Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Amendment of template

Missing info: Please add the presumed ending date/year of the presidency term... was it 4 yrs or 6 yrs that presidents are elected for? Hmm... Very relevant e.g. for the engagements on Climate Change... the second period of the "Kyoto Protocol" starts post 2012... will Barack them still be president? Aha ! --SvenAERTS (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason the Obama template can't be amended with a controversies line, on which we would mention Wright, Ayres, and birthplace?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They're in the Public Image template. After all, these are pseudo-controversies. The real ones will come, soon enough. Guettarda (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean besides the economy and his adoption of too many Bush admin positions ... never mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's precisely it. Ayers was one blip on the radar. "All of Obama's nominees are failing" was another. Closing Guantanamo was another. Not closing Guantanamo yet another. And Blago was a third (Oh my God, Obama comes from a corrupt state!) And the nationality issue elicited nothing but a huh? from almost everyone. But in the heat of the moment, Ayers was "DOOM! DOOM!! I tell you..." And then the next day he won the election and it was forgotten. Wright was a notable campaign issue because it forced Obama to act. Ayers was a far less notable campaign issue. Rezko never even broke through into the mainstream. There are certain to be real scandals associated with Obama's presidency - that's a given for any presidency, I think. Who knows - something might grow out of one of these issues. But we can't try to predict the future.

To political junkies, campaign issues seem like a big deal. But they aren't. Remember the red-haired woman who called Hillary Clinton a "monster"? Remember her name? But at the time, it was the end of the world. Remember the PUMAs? Or the wife of an aristocrat who called Obama "elitist"? Or... Wright is a minor controversy. Ayers and the birth certificate are, well, on par with the "Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster" nonsense. This is fringe stuff. No one cares about it except for the fringe. Only Wright mattered, and that for only a moment in the campaign. Beyond that, it's really just cruft, and including cruft in a real article, or in a major template, runs the risk of seriously unbalancing it. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Obama is in the news

Obama Wiki fiddler caught red-handed "A right-wing pundit has been caught red-handed manufacturing controversy after claiming US President Barack Obama's Wikipedia page was being whitewashed, in a scandal that fooled big news outlets including Fox News." cojoco (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for sharing that. a number of outlets are beginning to carry that. There are discussions here and there across the project, an AN/I report, talk on Jimbo's page, a sockpuppet report on the fake account he was using, yada yada... probably best to just add these articles to the "in the news" template, and keep this discussion focused if we can on Mr. Obama and his bio.Wikidemon (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the sum of this info, I've blocked Jerusalem21 indefinitely.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, all you have to do is fool Drudge, and you're pretty much guaranteed that Fox News will pick it up and report it as fact. - Nunh-huh 02:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch as this goes down as liberals persecuting the conservative POV so that America will turn into A RAGING TEMPEST OF COMMUNISM! Once it got reported by Fox, it was over :/ 216.96.150.33 (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And all it takes to fool Drudge is to publish an article critical of Obama, regardless of how outlandish the claim is. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, enough with the bashing conservatives. I know we aren't as smart as liberals, nor as enlightened, nor as cool. Can we just keep our focus on the BLP? Newguy34 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a liberal, however, how would have you proceed had this been, say Daily Kos sockpuppetering? Right now it would a soapbox. All am sayin' is don't get all self-righteous. No counter example like this exists for, say, George W. Bush. You guys brought upon yourselves.--Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The exact same way. I am here for the project. I take a dim view of people misusing Wikipedia to build themselves up and tear us down.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Us, guys? No one speaks for me, except, well, me. What, again, did "we" bring upon ourselves? This liberal snikering (or any conservative snikering) is getting goofy. Newguy34 (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the brouhaha is on topic for Criticisms of Wikipedia, not here. PhGustaf (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The story is exploded, the perp is blocked, can't we get back to normal life now? Time to get back to improving an encyclopedia, guys!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, getting fooled by "If it's on the internet, it's got to be true" is not a uniquely conservative thing. Let's not forget the daily pronouncement that "inside sources tell me that tomorrow is Fitzmas and Karl Rove is going to be indicted!!! OMG *swoon*" that were coming off the liberal blogs/pundits during the whole CIA leak scandal. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, is it too much to ask to keep a cool head here, are did you miss the notice at the top of the page: "Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." and "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette." Use your own site to rant, but leave your contributions here to constructive article building. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Another story on this with an e-mail from Klein explaining he oversaw all of the "event" he reported on. rootology (C)(T) 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

dablinks are supposed to precede amboxes

{{editprotected}} Per WP:LEDE#Elements of the lead, disambiguation links (templates which use {{dablink}}) are supposed to precede maintenance boxes (templates which use {{ambox}}). Currently, {{pp-dispute}} precedes {{redirect4}}, which is the exact opposite of what WP:LEDE calls for. Whether this is generally to be applied to protection templates, I'm not sure, but I thought I'd mention it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that protection templates are placed directly at the top of articles and are outside of that guideline. KnightLago (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I couldn't find a particular statement at WP:RFPP or WP:PP that said otherwise. I'm gonna ask for clarification at WT:LEDE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am heading that way too, but it is important to note LEDE is not policy. KnightLago (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest reversion to semiprotection

Now that the brouhaha is dying down, suggest we revert to semiprotection of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I say one more day can't hurt. Soxwon (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking I will wait until tonight, or possibly tomorrow morning and reevaluate the protection. While things have started to slow down there is still a lot of discussion here going back and forth. This also has a lot of coverage in the news today. KnightLago (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it matters this late in the game, but the protection template is a bit misleading. It was am off-wiki instigated vandalism wave that hit the article, not a straightforward 'edting dispute'. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to characterize the recent edits, but there has been a lot of edit warring and heated discussion. Hopefully, by tonight or tomorrow morning things will be able to return to normal. KnightLago (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Tarc is right - we were not having any editing dispute here that warranted full protection, until the outside forces instigated, at which time it became necessary. Doesn't mater now, if we are about to return to semi-protection, but perhaps another template should be designed for future instances like this, on whichever article they might occur. Otherwise it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, or revisionist history. Tvoz/talk 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest how this may play out. If protection is lifted in the next few days some editors will try to force in previously rejected material they see as derogatory or negative, so as to fix the liberal bias / censorship / farce, etc. This will be rejected by long time article editors, and the version that comes on top at any moment will be a rugby scrum. Meanwhile people on he losing side will try again to edit war in a POV tag to register their discontent. There will be incivilities and taunts on both sides, significant violations of article probation terms, and at least a few editors blowing their tops to the point of getting blocked. There will also be well-founded concerns that some of the "anti" Obama crowd are new socks of old puppeteers, calls for check users, multiple AN/I reports, and some just plain vandalism. I hope you're ready for that. Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If we settle on this unprotected talk page what changes have consensus, what is definitely not going to change and what still needs to be discussed, then there should be no problem imposing harsh probationary sanctions on editors who try to jump the discussion process. The principle of "anyone can edit" doesn't have to be an invitation to edit things which are not agreed on yet. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't disagree with you - that is likely what will happen. And another few days of full protection is ok with me. But what do you propose long range? Semiprotection is certainly required as it has been for years on this article, but the past few days are a prime example of why we need flagged revisions. Extended full protection doesn't sit well with me, for one. Tvoz/talk 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Just to be clear - I think full protection was absolutely needed once the agitprop wingnuts arrived. I just don't want it longterm.) Tvoz/talk 21:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that as we ease out of protection we ease into vigilant enforcement of behavioral policies under article probation. And also a firm acknowledgment of: no personal attacks, no soapboxing, do not use the talk page to impugn other editors and their motives, do not use the talk page for griping about Wikipedia or politics, and that the presently protected version of the article is the consensus version and that any rejected changes are on the 1/2RR rule advocated by BRD and should not be reinserted without a clear demonstration of new consensus (i.e. nobody declaring that "policy beats consensus" or that their version is consensus simply due to a vote, numerical majority, claiming they have the better argument, etc). Removing protection will only work if there are administrators ready to enforce this firmly. It's best if we can handle that via the article probation enforcement page rather than taking every report to AN/I. We should be cautious of SPAs, new editors, IP accounts, and anyone who has just rushed in to join the fray. And we need to figure out if there are any socks. Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with everything you just said - that's what we were trying to do before, with some success. More vigilance will likely be needed now, I agree. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Tend to agree. It's going to be a pain in the neck the first few days. Still, it shouldn't be too difficult, we can always go back to full protection, and people will get the message we mean business.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian public schooling

Obama did go to a public school in indonesia. However the school is not an extremist school as some reports claimed nor is it secular as wikipedia talk section asserts, Abcnews reports for the public school "A class in Islam was matched by one in Christianity, complete with teachings from the New Testament, a sign featuring the Lord's Prayer and a painting of Jesus". The school served multiple faiths. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2822061&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophytesoftware (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article already covers Obama's schooling in Indonesia, but it doesn't mention what kind of schools they were. Just the names of them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't he called "Barack H. Obama"?

Like Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and so on? 203.211.75.108 (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pure stylistic choice, as far as I can tell. George W. Bush employed the middle initial primarily to distinguish him from his father. The others did it because it mainly because it sounds good (compare "John Kennedy", "John F. Kennedy"). Dcoetzee 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton aren't called by their middle names. We name articles by the most common usage. Barack Obama is more common than Barack H. Obama. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick, without peaking, name the middle initials of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or James Madison. I can't do it, but I'm sure some editors can. However, in any case, the simple fact is that different presidents (or those who write about them) have made slightly different choices about which parts of their names to use most commonly. Obama happens to be one with "middle name/initial usually omitted." LotLE×talk 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those presidents had middle names.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson did. It was Woodrow. It's of course not uncommon that people use their middle name as their first name Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why do we call Adams "John Quincy Adams"? Are there other Adams to confuse him with? Why not just a middle initial? Truth be told there's no rhyme or reason. Padillah (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

His father, John Adams was the 2nd President 199.47.41.143 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What little faith I had in the American education system is plummeting quickly. As far as the rhyme or reason for the use of the middle name/initial on some presidents vs. others. You'd have to ask historians about that. The naming of our articles on the presidents seem to be inline with how they are referred to by historians and thus inline with the common names guideline. Barack H. Obama and Barack Hussein Obama are only common names amongst an extreme minority and thus the article is using his common name. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Funniest line of comments I've seen today... TastyCakes (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And, in a practical sense, there's no Barack W. Obama or Barack Q. Obama out there he's likely to be confused with. PhGustaf (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, many early presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, did not have middle names at all. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, imagine how silly we would look if we had "Jimmy E. Carter" and "Bill J. Clinton". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that prior to W. George H.W. Bush was generally referred to simply as George Bush AFAIK. Even nowadays, I suspect if you say George Bush people are more likely to assume you mean H.W. then W. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot find sources, but the answer is simply the stylings in cycles. Notice that Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur all served in the same historical clustering as post Civil War presidents, and that the other five you mentioned succeeded each other in a similar cluster of time. GW was to differentiate between his father, much as we do John Quincy Adams. Keegan^talk 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Because he doesn't call himself that. The reason people are referred to in one way or another is based on their own choices of what to call themselves in semiformal usage. Some people use their own full middle name(s), some their own middle initial(s), and some omit any mention of their own middle name(s). No other factor is relevant except in those cases where it was relevant to the individual in question. We call someone James Earl Jones not because we decide it's helpful or necessary to distinguish him from any other James or Jim Jones but because he (or the actors union) did. We don't call the 38th president "Leslie Lynch King, Jr." not because it's unpleasant to any of us to call our president "King," "Lynch" or "Leslie" but because at the age of 22 the man himself chose to use a variant of his stepfather's name. (Though I would point out to a previous editor here that Gerald R. Ford was his own semi-formal usage. I also disagree with the editor who said most people who use "George Bush" mean the elder Bush, but that's a moot digression.) Similarly, we don't call his successor "James Carter", with or without a middle name or initial, because in semi-formal situations he preferred the less formal "Jimmy Carter". "Hussein" is a bloody ironic middle name for the first president elected after 9/11 and the demise of Saddam Hussein, but nobody's sense of irony (much less conspiracy theorists' imagining) is relevant to Barack Obama's own usage of his name. In each president's main article, his full, exact birth name is given in the lead, whether it was ever commonly used or not, but in all other instances of a "full" name (succession boxes, for example) it is the man's own common usage which editors are to use. To do anything else is a subjective choice to wrestle a man's identity away from him. This is sometimes done by the writers of blogs and other yellow rags, but not by encyclopedia editors. Abrazame (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Thank you. The only thing I'd add is in addition to how he refers to himself, we also go by the preponderance of sources - how is he most commonly referred to, what will readers be most likely to enter in the "go" box - and that's "Barack Obama" by a mile, as someone said upstream. Tvoz/talk 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposals to increase coverage of controveries

