Talk:Barack Obama

As per his birth certificate, released to Daily Kos (http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg), he's Barack Obama II, not Barack Obama, Jr.

Bill Ayers

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

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Neither side (inclusion/exclusion) is budging, and the only attention the poll seems to be attracting now is SPA/sockpuppet activity. Shem^(talk) 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Initial !Votes

1. #1, after reflection overnight, is now my first choice. #3 is my second choice. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I'd support #3 as well -- FWIW, I don't buy the argument that there needs to be lots of detail here "so people will know what the controversy is about; they won't click the links otherwise." I think folks are generally savvy enough to follow links if they have any interest in learning more about the controversy. (This point is beyond the NPOV points that things like "unrepentant terrorist" are neither neutral nor unambiguously true.) Mfenger (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
3. While I agree with you on options 1 or 2, I think number 3 would be a more agreeable revision that people can get behind. I also wanted to ask if there is an election controversy article? Brothejr (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
4. No. 5, but No. 4 is OK... while Scjessey's No. 6 is too sensationalistic. — Justmeherenow (   ), through stark illumination of an associate's guilts, is----conceivably----appropriate. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) But I equally support a stingently neutral No. 8 — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I support No. 5. No. 7 No. 1 is ludicrous. No. 2 is slightly less ridiculous. No. 6 would be over the top, even though news media have been consistent in calling Ayers "unrepentant terrorist." — WorkerBee74 (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC). I have changed my preference to No. 7 effective June 3. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I would support #3, and I must congratulate Scjessey on taking this move, hopefully we can continue like this on future points. Please call me when we move onto the next point incase I miss it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
7. "I choose Noroton's No. 7 option or failing that, reluctantly Scjessey's No. 6, or No. 5 as a last resort." (transcluded from here) Kossack4Truth, 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
8. #3 or #4 Obama's relationship with Ayers's wife hasn't really been a factor in what I've seen in the media reports about Ayers and Obama, so I don't see why she should be included in the article. #5 and #6 are definitely too much information. If anyone is interested in finding out more information about the Weathermen, there name is wikilinked and they can click to that article. Wikipedia doesn't add (an Islamic terrorist organization) after every mention of Al Qaeda, nor does it add (a militant Irish nationalist organization) after every mention of the IRA, I don't see why the Weatherman would be any different. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
9. #1 is best. #3 or #4 are acceptable. #5+ are definitely no good, and clearly violate Wikipedia policy (moreover, the gratuitous introduction of Dohrn makes no sense, only Ayers was subject to any media coverage, perhaps outside a few fringe sources). While all that "unrepentant terrorist" bullshit is way over the top (and libelous), if Ayers is mentioned, some adjective describing Ayers' left-wing politics gives some context (against 2). "Radical activist" is cleanest, since it follows the source and Ayers own article. But "Weatherman founder" is factual. "(former) Militant" seems plausible. In any case, nothing more than a word or two describing him, not clauses and sentences of rambling condemnation of Ayers (and also not irrelevant-to-controversy details like his academic title and book publications that sometimes creep in as pseudo-balance). LotLE×talk
10. #1 for Ayers specifically as a matter of weight and relevance because he seems utterly insignificant as a factor in Obama's life or career. It is of interest only as a controversy in the 2008 election, and there are far more pertinent articles about that than this biography of Obama. Put information where it most logically fits; don't repeat attack politics issues in every possible article about every subject touched by them. Wikidemo (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
11. #7 My reasoning is found, among other spots, at the "Consensus-building discussion" section below, and I hope others comment there. Voting is not going to get us to consensus, discussion does that. Noroton (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC) update: Noroton (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
12. #3 seems better balanced to me. A little niggle tho --- "he was joined on the board" might infer that Ayers joined the board to team up with Obama, rather than simply be his own man on a multi-member board. Or is that the intention anyway?. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Number 5 is most preferable to me, but considering the strong support for number 3, I would advocate the use of that option. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
14. #1 Upon careful consideration, I've come to conclusion that there really isn't any reason to include minor campaign attacks in a biography, no matter how much noise a small group of editors is willing to make. #3 I would be willing to support this version. Although personally I feel it is a campaign issue (and a minor one at that) requiring no mention in the bio, the consensus seems to be leaning towards some mention of Ayers. Given that, #2 doesn't particularly work because it doesn't provide enough context for why we are mentioning this particular person (as opposed to any other random guy who he crossed paths or worked with in Chicago). The others seem to go too far in the other direction (far too much information that is irrelevant to Obama). --Loonymonkey (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
15. No. 7 was chosen by Andyvphil here "I strongly suspect there will be more information on this subject, but I can accept this for now ..." WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :"... if it is modified to indicate that it wasn't some random fundraiser, but the announcement of Obama's first political campaign." Actually, I think the alternatives we are answering are the wrong ones entirely. The Woods and first Chairman of Chicago Annenberg Challenge[4][5] positions belong in Early Career, with no need to mention Ayers in that context at this point since we don't yet have RS demonstrating that the Ayers connection was then significant to Obama's career. (This may change[6] once the Repubs, who don't have Clinton's perennial problems of a certain blindness to the issues due to shared POV, and not wanting to alienate a motivated portion of potential workforce, fundraising, and electorate, get seriously involved.) Ayers needs to appear with Rezko and Wright in the campaign section, where the significance is clear. Andyvphil (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ...and indeed somenone has removed all mention of Ayers from Early Career. So I've gone ahead and made the campaign mention more specific.[7] The hagiographers will no doubt have the whitewash back in place by the time you see this. Could've written it a little better, but some editors don't like "Ayers joined Obama" and I'll try to oblige even half-reasonable expressions of concern. Andyvphil (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
16. #4 or #5 get equal first-ranked votes, #3 or #7 get equal second-ranked votes, #2 next, #1 and #6 equally last. I'm a "Sanger co-founder" of WP:08. JJB 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
17. No. 3 or No. 4. It is appropriate to mention Ayers, note who he is (Weathermen founder), and link to the relevant articles. Ayers's wife has not been a significant issue in the campaign, let alone in Obama's life. Ayers himself barely ranks as a minor character. All we have is one mention in the debates and scattered newspaper stories (very few in proportion to the total amount of stories written on Obama or the campaign). It's about on par with the flag pin thing, which would be silly to mention here.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
18. #3 Like Loony, I don't think Ayers needs to be in this bio at all, just a brief mention in the separate campaign article - I'd point out that the story has not increased in significance in the mainstream media as time has passed - but I too can see that some folks won't give up on it here so I can live with option #3. Dohrn does not belong in this article, and the higher numbered options are inappropriatedly detailed, and done so with bias. So I can support #3, but would prefer #1. Tvoz/talk 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
19. #5 is my preference, but #3 seems acceptable as well. I fail to see where those two options apply undue weight or push a POV. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
20. 8. Instead of phrasing the coincidence of their joint affiliation as notable, it would be better to approach this from a NPOV perspective in a list of criticisms, controversies, etc - "commentators such as X criticized Obama for his ties with Bill Ayers" to begin, then a description of Ayers, then a description of the associations, then a description of Obama's statements on the matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
21. No. 8, since you're asking. To refute the deliberate misinterpretation below by one of the Whitewash Brigade, this means No. 7 plus the words "unrepentant terrorist" and a brief list of Weatherman bombing targets, along with appropriate RS links. 68.29.208.59 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
22. No. 1 - nothing in this particular article. Move this discussion to his presidential campaign article if you like, but 'suggestions' such as the one directly above this one speak for themselves. We're an encyclopedia, not a red-top tabloid - try to keep that in mind before you destroy the Wikipedia project. We have a Bill Ayers article, and we have a Bill Ayers election controversy article. Why are these 'helpful Wikipedians' here so interested in copying the ooh! ooh! parts of those articles (and much, much more!) into this one? Because they're deathly afraid some credulous voter, somewhere, somehow, might miss their propaganda war. Nice try guys, but that sort of thing really belongs in personal blogs. Not in Wikipedia. Tell you what - why don't you write equally 'scandalous' material about each and every other person who served on the Woods board with Obama? You know, like the directors of USB and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill? How about all the other people who served on panels with Obama? Or who donated to his campaign? Instead, all you do is find a new place to have this same ridiculous argument, each time hoping you can restrict it to your 'buddies' and quickly come to some fake consensus before 'normal Wikipedians' can find where you've squirreled it away. And I'm suppoed to assume good faith on your part? I'm not that gullible and stupid, thank you very much. imo you're a disgrace to the mission of Wikipedia - and worse, you don't care. Flatterworld (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
23. I withdraw from the poll, and reject it as being useful for building consensus. This Ayers business is a WP:BLP matter, and this vote is moot. Furthermore, the "spectrum" of options creates a false dichotomy which isn't useful for establishing consensus (as evidenced by those attempting to create a numerical average as "consensus"). Shem^(talk) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
24. No. 4. I think it's important to have some fact about Ayers in this article, or else nobody will understand why he is being mentioned or why controversy about him exists. Noting that he founded Weatherman is about as neutral as you can get -- it only has negative connotations if you already know what the organization is and have a negative viewpoint about it. At that point, you're entitled to your opinion about the guy. If you don't know what it is, you can click the link to find out without first having your opinion informed by all the vocabulary people are freaking out about ("violent," "terrorist," etc). That said, I don't think the Bio section is the place for it. We can't verify what actual impact Ayers had on Obama personally, only on his campaign. Slurms MacKenzie (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
25. #5 - second choice #4. Definitely not this watered-down-let's-not-step-on-anyone's-toes of #8, nor #1. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
26. #5 then #4. That is enough detail and not POV. Hope I am not too late.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
27. #1, this is a fellow-traveller allegation. And if you don't believe that, would YOU like to be tarred with the sins of anybody you ever worked with for your whole life? --BenBurch (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This !voting, as per WP:VOTE guideline, only opens consensus discussion, which continues below

Tally

"13 of the 25 votes cast have indicated that #3 would be acceptable (6 of those as clear first choice), with more than twice the number of votes of the next choice. #1 is first choice of 7 editors. (votes on #8 are hard to place in the scale)" ---ANONYMOUS--- Please sign and date any such selective "tally". Andyvphil (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But nearly high a %----13-out-of-20---go along with something more inclusive. — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This count by Justmeherenow is simply incorrect. It's hard to know how to interpret the new vote for "#8" (to me it says to use exactly the wording currently on the page [which I wrote]), but it's not very specific about characterization or verbosity. In any case, someone saying "#4 is acceptable" is fundamentally different from accepting 5+, they cannot be lumped together. #5-#7 are fundamental violations of WP:BLP, are directly libelous, and can never be allowed on WP (and thankfully, they also only get a few fringe "votes"). #3 is still a bit better than #4, but either is factual rather than libel, and the two word difference has nothing to do with "more inclusive". LotLE×talk 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How interesting that that many votes should be on the page ... how do you suppose that happened? How many more votes do you expect we'll get by tomorrow afternoon? Don't count your chickens before they're hatched, although I guess my preference isn't going to make it. But it's just a guess. Noroton (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Since options are presented among a spectrum, which falls on its median? Eg among 19 votes among options 1-7, we statistically throw out----OK folks, this is only figuratively----nine top-spectrum votes and nine bottom-spectrum votes to be left with exactly one at mid-spectrum. Which happens to be mid 3-to-4.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible ballots

• "!vote of 4.5" I believe constitutes JJB's vote — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already there as vote #16 above. JJB 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

We could try finding the average vote, it would at least be interesting to see. Turn the vote number into points, add the points up and divide by 11 (number of people who voted). Some people has said they would accept more than one number eg 2,3 or 4, their point score should be considered to be 3 therefore. We need a total score and divide it by the people. Otherwise we are discounting the "fringe" views of people on both sides, those who say 1 or 2 and those who say 6+. Theoretically they will cancel eachother out, but it should be seen that they were included in the mix. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The average choice using Realist's method, converting each number and adding them up, then dividing by the number of editors who posted their choices, is 4.4333333 so any effort to install any "consensus" for anything other than No. 4 or No. 5 at this point is illegitimate. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not balanced. 1 and 2 are not fringe opinions, they're valid concerns about weight and relevance. 3 already has some weight and sourcing problems because it claims there is an "association" between Obama and Ayers. The fact that a single person held a single fundraiser for a politician says next to nothing about the politician; it's included only for the controversy. Anything 5 and above is heavy-duty POV pushing. The problem is that it assumes we have a reasonable distribution of fair editors with different opinions. I see a considerable number of reasonable editors plus a handful who have flocked here to try to discredit someone running for office. If this were an either / or question of including controversial content or not those POV-pushers would sooner or later be left out of a consensus. By posting this as a spectrum of just how much controversial content to include it gives them too much weight. Wikidemo (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You must also understand though that those people who vote 6+ consider 1 or 2 a "fringe". It works both ways and we must respect eachothers opinions even if we disagree. Accusing the 6+ of trying to derail the campaign of Obama is a huge breach of AGF. It can be argued that both sides here have an agenda or it can be argued that both sides are trying to do what they feel is best for the article. Please dont discredit the anti obama people of destroying the article, likewise the pro obama side shouldn't be accused of whitewashing. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not work both ways, and there is no breach of AGF by noting disruptive and POV edits for what they are. As I said, when there is a range of reasonable opinions there can be a reasonable discussion along that line. When there are tendentious POV editors on one side and people trying to keep order, it makes no sense to pretend the discussion is anything other than what it is.Wikidemo (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have the lowest score, i disagree with your opinion as much as I do the 6+ people, i still respect both sides though. I wouldnt call you a whitewasher and I wouldnt call them "trying to derail Obamas chances". Personally, i voted for 3 so you would think i would be jumping up and doww with happiness that most agree. However i want both extremes to be heard as well, even if it shifts away from being 3. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. But no, a number of people correctly surmise the subject does not deserve a mention in this article, and should instead be covered elsewhere, per content policies and guidelines, but the way the vote is structured it assumes a fait accompli that we should cover it. Thus, I am dubious that this process can achieve any real consensus. Please don't confuse taking a position in the middle of a biased pack with neutrality. Wikidemo (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a breach of anything, it's a fact. The very fact that you characterize people as "anti obama" and "pro obama" makes that clear. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to carry out political agendas -- and that's the only reason to include this stuff on this page. -- 98.108.203.136 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments (please remove your votes from the comment section)

Comment. Ayers is (or was) a current campaign issue that does not belong in the "Early Life" section, where it was given undue weight and misplaced as being significant (in its own right). Its best fit is in the campaign section where it is now, as a barely notable reaction to a debate. But, on the particulars that might be agreed too? Eke! I'll abstain on that question for the moment. Modocc (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the issue is related to the campaign, and the media coverage it has drawn should be covered in the campaign article; however, in this BLP I think it would be best situated in the "Early life and career" section for reasons of chronological accuracy. There is a difference between describing the association (appropriate for "Early life and career") and describing the controversy surrounding the association (appropriate for the campaign article, but not really for the biography). That is why I went the route of the examples I offered above. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But, Scjessey, the amended text is not describing their association! It is only a coatrack about a controversy about Ayers' prior militancy. The "concerns" may or may not have little bearing on the significance of their relation, but its not for us to make such a case, and the airing of the particular "concerns" raised belong elsewhere. I'd prefer examining additions to the current consensus version. At least two contributing editors on opposing sides as well as others support the current placement. Modocc (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the original consensus text (option 2) neatly describes how Ayers and Obama were associated (Woods fund, fundraising event). The controversial aspects of Ayer's life can only be gleaned by following the blue link to his biography - a solution which I still believe is the most appropriate. Options 3 and up are the versions which fall into WP:COATRACK issues, but it must be understood that these are just examples designed to illustrate the level of detail, rather than actual usable text (as I indicated in my introduction to the section). I'm trying to get a sense of the specifics of what to include, and once that is agreed upon we can figure out how best to incorporate those specifics into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We will have to disagree then. I'm OK with getting a "sense" of specifics perhaps (I've seen plenty put forth). But, the level of importance of Ayers involvement in his early life is very controversial. Thus, in my view, the later scrutiny in the campaign section is the more appropriate NPOV context that should be used to introduce Ayers content into the article. Modocc (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Weathermen engaged in about twenty bombings. They went on to rob armored cars and kill people. Makes them different from the FSM and the SDS, but like the BLA. Unlike AQ and the IRA, not everyone knows this. The idea that ought to introduce the name without explanation is absurd. Describing Ayers as a "former radical activist" is concealment. He's said he doesn't regret the bombings. It was the first Obama candidate clatch he hosted, not some random one. He selected Obama to head the Annenberg Challenge and Obama at the least didn't object to bringing Ayers onto the Woods Board and Ayers' later selection as chairman, since both decisions were by consensus. There's two POVs on the significance of this and NPOV requires not suppressing either. Andyvphil (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Weathermen has its own article and the expectation for #4 is that it will be linked in this article. Anyone that is unclear as to what the group was can click on the link and discover more about the group. The whole point of the links between articles in Wikipedia is that if someone is not familiar with the term, they can click on the link and find out about that term.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think this makes more sense to introduce in the campaign section. While it's not strict chronology of initial acquaintance, that follows the chronology of what made something (perhaps) worth putting in the bio. Likewise, if there is discussion of Wright, it shouldn't solely (or mostly) be at 1985 in the the chronology, but rather at 2008.LotLE×talk 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• No attempt has been made in this supposedly broad range of options to get at the central point that several of us have made above -- that the biggest reason why Ayers has been a controversial association for Obama is that he was violent as well as unrepentant about it. That Scjessy would ignore this in his supposed fair attempt to describe the range of options, after all that's been discussed about this already, makes me deeply suspicious at the same time that Scjessy is calling for "civil" discussion. If you sincerely want civil discussion, why provoke irritation among most of the people who so far have disagreed with you? The way you set these options up doesn't give confidence that you're actually trying to reach an actual consensus. If I'm wrong, Scjessey, feel free to admit your mistake, and add my option to the mix. And if I've missed something in my description of how you've done this, feel free to correct me and I'll drop my suspicions. As I said at 23:43 May 27: I just want the situation with Ayers accurately presented with just enough detail that readers will get the gist of it and be able to follow a blue link or two to find out more. I suggested this language before and I'll bring it up here again. Call it "Option 7":

