Talk:Barack Obama

A third Featured Article Review was commenced on this article on 2008-03-26. It was closed without a specific result on 2008-04-15. Discussion is ongoing as to the result of the FAR.

Proposed change to "Early life and career"

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

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

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

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

Further information: Tony Rezko

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

This source[4] gives the firm's name as "Davis Miner Barnhill" (Davis, no commas, no Galland). As you say, Davis was important and I don't see any need to note subsequent name changes inline. Maybe a footnote. Andyvphil (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A term such as "indicted" would be more appropriate than "controversial" when talking about Tony Rezko. Britney Spears is controversial. Tony Rezko is indicted. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but close observers say he's going to prison. One of his co-conspirators is going to testify against him, and the feds also have wiretap evidence. The prosecutor is Patrick Fitzgerald, the same one who obtained a conviction against Scooter Libby. Here [5] are 4,556 Google news links between Obama and Rezko. Here [6] are 3,831 Google news links between Obama and the trial of Rezko. If Rezko were merely controversial, he wouldn't be on trial. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The failure of the campaign article to give it the attention it deserves is not binding here. The Rezko scandal, and Obama's other links to the profoundly corrupt Daley political machine in Chicago, are major news. It doesn't just affect the campaign. I said earlier that these scandals could easily end up costing Obama the White House, and that it doesn't get any more notable than that in a biography. Read this. [7] It's a blog, but it's written by reliable investigative journalists from the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an interesting tidbit. Obama admits that he brought the lot, which had been on the market for months, to the attention of Rezko when he asked Rezko for advice about buying the property. But the seller's broker remembers it differently. "Asked who approached her about the house, Schwan told Salon, 'I honestly don't remember. Tony Rezko lived across the street, so he'd been interested in the lot.'" [8]. Obama moved in across the street from Rezko????? I mean, I assume it's not literally true, but how far from it? I think we have the intersection for Obama - anybody got Rezko's address? (nb: 72etc. This is OR. It's ok. We can't cite it, but we can use it to decide how hard we look for the significance of a quote we find in a RS.) Andyvphil (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT PERSONAL ADDRESSES ARE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A BLP VIOLATION ON TALK OR ANYWHERE ELSE. quit with the talk page spam andy like you have been told five times already at least. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright biographical detail

There seems to be some disagreement about whether it's appropriate to mention, in the discussion of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, that Wright served as a Marine and Navy hospital corpsman. My feeling is that although this biographical detail is relevant to an in-depth analysis of the controversy, one which goes into a detailed explanation of the meaning of patriotism and the role of the prophetic tradition in the black church, it's too far from the core issue to be included here in a summary section. What do other people think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Details about Wright's background, from before he met Obama, aren't really relevant at all in this article. Of course they would be well placed in the Jeremiah Wright article but not here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree here. The fact that Wright was a Marine, then transfered to the Navy to be a Hospital Corpsman is not applicable to the summary of the controversy that is included in this article. As Josiah said, it's applicable to a larger exploration of Wright's patriotism etc, but for the simple summary that is here, it just seems like miscellaneous cruft. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

repost from Josiah's talk page

as you have noticed, all the proposed wright additions are increased negative text. Even though guilt by association is not allowed, we are doing it anyways, as I think we should for the sake of accuracy. However if we are going to allow an exception of guilt by association, it is doubly imperative that WP portray even a moderately accurate conception of "the associate". Furthermore, considering the fundamental question in this affair has been Wright's patriotism, I think information which comes close to proving it definitively, should not be excluded simply on the basis of unrelated-ness, when some would argue the entire Wright section is getting unrelated to Obamas bio. We are making a compromise with certain editors to allow moderate length increases (no matter their long term notability) in return for possibly preventing World Edit War I. All I hope is that we could also make a far smaller compromise to provide some degree of equal weight to the section, even if it is not a "gold standard" phrase. We do need to provide equal weight to Wright regardless of what we do, make sure its clear he is not a monster like some editors think, and I think it this is a great way of providing NPOV to his monstrous comments.

Right now the entire section is "he said..." and nothing about "he IS..." so again trying to swing that balance a bit. I know this is a bit more horse-trading than you would like to see on the page, but alack until 2009 as we all know. Please realize that while horse trading may be unseemly, sometimes a man needs to trade his horse, so he can get a better horse, if you follow. Surely working around these new jokers, to make a better page for the real future that exists beyond Denver this August, has some appeal to you.

PS- I was successful making this addition on the BO 2008 page, several weeks ago. Another argument could be, that if we are expanding the Wright section in a NPOV fashion, we should be using the daughter articles as much as possible. And several of the related daughter articles on this topic currently mention Wright's military service. So if you accept the goal of a bit of pro-Wright text for neutrality's sake, maybe the pro- Wright info that already appears on several pages is a good candidate for that. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the addition of biographical details for someone else, other than where they directly relate to the individual, makes any kind of sense on a BLP. You are essentially saying that two negatives are going to make a positive, and I'm not really comfortable with a compromise like that. I'd be interested to see what others think, because it seems to me that this same kind of compromise would multiply all over the article if it gets accepted. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In my mind the question is, have the NEW wright additions (the increase from 2 sentences to 3+) have those additions added in NPOV balance, or POV unbalance? I feel the latter is true, and I feel considering the new text discusses questions of foreign policy, warfare, and medical issues, the applicable bio additions give balance to wright (balance out the Wright is a demogogue type talk). anyways, i am really interested in the question of if regular editors think the new text is balanced or not? And if so what pro-Wright text should be added for balance?72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PPS- the gallup is at +9 today. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think adding any new details would be a good way to go. I do think, however, that "when ABC News found several racially and politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright, including his suggestion that the September 11 attacks resulted from American foreign policy, and his questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS" should be cut out. Details like that should be handled on the Jeremiah Wright article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, with that in mind I have excised that part of the sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this particular detail (Wright's military service), as well as the "including his suggestion that the September 11 attacks resulted from American foreign policy, and his questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS." need to be removed. The first part is not relevant to the Obama-Wright relationship, while the second part gives unnecessary weight to this article's coverage of the controversy. The second part is something that is already in the Wright article anyway, in addition to being added against consensus when this article came under assault after the protection removal. --Ubiq (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) yes at the very least that sentence needs to drastically modified if not removed. I am very worried about undue weight, especially considering these new justifications for addition, which I can't find any numbers to back up. talk page spam is a phrase I find myself saying more and more these days. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have changed your recent addition of "temporary" to "brief" to give a clearer indication that the drop in polls was short-lived and already over with. "Temporary" left this ambiguous, and may even have implied that Obama has to recover the lost ground. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He does.[9] Andyvphil (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(coming back late after the fireworks are over) — I haven't checked the history to see how this went down yesterday and Sunday, while real life kept me away from Wikipedia, but I see that the Wright paragraph is back to the shorter version, without the detail of either Wright's military service or the paraphrasing of the sermon snippets. That works for me, but I suspect that some of our more critical editors aren't happy. Sorry that I wasn't around to help with any disturbances — my mother's undergoing chemotherapy, so I probably won't be able to follow the blow-by-blow here as much as I'd like. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your mother, JR. I'm sure I can speak for everyone and say we wish her well. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Do what you need to do, and best wishes to you and your family. --Ubiq (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

oops I did it again, as part of the much-hoped for compromise. PS- good luck Josiah. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Criticisms/Controversy

Before saying this, let me make it clear that I am an Obama supporter and have every intention of voting for him in my upcoming state primary.

I strongly disagree with the decision to not include a consolidated criticisms/controversy section in the article. In response to a past comment of mine in similar vane, it was stated that criticisms and controversy are not encyclopedic. That strikes me as the opposite of the truth. As a candidate for the U.S. presidency, prevalent critical points of view concerning Senator Obama are among the MOST relevant pieces of information to his notability that there are, and they are what many users will come to the article seeking an unbiased presentation of.

In the FAQ above, the following statement is given for why there is no criticisms/controversy section in the article:

"Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article."

There is, however, a section dedicated solely to praises. It is called "Recognition and honors."

I find it interesting that authors decided that recognitions and honors for Senator Obama should not be "worked in" to the rest of the text but that criticisms and controversies should. In any case, the existence of such a section without a corresponding section for criticisms/controversies demonstrates a clear pro-Obama bias in the article.

In my own view, I strongly disagree with the "working in" notion of how the article should be written, both in the case of recognition/honors and criticisms/controversy. Many if not most users will come to the article looking for specific information without time or intention for reading it in its entirety. For these, organizing information into clearly marked sections is extremely useful. Burying specific information within over-homogenized text serves no purpose (other than one's political agenda, of course, which I assume no one here has).

--Floorsheim (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with WP policy. considering the policy there is no precedent for inclusion of such sections. sorry. BTW- i am always interested when we get someone who immediately professes their support for Obama right on the talk page, so I was wondering what state you live in? It must be so exciting at this point... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"WP policy" has a very specific meaning. What "policy" do you think you are referring to? Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine he is referring to WP:BLP#Criticism, but essays like WP:COAT also offer useful insight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I oppose criticism sections, I agree with you that the current praise section is inappropriate. The book-related parts can be worked into the 'books' section, and the other praises/awards can be worked into the article wherever they fit chronologically, if they should be kept at all. johnpseudo 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, specifically that this should not be a section at all. Johnpseudo's recommendations look to be pretty solid. Although if we fit it in chronologically, it may not necessarily flow like we hope, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to find a place for some of these parts, or perhaps lose some of them. --Ubiq (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in PA. I took a close look look at both WP:BLP#Criticism and WP:COAT and didn't see any mention of a policy against consolidating criticisms or controversies into a so-titled section. Also, the following is a list of articles, several of which are high profile BLP's that contain dedicated criticism and/or controversies sections, all of which are completely appropriate and valuable to their article in my own view:

Bill Clinton

McDonald's

Same-sex marriage

Larry Flynt

ISKCON

Jim Bakker (scandals)

Madonna

Paris Hilton

pornography (anti-pornography movement)

fundamentalism (criticism of fundamentalist positions)

Seven Years in Tibet

An Inconvenient Truth (controversy section AND criticism section)

At this point, I see very little justification for the claim that criticisms and controversies sections are against Wikipedia policy, and they are certainly not without precedent. That said, it's definitely an improvement to have the Honors and Recognition section removed in the absence of a Criticisms/Controversy section. But again, in my estimation, it would be of great increase to the article's effectiveness and readability to have both sections present for reasons stated above. I have yet to see a good reason for why such sections should be deemed inappropriate.