Comment by Skydiver99

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) There isn't one mention of Ayers or Wright on this page, which is patently absurd. There are people more capable of fixing this than me, so anyone with the stones feel free to give it a whirl. Skydiver99 (talk) Frankly, this whole page reads like a member of Obama's staff wrote it. There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever regarding criticism or negative campaign coverage, and it is capped with a section extolling his virtues as a public speaker. Seriously? This is bad even by biased standards. Skydiver99 (talk) Then grow some "stones" and fix it yourself. Don't just drive-by and complain, that doesn't help anyone. Dayewalker (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) And please make sure you have read the right articles including Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 and Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 as that is where information on the campaign that you can't find is located. Mfield (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I'm aware of what happens to users who dare to modify Obama's page in any way that isn't visibly positive to him: they get banned. Honestly, does dishonesty on a forum such as Wikipedia ultimately serve the pro-Obama cause? All that does is establish certain supporters of his as unscrupulous. One way or another, dishonesty ultimately sabotages all that employ it, because the truth gets out. Now, am I saying that it is an objective fact that Obama is bad? No. I'm saying that this entry is squeaky clean and actually reads like an ADVERTISEMENT for him. His press people couldn't improve on it as it. That's just wrong and violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Skydiver99 (talk) You do realise that there's an entire article on the Wright controversy, and another article on the Ayers controversy, and another on the citizenship issue? That there are well over 200 articles in Category:Barack Obama and its subcategories? Wikipedia articles are relatively short. Obviously we can't get every detail of every bit of trivia into the main article. You realise that, right? Surely you aren't just spouting off without looking at the facts? Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) And BTW, there are ZERO mentions of Wright and Ayers on his presidential campaign pages, even though both received serious media attention. Skydiver99 (talk) You mean apart from Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008#Impact_of_Rev._Jeremiah_Wright and this whole article Jeremiah_Wright_controversy? Mfield (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (strange comment moved - Wikidemon (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) ? Not sure what you mean but this is a biographical article about the man himself. Thing is we have other articles too, lots of them, on all sorts of topics, all edited by lots of people from diverse backgrounds. We are like a big book with lots and lots of pages. And we have links you can click on to get to other topics. It's amazing really. Mfield (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The Ayers issue was a tiny blip, at the very end of the campaign. It had no impact of the opinion polls, and barely existed outside of Sarah Palin's speeches. The Wright issue was relatively big for a short space of time, and it's covered. Guettarda (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion that fringe controversies be treated uniformly

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) First of all I want to say that I don't think there's any question of President Obama's American citizenship. Also, in light of a recent and unfortunately controversial return to the discussion tonight, that my suggestion not be grouped with other since-archived proposals on the basis of redundancy. I am suggesting that either a brief mention or section be included on Barack Obama's main entry, or similar references be removed from articles that serve as paralleling examples. It was suggested elsewhere that the conspiracies compare to long-since refuted fringe theories regarding such things as the JFK assassination and the September 11 attacks and that their validity would share a similar fate. Yet, both conspiracies are documented -- albeit briefly -- on the main Wikipedia entries of these subjects. The September 11 attacks article has a small section referencing the theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination has a section referencing conspiracy theories. Even John F. Kennedy's main article mentions conspiracy theories in brief. These are much more publicized 'fringe theories' that have also been scrutinized to a much greater extent than this controversy, but which are given their place amongst the modern historical compilation on Wikipedia. In those terms, the question of Obama's citizenship is relevant enough to merit a mention on his main page, if only to redirect, as the other examples do, a reader to a more critical discussion -- and most likely refutation. To treat this case differently is indeed hypocritical, and only supports the claim that it's an example of politically biased censorship. That is what I have an issue with, because I would rather Wikipedia not fall under such negative perceptions. These are our Wikipedia Commons, and our knowledge-base, and while they should be dedicated first and foremost to the truth, an omission of historical elucidations serves only to deprive it. --Dan Lowe 06:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I'm reluctant at all to respond to a discussion that begins with a claim of hypocrisy, bias, and censorship. Each article stands on its own, so I'm not going into those other articles in any depth. Occasionally, conspiracy theories are relevant and important enough to the subject of an article to deserve a brief mention. Usually not. There are many of them in the case of Obama - he is a Muslim, he is gay, he is a fraud, he didn't really graduate from Harvard or serve on the law review, he is really a citizen of X (name four or five countries). The established editors who have worked on this page have made the same decision as nearly every unbiased respectable source that attempts to summarize Obama's life and career, namely that various fringe conspiracy theories do not add sufficiently to a telling of Obama's life story to be worth a mention in an article of this length. These decisions were not made lightly or in secret - the entire history of the process is transparent and available in the talk and article page archives. Over the course of many months dozens of editors evaluated, debated, and reviewed thousands of mainstream sources. The truth is that these sources do not give much weight to the theories. You can find spotty coverage here or there, but nothing on the order of the other key points we hit in the article. Giving undue weight to minor fringe matters would degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, as would succumbing to the ridiculous accusations of opportunistic partisans off wiki. They have been throwing mud at each other for a living. Now they see Wikipedia as a useful target. We hold the line on our standards here. We cover them all, just not on the main page where any mention would be out of all proportion. Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to standard/policy of George W. Bush Article

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The article on George W. Bush seems to mention, albeit briefly, at least one controversy that arose only in the context of Bush's campaign for the presidency: "Critics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot and his irregular attendance." It doesn't seem consistent to insist that all negative/controversial items that arose during Obama's campaign can ONLY be mentioned in articles about his campaign. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) There is no such insistence, and that is not the outcome. However, if something was mostly or entirely a campaign issue that did not significantly affect the person, his career, or even the campaign, it is hard to argue that it is important enough to include in the summary biographical article. On first hearing, Bush's military career seems to fit that but this is the Obama article, not the Bush article. If you want to improve that article I suggest you go there directly and address it as a matter of article quality, not a measure-for-measure attempt to make each politician's article equally positive or negative.Wikidemon (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Interesting. In Employment Law, the term "disparate impact" has been used to describe policies implemented by employers which, while facially (consciously) do not purport to discriminate, nevertheless end up with "disparate impacts" on various groups. Even if Wikipedia does not CONSCIOUSLY practice a liberal bias, in my experience there is a strong argument to be made that "policy" and attitudes such as those being exhibited here result in a "disparate impact" on non-liberal points of views. Lawyer2b (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Well, Reality has a well known liberal bias, but there is not much we can do about that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Disparate impact concerns rights of protected classes of minorities to receive commensurate treatment if in comparable situations. There's no equivalent for politicians, programs, and ideologies. Some pan out. Others do not. NPOV means we cover the world as it reveals itself through reliable sources - it does not mean we try to ensure equally positive treatment for every competing politican. Bush is one of the least popular presidents in history, leaving office during a terrible economy, got the US into a disastrous war on a justification that turned out to be faulty, and judged by most historians as one of the worst in history. Clinton was impeached for heaven's sake. There's no rule in Wikipedia or most other places that we have to find an equal amount of dirt on Obama just because he is a president too. Wikidemon (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of Wright

This is shameful even for wikipedia standards, not even talking about the fact that he sat and listened 20 years to borderline racist statements and the only thing wikipedia users show fit to say is that he left the church, Reverend Wright is Obama's personal friend, what would it take to put more about their relationship on his page? Oh wait I know, it would be perfect if it were a white Reverend and he was George W. Bush's friend, this is cowardly bullshit and blatant favoritism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husk3rfan9287 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While the policy in A5 (not mentioning "fairly minor issues [that had] no significant legal or mainstream political impact) would seem to keep any mention of Obama's citizenship controversy out of his article, I don't think the same can be said for his association with Reverend Wright and the church where he preached. Those had both significant and mainstream impact. Does someone disagree? Lawyer2b (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably worth somewhere between two words and a sentence, as a matter of proportionality. It currently has a sentence, but in a footnote. If moved back into the main section it should be posed in a way that focuses on the relationship to Obama, and his decision to leave the church in light of the controversy, as opposed to focusing on Wright himself or the relatively modest campaign issue. However, it may be difficult to achieve any kind of consensus for a little while here given the editing issues.Wikidemon (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest waiting a couple days for the wnd and drudge trolling to die down and then posting a proposed edit here for consensus discussion. cheers, --guyzero | talk 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With the amount of press that this had, including Obama having to address this publicly, there must be some mention in the text itself, perhaps a sentence or two, with a wikilink or a {{main}}/{{see also}} to the proper article. While it should not, and cannot be allowed to take an undue role here, its only mention coming in a footnote smacks of POV hagiography which expressly violated WP:NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully recommend three mentions of Wright. First, as Obama's mentor. Obama himself said so, and Wright's role in Obama's person life, as marriage officiator, baptiser and spiritual advisor. Seocnd, "The Audacity of Hope" title comes from a speech from Wright. This should be mentioned. Third, the leaving of Wright's church because of a swell of controversy. These three points should be understood by the reader. It tells the full arc of Obama and Wright's relationship. By putting each point in the article in places where it relates, we can avoid POV as none of these ponts directly relate to the views and controversial aspects of Wright and therefore we can avoid making the page about Wright directly. Bytebear (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you feel those should be in the article, then you are going to need to find a couple sources to back each of those parts up. The ref's cannot be World News Daily, Free Republic, Blogs, etc. The ref must pass WP:RS and WP:V and if you are not sure, post it up on the RS/N for a check. Also, the ref's must exactly say each of those points, nothing can be implied. There cannot be any synthesis or original research. If you can find ref's that passes all then, post them here and we can discuss the changes. Brothejr (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this was probably missed in the edit warring, but Thatcher seems to have added a rather NPOV and reliably sourced mention of Wright into the Personal life and family section.[1] I'd say we keep it, personally.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that before I posted the above comment and I also agree with what Thatcher posted, but my comment was to Bytebear and anyone else who wanted to post much more about Wright in the article. Also, before I forget, we must not violate WP:WEIGHT when we think to add more information about Wright to the article. Brothejr (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the controversy should go in political and cultural image, and the book title and the mentorship should go in the personal life. The same thing would be done with Ayers who is also missing. I will find the references if they are needed. Also for the WP:DUE, don't Ayers and Wright have their own articles for the controversies? That's pretty good for weight IMO. Soxwon (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do have there own articles. However, having their own articles is not a good argument for adding it here. As far as WP:WEIGHT is concerned, it has to be asked how much impact did these controversies have on Obama's life? When we talk about this, we don't mean what the WND, Drudge report, or any other right leaning internet publication mean's on what is/was important in Obama's life. Brothejr (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone disputing the facts of the three points I suggested? i think we need to first decide what to include, and then decide how to include it. Bytebear (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We are neither proving or disproving anything. It is up to you to prove those points and it is also up to you to provide the refs to back up the point. You will get no consensus or anything likewise without first doing that. Brothejr (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are references. I would prefer the first two points have references that are unrelated to Obama's denoouncement of Wright, but they are harder to find. I believe the NYTimes did a series of articles on Obama prior to the blow up, that would be better, and sources on the "Audacity of Hope" should reveal some Wright sources that are more neutral.

