Talk:Barack Obama

Website?

I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated. http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html user:chasesboys

BarackObama.com is already included, I move to delete this section. natezomby (talk)

Controversy re: Rezko/Ayers

Discussion closed as becoming contentious and unlikely to lead to productive discussion on improving article - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion reopened. This is a productive discussion. You do not own the Talk page. Curious bystander (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Obama's alleged ties to Rezko and Bill Ayers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk • contribs)
(Comment restored after total brain failure and Twinkle-madness on my part -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

These two issues appear to be speculative in news stories that have yet to gain a formal influence on Obama's life. To talk about them in the article now would be a crystal ball of a poor synthesis. It would be the same as a "controversy" with Louis Farrakhan. These issues if they come to light may be better placed in 2008 general election. .:davumaya:. 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that you, Megapen? If so, you spelled Rezko wrong again. The answer to your question can be found above and in any of the several dozen recent archives where this has been discussed. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and wholly innappropriate for this article. The Ayers controversy in mentioned in the article on Obama's campaign, where it belongs. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama's personal and professional ties to Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers' radical past are NOT speculative, rather, they are fact just as his 20+ year relationship to Rev Jeremiah Wright is fact. Both of these references should be contained in this article, unless of course, this article is just campaign propaganda, in which case it does not belong here in Wiki Land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.19.9 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it would be appropriate for you to register a username if you wish to be taken "seriously" in a discussion. Next, you ought to review the many archives which already contain the answer to your question. If you are Megapen and here again to stir trouble, then you are trolling, and I'll ask you kindly to leave since the matter/matters are settled. And lastly, your accusation that this article is just campaign propaganda is disillusioned and won't help you gain Consensus by insulting Wiki Land. .:davumaya:. 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing speculative about the relationships with the terrorist Bill Ayers. I agree that these references should be in the article. To be fair John Mccain's warts are in his article and the same should occur here, unless there is bias? These relationships are some of the only glimpses that people can get into his character. I'm a new contributor so I hope I've followed the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Scott Yapp (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Rezko information is prominently located in "Family and personal life." As for Ayers, let me direct you to Obama–Ayers controversy where the only conclusion one can draw from their "controversy" is that Ayers happens to be a well known professor and person in the community. Two and two in the same place do not equal one. Similarly McCain is often in the upper elite circles of very very terrible men who have maimed and extorted, but in how much we do say that is to be in McCain's biography? And labeling Ayers a terrorist is interesting, a terrorist implies someone who is wanted by the law and is either incarcerated or on the run. Last I checked Professor Ayers was an educator. .:davumaya:. 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "prominent" at all about "your Rezko information." It's a single sentence, carefully buried in a vast field of text. That relationship deserves a paragraph at least. Ayers deserves at least a sentence, particularly since there's an entire article about Obama-Ayers controversy which should be linked here. If you're using summary style as excuse to exclude legitimate criticism, you have to follow WP:SS, which requires you to provide a link to the article where you've concealed the criticism. There is no doubt that Ayers is a terrorist. That is what makes him notable. Otherwise, we'd have a Wikipedia bio about every university professor in the world. Curious bystander (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange that Obama's well documented 20 year relationships with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko shouldn't be fully covered. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

If by "well documented" you mean a small handful of soundbytes by Rev. Wright taken out of their theological context and repeated ad nauseum on tabloid radio shows, I don't think you're making a strong point. But as an Obama supporter I would like to see the supposed "shady real estate deal" with Rezko covered in greater depth, because it would dismiss the issue altogether. Obama paid market value for his home, and then bought part of the backyard from the Rezko's at market value since the Obamas had children and would use it. Not exactly a sinister, smoke-filled backroom kind of story, and probably worth detailing for the sake of factual clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5000fingers (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

These are tabloid non issues that have about and much coverage in the article as they deserve, or as much as should be found in any educated venue Cosand (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cosand. Eloquently stated. .:davumaya:. 08:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought raise the same point in other pages where every single tabloid article gets inserted into the page? This page is quite sanitized compared with the Palin and McCain pages. Collect (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The issues that may or may not appear there don't automatically result in editors of other articles being conscripted into working on them. If there's a specific tabloid or source that fails WP:RS, I suggest taking it up on the talk pages for those articles. But be forewarned: Comparing the negative content that's been rejected from this article and the negative content that appears in other articles may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. Factors such as active legal and journalistic investigations (as opposed to opinion pieces) make a significant difference in what can go into a WP:BLP article. You have to be very careful not to risk libel with poorly-sourced negative material, but if the sources are actually solid, then a given person's biography will necessarily become more negative -- ideally not in tone, which should remain neutral, but in content. One of the reasons so much negative information about Mr. Obama has been rejected from this article is that it's all sourced back to opinion pieces, with both legal investigators and journalists failing to state that there's any substance to them. In contrast, Ms. Palin has been the subject of numerous non-editorial news articles detailing various controversies, articles that have gone well beyond reporting the simple fact that Democrats have been making political hay of them. And of course, the current investigation of the controversial firing known as "Troopergate" has actual legal ramifications. In other words, they are two different people, with two different personal histories, and as such, the details that go into their respective biographies is going to differ. --GoodDamon 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's relationships with Ayers, Rezko and Wright have also been "the subject of numerous non-editorial news articles detailing various controversies, articles that have gone well beyond reporting the simple fact that [Republicans] have been making political hay of them." In fact, some of these news articles don't even mention the Republicans (or conservative pundits) at all. But we don't see the same level of coverage here that we see in the Palin article. Why not? Curious bystander (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's just not true. The non-editorial articles about Ayers and Rezko that have appeared in reliable sources have almost universally been news about how Republicans have been making allegations. The articles have distinctly refrained from lending any credence to those allegations. In fact, to a large extent, they reject the allegations outright. As for the Jeremiah Wright controversy, it does appear in the article, and makes a larger appearance in the sub-article for that section. --GoodDamon 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, GoodDamon. Nexis is a wonderful resource in moments like this. A search can be tailored with exquisite precision. The non-editorial news articles that mention both "Rezko" and "Obama" are over 2,000 but those that do not mention "Republican," "McCain" or "conservative" number nearly 1,000. Numbers for "Ayers" and "Obama" are somewhat smaller, but in the same proportions.

These articles appear in the gold standard of WP:RS: The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN ABC. They also appear in reliable sources that clearly lean to the left, and sympathize with Obama: Mother Jones, Village Voice, The Guardian, The Nation, The New Republic.