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities.[13] In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996.[13] Obama's association with Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Noroton (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect there will be more information on this subject, but I can accept this for now if it is modified to indicate that it wasn't some random fundraiser, but the announcement of Obama's first political campaign. Andyvphil (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

@Noroton - I think you have misunderstood my intention here. If you note #7 of the list above, you will see that there are additional "options" available that I simply didn't write. The example text I offered was not intended to be the actual wording, but merely a representation of the "sliding scale" of views. This is more of a fact and opinion-gathering exercise to see if we can move toward a consensus. I will immediately add your "option" to the list (so that #7 will become #8) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But of course it's not a sliding scale, it's one end of a sliding scale. Therefore it fails as an exercise toward a broad consensus. What it does is build up a group of exclusionist editors in order to face down the inclusionist side. That's not consensus-building, and ultimately it won't be effective. Look, out there in the real world, if you look at the coverage so far, the overwhelming consensus is that these associations of Obama's (and this is one of the top ones) have been a big issue in the campaign, and his controversial associations are definitely about his life. Ultimately, you're not going to get a consensus to either erase the article's coverage of that or whitewash it by removing essential details (that is, the bare outline of what made these associations controversial). Like it or not, this article is too big for a broad range of Wikipedians to accept that kind of treatment -- not for Obama, McCain, Clinton or George W. Bush. If I'm wrong, we'll see, but I warn you: It's better to attempt a moderate compromise on something this prominent, because the pressure won't stop and eventually you'll lose. If I'm wrong, we'll just see, but I recommend that you re-evaluate your strategy and position. Noroton (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I was distracted by a disruptive edit just a little while ago, and I must have ignored your last two sentences. I appreciate that, and you've removed my suspicions. Thank you. I'm crossing out that part of my post immediately above. Noroton (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Norton, you can put what you like on the list of suggestions, but frankly no1 aside you will agree with it, hardly anyone here wants to go above 5 on the scale, add what you like but you wont get much support. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. Nice user name, by the way. Noroton (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I too think Noroton is unduly hopeful of wider attention from editors with less impacted bias, but we'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would note that the current language is almost exactly "#3", which is getting majority support among editors. The only difference is that the current language (because I wrote it carefully) avoids any suggestion about why Ayers joined the board (i.e. not implying it was to "join Obama" or whatever). Of course, the language currently there is also in the Prez Election section, where I, at least, think it flows better. To put it there, a slightly different sentence structure is needed, but not different in respect to the characterization discussion (LotLE×talk 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)):

Obama's association with Bill Ayers was also questioned in an ABC debate. Former radical activist Bill Ayers had joined Obama on the Woods Foundation board in 1999 and had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996.

I also think that Kaiwhakahaere makes a good point above regarding "he was joined on the board" which implies intent and would change that phrase to read something like "In 1999, also joining the board was Bill Ayers..." ' or something a little less awkward. Tvoz/talk 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that edits should be evenhanded and come from a NPOV, but to me the most important issues should be notability (within the context of that article) and verifiablity of the information in question. No doubt the people listed above should be included in the respective articles, but they shouldn't take up a majority of the article (and some of them are more notable than others within the context of each person - i.e. Wright > Rezko within the Obama artice). My $0.02. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair treatment of Obama should be similar to how we treat other candidates

I would like anybody who thinks that it is wrong to mention other people associated with Obama in this article to consider how Wikipedia treats the following biographies of the major candidates:

• Hilary Rodham Clinton — numerous mentions of various people that put Clinton in a negative light. Regarding people associated in some way with Clinton:
  • The Presidential campaign of 2008 section has three sentences on Norman Hsu, who was certainly less close to Clinton than the Rev. Wright has been to Obama.
  • The same section has several sentences on comments by another Clinton associate who puts the candidate in a bad light: Bill Clinton's controversial comments about race and the campaign. Surely that is worth keeping in the article on Hilary Clinton.
  • The same section has two sentences on Geraldine Ferraro's comments that put the Clinton campaign, and by extension, Hilary Clinton, in a bad light in the eyes of some.
  • Regarding other negative information on Clinton (usually full paragraphs on each thing mentioned), there is the cattle futures contract (in two different places in the article), conflict-of-interest charges in Arkansas regarding the Rose Law Firm; controversy involving her term on the Wal-Mart board of directors; the controversy/investigation on missing legal papers in her East Wing White House office regarding the Whitewater controversy; and Clinton's sniper-fire gaffe during the campaign (a sentence).
• John McCain:
  • Information on Richard Keating (footnotes 84-87; John McCain#House and Senate career, 1982–2000 section: Amount of space: two paragraphs
  • ADDED POINT: The article does not mention the Rev. John C. Hagee whose controversial remarks about Catholics and about the Holocaust caused McCain to disassociated himself from the minister. The article also does not mention McCain's ties to a lobbyist that some suspected was having an affair with him. (Personally, I think the Hagee stuff belongs in that article, in a sentence or two, and a link to the lobbyist controversy article should also be there, but it's a point in favor of the exclusionist side in this discussion that those two people are not mentioned in the article.)
• Rudy Giuliani:
  • Rudy Giuliani#Early life and education: This section opens by telling the reader his father "had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing" and worked as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law who "ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn." Mind you, this last quote is about Giuliani's uncle.
  • The Mayoral campaigns, 1989, 1993, 1997 section has a subsection called "Appointees as defendants" consisting of a paragraph each on scandals/controversies involving Russell Harding and Bernard Kerik, and the Kerik paragraph is preceded by: "Main article: Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik" Kerik is mentioned in at least two other places in the article. "Post-mayorality" section is one ("Politics" subsection), and the "Family" section, where the last paragraph is a sentence stating that Giuliani is godfather to Kerik's children.
  • Other negative information on Giuliani includes part of the Legal career section, which opens with details his draft deferment in a paragraph; another paragraph is devoted to criticism of his setting up public perp-walks for arrested Wall Street bigwigs and then eventually dropping prosecutions of them. That paragraph is larger than Giuliani's leading the prosecution in one of the biggest Mafia trials in history (perhaps the most important).

Presidential candidates are big boys (and a big girl), and they get tough treatment in the media because they are trying to get a very powerful, very important job. We don't overprotect them on Wikipedia just as the U.S. media and international media don't protect them. The exclusionist side of this discussion appears to want far higher standards for inclusion of information about Obama than we have for Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani. This goes against both Wikipedia practice and policy & guidelines. Anyone who scrolls up can find a (too-long, I admit it) examination of how Wikipedia treats past presidents Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman and even William McKinley (see "More candidates for the fat farm" subsection). All those articles also mention people associated with the subject of the article, including in a negative context. This information is commonly thought to be necessary to fully understand the subject of the article. So I have a question for the exclusionist side: What is it about the Ayers, Wright and Rezko situations that justifies treating Obama any different from the other candidates? If you can't answer this, you should support Option 7. Noroton (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted above ("ADDED POINT"), I just added a point in the McCain section. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that making POV statements about people with an alleged connection to the candidate is inappropriate, no matter who the candidate is. "Unrepentant" is an opinion, NOT a factual statement. It's not about Obama, it's about Ayers, who is not the subject of this article. Two reasons not to put it in. I also think it's disingenuous to say that words like "unrepentant" and "terrorist" are necessary to let readers know what the controversy is about. Saying there is a controversy, with a link to the explanation of the controversy, is absolutely all that is necessary to let any reasonable reader know that clicking on the link will take them to an explanation, presumably with all the nuances involved. Adding characterizations of the parties involved, even if "supported" by other media sources (whether it's the NYT or the National Review), does not make the characterizations neutral. Especially when the sources themselves are opinion (or "analysis") pieces. Mfenger (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I haven't seen the word "terrorist" used on this page for a while, although my #7 uses "violent" and "unrepentant". (2) Your position is that the main biography page should obfuscate as to the actual nub of whatever controversy is being referred to. Mine is that we should be as clear as possible consistent with being relatively brief. That's what is done in the other biography articles I link to. (3) It is a simple fact, as you know from reading the discussion earlier on this page, that the mainstream reliable sources agree on "unrepentant" and "violent" and even if you were to consider it an opinion, Wikipedia reports on opinions. (4) I saw a very supportive comment about Ayers at the bottom of one of his blog pages, signed M[ichael?] Fenger. Was that you, Mfenger? (5) Please address my point: Why should Obama be treated differently from the norm of similar articles? Noroton (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I would say that "violent" and, more emphatically, "unrepentant", are unnecessarily POV; as I also said, it seems to me that the #3 selection is descriptive enough to let any reasonable reader know that clicking on the link will send them to the discussion fo the particulars. (2) It's not "obfuscation", it's avoiding charged terms in favor of neutral terms. Certainly, #3 gives enough information to anyone interested in learning more about the controversy, especially given the information provided in the linked article. (3) The fact that others share an opinion that Ayers is "unrepentant" in an opinion or an analysis piece (or in multiple opinion pieces) doesn't allow wikipedia to state "unrepentant as a fact, (4) Yes, that was my comment — that blog piece was the basis for my conclusion that "unrepentant" was an inaccurate representation of Ayers's views. As I said above, "repentant" woulds also be inaccurate IMO. But, the lack of an unequivocal [if such a thing could exist] apology does not equal unrepentant. Especially if, as Ayers points out, any given actor could say that an apology is insufficient. (5) I think that the standard I'm advocating for should be applied to other similar articles. That is, the details should be in the linked articles, and the emotionally-charged POV terms should be eliminated from the articles, to the extent that they exist. I certainly haven't participated in the editing of those articles — I came to this article based on the Ayers comments, and my belief that the guilt by association storyline is making a mountain out of a molehill. I personally doubt that Obama shares much, if any, worldview with Ayers, and that making that assertion based on their "association' is unworthy of an encyclopedia. There's plenty of it on the sites like National Review; I believe that linking to sources like that are best done on the linked site, not the main one, given their status as opinion. Mfenger (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot directly compare the Barack Obama biography to those other biographies from a content standpoint, because this particular BLP is written in summary style and the others are not (although a couple of them seem to be "half and half"). Because we have adopted SS here, we are able to go into much greater depth in the associated sub articles, resulting in more detail than you get with the other politicians mentioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the other candidates' articles, I'd argue that their articles're treating all the "controversy" material with undue weight. They should follow the FA-quality example of this article, not the other way around. Shem^(talk) 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

It looks like Noroton has identified a number of examples of inappropriate POV/Soapboxing in articles about other people. Some of them really are quite egregious. He would do Wikipedia a great service to remove (or at least heavily trim) those digressions into third persons that partisans put into other politician articles. If Noroton does not get to it, I might make an effort myself to clean some of that up (obviously though, as we've seen here, cleaning up to encyclopedic standards can often meet great resistance from anti-Bio-Subject partisans). Unfortunately, I can't personally improve millions of articles at once, probably not even dozens where the subjects are living persons of high general interst. LotLE×talk 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, although it is important to bear in mind that the other articles are going to have more detail because they are not written in summary style. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to put my comment on this ... I don't know Obama/Ayers well enough to comment on the choices here. But speaking for the Hillary article, I disagree that there is "POV/soapboxing" in it. The matters covered there are either legal or ethical investigations that she was the subject of, or issues that materially affected her presidential campaign. So for example if Obama had been the subject of a seven-year federal investigation into allegedly improperly firing federal employees and replacing them with cronies from Chicago (Travelgate), I think we'd all agree that it belonged in his main article. And as for matters like Bill messing up Hillary's campaign, the marriage to Bill has brought Hillary both very good things and very bad things, and is one of the major themes of the whole article. It belongs too. These parts of the Hillary article weren't put there by "partisans", but in fact accurately reflect the weight the topics are given in all of the mainstream, neutral biographies of Hillary. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And as for McCain, the material on Charles Keating is there not because McCain was a friend of Keating or because Keating said outrageous or embarrassing things. It's there because McCain was the subject of a multi-year inquiry as to whether he had improperly intervened with federal regulators to block an investigation of Keating's savings and loan practices. In the context of the nationwide savings and loan crisis, Keating Five became the major scandal of McCain's career, and for a while threatened to end it early. It deserves the treatment it has there. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Loud footfalls in the hall. A foot-long hollow tube thrown through the transom lands on the floor with a thud. Attached with a cord, this crumpled communique: ANy ThiNg LeSs ThaN N^o 9 PluS ¹/₂ WiLl Be MeT WiTh THe PeoPleS' ReSiStaNcE----TEXTUALEVOLUTIONFRONT — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Where can I get some of that stuff you are smoking? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If put into quotation marks and linked to a reliable and neutral source, indicating that they are the source's words and not Wikipedia's, the phrase "unrepentant terrorist" might be included. There are many, many politicians whose Wikipedia biographies contain details about other people. I have completed a extensive review of about 100 senators, governors and major party presidential candidates from the past 20 years, comparing not only Wikipedia biographies, but also Encyclopedia Britannica biographies. I can't find any that do not contain some details about other people. This seems to be standard encyclopedic practice. Some editors are trying to say, "The way that I have made this article is right. All of those other articles are wrong. You inclusionists need to go out there and do all the work, to bring all of those other articles up to my standards, because I'm right, and all of those other people are wrong. Even the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. They're all wrong." Surely any reasonable person can see what they're doing. You may call them exclusionists or deletionists, or whatever you choose. I will call them Obama campaign volunteers. That is the most accurate descriptive term. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. What we cannot do is go into detail about the other people's lives, beyond what is necessary to reasonably identify them. That policy should apply to all BLPs. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is missing the point. We not only can, but must go into a little detail about other people since all other articles I've seen about prominent politicians do so. For the purposes of this article, "what is necessary to reasonably identify" Bill Ayers? Would Obama's friendship with a "university professor" be notable? No.

Is Obama's friendship with an "unrepentant terrorist" notable? Yes, because that's where the controversy resides. Stephanopoulos didn't ask Obama about any of his many other friendships with professors. He only asked about this one. What is it that makes Ayers stand out from all of Obama's other friends, or all of the other professors Obama has known? What is it that makes him notable? It is his status as a founder of the Weathermen. If not for that, Stephanopoulos never would have started a nationally televised debate with a question about Ayers. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Then let's designate Ayers as "Weathermen founder" instead of using language that you must admit is very charged. For people who know about the Weathermen, this will still carry the same weight, right? And for those who don't, we wouldn't want to deny them the chance to reader the Weathermen article and decide for themselves whether (that) the organization was these things. Slurms MacKenzie (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving from vote to integration

It seems we have achieved a broad consensus for a level of detail outlined in #3 of the listed choices. Here is a slightly modified version of that text (a link now includes an anchor), with the references now included:

Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

I would like to suggest that this paragraph be added to the "Early life and career" section, with all other references to Ayers (currently in the campaign section) removed. I think that the last sentence of the paragraph satisfies the "campaign-related issue" problem (especially since I have updated the link to point to the "media coverage" section of the campaign article). I have checked the two references against the proposed text and I can find no synthesis issues. - Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. Average of all choices is 4.433333 and if a few more choices on the high end of the scale come in, such as Fovean Author, it goes over 4.5 and gets rounded up to 5. For now, the consensus option is No. 4, not No. 3. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple list of agree/disagree comments seems appropriate:

• AGREE -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• OPPOSE — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Once this process is through, however its chips fall, participants should refrain further from edit warring on this point.

