]] is viable. I would prefer to only make edits after a thorough discussion leads to a broad consensus. As a Pennsylvania resident (although sadly not a voter), I am now going to settle down and watch coverage of the primary on MSNBC before taking another look at this tomorrow. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:00, 23 April 2008

barrack obama is and excellent peson. breast

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=207671661"