--Floorsheim (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This essay and this MOS guideline have something to say on criticism sections. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they do. Thanks. --Floorsheim (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats an intersting point I think. I can see the point of having a dedicated critisism section, would be okay in my view (granted its not Wikipedia's view). That said, due to the importance of this guy at the moment, I can see the section going waaay out of hand, and any little thing he does 'wrong' would be included... So i think it should continue to be worked in to the article... By the way, going quite a bit off topic, I find it increadibly strange the way US politics work. In the UK, we vote for the party, not the person. So I find it hard to understand how Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton can both be in the same party, but have different opinions? It really is quite funny when people write into papers etc and complain "I dont remember voting for Gordon Brown, so why is he in power." Because you voted for the party . ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I support putting in a controversy section or criticism section. I think it would help users that are looking for big issues that they think will be found in those sections, instead of having to look around the entire article, which is pretty long. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms are no bigger issues than anything else in the article. Can you explain to me why you are more interested in making negative information accessible than in making all of Obama's biographical information logically organized and accessible? johnpseudo 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is intersting that many Wikipedia articles on individuals pile on the praise, and have little criticism. It's very unbalanced. Even the article on Adolf Hitler doesn't have a "criticisms" section. Of course, it doesn't have a "priases" or "awards/honors" section, either. I suppose that people just like to write good things about people---even evil, loathsome bastards. Of course, maybe people are just worried about being sued for defamation or libel. Mas-wiki (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The goal is for criticism to be integrated into relevant sections of the article. A biography on Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a separate chapter on "criticisms" — it would integrate what an evil, loathsome bastard he was throughout, by referring to specific evil, loathsome acts and ideas for which he was resonsible. With regard to this article, it's not just that "people like to write good things about people" — it's that Wikipedia has a very specific policy on how to handle biographies of living people. That policy states:

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

All edits to this article must be in keeping with that policy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright compromise at last?

It seems that we may, finally have reached a compromise over the wording in the paragraph concerning Jeremiah Wright. Let me summarize the three positions:

"Pro-Obama" text

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially- and politically-charged statements made by Obama's long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright. On March 18th, Obama delivered a speech in response to the controversy titled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and while condemning the ill-received remarks Wright had made, he also sought to give them historical context by describing some of the events that have formed Wright's views on race.

"Anti-Obama" text

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

Compromise text

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's longterm relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. ABC News found several racially and politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright, a former member of the US Marines and Navy, including his suggestion that the U.S. bore some responsibility for the September 11 attacks due to past policies, and his questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS. Some of Wright's statements were widely interpreted as anti-American, though one report found precedents in an essay by Fredrick Douglass. Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but refused to disown the man himself. Although the speech, which attempted to explain and contextualize the comments, was generally well-received, some continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.

Have we now reached a satisfactory compromise that means we can put this issue to bed (unless it flares up again with new revelations, etc.) and move on to other things? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I may have spoken too soon (see above) -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

also even though the redirect works fine- frederick douglass is the proper spelling... if we end up keeping... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that Obama went to this guy's church for 20 years.thezirk (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Grsz11 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The "compromise" is an improvement, but is in one respect completely unacceptable. Wright didn't engage in "questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS". Yes, the anonymous FOXNews writer (not Goldblatt despite the template, which needs to be fixed -- Goldblatt merely "contributed") wrote "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks." but supplies the quote he's referring to: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.” Wright isn't "questioning" anything. He makes an assertion. Twice. And it's about the invention, not the spread. Hard to understand how FOX got it so wrong, but we don't have to repeat it. The source for the Douglass reference, e.g., says: "...he has a weakness for theories that match his sense of outrage but not the facts, as when he repeated the popular conspiracy theory that “the government lied about inventing the H.I.V. virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”"[10] ((...and the msnbc.com reference says "Wright can be heard arguing"(sic; another RS falsehood)"that HIV-AIDS was a U.S. government plot to wipe out 'people of color'".[11]))

Speaking of the Douglass reference, it is based on this, by Kelefa Sanneh:

Frederick Douglass, in an appendix to his “Narrative,” earnestly assures readers that he is not an atheist, then redoubles his attack on the theology of slaveholding America: “Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked.” (Or, rendered into cable-news crawl: “CONTROVERSIAL MEMOIRIST ATTACKS RELIGION. DOUGLASS: AMERICAN VALUES ‘WICKED.’ ”)

...which is a pretty weak reed with which to support "one report found precedents(sic) in an essay by Fredrick Douglass". It's only in Sanneh's mind that Douglass' comment about the Christianity of the white churches of the South (given what he - unlike Sanneh apparently - knew about the evangelical roots of abolitionism I cannot credit the notion that Douglass was speaking about all of America when he says "this land") has some meaningful parallel with Wright's ravings. "DOUGLASS: AMERICAN VALUES ‘WICKED.’" is false in a way in which "WRIGHT: 9/11 AMERICA'S FAULT" isn't.

And the business about Wright's military service, presumably inserted to offset the suggestion that Wright's remarks were "anti-American", really looks odd. It's questionable logic (there are other reasons to join the military than patriotism -- FancyCat's original RS says "But disenchanted by what he felt was an inadequate Christian response to the civil rights movement, he abruptly ended his pastoral pursuits and joined the U.S. Navy",[12] which is not like marching down to the recruiting office after 9/11), and the charge it answers is equally non-specific (most blame-America-firsters claim a patriotic loyalty to some vision of America). Note that there's nothing in the "anti-Obama" text about "anti-Americanism". One nice thing about a quote is it lets the reader supply the characterizations, so we don't have to argue about them.

But I've left both Douglass and the Navy in. Bad writing, but off my main point, which is that this recitation of this first storm over Wright be told in such a way as to not obscure why Wright is a problem for Obama. Andyvphil (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rejoining the conversation in a civil and productive manner, Andy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

How to reach NPOV

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

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

New attempt by Josiah

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

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's longterm relationship with his former pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright. ABC News found and excerpted racially and politically charged soundbites from sermons by Rev. Wright, including his suggestion that past U.S. policies were partially responsible for the September 11 attacks and his assertion that "[t]he government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Some of Wright's statements were widely criticized as anti-American. Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign, and delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine. Although the speech, which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was generally well-received, critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright.

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

I'd like to hear from as many regular contributors as possible about this version of the paragraph. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, question on the wording of the ABC News sentence.. Were the entire sermons racially and politically charged, or were just the excerpts that ABC News found? I haven't seen the speeches myself and haven't followed the whole controversy very closely, but I seem to remember that Wright's supporters were complaining that the excerpts and comments like them were just a small part of a fraction of Wright's sermons. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed "soundbites from racially and politically charged sermons" to "racially and politically charged soundbites from sermons". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

To me, the word "critics" sounds a little weasely. It sort of implies that the only people who still have a problem with Obama/Wright are people who would be critical of Obama regardless of what he did. That may be the case, but it's better to try to be as specific as possible about who is still pressing those questions. johnpseudo 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. You didn't just see that edit I made. *whistles innocently* Totally misread your comment. What do you mean by "specific as possible about who is still pressing those questions"? I don't think there is any specific category of people that is pressing the issue that can be distilled into a one or two word grouping. It's a pretty broad spectrum of people as diverse as Hillary supporters, conservative pundits and radio show hosts, random editorial boards, etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The tertiary source is probably more appropriate for Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy than here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this point. Tvoz |talk 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree that that clause could be read that way. Any suggestions on how to reword it succinctly? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've tweaked it a tiny bit (diff), but on the whole I am very happy with this new version. I'm going to read it through a few more times, but it looks good so far. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, an improvement. But I don't think the "U.S. policies" bit quite captures Wright's "rhetorically forceful flair".[13] Wright taled about U.S. "terrorism" dating back to expulsion of the Indians and forward to suppoert of Israeli "state terrorism", and "U.S. policies were partially responsible" is unduly bloodless. And the unnecessary insertion of "temporary" in the "drop in the polls" sentence is misleading -- Obama lost at least some support permanently. No time to comment further now. Andyvphil (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't think anybody can say he permanently lost support. Hillary had a 30 point lead in PA before the Wright stuff...now Obama's only down by 6. If what you said is true, he certainly isn't reflecting that way. Grsz11 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would be among Democrats, Grsz, not the general populace, and are you sure about Hillary's previous lead? I don't recall 30 points - certainly not last month - which would be quite extraordinary. But I may not be remembering accurately. IN any case if we haven't yet learned that polls are unreliable this year we should have. Truth is, we can't say one way or the other about whether the support he lost is temporary or permanent, so I would agree with Andy on that. How about Following negative media coverage and an initial drop in the polls instead of Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls? Tvoz |talk 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC) For some reason edit summaries aren't appearing - mine was: I'll assume the removal of my comment was accidental - I am reinstating my reply to Grsz and my suggestion for improving that sentence Tvoz |talk 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary had a 30-point lead in Pennsylvania last year. In early March, before the Wright story broke, she had an 18-point lead; around the 16th that jumped to 26 points, and now it's down to about 7. The national polls are similar. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Whether or not his drop in the polls was temporary is not our job to determine—Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps it was a temporary dip, or perhaps it was a "permanent" one and we're just seeing a temporarily rise in his poll numbers because of some of the recent criticisms of Clinton. Just note that his poll numbers dipped. That aside, I think the current wording is entirely accurate and clear. We can't quote every single inflammatory word choice Wright used in this one paragraph (that's what the daughter article is for). At most, perhaps changing "U.S. policies were" to "U.S. "terrorism" was" might help better capture the inflammatory language that Wright used; going into specific quotations in any more detail than that would come across as POVed in the opposite direction than this article usually suffers from. -Silence (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right - that's why I'm suggesting "Following negative media coverage and an initial drop" instead of "during a temporary drop". There was an initial drop, and it doesn't comment on whether it was temporary or permanent; also "during" suggests motivation which we shouldn't speculate on. Tvoz |talk 03:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that initial is the best phrasing option. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't read "temporary" as saying that his poll numbers will never go down again; I see it as saying that they went down and then went back up again. Would "short-lived" be any better than "temporary"? I'm not sure that "initial" is very clear. Alternatively, perhaps we could just say "a drop in the polls" and avoid any suggestion about what happened after the speech. After all, pretty soon we'll have the Pennsylvania results to add, and then North Carolina and Indiana. The only reason to indicate "temporary" or "short-lived" is to say "the story isn't over yet", which is kind of unnecessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Perhaps, if it could be worded correctly. I'd be very cautious about it, though: Obama's close connection to Wright isn't really meant to justify his continued acceptance of the man, so much as it is meant simply to explain it. I'd also be very wary about paraphrasing such a thing—wording like "noting... their close, almost familial connection" comes across sounding like sentimentality-laden advocacy. Use Obama's own words if possible, e.g., "saying that Wright was "like family" to him". -Silence (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think "almost familial" is the same as "like family", but have no problem at all with using his own words. My point is that he refused to disown the man himself not only by noting his service to community and country, but also, prominently, that he could not disown him because he was like family. I think we need that as well as what we have, that's all. Tvoz |talk 03:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "...refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor, past service as a US Marine, and role in Obama's personal faith journey."? That would avoid the sentimentality that concerns Silence, and it also cuts both ways. To some supporters, the fact that Obama refused to reject the man who brought him to Christ is a positive; to some opponents, the fact that Obama's faith is closely associated with this particular individual is a negative. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of saying longterm relationship instead of giving the actual number of years? Longterm could be 5, 6, 11, 23, or any number of years to different people. And maybe the "God damn America" quote should be added too. To someone reading the paragraph and finding this stuff out for the first time, it doesn't sound nearly as controversial as it was and is. I doubt I can edit this or anything else into the article without Grsz unleashing the revert within seconds, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezirk (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does say, in the "Personal life" section, that Obama joined Trinity UCC in 1988. As for the "God damn America" line, I thought about that but decided that there's no way to put that in succinctly that's both fair to the furore the phrase caused when played out of context and conveys the context of Wright's "God and Government" sermon. Per Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we'd have to do both of those things if we mention it at all. The wording prior to your edit says "including" the 9/11 remarks and the AIDS conspiracy — that allows for the fact that he said other offensive things too. We can't go into every detail. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The very pro-Obama MSNBC[14] puts it:"Wright can be heard arguing... that God should 'damn' the United States for its racist policies."[15] Don't see the NPOV problem with this. Andyvphil (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the article doesn't mention that Wright was the pastor of TUCC when he made those comments. Why should a person have to go down the page to a different section to find out how long he went to Wright's church, when you could replace a single word and make it less ambiguous. Also, Obama's relationship with Wright is longer than his attendance of that church.