What we're seeing here, in this article, is a campaign to exclude or diminish any material that would tend to wipe a smile off anyone's face at Obama campaign HQ. Even a link to Obama-Ayers controversy is forbidden. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. The usual misrepresentation of the facts, I see. Most "gold standard" articles that cover Rezko and Ayers simply describe Obama's connection with these men, without making any judgment about whether these connections are good or bad. A few opinion pieces from conservatively-biased rags (or conservatively-biased reporters writing for normally-neutral organs) have attempted to use guilt-by-association to put a negative spin on these harmless connections - most notably the discredited conspiracy theorist Corsi, but nobody has proven that Obama has done anything improper, such as firing a public official because they wouldn't fire an ex brother-in-law. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"These articles appear in the gold standard of WP:RS..." WorkerBee, please provide some citations. Make sure your citations:

1. Are not opinion pieces.
2. Come from reliable sources. Note: An article count from Nexis doesn't cut it. Provide specific articles.
3. Indicate the notability of the connections between Obama and Rezko or Ayers beyond -- and this is important, here -- opposition attempts to smear Obama by association. Here, I'll even give some examples of what would qualify:

• News reports that Obama and Rezko or Ayers were long-term best of friends. This would qualify for a sentence or two as significant for WP:BLP.
• Investigative reporting that indicates Obama supports Ayers' radical past or was involved in anything shady with Rezko. Note: The discredited house purchase "controversy" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. There was, as it turns out, nothing notable about the house purchase whatsoever.
• Stories describing legal investigations into Obama's connections with either man. I'll save you some trouble, here... There are none.

It's time to put up. No more opinion pieces, vague implications of guilt-by-association, or reliance on opinion pieces and articles from conservative rags. Give us meat, or give up already. --GoodDamon 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We've already dealt with this. There's no reason to re-open it now. Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Time to put up"???? Noroton has posted reams of material from very solid, reliable sources. It has been ignored. Curious bystander (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dude, the source isnt reliable purely because of the network's name. They are reliable if they have proof to back up criminal allegations. Guess what? wheres the proof? Quick Fact check: There is none. Read WP:V and ask yourself if these "reputable" sources verified their work with actual reporting, or if they just went for the ratings. Duuude007 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't second guess gold standard reliable sources here at Wikipedia. We simply report what they say. Except on this article. On this article, we delete whatever they say if it doesn't reflect favorably on our candidate, and we do our best to block and topic ban any editors who had the nerve to add those reliable sources to this article. We speculate about whether these gold standard reliable sources "just went for the ratings." For any other Wikipedia article, WP:WELLKNOWN is policy. On this one article it's inconvenient. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With that I'm closing the discussion. This discussion seem to have degenerated into generalized complaints about other editors rather than suggestions for improving the article. I remind editors yet again of the terms of article probation. Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have reopened it. This is a productive discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, really, no it isn't. You have wasted at least a week on this, and gotten absolutely nowhere. You are right back where you started. There are still no facts that show Obama is guilty of anything, there are only people like you who suggest that there might be. Every time you offer an article up, it is proven unrelated, or, like I just said, clearly stating Obama has done nothing wrong. That being said, you are wasting all of our times even considering this addition to the biography, as it has no notability whatsoever. Duuude007 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It isn't. Once again, you are being intentionally disruptive with your repeated insistence that a completely irrelevant association with Rezko and this pathetic (and failed) smear campaign about Ayers are given undue weight. Your disruptive actions are in clear violation of the terms of the article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does WorkerBee74 still think The New York Times is "gold standard"? One of McCain's tools disagrees. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent). Let's give Curious bystander the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps s/he has discovered several new, reliable sources that indicate Obama is being legally investigated for his connections with Ayers, or perhaps there are several new major nonpartisan journalistic exposés that reveal their relationship was much deeper than has been previously indicated by other news stories. Perhaps there's a new bombshell article out there, revealing Obama has secretly maintained support for Ayers' prior radical behavior, and this article will show it, in Obama's own handwriting. Let's give Curious bystander 24 hours to provide substantive, unbiased citations to that effect. Well, Cb? Up for that challenge? And if you can't, then we close this discussion, and you agree not to reopen it. --GoodDamon 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, I'm putting up my Rezko sources

Following are sources that mention Obama and Rezko, but do not mention Republicans, McCain, conservatives or any other source of a political smear campaign.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/1175377,CST-NWS-rezko21.article

I'll be adding more and more and more and more and more of these links to this Talk page as the discussion goes on. This one was from the Chicago Sun Times. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source that mentions Obama and Rezko, but doesn't mention Republicans, McCain, conservatives, or any other source of a political smear campaign.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/208/09/blagojevich-s-1.html

This one is the Chicago Tribune. I'll be posting more. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sun-Times is an unreliable tabloid and the Chicago Tribune has a profuse right-wing bias. Besides, the Tribune source is from their blog. Try again with reliable sources. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. Are you telling me that the city of Chicago has no reliable sources on politics? Cool Hand Luke 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think the Chicago Tribune qualifies as a reliable source for most things. In this case, I'm unable to see the blog WorkerBee74 posted (I get a 404), so I'm unable to make a judgment on it, but based on the quality of the links s/he's been using to push a negative POV, I'd assume it was not the non-partisan newsblog of a journalist; rather, I would assume it was an opinion blog written by a right-wing commentator. --GoodDamon 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Most of these citations seem to be opinion pieces, and personal blogs (even of a reporter) are a different matter than articles the paper stands behind. I just noticed the remark about the Chicago Tribune. It's certainly a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is a side issue. There are certainly reliable sources to say who Ayers is and how he interacted with Obama. The issue is POV and undue weight. There is a lot to Obama, and only so much space to describe in this biography of his life. Deciding what to include in this article is more than a game of "find a reliable source for your POV claims." The article already has a sentence describing in straightforward fashion what happened, and a link from there to the Rezko article, which includes five full paragraphs about Rezko's legal troubles and seven paragraphs about his connection to Obama. It's already in the encyclopedia. There is no encyclopedic reason to duplicate that here. We went through a lot of effort to decide exactly how to reference that here, and we made the decision. There is nothing new to this proposal that has not already been discussed at legnth. "Consensus can change" but it obviously has not changed on this point. Wikidemon (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd find that there are a lot of long term, reliable, non-SPA editors here at WP who disagree. Try the WP:RS noticeboard. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia editor in their right mind that would consider a blog a reliable source. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A blog by a Chicago Tribune reporter on the Tribune website is a reliable source. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source. This one is the Canada Free Press:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5076

No mention of Republicans, conservatives, McCain, or any other possible source of a smear campaign. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Canada Free Press is the right-leaning, Canadian version of the Huffington Post. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do not support change - My position remains as it did in the last consensus discussion, that the current wording represents a neutral and fairly weighted coverage of this matter given the sources and the relative importance of it to Obama's biographical history.  I am unlikely to participate greatly here but my standing position until I state otherwise is that the Rezko material should not be expanded or significantly changed.  There is a considerable weight of consensus to overcome before the matter can seriously be re-opened.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet we see HuffPo being used as a RS in other Wikipedia articles. Here's another source that mentions Rezko and Obama, but doesn't mention Republicans, conservatives or McCain:

That's not the Barack Obama article's problem. Unbias other articles instead of biasing this one. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x590307928/Gov-sits-out-as-Obama-makes-history

The Rockford Register Star. Any problem with that one? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all about Rezko and Blagojevich, with a sentence or two about how Rezko was a fundraiser for Obama, but Obama did not do anything wrong. I'm all for adding, "Obama is not guilty of any wrongdoing" to this article and then referencing this source. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The point here is to prove that mainstream media find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be notable, and they're not just reporting the smear campaigns by the right-wingers. Do you agree, Erik, that the Rockford Register Star helps to prove this?