1. Obama's mentor, officiator at wedding and baptizer of children. This is in his own biographies, as well as documented here [2], [3] and [4]

2. The Audacity of Hope was a speech given by Wright, to which Obama himself gives credit in his own book. A self source should be sufficient, but here are more [5] [6] [7]

3. The controversy of leaving the church can be found everywhere, but here are some very reliable sources: [8] [9]

Regards. Bytebear (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of those ref's are a little questionable as they are mostly editorials which is an older version of a blog. But either way, next comes the question of WP:WEIGHT. If you read the article, you will see that there is already a mention of Wright and that there is/was a controversy surrounding him, including a link. So the question now is, you the editor/proposer, need to state the reason for enlarging and expanding the portion. Giving the controversy more weight then might be apparent. Also, you might want to build a consensus and have a good argument/reasoning behind the proposed addition that would make it stick within the article. Brothejr (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I said in my summary that better referrences were needed, but this is just for fact checking. 1) Obama did call Wright his mentor, was married by Wright, his children were baptized by Wright. He did get the title "The Audacity of Hope" from Wright's sermon and there was a plethora of controversy that caused Obama to renounce Wright. All of these are facts. That the referrences I cited are questionable is immaterial to the facts, and better referrences can be found. But that does not change the fact that these issues must be presenented in the article. As to the article NOW stating some of this, that wasn't the case this morning. As to undue weight, I don't know how you can diminish the fact that this man WAS Obama's spiritual mentor. He was a major figure in the life of Obama for nearly 30 years. This cannot be ignored or diminished. Bytebear (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Obama has mentioned Wright as one of his greatest influences: [10]. I think that the controversy should go in the political section, but the relationship in the personal for as Obama explicitly said, he didn't seek Wright for politics. Soxwon (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent referrence. I would recommend adding something about the title of Obama's book coming from his mentor and maybe even a quote from Obama about his influence. This does not need to be tied to the controversy, but it will give readers an understanding of Wright's role in Obama and particularly his book. Bytebear (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the latest comment by Bytebear. The premise of this section is a little bit moot - the article now mentions Wright in the main body rather than the footnote. Overall, election-year issues are going to grow more and more distant, and proportionately less important, as events of state happen and the time of presidency lengthens. Obama seems to be a religious man, and also connected in his early career with black empowerment, and as noted saw Wright as an inspiration and perhaps a mentor... I'm not arguing the specifics but it seems that Wright and the church were important to him for a significant part of his life, and that his break from the church was a significant life event. I imagine that a totally neutral author 100 years from now would probably devote 1/4 to 1/2 a chapter in a 2 volume book to this. So I personally think it is a reasonable request to treat the issue in some more depth as a personal / biographical issue. Sourced, neutral, and of due weight, obviously. This is not an exercise in inserting information just to be negative, but getting the story right.Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Other articles contain controversy sections with no apparent attempt by editors to remove them or incorporate them into the article. Either such a section should be introduced into this article or any editor should be allowed to delete such a section from any other article. Ejnogarb (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:CSECTION, your assertion is not correct Soxwon (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out how absolutely ludicrous Brotherjr's logic is, and how it just goes to show how absolutely determined he is to keep these obviously important issues out of the Obama article. First, he tells Byetebear that he "[is] going to need to find a couple sources to back each of those parts up." Then, when the sources are acquired, he responds "there is already a mention of Wright and that there is/was a controversy surrounding him, including a link. So the question now is, you the editor/proposer, need to state the reason for enlarging and expanding the portion." My question to you, Brotherjr: Why did you tell him to go get the sources if you already knew that you were going to contest expanding the portion on Wright anyway? Why didn't you just be up front about it? The answer, of course, is that you're never, under any circumstances whatsoever, going to consent to expanding the Wright connection to reflect the actual, accurate connection between the two that a truly non-biased article would reflect. You make me sick and want to not have anything to do with this site/project.Jm131284 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Now lets be civil. Yes, Brotherjr's arguments are invalid, but we should still be polite in refuting them. Let's work on building a concensus on what is acceptable in the article and make sure it is reliable and NPOV. Thanks. Bytebear (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is nothing here to legitimately build consensus about. It doesn't really matter how many WND/FR-directed users come here and pee in the pot, consensus cannot override basic Wikipedia policy...policy that has been quoted ad nauseam here over the last 24 hrs...that guides what information does and does not appear in articles. You and your arguments simply have no leg to stand on. Tarc (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See that's the kind of attitude that's both unfair and unreasonable. You're dismissing arguments based on who you think someone is despite an established editing history and/or work in other parts of wikipedia. Perhaps you could entertain the possibility that some of us honestly want to help the article? It's gettting to the point that the only ones you take seriously are the ones that agree with you. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am dismissing arguments based upon their inherent unreliability and fringiness. If you are trying to insert fringe points of view into this article, then no, you aren't here to help, whether you've been around 24 hours or 24 months. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be fair if they were fringe and unreliable. But Obama himself has stated that rather Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice, He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics.

That sounds like a pretty important person in his life, so instead of just rejecting something that disagrees w/your opinion judging it on merits. As I said, he deserves mention in the personal section. Soxwon (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if a right-leaning organizations cannot be used, then left-leaning organizations cannot be used either. There's a gross double-standard going on here. It's atrocious. I don't really care about the consensus, I care about the truth; and right now it's being suppressed. --Justin Herbert (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, two things here. First, left-leaning organizations are not used to source this article. A quick perusal trough the references section shows the NY Times, Washington Post, IHT, Newsweek, Newsday, etc... All mainstream, reliable sources. If your bone to pick is yet another "OMG LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" screed, then you are barking up the wrong tree here, as that is (yet another) minority POV.

Second, the claim that anything here is being suppressed is, to be frank, a lie. The Birthers have their own article, the Ayers people have their own article, and the Wright people have their own article. The first two are not relevant in the overall life of Barack Obama, which is why they do not appear in this article. Wright was notable, however, and warrants a brief mention and the redirect to the appropriate article. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can live with that. Are the "controversy" articles linked to on the page, though? --Justin Herbert (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had actually read what I said above, you would've answered your own question. Wright is, as he was notable in Obama's life before election to public office. Ayers and the Birthers aren't, as they were only notable in the context of the election. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually they're linked from the template at the bottom of the page. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, as it is just a navigational aid. What I and others object to is placing it with the context of the article itself. Tarc (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No one yet has questioned the assumption that if Jeremiah Wright is included in the Barack Obama entry, that it will affect it in an inappropriately negative way, or that it should. There was a reason President Obama made the aforementioned dedications in his book, and why he patronized Wright's Church for decades: he respected Reverend Wright, and has no reason not to now. Even as far as Wright's controversial comments go, there isn't a consensus that he was out of line or wrong. He's a preacher and activist, and being zealous and passionate are admired traits of such ventures. In other interviews both preceding and following the publicizing of the sermons, he displayed a reasonable disposition and sound mind. His condemnation of American military engagements and of the country's historically racist values aren't any more radical than what one would hear in the classroom of any major university. Posed in this way, I'd like to imagine that Obama's relationship with Wright is perfectly legitimate, and doesn't have to stand as disproportionately critical. That its only mention involves the campaign controversy is inconsistent with how everyone has been handling these subjects so far, because of how they had been skewed for political reasons during the campaign. -Dan Lowe (talk)19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayers

We might mention him too, though only that he was a manufactured controversy during the course of the election. Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the Undue Weight issue. Did he have an important impact on Barack Obama's life. If you listen to WND, Drudge report, and other such very conservative blogs/news, then yes. However, the majority of reliable sources have dismissed the claims and have stated that Ayers had very little to no impact to BO's life. This controversy is mentioned in the election article, but it does not have enough weight to merit a mention, even a dismissive mention, in this summary style BLP. Brothejr (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Idk, I mean the extent has definitely been blown out of proportion by the fringe. However, even http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/index.htmlreported there was a definite connection. Soxwon (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But the question still is, is that connection strong enough to merit a mention on the main article that covers the major parts of his life? If you listen to WND and such, then yes, but if you read the CNN and other RS's then no. Brothejr (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence the might, plz stop lumping me in w/them, it's starting to get insulting. I brought it up to A) satisfy the wingnuts and B) make sure covered all the bases so this convo can be Rfc. Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if what I wrote seemed like that. I was not trying to lump you in and I was not trying to insult you. I figured that's what you were doing and wanted to post that on. Either way, nothing will really satisfy the wingnuts until this article digresses to the level of conservapedia's article. Brothejr (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

collapse personal attacks and pointless interruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow Brothejr. If anybody had any questions as to your biases, you just laid them all to rest with the "wingnuts" and "conservapedia" quips. For all of the claims from so many here of striving towards neutrality, you and so many others have shown your hands. (Now let's see if this comment gets whitewashed like the rest were.) Likwidshoe (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (Unindent)I will appeal to your sense of reason and ask you to reword your edit based on good faith. I say this because I perceive that you lack good faith in dealing with the editors here that are trying to keep stable a very contentious article that has had many hours worth of work sunk into to make as excellent as possible within wikipedia's vision of what an article ought be. This is independent of labels but dependent on fact. Sometimes people with liberal leanings get frustrated and make statements that are rather partisan, but it is up to you to respond with arguments that have merit and rebut their faultily crafted rhetoric as you perceive it. Attacking in kind weakens your position, because contrary to what you believe reactionary liberals are not welcomed anymore than reactionary conservatives are; we look down on marginalizing of republicans and conservatives outside the facts as we do with attempting the like with liberals and democrats. If you assume good faith on behalf of the hard working editors here, I ask you, what conclusion do you come to?216.96.150.33 (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I see the game being played, jumped in "in kind" as you so accurately put it, and then watched as something funny happened - only one of us got smacked down and censored. If my comment was "in kind" as you said, why was my comment the only one censored? The conclusion that I come to is that there are two different standards being applied here. That was my entire position. The "attack", far from weakening my position, set the stage for you and another to prove my position. Thank you for that. As for "if you assume good faith", why would I do that? I am not in the habit of assuming what has been already been shown to not exist. I'll give you credit though IP man. You are good with your words, minus one thing - you don't tell me what I believe. That was poor form there. Likwidshoe (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Your WP:PA/WP:SOAP was "censored," and even referred to the censors' lair, because it violated WP:PA and WP:SOAP and nearly violated WP:3RR as well. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Censoring is dumb. I do not care about being correct, or being right, I am simply interested in the facts. I believe discourse that supports the finding of facts is beneficial to the pursuit of knowledge. I do not think my removal of your comments was censoring. When you attack people you discourage honest discourse and draw attention away from rational debate; the loudest voice is the only one heard as they say. There are times back when I was much more partisan and dogmatic than I am now. I leave those comments up as a way of reminding myself of the folly of disregarding reason and logic. Instead I opted to use hotly worded rhetoric to prove my point and did disservice to my position; logic speaks louder when not spoken. I do not pretend to be psychic but consider: if you are here, throwing around accusations you honestly believe in, then you must not be approaching people with good faith. Would you throw around accusations if you believed this article was the synthesis of the collective efforts and frustrations of many editors over many months? You would only be able to do that if you assumed that effort was tainted by partisan poison or otherwise it is was just an honest mistake, and do you yell at people who make an honest mistake, or do you point it out and attempt to enlighten them of their folly? If you approached with good faith, would you assume that we are whitewashing this article because it is all tied into some oddly threaded supraphysical entity called liberalism? Granted liberals, moderates, libertarians, neocons, everyone here gets frustrated and angry with a perceived persecutory mob guarding an article, but the most reasonable argument as supported by the facts is how things are measured and written here. If you resort only to attack, then it is easier for any perceived unethical opposition to win by positing a rational argument that you could have easily defeated had you tried. Again, good faith sir; ever vigilant!216.96.150.33 (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on who you talk to. The mainstream media did not press the issue, but some very credible journalists also criticided them for that. It isn't just "right wing nuts" who think that Ayers was downplayed by the media, and it isn't just conservatives who think the connections to Ayers are significant. This issue does lead into bias in the media, and to whether Ayers had a bigger role in the life of Obama than is generally reported. Certainly it started out as a non-issue until it was discovered that Obama not only knew Ayers, but was on boards with him. To say it bears no weight on the life of Obama and should not be mentioned is to give it too little weight. It can certainly be preseneted in a neutral way, giving the facts, and Obama's reaction to those facts, but it really cannot be ignored. Bytebear (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that reasoning is that we don't have anyone who substantiates a strong or important personal relationship, or someone who can prove he was important to his ideology or political career. Sure they served on the same board, but that really proves nothing significant. Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We have some of that, but not as much as we should have. That is the fault of the mainstream media for not doing their jobs. They were too busy digging up dirt on Joe the Plumber to look deeper at the Ayers connection. But there are still significant sources. It is significant, far more than what Joe's real name is. Bytebear (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is that they did dig deep into it and found nothing or very little. The only people who saw anything deep in it are those of the right. Those refs also said that too. Brothejr (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will do some research on that. Not all sources are from the right. Certainly CNN and WSJ did some stories on Ayers and Obama. Sure MSNBC and the NYTimes ignored the connections as best they could, but there is far more evidence of a personal conneciton, and more importantly a political connection than you lead me to believe. For one, Obama did start his political carreer announcing his State Senate race from the home of Ayers. Bytebear (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is though, wherever Obama announced his State Senate run from is only important to fringe right-wingers, not to mainstream, reliably sourced media. That is why it does not appear here, it is of no relevance to the man's biography. It is only important to those seeking to get their "OMG MARXIST!" gotchas in. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That is simply not true. A 2 second google search finds this article [11] which is not from a "right wing nutjob." I will find more if you like. Bytebear (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite true. That an issue appears in a reliable source is one thing, but there are other concerns to satisfy. Have a read through WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE sometime. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) And also, we need to avoid reading our own interpretation wtih WP:OR. As far as I've seen there hasn't been anything that really ties him in with Obama as a person (at least in a deep enough way to impact the article). Sure Ayers made some mistakes, but that doesn't mean his association with Obama makes it something of importance to Obama. As for the ppl who keep saying it's on Ayers and Wright, well duh, for the most part no one would know about them if it weren't for Obama. However, Obama is certainly well known w/o them. Soxwon (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