Further, regarding the "God damn America" comment, the controversy wasn't the sermon, but that excerpt from it. The article isn't about Wright, why is it necessary to provide context to that comment? Plus, I think that comment by Wright was a lot more controversial than saying the government's policies might have caused 9/11; most people can agree with that to some degree. thezirk (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's 20 years in TUCC, 23 years knowing Wright... Saying that "past U.S. policies were partially responsible for the September 11 attacks" is barely controversial if you don't expand on the intended meaning of "responsible". Of course the hijackers had reasons in US policy to attack us -- Bin Laden was really upset by US support of the Saudi regime, and threw in support of Israel to get a wider response -- but Wright appeared to sympathize with the hijackers in asserting that what the hijackers were responding to were in fact really evil policies and part of a long tradition of evil policies dating back to the expropriation of the continent from the Indians. Now, there were white leftists too whose response to 9/11 was "Why do they hate us? We must be doing something wrong.", but that doesn't sell politically either. So, the "partially responsible" text obscures why the sermon was controversial. Maybe the way to go is just noting that one controversial sermon was Wright quoting Malcolm X on the Sunday after 9/11 to say the attack was "America's chickens coming home to roost", and leave it at that for the blame-America-first dimension. Andyvphil (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read through all the responses but your initial version seems fine. Thanks for including me in the discussion. It seems to cover all the major points on the issue, without any noticable attempt to whitewash. As I've said previously, this isn't a big issue for me since most people know about it and have made up their mind one way or the other. Although, if anyone is interested Monique Davis is also a politician who goes to Trinity, and she's recently been in the news for her bigotry too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing a relatively obscure metaphor and historical reference would hardly help illuminate the matter for the vast majority of our readers. The "America's chickens coming home to roost" is, if anything, the worst idea I've seen yet for how to concisely articulate the substance of the controversy for our readers, since it is less clear and to-the-point than the current wording. However, as I already noted above, if we want to make the inflammatory nature of his criticism of the U.S. more obvious, we should simply change "U.S. policies were" to "U.S. "terrorism" was" (with a citation to whichever comments of his refer to the U.S.'s acts as "terrorism") and thus satisfy both requirements.

As for why we can't specifically cite Wright's "God damn America" comment without providing context, even in a section about the controversy those comments stirred up rather than about Wright himself, it's because any encyclopedia's job is to inform and educate, not to parrot misleading information just because other sources have done the same. It would be misleading and POVed here to blindly repeat the media's out-of-context quote when doing so with context and doing so without context could have very different effects on readers' interpretations and understandings. This is not to say that the quote is any more acceptable or palatable when placed in context—nor is it to agree with Obama that this specific comment is unrepresentative of Wright's broader "message," whatever that might be. It simply isn't Wikipedia's job to weigh in on either of those issues itself. But it is Wikipedia's job to avoid out-of-context quoting of sources regardless of the situation. For biographies of living persons, it is good Wikipedia policy, when we must err at all, to always err on the side of being too restrained rather than too willy-nilly with potentially misleading or disputed out-of-context quotes. -Silence (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be necessary to provide context precisely because the comment was presented outside of its original context. See Fallacy of quoting out of context. If we incorporated "God damn America" without any further explanation, then we'd be feeding the emotional response to the out-of-context statement, rather than educating the public. I agree that providing the context is not equivalent to saying that the context justifies the remark — but there's a difference between a reasoned rejection of an articulated position and a knee-jerk reaction to an inflammatory remark. Politics feeds on the latter, but Wikipedia shouldn't.

I'm similarly doubtful about us using Wright's "terrorism" language, both because its inflammatory nature would require further explication to satisfy NPOV and because in Wright's litany of American sins, he used "terrorism" to refer to some offenses (the extermination of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans) and called the treatment of the Palestinians "state terrorism", but he also listed many actions (e.g. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) without calling them "terrorism". Now, I don't know whether that was a deliberate distinction, but I think that it might be misrepresenting Wright's words if we imply that he blamed 9/11 on American "terrorism" alone. I think that we can go into that question at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy, but I don't see how we can do so here without introducing undue weight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seemed pretty clear to me that A-bombing Japan was in Wright's view a terroristic act. I'll take another look. Also, what is the "context" that shows MSNBC's "that God should 'damn' the United States for its racist policies" to be misleading? Just looks accurate to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Enlighten me. Andyvphil (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I found it enlightening to read that MLK said "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive." ; [[16]]. even more context to the genocide claims, not surprisingly... don't think we should include it but people should know its there... the precedents of two civil-rights leaders now. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm a bit late to this party, but I didn't know it was going on until the changes here were transferred to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article. Anyway, I believe that the use of the term "soundbites" conveys hidden meaning that the term "excerpts" does not, namely that the term "soundbites" conveys unprofessionalism on the part of the reporter or unfair excerpting of the speaker's words. (The same concept of conveyance of hidden meaning is discussed for other loaded terms in this guideline.) In addition, the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" constitutes analysis that goes beyond the cited sources, and, therefore, is original research). There may be a better way to fix this, but my initial suggestions would be to remove the term "soundbites" in favor of the term "excerpts", and simply to remove the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" altogether. (On that second phrase, I would also suggest that that sort of analysis, even if properly sourced, would be extremely difficult to adequately summarize here, and it may be better to simply refer readers to the other article where the matter can be handled in greater depth.) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 09:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My main concern when I transferred there the version found here was to get rid of the "AIDS questioned" falsehood. The pro-Obama POV that Wright's remarks would be better "understood" in context, and that Obama supplied such ameliorating context I left untouched. But you're right that "soundbites" is snide and ~"placed in historical context"~ is taking Obama at his own evaluation. Stick around. We could use more editors here that notice that that sort of thing isn't NPOV. Andyvphil (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a viewpoint from reliable sources which opposes the statement that Obama's speech "placed Wright's anger in historical context"? Voice of America News says, "Obama also sought to explain Wright's statements in the context of a generation where the memories of racial humiliation and fear remain fresh." The conservative Dallas Morning News wrote in an editorial, "Mr. Obama explained that black anger has a historic context and cannot be denied." A New York Times' news blog says, "the controversial videos of Mr. Wright will probably haunt Mr. Obama’s campaign, despite his efforts earlier this week in his speech to put his relationship in a deeper context of race in America." Other sources talking about how the speech placed Wright in a larger context include U.S. News and World Report, Nicholas Kristof in the NYT, columnist Roger Simon, and many others. If adding one of these sources to the sentence would help avoid the appearance of OR, we can of course do so; but I'm really not sure that there is anything OR or POV about that wording. It really seems to me like a factual description of the content of Obama's speech: he put Wright's anger in context. People can differ on whether that context is sufficient to explain or justify the remarks and the anger underlying them, but I don't think that there should be any question about whether the speech provided context or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Critics continue to question"

I feel like I wasn't as clear as I could have been about this point. When we say that "critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright." and source that directly to the critics who are questioning the implications, that's original research. We don't have a source that says that critics continued to question the implications. It's similar to saying "YouTube users continued to post material about Ron Paul even after he had dropped out of the race" and linking that directly to the youtube videos. In this case, we can't link directly to the critics, we need a RS that talks about the critics. Or else we can simply say "Kristol continues to criticize..." or something like that. Generalizing a few articles into saying that "critics" are doing something is synthesis. johnpseudo 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that Kristol cite passes WP:RS muster. Firstly, it's an op-ed piece instead of some actual journalism. Secondly, this is Bill Kristol we are talking about here - the same Bill Kristol who thinks the Iraq "war" is a good idea, who made false claims about Obama's church attendance, who praised Bush's second inaugural address without disclosing he was involved in writing it, and who is co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (evil bunch of empire-building, oil-grabbing, war-mongering folks). How is a guy like this ever expected to offer a fair criticism of Obama's relationship with Wright, may I ask? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not in the business of saying whether criticism is fair or not. We just need to report what reliable sources say. Kristol isn't a neutral source, but he is a noteworthy opinion writer. As such, I think that when he criticizes Obama he can be used as a source for us noting what critics of Obama say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that critics continued to question Obama's relationship with Wright, and saying so doesn't "advance a position", merely reports a relevant fact. And the NYT is a RS that Kristol said it. Scjessey has a real problem getting his mind around the concept that it is necessary to report the existance of the POV of people he disagrees with. Andyvphil (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." I'm not disputing that the parent website is from a reliable source, but I am suggesting that this cite is from an "opinion piece" (as Wikipedia defines it) from an extremely biased source. It is important to distinguish between critics of the Obama/Wright relationship and critics of Obama himself. It's not a big deal, but since the sentence of over-cited already, why not consider dropping it? Andy has a real problem getting his mind around the concept that the Kristol piece IS opinion, not reported opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a guy like Kristol is more likely to offer a "fair criticism" of Obama's relationship with Wright than people like you are, Scjessey. There continues to be doubts about Obama's relationship with Wright, and Wright continues to defend Obama and speak out in sermons or at funerals or whatever opportunity presents itself against those who question Obama's relationship with him. To pretend like it has suddenly become a complete non-issue is misleading. thezirk (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rezko's charges

Just a warning to everyone 'cause I thought this had been cleared up before. The charges against Tony Rezko are not related to his political contributions, they are for extorting money from businesses wishing to do business with two boards in the Illinois state government, defrauding GE Capital out of ten million dollars, and for violating federal money laundering charges. He may have gained influence on those boards because of his political contributions to Blagojevich's campaign, but the charges are not related to those political contributions. Anyone that adds this false information back into the article will be in violation of WP:BLP and will be reported for violating this policy. Thank you.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Bobblehead — I should have noticed that. The distinction is important and I agree that it's a BLP matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead is ignoring my previous response to this assertion. My understanding, supported by a quote above or in the archive by now, is that part or all of the extorted money was or was to be (I'm not clear on the extent to which people succumbed to the extortion attempts) contributions to Blagovich. Do you have a cite clarifying who the checks were or were to be written to? Andyvphil (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything. Here is the press release from Fitzgerald's office.[17] In the first indictment, Rezko is charged with 24 counts, of which one of these accounts is "Rezko and Levine also allegedly agreed to tell a seventh firm that it would only receive a $220 million allocation from TRS if it either paid $2 million to a consultant who would funnel the money evenly to Rezko and Levine, or made a $1.5 million political contribution to a certain public official." Neither the press release or the charges themselves[18][19][20] mention whose campaign that was, nor do they mention that they were successful. It's a bit of an obfuscation to say 1/48th of one of his indictments (and there have been 3 indictments and 33 total charges against Rezko so far) encapsulates all of his charges, while the remaining 47/48th of the charges in the indictment involve enriching himself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So the statement "The charges against Tony Rezko are not related to [extorting] political contributions" is false. Indeed in at least that one instance dollars in political contributions counted for more than dollars paid to Rezko/Levine. There is no question that after '83 Rezko made his living off of purchased political patronage, and some of what he did for Washington and Daley and Blagojevich and numerous others for favors he also did for Obama. Maybe for nothing. Maybe not. NPOV requires that we not hide who Rezko was and what he did for a living behind blue links. Give the readers the information and let them decide what to believe. Andyvphil (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

...oh, and to the idea that Rezko cozied up to Obama because he's a jock sniffer to politicians rather than because he expects something back, consider this story:

"Back in the eighties, Tony had an opportunity to go to the White House with Muhammad Ali," Mahru says. (The occasion was a dinner during the December 1987 summit of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader; Ali had been invited as a guest.) "I commented to Tony, ‘Wow, that is something I would love to do, see history in the making!' He said, ‘Dan, that doesn't make me any money. I'm not interested.'"[21]

Andyvphil (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

More.