• • agree — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no "association" shown between Ayers and Obama, and the fact of it being a minor controversy in the campaign is a weight problem here. What happened is not "media scrutiny" but attack politics. Additionally, the process has not had adequate participation and is flawed in a way that will ensure coatracking. "Chips fall where they may" is no way to write articles; any result reached this way does not seem binding and is unlikely to hold. Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're disagreeing with No. 3's being the consensus? Or disagreeing with starting this up/down poll now, Wikidemo? :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any apparent agreement that might be reached among this group for one level of detail or another about these various campaign mini-scandals is a consensus to include the material, not the sort of consensus Wikipedia tries to implement. Moreover, the process of going down each of the controversies one by one in sequence to agree on how much emphasis to place is not a good approach, and would result in coatracking of a lot more controversy than would otherwise be in an article. Two more have been proposed so we're up to five. How many would we process in this way - ten? Twenty? For all the candidates? I know it's an attempt to restore order, but it's a symptom of the breakdown in good editing. A more sensible approach is to decide, globally, how to handle articles about politicians engaged in campaigns, and not allow case-by-case deviations. The outcome of that approach would be, and probably is already, that the thrusts and parries of political theater belong in campaign articles, whereas the bio articles are about the people themselves and their significant career moments and life events.Wikidemo (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, but I was just getting fed up with all the edit warring. I felt like there was no choice if there was going to be any kind of article stability. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've begun asking for wider comment from people who aren't habitues of this talk page. I've started on the talk pages of other candidate articles. I'm going to continue that process today and tomorrow. There are not nearly enough editors involved in this discussion and those that are have what I think is too parochial a viewpoint for an article that is this important to Wikipedia. Wikipedia should get this article right, and this article will only get more important over time. You can try to close the discussion down now while you have a small number giving you a temporary consensus, or you can wait another couple of days as others stream in. But this discussion is not over. It's barely started. Noroton (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is entirely inappropriate. You are basically conducting a subtle form of canvassing to garner support for your more extreme views, using the inadequacies of other articles to justify yourself. We must move this process forward and go onto the next thing (Wright or Rezko). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP guidelines caution: "(...I)t is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process...."' I have wikifaith Noroton will canvass according to the spirit of this directive. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Justme, but you don't need wikifaith. You can get wikiconfirmation by following the links on my contributions list and reading exactly what I wrote. I've been quite open about what I intended to do for some time. I even mentioned it on the WP:AN/I page in the section (now in archives) was started on the conflict with this article. I can't be sure that people who read the notices will agree with me, but at least they'll create a broader number of Wikipedians, and I think that's good for discussions about neutrality.Noroton (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You made so much of trying to be fair when you thought you'd win, Scjessey. Try to continue to be fair. Otherwise you look desperate. From WP:CANVASS#Friendly notices: Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject, the Village pump, or perhaps some other related talk page, while still only, or in lieu of, posting a limited number of friendly notices to individual editors. Noroton (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still premature to call #3 the "consensus option" at this point. Even though a majority of editors have at this point at least indicated that #3 is acceptable, a majority is not a consensus. It is also premature as far as timing goes. It has been less than 24 hours since real discussion started on this. Wikipedia doesn't react that fast in finding consensus. It should really take at least 5 days of discussion/waiting before we call something a consensus version. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Scjessey's suggestion per my !vote of 4.5 before reading this. As a member of WP:08, I believe Noroton's wish for outside help is appropriate, and going to other articles is also appropriate; if the degree of canvassing was a bit questioned, let's not make every little thing an issue. My comments at Talk:Ron Paul#How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?, written prior to knowing anything of Ayers besides the name, are cross-posted below. I am not watchlisting at this time. JJB 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support brief explanation of up to a couple sentences, with link. It's case by case, but the general answer must be middle-of-the-road as you suggest, unless (for example) criminal charges link the two. Perhaps by this standard Lew Rockwell has too much coverage in this bio article. However this is not a matter of "equal treatment" per se because, say, does Mike Gravel really have any controversial associates? It's a matter of nominal "equal treatment for equal circumstances", and since no two circumstances are ultimately equal, proper weighting in each case. Some associates will need more space than others. Balance is determined by building local consensus and staking out NPOV and POV positions through a group redistricting procedure. JJB 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• OPPOSE the MOVE, May I remind Scjessey of a point you made: "Options 3 and up are the versions which fall into WP:COATRACK issues". Now comments to rehash the opposition/support of a "consensus" version appear to be conflated with the move. The only thing this exercise has done is show editors that if they want a different consensus they have to bring better proposals and better arguments to the table. Remember, consensus is not a vote. User:HailFire [8] was correct in objecting to this coatrack. Yes, Ayers worked on the board and also supported Obama. Sooooo? Obama has attracted many supporters over his career. Why should Ayers be treated any different? Arguably, this proposal to move is giving Ayers undue weight in Obama's life and it is this undue weight that is at the heart of the digression. #3 is already integrated into the article, for the debate is the only reason there are notable sources on the Ayers and Obama association. Modocc (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate methodology

"Average of all choices is 4.433333 and if a few more choices on the high end of the scale come in, such as Fovean Author, it goes over 4.5 and gets rounded up to 5.
* "For now, the consensus option is No. 4, not No. 3."---- WORKERBEE74. Am pollinating (whoever-is-) "WorkerBee"'s suggestion — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

just a note here, I am not sure every one agree's the options are presented as a spectrum from 1 being pro-obama and 8 being anti... at least in between 1 and 5 (or so) you can argue the spectrum is improperly organized at some points, with 4 being more agressive than 5, etc 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• AGREE — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Umm.. That isn't how consensus works folks. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• I can tell you right now that this methodology has absolutely no chance of producing a consensus. And as far as I cant tell, the user known as Fovean Author is only in existence for edit warring, and is currently blocked for just that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, "how (Wikipedia) works" would always be whatever a consensus of editors agree to, not just whatever way you define it. And the arrangement of choices from among a spectrum naturally invites approximating a weight to each vote according to its position along it. — Justmeherenow (   ) 12:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The account User:WorkerBee74 is almost certainly a sock-puppet of User:Kossack4Truth, as is User:Fovean Author. WorkerBee74 started this new round of tirades (including references to the planned votes of K4T/Fovean) exactly when the first two accounts were blocked. Once broader action is taken against those sock-puppet accounts, we can strike out those three "votes", and I believe greater calm will be reached on this page. LotLE×talk 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Call everyone who disagrees with you a sockpuppet or puppet master. Way to AGF there. Kossack is right, it's a really ugly personal attack against all three of them. 68.29.208.59 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (Posted from IP whose sole edit history is on this page)

• Mostly agree per my !vote of 4.5 before reading this, but averaging is misleading because #7 should be #6 and #6 should be about #9.5 because of the undue word "terrorist". JJB 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for demonstrating an odd methodological issue. You get meaningful results by averaging ordinal numbers, that's like asking a sofa for a job reference. Wikidemo (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bobblehead is right - this is not how consensus works. Tvoz/talk 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• It isn't bad. If roughly half want No. 3 (or something close) and roughly half want No. 7 (or something close), then mathematically No. 5 turns out as a fair compromise. 68.29.208.59 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

An aside re zero and infinity

Problem is----most BHO-bio Apologists' ballots really are mathematical zero! The result of which is identical with a statistical method that would require multiplication since zero is/always will be----zero. And its corrollary(sp) is that most BHO-bio Dissidents (seeking to investigate/smear BHO)'s ballots are really mathematical infinity! (∞).

• Therefore it's only fair to throw out, for statistical purposes, any and all ballots from folks at those extremes, even if these together are in the vast majority. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please identify where in WP:CONSENSUS that it says that the opinion of editors that are acting in good faith may be ignored? I've done a quick review and I can't find it, but perhaps my interpretation is incorrect. There is no way to statistically decide that a certain proposed wording is the "consensus version" based upon an arbitrary number that is only used to identify them. You might as well say that because some editors like apples and others bananas, the consensus fruit is a grape. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With an ear for parodox, Bobblehead, you'd hear that the fact there's really no way to mathematically determine a consensus version of text was----EXACTLY----my very point.... :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) --->If you must argue with me, Bobblehead, please do so against the apple of whatever point I'm actually making and not against the orange of some point you're only claiming that I'm making. A compromise is a compromise and just 'cause a compromise is predetermined to be partially iNclusionistic doesn't negate the principle of eXclusionism as an ideal. Even though, in effect, by determing to compromise what's been done is to throw eXclusionist votes out of the hopper. As an anology, John drinks enough water to bloat his tummy contantly as a health regimen. Sally never drinks water as part of her stringent diet, partially as a part of her spiritual beliefs. Yet statisticians looking at average water consumption could conceivably decide their best methodology would be to throw out data from both John and Sally. Still, this apple of a statistical decision would in no wise be making the oranges suggestions that reasonably copious consuption of water isn't beneficial or that "oft-fasting" isn't an excellent spritual discipline. But since ya've got a history of sorta "only finding the ridiculous" in others' beliefs and opinions, Bobblehead, I'm not terribly confident you won't simply discount whatever point I'm actually trying to get at here and also offhandedly label it to the extreme of its having entirely no basis in fact or as being something of no possible utility. Oh well, the fun of dealing with data alongside "fellow near-Aspergers" (lol, figurately speaking) here at WPdia outweighs its downsides. :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[P.S. For those interested, :^) one reason Einsteinian relativity and macro-cosmology can't yet entirely be unified with quantum physics and micro-cosmology (other than attempts via string theory) is because the former uses Cantorian mathematics (which includes in his set theory the "singularities" at mathematical points zero and infinity) while the latter doesn't.
[-Eg, in standard cosmologies,
--at the (Cantorian) point zero-age of the universe was the big bang
[--and at the (Cantorian) point infinity-age of the universe will be
[---either the big whimper (final acceleration into into infinite space) of a open ("infinite") universe ((which might be constantly creating new matter while old matter constantly disintigrates, rendering the universe finite in any "one moment of space-time" [should such a thing be thought to exist], but "infinite" en toto))
[---or, alternately, the big crunch (the entire universe's descelerated expansion to a point of its final collapse back into a single point of nothingness or zero space) of a closed (finite) universe.] — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for spirit of cooperation

After what seemed like a giant step forward in trying to find a consensus over the Bill Ayers inclusion, we seem to have stumbled. Possibly triggered by my attempt to move toward integrating the consensus text, there has been a breakdown of friendly, cooperative discussion. I had thought that most of the regular editors had weighed-in with their votes and opinions, so I began the next step of the process. We can certainly halt that "integration" and have further discussion, if necessary, but I would remind contributors that there are other issues waiting in the queue that must also be resolved. I urge editors to remain cool, avoid personal comments, and try to keep this process moving toward a much-needed conclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, both sides have got to let go, please, for the sake of the articles stability, stop fighting over every little word. If we have/get a consensus further edit warring from EITHER side will be seen as disruptive and could result in a block. Both sides have got to let go and accept the result, please stop name calling and lets get back on track. Please think about the stability of the article and that golden star above politics. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to rush. I agree with Bobblehead's comment just above (16:51, 3 June 2008) that a broader consensus is needed and a longer time is needed to get it. This has been argued within this little group for some time, and this little group can wait a bit longer. There is no need to wait for this discussion to end before starting on Wright and Rezko. In fact, I think that might be a good idea. Noroton (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and cutting of discussion too soon can hurt a spirit of cooperation more than extending discussion until a solid consensus arises. Noroton (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

May i just add, to those who are resisting consensus on both sides. We still have a few other issues to settle after this. Within the next few week there are going to be other things to argue about on the Obama page. I have already heard talk of removing the FA star because of upcoming stability concerns regarding potential presidency. The more things we are edit warring over the more likely it is that the article will be delisted. We really have to resolve these Ayers/wright issues NOW before the next set of issues arise up against John McCain. We need to get this sorted so that we can keep the article stable, please, if you care about the article, lets unit around a compromise before the star is removed. We need to be fully prepared for new issues. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, we've had two or three editors come here in the several hours since I put up the notices about this discussion that I always said I would put up. This sudden impatience itself is not a consensus-building move. Consensus building requires at least some patience. Evening has just started on the East coast, and over the next six hours or so, a lot of U.S. Wikipedians -- adult Wikipedians with day jobs and responsibilities, are going to see those notices. Some will be coming to the page. When those notices have not even been up a day it is passing strange to present them with a debate that has already shut down early for trivial reasons. Consensus is more important than article stability and even more important than maintaining FA stars. I don't see FA stars mentioned on that page that talks about Wikipedia pillars. You want stability? Form a solid consensus and it will be respected by anybody who doesn't want to be blocked. The way it looks so far, you'll probably get a consensus I don't like, but I'll say it again: wait and see. Give it a fair chance. Feel free to start discussions on Wright and Rezko. Noroton (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as it takes is fine with me, just that each side has to let it drop when a consensus is finally reached, sorry if you thought I was rushing the process. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this POV push is most definitely not in the spirit of cooperation. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And your justification for this whitewash is? Andyvphil (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...is more than adequately explained in the edit summary. Stop adding non-neutral details about other people to this biography, especially when the editing community is in the middle of a consensus-building discussion on this very subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus-building discussion of the options

The !votes section above is a good early step in seeing where we are, but building a consensus is going to take a good number of editors discussing the reasoning behind their preferences and with many ultimately agreeing that their preferred option just doesn't have enough support to go into the article. I posted a notice about this discussion in enough places to get a larger number of Wikipedians involved and the response appears to give us a good indication about what editors believe so far. At this point, no matter if more editors join in, I don't expect the pattern of !votes to change without further discussion. The best way, initially, to reach consensus is to make sure we can't change minds first. We may actually be able to move some people toward our position and we may find we're convinced by other arguments (you can see that's happened even during the voting above as people have changed their minds). I'd like to reopen the discussion on some points and address some of the new points that have been made right here and do it with

• (1) VERY CONCISE COMMENTS SO WE DON'T BORE ANYBODY TO DEATH
• (2) No attacks or condemnations of the sincerity of anybody on Wikipedia. It isn't necessary.
• (3) Factual evidence when called for, preferably with links.

Submitted: Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 1: Say nothing about Ayers

• My comments in the subsection Fair treatment of Obama should be similar to how we treat other candidates show that this is not how Wikipedia treats other candidates, and I see nothing in WP policy or guidelines mandating that this is the course to take. Oh, and significant media coverage of this situation has made it a prominent part of the campaign, no matter how much certain editors may not like it. Character matters, associations matter, sometimes loose associations matter, this association matters. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  What on earth does Bill Ayers have to do with Obama's character that isn't a matter of guilt by association? Including negative information about someone because it deflates his "character" for is almost the definition of a coatrack. Wikidemo (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  I see you completely accept the Obama campaign spin on this. "Guilt by association" has a specific meaning of being thought guilty of the same thing as your associate. No one has accused him of that, of course, but that doesn't end the questions. The concern about this association has been that if Obama doesn't think he should disassociate himself from someone like Ayers, then does he have much repugnance for the types of things Ayers did? Instead of denouncing Ayers, he's working with him and going to Ayers' home. Now whether or not you think that ultimately says something about Obama's worldview and sense of propriety, there can be no doubt that it raises the concerns of many people. Similar concerns have been raised (years ago) about Ayers and his wife by the alumni of the universities where they teach and by organizers of an educational conference who disinvited Ayers because of his past. Noroton (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I now think this is the only viable option. There are no reliable sources that can be cited to prove that Ayers planted any bombs, etc., and even if it were so, it was decades before Obama even met the man. Of the few occasions where Obama and Ayers have met, only one appears to be even vaguely notable. I conclude that there is no reason to mention Ayers in this biography at all, as it would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT, which in turn would be a violation of WP:BLP. That being said, it was notable that Obama was asked about Ayers in a TV debate, so it makes sense to mention it briefly in the campaign article; however, that is not a matter for this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey isn't entitled to his own facts. By naming Obama the first Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge the founders of that institution, prominenently including Ayers, placed the spending over five years of $100 million of politically useful grant money under his influence. Obama has denied talking to him "every week", at least nowadays, but no one who knows anything about the subject suggests that Obama has met Ayers on only "a few occasions". Andyvphil (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Press coverage disagrees with you. It extends from mid-February to Michael Kinsley's column in the May 29 Time magazine. Every major news organization in the country has run stories about this. How do you reconcile "no reliable sources that can be cited to prove that Ayers planted any bombs" with the best source possible: Bill Ayers himself. "I don't regret setting bombs", he said in the first line of a Sept. 11, 2001 New York Times story. (Is this behind their subscription wall? I can email the story.) Four days after the NYT story appeared, Ayers wrote a very critical blog post reprinting a letter he sent to the Times. In his criticism of the article he never said that he didn't tell the reporter "I don't regret setting bombs." You could look it up. BLP specifically allows negative information on public figures and it is extremely hard to argue WP:UNDUE when what's being added is a line or two. Noroton (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Norton that all candidates should be treated the same, but I would do that by removing all controversies from the articles about candidates unless the controversy itself was a significant issue in their life (e.g. Gary Hart's affair with Gennifer Flowers ending Hart's Presidential race), or unless the underlying event was significant to the candidate's life, e.g. being a recovering alcoholic, and further provided that the controversy or scandal is adequately covered as a separate article or as a mention in the article in the campaign(s) in which it became an issue. If those are the rules, and people understand the rules, they won't perceive bias and we won't get so much edit warring and coatracking over political attack pieces. Wikidemo (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we don't demand that every two-line statement in the biography of anyone be a "significant issue in their life." If you cut out anything that didn't meet that standard from this or any other biography, you'd be cutting most of the information out of each. Yes, we should cover only the important negative information in the bio article and cover it as it affects the biography. But the media coverage this matter has gotten is not tabloid coverage and it is important to allow readers a chance to get to the article on it from the bio page. We use media sources for over 100 other parts of this article, and those same news organizations consider this important enough to cover. It's worth a couple of lines in our bio coverage. Noroton (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I beg to differ. I believe we demand that of every article on every subject in Wikipedia, a concept generally described as relevance. Weight is also an issue. Tabloids, political opponents, and enemies try to paint every politician as undesirable based on stuff that sounds bad but is usually unfounded, out of context, out of proportion, irrelevant, or simply untrue. We really shouldn't take part in that game. If it's relevant only to the political process in which the politician is participating, but is not a real issue that is part of their real life, career, or policy, better leave that to the articles about the political process, i.e. the campaign articles. Wikidemo (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • We demand relevance of every whole article, and certainly every section should be a "significant issue in their life", but not every two lines. In my 01:04, 5 June post just above I link to a Google News search of Obama + Ayers. Not every result is about Bill Ayers and it's not all from reliable sources, but there are tons of non-tabloid, non-enemy sources there. This is very much a real issue. It isn't as big as other issues and doesn't deserve massive coverage in this article, but your description is an exaggeration, and I've given you the proof of that. Noroton (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • We have room for Obama to report that he fancies himself a pretty good chili chef. This article is packed with the kind of trivia that Obama's campaign manager loves to see. If there's room for that kind of fluffy trivia, we have room for a treatment of Ayers and his Weatherman past. We have a separate article for United States Senate career of Barack Obama, but we also have room for 980 words in the "U.S. Senate" section in this article. We have a separate article for Political positions of Barack Obama, but we also have room for 1042 words in the "Political positions" section in this article. Surely we have enough room for an equally detailed examination of the presidential campaign, including controversial figures such as Ayers, in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I think Kossak's point puts this two-line addition into perspective. You don't start looking for places to cut prose with items that will not receive a link if you cut them, and you don't start preventing coverage of serious topics before you've pruned the trivia. WP:WEIGHT is not a credible objection. Noroton (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
            • We demand relevance of any fact in the encyclopedia. Extraneous details that cannot reasonably be tied to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject of the article simply don't belong. That's true of trivia too, but where there is less harm there is less urgency. Using the google search test there are 220,000 web pages that mention both Ayers and Obama - Nearly all are blogs, opinion pieces, and coverage of the controversy itself rather than the underlying events, then of course the usual duplicates and random web clutter. But almost certainly among those, there is enough reliably sourced information to show that it's notable for something. I haven't seen any sources that show that the information says anything about Obama himself, other than that people are trying to attack him for having interacted with Ayers. On the other hand there are 60 million web pages that mention Obama. So Ayers is mentioned in 1 out of 300. A news archive search is even more stark: 195,000 articles about Obama[9] of which 95 mention Ayers[10] , a ratio of 1 in 2,000. Given that most of those probably mention things other than Ayers, probably less than 1/5000 of all the discussion of Obama in news sources involve a discussion of Ayers. That's awfully slim. A whole section or even a couple sentences here gives it undue weight. Wikidemo (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a profound and fundamental difference between information about Obama and information about some other person. Of course "unrepentant terrorist bomber" or whatever is more important (albeit not true) than "good chili chef". But in this article, any information, no matter how trivial, about Obama is more relevant that information about somebody else. That said, I think the chili chef thing probably does descend too far towards trivia; we could certainly lose that and save a few words. However, those 1042 words on Obama's political positions are centrally relevant... all these radical anti-Obama partisans seem to utterly forget that this is a biography of its subject, not of "whoever else we can find not to like" LotLE×talk 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If his political positions are that important (and they are), then issues related to his character are also very important for the same reason: One important aspect of any presidential candidate bio is going to be information that voters will be looking for. Now this is not a referendum on the ballot but a flesh-and-blood person. We are not electing a platform but a person with strengths and weaknesses. Who you associate with is one way for voters to judge your strengths and weaknesses. Candidates change positions, but character issues tend not to change as much. This is worth the two lines proposed. Noroton (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything said about Ayers here is about Obama in the sense that we simply describe what was problematic about someone associating with Ayers. It should be clear why we're actually mentioning Ayers here. Before this presidential campaign, organizers of an education conference disinvited Ayers and Northwestern U. alumni protested against Ayers' wife, Bernardette Dohrn, because they were unrepentant about their violent past. But Obama, like much of the Chicago establishment, did not. These details are not worth noting in this article, but they put Obama's association into perspective. Obama's decision to associate with Ayers is about Obama and is important to the voters relationship with him, just as the political positions are. Noroton (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Noroton. Information about Ayers and his relationship with Obama is highly relevant to Obama's notability and therefore belongs in the article for the simple reason that, as a person running for president, he has drawn significant media scrutiny as a result of it. Information about his own assessments of his chili cooking skills are much less relevant. --Floorsheim (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Information about Ayers and his relationship with Obama is highly relevant to Obama's notability"