saying Ayers "made some mistakes" is a gross understatement. There is a lot of talk about fring theories here. It is not a fringe theory that Obama announced his candidacy for State Senate in the home of William Ayers, so let's just put that concept to rest. As to the influence of Ayers on Obama, that is for the reader to decide,but we cannot and should not ignore the fact that Obama and Ayers not only knew each other, but served on poltically active boards together. NPOV is not about hiding facts, but making sure that all the important details are balanced, including Obama's renoucement of Ayers radical activities. But the point still stands that Obama and Ayers did have political ties, and there are reliable sources who have commented on those ties, not as just part of the campaign, but as a history and makeup of the meteoric rise of the current president. Bytebear (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He also had ties with Blagoyavitch, but you don't see that heavily linked here either. The point is, it's not enough to say they were active on the same boards. Obama was in Congress with some of the biggest crooks, does that make him guilty by association? Ayer's past was not exactly famous and if he was a prominent member of the community then it would make sense to make the announcement among ppl who were active (other big wigs were there). Everything that is claimed can be refuted w/o stretching it too far. That means that asserting it as having significance is WP:OR Soxwon (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But I don't have to resort to WP:OR on this topic. There are plenty of referrences from reliable sources. The relationship with Ayers goes beyond his role in congress. In fact it predates it. He didn't work with Ayers because he had to. He chose to. If there are as many referrences to Blago, then it should be included too. Your comparison just doesn't hold water. Bytebear (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh but it does. It is conviction by association. I can provide just as many sites saying he associated with Blagoyavitch and associated with Congress. When they happen is of no concern. My question, how much of this was Obama's personal opinion and how much was it a choice by him, rather than another political decision. Comments like yours would go in the election section. There has to be PROOF that he and Ayers had a connection for it to go in Obama's bio. Soxwon (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I didn't see this mentioned, so just a head's up that Fox News has an article prominently on their main page that discusses Wikipedia's handling of this issue. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They make very valid points about how we are trying to avoid bias, and in doing so, leaving out important documented facts. Lets just step back for a second... WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. WP:FRINGE:In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. I believe all of these very relevant, negative things can be added with neutrality, lets not forget there is PLENTY of unbiased positive information(WP:UNDUE). Just a thought. Darcstars (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Writing articles is not a matter of balancing positive and negative information to reach a predetermined level of positive and negative. We are simply telling the story of a person's life. Nothing new has come to light since consensus was reached that Ayers occupies too little of a role in Obama's life and career (per weight of the sources) to justify a mention in this article, so I see no reason to reconsider at this time and if I did I would likely continue to oppose mentioning Ayers on those grounds. The Obama/Ayers connection is minimal, no more than Obama's connection with hundreds of other people. The number of neutral, reliable sources that cover that connection is minimal, far less than the sourcing of nearly any other item on the bio page. Most of the reliable sources that do cover it treat it not as a biographical topic, or a legitimate controversy or scandal, but as election-year campaigning. Hence, well-sourced material belongs in articles related to the campaign. There is also a pretty good article devoted entirely to the campaign issue. Tagging this article with that one does not increase the reader's understanding of who Obama is, what his life has been about, or his career as a politician. It always was, and remains, primarily a partisan issue that is a lot more important to the more extreme opponents of Obama than anyone else.Wikidemon (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, they're trying to make his chance workings with a man whose past was not that prominent into an issue that supposedly had life altering affects. I just don't see that here. Soxwon (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken, however, I agree that writing articles is not about a "balance" of positive and negative information, it really has nothing to do with a balance. It has to do with neutrality, which is the point. WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. I know this doesn't change anything. Because there is almost nothing neutral about any one persons Wikipedia article. Thats just how it is. And thats the last thing I will say. Darcstars (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that Ayers is not important to the life of Obama. He clearly worked with Ayers prior to entering politics, and launched his political career from Ayers' home. The article puts major acolades on Obama's early efforts as a community organizor. Well, much of that was in commitees that included Ayers. Clearly there was enough of a conneciton that Obama chose to use Ayers' home as a launching pad for his politcal ambitions. And that connection came back to haunt him in a very big way. Remember, the Ayers connection came before he won the nomination, so it isn't just "right wing wackos" who wanted to know more about this association and it was covered by much of the mainstream media. I think a simple sentence like "Obama announced his intentions to run for State Senate at the home of William Ayers, a prominant, yet controversial figure in Chicago politics. This association would become a major point of contention when Obama later would run for President." Bytebear (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources don't back up a claim that Ayers was important to Obama, not unless you go to anti-Obama election year partisanship. The claim that Ayers launched Obama's career was shown to be bunk, a deliberate misrepresentation of what a single person said in a blog post, and is not repeated in any reliable source. The supposed connection and contrived scandal about it, part of a larger effort to paint Obama as some kind of terrorist sympathizer, fizzled out and got very little traction even in the election. It certainly did not stick in reality or in public perception as a defining issue for Obama.Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A common Logical Fallacy: Association Guilt.

Once again, that simply isn't true. There is no verifiable source that says it's "Bunk" and even if there was, it would be opinion anyway. Ayers association was covered by mainstream reliable sources. Nothing in the sentence I proposed was untrue. And it is a very neutral way to cover the aspects of Ayers, without resorting to giving opinions as to whether the association was "bunk" or not. also, Wikipedia does not deal with "public perception" but with fact. The fact is, Obama did associate with Ayers, and that association caused a stir. There is nothing in those statements that talks about "Guilt by association. It is simply a statement of fact. Bytebear (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is Association Guilt, Obama served on a board, Ayers served on that board. Therefore Ayers and Obama must have been friends/mentor/helped Obama launch career etc. Soxwon (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the facts do not state anything about Obama's guilt of anything. Please read my suggested sentence again. Bytebear (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so important then that it be mentioned? Soxwon (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a fact. Why do you want to supress facts? Bytebear (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but why is it notable? Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is notable because the mainstream press covered it. It is notable because it was a major issue in the 2008 election. It is notable because it goes toward the early history of Obama as a community organizer. That's why. Bytebear (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Those first two are notable for an election article, not here. The third, why is it so important to his early history? He had to start somewhere. Soxwon (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now, his election is important. Maybe in 30 years it will be less so, but clearly people are reading about Obama because of the recent election, so that makes the first two points noteworthy. As for the third point, yes, he did have to start from somewhere. he started embroyaled in Chicago politics, which includes Ayers, and your point seems to make mine, that that "somewhere" should not be a mystery. Bytebear (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, "which includes Ayers," yet he is being singled out. Why? Not b/c he had any special influence on Obama, or lasting impression, but b/c of a chance association and b/c of who Ayers is. As for the election, Joe the Plumber seemed to do more harm to Obama than Ayers (certainly more mentionin the mainstream press), yet Ayers is the one getting pushed. WP:UNDUE anyone? I rest my case. Soxwon (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He is being singled out for several reasons 1) he is far more controversial than anyone else Obama associated with 2) Obama started his political career in Ayers' home, 3) he was on boards that Ayers headed, giving insight into who Obama chose to associate with and therefore insight into his own polticial philosophies. As for Joe the Plumber, isn't that the point. Joe got far more scrutiny for asking one tough question to Obama than Ayers got altogheter. If the mainstream media had spent half the effort they did on Joe, looking into Ayers, we would have far more answers as to Obama's relationship with him. But as it is, most of the big media outlets ignored Ayers until forced by the controversy to take deeper looks, but even then, they were very apologetic in nature. Because the mainstream media dropped the ball for whatever reason, that does not make the issue moot. I would recommend reading anything by Bernard Goldburg if you want more insight in the bias of the media. Bytebear (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point, you have no PROOF that he had a major impact on Obama other than circumstantial. Soxwon (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream press did not cover the Ayers/Obama thing to any degree, even as an election matter. That's the point. If it had been worth talking about they would have talked about it. It's not up to us to highlight something, particularly a political smear, that does not seem to matter much except to bloggers, partisans, etc. Back to the supposed launching of Obama's career, that is debunked in mainstream sources and not as a matter of opinion. They trace it to a blog post by Maria Warren meant as a snark attack on Ayers and Dohrn's arrogance: ("When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.") The fact check sites traced how Warren's comment got picked up and perverted into a claim that Ayers launched Obama's political career, which is plainly untrue - among other things he was already a politician. The Chicago Sun-Times piece you (Bytebear) mention doesn't say they launched his career either, it says they introduced him to their neighbors in a "meet-and-greet". Others call it a "tea". None of this supports any coverage of that meeting in the article. You would have to find substantial, real sourcing. But we've dealt with all this before on this page, several dozen times, with sockpuppets thrown in, and I don't see any point dealing with it again now.Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For the third time. Yes, the mainstream media did cover Ayers/Obama. I gave a referrence earlier. There are many more, and I will provide them when I get home and can do some research. Because you don't want to do real research and your referrences are "fact check sites" does not prove anything. It was a major issue in the election, and although it was not well covered, it was covered. Bytebear (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, but Joe the Plumber got a lot more, why isn't he mentioned? Why Ayers? Soxwon (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber's involvement with Obama was one solitary question. The rest was fodder by the media. Here is another example of Ayers involvement with Obama:, "During Anderson Cooper’s show, CNN researchers concluded: “But the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said." [12] here's another from USNews [13] Bytebear (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We've considered that CNN statement at length. The conclusion is that it's an outlier, even against other versions of the same CNN article. It went farther than any other mainstream reliable source we found. And it's pretty thin. The article does not state that Obama actually has a significant connection with Ayers that makes any difference, only that he was slow to admit the connection that did exist. That is hardly the stuff of bios. I don't wish to debate this with you, just reporting on the earlier reasoning process.Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Uh, that's a blogger's commentary on the article, hardly RS. It takes facts and draws conclusions I.E. WP:OR Soxwon (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One was a blogger, but that was just to show that there were people in the mainstream media who wanted answers from Obama about his relationship with Ayers. The first, however was not a blog, it was a referrence to CNN. I suppose we could go straight to CNN, but it's hard to link to a televeion broadcast. But you are missing the point. you say because Obama is not a terrorist, that this controversy should be ignored, but that is not how it works. The controversy exists. Ayers exists, and reliable sources exist that say that Obama did know him, did start his polical career in his home, worked with him on several boards, and that sparked controversy later in his presidential election. All of these are noteworthy facts, particularly when the article is glorifying his community organizer status. Bytebear (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet they were pre-empted by Joe the Plumber. He didn't get his start from Bill Ayers

From the LA Times: Obama joined the board in 1993 and stepped down in 2002, three years after Ayers was appointed, said Laura Washington chairwoman of Woods Fund. The board met four times a year to discuss policy and new grant proposals, she said. Is that giving him his start? He made his announcement in Bill Ayers home, so? Is that so significant with other people sayings things like: Bill Ayers is very respected and prominent in Chicago as a civic activist," Washington added. "He has a national reputation as an educator. That's why he's on our board. "One more example is the way Sen. Obama's opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers." Mayor Dailey

And last, but certainly not least, was this bit at the end of the article: Hyde Park, on Chicago's South Side, is home to the University of Chicago, an arts center, museums and other cultural institutions. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's home and the headquarters of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH are within a few blocks of Obama's red-brick home. The neighborhood's politics are vibrant and decidedly liberal.

As a result, what is normal in Hyde Park may sound odd elsewhere in America.

Adolph Reed Jr., a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, knows both Ayers and Obama from his days in Chicago. He plans to vote for Clinton in Pennsylvania's primary Tuesday. But he called the Ayers-Obama link a "bogus story."

So there's a problem with mixing with one of the other activists in Chicago? There are hundreds more, this one just had a skeleton. [14] Soxwon (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For the 150th time or so (if you had particated in those discussions), there is no coverage of an actual Ayers/Obama connection in reliable media significant enough to cover as a real thing here (the vast majority of reliable sources concluded there was no special connection), and no coverage of an Ayers/Obama election scandal sufficient enough to pass WP:WEIGHT for this article. Pointing to a single article, or two hundred, doesn't cut it. We've gone through it many times - and you're not going to find anything new in the sources since the last forty or fifty times we dealt with it. I'm just trying to explain to you that we looked at this before, 40-50 times before, and reached a consistent conclusion each time. I'm certainly not interested in visiting this at a time when Wikipedia is under assault by manipulative partisans, the main page is locked down, and the legitimacy and motivation of many people on the page is a mess.Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have demonstrably shown that your assesment is false. Is there anything false about the following statement:

"Obama announced his intentions to run for State Senate at the home of William Ayers, a prominant, yet controversial figure in Chicago politics. This association would become a major point of contention when Obama later would run for President."