Obama hasn't been accused of wrongdoing, but his name has surfaced in the trial. Prosecutors say Rezko ordered a business associate to use part of a kickback as a contribution to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign.[22]

This one looks dispositive. Andyvphil (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

More.

The revelation that Rezko may have used "straw donors" to funnel tainted money to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign has further cast a cloud of suspicion over the Rezko-linked contributions. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Jan. 20 that Obama was the unnamed "political candidate " referred to in a court document in the Rezko case last month accusing Rezko of directing two associates to contribute to Obama's campaign, and reimbursing them with money from an kickback scheme.[23]

Andyvphil (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I keep stumbling across mentions. This video supplies the names of the two asscociates, and the amounts ($10k@).[24] Andyvphil (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More.

The court is also expected to hear from John Thomas, an FBI mole, who reportedly witnessed Mr Obama and Mr Blagojevich making frequent visits to Mr Rezko. Judge Amy St Eve has said that she will allow prosecutors to offer evidence that Mr Rezko directed two associates to make two $10,000 contributions to Mr Obama’s 2004 senate campaign because he had already donated the legal maximum.[25]

Andyvphil (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If the allegations against Rezko are true, he was not only extorting bribes from contractors who wished to business with Illinois state government; he was also extorting campaign contributions from them. Since he raised $250,000 for Obama over the years, starting with the first day of fundraising for Obama's first campaign, the criminal charges against Rezko are extremely, directly relevant to Obama's career as a politician. Pretending that Obama not only is not, but could not be involved, is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Rezko was his money man. There are many other ways in which Obama and Rezko are directly linked. An Obama campaign spokesman has confirmed that in response to Rezko's request, Senator Obama arranged an internship for the son of a powerful contributor.

The most obvious way in which Rezko and his (more than likely) dirty money is associated with Obama is the Obamas' home. The Obamas purchased that home for $1.6 million, which was $300,000 less than the asking price. From the same seller, on the same day and in the same office, Rezko's wife paid full asking price for a vacant lot. Later, when Obama's wife complained that the yard was too small for their two daughters, Rezko sold them a 10-foot strip of land from the vacant lot for $104,500. Obama has admitted that there were periods when he was on the phone with Rezko every day. Wikipedia readers have a right to know about this man who is so closely associated with Obama. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

statements like "if the allegations are true" and "more than likely" show that you are using your crystal ball contrary to WP best practices. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegations have been made by a federal prosecutor. A grand jury believed them and issued indictments. It is irresponsible, and in defiance of Wikipedia's best interests, to suppress any mention of those allegations in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a error on the Obama page. Currently the article says, "Rezko, who has raised over $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns, is currently on trial in federal court on felony charges for money laundering, extortion, and fraud."

However according to the Associated Press as recently as 3-14-08 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAIGdfD5fnE04OcfAdWzD_JTcEoQD8VDI2H00), "Rezko helped raise up to $250,000 for his various political races..."

There is a difference between "over $250,000" and "up to $250,000." There is also a difference between independent fund raising, and "helped raise." I don't know what I'm doing. But if someone could fix it, it would be more accurate. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by J dogg110182 (talk • contribs) 05:06, April 12, 2008

Hmm. I agree that the sources don't seem to support "over $250,000", but the Chicago Sun-Times article says "Obama acknowledged that Rezko had raised $250,000 for him". I've changed "over $250,000" to "up to $250,000", because that's what the AP story says. However, I don't know much about the ins and outs of political fundraising, and I'm not clear on what the distinction between "helped raise" and "raised" is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't change anything until I check the cite, but when Obama admitted to, if I remember correctly, the Chicago Tribune that his number for contributions from Rezko and direct associates had gone from $160k to $250k the Tribune noted that while $1000 contributions from Rezko associates had been added to the list smaller contributions in the $100 range made on the same day by other employees in the same offices had not been added to Obama's list, so that the list was still incomplete. But Obama had used closing the books of the Senate campaign as a reason to stop the contributions-to-charity offsets, so it was moot. The $250k only includes contributions bundled by Rezko. If you start talking about "helped raise"... well, Rezko was on Obama's Senate campaign committee which helped raise something like $14 million. Andyvphil (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few things we already know. All of this is documented in reliable, notable sources, principally the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times:

1. Rezko offered Obama a job before Obama started working for the slumlords' law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland. Obama turned it down.

2. As an attorney for that firm, Obama worked on taxpayer-supported rehabilitation loans for Rezko's slumlord company, Rezmar Inc.

3. On the very first day of fundraising for Obama's first political campaign, half the contributions came from companies owned by Tony Rezko.

4. In spite of receiving $30 million in such loans, court and city documents show 30 of the apartment buildings owned and managed by Rezmar have since been subject to foreclosures, code violations and lawsuits filed by the city, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. About a third of those 30 buildings were in Obama's Illinois Senate district. "Should I have known these buildings were in a state of disrepair? My answer would be that it wasn't brought to my attention," Obama told newspapers.

5. On the same day, the Obamas bought a $1.9 million house for $1.6 million, and Rezko's wife bought a vacant lot right next door from the same seller for the full asking price. I repeat: both real estate closings were on the same day. And in the same office. From the same seller. Obama saved $300,000. Not to mention the interest that would have been paid on that $300,000 over the life of a 30-year mortgage. The total was probably closer to $800,000.

6. When Obama's wife complained that the yard was too small, Rezko sold the Obamas a strip of land from that lot for $104,500. After news of the deal broke in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said he had erred by creating the appearance that Rezko had done him a favor by selling him a portion of the lot.

7. "There's no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. 'Boneheaded' would be accurate," Obama said in a telephone interview. "There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him."

8. An Obama campaign spokesman has confirmed that at Rezko's request, Senator Obama provided an internship to the son of a contributor.

9. By October 2006, two of Rezko's co-conspirators had pled guilty and were testifying against him. Rezko himself had been indicted on federal charges. News reports in the Tribune, Sun-Times, Washington Post and other major newspapers explained that Rezko was accused of extorting both bribes and campaign contributions from contractors seeking to do business with the government of the state of Illinois.

10. But Obama continued to accept campaign contributions that had been collected by Tony Rezko.

11. When the news first started breaking, Obama donated $11,500 of Rezko's campaign contributions to charity. Months later, the amount rose to over $80,000 and Obama claimed that was all that Rezko had raised for him. Even later, when the heat was really on, Obama finally admitted that over the years, Rezko had raised or donated over $250,000 to his various political campaigns; $20,000 came from Rezko himself. For the benefit of the nitpickers and hairsplitters who doubt that it was over $250,000, here is a reliable, notable source. Please observe that it is not some sort of right-wing attack website, and that Karl Rove had nothing to do with it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/rezkotimeline.php

So is there any way that the editors of Wikipedia will acknowledge, in the Barack Obama article, that the man who raised over $250,000 for his various political campaigns is now on trial in federal court for crimes related to political fundraising? Kossack4Truth (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

the indictment has been mentioned in Personal Life for a LONG time now. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Actually, on the first day Obama ever got political contributions, $2,000 was from Rezko, $300 from an a "Loop lawyer" as yet unidentified in RS, and $5,000 in a loan from a car dealer. Whether that's less or more than half depends on whether Obama repaid the loan, I guess.[26]

4. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments, expending more than $100 million from the city, state and federal governments and in bank loans. Rezko and Mahru weren't responsible for any government or bank loans or the $50 million in federal tax credits they got to rehab the buildings. Rezmar put just $100 into each project and got a 1 percent stake as the general partner in charge of hiring the architect, contractor, and the company that would manage the buildings, screen tenants and make repairs, Chicago Property Management, also owned by Rezko and Mahru. It also got upfront development fees of at least $6.9 million in all. Under its deals with the Chicago Equity Fund, Rezmar promised to cover all operating losses in any building for seven years, but had no obligation after that.[27]

5-7. "Rezko's troubles had broken onto The Chicago Tribune's front page before the house deal closed, and well before Obama purchased a sliver of land from Rezko in January of 2006."[28]

8. That would be Joe Aramanda's son. "Levine says he "received instructions" from Rezko to split a $500,000 finder's fee with one of Rezko's business associates, Joe Aramanda. Aramanda is not indicted in this case but has contributed money to Obama's campaign. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Obama has returned Aramanda's money. The paper also reported Aramanda's son interned with Obama's Illinois office in 2005."[29]

11. You missed the $157,000 level of admissions. That's the amount Obama donated to charity. When he raised it to $250k in March he didn't donate the difference. Andyvphil (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here'a a good cite for the heat being on when the Obama list was at $85,185. [30]Andyvphil (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

wright aids conspiracy

why "not appropriate?" the aids conspiracy page exists and has numerous sources. wright was talking about AIDS conspiracy theories. where is the disconnect here? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Already commented here[31], but the short answer is that links should only be made from words that are associated with the links and MOSQUOTE only provides guidelines for linking within quotes, not outside. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

72 respond here[32], but moving the discussion here so others can join in.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the additional context provided by the link to the conspiracy theory article is necessary to the understanding of Wright's quote, nor does any evidence need to be provided about other's making such claims. The quote pretty much speaks for itself. If there weren't quote marks around the sentence, then more than likely there would be a link to the conspiracy article (and there was one), but that's just because Wikipedia likes to interlink within itself. Breaking the "sanctity" of a quote by linking from within it needs to have a better reason than what is generally applied to wikilinking. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree. Or perhaps I misunderstand, but why wouldn't we link to AIDS conspiracy theories just because it's mentioned inside rather than outside a quote? Wikilinking does not affect the "sanctity" of a quote, because it's wiki-specific meta-issue that doesn't in any way alter the quote's content. The only reason not to link is if the page would not provide useful background information and context for readers, and the opposite seems to be the case here: any reader puzzled by Wright's comment (i.e., ones completely unfamiliar with the very notion that AIDS is a government conspiracy—or worse, ones who are completely unaware that AIDS wasn't created by the U.S. government!!) would benefit enormously from a wikilink explaining his view in detail. If we can wikilink chili con carne and Democratic Party (Italy) from Barack Obama, we can surely link to AIDS conspiracy theories. -Silence (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged elitism

I have reverted the creation of a new section focussing on Sen. Obama's recent controversial comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians.[33] A new section for this material does not seem appropriate. Obama is being accused of "elitism" in response to those comments of his, and this seems like the kind of thing that would be better to put in the existing section on his image (or the section on his 2008 campaign). So, I'd like to propose that we include something like this....

"Senator Obama came in for heavy criticism during April of 2008 for alleged elitism, after he made the following remarks:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them....And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.[34]

"He made these remarks at a private fundraiser in San Francisco.