By the way, before I post the links, Erik, do you agree that the New York Times, New Yorker, and Washington Post are reliable sources? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support FA Concensus Workerbee, That is a BS loaded question. Post the links, and we'll see if they back up any allegations with WP:VERIFIABILITY. Duuude007 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Still support the consensus wording now in the article that has been affirmed, and reaffirmed, and reaffirmed again numerous times. This is a neutral, accurate statement. This entire non-issue could be handled as a footnote in this biography, but if it must be in the text, this is a reasonable compromise. We have been over this many times, and consensus has been reached repeatedly for this wording. I, too, am not going to go through the argument yet another time - my position hasn't changed.  Read the archives.  Tvoz/talk 19:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, I don't need to read the archives. I was participating daily in the discussions that are preserved there, and I remember them well. "Read the archives" is Wikipedian for "Shut up and go away." A different person was making the same misrepresentations: he was claiming that the reliable sources were only reporting smear campaigns by political opponents and didn't find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be noteworthy on its own merits.

I have found dozens of NYT articles that mention Rezko and Obama but don't mention Republicans, conservatives, McCain or any other source of a smear campaign. Here are just a few of them. Explain these away, Erik, particularly the first one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02rezko.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/politics/29rezko.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15obama.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/07rezko.html?ex=1362546000&2n=5086c986c58301&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

How many more do you want? Are these reliable sources? Not a blog in sight. Not an opinion column in sight. Straight up front page news stories in the gold standard of reliable sources. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Obama had ties to Rezko, I'm just saying that devoting space to discussing those ties on the article is inappropriate per Wikipedia policy. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon's analysis

Yes, if you're going to name a section after me, I'm going to reply with my own subsection. Anyway, please follow along...

• http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/1175377,CST-NWS-rezko21.article

Analysis: A story about Tony Rezko's ongoing legal woes. Mentions briefly his work on campaigns. Article is about Rezko, not Obama, and doesn't contain any information not already cited in the article concerning their relationship. In fact, it contains less detail about their relationship than any articles specifically about it, and only mentions Obama once, in passing.

Suitability for this article: None. It's not even about Obama.

• http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/208/09/blagojevich-s-1.html

Analysis: Page doesn't load. Bad URL maybe?

Suitability for this article: No idea.

• http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5076

Analysis: An opinion piece on a heavily biased website. Not a reliable source. Which you must know by now. Are you trying to waste time?

Suitability for this article: None. Not suitable for much else, either. It's an opinion piece. If you want to write an article about Judi McLeod, that's a lovely editorial with which to depict her opinions. Be my guest.

• http://www.rrstar.com/news/x590307928/Gov-sits-out-as-Obama-makes-history

Analysis: Why, it's an honest-to-gosh reliable source! You should actually be citing the AP, not the Rockford Register Star, as this is an AP story, but it definitely qualifies as a reliable citation for... the Rod Blagojevich article. It discusses all sorts of troubling details about Rezko and Blagojevich, but its only definitive statement about Obama is that he has "...not been accused of any wrongdoing."

Suitability for this article: Perhaps a statement indicating that there is no implication of wrongdoing on Obama's part. Otherwise, this would be a lovely story to bring to the attention of editors at Blagojevich's WP:BLP article.

• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02rezko.html?pagewanted=print

Analysis: A reliable source, to be sure, but it treads ground already covered in the article. Yes, Obama's deals with Rezko have attracted attention. The article already says that.

Suitability for this article: I'd say feel free to add it as another reference to the statement that's already there. I don't see anything new in this one that's worth bothering expanding the article for, and frankly it's out of date. The NYT has put out newer stories that essentially put to rest the contentions that there's anything of note to Obama's and Rezko's relationship beyond what's already in this and the campaign article. We already know about the house, and the loans that have gone to charity. What else does this article provide?

• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/politics/29rezko.html?pagewanted=print

Analysis: A reliable source... about Rezko. Obama is only mentioned briefly, and only in context already covered in the article.

Suitability for this article: None. Take it to Rezko's article.

• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15obama.html?pagewanted=print

Analysis: See my response two above. An older story, largely out of date, that would be perfectly good for a citation on information already in this and other articles. Nothing new about Obama's relationship with Rezko.

Suitability for this article: None. There's nothing new to indicate biographical importance.

I am not saying there's no importance to mentioning Rezko. They knew each other, obviously, and the the purchase of a home is a major event in most households. But Obama is under neither journalistic investigation nor legal investigation over the extent of this relationship, and no one -- except some extremely conservative sources -- are accusing him, personally, of any wrongdoing in his association with Rezko. None. There's the guilt-by-association accusations that come from his political opponents, but that's it, and that's more suitable for the campaign article... which already goes into detail about it.

I said it's time to put up. And you haven't. You have rehashed. You have demonstrated a mastery of information that's already known, and already in Wikipedia, in the right articles. Let me put it bluntly: If you want to increase the notability of this relationship -- and it's obvious you do, and it's obviously for political reasons -- you need to cite something that hasn't happened yet, such as a legal investigation or a non-partisan journalistic expose that goes into heretofore unknown malfeasance on Obama's part in relation to Rezko. As of right now, with all these so-called "gold standard reliable sources" you've provided, there's nothing like that. Here's my promise to you: Come back with something new and notable, and factual enough for a biography, and I will be the first person to push for its inclusion in this article. Until then, stop the POV-pushing. Give it up already. It's done. --GoodDamon 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• GoodDamon's stance Endorsed. Quit wasting your, and our, time. Duuude007 (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If no one minds, I'd like to pick up where WorkerBee74 has left off. Here are a few links from The Washington Post, an undeniably reliable source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603597.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302812.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071301904_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302769_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html

And here's one from The New Yorker, another undeniably reliable source and clearly sympathetic to Obama:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=11

Here are a few from The Guardian and The Independent, two British newspapers that are undeniably reliable sources and undeniably leaning to the left and sympathetic with Obama:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/03/barackobama.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=fromtheguardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unwelcome-publicity-for-oil-giant-in-legal-battle-with-billionaire-820750.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-stays-cool-as-icestorm-heads-in-790950.html

Here's a few from the Los Angeles Times, another undeniably reliable source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,3640595.story?page=2

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-obamarezko-connect.swf,0,4208669.flash

http://www.latimes.com/news/ny-usrezk045601160mar04,1,1334601.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/chi-tony-rezko-trial-07mar07,0,4039158.story?page=1

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamaillinois8-2007sep08,0,308382.story

http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/chi-070412obama-money,1,4625776.story

Absolutely none of these mentions McCain, Republicans or conservatives, so they aren't just reporting on right-wing smear campaigns. All these sources find the Rezko-Obama connection to be notable, whether the right-wingers use it against Obama or not. Now let's review what GoodDamon claimed regarding these sources:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's just not true. The non-editorial articles about Ayers and Rezko that have appeared in reliable sources have almost universally been news about how Republicans have been making allegations. The articles have distinctly refrained from lending any credence to those allegations. In fact, to a large extent, they reject the allegations outright. ... It's time to put up. No more opinion pieces, vague implications of guilt-by-association, or reliance on opinion pieces and articles from conservative rags. Give us meat, or give up already.