This isn't putting any commentary on the Ayers/Obama connection other than he had a relationship, started his career in the home of Ayers, and was later criticized for that relationship. I could go deeper and find referrences, and we could banter back and forth over what he said/she said, but this is a very neutral way to present this information. If you have a problem other than Undue weight, then I don't know what to tell you, because just putting in Ayers Obama in Google brings up countless links. The details are for another article, but a simple mention of it is pefectly appropriate. To exclude it is a POV violation, as it is noteworthy. Bytebear (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not unless Ayers had a significant impact on his outlook which there is no evidence of, otherwise it goes in the election article. And one source doesn't automatically cancel another out. Soxwon (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But that association does reflect on Obama in two ways. 1) Ayers was a big wig in Chicago politics and 2) it was a major issue in the presidential campaign. No one knows what significant impact it had on Obama, because that is opinion, and my suggested test did not refelect opinion at all. You are using issues not in evidence to prove your point. It doesn't work that way. Bytebear (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the "started his career in Ayers home" has been refuted. Jesse Jackson and Mayor Dailey were also big wigs, y focus on Ayers? Soxwon (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

do you have a primary source that disputes the "Ayers home" issue? Again, you ignore point 2. Jackson and Dailey were not controvesial figures in the election. Bytebear (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And Ayers was a controversial figure DURING THE ELECTION, hence his inclusion there. Soxwon (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

so all election issues should only be mentioned there? I am not asiking for a paragraph or section on Ayers, but a single explanitory sentence. Bytebear (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this issue is being further discussed on my talk page. If other editors want to discuss this here, please let me know there. Thanks. Bytebear (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't announce victory over my explanation. I'm not debating and I'm not interested in debate - I'm informing you of our reasoning process. Indeed there are primary and second sources that refute the "lauched career" issue, which is patently incorrect. "Obama announced his intentions" is misleading in two ways - first, I dont' think it's been sourced that this is where Obama first made a public announcement (or whther that announcement was public - only a handful of people were there). "Major point of contention" is a judgment that the sources do not back up, nor do they back up any reason why a statement about the event, even if true, belongs in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The meeting in question did happen. Whether it was a critical step in his poltical career is debatable, but we should find a quality referrence that gives a good summary of the meeting. What is indesputable is that that meeting was a critical point of contention in the whole Ayers controversy. Bytebear (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Whether he launched his career at that meeting or not still does not answer why this needs to be in the article. As of right now there is no reliable source that says he launched his career there without a large amount of synthesis and original research. The big question still is why should this go into the main article. How was this a major important part of his career? How did this impact his life? As of right now neither question is satisfied as it was not a major part of his career or did it impact his life with the exception of the presidential election. Even then it was just an unfounded criticism thrown at him. While you two might be working this out, you still need to convince the rest of the editors that this was important enough to be included in the main article. As of right now it is nothing more then a political election stunt. Plus, any article used as a ref must be squeaky clean and must say exactly what you are using it as a referencenfor, anything less would be original research and/or synthesis. Brothejr (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best referrence for Ayers is this article from CNN. [15] Here are some exerpts:

"... the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show."

"Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project."

"For seven years, Ayers and Obama -- among many others -- worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers. "

"While working on the Annenberg project, Obama and Ayers also served together on a second charitable foundation, the Woods Fund. It was that foundation that Obama referenced in the debate -- not the Annenberg Challenge."

" CNN review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved." -this is important because it isn't the intent of myself to portray this connection as innappropriate.

"In 1995, months after the little-known Obama became Annenberg chairman, state Sen. Alice Palmer introduced the young lawyer as her political heir apparent. The introduction was made over coffee at the home of Ayers and Dohrn."

"Dr. Quentin Young, a longtime physician, now retired, referred to the gathering as the political coming-out party for Obama."

"Obama praised Ayers' book on the subject in a 1997 Chicago Tribune review, calling it 'a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.'"

"the Obama-Ayers connection exploded into the national news Saturday when McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accused Obama of "palling around" with a domestic terrorist." - I point this out only to show that this particular referrence can be used to show that the issue was "explosive".

So, although not all of this should be covered, in fact only a sentence or two should cover it. probably in the section that discusses Alice Palmer as she is mentioned in the article specifically. Bytebear (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

None of those sentences or refs said that Obama launched his career in Ayer's house. Plus none of those ref's say they knew each other then as passing acquaintances both on the board's they worked on and friends they knew. Anything beyond that is syntheses and original research. Still does not merit even a line in the article. Brothejr (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bolded for your conveninece, above. And it certainly warrents more mention tha Alice Palmer, who is mentined in the article. Bytebear (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, that particular flavor of the various CNN sources was taken into account. Far from being the "best" source, it is an odd one out. The most critical mainstream reliable source out of the several hundred I reviewed on the issue, it is the only one as far as I know that suggests that Obama did anything wrong. Even that source does not say that the relationship amounted to anything or that the controversy was a real one, only that Obama (it opines) was slow to reveal things. We've been through this many times before. I'm out of here for now but I think it's very unlikely that consensus could be built to add any mention of Ayers on the Obama page. Consensus on any subject is impractical until we get the sock / disruption thing figured out but once we do, you should know that the the proposal to add an Ayers mention failed dozens of times already - with people screaming "whitewash' and "obama fan boy" and "obama campaign volunteer", and and nothing has changed about the issue since. Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so a senator friend introduced them, however it does not say he started his career there or it was anything more then an introduction. Should we include every person that senator introduced him to? Brothejr (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not our place to judge whether Obama's interaction with Ayers was right or wrong, and I have never suggested anything of the sort. But we do have facts here. You seem to be stuck on the negative implications of those facts. we are not here to dispute the implication. We are here to present the facts. I have presented them, and you even acknowlege them. If a person that was introduced to Obama was noteworthy, then yes, we should present the facts surrounding that event. In this case, we have events that led to a major election controversy. That makes it noteworthy. Bytebear (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is your opinion, then you might want to research and find out every important/notable person that Obama has been introduced to so we can add it to the article. As of right now, the only reason you want to add this is because Ayer's is a controversial character that a senator introduced to Obama. What that is called is guilt by association. That in itself is not a good reason for adding it to the article. Brothejr (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you only reading half of my posts? The reason Ayers needs to be included is because, just as the CNN article explains, the events that brought Obama into politics were directly related to Ayers, and those events caused a massive controversy in the 2008 election. I never said one word about guilt, or inappropriateness. Those are judgements that Wikipedia doesn't make. Wikipedia presents facts. you are still stuck on the implications of those facts. That is the flaw in your logic. You cannot dismiss facts, just because you don't like them. Bytebear (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am reading your posts. But the thing is, is that it still does not raise to the level of importance in Barack Obama's life to be included in the main article. It is covered in the election article as it was an election issue. Brothejr (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because it goes back to what he did as a community organizer. The CNN article goes far more in depth than I recommend, but really, you are alright with the mention of Alice Palmer a far less known political ally, but not with Ayers? That is a disingenuous argument at best; at worst, it reeks of POV. Bytebear (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First none of the sources directly mention Ayers as political ally, yet we do have many reliable sources that mention Palmer helping him out. I'm just stating the facts here. There is no reason to include Ayers in the article other then a political reason. That is what it boils down to. It is not even worth mentioning that there was a controversy either because outside of the election, Ayers means nothing. But during the election Ayers was being used as a guilt by association. The related election article does cover this and also the related controversy article/Ayers article also covers this. But it still does not merit a mention in the main article. Sorry no POV, just stating the facts. Brothejr (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The CNN article mentions that they were on two boards together. That certainly sounds like Allies to me. So, you think there is a political agenda in including Ayers? What about the political agenda to keep Ayers out of the article? Isn't that just as valid? Wikipedia doesn't care about politics. It cares about verifiable facts. With Ayers and Obama, there are plenty. Related articles will and should certainly go into further depth about Ayers and Obama than this article, and this article should not focus on Ayers to present undue weight to the subject, but to omit Ayers completely is simply POV. and that is unacceptable. Bytebear (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Being on the boards together means just that, it does not say anything about them begin friends, best buddies, political allies, etc. As of right now there is no verifiable fact that says that these associations were that important in Obama's life. Arguing the reverse is straight up WP:SYNTH and even guilt by association. Like Wikidemon said above, this discussion is rapidly devolving into the same argument as the others in the archive and there is nothing new here. Brothejr (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, y announce his candidacy from the home of Bill Ayers?

Soxwon (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Being on a board that was established to further a political agenda does make them poltical allies. But again, you are confusing the facts from the implications of those facts. you don't like the implications so you want to supress the facts. That is POV. Bytebear (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject, I think we can all agree that one statement in the article is hardly WP:UNDUE considering the stink that arose (meh, I play Devil's Advocate, sue me). It certainly has affected his public and political image, and could arguably go in one section or another. Soxwon (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, we don't agree. One sentence is giving the issue undue weight in this main summary style article. Brothejr (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the CNN article. It is a very good summary of Obama's early political career. A perfect symopsis for this article. Bytebear (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the article again the the umteenth time and still do not see anything that states that Ayers helped Obama, Obama launched his candidacy there, or any other association by synth. Plus, the article does not back up what you've been arguing without some serious syntheses. If anything it shoots down most of what you are arguing. Nor, do we need a sentence in the main article denouncing this either. Brothejr (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please cite specific examples from the article that refute my arguments? Bytebear (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, technically speaking, the whole article refutes your argument as it was a fact checking against those making that argument. Brothejr (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a cop out. Find specifics, or sources that dispute the CNN article. Put out, or shut up. Bytebear (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not really. I think you might want to read or re-read the article again. It says nothing controversial in that article, nor does it prove your argument. Brothejr (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well until I see specifics, I will render your opinion moot. Bytebear (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read the article then. Remember this, I am not the one that needs to show any specifics on anything due to the fact I am not the one pushing to include anything in the article. The weight of the argument, including specifics are on your's and anyone else who is arguing for inclusion, to provide specifics. Brothejr (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have given specifics and backed them up with reliable sources. You have presented vague statements with no referrences whatsoever. And when you are refuting a position, you need to back it up with facts. I am still waiting. Bytebear (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've refrained from commenting in the interim as I try to avoid controversial articles in general, but I'm with Bytebear (and now Soxwon) on this one - it would be POV to suggest that Obama and Ayers were close political allies, implying Obama saw some virtue in the Weather Underground's operations back in the day, but it is also POV to not have even a passing mention to their documented associations. This is well taken care of in the 2008 election article, and it should bear a brief mention somewhere within the prose of this article as well, which I don't believe undermines WP:UNDUE. We're here to state the facts, even if there's a (pardon my French) partisan shitstorm attached to them. MalikCarr (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And again as mentioned multiple times, is this an important enough of an issue, as related by current articles, to merit a mention even a sentence in the article. No, it does not. It had no real impact on Obama's life. The only people who brought it up were those who were trying to sling mud during the election. There is no POV issue for not including it in the article, but there is one hell'va POV issue for trying to include it, even a sentence, in this article. Basically this: mentioning it in the article, even saying that it was false, is still giving this issue way too much weight then it really has. Let's stop this circular debate as there will not be any consensus for adding any sentence on this issue into the article. Brothejr (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've stated as such repeatedly, and I politely disagree. MalikCarr (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes you are allowed to disagree, but it still does not change anything. Brothejr (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it helps establish concensus. Bytebear (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I can see where your arguments are coming from, Brothejr, but I simply don't see how this violates any policy, even if you were to have an especially draconian interpretation of WP:UNDUE. MalikCarr (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess you haven't read WP:WEIGHT then. Also, remember I am just one editor, there are still many other editors that you will still need to convince to add anything into the article. Brothejr (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I take offense to your assumption as to my learnedness of policy, sir. Your interpretation is different from mine, and accusing me of ignorance is rather uncivil. MalikCarr (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether Ayers and Obama were significantly linked is not the issue. The fact that there was a factual linkage, reported by multiple mainstream sources, which became a major theme for many in the election, is in and of itself significant. I also object to the clearly biased language being used here regarding "Right Wing Nuts". Strong words for a largely (IMO) unproven topic (no one, right wing or otherwise, but Ayers and Obama know the extent of their linkage.) There needs to be a mention of Ayers in the Wikipedia article, or I and many others will begin to distrust Wikipedia as unreliable and overtly filtered. jlschlesinger (talk) 2:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not recommend using language that might be interpreted as threatening, e.g. "do this or I'll do that" etc., but I feel your comment about being "overily filtered" is probably not far from the reality on the ground. This name-calling and accusation of partisanship doesn't benefit anyone. MalikCarr (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood MalikCarr, my apologies - didn't intend to threaten in any way. I'm just acting out of concern - the statement was intended remind all that Wikipedia purports to be neutral, and this much resistance to posting a neutral, brief, factual and relevant bit of information smacks of non-neutrality, particularly when the rationale provided has charged language such as "Right Wing Nuts" and "Right-wing Shit storm". jlschlesinger (talk) 3:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to jlschlesinger, I'm hoping you'll allow Brothejr, Wikidemon Bytebear, me, and anyone else who has had to deal with the onslaught of idiocy from the Free Republic a few displays of annoyance or anger. As for the issue at hand as far as I'm concerned, Ayers isn't really that important in the long run, I'm for a short brief statement, nothing more. However, what I'm afraid of (and I'm sure Borthejr and Wikidemon agree) is that they'll use that statement as an excuse to call for and more and more propaganda. Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No paragraph is nesesarry, only a few lines. The matter is clearly relivent, otherwise there would not be a such a fuss over it. The propaganda that it might bring up, has nothing to do with it. Looking at the implications of the statement, is irelivent, and arbitrary. The point of wikipedia is to put out relivent unbiased facts, not surpess them, because of what some people might think. Darcstars (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Partisan shitstorm, sir, but yes, I concur with you on principle - accusations of being "right wing nuts" towards people who have a contrary view to a more popular interpretation is dangerous for this project which seeks to form a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia. I remain confused as to what part of an inclusion of a well-known, well-publicized, factual and verifiable piece of information that was a media circus represents something we don't want in an important article. I'd rather not pull the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS card, but honestly, are we going to say that the fact that his schoolmates in Honolulu thought he was mature for his age is encyclopedic while a long association with Mr. William Ayers, who was quite notable himself during his time, and made for much media attention during the campaign, isn't? Balderdash. The topic is covered to a satisfactory extent in the election article, and cannot comprehend why a one-sentence reference in the prose isn't a valid addition to what is most assuredly a heavily trafficked article (I mean, we have a quip about him being a community organizer - wasn't that directly taken from a speech? - you could insert a single line about Mr. Ayers there and be done with it). I'm not going to accuse any particular editors of trying to push a POV, but omitting the entire subject definitely has the hallmarks of it. MalikCarr (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, if that was aimed at me I'm for adding it. Soxwon (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't feel like considering the Ayers material for the 40-somethingth time under these circumstances, and I think it's unwise to do so under present circumstances. I'm not going to debate that here, but if the article calms down, we can ensure that the participants are real editors, and people feel like going over this is a mature, collegial, respectful way without tossing around claims of bias, censorship, whitewashing, libtards, and other nonsense, we can have a chat and hash it out. I've heard it all before and I doubt there is any argument new to me, but I'm okay to listen and consider the matter. Short of that we're all talking in circles. Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was arguing in an oval...Soxwon (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bickering over Ayers