That is just a ridiculous statement. Obama is most certainly not notable because of his relationship with Ayers!

"as a person running for president, he has drawn significant media scrutiny as a result of it."

That only reinforces the argument that this belongs only in the campaign article, and not in the biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Using words like "ridiculous" in reference to others' perspectives could be taken offensively and give rise to heatedness in discussions. Please avoid such language where unnecessary. My point is not that Obama's relationship to Ayers is his notability. Rather that it is highly relevant to his primary notability as person running for president seeing as he has drawn significant criticism because of it. And that for this reason, it should be included here. Also would like to point out that this article is not an ordinary biography and that some of the familiar intuitions and guidelines concerning BLP's may not apply here. --Floorsheim (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant to his notability at all. Not a single person on Earth has heard of Obama because of his association with Ayers. The coverage of their association is notable, but not the fact of their association. That is why it is only suitable for the campaign article. And how is this "not an ordinary biography" exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an ordinary biography because it's about someone running for president. In the case of most biographies, the facts of interest are facts about the person, their life, their favorite color, etc. Here the facts of interest have a wider scope including but not limited to items which have verifiably influenced the public perception of Obama's electability (the presence of abundant media coverage qualifies).

You are accurate in saying no one knows about Obama because of his association with Ayers. This establishes the point we agree on which is that Obama's relationship to Ayers is not his notability. My point is entirely separate from this. My point is that the facts of the Ayers relationship should be included because they are relevant to Obama's notability as person running for president for the reason that they have led to significant criticism.

Check WP:ROC. You'll find the following general guideline for content inclusion on Wikipedia:

Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed.

The facts of the Wright, Ayers, and Rezko issues clearly qualify.

--Floorsheim (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To a very large extent, Wikipedia allows the mainstream news media (not the extremes represented by World Net Daily and Daily Kos), history book authors, and editors of conventional encyclopedias to decide what is notable. We just report what they're talking about. If they cover it, we cover it. The mainstream media have found the connection between Ayers and Obama to be notable. Ayers himself admits that he planted bombs. Case closed. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your conclusions are all wrong. Re-read this edit to see the degree of wrongness. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of why this is not an ordinary biography. In the case of most persons, Scjessey's linked example provides a case in which media coverage is not an indicator of an issue's relevance to an article. In the case of a person running for president, though, the situation is quite different. The simple fact alone that an issue draws media coverage for such a person immediately brings the issue into relevance. It doesn't matter if we think the issue is silly and shouldn't have drawn media interest, as I in fact do for the most part in this case. What matters is that it has had an impact on that person's public perception, which is probably the most relevant thing of all to his or her primary notability as person running for president. --Floorsheim (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But it would still only be notable with respect to the campaign, and so would belong in the campaign article. In terms of Obama's biography, it is not significant at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring the fact that if it wasn't for the presidential campaign, Obama would be no more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator. Tester's biography is a few hundred words. Because it is the campaign that makes Obama more notable than any other freshman senator, it is the campaign that should receive the lion's share of coverage in this article. That means a fair representation of all significant POVs, including the POV that asks tough questions about Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. This cannot be dismissed as a fringe POV. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kossack. The material belongs in both articles on the grounds that it is highly relevant to the notability of both subjects. It should receive proportionately more weight in the campaign article but should have a presence in both. If you didn't see my link above, Scjessey, please take a look at WP:ROC. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

imo...the Barack Obama article should include a sentence about controversial associates and acquaintances who have attracted media attention, hyperlinking to a section in the Barack Obama presidential campaign article which then summarizes each individual (Wright, Ayers and ? - it takes three to create a 'pattern' voters might buy into) with hyperlinks to the individual articles covering the controversial connections (or lack thereof). All these people are connected, as the political tactic being used is to imply ALL Obama's friends are wild-eyed leftist radicals, which of course isn't true (unless you consider Paul Volcker, Warren Buffett et al to be wild-eyed leftist radicals). Therefore, taking a longer view, the more specific material belongs in the campaign article. (The other main political tactic is a perceived lack of the specific types of experience, and that should also be summarized.) I would also point out we should try to avoid the echo chamber effect of quoting journalists quoting each other. If we did that, most of the off! ooh! factor (from the NYT interview, which is controversial in itself) about Ayers would evaporate. How many of the Wikipedians posting here have read the Bill Ayers election controversy article - or even knew it existed? You're arguing about how to summarize a 'connection' you're barely knowledgeable about (other than what has appeared in the echo chamber media), and that's a problem. (And no, I don't believe that article is 100% accurate at this point, but it's a work in progress.) Flatterworld (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey's original list of suggestions[11] was specifically for the Early Life section. It is not clear to me whether Noroton is now conflating mention in the Early Life section with coverage of the issue in the 2000 Presidential Campaign section. In the current state of RS I support no mention in the Early Life section, but think that the issue of what Obama's voluntary associations tell the electorate about him cannot properly be avoided in the 2008 Presidential Campaign section, and what makes Ayers controversial in that context must be clearly indicated in this article, not concealed behind weasels ("radical activist") and a blue link. Andyvphil (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this option - this is a "fellow traveller allegation" essentially. --BenBurch (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 2: Don't mention Ayers controversial past

Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

• Nobody prefers this option as of this point. Only !Vote 3 gives it as a second or third choice.Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 3: Identifies Ayers as former radical activist

Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996 1995. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny ... (((I just fixed the year. It was '95. Noroton (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC))))

• My problem with this is that former radical activist is too vague. He appears to be a "radical" (vague term) still, and he is certainly an "activist" (another vague word) in some ways, hosting a fundraiser and working for educational reform. Furthermore, being a "former radical activist" is not why scrutiny was drawn to the association, and not why it was controversial. So the sentence can be misleading. The association is controversial because Ayers formerly engaged in violence (bombing of [largely] empty government buildings; organizing a riot in Chicago), and because his later statements, even to the present, have been taken as not being repentant about that. This is also my objection to some other options. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers then-girlfriend died in the premature explosion of a nail bomb intended for a dance at Fort Dix. The custodians were just lucky not to be in the bathroom blown up at the Pentagon. Bernadine Dohrn pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault for her contribution to identity theft used by the group of Weathermen/BLA armed robbers who ended up killing two policemen and a Brinks guard. Calling these two "former radical activists" doesn't quite convey the reality of the situation. Andyvphil (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with Noroton's characterization is that there is zero WP:RS evidence that Ayers formerly engaged in violence or created any bombs. Noroton might speculate on what is "likely" (in his mind), given Ayers' associations 40 years ago, but that's only appropriate for Noroton's blog. No matter what anyone opines in this endless stuff, it will never be acceptable to invent that claim under WP:BLP. Whether Ayers' is "repentant" is always and completely subjective, that can also never go into an encyclopedia without violating WP:BLP and WP:OR. LotLE×talk 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't need to speculate. Ayers admitted it. See 01:04 5 June post in Option 1. This removes the WP:OR objection and the NY Times isn't the only source. There is a mainstream of reporting from WP:RS sources backing this up. LotLE, you are again engaging in WP:NPA personal attacks and lack of civility with "Noroton's charactherization ... is ... an outright lie." Stop poisoning the discussion. You don't have to attack me to make your point, and you're making yourself look bad and me look good whenever you do it. Noroton (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Radical": what is radical? Language can be usefully vague. What is a "party girl"? Well, this could mean a fun woman; sometimes it's a non-judgemental way to describe a woman who is sluttly/promiscuous; and finally sometimes it's a subtle euphemism for ahh..."professional working girl." The same with radical: it could mean "sympathizer in a cause," it could mean "agitator toward proposed changes in society," but it could also mean "armed, active revolutionary." Marvelous! As for "former radical": if a woman involved in a scandal had been outed as a prostitute, it's polite to presume she's thereafter reformed. But "former party girl?" ("Former party girl Mata Hari was seen at a society party[!] yesterday at the Ritz ballroom.") Huh? Getting by degrees less and less encyclopedic here. Once somebody is "formerly," let's go aheads say what the thing was that the person but formerly was! WPdia isn't a Chicago paper trying to be polite with regard an area member of the establishment who was a former revolutionary. In any case, the ("Econ Con" public-policy quarterly) City Journal characterizes Ayers' current education advocacy as "radical" (see here...and this mag has thus editorialized about Ayers prior to the Ayers-Obama controversy in an even earlier piece I believe didn't even reference the Ayers-Obama controversy). While it would be original research to generalize (unsourced) that Ayers' current advocacy is radical, it would likewise be original research to claim that at some point of time Ayers' advocacies had became no longer merely "radical." — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Analogy. The second paragraph of lede at "Menachem Begin" reads, "Begin’s legacy is highly controversial and divisive. As the leader of Irgun, Begin played a central role in Jewish military resistance to the British Mandate of Palestine, but was strongly deplored and consequently sidelined by the mainstream Zionist leadership." As a hypothetical, say that before Begin redeemed his reputation in the Knesset, say there'd been a controversy about some prominent individual's association with Begin. To follow summary style, would it be more precise for WPdia to clue in readers about the nature of this controversy through saying it's due to Begin's having been a formerly strident nationalist or to state it was because he'd been a former leader of the military resistance group Irgun? — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• People can go to the Bill Ayers article to see for themselves what he is all about. Adjectives should be used in this kind of a reference only as much as is useful to identify and frame the reference, not to impart a POV in the article. "Former radical", "Former radical activist", "Former Weathermen leader", etc., all do that equally well. We still have a weight issue with this option. Tossing aside the outliers who believe that Ayers is a "mentor", "friend", or benefactor of Obama, the believable sources all say there is no association at all, just routine interaction of two people who move in the same circles. That would not be mentioned but for its being the subject of attack politics, so the mention rightfully belongs in an article about the campaign, not here. Wikidemo (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • An adequate description of a few words or a phrase is really not unreasonable, IMO, but that's the kind of thing we should be able to get to a consensus on. Noroton (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have a problem with the actual facts in this. Fundraiser in 1996? I know about the meeting at the Ayers house in 1995, but all I can find about 1996 is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24196396/ David Lytel, who worked in the White House for President Clinton from 1993 to 1996 as the White House “web master” and helped create the Whitehouse.gov web site, left in April 1996 and formed Democrats Online, one of the earliest political advocacy sites. During the 1996 Democratic convention in Chicago, Ayers and his wife, Weather Underground alumna Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a fundraiser at their Chicago home for Democrats Online. If that's what you're talking about, it wasn't a fundraiser for Barack Obama. Flatterworld (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• The 1995 fundraiser is the one being referred to. It's a mistake. Noroton (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 4: Identifies Ayers as Weatherman founder

Weatherman founder Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny ...

• It's too vague for the reasons I give in my comment in Option 3 with this timestamp. It's not that he founded an organization that makes him controversial, it's that he founded an organization involved in violence. We can't expect readers to know what "Weather Underground" was and we shouldn't make them follow the link just to find out. That's not serving the reader. Especially when we can fix the problem with the addition of a few words. In fact, as my preferred Option 7 shows, we don't need to even mention the name of the group, because the exact name is not necessary, and even the fact that he was a member of a particular group is not necessary. The quality of his past actions and his attitude toward those past actions is the issue, not the group. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Same point of fact question (1996 fundraiser?!) I had with option 3. Beyond that, I would be surprised if anyone reading this article wouldn't have enough sense to click on the hyperlink if they didn't know anything about the group. Such as, if they've been marooned on a desert island for the past few months with no media feeds. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• This is my preference. No value judgments, but the link is given so people can find out for themselves. Maybe we can't expect the reader to know what WU is, but if they see that it has made the guy controversial, one hopes they would have the intellectual curiosity to visit one link. And I would say the name is necessary, since those past actions manifest through the organization. If he were only a member, it would be one thing, but he was the founder, so it's reasonable to expect that the group's ideals follow his closely. Slurms MacKenzie (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 5: Mentions Dohrn, links both to Weather Underground, called "militant activist" group

Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who during the 1970s were co-founders of the Weather Underground (a militant activist organization), would later draw media scrutiny ...

• Adding Dohrn is unnecessary detail. Weather Underground was more than "militant", it was extremely violent (although they didn't want to murder people -- we should give them that). I see no reason to substitute "violent" with "militant" -- it just does no good and it isn't disputable that they weren't violent. What is the reason for calling them "militant" rather than "violent"? The words "activist organization" is an improvement over Option 4. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Dohrn absolutely has no place in any of this. If that was removed, this one would be within the bounds of WP:BLP. However, "violent" is definitely not permitted; no one was injured or killed in any Weatherman action (except themselves). It's a subjective argument whether destruction of property (even with bombs) is "violent," but "militant" is clearly accurate. However, the reason we have wikilinks is so that we don't have to rewrite articles inside parentheses, so this reduces to #4 if written in a professional style. LotLE×talk 00:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Dohrn co-hosted Ayers' fundraiser and reception in the mid-1990s that launched Obama's career. Dohrn worked at the same law firm as Michelle Obama. They crossed paths frequently. It is worth a mention, with Dohrn's name in the form of a blue link to her Wiki biography. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I like this one. Dohrn seems relevant to me; I'm comfortable with "militant"; and I feel "Weather Underground" needs to be explained. I might prefer to spell out just a bit more exactly what "militant" means but am willing to let it slide. As far as that goes, the bomb that exploded in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion was intended to hurt people, as evidenced both by the construction of the bomb (nail bomb) and by reports of former members. --Floorsheim (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• The first sentence here has no verb (it has one but not one for the subject of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • All options have this same problem. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Dohrn's even more irrelevant than Bill Ayers is. (Take that any way you life, but I mean in connection with Barack Obama.) Flatterworld (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 6: Calls Ayers unrepentant terrorist bomber, includes most Option 5 info

unrepentant terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who during the 1970s were co-founders of the Weather Underground (a militant activist organization), would later draw media scrutiny ...