I find it hilarious that in the middle of this exchange, Scjessey had the gall to accuse WorkerBee74:

Ahhh. The usual misrepresentation of the facts, I see.

The fact of the matter is that it's WorkerBee74 who has been telling the truth, and GoodDamon and Scjessey who have been misrepresenting the sources. (personal attack stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC))Curious bystander (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have perused the sources and find no new arguments or facts, and nothing that suggests reconsidering the earlier consensus. The facts of Obama's dealings with Rezko are not in question, and are well treated in the Rezko article. However, this is clearly a minor issue in the campaign, much less Obama's life, as evidenced by the relatively scant coverage of the matter. Even most of the articles cited here give it only casual mention, saying that Obama did nothing wrong and describing the connection between the two as a "footnote" (we give it more credence than that already). We have previously gone through an analysis of the sources at great length to see just how serious a matter they consider it. As a proportion of Obama's life this merits approximately the one-sentence treatment we give it here. Given that mainstream and non-mainstream anti-Obama factions are playing up this issue, and the singleminded determination of the editors pushing this to insert content in the encyclopedia disparaging of Obama, any overemphasis on this cannot be a simple mistake and would have to be considered a violation of our WP:NPOV policy. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are either of you, Cb and WB, reading anything you link anymore? Every one of those articles went out of their way to establish a lack of connection between Obama and Rezko's behavior. Some choice quotes from articles you have hilariously failed to read:

...There is no connection between Obama and the allegations...

— (Obama is innocent)

...He targeted a raft of up-and-comers, including a young state senator named Barack Obama...

— (Obama is a victim of Rezko's)

...and although the case did not implicate Obama, his Rezko association has caused him significant political embarrassment...

— (The association has no legal or ethical implications, but has been used by his political opponents)

Then you've got the opinion blogs and commentary...AGAIN...which means, I guess, that you both suffer some kind of congenital ailment preventing you from seeing the words "these are not reliable sources." (Kidding, kidding...) Yes, they're hosted at places like the Washington Post. No, they're not reliable for any statements of fact. They're reliable for the opinions of their authors only. And on, and on, and on. I ask for meat, I get tofu. Come on, guys... --GoodDamon 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just left warnings on the User Talk pages of Scjessey and Wikidemon for violations of WP:OWN. GoodDamon, if we disqualify a few of these as opinion columns, what about the rest? the reliable, neutral (or left-leaning) mainstream media sources find the Obama/Rezko relationship to be notable standing on its own, without being propped up by the right-wing spin machine. Curious bystander (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

awe-struck supporters

I think there should be something included in the article about the people who faint and see him as a near god. It is something that is very unusual in politics and would be valuable information to include, especially if it included some explantions. Crd721 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. I don't think there is anyone that sees him as a near god. Are there those that are huge fans of his, indeed, but I doubt anyone is going to be setting up a Church of Obama, despite what the Republicans say. As far as including the faintings, I'm not sure how that is anything but trivia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the heat. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen people though looking up at him (literally looking up at him) with awe-struck eyes, and have their hands together like they are praying. Just one of my observations. And Im not a Republican, either, and I haven't made up mind yet in the election, Im about equal on McCain and Obama, so this isnt just me spreading right wing propaganda. At any rate the level of support by his supporters is unheard of, ignoring the fainting/"god" stuff. And haven't people fainted indoors or in the winter? Crd721 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are referring to how our beloved Senator Michelle Bachmann sees GWB as god/savior/almighty? .:davumaya:. 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the people I'm thinking of were young supporters of Obama, much younger than Michelle Bachmann, who I never even heard of, so I dont think I could have made that mistake. Also, it was clearly at Obama rallies, I could clearly tell it was Obama and not GWB, who was no where in sight. So there is no way I am consfusing who I saw. And yes, I know you are being a smart ass, so I decided to be one too, but everything I said was true. When has Michelle Bachamann ever been seen on tv? Crd721 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the fainting, please refer to Mr. Obama's 2008 speech in Grand Rapids in which he accepted John Edwards endorsement, you will notice, if you watch the recording of the speech, theat someone does indeed faint in the crowd.98.108.73.89 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't know the proper signing etiquette for saying things here, but I would point out that someone fainting in the crowd doesn't indicate anything about Obama himself, as we don't know the situation that person was in health wise. As for looking up at him, well, he is on a stage, its inevitable. And for the hands clasped together, its called 'clapping'. One often stops clapping with ones hands clasped together. I believe I saw it for McCain and Palin to. I think these points are coincidental. While he does have strong support, he is a canidate. They all have strong support, thats why they're canidates. If they have more its generally because they are 'better' canidates (as in better at what they are doing, not as in they would naturally be better as a leader). ~14th September, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.102.52 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole discusion seems to be getting completely OT. It doesn't really matter what editors thing of Obama or anyone else's supporters. If we have multiple reliable sources that mention Obama's supporters think of him as a god or that they faint more then supporters of other candidates, then we could probably include this in one of the related articles. If not, then we don't care what editors have seen or think of his supporters (or anyone elses) Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to 69.210.102.52's response, the health condition of the individual is not likely to be a factor, as if they were willing to stand in an ampitheater in the middle of the summer, they are likely of sound health. Also in regard to 69.210.102.52's comment of the hand clasping phenomenon, one does not clasp one's hands together for more than a few seconds after clapping. On another topic, 69.210.102.52, it would appear that you have a slight democratic bias. This is exactly the bias that Wikipedia is accused of having. It would be best that you keep your bias in the talk pages, no offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.155.3 (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

racist slander contained in opening line - please remove immediately as it is offensive to blacks and Muslims

Good thing you made a reference or even added a date to what you think is offensive. This way everyone will know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of offensive material in opening line.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess is anon was referring to this edit which was not surprisingly reverted before he/she posted Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, eh? I am satisfied with that decision. Duuude007 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-convention polling numbers