"[1]Bacon, Perry and Murray, Shailagh. "Opponents Paint Obama as an Elitist", Washington Post (2008-04-12)."

Does that seem okay? I would put it right before the sentence that begins, "Writing about Obama's political image in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion...." Alternatively, it could go at the end of the section on his presidential campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is this an encyclopedia or a news magazine? "A candidate said something other candidates deplored" isn't particularly useful long-lasting information. (Not to mention that the "elitist" tag is quite amusing coming from supporters of the two multi-millionaires in the race.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it may be premature to add this info about his "elitist" image. Better to wait a few days, and see if this aspect of his image has staying power.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Speaking in general: If such a remark is part of a pattern that the political figure makes, one that's closely associated with his or her image, putting it in "Cultural and political image" can be appropriate. If such a remark is just a one-off blunder, no matter how stupid, offensive, or politically damaging, then the campaign section is likely more appropriate. In any case, creating a "controversial comments" or "controversies" section is not the way to go. A bunch of editors went through a lot of effort to get rid of such sections for all the candidates' articles in the 2008 presidential election (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages); let's not go backwards now. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WTR, and that's why I reverted the creation of a controversies section. If this San Fancisco quote does resonate, and is inserted into this article, then it will not be unique. This article already says that, "two rival candidates charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns." The suggestion contained in the WaPo article is that the same may apply to all working-class folks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well regardless of how much attention it gets, it doesn't belong in a biography about his whole life. Grsz11 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Grsz is 180-degrees wrong, as usual. "The comments... drew attention to a potential Obama weakness — the image some have that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof." - Associated Press[35] Now, as it happens we have a section on "Cultural and political image" that talks about Obama's "neutral persona", his "everyman" image, his "magical Negro" image, his "personification of both-and", and his "youthful image". But nothing about an image as "arrogant and aloof" (not to mention "condescending"[36]). Either the AP is talking about an image hald by an insignificant few (WP:FRINGE) or this article is failing to follow its duty in policy of "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources..."[37][38][39] "...This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."(WP:NPOV) Andyvphil (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It could possibly merit inclusion in the campaign section if it becomes a "defining moment" (sort of like Kerry's "It voted for it before I voted against it", or GHWB's "No new taxes!"; note that the defining of such moments isn't always "fair"). To know this of course requires patience in seeing how things play out. In the Hillary articles I've tried to delay inclusion of these "campaign kerfuffle of the day" items until there's a better sense of their lasting importance. Needless to say, such delaying doesn't fit in well with the Wikipedia model, and I've been spectacularly unsuccessful :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Though unsuccessful in that respect, you have gained considerable notoriety WTR, and I am in process of writing your Wikipedia article.  :-) If this remark torpedoes his presidential campaign (unlikely), then surely it might warrant a brief mention here in this article, right Grsz? Anyway, as I mentioned, this article already contains stuff like the following, which doesn't seem more notable than the elitism stuff: "two rival candidates charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns." And, this article also already contains quite a bit of minutae on other topics that really aren't very revealing about the man (e.g. Obama saying his name means "blessed", Obama comparing himself to JFK, etc etc).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This belongs in the Obama presidential campaign section, not here. And the media describing it as a "blunder" shows media bias, imo. Obama said he stands by what he said although he could have phrased it better. He probably should not even gone that far, nothing wrong with what he said, it wasn't a blunder and wasn't elitist. JonErber (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It is clear to anyone with a moderate accumulation of brain cells that the McCain and Clinton party machines have taken Obama's words out of context and twisted them to gain political capital. Anyone hearing or reading the full text of what he said will realize that Obama meant no slight to the group he was describing, and that the MSM is merely parroting the McCain and Clinton press releases. It will be forgotten within a week, and it probably doesn't even warrant a mention in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, maybe if it ends his campaign it can be included. But the whole elitist bit is a crock. This is a guy who was raised in Indonesia right? Compared to the other one, who's already been in the White House. And surely Yale is less-"elitist" than Harvard? Andy would be strongly against the comments Obama later made on the subject. Grsz11 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be turning into a real campaign issue. Anyway he discussed similar issues in 2004.

• short clip of Interview with Charlie Rose
• Full interview with Charlie Rose
• [40] short transcript of speech. in which he says the same stuff

Mpondopondo (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Andy would be strongly against the comments Obama later made on the subject. If by "strongly against" you mean I would be opposed to mentioning Obama's POV, you haven't been paying attention. Well, I knew that already. Actually, my take on this is not that Obama's elitist, but that the MSM's ingrained left-wing elitism is been such that it hasn't been much noticed when Obama's been condescending. He got all sorts of credit for allowing in his "More Perfect Union" speech that working class white folks might not feel they owed it to black folks to let the latter cut in line ahead of them, and it went unnoticed that he ended up being dismissive of their idea that they had a real grievance.[41] This latest quote is of a piece with that. And the question on the table is how and to what extent we work this negative of view of Obama into the otherwise worshipful "Cultural and political image" section, as required by NPOV policy. Andyvphil (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the earliest, representative (ie more than just one or two editors had input) versions of this article, which would be about the time he addressed the 2004 Convention, about all it says in a short article about Obama's political stance is "staunch liberal". Today, "liberal" occurs only once in a very lengthy article, and even then it has the words "not a" in front of it. "staunch liberal" persisted in this article for AT LEAST 1500 edits and more than two years (I stopped checking after that). A rather interesting evolution! Bdell555 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter how such terms are used? His political views are expressed here, equally the same as if liberal was used more times. Grsz11 06:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would not object if the article was changed to what you say is "equally the same"? He voted 66 times in 2007. The National Journal counted him as taking the liberal side of the issue being voted on 65 times out of those 66, which made for the more liberal record of anyone who voted enough to drawn a conclusion about, according to this non-partisan source. Are all 66 votes discussed in the article? Not from what I can see. Not that they should be. There ought to be some sort of summation that reflects what his general approach or philosophy was to all those other votes of his that are not discussed here. It shouldn't be a space issue since there was room for it in a much shorter article!Bdell555 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a space issue. See the FAQ at the top of the page -- this article is well within size limits. We've got room in "Senate career" for a long list of meaningless honorary doctorates (give a speech, get a doctorate) and the equally meaningless "loyal Democrat" characterization from CQ ("Obama did vote with the party most of the time, but that was also because nearly every time it was majority Dems versus majority Republicans, it was a party-line divisive vote. If he had not voted with the party, it would have meant quite literally turning against roughly 95% of the Democrats.... CQ took his roll call votes and obfuscated the results to make it sound like Obama is “the same as Clinton”, ignoring the fact that by the same criteria, all of the Republicans are the same and all of the Democrats are the same with few exceptions."[42]), but not for the National Journal or ADA rankings.[43] Andyvphil (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Way too much Rezko information

The following currently appears in the "Early life and private career" section:

Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., owned by Tony Rezko and Daniel Mahru. Rezko, who has raised up to $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns, is currently on trial in federal court on felony charges for money laundering, extortion, and fraud. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.

I believe there is far too much detail about Rezko in these sentences. The only significant pieces of information worthy of inclusion in the article are:

1. One of Obama's clients was Tony Rezko
2. Rezko has helped with fundraising for Obama's various campaigns

The fact that Rezko is currently on trial should not be included because (a) he has not been convicted of anything yet and (b) it violates WP:BLP and WP:RECENT - the word "currently" should never appear in a BLP, should it? Details about what Rezko is on trial for certainly seem unrelated to Obama's BLP. And why is Daniel Mahru mentioned at all? And why is the amount of money raised significant (other fundraisers have raised equal or greater amounts, yet they are not mentioned)? I think these sentences need to be examined with a critical eye and completely rewritten with these extraneous details removed. I am not disputing the facts of what has been written, only that these facts shouldn't really be in a BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the information should be in this BLP. Rezko is a seminal figure in Obama's career as a politician. Perhaps not at all in "Early life and PRIVATE career", and Rezko's involvement with Obama's house is no longer merely "Personal". But you need to find a place for it in this article before you delete it where it is. Rezko doesn't fit comfortably inside the current organization of "State legislature", "Senate campaign", etc. The solution is to change the structure to fit the material, or wait until the Rezko matter impacts the campaign big time. I already went through this with Wright, where it was argued that the fact that his church was Afrocentric and political wasn't appropriate for "Personal Life" either, and the preferred solution of the claque was to delete any mention of those facts. Not gonna happen this time either. Andyvphil (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why I typed "private" there. Brain fade of some sort, I guess. My bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No. That was the name of the section. Someone changed it. Might have been me. I don't remember doing it, but it was on my mental list. Andyvphil (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If the charges against Rezko were completely unrelated to his relationship with Obama (drug-related charges, for example, or patronizing a prostitute as Eliot Spitzer did), I would agree that Scjessey is correct, and that any mention of those charges has no place here. But that is not the case. These charges allege crimes related to campaign fundraising, and that's what Rezko has done for Obama: campaign fundraising. A federal prosecutor has properly alleged, via the charging documents resulting in Rezko's indictment, that Rezko extorted money from campaign contributors that found its way into Obama's political campaign accounts. Other fundraisers may have raised more money for Obama, but since they are neither on trial nor under indictment nor even under investigation, they are not notable. Rezko was providing money for Obama's political ambitions from the very first day. If Rezko turns out to be guilty, Obama's entire career is the fruit of a poisonous tree. Notable? How could it not be notable? Appropriate for a BLP? Again, how could it not be? Particularly since we say straightaway, "Obama has not been implicated in any crimes"? Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Scjessey brought my attention to the sentences in "Early life..." that were duplicative of the "Personal life" material, and since I've learned quite a bit about Tony Rezko in the course of recently making substantial additions to that article, I've performed a rewrite to indicate how Obama became acquainted with Rezko before he ran for office, and to indicate the ultimate (so far) result.

As an associate attorney with Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 2002, Obama represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. While Obama never took part in a trial, he worked on teams drawing up briefs, contracts, and other legal documents. This included being part of teams that represented Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a successful lawsuit that forced the state of Illinois to implement a federal law that was designed to make it easier for people to register to vote, an appeals brief on behalf of a whistleblower that was suing Cook County Hospital and the Hektoen Institute for Medical Research for wrongful termination, and on another team forced the city of Chicago to redraw ward boundaries that the city council drew up following the 1990 census. In 1997, following his election to the Illinois Senate, Obama's work for the firm diminished sharply and he let his license became inactive in 2002. The firm represented, and senior partner Allison S. Davis became a business partner with, Tony Rezko's Rezmar Corporation. Obama did some work representing Davis in his negotiations with Rezmar and also a small amount of work directly for Rezmar, and Rezko subsequently became the first substantial financial contributor to his political career and raised in the vicinity of $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns before becoming notorious for abusing minority set-asides, milking taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation programs, and other financial frauds. He is currently on trial in federal court for extorting kickbacks and political contributions (mostly for Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, but also for others including redirecting a kickback to $10,000 in contributions to Obama) as well as private financial frauds. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.