• I just noticed that, like Option 2, there's no support for this in the !voting. My comment immediately below is probably unnecessary. Sorry. Noroton (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Calling Ayers a terrorist bomber may be technically correct: It seems reasonable to suppose that Weatheer Underground wanted to sow "terror" in the population by setting bombs. Objections: (1) The word terrorist tends to imply that someone wants to or is ready to kill people, and Weather Underground specifically wanted to avoid that. We do no harm by replacing terrorist with violent. (2) The word bomber is too constricting. One of the key points against the Weather Underground was that the group worked to set off a riot. People were injured in that riot. We don't need to add a lot more words here in order to make all these distinctions. Just drop the word bomber since either "terrorist" or "violent" gets the entire point across. I'm also not sure he's definitively admitted to setting bombs instead of just supporting it as a member of the group -- if we can't source it, it's a BLP violation. (3) Both words are more controversial than I think we can ever get consensus for, and violence is just as good. Not every option will have the full emotional affect of others, and that shouldn't matter -- the goal should be to provide the minimum amount of information necessary for an adequate understanding of why this association was controversial. For my objection to unrepentant see my comment at Option 7, same time stamp as this one. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers book isn't online, but Factcheck.org writes, "[The] bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground [were] at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, in a men's lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and in a women's restroom in the Pentagon in 1972." [12] Saying he was a bomber is uncontroversial outside of the la-la land that is this talk page. Andyvphil (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 7: Calls Weather violent, says Ayers didn't renounce violent actions

Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. Obama's association with Ayers, a well-known former member of the violent radical group Weather Underground who had not renounced the group's violent actions, would later draw media scrutiny

• well known because Ayers was famous for his involvement with the WU and Obama could not have been ignorant about that. violent radical group because "violent" was one of two major points that makes this association controversial. had not renounced the group's violent actions This avoids the word "unrepentant" that Mfenger objects to. It is a simple, provable, objective fact, which can be sourced, that he has not renounced the violent actions. It can be proven to be false if someone can find a clear, public renunciation. Together with "violence" it is one of the two top things that makes Bill Ayers controversial today. Other violent radicals have renounced their violence and even entered Congress, and people work with them without controversy. A public figure who works with someone who has not renounced past violence can expect that association to be controversial. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, sourcing "had not renounced the group's violent actions" is going to be problematic — how does one prove a negative like that? It's a subjectivve, POV statement of opinion by analysts if you source it to the places that were advocated earlier (e.g., NYT or Slate opinion pieces). I also wonder about your earlier statements in this section that readers won't know what the "Weather Underground" was (and won't click on a link to learn), and won't wonder what the "controversy" is and click on a provided link to further discussion. If readers are the way you say they are, won't they just buy "failed to renounce" without looking into the further discussion that I assume will discuss Ayers's writings on the subject with the nuance they deserve? For these reasons, I think the third option is stil the best. Anyone interested in the controversy will click on the link. Mfenger (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that readers may misconstrue what was controversial based on the description of the controversy. That can happen whenever a controversy isn't described well enough. One "proves a negative like that" about not renouncing violence by referring to news articles that say he didn't renounce it. I provided one from the NY Times before and there are others. We commonly give negative information about people in Wikipedia, especially with public figures, when we have reliable sources saying precisely the same thing. I see no controversy out there at all that he is unrepentant. If there is, the phrase could be modified. It has been reported that he was directly asked whether he renounced violence and the response he gave was quoted, and it clearly was not renouncing the group's violent actions. Multiple news accounts accepting that he is unrepentant are not all due to lazy reporting. I get the impression that no matter what evidence is provided, you won't be satisfied, but feel free to tell me how I'm wrong and what evidence would work for you. If a simple phrase describing the solid facts that make the group and Ayers controversial can be added to the article, why object to the addition? Noroton (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, this "unrepentant" is complete crap, and cannot go in an encyclopedia.. period. Ever! Moreover, Ayers' has made many statements (reproduced on this talk pages) expressing what he was, and wasn't, sorry about. Noroton's definition of "unrepentant" means "hasn't apologized enough for me." Unless Noroton is Ayers' shrink, or priest, or rabbi, or maybe St.Peter judging at the Pearly Gates, he has no idea whatsoever what Ayers' may or may not have "repented." LotLE×talk 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with my organizing these discussions this way is that the same points keep coming up. Lesson learned. As I mentioned elsewhere, I refuted this point about "unrepentant" at my 01:04 5 June post in Option 1. Reliable sources say he's unrepentant and he hasn't said different. LotLE makes the additional point about Ayers' odd statements expressing regret about various things. It seems to me that Ayers could very easily put the whole matter to rest with a single, simple statement that clearly says he's sorry about promoting and committing violence. That's extremely easy to do, and if he does it, it should be enough for us. Instead, he toys with it, plays around with it. I'm willing to accept a clear statement from him as proof of repentance about violence if someone can provide it. Fair enough? Noroton (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Oh, and the language here isn't "unrepentant", it's had not renounced the group's violent actions. An objective fact. Noroton (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers' own words are easily understood. He doesn't regret setting off bombs. He wishes that he and his Weathermen friends could have set off even more bombs. Don't pretend that "unrepentant" would be inaccurate in away way, or any sort of a stretch. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More proof that he has not indicated repentance From an interview with Ayers and Dohrn on a PBS website:

In the film, Mark Rudd talks about his qualms and his very divided feelings about what he did. You don’t make any equivalent statement, and I wondered why not… How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?

Bill Ayers: I’ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it’s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful?… I don’t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable. You could look it up. In fact, I think it's fair to call him "unrepentant" as backed up by this reliable source. Noroton (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Bill Ayers has explained his feelings quite extensively in his own blog. unfortunately, the MSM, along with many Wikipedians here, don't want to bother to read that. It's wrong to quote one NYT interview and the resulting reverberations in the media echo chamber and ignore any other input. http://billayers.wordpress.com/ is his blog, and the most relevant entries are: http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/im-sorry-i-think/ http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/ http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/a-questionnaire/ http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/much-ado-by-stanley-fish-ny-times-april-282008/ http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/much-ado-by-stanley-fish-ny-times-april-282008/ http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/much-ado-by-stanley-fish-ny-times-april-282008/ http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/letters-to-the-chicago-tribune-3/ http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/letters-to-the-chicago-tribune-2/ http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/letters-to-the-chicago-tribune/

Weather Underground was violent against people, not just property

Mark Rudd, a leader in Weather Underground (called Weathermen when he was a leader), confirms that the group planned to kill innocent people:

On the morning of March 6, 1970, three of my comrades were building pipe bombs packed with dynamite and nails, destined for a dance of non-commissioned officers and their dates at Fort Dix, N.J., that night. You could look it up on his website.

So, just to clearly sum it up: We have multiple reliable sources that Bill Ayers is an (1) unrepentant (2) terrorist bomber. Capisce? I'm willing to support another option for the sake of consensus, but not because this option doesn't have solid reliable sources to back it up. Noroton (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you can add all the evidence you like - pages and pages of it - and it won't make any difference to the central issue, which is that none of it is relevant to this BLP, and would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. You must write about the subject, not the subject's acquaintance. You have to prove that Obama himself was an "unrepentant terrorist bomber" to put those words, or words like it into this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement from earlier up on this page: I urge editors to remain cool, avoid personal comments, and try to keep this process moving toward a much-needed conclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Sjessey, the veracity of various statements was questioned, I proved their veracity. It shows why Ayers is controversial and shows that solid descriptions of Ayers can be sourced. Just because you have other objections (which have already been answered), you don't need to insert them here. It's not really helpful in keeping the process moving forward. Noroton (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you can add all the evidence you like - pages and pages of it - and it won't make any difference to the central issue, which is ... That a clique of pro-Obama partisans are whitewashing the article, and won't let the facts, or Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, get in their way. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When there are too many people who oppose them, they point fingers and scream, "Sockpuppet!" Here we see the first failed attempt. The RFCU result was "Unrelated." Here we see the second attempt, unconsciously evoking Josef Goebbels' old maxim that if you repeat a lie often enough, and loudly enough, and with enough arrogance and brass, some people will start to believe it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack, while I understand your frustration, I'd like to suggest keeping WP:FAITH in mind, if also WP:BEANS. Scjessey and company have made their reasons for their position clear: the facts we feel are relevant don't belong because they aren't directly about Barack Obama. It is not our place to insert surreptitious motivations where those that they lay claim to suffice.

In response to Scjessey, here is a direct quote from WP:BLP:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

The Ayers stuff is certainly notable and well-documented. As for relvancy, here is what Wikipedia:Relevance of content says about what belongs in an article:

Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed.

The Ayers stuff has influenced Obama's public perception as evidenced by its level of presence in the media and thus is relevant.

So according to the very policy you yourself keep referring to, the Ayers stuff should go in. Same for Wright and Rezko. I don't see how you or anyone else can continue to claim otherwise.

--Floorsheim (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Floorsheim's arguments, I will direct everyone's attention to this portion of the Wikipedia essay cited by Floorsheim: Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Ayers belongs in the article, and additional context is needed. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, point of fact. Some members of the Weatherman group were involved in making that bomb at Greenwich Village. Bill Ayers was not one of them. He wasn't even there. In his memoir, he writes that perhaps his girlfriend Diana was trying to stop the bomb-makers as he could not imagine her being involved in trying to kill people. (That should tell you something right there.) After the explosion, Weatherman became the Weather Underground, and this new group returned to renouncing any violence against people. After Ayers and Dohrn were purged from Weather Underground, some members went off into various splinter groups which were indeed more violent/militant (such as the Black Liberation Army-run Brinks robbery in which people were killed). Again, that was NOT Ayers. The problem here is that the above statement conflates Ayers and WU as if they were the same. I don't believe all Republicans agree with George Bush 100%, and I'd feel pretty silly stating that as a fact in an encyclopedia article. So Noroton, it is not true that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist bomber trying to kill people. You can quote the NYT all you want, but they printed 'facts' by Judith Miller and Jason Blair as well. (The paper is, however, excellent for wrapping fish.) Flatterworld (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit complicated, but it is provable with a number of Ayers quotes in various spots that he has not indicated he is repentant, and there is no clear statement from him that he's repentant that anyone has found anywhere. The best treatment for this is at his article and the Bill Ayers election controversy article, where it can be adequately described. The PBS show interview I found online and quoted at Bill Ayers is clear on this. And I find the fact that he is unrepentant is brought up again and again by critics. Also, critics say Obama's connection to Ayers, largely for this reason, demonstrates a lack of judgment on Obama's part. Anything we say about Ayers in this Obama article is meant as a comment on Obama. Flatterworld, you're concentrating on secondary arguments when my side has nailed down the central argument: Ayers won't say he's sorry that the group terrorized, and Obama doesn't demand an apology before associating with him. That's the nub of it, it's proven, it falls within acceptable WP:BLP regs, it's a widely reported-on and commented-on election issue, we serve our readers best by mentioning it here and linking. The desire not to do so is counter to the best interests of our readers and of the encyclopedia. Noroton (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But do you see, Norton, how you just referred to it as an "election issue"? Ayers is of virtually no relevance to Obama's biography outside of the minor primary election mini-controversy created by Stephanopoulos' debate question, which is why the material currently exists at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. A relatively minor election-only issue doesn't warrant inclusion in the main biography. Shem^(talk) 07:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Shem, your point is wrong because so many of your assumptions are wrong. First of all, it is demonstrably false that a single debate question is the overwhelming reason for the importance of this. It had been reported before and was following the same trajectory as the Jeremiah Wright and Father Flegler business. We don't have election issues in the article about a person at the center of what is right now the most important election in the world? We have a whole section on the election and another long one on his political positions. This election issue is about an aspect of his life history and this is the article about his life. Ayers' "relevance to Obama's biography" must be seen in the relevance of Obama's biography to us in that the aspects of Obama's life that might affect US are more important than the rest. You resolutely refuse to acknowledge the inherent importance of the public interest. You won't even let the reader decide what to make of Ayers, you hide Ayers despite the fact that this aspect of Obama's past has received widespread coverage, that it is the type of thing that any voter could be expected to find of importance, and despite the fact that it only takes up two lines in this long (properly long) article. Assume the reader is an adult. You fight tooth and nail over these two lines and meanwhile we serve up this to the readers: Replying to an Associated Press survey of 2008 presidential candidates' personal tastes, he specified "architect" as his alternate career choice and "chili" as his favorite meal to cook.[165] Asked to name a "hidden talent," Obama answered: "I'm a pretty good poker player."[166]. Source after source after source believes this is not going away now that the primaries are over. Everybody believes that independent groups are going to bring this up during the general election, so you cannot assume that the matter is over. Coverage from February to now indicates a continuing interest. Rather than have a pointer within the prose of the article to help people understand the matter in other Wikipedia articles subject to NPOV, you would leave consideration of this to partisan 527 groups and blogs. Noroton (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 8: Rewrite, lengthen, ID critic, describe Ayers, associations, Obama's statements

In campaign section, Commentators such as X criticized Obama for his ties with Bill Ayers... then a description of Ayers, then a description of the associations, then a description of Obama's statements on the matter.

• This is the only option calling for much more detail. Its strength is that it's easier to treat the matter with NPOV, but we can do that anyway. If this matter becomes much more controversial (I actually expect it will), then this is a good option and it may be what we'll be forced to do by events, but it doesn't rate that kind of treatment now. The links will do most of the work of providing detail. I think it matters what news outlets you watch or read. Fox News and various web sites and publications on the right have made more out of the Ayers controversy than some other TV news orgs and magazines. I think people involved in this discussion are assuming that their news outlets are reflecting news coverage in general. If this controversy gets the attention that the Jeremiah Wright controversy has received, then this would be a good option. Otherwise, the idea of reporting on others opinions is a good strategy, endorsed by WP:NPOV. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I support either No. 7 or No. 8. Now that we have discussed it, I think I like No. 8 the best. The must be done with absolute neutrality, but that means allowing Obama's critics to be heard in this article. Then let Obama defend himself as well. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the alternatives (1-7) is that it makes the (I think unwarranted, other people think very warranted) assumption that the coincidence of Ayers and Obama being on the board together amounts to anything in and of itself - that is, simply reporting the fact as notable is POV. That makes it very tricky business - I, at least, would find it to be a bit POV. Which is why I think framing it in terms of a controversy - or even just in terms of the ABC debate - is so much more preferable. Because it's very contested whether Ayers matters to Obama as such. Whereas nobody, I think, would deny that the Ayers controversy is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that the connection is still appearing in news articles (all right, a news analysis article), as well as commentary, something which started in earnest in mid-February and has continued to the present, shows that a couple of lines in the article on the association is worthwhile. We cover the subject in detail at Bill Ayers election controversy and we'll link to that with whatever we add. I think that at the Barack Obama presidential campaign article it deserves the treatment you suggest. Giving it extended treatment suggests in itself that the connection is more important than it appears to be. Also, I don't think a consensus is going to form around this option. Noroton (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the 2-7 versions are all noting both the membership on the board and the fact that Ayers hosted a meeting for Obama. The meeting was actually Obama's political introduction to Democrats in his neighborhood -- his predecessor as state senator introduced him for the first time to other Democrats in the district at this meeting and said she endorsed him, giving it some importance in Obama's career. It's actually more than just a coincidence that the two were on the same board -- they both traveled in something of the same circles. The board governed the group that previously gave a community organization the money which first brought Obama to Chicago, and meetings of the board (which wasn't very large, less than 10 members) commonly took up an entire afternoon four times a year, and they were both on the board during a three-year span. Reliable sources also say dinner parties were involved. Obama also gave a favorable review to an Ayers book in the Chicago Tribune. This is what we know so far. In contrast, Ayers was controversial enough that an educational group disinvited him to a conference, and his wife, Dohrn, controversial enough that it caused a move by Northwestern U. alumni to kick her out of that institution in 2001. Bill Ayers has his own "Times Topics" page at the New York Times website (I hope this is not behind a subscription wall.) None of this shows the two were best buddies or anything, just that Obama associated with Ayers despite Ayers' past, which has always been well-known, while others were outraged or uncomfortable with any kind of association. Worth a couple lines here, I think, no more, no less. Just enough so that people understand it and can link to the article about it. Noroton (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree (I think it amounts to no more than two people in the same political establishment in the same city), I think that's a respectable position well stated and not for POV purposes. Thanks for the cogent comment. Wikidemo (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we reach a reasonable compromise here?