You're trying to start an edit war, Wikidemon. I have inserted neutrally written and impeccably sourced material about recent trends in polling in the presidential campaign. This is not a hagiography. If you want to revert it, gain consensus for your reversion. Curious bystander (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment here is inappropriate per article probation, and you should refactor or remove it. Your attack on me here is unwelcome and inappropriate. Do not edit tendentiously. If you want to make disputed changes you are free to seek consensus here. Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the trend itself is notable, or at least as notable as anything that is likely to itself change over the next 60 days, but I would suggest it be included in either the McCain article under 2008 Presidential election section, the Palin section Under 2008 Presidential election section, both, or neither. It doesn't appear to me to fit here, as it is really about McCain/Palin, not Obama. Just my 2 cents.--Textmatters (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a watershed event in the campaign. Before Palin was named as McCain's running mate, Obama was ahead in nearly every poll. It looked as though he was going to win the White House on cruise control. Since Palin was named, Obama has been behind in nearly every poll. I have restored the paragraph that was reverted and would respectfully invite an explanation of why it doesn't belong here. Curious bystander (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted - you are well aware of article probation at this point so do not edit war to try to insert content. Sarah Palin's popularity at the moment is of interest to Sarah Palin's article possibly, and to the campaign-related articles. It is not a biographically important detail of Obama's life. We don't need a whole paragraph in the campaign section against a 2-3 week trend in polling numbers. In this article it is simply an anti-Obama tidbit, which is improper per weight, relevance, recentivism, and POV. Wikidemon (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I gotta butt in here... This is WP:RECENTISM. I respectfully remind you that when every poll showed Obama with a substantial lead, that information was not in this article. When every poll showed McCain with a lead, that information also was not in the article. Now that the polls are leaning towards Obama again... it still doesn't belong in this article. Let's say Obama wins. Will the polls as of September 16th, 2008 be all that notable on, say, September 16th, 2009? No, not for his biography. --GoodDamon 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that the introduction of the material you propose could very easily lead to someone else adding something like "But on suchandsuch date, the polls leaned this way. Then they leaned that way. Then this, then that..." And so on, ad infinitum. --GoodDamon 22:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Cb's paragraph because it belongs here. As campaign events go, naming Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate rated about 9.8 on the Richter scale. Before it happened, Obama was in the lead; since it happened, Obama has been behind. Name a policy that the paragraph violates. Reverting it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete fantasy. Before the conventions, the race was a statistical tie. The Biden announcement and the DNC caused a bounce. Then the Palin announcement and the RNC caused a bounce. Now we are back to the statistical tie. This happens in every election cycle and isn't notable in any way. It is an excellent example of why recentism should be policy, and not just an essay. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is just an essay. WP:WELLKNOWN is bedrock Wikipedia policy. The paragraph at issue here has the gold standard of reliable sourcing and it would be a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT to exclude it. I repeat: name a policy that it violates and explain why. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is Obama's biography. It does not have to include every single reliably sourced detail regarding the 2008 Presidential election. That is why devoting an entire paragraph to McCain's convention bounce lends it undue weight, and why it shouldn't go back in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just from a common-sense perspective, WorkerBee, you're thoroughly failing to take into account the long view. Yes, WP:RECENT is an essay, but personally I think it applies very well here. No one will find the convention bounces notable for Obama's biography (or McCain's, for that matter) in a year. Or heck, in six months. But all of that is moot. Those details belong in the campaign articles -- no question about that, it's a notable event in terms of the campaign -- but they do not belong in this article. Removing that paragraph does not violate WP:WEIGHT. On the contrary, for Obama's biography, you're weighting the convention bounces too highly. There's no reason but POV-pushing to try to force off-topic -- and now out-of-date, considering recent polls -- information in the man's bio. This article is not part of the presidential campaign. I shouldn't have to be reminding you of that. Please check your POV-pushing at the door. --GoodDamon 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. If you want to include disputed content here, establish consensus first. And stop wikigaming.[4][5][6] Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the way it works is, when someone adds something to an article, and someone else disagrees and removes it, there is then a discussion on the talk page, and there needs to be consensus on the talk page before re-adding the material. BRD, not BDR, and especially not BDRDRDR.

Without having much of an opinion on whether the section should stay in or stay out, I’ll say that as an uninvolved admin, if I see someone re-add the polling section without a consensus here to do so, I will block them; my first time using article probation, but it seems a very clear cut case to me. And, before I get accused of taking sides, please read my first paragraph again for why it defaults this direction and not the other.

I actually see something of a weak consensus here not to include it, but the night is young, and consensus can change. But don’t re-add it again until and if a consensus in the other direction develops.

Also, a 3RR reminder for everyone involved on both sides; this isn't a BLP thing, it's a content thing, so AFAIK 3RR still applies. --barneca (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The arguments for including appear to boil down to "it's well-sourced." Of course it's well-sourced. It was all over the news. I can provide equally well-sourced documentation to the effect that:

• Mayflies have very short life-cycles.
• Sugar causes tooth decay.
• 1948 was a leap year.

None of that, of course, applies to this article, and no content referencing any of those well-sourced facts should be included. The same goes for the polls... They are important in the context of the campaign articles, but not in the context of Obama's life story, any more than they would be important in McCain's. The ongoing attempt to insert them is little more than POV-pushing. --GoodDamon 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The vacant plug for Palin's virtues by the same editor who has disrupted this page before (and caused the article probation) has no place in a biography of Obama. GoodDamon makes a good point in his/her tongue-in-cheek metaphors: completely irrelevant topics that happen to be sourced do not belong here. LotLE×talk 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

looking more deeply into the sources, they weren't even that good of sources, and proved that the text posted was a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here, let me show you:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26625240/

...notes a 4% margin for error. This was also dated on Sept. 9, 2008, well before the post convention polls had stabilized.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/palin.republican.vp.candidate/index.html

This is a blog. We all know what their role plays in Wikipedia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/10/women.uselections2008 is international news talking about US news. How about referencing the source it provides instead of a 3rd party opinion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_090907.html Duuude007 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ermm, aren't they all reliable sources? And isn't this a very, very important event in the presidential campaign? And hasn't the Obama campaign shifted its gears and changed its strategy in response? If they feel it's a significant event, why don't you? The fact is that post-convention polling has stabilized. It used to be averaging about five points in Obama's favor. Now it's averaging about two points in McCain's favor. This is a watershed event. LotLE, pointing fingers at others and accusing them of "causing the article probation" is hilarious, coming from you. Curious bystander (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is campaign news, and not even particularly notable at that. We have gone from a statistical tie to a statistical tie. Earth-shattering, DEFCON 1-like amazingness! Tag-team edit warring to try to include non-notable, non-neutral material should be a blockable offense under article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple fact: This will go to archives. If this single event is truly the reason he somehow does not become president, then it is relevant. If anything else is a reason he does not, or if he does become president, then this point you are trying to make has absolutely no relevance, positively no notability. Personally, I don't think it does even now. If you care about contrasting balance, you would also consider that in the last week, Palin's approval-disapproval net rating has now gone from the highest to the lowest of the four, as soon as people got to know her. That has no place in this article either, but I am merely proving a point. Duuude007 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to know whether this is an important event in the campaign. What will matter is the final vote, and perhaps demographic break-down of the vote. A narrative of how the vote got to that point will be useful in the campaign article but in the bio articles only if it is a life event for the person in question. The edit warring and uncivil accusations against the productive, legitimate editors here by a group recently returned to the article, are clearly inappropriate. Now we have a section started as a personal attack on me[7] by an editor claiming that my first revert of the clearly non-neutral content was "trying to start an edit war" (which he pursued until blocked). We don't need this here. If you want to include something you can be bold or better yet propose it here, and if there is a reasonable objection you talk about it civilly to see if there is consensus. That is very simple. Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious bystander has been blocked for edit warring. 24 hours this time, duration will escalate fast if it continues. --barneca (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious bystander said something very important here: "...isn't this a very, very important event in the presidential campaign?" It's certainly notable for the presidential campaign articles. But this isn't a presidential campaign article. This is Barack Obama's biography. In six months, if that, no one will care what the convention bounces were, and certainly it won't be regarded as notable enough for this biography, any more than the convention bounces of past presidential candidates have been considered important in their biographies (don't bother, I've already checked... the post-convention polls are not mentioned in at least the last three presidents' biographies, nor those of their opponents.) Incidentally, post-convention polling has "stabilized" with Obama generally in the lead (see today's Gallup results). And you know what? It still doesn't belong in his biography. --GoodDamon 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but:

Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates "the Palin effect" was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.

The contest appears to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice presidential selections: Mr. Obama has the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll in mid-August.

From today's New York Times. Events have passed this by, which reinforces the issue of WP:RECENTISM. Let's move on. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see how this works now. Edit war to block the material that would "wipe the smile off anyone's face at Obama Campaign HQ" until it becomes outdated, then dismiss it as outdated. How clever. Curious bystander (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's disappointing, though not unpredictable, that you would choose to see it that way. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We should simply ignore, and consider closing / striking comments like that. I'll leave a warning on the talk page.Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am closing/archiving this as it is quickly dissolving into personal attacks from each editor. - Brothejr (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

===THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED=== inflammatory headline renamed - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This piece of Obama campaign literature, formerly known as a Featured Article, is not neutral. It is a walking violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it fails another test of Featured Article status: the content is insufficiently stable. I'm submitting it for Featured Article Review. Curious bystander (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be stable if POV pushers such as yourself did not go around disrupting it. How does it violate NPOV? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, users, lets not have an Edit war here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not unreasonable to ask Curious bystander what exactly isn't neutral. I've reviewed the article again, and it seems perfectly neutral to me. In fact, I think it is a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should be. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If the amount of criticism in this article even approached the amount of criticism in George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Hillary Clinton, I might agree with you. Curious bystander (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now Curious bystander is stirring up a hornet's nest by canvassing everyone who has edited the article - including most of the disruptive editors from the past few months - to participate in the FA review. The article was stable for the past month when he and other problem editors were gone. This is looking to be terribly disruptive.Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The procedure for FAR requires me to notify people who have edited this article. You're now being heard to complain because I'm following the prescribed procedure? Curious bystander (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You should withdraw the nomination, and probably withdraw from editing this article if you will not stop causing disruption. You are indeed stirring up quite a bit of trouble to an important high quality article that had been civil and stable in your absence. Wikidemon (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is you've only been notifying editor's who have been pressing an agenda that you know would come to your rescue. Grsz^talk 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if I follow CB's logic here: we need more criticism in this featured article, so it can be more like the good articles listed above. Okay, I get it now! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FAR closed; useful leftovers

I have closed the FAR. I'll leave some minor clean-up issues here, from SandyG and DrK. Marskell (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---

• Misc cleanup needs:
  • The section heading, "U.S. Senator, 2005–present" breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language: something like "U.S. Senator, from 2005" might work.
  • The image in "Early life and career" is causing text squeeze, see WP:MOS#Images. If not deleted, it should be moved down.
    • Done Image moved. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues in several sections: Images within sections should be below the templates at the top of sections, and maintenance template are in the wrong place. See the structure sections of ASSESSIBILITY.
    • Done All images are below navigation and redirect template at top in lead.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:MOSNUM, ... its staff grew from 1 to 13 ... is awkward, might better be ... its staff grew from one to thirteen.
    • Done I think I got all the MOSNUM issues. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ack. External jump in the text, sample: which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[60] External jumps belong in External links or as citations.
    • Done Fixed by someone else, don't see any others. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain this italicization is correct, see WP:ITALICS ... introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 ... I know law cases are in italics, but legislation, unsure?
    • Legislation or proposed legislation should be just a regular proper noun, no quotes, no italics. Thus, the This Benefits Everyone Act, not the This Benefits Everyone Act or the "This Benefits Everyone Act". There are a bunch of places where this is currently wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Done --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Logical punctuation needs to be addressed per WP:PUNC, sample: ... "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church."
  • Citations still look very clean, but I saw some unformatted citations, so a review might be in order (there are too many for me to look at all of them :-) All need publisher, author and date when available, and last accessdate on websites.
    • ^ Obama: I trusted Rezko" (March 15, 2008).
    • ^ ObamaSpeak
    • ^ http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/offbeat/2008/02/19/moos.obamafied.cnn: CNN Video
    • ^ Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama
      • Done I think this is all fixed now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency in date linking in citations should be addressed (slowly, over time, since this is a recent WP:MOS change). Some dates are delinked, others linked, example: Fornek, Scott (October 3, 2007). I don't suggest trying to do this kind of work during an election cycle :-)
    • Done All dates should be delinked and in same format. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• All in all, still a very clean article, none of this is significant (except the external jump in the text, I hope there aren't others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on this version. Suggested prose changes:
  • "Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992...powers to be." This sentence is too long and complicated. I had to read it over twice.
  • "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." Why not?: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." I know he had another job at the same time, but it is unnecessary to complicate the sentence to point this out, when the other job is mentioned in the next paragraph.
  • Why aren't Senators Carper, Coburn, McCain, Feingold and Lugar, President Bush or St. Paul, Minnesota or Boston, Massachusetts linked?
  • "In March 2007, 'Obama' was officially accepted...obamacam." Seems trivial.
  • "Further reading" is unnecessary given the plethora of references. Can "External links" be trimmed?
  • Images I would have said a signature was an original work of art, and hence copyrightable by the creator, but I could be wrong.
  • I did not find any obvious partisan statements or missing information. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I mentioned about the signature for Palin as well: every candidate in the last 3 election cycles (or the last 5, save four candidates) have signatures here on Wikipedia, so there is a prescedent. Duuude007 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Would-be FAR content comments, no Rezko/Ayers/Wright involved

I hadn't looked at the article in a while, so gave it a fresh-eyed read-through last night (didn't note which version it was). Deliberately looked at content other than Rezko/Ayers/Wright. I was going to give these content comments to the FAR, will give them here instead:

• The lead needs to say something more about the 2008 presidential campaign. Gaining the nomination is one of the great accomplishments of Obama's career, especially in terms of defeating a front-runner with a famous name, setting fundraising records, and prevailing in an unusually long nomination contest.
• A cite would be good on "Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard".
• How did he end up running for the Illinois senate in 1996? Why did he enter politics? Who supported him in the run? Was it an open seat? Did he have to contest a primary? Was it an insurgency campaign or was he the choice of the local Democratic party? What was his margin of victory? What were the issues in the election, briefly? A politician's first race is very significant, due to all these factors. The Hillary and McCain articles, for example, go into more detail about their first races than this article does.
• Some of the same questions about the 2000 U.S. House primary race against Rush. Why did he try to oppose an incumbent of his own party? What we the main issues, briefly? Why did he fail? Yes, I know there are subarticles underneath the main one, but a little more attention to Obama's political history here and on the previous point is warranted.
• Why did Ryan withdraw in 2004? An odd one-sentence paragraph that just leaves the reader hanging there. (No need to shy away from a good sex scandal! These articles can always use a little spicing up :-)
• The middle paragraphs of the 2008 campaign section, that detail the 2008 caucuses/primaries, are not very good at all. They ignore the chronology of Iowa and New Hampshire coming first. They are too delegate-focussed for those early states as well (to the rest of the world, Hillary won New Hampshire!) There is no mention of the racial divide leading into South Carolina, and how Obama won a huge share of the African American vote (not a given, back in 2007). There is too much rote listing of states, without enough analysis of demographics, of how Obama did well in primaries where African Americans or younger, college-educated, or more affluent voters were heavily represented and Clinton did well in primaries where Hispanics or older, non-college-educated, or working-class white voters predominated. There's no mention of how Obama completely out-organized and dominated Hillary in caucuses, which was a key factor in building up the delegate margin. There's no mention of how well-managed the Obama campaign was, and how it avoid the internal dramas that the Hillary (and McCain) campaigns suffered from. There's no mention of how Obama struggled a bit during the last three months (when Hillary won more votes and delegates than he did). There's no mention of how they both broke the record for the most popular votes ever in a primary campaign. In short, the treatment of the campaign is both boring and superficial, when it should be engaging and analytical. (I'll volunteer to do some work on this section, since I'm going to be revising the same section in the Hillary article, which currently suffers from a different set of flaws.)

Anyway, those are my comments. I also noted, as did Sandy and DrKiernan above, that some of the MoS conformance aspects of the article have slipped. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• 100% Endorsed Everything on this list should be addressed. It would indeed improve the article further. If the article has size issues, then we can decide to summarize and split at that time, but we had better make sure that the cross referencing and cross-linking on both sides is very thorough. Duuude007 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why? - most of this stuff is covered in child articles, and was deliberately cut out of the main bio per summary style. Too much specificity can cause weight problems. The Ryan thing was dismissed as a violation of WP:BLP because it was basically personal details about another subject entirely. Hillary-related records are a matter for her group or articles, I would think. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's service on the Joyce Foundation

I see nothing in the article about Obama's time spent on the Board of Directors (and in fact was offered the Chair). The Joyce Foundation is an extreme left wing policy and fund raising organization favoring, among other things, the complete confiscation ban of hand guns.

• So suggest an addition, properly verifiable and NPOV, of course (and NPOV does not mean "NRA point of view".) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Curiously, our article on the Joyce Foundation seemed to be written largely using the latter definiton of NPOV :) Thanks for bringing it to my attention. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammy winner?

There is no mention of his winning a Grammy Award, yet he's in a category for winners. Anyone know why that's there?--Appraiser (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. He's won two spoken word Grammys, one in 2006 for Dreams From my Father, and one in 2008 for The Audacity of Hope. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. That fact should probably be mentioned in the text.--Appraiser (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It used to be, but much of that sort of thing was purged recently in an attempt to shorten the article and let the child articles shoulder more of the burden. The result has been a more focused article with less edit warring. (your addition about reversing the campaign financing pledge should be reverted for the same reason, the child article goes into the all the specifics). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Still it deserves mention. Perhaps a link to its subarticle+section, with the appropriate naming? All I propose is a summary, even if its extremely brief. Duuude007 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why not a link and summary of Obama-Ayers controversy, even if it's extremely brief? Curious bystander (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple. WP:VERIFIABILITY. Quit spamming tabloid. Duuude007 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even simpler. It's not biographical. It's other people's innuendos of guilt-by-association, and is not supported by reliable sources. Now then... Curious bystander, you created a FAR because of this very issue, and the FAR was closed with the decision that there is no NPOV problem with the article. At this point, it seems like every single one of your contributions on this talk page is an attempt to re-hash this. It has long since gone beyond absurdity and straight into farce. It's time for you to stop. Now. No more endless regurgitation of this issue. You have made your arguments, and they've been picked to pieces, again and again and again. Repetition does not make it fact. Half the citations you and other editors have brought up in support of this POV-pushing are opinion pieces and blogs, and the other half are news articles about those opinion pieces and blogs. The first don't fly in any context, and the second fly only in the context of the campaign, as they do not make biographically notable statements about Obama himself. I am sick to death of explaining this to you, over and over again. I won't do it anymore. I will simply close these off-topic discussions as you open them, because they are disruptive. --GoodDamon 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(ignoring goading) I think that his autobiography and his book on politics both won Grammies is biographically important and worth including. To most anyone winning a Grammy would be a significant life achievement. But due to the weight and all the other more important things in the article I would only do it if we can with only a few words and a link. It's probably not even worth a full sentence.Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats all I was ever suggesting, Wikidemon. Some sort of credit listed in the see also section perhaps. next to the books listed in works, near the bottom: "Grammy award winner, spoken word." Ok, I was bold. Duuude007 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Campaign financing