The claque is already out in force (Looneymonkey accuses me of turning the article into my blog, and Wordbuilder's revert deletes the additional information in the name of "balance") - the usual nonsense arguments for censorship. But I stand behind this text (except that I need to clarify why some sources say one and some say two $10,000 contribs were made to Obama; I think one was out of a $250K kickback, and the other was illegal only because Rezko reimbursed the giver, and the latter may not be at issue in this trial). Andyvphil (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In a clean-up of the Barack Obama#Early life and career of Barack Obama section, I removed the Rezko text for reasons of WP:SS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:RECENT. It is not clear why this text belongs either in this summary section or in the associated subarticle. Consider this quote from Obama's interview with the Chicago Tribune:

I first met Tony Rezko when I was still at law school, or at least I had just graduated from law school. He had two partners, a guy named Dan Mahru and David Brint. They had started a real estate company called Rezmar. They contacted me while I was the president of the Harvard Law Review and asked if I was coming back to Chicago and was thinking about future employment, would I be interested in potentially getting involved in development.

And so when I was back in Chicago, and I don't recall whether it was during the summer between, you know, my second and third year [in law school], or whether it was after I had graduated, or whether it was just visiting Michelle, I met with them.

They were, didn't talk to me about a specific job but explained what they were doing in terms of development. Because I had been a community organizer, I think that's what part of what prompted their interest because they were doing a lot of affordable housing work and work with community development corporations.

I had a relatively brief conversation, maybe 45 minutes, and ultimately declined to go into development, but that was the first time I met Tony Rezko.

Fast-forward a little bit, I did not have a lot of interactions with Tony at that point. I was working as an associate at a law firm. There may have been interactions with my law firm and some of the development partners of Rezmar because they would often partner with not-for-profits and we had a small transactional practice in the law firm that specialized in representing not-for-profits—you know, church-based organizations that were doing community development.

I don't recall exactly how many times at that point I had met Tony Rezko, but I don't think at that point I would have considered him a friend. He was an acquaintance.^[44]

There is nothing here to suggest that Rezko was notable to Obama's life before his first run for public office, which is where this section ends. --HailFire (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

HailFire, the section covers Obama's entire private career at Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, which lasted until 2002. It goes into detail about all of his civil rights and voting rights cases in the late 1990s, while he was serving in the Illinois legislature. So no, it doesn't end with his first run for public office. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bother mentioning the recruitment, and maybe it was just coincidence that Obama ended up at the "small Chicago law firm -- Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland -- that helped Rezmar get more than $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 of their 30 apartment buildings for the poor."[45] If I recall correctly, it was the last 15 -- there was a switchover, not sharing, of the work. Anyway, the source I cite[46] says Obama billed 32 hours just on the deal between Davis' Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp and Rezmar...and now he says "There may have been interactions with my law firm and some of the development partners of Rezmar..."??? He forgot his own work and the 14 other deals DMB&G worked on? Anyway, one thing that suggests that "Rezko was notable to Obama's life before his first run for public office" is that the first substantial donation to that first run came from Rezko. And he immediately he kept giving, at least another $1,000 to pay off campaign debts after Obama won,[47] plus who knows how much bundling. What the text says is that Obama met Rezko at this time, and explains why that would prove consequential. Giving things that will prove significant greater emphasis in a biography than they might have seemed to at the time is perfectly appropriate. When you have the benefit of hindsight it's proper to use it. Andyvphil (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the paragraph to remove Mahru (he doesn't have anything to do with the issues, and is not notable. I have also removed reference to the Rezko indictment because we should really be discussing the current legal difficulties of a different person on someone's BLP, particularly as there has been no conviction as yet. If it turns out that Rezko is convicted of crimes directly related to fundraising for Obama, one can envisage giving the Rezko/Obama relationship a fuller treatment. Until such time, however, the indictment and charges should not be in there. Neither should there be Kossack's extra link to Tony Rezko. One blue link to his BLP is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's silly. Rezko's notoriety for abusing minority set-asides, milking taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation programs, and other financial frauds, as reported by multiple RS, isn't dependent of this particular conviction. There's little doubt he will be convicted, of some things anyway, but Wikipedia is not a government body and an OJ verdict won't mean that we will thenceforth have to ignore all the RS that reported he did notorious things. We'll report that it happened, in the unlikely event that he is found guilty of nothing, and we'll report anything relevant found in a range of RS. And we'll obey libel law. Which does not require us to write as if OJ really, really, didn't stab his wife to death. Andyvphil (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning Rezko's notoriety (which is undeniable), I am questioning the inclusion of Rezko-specific details here. Unless there is a direct connection to Obama (and the fundraising connection is indirect) these details are for not for this particular BLP. Additionally, saying "there's little doubt he will be convicted" is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Anyway, I thought OJ was found to be innocent? Not being an American I didn't pay much attention to that trial. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The are no "Rezko-specific details" in my edit beyond those necessary to explain how Obama came to know Rezko and why the connection later became important and then problematic FOR OBAMA, WHOSE BIO WE ARE WRITING. I do not for example talk about his defrauding GE Capital or other investors. This refusal to make elementary distinctions is typical of you, and is also present in your claim about WP:CRYSTAL, which is a policy about article content, not a restriction on the opinions I can express on a discussion page. Andyvphil (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Details about Rezko's indictment (such as a list of charges, which have no direct link to Obama) are indeed Rezko-specific, and have no place in this article. Furthermore, I am well aware of how WP:CRYSTAL works. You are trying to use his "probable conviction" as a justification that such details should be included in the article; therefore, if you add these details you are violating the policy. As far as your suggestion that I am unable to "make elementary distinctions", I refer you to this essay. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

New attempt at Rezko info

I agree that something extra needs to be added to the "early life and career" section about Rezko, but I'm not quite sure of the best way to phrase it. At the moment, positions between editors like Kossack4Truth and myself are obviously poles apart on this matter, but I would like to try and reach a compromise and build a consensus. Here's what I have come up with so far:

Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., half-owned by Tony Rezko, who has raised approximately $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns. In October 2006, Rezko was indicted for political corruption charges and the case was brought to trial in March 2008. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.

How does that sound? I think the indictment and trial are important enough to be mentioned, but I have used the umbrella term of "political corruption charges" (also used in the source) instead of the list of charges that have appeared previously. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add a source for Obama not being implicated in any wrongdoing. I wouldn't be opposed to a bit more detail on the actual charges, but wrapping it up as "political corruption charges" is an attempt I made earlier (that Andy shot down), so I'm not opposed to that summarization. On a related note, perhaps we should come to an agreement on what to call the legal firm? It was called Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland when Obama was hired, but then changed its name to Davis Barnhill & Galland when Miner retired. Andy seems to be in favor of "Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland", while Scjessey seems to be in favor of Davis Barnhill & Galland (fka Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland). Aside from the italicizing (which probably shouldn't be used), either one is fine with me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

why not "Davis miner barnhill & Galland (later changed to Davis Barnhill & Galland)"? Lyellin (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It may seem trivial, but the accurate name of the law firm is "Miner, Barnhill and Galland (fka Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland)". Please note the use of "and" instead of an ampersand, and also the commas. I would agree to "then known as" instead of "fka", although that breaks with the usual convention. I have edited the new version above to include a source that says Obama has not been accused of wrongdoing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're looking for the current "accurate" name of the firm, but rather the "historically accurate" name of the firm. Similar to how a person born in a country that changes its name during their lifetime is said to be born in <old country name>, but from <current name>. So if that reasoning is accepted, in the context that the article is using the firm's name, it would probably be acceptable to use just Miner, Barnhill and Galland since that was the name of the company when Obama left it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to complicate matters, the law firm now seems to be using "and" and "&" interchangeably, although the commas remain. I think "and" is the way to go because web browsers hate ampersands, as a rule. Did Obama leave the firm after the name change? If so, the version without "Davis" makes sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Davis left the firm 5 years (or so) after Obama, so in 98/99 time frame.[48] So after Obama stopped being a full time employee, but before he left the firm completely. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's annoyingly complicated and awkward, isn't it? I suggest we just say "Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland" to put an end to the edit war. Arrr! What say ye? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, I don't care. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno why Sun-Times leaves out the commas, but I stand corrected on that. Ampersand appears most common -- isn't that what's in the picture Scjessey provided? It was "Davis, ..." when Obama joined it, so I'd relegate the name changes to a footnote, particularly since they merely drop names, and important names. If they'd added a partner who became relevant I'd go the other way, however. Might want to mention that former Senator Mosely-Braun worked there too. Andyvphil (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with it staying as it is (Davis, Commas & Ampersand LOL). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Mosely-Braun's employment at the firm is applicable to Obama. It might be good for an article on the firm (if there was one), but not this one. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to enter so late, it seems to meet the information about Rezco's indictment has nothing to do with Obama, and therefor should not be mentioned. The only reason I see mentioning the item is if people believed Obama was linked and there needed to be comments that a formal link of Obama to Rezco's indictment is false. But it appears to me that if someone linked to Obama (Rezco) has been indicted, that is most appropriate on Rezco's page unless Obama is directly linked (did Obama even testify at the trial?) and even if Obama testified at the trial, I am not sure it is noteworthy enough to mentioned here, unless Obama was in the business of being a professional witness at trials (which is not the case here, because he is a sitting US Senator). Now if Obama, had ever been (in a previous life), a professional witness at trials, that would be quiet interested and could be added under his biography. It is me i think (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama's association to Rezko has been covered in great detail in several reliable sources and the nature of the charges against Rezko (political corruption) does at least create the appearance of impropriety which has also been covered in RS. The disagreement we seem to be having is to what level of detail Rezko's indictment/trial should have in this article. At this point in time, Obama's connection to Rezko's charges themselves seems to be only tangential, so there does seem to be some merit in the "undue weight" claims being thrown around due to the detail some users wish to add to the article. However, to not mention the charges at all seems problematic to me as well, because of the amount of coverage the connection between Rezko and Obama have gotten. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(After an edit conflict) - Although Obama is not directly related to the Rezko trial, there is an indirect relationship. Rezko was a key fundraising figure in the early part of Obama's political career, and some questions have been raised about whether or not donations received by the various Obama campaigns may have come from tainted money sources. My suggested version of the paragraph above attempts to acknowledge this indirect relationship without giving it undue weight. Although I am unhappy about any inclusion of these details (for the same reasons you gave above), I am trying desperately to forge a consensus that will put an end to a rather unseemly edit war. Thus far, there has been no interest in contributing to this discussion by the "Rezko should feature everywhere" crowd, so perhaps a complete removal of all things Rezko-related is in order. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You just started this specific discussion, Scjessey, give it some time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• May I suggest, if there is credible news coverage of the story, from real news sources NYT, Herald Tribune, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune (not blogs) that could make the story noteworthy and, I think, could justify being mentioned. But, I think, focus must be done on providing substantial citations (maybe at least 5 credible news stories), which would add credibility to the information. We must be mindful that this be noteworthy information and not POV. Including noteworthy information is helpful in strengthening the quality and content of the wiki article. It is me i think (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

State legislature

I entered this edit:

Main article: Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's South Side.<ref>Jackson, David (April 3 2007). "Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)</ref> In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush.<ref>Scott, Janny (September 9 2007). "A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002.<ref>"13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. August 24 2000. Archived from the original (archive) on 2000-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. October 9 2004. Archived from the original (archive) on 2004-08-02. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.<ref>Calmes, Jackie (February 23 2007). "Statehouse Yields Clues to Obama". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.<ref>Coffee, Melanie (November 6 2004). "Attorney Chosen to Fill Obama's State Senate Seat". Associated Press. HPKCC. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>