Folks, do you have any idea how pointless all this bickering over Ayers sounds now? At this point, it wouldn't even matter if Barack Obama himself had run on the Yippie ticket. The fact is, he still won the most voters, thus he is in the position, no matter whose ticket he ran under. The campaign is over. Now, haven't you heard, It's a time for a season of loving! Kangasaurus (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

Ok, I have until now stayed away from the discussion on this talk page, although I would have liked to comment on the question whether Obama was "multiracial" or "African-American." But just now I've read this article at wired.com. For the record: I am not watching FOX, I am not a member of any Christian religious community and if I was US-citizen I certainly wouldn't vote Republican. The Wired-article explains explains some of the background here, but regardless of that, Fox claim that "Wikipedia Whitewashes Obama's Past" has some substance. (As they say, even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn - if it only continues picking long enough.) I simply couldn't find the link to Bill Ayers presidential election controversy here. And with every piece of news that is written about this, Bill Ayers becomes more relevant to this article. Therefore I propose to include the following sentence in this article, in the "Early life and career" section:

Between 1995 and 2007 Obama occasionally encountered former radical activist Bill Ayers, which later became controversial in his presidential campaign.

Since we already have a separate article on the issue 1) we don't need to sort out the facts first 2) no one could honestly oppose the inclusion of this issue with one sentence in this article.

This is not a problem of this article anyway, it is a general problem of Wikipedia. The article on George H. W. Bush doesn't include a link to Robert I. Sherman neither. Articles on Democratic Presidents are written by Democrats, articles on Republican Presidents are written by Republicans. Articles on Persecution of Christians are written by Christians, articles on Discrimination against atheists are written by Atheists. This is why in such cases you simply shouldn't rely on Wikipedia articles. Zara1709 (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one could honestly oppose such an addition, for the numerous reasons stated throughout this talk page. Tarc (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The please do me the favour of listing these reasons again! Zara1709 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE. Also note that if you go to the bottom of the page where the collapsible navigation boxes are, you will see that Ayers is already linked from the "Public image of Barack Obama" one. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Undue because...? Fringe because...? Please give specifics, otherwise you are simply Wikilawyering. Bytebear (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

←I am not going to get engaged in this endless debate again - we have been over this many times and no one here has brought up anything that has not been considered over and over again. I am only coming in now to repeat, for the hundredth time, my agreement with Wikidemon, Tarc, and many other editors with whom consensus has been repeatedly reached, that Ayers does not belong in this biography of Barack Obama's life. All of the reasons have been laid out here and in the archives, many times over, and I do not wish to go over it again. But it should be understood that not getting into it again doesn't mean that there aren't still numerous editors still supporting the consensus. Tvoz/talk 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking

I am going to make the edit that wikilinks Jeremiah Wright in the article. If anyone feels that this is an abuse of admin privileges instead of a janitorial correction, I will not contest a reversion. I will question their judgment, however -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it may already have been added Avi. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me...do be careful out there but I can tell you're making a noncontroversial copyedit-type thing. Incidentally, if anyone can hear this amidst all the noise I agree with the way you made the content edits to bring that section back out of the footnote and into the main body.Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Give credit where credit is due, I believe that was Thatcher; it definitely was not me. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I added it and the article was only semi at the time. Thatcher 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I am fine with Thatcher's edit :) I've evaluated it as best I can strictly from its encyclopedic value, and quite apart from any of the debate swirling around the material better informs the reader when in the body of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidents

I am new to Wikipedia I have read all the rules and regulations.My purpose of coming here was to read about American Presidents .I first read about the 43rd President George Walker Bush and then the 44th President Barack Obama ,[no middle name ?,] Anyone reading about Obama and not knowing his history would think he is a Saint,as opposed to Bush where every rumor and innuendo against his character is included.Shouldn't Obama admitting to alchohol and drug abuse and his association with anti American zealots and convicted criminals be included .You have not published a fair and balanced portayal of both men.You have contravened a host of your own rules and regulations and make me wonder about your objectivity and veracity of your entire web site. Jock311 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)]

If that is your assessment, I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Give him a break, Scjessey. If he's new and yet has read all of them, he must have read at an average of, uh ... how many kilobytes per second? -- Hoary (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair Bush was President for eight very controversial years. Obama's been President for a month and a half. You wonder why there's more in Bushs' article? Could it be that bush was President for 64 times longer than Obama? Give him a minute. Padillah (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't wash: regardless of time in office there are scandals and controversies about his administration. It's not as if the honeymoon period is just practice during which nothing counts. --129.57.9.215 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush is at it's current location because of his father George H. W. Bush. If GWB's father had not been president as well, it's likely GWB's article would be located at George Bush, but in order to disambiguate the two articles from each other, we had to create separate articles and chose a more precise name for their articles. You'll also notice the first sentence in this article where it rather clearly starts off with Barack Hussein Obama II. Thanks for playing though. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "naming convention" does seem to go both ways. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson on the one hand, but Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton on the other. It really doesn't appear to be partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.203.121 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a load and you all know it. There is a ton of stuff on Obama that you are excluding because of bias. IF you feel that the negative stuff should be removed from his article, you need to remove it from Bush's also. Link it to another page concerning controversies with both men, but claiming that the reason you have so much stuff on Bush is because of his "eight very controversial years" shows your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the editors who are censoring this article need to decide whether protecting Obama's reputation is worth destroying Wikipedia's. So far, the answer is clearly yes. The practice of banning and denigrating anybody who provides unpleasant facts is not a good omen for the future, however much one might think one is serving a higher purpose.Billollib (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This could be resolved at once if we were to reach a consensus that a president's middle initial ought be included in the article's title as a rule of thumb - a few edits to the articles that do not currently have such an arrangement (e.g. Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald W. Reagan, etc), no partisanship there. MalikCarr (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreeded, We leave the middle name out for articles of Presidents from both parties so there does not seem to be any agenda here. Also as far as I know few people have had any problem with the other articles not including the middle initial. From what I can see we include the middle initial if the person if the person is most commonely refered by it and this is simply not the case for Obama. --76.69.166.70 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious to the most casual of observers that the Obama gang has Wiki in their back pocket and nothing negative is going to be allowed about the messiah. So much for the 1st Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimes39 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• The way we name the articles has to do with how the person is commonly known. Reagan was commonly known as "Ronald Reagan" throughout his career, not "Ronald W. Reagan". Carter was commonly known as "Jimmy Carter" during his presidency, not "James E. Carter". Obama is usually called "Barack Obama", not "Barack H. Obama". Those presidents ought to have their articles titled without middle initials. On the other hand, some other presidents such as Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford were referred to both with and without their middle initials. Those presidents could have had their articles named either way; it was a judgment call. If there is a problem that the George W. Bush article is not neutral, then work on editing that article to make it neutral. --99.140.203.132 (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jock, but which convicted criminals exactly has Obama associated with? Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about Tony Rezko for a start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.138.106 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the Family and personal life section. Rezko is conveniently included. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, though, that Rezko was not even charged with anything when Obama "associated" with him. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in the article does make that clear. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The point should not be that an initial or middle name is or isn't included, it ought to be that this is the first U.S. president with a Mulsim background. As such, it is a very relevant point and his middle name should be included. The alternative is to leave it out out of some sort of manufactured shame. It is either his actual name or not, so how could one argue over such a minor point? Splitting hairs is no way to build credibility and the entire world is aware of the mishandling of this Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpentershop (talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this section is becoming very confusing, as there appear to be two different conversations occuring simultaneously. Second of all, articles are named based on common usage, not based on the cultural/religious background of the subjects ancestors. Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about Carpentershop. It is mentioned. Guettarda (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaints about Wikipedia

Consensus overrides Wiki rules of notability?

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Facts be damned. Mob rule. 'Nuff said. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Context? Guettarda (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Negative Information Mentioned....??

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Screw You & Your Website Wikipedia!! You are a Liberal backed site, therefore do not show any negative information regarding this person's background. I am Boycotting your site since I know now that your site is bias, and will not show how dishonest and repulsive that the current President of the USA actually is!! World Net Daily has dedicated this report; http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 in your honor. Good Luck with your Liberal-Left Wing site you Bums!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.111.82 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairness

As a computer medium that advocates accuracy, it is a concern to me that Obama has no critical views in his bio. I think it is a far strecth to make us believe their are none.From this day forward, I will no longer be using Wikipedia. If you fail to be accurate with something like this, I can only imagine what else you neglect. Information should be UNBIASED and because you cannot do this, I cannot use you.

Please feel free to read this and block it as I know you will.