I believe we can reach a reasonable compromise. I propose that either No. 4, No. 5, or a combination thereof would be the reasonable compromise that would resolve this matter. Nobody will think it is wonderful, but a consensus will find it acceptable. Please consider this with an open mind, and state below whether you support or oppose this proposal. If the proposal gains acceptance, then we can hammer out the details of the compromise. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• SUPPORT. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• STRONGLY OPPOSE Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, no. The burden is on you to demonstrate why Ayers is notable enough to be in Obama's biography, which (unlike others have successfully done with Wright and Rezko) you have have failed to do. The Stephanopoulos/Ayers debate question can remain where it belongs -- in the campaign article with other "mini-controversies" -- until you've done otherwise. You seem to enjoy polling as an implement for pushing your POV, but polling is not a substitute for discussion, especially when the options to vote for appear to be constructing a false dichotomy. Shem^(talk) 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Very mildly oppose, with a suggestion that we instead include Option 3 This is, of course, just a way of seeing where we are right now in terms of support, after discussing this more. And we're going to discuss this more still before we get there, so calm down, everybody. It seems to me that there was plenty of support for Option 3 and that ought to be in the mix. We should then discuss those three options. The fact is, that discussion has been fruitful in showing there just isn't enough support for some options and some options are simply not credible. I don't think the following is disputable, but my mind is open, and I may be wrong:
  • Option 1 — First, the option is at one extreme of the scale and most editors do not support it because they want something in the article. It is not credible to say that we can form a consensus around this option. It might have been credible if a good enough argument for it had been put up, but instead the arguments for it are discredited by the facts. I find Shem's comment just above shows an attitude that does not contribute to consensus and his statement that the burden is on the rest of us to demonstrate why Ayers is notable enough is contrary to what has already been shown in the previous section and earlier: Similar references to other people have appeared in presidential biography articles ("More candidates for the fat farm" above), other candidates have similar passages (in my section between this and the vote list on Ayers), and in the discussion on Option 1 above we've decisively met all the arguments in favor of it with better arguments based on facts, logic and policy & guidelines. Face it, people: There ain't no way that option is going to get consensus. You don't have the numbers of editors in support and you don't have a hope of getting them because you don't have the arguments to do it. You can try to obstruct a consensus, in which case the numbers indicate you can be rolled over, or you can work to support your second or third choices, for which you still have a chance. It's your decision on whether to be reasonable or not. I have to drop my preferred Option 7, even though it got some support, because I don't believe it will pass. If I can play like a grown-up, you can too.
  • Option 2 — no support, obviously off the table, unless the Option 1 supporters want to try to push it now as a second-best option, but it likely won't get more support from other editors. No one supported it before.
  • Option 3 — This option had some support and it is a second or third choice of many who had Option 1 as a first choice. I think it would be premature to drop it now, although I doubt it would get consensus. We need to consider it further.
  • Option 4 — still on the table
  • Option 5 — still on the table
  • Option 6 — basically the same situation as Option 2. I don't think it can get support. I think there's consensus against it.
  • Option 7 — I got some support for this and I have excellent reasons for it which no opponents have been able to show is wrong, but it nevertheless doesn't seem to be a likely consensus option. As a grown-up, I'm willing to drop it.
  • Option 8 — Received little support. There seems to be a consensus that a short version is best. (To me, this is a good description of what an Ayers passage on the campaign article should look like)

Now, let's see if we can agree to discuss only Options 3, 4 and 5 — not only in terms of which is the most reasonable but in terms of which is most likely to get consensus. I'm willing to wait a little longer if a good number of people think more discussion will convince people, but there hasn't been evidence of that so far. Let's actually try to be successful in reaching consensus after having put so much work into this. Anyone who actually wants a consensus must be willing to accept that most of us are NOT going to get the option we most prefer. Grown-ups, please. Is there support for adding Option 3 to the mix and looking firther at these three options? Noroton (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You cannot use what goes on in other articles as your justification for allowing BLP violations. We should follow Wikipedia's policy over Wikipedia's history. Since this is a BLP, Shem is quite correct in saying that the onus is on the "inclusionist" to prove that a detail is both notable and relevant before adding it to the article. None of these "sensational" details about Ayers are related to Obama, so notability and relevancy have not been proved. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to go for now. Life intrudes. If you want to defend the Alamo at WP:BLP when the time comes, be my guest. Really, when you're at the short end of the consensus, what can you do? Either withdraw or do what I did: accept reality. We can discuss Option 1 further above (I think that's a good idea), but I haven't seen too many new ideas, just old ones coming up yet again. I've been reading some of the things at Mark Rudd's website and one of the suggestions he has for radical activists is to accept reality. He also admits the people killed in the Greenwich Village explosion were building nail bombs to set off at a dance at Fort Dix. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So? Did Obama help build any of the bombs? Is Obama a member of the Weather Underground? There is NO PLACE on Wikipedia for guilt-by-association. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Option #1 is the most appropriate, and should never be taken off the table. #4 and particularly #5 have some serious problems. Per policy the burden falls on anyone who wants to add material to demonstrate that it is appropriate; hence, not including it always an option as long as there is legitimate disagreement. I don't see a consensus for adding the material at all. The notion of dividing a controversial issue into eight different degrees of coverage and asking people to choose one is a nice try and perhaps generates some interesting discussion but it's fatally flawed as a tool for creating or assessing consensus, particularly when the best option arguably is no coverage at all. Wikidemo (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Options No. 1 and No. 3 are not a compromise. They are what the Obama campaign volunteers have announced that they want. I want No. 7 or No. 8 but, like Noroton, I am going to act like an adult and meet them halfway. No. 4 and No. 5 do not violate BLP because Ayers admits that he placed bombs on US soil, and because Stephanopoulos asked the question at the beginning of a televised debate, and because many other journalists are asking the same question on the pages of their papers and websites. If you think these options violate BLP, file your complaint at the BLP Noticeboard. But it isn't going to fly. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your controversial insertions aren't going to fly. This entire exercise is moot given this poll's "options" create a completely false dichotomy. Ayers' very inclusion invokes a litany of serious policy issues: WP:LIVING, WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE), and WP:RECENTISM (the last of which isn't a policy, but whose words are certainly germane). I'm not sure who you are, "WorkerBee," but you're clearly an alternate account of an experienced editor who should know better. Shem^(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.6.152 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict) - That is a ridiculous argument. It is akin to this:

1. Not saying anything.
2. John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy.
3. John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy who, it turns out, murdered his wife by chopping her into little pieces and putting the bits in old jam jars. The story got loads of media coverage because of the gruesome details; therefore, the character of John Doe must be judged on who he buys his shoes from.

This may seem like an extreme example, but it perfectly illustrates why "loads of media coverage" is not a good enough excuse to put facts about other people in a BLP, however thoroughly referenced. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that we are not trying to reach a compromise here. We are trying to reach a consensus, which is significantly different. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Scjessey. In the midst of Kossak4truth's barrage of polls, it seems people've become so caught up in the exercise that they've forgotten how things actually work here. A controversial POV/BLP insertion is something which must be justified by the pusher, not voted on. Shem^(talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion 1: Single purpose accounts should not be counted toward consensus in any decision we make. I don't know if we can enforce that, or how, but I don't want this decided because one or more SPAs tipped the scale. Same goes for no-name IP addresses. Nothing stops them from participating in discussions, of course. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion 2: Where is the evidence Option 1 will ever get consensus? Look at the long vote we took -- the one that Scjessey set up. The initial consensus is against you. A vast majority of other editors thought that including the information in some form was the better course, and they evidently thought it was within policy to do so. There's nothing wrong with a policy argument, but you have to make the argument and make it stick with other editors. I see assertions that it is the only acceptable option because it is the only one that follows WP policy, but I don't see proof of that anywhere -- neither here or in the section just above for comments on Option 1. If a consensus still goes against you, we'll add new language to the page the way the consensus wants it and you can take it to BLP noticeboard as a violation, and the matter can be decided there. I believe that's the way the system works (maybe you could go to WP:BLP noticeboard now and make the argument -- be my guest). Now, we're never going to get to consensus without taking some options off the table. If you want to try to persuade more editors to support Option 1, you're free to do so, and if you feel that strongly about it, we can keep it on the table. There doesn't seem to be support for keeping Option 3 on the table, so let's not. Let's further discuss Options 1, 4 and 5. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC) ADDED COMMENT: Actually, as I look things over, Option 3 had initially 7 editors who said it was their first choice. I think we need to leave it on the table as well, so my suggestion is that we further consider Options 1, 3, 4 and 5. Noroton (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the whole point of Wikipedia is that everyone gets a say, even if they are just "no-name IP addresses". You may not like that arrangement, but it is precisely why Wikipedia is the success it is. Secondly, since the "misdeeds" of Ayers are not related to Obama in any way, there are absolutely no criteria for inclusion that the policies associated with a BLP will allow. Any attempt to include such information would be a direct violation of several Wikipedia policies. For your convenience, I will again quote from WP:BLP:

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. (my own emphasis)

Any attempt at an Ayers-related inclusion should be mercilessly reverted by any Wikipedian who should have the misfortune of stumbling across such a blatant piece of guilt-by-association POV pushing. There can be no consensus for violations of Wikipedia policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? We have to describe what is controversial about the association between Ayers and Obama in order to explain to readers why it's controversial. If you complain to WP:BLP noticeboard that we describe Ayers in a phrase or two, you're going to get laughed at. If you don't get BLP noticeboard approval and revert in opposition to consensus, administrators are going to demonstrate to you the hard way how consensus is used to interpret policy in individual instances. It isn't just consensus here but standard practice in Wikipedia to explain the significance of other people in the life of the subject of a BLP and biographies of dead people. You have no excuse for not knowing this because I demonstrated it earlier on this page ("More candidates for the fat farm" and "Fair treatment of Obama should be similar to how we treat other candidates"). It would be passing strange if, with consensus, policy, practice and simple logic against you that you would prevail in edit warring under a false BLP banner, but you're welcome to experiment with that if we get consensus to add something. The argument I've just given you is the one I'll bring to administrators, and we'll just see what they think. If you all want to welcome with open arms the SPAs and IP names that have already participated in the !vote above, I won't object.Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Scjessey. There's no "compromise" when it comes to violating WP:BLP, nor will a small flock of single-purpose POV-pushing accounts change such. Shem^(talk) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey and Shem, you two have convinced me: I will reconcile myself to accepting the support of WorkerBee74 (fifth !vote in the long list) and 72.0.180.2 (13th vote in the long list) and 68.29.208.59 (21st vote). In order, they favor options 7, 5 and 8, and I think they're likely to support some compromise similar to their preferences. Thank you for your strong support for these editors. I promise to welcome them to my side with open arms. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Option #1 does not need consensus because it is the default. Problematic material stays out unless there is a consensus for inclusion. Wikidemo (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If we get consensus, you'll need consensus or BLP Noticeboard approval to change it. No one is talking about adding anything without consensus. Consensus is not unanimity. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It would take a consensus to include a controversial addition. Consensus does not override policy. But consensus on how to interpret policy is valid. Nevertheless, most popular among 8 options does not equal consensus. However, we may want to simply reach an agreement or truce to avoid edit warring...plus, as long as the material is kept fairly factual and netural this whole issue is a lot less important than the amount of verbiage on this page would suggest.Wikidemo (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Have we been miscommunicating? No one wants to impose any solution without getting a full consensus behind it. This is going to call for us to call the question and ask everybody if they support or oppose a particular proposal.Noroton (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if Stephen Hawking opened a Wikipedia account and devoted all of his edits to the subject of theoretical physics, would his opinion be dismissed because he's a single purpose account? If he didn't bother to open an account first, would his opinion be dismissed because he's just an IP address? Everybody's opinion is equal here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've conceded the point; please, let's drop it. Noroton (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After finding the Media Matters for America site I expanded the information[13] using some sources they pointed out, which make it pretty clear to me that the "$300,000 discount" claim is a blatant falsehood. I think that this vote is a distraction from the fact that people should discuss what Obama did or what people said about Obama, in which Rezko has some part, and that the information should be true and well sourced! Wnt (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose this and am uncomfortable with the pretense that averaging "votes" are a way to reach consensus. Furthermore, I am not a campaign volunteer for anyone and object to that characterization above. Shall we assume that those who want to include it here are McCain campaign workers? Tvoz/talk 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support #4 or #5, with #3 as second choice for compromise, as above. This solicitation of consensus compromise, rather than straw polling, is of course the correct method for reasonable editors, but I believe there are enough unreasonable editors here for ongoing destabilization (we haven't even touched the closer acquaintances yet!). I have no particular editors in mind, of course. But then, since I favor the article being defeatured anyway, I have a conflict of interest, because my interests would favor my hand-waving about chaos irregardless. So take everyone including me with a grain of salt. JJB 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?

Please review the discussion between the initial tally ("!Votes (please move your votes to this section if they arent already and bolden them)") and this point, and perhaps previous discussions. For the sole reason that the initial tally seemed to give more support for Option 3 than any other choice, this is organized three ways around Option 3, but with total flexibility in voting for a preference. So after having seen additional discussion, which option do you support as a first or second choice? Please choose among the following choices, and if we get a consensus around one of them, we can go with that. Please keep in mind that we are trying to reach a consensus, which is something well over a majority:

Prefer something less specific than Option 3

Option 1 was to say nothing; Option 2 was to give Ayers name without identifying him and mention there was a controversy (Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with Ayers would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.)

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):

1. 1 > 3 >> other. LotLE×talk 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
2. No. 1 or possibly no. 3. I think option 1 is the best because I do not see the issue as having enough weight and relevance to mention. However, I do not see it as a BLP issue. Therefore, as long as the specific wording can be kept neutral a 1-2 sentence reference that sticks to the facts and refers people to the specific article about the controversy would be fine...just so long as that stays stable and the article overall does not turn into a big coatrack. A few of these little controversies is okay; twenty different trivial controversies, no. So option 3 is acceptable, and oOption 4 is just about the same as no. 3., though I reserve judgment on the exact wording. Also,I think this numerical process is a problem., but as long as it brings peace to the article I can accept that. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (note change of opinion - at this time the process seems to be so thoroughly overrun by tendentious editors and possible sockpuppets that we should probably table the notion of adding unnecessary peripheral derogatory information that is already included in other articles, and take it up at some other time in a different manner) - Wikidemo (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
3. There can be only 1! (sorry, I couldn't resist). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
4. No. 1 as I prefer this article should mention the 'radical people controversy' as the campaign tactic it is, and link to more detail in the presidential campaign article, which would in turn link to any individual controversy articles as necessary. Flatterworld (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I don't see how Obama's relationship with Ayers is notable or important enough to be included in this article, Ayers' association with Obama was only brought up during the 2008 campaign so it is already mentioned in the only place it should be. Is it a BLP violation? Some might see it as such, but it is does not appear to be one when it is already mentioned in the Obama campaign article, and in more detail in the Bill Ayers election controversy article, it being included in this article does not make it any worse than the other articles, however I still see no reason for it to be in this article. --Chetblong (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
6. No, material is already covered with due weight elsewhere. The material already exists at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, and was a very minor campaign/debate-related controversy. I'd also like to note the previously stated opinion of User:HailFire, this article's #1 contributor, whose input I value far more than the single-purpose accounts participating in this poll: "[The Ayers edit] is a smoothly scripted shoehorn. Ask this: how is the Ayers membership on the Woods Fund board or the hosting of an event in 1996 worthy of inclusion in a summary section describing Obama's early life and career? Isn't any Ayers-related text best handled in the campaign subarticle as other editors here have previously stated? Please help to keep this article's first section evenly weighted and do not let it continue to devolve into a venue for election year attention seeking. --HailFire (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)" "Shoehorn" is certainly the correct word for what's taking place here. Shem^(talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Option 1 No mention of Ayers in this bio, as per HailFire, Shem, et al. This story has not increased in prominence and is a very minor blip in his life that is appropriate at most as sub-article material. This is a biography of a notable individual, not an article about a candidate. It is not a campaign piece pro or con. The Ayers matter has no significance in an article about his whole life. Tvoz/talk 19:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Option 1 It is simply not notable to his biography. I earlier expressed an opinion saying that I would accept #3 (with the caveat that I didn't necessarily agree), but that was really just a compromise to end what seemed to be an intractable edit war. Upon reflection, there really isn't room for "compromise" on this one. Ayers is barely a campaign issue and is rarely even mentioned in news stories when they round up the stumbles of the primary campaign ("flag pin" and bowling are more commonly mentioned). It is not in the slightest bit a biographical issue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Prefer Option 3 as first choice

Option 3: Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. In 1999 he was joined on the board by Bill Ayers, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. His association with the former radical activist would later draw media scrutiny during Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):

1. Option 3, if not, options 4. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm fine with Option 3. I can also live with Option 4 The issue has already been give enough weight. Anymore would push into a POV (Sorry I'm too tired to pull up the various wikipolicies and suggestions that cover this.) and possibly loose this article's FA status. Brothejr (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
3. 3 as a first choice, but I'd support any of the options 2-8 that have a better chance of gaining consensus. At this point, with six editors opposed to any mention of Ayers at all, I think this is the most likely option to gain consensus. That minority has shown itself to be adamant, and after all this discussion, they are unlikely to change their minds. My guess is that editors might be able to form a consensus around this option or Option 4, and I'm moving my vote here as a sign that the majority in favor of some inclusion needs to be flexible. Inclusion itself is the most important thing, precise wording is important but secondary. I encourage others to consider changing their votes for the same reasons. Noroton (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Please see Proposal to rally around Option 3 below. Noroton (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Would there be a way to tweak option No. 3? (Since terming somebody who'se admittedly currently an activist but may/may not believe himself radical, a "former radical activist" is less than precisely factual.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prefer a different Option with more details than Option 3

There are several other options already described above, but none have a large number of supporters.

Please state your first and second preference here, in one place (please indicate that if there is a consensus for your second choice, you will support that choice instead):

1. I'd be fine with the use of 3, but realistically, I don't see a major difference between 3 and 4. Calling Ayers a former radical activist and the founder of a defunct radical activist group are for all intents and purposes the same thing. The one issue I have is that with #4 it gives the appearance that Weatherman was founded by Ayers alone, not that he was one of 11 people, so calling him co-founder or one of the founders is probably more appropriate than just founder. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
2. 7 or 8. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
3. As above, a bit more (though not too much more) inclusion needed. Simply stating that Obama knew a controversial man will leave the reader confused as to why without a brief blurb. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
4. You can repackage the voting, but I still like 4 & 5. I don't much object to any of the options that are truthful statements, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Ayers and Dohrn hosted the Obama's coming out party as a politician. Ayers helped select Obama to direct spending $100 mill over five years as the head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Obame was part of the consensus to bring Ayers onto the board of the Woods foundation and later name Ayers Chairman of that Board. In areas of the country less refined than Hyde Park many people think it quite as revealing that Obama had no qualms associating with an unrepentant terrorist as that he selected and retained as his minister a nutty anti-American racist demagogue or that his campaigns drew heavily on financing from a convicted corrupt fixer who would not be expected to commit crimes in order to get money to Obama without getting anything in return. The Obama fan POV that none of this is of any significance has to allow for the existance of a different POV. Option 3 doesn't cut it. Andyvphil (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
6. No. 7 or No. 8. We have a plurality in favor of some version more inclusive than No. 3, and a clear majority in favor of something at least as inclusive as No. 3. Anyone trying to enforce No. 1 in the article mainspace will be reported at WP:ANI for disruptive and tendentious editing. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

   Just wondering, do all of WorkerBee's sox have black-'n'-yellow stripes? <me being stupid> — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Support in principle but will compromise. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
8. No. 7. Anything less than No. 5 is a whitewash. 68.31.80.187 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — 68.31.80.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
9. No. 5, No. 6 or No. 7. 70.9.18.59 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC) — 70.9.18.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
10. No. 4 or No. 5 equally, followed by No. 3 or No. 7 equally, exactly as above. Since 3 is not my first choice I report in this section instead, although polling so far makes clear that there is still an ideological divide that compromise upon 3 will not settle. I would compromise on 3 but there is not a move for it. Again, I favor defeaturing, so you may discount my emphasis on the present status being nonconsensus and instability. However, the proper means of proceeding is (I believe) for editors on the minimizing side to reread WP:COATRACK to realize an identification is not a coatrack, and for editors on the maximizing side to reread WP:SUMMARY to realize a biography is not a campaign article. But if you don't follow my advice, I'll be happy to use that as defeaturing evidence later. JJB 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus

1. Sorry, no. Discussion on this issue has evolved significantly downpage, specifically with regard to its inclusion's abidance to Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#UNDUE). The "spectrum" presented in this poll created a false dichotomy as evidenced by those who have gamed it to declare a numerical average to be "consensus," and voting has been plagued by single-purpose accounts (including possible sockpuppetry). Shem^(talk) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Agreed. I take full responsibility for this cock up, because I came up with this stupid "sliding scale" idea. After thoroughly studying the details of WP:BLP and talking to some other, more experienced editors, I realized that any inclusion of Ayers would violate Wikipedia policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rally around Option 3

I've made this a separate section so that I can link to it from my !vote in the poll.