As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.<ref>Slevin, Peter (February 9 2007). "Obama Forged Political Mettle in Illinois Capitol". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Helman, Scott (September 23 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Dealt with Lobbyists". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine for Critics". Associated Press. CBS News. January 17 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "In-Depth Look at Obama's Political Career" (video). CLTV. Chicago Tribune. February 9, 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.<ref name=Scott20070730>Scott, Janny (July 30 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: Pearson, Rick (May 3 2007). "Careful Steps, Looking Ahead". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)</ref> Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.<ref name=Scott20070730 /> During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.<ref>Youngman, Sam (March 14 2007). "Obama's Crime Votes Are Fodder for Rivals". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) See also: "US Presidential Candidate Obama Cites Work on State Death Penalty Reforms". Associated Press. International Herald Tribune. November 12 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> He was criticized by rival pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues.<ref>Zorn, Eric (March 9 2004). "Disparagement of Obama Votes Doesn't Hold Up". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2007-12-04. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views". Associated Press. MSNBC. August 9 2004. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: Youngman, Sam (February 15 2007). "Abortion Foes Target Obama Because of His Vote Record on Illinois Legislation". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>

Andy reverted most of it. Let's discuss. --HailFire (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of it might have been acceptable, particularly if you'd actually transferred the details to Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama first. But I noticed that all mention of how Obama went from being a loyal supporter and protege of Alice Palmer to suing to disqualify her and his other two opponents from the ballot had simply been disappeared. Not acceptable. What I didn't revert I meant to revert, pending discussion and amelioration. Andyvphil (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Soundbite

It seems there is a developing discussion here (and in the related talk page of the campaign article) about the use of the term "soundbites" when referring to comments by Jeremiah Wright. Let us be clear about this: a "soundbite" is defined as an accessible and short piece of speech lifted from a longer speech (or an interview). ABC News trawled through hours and hours of Wright sermon footage and lifted the most controversial soundbites they could find, edited them together and presented them for public consumption. There should be no question that "soundbite" is an appropriate term. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the soundbite article suggests that the term may carry a negative connotation or call into question the integrity of journalists. My point is that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to reach the conclusion that ABC News's actions were either unprofessional on their own behalf or unfair to Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama. The term "excerpt" serves the same function, describing the fact that the aired clips were taken from larger sermons, without reaching a POV conclusion, so it should be the preferred term. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel that "excerpt" carries POV connotations as well, because it implies that the "clips" (possible alternative?) of Wright were some kind of random sample, rather than the cherry-picked controversial statements that ABC News actually used. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Clips" seems neutral to me, so I would support using that term. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill sponsorship and voting record

Bill sponsorship and voting record - HailFire's effort

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

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

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

Discussion on HailFire's effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that (a) I think your use of the word "claque" is inappropriate, and (b) I am a neutral editor. I am not part of any group or conspiracy or anything like that. If I were, would I be saying things like this? I simply want the article to be the best it can be so that readers are presented with facts, informed opinion and an urge to click blue links to find out more. It is clear from your editing record that your desire is to mislead and misrepresent. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not "assumption". It's experience. Check WP:AGF -- given enough evidence to the contrary you no longer have to play Pangloss. Andyvphil (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this?

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

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

HailFire, if you're trying to placate Andy, you probably won't succeed until you've included that the National Journal found Obama to be "The most liberal senator in 2007" vs. 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006[49] and several other of the "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" ratings.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did wait until this discussion had expired, which suggests at least some progress, yes? --HailFire (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And no, I wasn't trying to placate. I thought this last version was an improvement on the one I offered previously, because it responded to a valid objection that Andy had made about citing GovTrack as a source. Pushback is OK by me, it's how this article got to be where it is today, and it is how this article will improve in the future. --HailFire (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your attitude and strategy towards editing are admirable, really. I think I have some things to learn from you. --Ubiq (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[out] Yes, CQ is non-partisan, so it's a better source to use. Tvoz |talk 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"rank and file Democrat" is not informative. So he generally votes with his party. For non-Americans like myself that is especially uninformative since in my country, for example, Members of Parliament generally get expelled from their respective parties if they vote in defiance of their party leader's directions even once. At a minimum this description of Obama's voting record should therefore be accompanied with a note indicating that moderate or centrist US Congressmen will often vote with the majority of the opposing party. This article said "staunch liberal" for YEARS and thousands of edits until it was taken out, presumably because either (A) a "staunch liberal" is unlikely to ever become President in the USA and a sizable group of editors want to assist this candidate's bid for that office, (B) Obama changed his political philosophy or (C) the initial characterization was wrong. If the answer is (C) a corollary is that Wikipedia is fundamentally unreliable since we are talking about an article about a sitting US Senator that was edited at least 1500 times and over at least two years if not more with that designation remaining. "Staunch liberal" apparently disappears about when he decides to run outside a blue state. Coincidence? If the answer is (B) there should be more evidence of such a transformation. The NJ had him more "liberal" than 99% of the Senate in 2007 and Mark Penn, a Democrat, has no problem with the National Journal as a source (page 4 of http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/17/080317fa_fact_lizza). The New York Times doesn't have a problem with it either, see the NYT article titled "Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25obama.html). Does the Wiki community seriously believe the NYT routinely refers to unreliable sources? Apparently so, because whereas the NYT says "Mr. Obama insists ... his proposals are solidly in the mainstream of Democratic thought", Wiki essentially drops the "Mr. Obama insists" part! Even the study by political science professors Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole at http://voteview.com/sen110.htm that I've seen offered up as a counter to the National Journal study has Obama to the left of 90% of the Senate.Bdell555 (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "rank and file Democrat" is a rather US-centric designation, and this needs to be addressed. His actual liberal/conservative position varies considerably depending on which metrics are consulted. For example, this analysis puts him in a very centrist position. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Scjessey's electoral-vote.com "analysis": Note that Obama's ADA rating in the electoral-vote.com table is only 75% because he missed 5 of the 20 votes the ADA uses in his rankings and despite voting on the liberal side in all 15 of the votes he participated in. The "Votemaster" seems to have missed this in reaching his "among the least liberal" conclusion about both Clinton & Obama. Which is very odd, since he supplies a link to the 2005 rankings[50] where the "most liberal" Senator is....oops...Obama. You'd think he'd have remembered that result. Andyvphil (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the CQ ranking: We've got room in "Senate career" for a long list of meaningless honorary doctorates (give a speech, get a doctorate) and the equally meaningless "loyal Democrat" characterization from CQ ("Obama did vote with the party most of the time, but that was also because nearly every time it was majority Dems versus majority Republicans, it was a party-line divisive vote. If he had not voted with the party, it would have meant quite literally turning against roughly 95% of the Democrats.... CQ took his roll call votes and obfuscated the results to make it sound like Obama is “the same as Clinton”, ignoring the fact that by the same criteria, all of the Republicans are the same and all of the Democrats are the same with few exceptions."[51]), but not for the National Journal or ADA rankings.[52] Andyvphil (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on the "mainstream" quote! The claque is shameless. Andyvphil (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jeffords article says that Jeffords' "voting record was moderate-to-liberal". POV? Interestingly, if you consider that Jeffords caucuses with the Democrats, our supposedly "rank and file Democrat" voted AGAINST the majority of his caucus on the John G. Roberts nomination, a vote with 100% turnout (which says something about its importance). Had Obama voted FOR Roberts he would have voted with the majority of Democrats (and all Republicans). But he did not. Meanwhile, that "source" Scjessey cites says "when people say Obama and Clinton are liberals, that's not true; when people say McCain is a conservative, that is true." Yet whose name is featured in the stories (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301169.html for an example) about the "Group of 14" bipartisan consensus on judicial nominations?Bdell555 (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that "staunch liberal" was an unsupported characterization in the "state legislature" section (Regarded as a staunch liberal during his tenure in the legislature, he helped to author a state Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to the working poor.) and it was removed in September 2006 as being POV. So there's a (D) option - it was an unsupported opinion that shouldn't be in the article. Newer editors aren't responsible for what preceded them - the removal of the obviously POV "staunch liberal" was completely appropriate. (And since September 2006 the article has been edited much more than it was prior to then.) In any case, as I said earlier, I think the approach we take on the Clinton page, as described here where rankings from a variety of organizations are presented, and the reader can decide on how to interpret them, works well. As for your earlier concerns about aesthetics regarding that, Josiah, to me the NPOV and full protection labels that get slapped onto the article do more damage. Tvoz |talk 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the (C) option. Can you identify a clearly false fact that has persisted in a Wikipedia article for years and through more than 1500 article edits? No? So this is the first case? What's changed is that new editors like yourself, who believe it is POV, are here and standing on guard to revert. You are claiming that the consensus has changed, but in fact there is no evidence for that, because there have been recent edit wars over the "liberal" tag. Are there 1500 different editors here reverting "liberal"? It is far, far fewer than that. A small number of highly motivated (ie partisan) editors can revert all attempts to bring it back in, but they cannot call their success the "consensus" when an equally plausible explanation is that these reverters represent an Obama claque. Perhaps people that know better just aren't inclined to keep battling. I haven't edited this article once (because I'm testing the water to see if its infested with partisans first so I don't waste my time). Determining the consensus means looking at more than the page's last edit, and looking at what other sources say. What's POV is having the article read more like what the Obama campaign wants it to read like instead of what most sources read like. If it is POV to call someone a liberal (or, say, a neocon) then there must not be any liberals (or neocons) in the US. Do you really believe that? If the current article is such an improvement with respect to POV, then why are there no rankings to replace the supposedly POV "liberal" identification? In any case, the NY Times, and a gazillion other sources, calls him "liberal", and in a headline yet.Bdell555 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re "clearly false fact" that persisted in high-profile article, yes, the Hillary article wrongly had her as valedictorian at Wellesley for two years, the mistake was called out in an MSNBC article, quite the embarrassment. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, if that was directed at me, I'm a new editor now? Take a look at the stats please. And where did I say something about consensus changing or that the statement was or was not true? I made a simple point in response to your accusations: saying "regarded as a staunch liberal" is POV if it's not backed up by sources; when those words were in the article there was no source pointing to who regarded him as a staunch liberal, or what the statement was based on, or how one defines "staunch". It was removed, properly, in September 2006 (three months before I started editing this article, so I'm not defending my own edit). You insinuated that it was removed back then for political reasons, but I don't agree. It was a gratuitous, unsupported statement, and it has remained out of the article for almost as long as it was in. Problematic wording, errors, POV comments sit in articles all the time - until someone notices it. So yes, there is an option (D) regarding the removal of "staunch liberal". Finally, I have no idea, nor do I care, "what the Obama campaign wants this article to read like" -I also don't care what the McCain or Clinton campaign wants it to be. I am interested only in it not being hijacked by people who descend on it and edit in a disruptive manner, insulting the other editors, pushing their POV onto it, edit warring and ignoring the idea of building consensus. Despite what you may think based on your very limited look at the history of this article, in fact the regular editors here don't always agree, but most of us have worked together, compromised, over a long period of time to develop what has been a reasonably balanced piece that is a biography of a whole individual, not a political weapon. Tvoz |talk 03:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"New" is only relevant here if it means "post-Sept 06". When the "staunch liberal" description persisted as long as this one did, that suggested to me that in the eyes of many early observers of this candidate's career the shoe fit, or at least was not "obviously POV" to them. But it is "obviously POV" to YOU. The point being here that "POV" is, in fact, more accurately applied to how the person calling for "building consensus" defines "consensus". I stand corrected by "Wasted Time R" and accordingly concede that the Wikipedia consensus at any given time can be wrong, and that option (C) could therefore be correct. Why you don't want to grant that as well remains unclear. Returning to the issue at hand, however, I agree that the early characterization could have used a citation, although it did made reference to advocacy for the poor and gay rights activism. The current issue, however, is that you evidently don't believe that more thorough referencing could possibly justify a return of the "liberal" label. Why? Because it is "obviously POV" to label someone liberal, according to you. Furthmore, it is "gratuitous". This is the view I wanted to confirm prior to making any sourced edits, in order to avoid an edit war. Evidently, I would be wasting my time, because even if it is sourced, if it states that Obama was or is a "liberal", that's POV. And even if it isn't POV, it'd nonetheless be "gratuitous" (as if an indication of a politician's political ideology is "not called for by the circumstances" of an article about that politician, to draw on Webster's definition of "gratuitous"). I just want to be sure I understand your view correctly here and am not mischaracterizing it.Bdell555 (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that whether Obama is a Marxist is an open (or at least "good") question for the Democratic nominee for Vice-President in 2000 but whether Obama is merely a "staunch liberal" is apparently a closed (or at least "obviously POV" and "gratuitous") question for the Wikipedia community (see http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=9c198710-dd4a-4800-bd94-2c4b58c2e1d5&sMPlaylistID=).Bdell555 (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's always good to see Joe Lieberman helping Fox News push their agenda. In any case, let's get to your concerns: "When the 'staunch liberal' description persisted as long as this one did, that suggested to me that in the eyes of many early observers of this candidate's career the shoe fit, or at least was not 'obviously POV' to them."