I understand the concept of covering campaign financing in the sub-article, rather than here, but if that's the decision, then the first part of that sentence should go too. To merely state that he didn't take public financing without mentioning the fact that he reversed his earlier intention is unbalanced. The Palinites would love to fill this article with smear, and I think that can be averted by keeping it FA and as NPOV as possible. In my view, that requires coupling campaign financing with his earlier statement.--Appraiser (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If his decision not to use public financing is notable and used, that this is a reversal should also be noted. Of course, this is best discussed in the main campaign article, but having one and not the other violates NPOV.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. It's a significant enough decision on his part to be biographically notable. How about this wording or something similar: "On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976, reversing his earlier decision to accept it." It wouldn't even need a new citation, as it's supported by the existing one. --GoodDamon 19:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's good, except I'd replace "decision" with "intention" since he did not need to make the decision until June 2008.--Appraiser (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Which means that he didn't "reverse" anything - that is a bit of a loaded word arising from a rather weak political jab. I'm somewhat dubious that we want to give time of day to mild criticisms made by political opponents. Does the fact that he changed his game plan on this really matter to his bio? It's marginal but plausible. Let's wait a bit to see who else sounds in. If we do, I think the sentence works better if done chronologically: "After earlier planning to accept public financing, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976." (I personally don't like using exact dates where the date is not important but others may disagree) Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My proposal does sound a bit awkward I see. You could say "Reversing earlier plans, Obama became..." but you lose a bit of fidelity because "reversing" is somewhat judgmental and not precise. Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I gotta disagree, here. That he received some mild criticism for it isn't the point. It was a major decision on his part, and a reversal, even if it was a reversal of intent, rather than a firm decision. I don't see any harm in noting in a single sentence that it was a reversal. If that's not notable enough for the biography, then I would say strike the whole sentence. If the reversal aspect isn't notable, then neither is the decision itself. --GoodDamon 19:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't disagree with me! I was a good politician and expressed support for both positions :) But sure, if people think it's relevant and reversal is a good word, fine. Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Isn't an unequivocal statement that someone "will" do something more like a decision than an intention? Can't you reverse intentions (first you intend to do something, then you reverse course and intend to do something else)? I'm not getting the problem. I am fine with either GoodDamon's suggestion or Appraiser's edit. But I still feel that the article shouldn't mention the decision to opt out of public funds without mentioning the decision (or statement, or promise, or intention) not to.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, strictly as a matter of logic and English, one can reverse a promise or statement. I don't think you can reverse an intention. An intention is an ephemeral thing, so one it happens it's done and you can't change the past. A plan is in between. People talk about reversing plans sometimes - when they do they mean plan in the sense of the ongoing status of one's intended future actions, rather than the internal mental state at a particular time of intending to do something. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all true, but it seems like splitting hairs to me. Well anyway, if you come up with some better phrasing, I'm all ears. Oh, and I'm glad dealing with POV warriors hasn't killed your sense of humor. :) --GoodDamon 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Did he not agree with McCain or Hillary early on that he would only accept public financing? As in "lets pledge to only accept public financing" I seem to recall that that is why he got criticized, if we can find the material to back it up would saying something along the lines of : At first Senator Obama had agreed to use public financing but after wards decided not to Rjh00 (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It has always been my "intention" to become extraordinarily wealthy and powerful. The fact that I am both poor and powerless is not a "reversal" on my part. Circumstances have evolved that have sent me down a different path, much as the threat of massive RNC coffers and right wing 527 evilness sent Obama on a different path from the one he perhaps intended. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of misunderstanding of Obama's religion

How do editors feel about this edit? We had some material for a while in the "cultural and political image" section that said, basically "Obama is a Christian, but a lot of folks incorrectly believe him to be Muslim." There was always a difference of opinion on whether that "cultural perception" was noteworthy (clearly not directly a fact of his biography in any "what he did" sense; but arguably so in a "how he is perceived" sense). Obama's actual religion is well discussed earlier in the article, in any case.

I think I personally lean towards supporting the removal of that material (but only lean), but it seems odd for it to have been removed without any comment on this talk page. So I guess that means, I hereby comment :-). LotLE×talk 23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, hadn't noticed that. I think I lean towards its removal as well, as it's already covered in detail elsewhere and it's of questionable biographical value, but I'm definitely open to being convinced otherwise. --GoodDamon 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Arabic form of his name

I'll probably be posting this same question on the talk-page for the Arabic translation of this article, but: What is the correct form of Mr. Obama's name in Arabic? The Arabic wikipedia uses "باراك أوباما" (bārāk 'ūbāmā), but I think it should be "براك عباماء" (barāk `abāmā'), in which case his first and last names would be Arabic lexical words just like his middle name. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My hunch is that this is the wrong page on which to ask about Arabic orthography. It seems more likely that someone can give you a good answer on the Arabic Wikipedia. LotLE×talk 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence

I've followed this issue for months and all the past conversation about it has been pointless due to too much absolutism.

This sentence:

"Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president"

is not false, but it is inaccurate because it's specific to the point of falsity due to fact exclusion. It should read like this:

"Obama is the first candidate of African American heritage to be nominated by a major political party for president"

The problem with the current version stems from what the meaning of "is" is. When Bill Clinton turned that phrase, he was mocked in some corners as trying to parse things in a self-serving manner. But he did have a point: How you parse a sentence definately changes its meaning. Change the meaning of "is" and the meaning of the sentence changes. Obama is not "is" African American exclusively but our current sentence falsely suggests he is. The way to reconcile that is to point out that he's "of" African American "heritage". That leaves enough room to make clear that there's African American in his background, without doing what we are doing now which is aligning ourselves with the non-factual POV that Obama "is" African American. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• This topic is a waste of time. Everything in the sentence is accurate. Duuude007 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the sentence which I offer as an alternative is more accurate, more true and less POV. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• But doesn't African American heritage apply to anyone who has a American and a African parent but isn't born in either Africa or America?Rjh00 (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Read WP:V. The statement is based on what he calls himself, and the fact that it can be verified. If he chose to call himself biracial or multiracial, I suppose that could also be verified, but he adopted the role of AA. It is his decision to make, not your's. Again, this topic is a waste of time. Duuude007 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, the question is actually moot, and this is the 200th time this same question has been raised by editors who don't want to read the FAQ or talk archives. However, Duuude007's now piqued my interest slightly. The conclusion is correct that we can't just decide what we, as editors, would most accurately describe Obama as. However, it isn't quite right that the decision belongs to the bio subject. In truth, it belongs to the consensus of reliable sources. If for some reason a bio subject wanted to be referred to in one way (in terms of ethnic/racial background), but the media who reported on her/him wouldn't go along, it would be our job to defer to the published sources not the subject herself. I can think of a few cases where that distinction matters; it obviously doesn't create any contrast here though. LotLE×talk 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Did anoyne one even read the sentence I offered? I am not trying to take out "African American". 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, we did. But your option, as we pointed out, is an unnecessary waste of time technicality, one which even he does not consider. Therefore, I have strong prediction value that the consensus will remain unchanged, and that you are still wasting your time. Duuude007 (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Info Box

Why are we including Obama's Subcommittee Chairmanship in the info box. If we are going to include that, then we should include it for all members of Congress. Rick Evans (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you are volunteering to go thru the other articles. Well done. We could use Wikipedians with a sense of initiative like your's. Duuude007 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Job. --Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous elections

I think this article could use some more information on his previous election wins - state senate and U.S. senate for instance. I came here for information on Barack's prior wins and while the U.S. senate part talks about how Obama already had it in the bag when Ryan had to quit, there is nothing about how he won his state senate seat. I'm sure he won in a landslide like he did for U.S. senate though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.0.187 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And that would be what Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama is for. This article is in summary style, which means everything is given the bird's-eye treatment, while the sub-articles go into detail. --GoodDamon 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} This page has been vandalized, would someone please change it?

Could you perhaps be more specific? Which line is currently vandalized? --GoodDamon 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect they're talking about the penis vandalism I reverted a while ago, and which another brand new account complained about 10 minutes earlier. Since I reverted it a minute after it was added, I suspect it's a caching issue. I have further suspicions about why it's cached like that on these particular editors pages, but I'll keep those to myself. --barneca (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)