The number of Option 1 supporters is so high that we need a very high number of editors to reach a different consensus. I don't expect any (or very few) Option 1 editors to change their opinion. By far the most important consideration is whether or not the huge number of readers of this article (see this count of page views, showing a quarter of a million page views on June 4) should be given the chance to follow a link directly to the Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers election controversy articles. I think just doing that would be a solid improvement in this article, and I think the alternative is no consensus. Don't let the unachievable "best" be the enemy of the still-possible "better". Please change your !vote to support that option. Noroton (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Justmeherenow has suggested that we may not want to use "radical" in the option 3 language. I think it can be tweaked, but I have a feeling that the word "former" (in the phrase former radical) might be objectionable to Ayers. In any event, we need to get an idea of what he calls himself nowadays, or we might be in violation of WP:BLP. I'm sure it can be sourced. If not, we're in trouble and we may have to go to something else (I'd suggest Option 4). Noroton (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling Ayers a "1960s radical" would solve the problem. A New York Times article (April 17, 2008) is titled "’60s Radicals Become Issue in Campaign of 2008" It would leave open whether or not he is still a radical, which hasn't exactly been the controversy anyway. Noroton (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As this discussion has progressed, I've become convinced that no mention of Ayers is appropriate for this biography. Particularly striking in this direction is the supposed "ample reporting" of the connection; the best evidence for non-relevance is provided by those very anti-Obama partisans who find a (very few, largely partisan) mentions. For example, in connection with my hypothetically urgent reporting of the fact "Obama ate corn flakes", I noticed that Google News shows more results for Obama+Corn than it does for Obama+Ayers (both of which are a tiny fraction of Obama+Wright, or Obama+Harvard, connections that are definitely worth mentioning).

That big caveat said, if some description of Ayers were included, the phrase "1960s radical" seems perfectly neutral and factual (and supported by the mentioned citation. Mind you, this is only neutral if other stuff isn't tacked on... nothing about the true state of his heart and soul ("unrepentant"), nothing about original research into his supposed bomb-planting, nothing about Dohrn (who was not mentioned in the debate question, despite fabrications in the recent edit war), etc. A simple substitution of "1960s radical" for "former radical activist" is reasonable (and even saves one word). LotLE×talk 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rally behind # 3 tweaked via LotE's /"Sixties radical"<---"former radical activist"/ as a good compromise ( ..sorta ironically, since Ayers went underground 11 years starting in 1969, the last year of this iconic decade.. ) — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Show's over I've given up. This is not going to happen. It seems to me that anyone bothering to participate here is just wasting time. There aren't enough editors interested in coming to a consensus. Noroton (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Close discussion as no consensus to include contested material

At this point there is obviously no consensus to include controversial material about Ayers. A variety of serious objections have been raised including relevance, weight, neutrality / POV, and BLP concerns. Inclusion, on the other hand, is not terribly important because the material sought to be included is covered in more detail in two other articles, that about Ayers and an article dedicated to the controversy in question. The process has gone downhill, with proponents of the material repeatedly breaking rank to add the material while the discussion is ongoing, and taunting others with name-calling[14]. Given that discussion has broken down and failed in its purpose to reach consensus or prevent edit warring, I think we should close the matter and leave the material out for good until and unless a consensus arises otherwise. Wikidemo (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean we refuse to include material that is extremely notable to the subject because a few people misquote policy on their behalf, then no, I think it's not. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just left a notice on your talk page - you are edit warring[15][16] over adding the material. I will not respond in kind, but that kind of action is likely to get the article protected and proves my point. Your comment above doesn't dispute this, it just opposes it. But the way things work here, no consensus to add disputed material = material not added. Sorry. Wikidemo (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly, when the poll's creator has disavowed its usefulness in consensus-building and its results have been plagued by single-purpose accounts (potentially socks), its results can yield no consensus. We can move on to Wright or Rezko, which I suspect'll yield more productive discussion and a workable consensus. Shem^(talk) 17:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an implicit consensus to continue with the tally because it's getting participation, and it's doing the job it was meant to do: showing everybody where everybody else stands as of now. This may bring us closer to a consensus by showing us where more compromise or discussion may be needed, or it may help us conclude no consensus is possible. (In that case, the material cannot be added.) Either way, it will have done its job. So far, the tally is showing that there is still a good-sized minority of editors who don't want anything at all about Ayers added to the article. To overcome that, support for any consensus position would need well over a majority. I left messages with the 26 editors who participated in the tally Scjessey organized above, and we should give them time over the weekend to consider the arguments and tell us what they think. I'm considering canvassing the past 20 contributors to this page (before the Ayers discussion started a week or two ago) and seeing what they think, but if I do that, I'll do it today in order not to drag this out. I don't know what Shem is talking about in stating the poll's creater has disavowed its usefulness in consensus-building. You don't shut down a poll hours after you started it, you give people enough time to look at the arguments, consider them, and !vote. Vigorous discussion here is the Wikipedia-approved alternative to edit warring, and it actually may be resulting in fewer revert wars. In the end, I think editors will be more likely to accept the results of a process they've participated in. Noroton (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, the editor who composed the "sliding scale" this vote is based upon, has denounced the structure as a "cock-up." Shem^(talk) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is one thing, repeated polls and voting and attempts to quantify opinions are another. I believe Scjessey acted in good faith when starting this approach, but I agree with his recognition that it is not particularly useful for reaching consensus. Let's move on - there's no consensus to include Ayers that I can see. Tvoz/talk 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a majority to include some mention of Ayers and no basis in policy for the assertion that a sizeable minority may veto inclusion of encyclopedic material. My evaluation of the "rough consensus" is that Ayers should be mentioned, and I will not hesitate to edit accordingly. Andyvphil (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The confrontational attitude is unfortunate. Comments like that serve to keep this article protected. If you act on them, you know that somebody would revert. Probably an administrator would not hesitate to block you accordingly for continuing the disruption that got this article locked in the first place. Since joining seven months ago -- long enough to learn that you cannot claim consensus by counting votes -- you have been blocked four times for edit warring, twice on this article. Your last block was a week. The next one may be longer. If you want to continue I suggest you mend your ways. Wikidemo (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Show's over Faced with eight options, I had always planned, if necessary, to post messages on the talk pages of particular editors to ask them to help form a consensus by switching their vote. In fact, that's the only practical way you can get from eight options to one -- by editors switching their votes as they agree to accept an option that can get a consensus. I thought my messaging on individual user talk pages, asking people to consider switching their votes, would promote consensus. However, I was informed yesterday by two editors that this appeared to be a violation of WP:CANVASS. I looked over that page and I have to agree, it can be interpreted that way. I think it's a screwy interpretation that doesn't promote consensus-building and doesn't remove disruption, two goals of that policy, but I can't be certain, given the way that page is written. At this point, I could go to that page and try to get editors to clear up whether this kind of thing is improper canvassing, but even if it's found to be just fine, the prospects here aren't good. Two many editors on both sides of this discussion simply don't want to come to consensus, and they are preventing it from happening. Many editors involved in this, especially the most active, continually poison the atmosphere with insults, violations of civility, refusal to assume good faith, closed minds that repeat tired arguments long after those arguments have been answered, exaggerations of the evidence and of policy and of the other side's arguments. The exclusionist side that has been largely occupying this page and editing the article is made up of a number of sincere people but also a number of people with absolutely closed minds and a refusal to consider that they might be wrong. The exact same thing can be said of many editors on the inclusionist side that I'm on. If I had to do it over again, I'd have to guess what proposal would gain enough consensus after I recruited more editors to come in, and then present only that one proposal, or more likely, that one and a proposal to do nothing, and put them side by side. At this point, I'm disgusted with about half of you, on both sides. For too many editors, this has been a children's playground, despite the fact that it's an important article for Wikipedia. Your antics have probably driven away too many adult editors who don't want to deal with your mess. I think more administrators should be taking a firmer hand with several of you for obvious, repeated violations of various behavior policies and guidelines, because you've caused the worst kind of disruption. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting attempt to "own" discussion, complete with tendentious "closing comments". Andyvphil (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Obama Infobox and Succession boxes

Sample infoboxes in sandbox: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes

Mulatto

After User:Loremaster added the term mulatto, I looked it up- had never heard it before. On the article it said it could be considered offensive to English-speakers, and as this is en-wiki, I think it might be best to use a different term? Larklight (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm stunned that anyone could have never heard the word "mulatto" before... --Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But he appears to have solved the problem himself :) Larklight (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. :) --Loremaster (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the term is a bit rude, to say the least. We probably wouldn't want to call him that. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there's a discussion a couple of sections up about whether to refer to Obama as "the first biracial..." or "the first African-American...". At this point, Obama is only being called the "first African-American..." Until we can get verifiability that he is the first biracial person/African-American, it's probably best if we don't whip out the original research that he is. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

From Is Obama Black Enough? - TIME: "Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa."

Courtland Milloy - Obama and the Old Racial Bind - washingtonpost.com: "According to a recent survey by Zogby International, a majority of whites, 55 percent, classified Obama as "biracial," and 66 percent of blacks classified him as black."

Obama is biracial, yet he insists on referring to himself as an African-American. Couldn't he do more to stop: "racism by running as just an American instead of choosing to label himself according to one side of his genetics?"

There many reliable sources which identify Barack Obama as "biracial". Describing him in a Wikipedia article as a "biracial African American" is one of the best compromises. --Loremaster (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama self-identifies as an African-American, and I can so reason why that designation isn't sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be obvious that it doesn't matter how Obama self-identifies: If Obama lost his mind and suddenly decided to self-identify as "ethnically Asian" despite the fact that he isn't, should all encyclopedia articles on Barack Obama be edited to reflect his whim? --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether racial identification is an objective reality, in which case self-identification would be irrelevant, or a subjective matter, in which case self-identification matters a great deal. Our article race (classification of human beings) acknowledges this uncertainty. Self-identification is not the sole determinant, but it matters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the issues you raised. I'm not arguing that self-identification doesn't matter. It does to the extent it would be important to mention how Obama self-identifies. However, my point still stands. --Loremaster (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing that Obama is bi-racial, just that we can't say he's "the first biracial..." without a multiple reliable source to outweigh the reliable sources that are saying he's "the first African-American". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll work on that. --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Before some here disagree with the sources, consider: Thanks to folks like Thomas Jefferson, African Americans aren't 100% of African descent either. Over the course of a dozen or more generations in a white-majority country it's fairly sure some mixing has occurred for most. As to the offensiveness of "mulatto", a well-written article gives a clear "maybe", bordering on "no".[17] But I'd be a little wary about what the meaning of the word truly is. Nowadays Spanish is familiar enough that I'd be prone to interpret "mulatto" and "mulatta" more strictly in terms of black combined with partially Hispanic (or native American) ancestry. When I was a child I had had a strange impression that the term was distinct from simply mixed-ancestry and referred specifically to people with a slightly mottled skin color or otherwise having a particularly attractive combination of black and white features, but I don't know if that is actually rooted in any identifiable American cultural notion. I have a feeling there are a lot more funny ideas floating around for that word, simply because of this country's pathological history. Wnt (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just say first biracial and African-American? The guy saying, "until we can get verifiability" is just splitting hairs because it is a well known fact that each of our past presidents has been at the least majority white. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the decision is, "mulatto" is horrifyingly unencyclopedic. Use something else, please. Fishal (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of pursuing this absurd topic, I must point out that we should also consider classifying Senator Obama as an octaroon or maybe a quadroon. I, personally, do not favor the terms, but some editors seem to be dealing in certain interesting mechanisms for classifying race. It's been done before. -- Quartermaster (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're smart enough to hyperlink the octaroon and quadroon articles, you should be smart enough to differentiate between mulatto, octaroon, and quadroon. The latter two of which Barack Obama is not. Further, we shouldn't be classifying race at all, and if we must it should be done accurately. Barack Obama is biracial/mulatto; half-black, half-white. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Has no other user considered the shadow of Blooming Grove? It's still not absolutely certain that a mixed-race American hasn't already served as president. Firstorm (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost all African-Americans have some white ancestors, so they're all biracial to one degree or another. So are those with Native American and/or Asian ancestors. So...what you're really asking is to set some exact standard of when someone becomes 'biracial'. What's next - a specific label for his daughters' race? The exercise is pointless, similar to arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Let's move on. Flatterworld (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, do you even know what biracial means? It means two. Most African-Americans don't have one white and one black parent. You move on: because you can't even understand the meaning of the prefix "bi." 71.195.153.149 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Biracial means literally "two races." There is nothing in that definition concerning having one black parent and one white parent (or parents of two "pure" races). What about people who are born of parents who were both of mixed parentage, like the actor "Terrence Howard"? If you want to truly look at the idea of having "two races" in their DNA, most African-Americans (and even some Caucasian-Americans) have at least two races in their blood to varying degrees. Biracial is often constructed as a clear term, but in reality it is not as clear as some like it to be. Marinabreeze (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to split hairs, you know very well that when someone says biracial they are referring to a person in the diametric sense. Also, if you looked at the heading of this part of the discussion you would know that we were talking about the biracial group mulatto. While you "may" be right about most African-Americans having varying degrees of admixture that isn't sub-Saharan, it is nowhere near how dichotomous Barack Obama's admixture is. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't presume to tell someone whether he should or shouldn't be offended by the term mulatto, but in my experience it has never been used as an insult or derogatory manner. It is not used as much in the U.S., but since I speak Spanish, I'm probably more familiar with the Spanish caste system terms. Some people, even in the U.S. do identify as mulatto rather than just black or just white. The term is usually used to exactly describe someone's racial mixture: mulatto (1/2 black, 1/2 white), mestizo (1/2 Amerindian, 1/2 white). Hispanic countries can be very racially diverse, so sometimes these terms are used to describe multiracial or biracial people. Biracial is generally just 2 races, multiracial can be 2 or more. As for what to call Barack Obama: I'm not sure it's important to specify his race in the article by saying he is black/African American, mulatto, or biracial. As most articles, just stating his parents ancestry should be fine, and the reader can use whatever term he thinks of. As for the first this or the first that quotes, whatever the sources say is what should be used regardless of what we think; for example, Obama has been described as the first African American...or something like that. Kman543210 (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for "first mixed-race nominee"

In this Salon article, Gary Kamiya (who is of mixed race himself) refers to Obama as "both black and biracial" and refers to him as "the first mixed-race nominee". I'll let others determine how best to incorporate this into the article, but now that there's a reliable source I agree that the introduction should acknowledge Obama's mixed racial heritage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a word: preponderance. In other words, is this what the majority of sources for the existing cites are saying? I think it's kinda unwieldy to shoehorn that into the article if it's a minority of sources with that label. I'm not saying that the existing term is necessarily the best term; I have my own personal opinions. But since one of the pillars of WP is verifiability, along with implicit assumptions of greater weight, this brings us back to what the majority of well-sourced existing sources are saying, for right or for wrong. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What policy (including BLP) really says about the inclusion of negative material

I just made a post about this under "Consensus-building..." above. I feel it is so important, it deserves its own section.

In WP:BLP, we find the following

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues are all notable and well-documented.

In Wikipedia:Relevance of content, we find the following concerning content that belongs in an article:

Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed.

The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues have influenced Obama's public perception and primary noteworthy trait of person petitioning and being considered for election as president by way of the criticism they have drawn.

Thus policy in fact tells us, in a straightforward way, what many of us intuitively know: the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues need to be represented in this article, and they need to be explained to an extent that their effects on the subject (Obama) are plainly apparent.

--Floorsheim (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about "negative material," it's about guilt by association and appropriate weight within Obama's biography. Wright and Rezko clearly pass this test, but the Ayers plug fails WP:BLP's admonition to Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Stephanopoulos' Ayers question and Obama's actual relationship with Ayers are both tenuous connections at best, and to treat them the same as Wright or Rezko is a pretty clear case of POV undue weight. Trying to bundle three separate issues together (when only one's being contested to my knowledge) is counter-productive: You don't see me objecting to Wright or Rezko material, and you're talking past me when you imply such. Note that I actually expanded the TUCC paragraph yesterday, which has met no opposition whatsoever.