If we use this same argument with Wasted Time R's example of Hillary's incorrect valedictorian listing that persisted for two years, should we then suggest that those that kept an eye on Hillary's article agreed that this valedictorian tidbit was indeed true (and therefore warranted inclusion)? Or that perhaps that it was something they didn't notice or question in a sea of information to sort through?

"The current issue, however, is that you evidently don't believe that more thorough referencing could possibly justify a return of the 'liberal' label. Why? Because it is 'obviously POV' to label someone liberal, according to you. Furthmore, it is 'gratuitous'."

This, is definitely bordering on a strawman argument, as you seem to be using "liberal" and "staunch liberal" interchangeably in your characterization of Tvoz's views. Having read through your exchanges, it is not apparent to me that Tvoz necessarily opposes the use of the "liberal" label, as you seem to be suggesting. You might want to glance over again the stance above about using an approach "where rankings from a variety of organizations are presented." And, of course, if this were to be implemented somehow, your much desired use of the word "liberal" in this article would become inevitable.

Concerning the Marxist question for Lieberman, it's simply not in Wikipedia's place (or any encyclopedia's place IMO) to be entertaining such questions in the manner that a Fox News might (although I'm sure you weren't suggesting we do exactly this). As with any other information presented in a BLP, whatever we include should be well sourced, relevant, and NPOV. I can't see why an unsourced, and possibly POV (I'm not one to be throwing this acronym around) descriptor like "staunch liberal" should be included in this article. Before we think about decorating this article with the word "liberal", I think we'd have to consider some things. It would certainly help if he self-identifies as liberal, but I don't know if that's the case. The ratings from various groups/organizations categorizing his votes/stances would be a preferable source, at least considering the alternative of sourcing the opinion of a random agenda-driven political commentator in regards to his views. --Ubiq (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama self-identifies as a "progressive".[53] Andyvphil (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a proposal I've already said I support. Andyvphil (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The electoral-vote.com thing isn't my analysis. It was actually suggested by Josiah Rowe, and I was only linking to it to demonstrate that the various ratings metrics have Obama's "liberal rating" all over the place. In fact, I think that the whole business of putting ratings is silly because they don't seem to be in any sort of agreement - I think it would be more useful to simply acknowledge voting records on key issues in the "political advocacy" section, with expansion in Political positions of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are pretty much in agreement. Obama is, unsurprisingly, quite liberal. The "electoral-vote.com thing" was advanced to disprove this... and on examination, failed spectacularly. If the ratings were not in agreement that would itself be a fact we should report. Andyvphil (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You explained away one element of the electoral-vote.com analysis (the ADA ranking). Do you know whether the rankings by the ACLU (88%), the Children's Defense Fund (60%) and the League of Conservation Voters (67%) can be explained by campaign-related absences as well? Or did Obama actually vote against bills supported by these liberal advocacy groups? I'm honestly asking here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's laughable that anyone is trying to claim that Obama is a centrist, or even not a liberal. Whether or not some people think liberalism is a bad thing, Obama is a staunch liberal, and because that fact is well supported, it should be included in the section related to his senate career. thezirk (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review #3

User:Joelr31 decided to close the FA review of this article. Gimmetrow 06:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess I can't be surprised--it seemed like the FAR sort of served as a platform for more content disputes anyway. Thanks for the heads up. --Ubiq (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Inexcusable admin arrogance. [54]. Andyvphil (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Elitist / Racist Remarks

Why no mention of Obama's remarks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh come on guys, do we need to have a snark fight for every thing? This section brings up a reasonable question, answer it or not, but stop being jerks. Arkon (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to mention it because we do not need to mention every single misstep/remark made by any candidate. If we were to do that, we'd be no better than any blog which has been dissecting this for days. Currently, the remarks have made no marked impact beyond being talked about by the Media. Until they do, it doesn't need to be brought up. In addition, the polling data cited above is just plain wrong. Unrelated, but I had to mention... ;) Lyellin (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There was one poll that gave Clinton a 20-point lead in PA, but it certainly stuck out there on the end of a very long limb. Nationally, Obama has actually improved since this all blew up. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Quinnipac has it unchanged (6pt difference), SUSA has a 14 pt different, moving towards Obama, Rasmussan a 9pt, moving towards Clinton, and Susquehanna a 3pt moving towards Obama. Lyellin (talk)

As far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed. Clinton had a 20-point lead before Wright, which deteriorated to a 6-point lead. Now with these "elitist" comments, nothing has happened! Grsz11 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Yep. And here's an article describing this lack of change/shift. --Ubiq (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

If this quote belongs, doesn't it belong in the presidential campaign article for Obama and not the general biography article? Remember (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. This is related to the campaign and should be discussed at that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Guess what? Words matter.

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

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

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

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

Disappointing. I said I saw a poll on TV. I didn't recall it's name, but clearly none of you bothered to make any effort to google the poll and find out if it actually exists. So in about 5 seconds, I found it at "http://www.americanresearchgroup.com". Now I don't know how credible it is, but it exists. thezirk (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the actual poll specifics, and they describe a sample size of only 600 likely voters in Pennsylvania. A poll like this is probably good news for the Obama campaign because it lowers expectations, although it doesn't seem to agree with other metrics. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

CNN has 5%. So the single-digit polls largely outweigh the single 20-point poll. Grsz11 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

search for Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

Also, could Jr. be added to Barack Obama name so that this wiki page is distinguished from his father Barack Obama,Sr. It is me i think (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Typically, this would be handled with a "for X, see Y" link at the top of the page, similar to the disambig links that are already present. I'm fairly ambivalent on whether to include an extra one of these, because both of the current disambig pages have links to both the Sr. and Jr. articles. As for changing the name of the article by adding "Jr.", Barack Obama, Jr. already redirects to this page. Since almost all people visiting the page will be interested in this Barack Obama rather than his father, it's probably appropriate to keep the article where it is. (On a side note, a Google search for "barack obama site:en.wikipedia.org" returns both of them in the first page of results.) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's no call for a name change, but a disambiguating hatnote would probably be appropriate. Something like this, perhaps:

This article is about the American Senator and presidential candidate. For his father, the Kenyan economist, see Barack Obama, Sr.

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the issue, when you search for Barack Obama, you only get Barack Obama, Jr., you should be able to search Barack Obama and get listing for al Barack Obamas, which is the case are 2 Barack Obamas, father and son. If you search for George Brett, you get 4 different people (even though you are probably looking for the baseball player).

Why do you get 4 George Brett listing on a wiki search, because there are 4 different people named George Brett who have articles on wiki. Being able to search Barack Obama and get all accurate listings, in this case 2 people, is a fair and reasonable request. Unless, someone, thinks Obama, Sr. isn't noteworthy, and therefore shouldn't even have a wiki article, which is not what I am advocating at all. I think if wiki articles exist, you should be able to find them when you search for the person by name. It is me i think (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add something about this man attending an anti-semitic, anti-caucasian church for 20 years?, and his support of Gun Restrictions, much like the Nazis in World War II?24.27.151.226 (talk)

Let's put in something about the negro and him attending an anti-semitic, anti-caucasian church for 19 years+

Wikifying the lead

Why have all the links been removed to Wikipedia articles from the lead paragraphs? There appears to be a mini-edit war involving User:Andyvphil at present, so it is difficult to see when these edits to remove links took place. Harro5 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a request a couple days ago to remove certain links because it lead to confusion. Personally, as links are the whole basis of Wikipedia, I think it was wrong, but that's that. Grsz11 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a lead without links would not qualify this article as an FA. Links are important to Wikipedia and standard to every article. Someone who is willing to restore these links should do so immediately. Thanks. Harro5 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It was suggested that the links be removed to "clean-up" the article during the FAR. Grsz11 03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The links were removed by HailFire here[55]. I believe the concern brought up during the FAR was that this article has a tendency to overlink and one way to combat that was to eliminate the links in the lede section and to instead "save" the linking to when they were actually useful in the remainder of the text. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to respond to Sandy's "sea of unnecessary blue" comment at FAR. I've also done more moderate delinking in other sections. I welcome suggestions on what should stay and what should go that are consistent with Sandy's guidance. Here's a list of all of the links (the currently restored ones are in bold) that were in the lead before I took them out:

August 4

1961

junior

United States Senator

Illinois

Democratic

2008 U.S. presidential election

Kenyan

American

Honolulu

Jakarta

Indonesian

Columbia University

Harvard Law School

community organizer

lecturer

civil rights

Illinois Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

state legislator

keynote address

2004 Democratic National Convention

109th Congress

bipartisan

conventional weapon

accountability

Eastern Europe

Middle East

Africa

110th Congress

lobbying

electoral fraud

climate change

nuclear terrorism

U.S. military

presidential campaign

Iraq War

energy independence

universal health care

Dreams from My Father

The Audacity of Hope

It's mostly the issue and occupational links that have not been put back. Note also that most of the sources were also removed. My reading of WP:LEAD is that statements already fully sourced in the article don't need to be sourced in the lead section. An expert FA reviewer could help us out here. --HailFire (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many of the individual words do not need linking, but to have no links in the lead whatsoever is not a sensible response. The lead at present seems to be linked quite well - perhaps it is unneeded to link to the continents he has travelled to. I would see that a lead summarising the article would include links to some relevant articles on the legislatures and institutions that Obama is associated with. Harro5 06:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken out links for countries and regions that would be known to most readers of English and restored some links providing background on U.S. issues highlighted through Obama's legislative initiatives or his presidential campaign, but not necessarily widely known. Hopefully not too much blue now. --HailFire (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that Illinois is linked but Kenya and Indonesia are not. I updated the link guide above to the current edit. Grsz11 03:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)