Stewart

Wikipedia will mourn the loss of your patronage. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you, Stewart. The Wiki-bias are becoming well noted and documented outside of the Wiki Admins ability to censor. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 So for the same reason, I rarely bother to participle here any more, and should these remarks get me banned, I will consider it no great loss. --Mactographer (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stewart as well. If you don't believe what Stewart is saying, please take a moment to look over GWB's bio and see if you think Obama's bio isn't a tad polished in comparison. Maybe there should be a few paragraphs dedicated to "public perception" as there is on the GWB bio, seeing as how Obama is generating quite a bit of outspoken criticism from people like Jim Cramer? For an administration that is particularly fond of singling out members of the meida for criticism, I think it's a perfectly acceptable request to include such information. --BlutoBlutarsky

The problem with wiki Admins is that they have opinions. However, thats why these things are being discussed. You should keep that in mind. Contribution to the discussion is important to decide what is really relevant to Obamas political career (the point of his article). Key word is discussion. Darcstars (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of a controversial subject that should be added today. "Obama calls into question some of George W. Bush's signing statements on the same day he lifted the controversial restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Obama stated that he too would employ signing statements if he deems upon review that a portion of a bill is unconstitutional." SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?ref=politics --EricMiles (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Stewart. Wikipedia has lost a significant amount of credibility over its embarrassing handling of this situation. By wantonly flouting its own clearly defined rules, Wikipedia has left itself vulnerable to well-deserved criticism of having a biased political slant. The problem, as I saw someone allude to earlier, is that the administrators do not have enough accountability. They possess opinions just like the rest of us, and they can use their responsibilities as a bludgeon to advance a political agenda, as we've seen demonstrated in the revisions of this article on President Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.55.116 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said at greater length below, when there are two sides to a position held by a significant number of Wikipedians, repeatedly removing one of them isnecessarily imposing a POV. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stewart, what took you so long? Hopefully Wiki will follow in footsteps of NY Times and other dying media, unless Obama can see what an opportunity it is for him to use them to create the "newsspeak" necessary to push his agenda through...Orwell was a prophet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokietek (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a fair assessment of Obama will be permitted on the liberally moderated Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.78.119 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the height of hypocrisy for Wikipedia admins to claim fair and unbiased editing when the controversies include din the GW Bush article are there for everyone to see, while the Ayers, Rev. Wright, birthplace controversies are not even mentioned. Wikipedia has lost considerable credibility. Politics don't matter here, what matters is presenting a fair article, not one that appears to have been written by President Obama's press office. Anyone who argues otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.129.188.33.25 (talk)budmancjm —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

New coverage of this pages editing

Just a note that a World News Daily story on what they refer to preferential editing is now linked on the Drudge Report site. So expect a lot of traffic to this page. [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 Article ] Hardnfast (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Thanks!  :) --Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The sequence went like this -- Klein's dream world → WorldNetDaily → FOX News → a handful of right-wing blogs → The Daily Telegraph → The Huffington Post (where it finally got the treatment it deserved, see WorldNetDaily manufactures a controversy). That's pretty much it. I can't find coverage anywhere else - certainly not in mainstream media. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You claim the story only got fair coverage from a Left Wing blog site is even yet more evidence of your bias. WND reported on the facts that occured on this talk page; whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. It happened. Your dismissal of Fox News, Drudge and The Daily Telegraph prove you (and the host of other left wing Wikipedia editors) have no place policing this article. Your bias makes it impossible for you to be impartial. You were caught. Admit it, man up, and move on. 75.150.245.242 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

regardless of politics it would not be considered unreasonable to prefer a source that at least makes an attempt to do a critical analyis of a claim rather than ones that just repeate it.Geni 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, and perfectly encapsulates my thinking on the matter. WND manufactured this controversy, partly due to a lack of understanding of what summary style means (you cannot have every detail about Obama in this article or it will be many gigabytes in size), but mostly because they are a bunch of right-wingers still sore that they lost the election. It was picked up by a number of conservative blogs and other sites, but all they did is repeat the inaccurate and misleading information in the WND article. Huffington Post was the first site to actual offer some form of critical analysis, offering clear evidence that the quality of their work is far superior (regardless of whether they are left or right). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the first published news I could find that this was a hoax came out here, followed shortly by Wired Magazine. Huffington Post was a couple hours after that. Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear disparity in the criticisms/controversies included in George W. Bush's article and those in Barack Obama's article. This makes it seem like the administrators are protecting Obama's article from any possible criticism, whether they're actually doing this or not. You have at least 5 different online news sources reporting this. What's easier? Including one-sentence mentions of these controversies or maintaining a status quo of disparity between the two articles? -- AJ24 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. What goes on at the Bush article has nothing to do with what goes on here. If you think there is something wrong with the Bush article, bring it up on its talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You could most likely save all of mankind with what you can not fine in the "mainstream media". "Mainstream media", or anyother media for that matter, is there for the money not to make sure anyone really knows what is or is not going on. And history is full of things that never showed up in the "Mainstream media" Gama1961 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing how the media work. If you object to Wikipedia policy on requiring reliable sources, take it to the Village Pump. Tvoz/talk 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Disparities need cleared up

Alright. Either Obama's article can have negative things about him in it IF THEY ARE CITED, or Bush's cannot. This allowing of Bush controversies to be discussed yet leaving a perfect article about Obama is absolutely ludicrous. I'm not even talking party politics here - this needs to be considered from a neutral standpoint. Wiki editors *MUST* stop banning users who add PROPERLY CITED notations about Obama or they MUST ban every user who has done such things in the Bush article - it's one or the other, no more playing sides.

Supergeo (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems at the George Bush article? Quite possibly. Here's a link to where they can be addressed in a collegial atmosphere with other editors: Talk:George W. Bush . Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take your concern about Bush's article to Talk:George W. Bush. Bringing up your concerns about that article on this discussion page is not going to resolve the problems with Bush's article. People are not "banned" just because they try to get negative information into the article, they are banned because of the tactics they use when trying to get the information into the article. Wikipedia is built on consensus, so it has policies and guidelines that prevent a single editor, or a small group, from forcing their will upon the community. The editors that have been banned due to their editing on this article were banned because they ran afoul of these guidelines and policies. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It must be reasoning like this, lack of integrity for political reasons, that my college professor will not allow Wikipedia as a reference in any work. I'm beginning to understand those who say you have a credibility problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.234.143 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to pay more attention in class, then, as it is quite likely that that is not the point that your professor was making. Many frown upon citing the Wikipedia as a primary source because of its open-to-everyone-editing nature, so a student who cites it verbatim may unknowingly cite a poorly-written or vandalized version. e.g. the numerous vandals who try to insert aspersions regarding Obama's place of birth. What most professors will instruct is that you may go to the Wikipedia, but follow the footnotes and use those as your sources. So please, spend less time disrupting here, and more time in class. It'll be better for everyone. Listen to Mr. T. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with including fringe theories about Obama as long as they're cited as such. There's a lot of stuff flying around out there and it's difficult to just ignore it. Of course I think it's all malarkey, but the fact is that some national pundits (your Ann Coulters, Sean Hannitys, Glenn Becks, and Rush Limbaughs) now get half their current ratings because they're willing to lend credence to "fringe" beliefs: Obama wasn't born in the U.S., Obama was mentored by Communists, Obama is friends with a domestic terrorist, Obama had illegal business dealings with a convicted felon, Obama had gay sex with a wanted criminal, Obama violated constitutional law via his presidential-looking seal during the campaign, Obama's wife is a racist, etc. I'd actually rather there be a separate page for all of these allegations rather than cluttering up this page with a whole laundry list of smears that the coalition of wackos, conspiracy theorists, far-rightists, white supremacists, and gold-digging two-bit lawyers have come up with. In the interest of NPOV and fairness, put them on the site, but cite them - with actual news sources - and preferably put them on a related page. --Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You should never cite Wikipedia in class. You shouldn't cite encyclopaedia articles at all. What you should use Wikipedia for is to give you a bit of an overview, and use it as a pointer towards reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

As a registered independent voter, I find it inexcuseable that only the democratic side is allowed to control the content of this article. Attempts to lock down the talk pages as well merely proves the lack of fair dealing. And name calling by a few of the administrators doesn't help either, in fact, I believe that most realize those tactics for what they are.

No doubt the republicans are out in force, but to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, some concern should be given to the content of the article that raised the controversy.

My suggestion would be to replace those on both sides, allowing someone neutral to consider the arguements. As it is, one man's vandalism is anothers effort to have the article reflect reality. Carpentershop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpentershop (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody controls this article.

These guys can make sure of dispute resolution processes to get some independent eyes in here if they so desire. Understand that all content and policy discussions, issue resolution, arguements, bannings, etc. are all done in the light of day. Everything in wikipedia's history is available for perusal: want to read past discussions about the inclusion of controversial information? You can easily search the archives of this page and all related policy pages and dispute resolution forums and see that neutrality is actually our cornerstone objective. To say that anything is censored here is plain false. We even have an entire project devoted to countering systemic bias. Also, to clarify, saying something is fringe isn't really name calling: WP:FRINGE is a keyword/jargon referring to that is sometimes used instead of WP:UNDUE.

With regards to the reliability of the WND article that started this controversy, please read this article: [16]. It states that Aaron Klein admitted that his co-worker created the edits that were "censored", but did not disclose that fact in his article. He also forgot to mention that he wasn't banned for good faith editing of non-controversial material, but of trying to put allegations[17] that Obama was born in Kenya (and using WND sources, his employer.) Anyway, on with the show... --guyzero | talk 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I join this fray with trepidation. Wow! What a spectacle it is! I am not a right-wing fringer. Sure, I am conservative, but that is still part of the mainstream, isn't it? I am not a newbie. In the past year or so, I have originated one Wikipedia article, improved a few dozen others, corrected a few cases of vandalism, and generally approached this incredible Wikipedia project with optimism, appreciation, awe, and good intent. I have been mostly silent for a few months for my own reasons, making a few edits without logging in. Why I am I saying this? Because some of you Wikipedians defending this article are getting a little scary in your language, and I am trying to protect myself proactively by an honest statement of who I am. Why am I here? Honestly, I got here yesterday from the Drudge Report via WorldNetDaily. Am I going to get attacked just for saying that?? Look, the Drudge Report is sufficiently mainstream that no one should have to apologize for reading it. I've visited WND something like twice, following links, and know little about it. But why should I have to apologize at all for what I read? This is what bothers me about the discourse on this discussion page. There are so many references to the fringe, lunatics, nut-jobs, conspiracy theories, ditto-heads, etc., attacking almost any sort of dissent against the tone and content of this article, and these verbal attacks have the appearance of being carried out by administrators; I hope I am wrong.

I'll cut right to my point now. WND has nothing to do with this, other than they called attention to it. I form my own opinions, thank you! Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with it. I and others like me saw what we saw in the news last year, regarding Obama and Wright and Ayers. What I read and heard them say disturbed me profoundly. It played a large role in shaping my opinions of Obama. That view is not fringe and it is not a conspiracy. You guys can deny this all you want, but it is abundantly clear that there was at least SOME relationship between Obama and each of these men. Wright and especially Ayers are HIGHLY objectionable to me and many others that share my views. Even if we suppose the relationship between Obama and Ayers was limited to what is documented in the public record, many of us view that as very important, very significant, and frankly, shocking and inexcusable in a person who would be--now is--president. It is not just a spurious blip on the campaign radar; it is of fundamental importance to many of Obama's opponents. How can you possibly justify not including some mention of this in an article on the man who is president of the United States? Guys, this DOMINATED a large chunk of the campaign, and the issues did not go away. The media coverage moved on, that is all. Ayers has continued to crop up again and again in the news, and ALWAYS in the context Obama's campaign, history, and presidency.

So I skimmed the article and found it to be just--what did someone call it?--hagiography? How can you take a controversial person like Obama and have an article that says nothing bad? How could any president, regardless of months or years in office, have nothing bad or controversial? The tone of the article is clearly not neutral. The article smacks of censorship, and a perusal of this whole discussion mess should be enough to confirm any objective reader in that opinion. Wait 'til all the crazies go away, eh? Yeah, I'd say there are some neutrality issues here. Serious ones, too. The perception that they are more fundamental than the article itself may be what is disturbing a lot of people.

Taquito1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

The Ayers saga dominated the conservative realm, a fringe minority. Mainstream media and the like gave some coverage to conservatism's obsession with the Ayers saga, not to the context of their histrionics. That's really all there is to it, and now, as noted in sections below, much of this was manufactured eDrama, orchestrated by Aaron Klein himself, and overhyped by WND. You spent alot of time on alot of words, but really offered nothing new to the conversation. Sound and fury, indeed. Tarc (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, thanks for slamming my effort to offer something new to the conversation. I can see that you are an experienced editor, but your point of view is readily betrayed in your long history of contributions, as it is at this article. You indict yourself. All this show of neutrality seems to be just that. The conservative realm is a fringe minority? Histrionics? Tarc, editors like you are the problem. Wikipedia has a high-profile, highly-biased article locked from editing, and guys like you acting as attack dogs and stirring the pot at every opportunity. This mess will never go away until civility and objectivity are restored.Taquito1 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was locked because it was being assaulted by a rabble pounding at the gate. When the furor dies down and they get their marching orders to tilt at the next big liberal atrocity, the pages will likely be opened again. As for "offering something new", well, you didn't. Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal weight to the opinions held by a small amount of people. See; WP:UNDUE, particularly

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

And that is exactly what has been done here; the material can be found in ancillary articles. Tarc (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Taquito1, I appreciate your sincerity and will take to heart what you say about civility. Please recognize that many of us -- the majority of Americans and the consensus here on Wikipedia, apparently -- see things differently. As hard as I try, I simply cannot see where you are coming from, or where anyone who takes a serious look at things could see a hagiography here or any conspiracy to avoid the truth. Part of the problem, I think, may be the tone and rhetoric that Obama's opponents took, all the way from bloggers and paid hacks all the way up to the conservative press and top GOP officials and their candidates. The opposition to Obama relied very much on strained arguments, mud slinging, guilt by association, misrepresenting things, and word games. Here on this page there was a constant effort to cover that, to establish it was true, and failing that, to report all the pieces of mud that were thrown. There was all kinds of mud - closet Muslim, friend of terrorists, in bed with corrupt officials, not born in America, lied about this or that, socialist, vote stealer, went to a Madras, fake academic record, on and on. Every time the Republicans launched an attack it hit here about as fast as it hit the blogs. Determined editors landed on the article daily claiming that to not report on the Republican attacks and innuendo showed bias, as if neutrality meant choosing a midpoint halfway between saying nothing and repeating the smear. The conservative press reinforced that then as they reinforce it now, claiming that not reporting their manufactured scandals showed liberal bias. They were banging that drum all through the election - paranoia, liberal bias, bad for America, communist, traitor, socialism. And of course there was worse - rampant racism, the N word, and all kinds of belligerent, nasty stuff. It turned out that most of the accounts that were trying to slant this article to be more negative were the product of a very small number of people who had each registered multiple accounts to make it look as if they had agreement - sockpuppets. All of that is nonsense, and it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. We are simply telling the story of a man, his life and career trajectory. People who are serious about editing don't like it when people come here to play games, or when people come here to soapbox and make accusations. The article is mostly "positive" (I put that in quotes, because facts are facts, you interpret them as you wish) because most facts of most people's lives are that way. If you look at what Obama has done his whole life, there is not a whole lot of negativity to report on. That is true of most people. Even articles about very controversial people are usually positive in that they just report he did X, and he did Y. And to be a real article, X and Y are usually significant life achievements or events. We don't say he did X (but A would have been better), and he did Y (but a lot of people think that ruined B). We don't have to balance every X with a A, and every Y with a B. Some people seem blind to the fact that we do report on some personal failures too, but we do that only where it is biographically relevant. Anyway, if you see the process here and you are still convinced that it's a liberal cabal I doubt I can convince you. I ask though that you see that we sincerely believe we are keeping the article factual, just as I can accept that you sincerely believe the facts are slanted. Wikidemon (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, thanks for your detailed and obviously thoughtful reply. You are a huge contributor to Wikipedia. I do believe that you and others like you are making a sincere effort in good faith to maintain this as a high quality article with strictly relevant, factual content. Clearly, I differ with you on what constitutes relevant, and perhaps a little on what constitutes factual. But my concern has evolved into a bigger concern over the process, as I see it represented here. Let me say that I think this article is by its nature unusual, and I think the general Wikipedia process is a fundamentally good one; I am wondering if it may perhaps break down a little when stakes are higher. I have seen similar problems, albeit less intense, at other articles about controversial subjects. Please tolerate a little criticism of your message above, as I attempt to illustrate my concern.

Your message, while it is outwardly dispassionate and is certainly clear, suggests to me that you are frustrated with endless attempts to undermine the article by people trying to insert political baggage. I can empathize! You have been here through thick and thin, and have seen a seemingly endless succession of drive-bys. You, and other editors like you, have grown skilled in countering the "attacks"--honestly, I do admire the effective way you guys tackle each new interloper, like lions cutting their prey out of a herd. Trust me when I say I mean that in a complimentary way! You guys have developed tactics that are effective, and you know your stuff, from tactics to Wikipedia rules and beyond. More than lions, I am reminded of WWII fighter jocks in the Battle of Britain. And you know how fighting men naturally tend to vilify their enemy, right? It becomes "us" versus "them", and since "we" are good, "they" must be bad. Therein lies an important key to our problem, I believe. I think, for starters, you guys need to recognize that a thoughtful person can get here through WND. I did. I sensed a bit of a crusade going on at WND, but it really doesn't matter; they were linked from Drudge, which I believe is relatively mainstream, and all WND did was direct my attention here. I think you guys need to recognize that dissenters are mostly likely forming their own opinions, and the fact that they (we?) appear in waves after some blog posts a hit piece is most likely reflective only of human nature--people with shared ideology will share forums, and may well respond similarly, giving the appearance of orchestrated effort where none exists. I think you should recognize that this is not about Rush Limbaugh. I think we can all recognize that decent, intelligent people can follow rational, value-driven paths to arrive at ideas quite opposed to our own. (Take my wife, for example!) It should also be easy for us to agree that politics is a high-stakes game that too often brings out the worst and the ugly side of people, whatever their political persuasion. Depending on how you define "conservative", conservatives make up as much as half the US population, and, while they obviously lost the 2008 presidential election, I hope you will agree that they are not a fringe group or a tiny minority.

Let's try to reach an understanding relevant to the article, and I suggest that we might make a start by narrowing the discussion to the issues of Wright and Ayers, setting aside for the sake of compromise whatever other issues may be put forth by editors. The main body of facts pertaining to Wright and Obama, the stuff in the public record, is not so hard to agree on, is it? Rather, it is the SIGNIFICANCE of those facts that becomes contentious. Ayers is less easy, but there are still a few facts we could agree on--again, I am referring to public record stuff--a few meetings, shared involvement in a couple of organizations, some common friends. I believe nearly all of us could agree on a body of facts, even while we disagree on significance. But look! We can agree on more: that such disagreement exists! But now, sadly, the going gets more difficult. I propose that most thinking dissenters at this page believe, like me (whether it is true or not), that a large part of the population shares our opinion that Obama's relationship with Wright and Ayers is important and significant. That is, I propose that those with that belief do not see ourselves as a tiny minority or a fringe group. So we have one question that could be assessed: Do we represent a relatively small, or a relatively large group? Here is another thing to tackle: Is the judgment of the significance of the Obama/Wright/Ayers issue entirely subjective? Is there any way we can arrive at an objective truth about the importance of that issue? I suspect not, and I further suspect that an issue with purely subjective evaluation will most likely require different handling than an issue that has objective truth to its evaluation.

Let us say hypothetically that the issue is subjective (that is, no one can say with absolute certainty that a given view on it is right or wrong), and let us also suppose there is a large minority that believes it is important. Is there room in the article for such subjective content? Probably not. I would not wish to say, "Obama's attendance at Wright's church revealed an important character flaw", even though I believe that. It is subjective and not encyclopedic. But what about, "A large minority of the voting population may have believed that Obama's attendance at Wright's church revealed an important character flaw"...keeping in mind that I posed this thought experiment as a hypothetical, so don't pounce yet! So, in concept, and if backed by credible references, such a statement might actually be acceptable in a Wikipedia article, given appropriate context of course.

I will leave it here for now to see if anyone cares to respond. I am sorry if I used too many words. I am sincerely interested in improving the article, with my rubric being whether I feel it constitutes a useful reference for a school kid preparing for a research paper and a US citizen desiring to learn. Honestly, best regards to all who are still with me! 24.244.94.130 (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed. Wright is mentioned thus far over sixty times on the current talk page (not counting the many archives), and Ayers is currently mentioned over a hundred times here. Much of this discussion appears to me to completely misrepresent what the WP:Neutral point of view is. NPOV is not a political compromise wherein all assertions of any kind must be given equal weight. See, e.g. the section on WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Also directly relevant is the policy WP:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Sorry, but because a number of critics or opponents of the current president have chosen to make these words into a mantra for their particular attempts to attach negative data to the president, it doesn't mean those who repeat the mantra necessarily get to give undue weight to such statements in the article. Wright, having been a former pastor of Obama's is already given due weight in the article-- he's mentioned once in the body text and once in a footnote. Ayers isn't mentioned at all, which is also giving due weight to the actual importance of his relationship with Obama, roughly equivalent to any one of thousands of peripheral associations Obama has had with people over the years, according to the reliable sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

24.244.94.130, the problem with your hypothetical is that reasoning like that is already incorporated into the article. The public perception of Wright and Ayers, and their political impact, was polled extensively. We know their [lack of] effect on the election, we know how much value the public put on those associations (or well, people willing to probe the data know; I don't, offhand). But, when it comes down to it, that's stuff for the campaign articles.

Now when you're talking about the main article (this article) we can only summarise the sub-articles. The effect of Ayers and Wright on the polls is that much less important here. As for the "character flaw" idea - to begin with, that's a hypothetical. I rather doubt that the issue has been probed in any depth by reliable sources. Sure, in the heat of the moment I'm sure people reported on it, but I doubt there's any analysis on it. It wasn't, in the end, an issue that mattered to most people. Obama won the most convincing election victory in a long time. Where facts exist, they deserve to be documented. The Wright issue had to significant effects - Obama resigned from his church, and he gave the speech on race. Those are significant, and they're linked to Wright. But the underlying issue of what voters thought of Wright, and what people thought that said about Obama's character...lack of data, lack of analysis, and lack of long-term impact. How many people switched from supporting Obama to opposing Obama on the basis of the Wright issue? If a lot of people had switched, and that had been documented, then it might be notable. But the polls say pretty clearly that Obama got almost all of the voters who could have been swayed. In the end, the Wright effect was trivial. And that's the way we need to look at it. Guettarda (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, but I don't think we're effective enough at dealing with troublemakers on this article. Everyone has a right to participate, and everyone has their say. What most of us are guarding against is not the insertion of negative information, but the hijacking of the article by people who are not at all interested in knowledge, or honesty. Wikipedia has a very low hurdle, and anyone can run in here and overturn the apple cart. Well, taking a step back from what we can prove... I think the Wright affair is very telling, and the issue goes well beyond Obama. It has to do with the role of Black religion, radicalism, and self-empowerment in America. To a young black Christian politician (albeit one of mixed race from an atypical background) getting into the Chicago political scene meant integrating yourself into a lot of things - the black church, the neighborhood politics, the rich patrons and developers, the political machine. There are a lot of petty, unsavory characters in Chicago. Probably everywhere, but Chicago especially. To get anywhere you deal with them. Obama was not exactly groomed to be president. He pulled himself up. When it worked, he dealt with the locals. When he outgrew them, he moved on to the next step. In this light, his relationship with reverend Wright must have been very important on a personal level, and his disillusionment and difficulty in leaving that behind to become America's leader rather than just one of many leaders among black Chicago democrats, must have been a significant life event. Imagine telling your mentor and spiritual guide you have outgrown him, and in fact you are outraged by his behavior (I discount the possibility that Obama is insincere in this - if he is, that would be all the more reason to note it). The Ayers controversy by contrast is not a life event at all. Ignoring the nutty conspiracy theories, Ayers was just one of many unsavory characters Obama dealt with in his political rise. He didn't do a whole lot for Obama, and Obama probably gave very little thought to him. There were probably hundreds of people equally important to Obama's success as Ayers, and a good many of them (five percent? Ten percent? A quarter?) had some serious controversy about them, discovered or not. I don't think any of the facts are in dispute. Ayers happens to be one of the few bomb throwers in American history about whom almost everything is known. He participated in dozens of bombings and there is doubt about very few. The dispute is about the significance. My opinion, and that of the article's editors to date, is that Ayers just doesn't matter. The Ayers affair was covered mostly in the partisan anti-Obama press. Obama would not have given it a second thought, nor would it have affected anything, but for his opponents making it an issue in the election. And that issue didn't make much difference. It got some press but not much, and it did not resonate with people. It probably does reveal a character flaw, if you want to call it that. But it is a systemic flaw in Chicago politics, so it is not really Obama's deal. Chicago seems to have a "don't ask don't tell" attitude about people with unsavory past, and maybe with people who are currently corrupt. You look the other way. As with Wright's sermons, Obama did not rise above that, did not question. But nobody did. It is an interesting story, but I just don't see that it is notable to the issue of his biography. Coming back down to earth for a minute, I cannot place this as a liberal / conservative bias issue. Why the heck is it supposed to be a partisan issue whether Obama's association with Ayers matters or not? Back in the election it was a partisan issue because the McCain campaign attempted to scare people with a trivial issue. Now, it makes no difference. What's controversial and partisan is his programs, policies, legislation. Ayers is a non-issue politically at this point, so mentioning Ayers or not does not really paint Obama in a more positive or less positive light. Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles very biased

In case you guys didn't know, Wikipedia isn't a worship house; and I encourage you that any love you have for Lord Obama be preserved. As our guidelines suggest, let the facts do the talking, not emotions. I really can't believe that such a POV articles is actually featured. The administrators are doing an ugly job. I feel like adding a POV tag, and I will if I ever get to be an administrator - this articles is written from a certain prospective and kills our neutrality attempts. this is the crap that makes people hate Wikipedia. --Pgecaj (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

k then. Matty (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)