Bottom line? Bill Ayers is not notable enough (in relation to the article's subject) to be included in Obama's biography; Ayers is not Jeremiah Wright, nor is he Antoin Rezko. The Ayers debate question received very minor media coverage compared with Rezko and Trinity, nor has anyone demonstrated that Bill Ayers played a role in Obama's biography even remotely comparable to Antoin Rezko or TUCC. Rezko played a direct role in Obama's early private employment/public work/place of residence, TUCC was his church of 20+ years (and his recent departure from the church makes it all the more notable), but Bill Ayers played no such role in Obama's life. The Ayers debate question "mini-controversy" played a minor role in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (where it is addressed), but doesn't belong in Obama's main biography. Shem^(talk) 05:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Did not mean to talk past your particular perspective. Many here do seem to think policy is to avoid negative material in BLP's specifically that involving the Wright and Rezko issues. Wanted to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. --Floorsheim (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

John Jacobs (center) and Terry Robbins (with sunglasses) at the Days of Rage, Chicago, October 1969.

guilt by association Shem, there's no dispute that Obama associated himself with people who admit to bombing buildings and say they aren't sorry about it. The phrase guilt by association means that so-and-so may have done what that other guy did because he was around him. No one alleges that Obama is a terrorist. The facts are not in dispute: He went to the couple's house, they did him a favor, he served on the board with Ayers and appeared on two discussion panels with him and praised an Ayers book on education in the Chicago Trib. The only thing in dispute is what to make of all that. Should Obama not have done it? Some say yes, some say no. There is also no dispute that there is a controversy about this and it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article of its own. Anything that notable, and there aren't a whole lot of them associated with the Obama campaign, should be linked in the article. The Obama campaign and its supporters are putting a special meaning on the phrase guilt by association to give it the meaning "you cannot criticize Obama for doing that". Well, sorry, people can and people will. And lots and lots of people, including reliable sources, have reported on it. Obama's campaign has already criticized McCain for associating with lobbyists, so even the Obama campaign sees associations as potentially a problem. Bill Ayers has been a notable person for a long time. There is an article on his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, there is an article on his organization, Weathermen, there is an article about a documentary about his organization, The Weather Underground, there is an article about one famous incident regarding his organization, Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. There are articles about the other famous people in the Weathermen. For crying out loud, it's got its own category. This whole subject reeks notability from every pore. News coverage and commentary has been continuous from February to the present. Look at the traffic stats for the Bill Ayers article. More page views in May than in February or March. It peaked on the night of the debate (or the next day). Those are very big numbers for a Wikipedia article. That kinda speaks to the notability of the relationship. Noroton (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnnie Cochran using the Chewbacca Defense against Chef in South Park.

These endlessly repeated pseudo-arguments passed asinine a long time ago. No matter how many thousands of words a few sock-puppets write about how very much they hate Ayers, it has never been remotely relevant to this article... which is, try to remember, about Barack Obama. Yes there are a bunch of article about Ayers and things he in turn has some connection with. None of that even comes within a stone's throw of relevance here. Likewise, Obama probably ate Kellogs corn flakes at some point... and there are articles on the notable Kellogs company, on corn flakes, on corn, on cereal, maybe he even had milk on top of it, and ate it with a spoon and bowl. No matter how many words of digression one might add about he great importance of those various other things, it doesn't even remotely suggest we need to include Obama's corn flake eating in this article.

None of this has ever been anything other than dissimulation by rabidly anti-Obama partisans who want to pollute a WP article with irrelevant crap. Policy remains in effect... they are welcome to all get their own MySpace pages, which would be relevant places for these rants.

I was thinking about whether the bad arguments of the Obama loathers here fit better in Argumentum ad misericordiam or Argumentum ad nauseam (c.f. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html). I suppose they can be both at once. In any case, along the whole irrelevant digression line, it's fun to read about the study of fallacies. LotLE×talk 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lulu, I do not appreciate the presumption of bad faith on my part or on the part of anyone else involved in this discussion. Nor do I appreciate using the inflammatory words 'rant' and 'asinine' in connection to our expressed views concerning what should go in the article. Myself and others have made our arguments in favor of relevance very clear. Please deal directly with them and leave the personal attacks out of it. --Floorsheim (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier not to presume bad faith if a few radical anti-Obama partisans wouldn't so obviously display it (even using multiple sock-puppets to do so in one case... not by you). Every time there is a new 1000+ word essay on the 1960s actions of Ayers/Weathermen/etc on this talk page, it is a flagrant insult to Wikipedia, to me, and to all editors of good faith. These tirades continue to lack even a shred of relevance (I suppose the anti-Obama brigade hopes to "win the argument" by mere exhaustion). While I don't like your expressed willingness to flaunt WP:BLP, I have not seen you post any of those long and insulting rants.

Per my analogy, it would be like me posting 5000 word essays on the history of corn as a mean of arguing the hypothetical importance of including a digression on the history and significance of corn into the article, because "Obama has eaten corn flakes" (probably he's done so many more times than he's spoken with Ayers). In fact, checking right now Google news shows more hits on Obama+Corn than it does on Obama+Ayers, so based on news interest, my (absurd) proposed addition has more basis than yours. LotLE×talk 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There has clearly been some bad faith (sockpuppets), tendentiousness, rudeness, etc. So some jumpiness is understandable. But please remember that reasonable people may differ too, and there are some very strong arguments by good, earnest, courteous editors on all sides. So it's best not to assume that someone is a problem editor just because you disagree forcefully with what they say. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Floorsheim's arguments, I will direct everyone's attention to this portion of the Wikipedia essay cited by Floorsheim: Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Ayers belongs in the article, and additional context is needed. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A proper interpretation of BLP

Floorsheim has misinterpreted the policies. First of all, WP:BLP trumps WP:ROC because the latter is just an essay. In fact, WP:BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies - something I will expand on later. First, let me yet again remind you of why guilt-by-association content is so inappropriate to biographies by repeating my example from earlier:

1. Not saying anything.
2. John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy.
3. John Doe bought a pair of shoes from some random guy who, it turns out, murdered his wife by chopping her into little pieces and putting the bits in old jam jars. The story got loads of media coverage because of the gruesome details; therefore, the character of John Doe must be judged on who he buys his shoes from.

Again, this perfectly illustrates why "loads of media coverage" is not a good enough excuse to put facts about other people in a BLP, however thoroughly referenced. Because of the risk of defamation, Wikipedia's BLP policy is the most stringent, overriding all others. It has to be that way to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from potential legal action. There is no question about the relevance of Obama's associations with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, because these were personal relationships that existed for an extended period. Obama's own actions with respect to these men have been questioned. With Ayers, however, we are talking about someone who is little more than a fleeting acquaintance. Any misdeeds that Ayers may have done are not at all associated with Obama (indeed, he was just a kid living in Indonesia at the time), and since that time Ayers has become a respectable civic leader in Chicago. Obama's relationship with Ayers is not at all notable except when Republicans and their would be surrogates tried to make an issue of it during the campaign. The result was little more than a fart in a hurricane, as far as media coverage was concerned. No doubt the GOP machine will try to make more of the relationship than there is as the campaign develops, but that is a matter for the campaign article (if and when it happens). Finally, let me once again remind you of the key WP:BLP rules that apply here:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
• Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints.
• 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.

It is clear from these words that there should be no mention of William Ayers in this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If the claim was only that Barack Obama bought a pair of shoes, you would be correct. But this is not something merely being mentioned by the tabloid media or talk radio. Google news gets 951 hits for it right now [18] so it is obvious that the non-tabloid media considers it significant. The article ought to have a sentence mentioning the controversy simply because it is a controversy that is getting a ton of traction in the media. It doesn't need to go into detail about Ayers' life - that would be a WP:COATRACK - but one sentence would be appropriate. --B (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Search engine test warns us against relying upon search engine returns, but that aside, 951 hits on Google is a very, very minuscule number of returns. Compare with 15,000 news returns for "Obama Wright" and 4,000 for "Obama Rezko." Many of the Google returns for "Obama Ayers" don't even mention Ayers, only mention Ayers in user-submitted article comments, or come from unreliable blogs like Hot Air. The weight is nowhere near similar. Shem^(talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Although I don't know about the one sentence thing. To me, as few sentences as are necessary to make the effects of the factor on the subject plainly apparent (as per the suggestions of WP:ROC) while keeping in mind WP:WEIGHT should be used. --Floorsheim (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. You cannot use a Google search as justification for a BLP violation, particularly when there are just as many results for an identical search, substituting "ayers" for "shoes". The "controversy" is campaign-related, not biographical. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The comparison is absurd. Nobody is doing an article about Obama's shoes. They are doing articles about Obama+Ayers. I remember a few months back, the liberal Wikipedians were convinced that Fred Thompson's artcle needed a lengthy bit about Thompson doing a commercial for Lifelock because it had come out that one of Lifelock's principals had previously been accused of a crime. Never mind that Thompson had never met the guy or that the one article on the subject had been widely criticized as a vicious attack piece, it had to be there. I find it humorous that now that the shoe is on the other foot, even extensive media coverage where you can't watch a news program for a half an hour without them talking about Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, and Rezko isn't enough to justify inclusion. --B (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I watch news on different channels for way more than 1/2 hour on a daily base and only on FOX-news it's the same old news again and again and again. So if some want to mention him here go ahead, just write it like a "sidenote" because that's all what it is. If you want to make a "big deal" out of it wait till the actual Presidental election has started and you might get some headlines in your favor. Tha-tha-that's all folks --Floridianed (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your point, User:B? It sounds as if those "liberal Wikipedians" were wrong, and were violating WP:UNDUE by trying to insert that into Thompson's article, and it doesn't look like the material you're talking about is still there (and good for that). I don't expect the "two wrongs" argument from sysops, and I'd respectfully ask that you quit talking past people by trying to bundle Ayers with Wright/TUCC/Rezko. They can each be discussed on their own merits. Shem^(talk) 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, it isn't clear to me at all from the items you quoted that WP:BLP policy indicates the Ayers stuff should go. Quite the contrary in fact. Please explain. Arguments myself and others have presented for inclusion of the Ayers issue have nothing to do with guilt by association but rather are grounded on the presence of the issue in the non-tabloid media, which there is plenty of evidence for.

Again, it doesn't matter whether you or I think it's a silly or unfounded issue for the media to cover. The simple fact that the media is covering it warrants its inclusion in this article. Here's another quote from WP:BLP regarding that:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say.

Clearly, on the basis of this and my quotations above, WP:BLP policy is to include the material. It is significantly discussed in third-party sources; and it is notable, well-documented, and relevant by the standards suggested in WP:ROC on the grounds that it has affected Obama's public perception and presentation in the media. Therefore, WP:BLP is in favor of its inclusion.

Also, please keep inflammatory incivilities like "ROFL" out of the discussion.

--Floorsheim (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you quote above refers to the subject of the article (Barack Obama), not William Ayers. The manufactured controversy is an artifact of the election campaign, which means the coverage of it is certainly relevant to the campaign article. But it has no relevancy in the biography, and it really hasn't had any effect on the public perception of Obama (unlike Jeremiah Wright). Incidentally, I'm not sure how you can equate "ROFL" with incivility. I just thought the Google search was funny because it was so meaningless (as I demonstrated). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see this more as a relevancy and weight issue than BLP (though in other articles and occasionally here derogatory material about Ayers can venture into BLP territory). Regarding relevancy, it simply is not something that says anything encyclopedic about Obama. Tagging each politician's article with every bad person they ever met is not an encyclopedic endeavor. The fact that partisian politics works this way is interesting and notable - in articles about elections, but not about the people behind them. If you can step back, we do this in other contexts too. If there is an article about a famous sports player we don't put all of their sporting events, however well sourced, in their main bio article - we would describe the detail in the article about that game, or season. We don't put critical reaction to each of an author's books in the author's bio - we put it in the article about the book. And so on. It's a matter of putting material where it belongs. In a different political era it was okay to have rough friends (as long as they weren't communists or athiests or something), but the issue back then might have been drug use. Any politician who ever used drugs, or associated with people who did, was doomed. Would we put a bio section in every politican's article that they used illegal drugs or not? No. At different times, if a politician was ever in therapy, or had a divorce, or hired domestic staff without proper tax withholding, that was the big issue of the day. Today the issue is trying to taint candidates by emphasizing their connection with unsavory people. That's relevant to elections, not to people. On the weight concern I counted 95 articles about Obama / Ayers. Perhaps it's 1,000 depending on how you search google. But that's out of hundreds of thousands of articles about Obama. This is a tiny, tiny issue. The only people paying attention, it seems, are us on this talk page and some conservative bloggers who are pushing this as an issue. Frankly, America does not seem to care. America cares a lot more about Rezko and Wright, for example (though there could be a relevancy issue with Wright), than Bill Ayers. Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to try to argue that the media coverage is not significant, that would be a relevant argument. It would be interesting to compare the number of articles concerning Obama's relationship to Ayers with the number concerning chili-cooking skills and various positive information in the article.

Otherwise, the simple fact is, provided there is significant coverage of the Ayers and other issues, they belong in the article according to WP:BLP, WP:ROC, and also WP:COMMON sense. Trying to say the Ayers issue hasn't influenced public perception in spite of significant coverage simply because there hasn't been a poll to prove it as there has in the case of Wright is heads in the sand. While it would be WP:OR to state in the article that public perception has been influenced by the significant coverage, deciding whether to include the material in the article is a separate issue. It is far safer to assume that an issue receiving significant coverage has influenced public perception than to assume that it has not. Much better to include it than leave it out.

Furthermore, owing to the fact that Obama's presidential run is his most significant noteworthy trait and the fact that these events have influenced that campaign, as Scjessey states himself, the material is relevant according to WP:ROC guidelines on those grounds as well.

Scjessey, you are way out on a limb here. I know you want this article to be a strict bio of Obama's life, focusing on his chili cooking skills and what not. But that is not what consensus here at Wikipedia regarding articles such as this says we are to do. And it is not what common sense tells many of us would make a good article.

WP:BLP policy states that it is our job here, for the most part, to document third party coverage of issues relevant to Obama. The relevancy of the Ayers, Wright, and Rezko stuff is air tight. Provided the coverage is significant, it must go in.

Also, "ROFL" is a well-known term of condescension in reference to another person's point of view. Scjessey, please leave things like that to yourself from now on.

Will be gone next couple of days.

--Floorsheim (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Believing your assumptions about Ayers to be correct and saying "it adheres to policy" over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Shem^(talk) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't assume anything about Ayers. I simply think that, provided there is significant third party coverage of the Ayers issue, it ought to be represented in the article. To me, that is WP:COMMON sense and it is the clear application of WP:BLP policy to this article for reasons I have given several times. --Floorsheim (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that weight argument about whether the Ayers controversy is significant enough to cover in a bio about Obama translates to "it is because it is", whereas mine is "it isn't, as evidenced by the relative paucity of reliable published sources as compared to the weight of sources about other things." Sure some sources are about his chili cooking skills. But most of the pieces about Ayers are even less weighty than chili cooking. And unnecessary fluff isn't nearly as bad as impertinent disparagement. Nobody can sort through several hundred thousand articles, and even if we could there isn't an algorithm for weighing things. It's always going to be a matter of judgment. That's where relevance comes in. 95 articles or 1000 is enough to establish notability, so we might as well cover it in more detail in a place where the coverage is reasonable - an article devoted to the controversy, which we have. There's no demonstration at all that this significantly affects Obama's presidential run, much less his trajectory as a person and a politician. Until then, it's like devoting a section to the fact that a given politician used drugs, saw a therapist, or failed to withhold taxes on domestic help. You may think it says something about their character but most people, apparently, disagree. Agreed that ROFL isn't a term of insult, btw. It can be a little passive aggressive, but in most cases it's a way to diffuse tension, not to increase it. Have a good weekend....we'll keep the article going for you. Wikidemo (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Also, "ROFL" is a well-known term of condescension in reference to another person's point of view. Scjessey, please leave things like that to yourself from now on."

I don't know what internet you're on, but that's not what that abbreviation means. Nar Matteru (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. You cannot use a Google search as justification for a BLP violation First, it isn't a BLP violation but keeping it out is an NPOV violation. Second, while any lunatic can open a website and the cumulative effect of a lot of lunatics can fluff up an ordinary Google search, Google News is limited to respected, mainstream news media websites like the New York Times and Reuters, plus a few partisan sites like Daily Kos. The handful of partisan sites are far from sufficient to skew a Google News search. There are 411 Google News hits for "Obama + Ayers." They include such mainstream sites as MSNBC, Time magazine, the Wall Street Journal, ABC News, the Washington Post and the Associated Press. And a hearty "ROFL" to you too, Scjessey. The mainstream media are linking Ayers and Obama, and they find the association to be notable. Sorry, you lose big time. No BLP violation. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The abbreviation is for "rolling on the floor laughing". Telling someone you're rolling on the floor laughing in response to what they have said, that thing not being a joke, is an insult. --Floorsheim (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to seriously check your motives if you're treating Talk page discussions as "win/lose" contests wherein your goal is to make opponents "lose big time." This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. Shem^(talk) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it. When POV pushers like Scjessey lose, Wikipedia wins. BLP says, Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints. The particular viewpoint that's getting a disproportionate amount of space ... in fact all of the space ... is the viewpoint of Obama's campaign manager. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're hardly in any position to accuse other editors of POV-pushing. I'd say "pot kettle," but "plank in eye" seems more fitting. You seem content to ride the fast lane toward ban-town, so I'll leave you to your own devices. Shem^(talk) 03:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

When a substantial POV that criticizes or questions the subject of a biography is systematically excluded, deleted and reverted, in clear violation of WP:NPOV, the partisans seeking to preverve this status quo frequently accuse those seeking to restore NPOV of being "POV pushers." Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... that would be fine except that you were are talking about "a substantial POV that criticizes or questions" someone who is NOT the subject of the biography, which is why it is a clear violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The criticism and questioning has been directed TO OBAMA - during televised debates, in the pages of our nation's newspapers and news magazines, and on televised talk shows (no, not just Fox) - for associating so closely and for so long with criminals and bigots. It has been directed to Obama by mainstream, highly respected journalists and political commentators. Which is why it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV to delete it, but not a violation of WP:BLP to include it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama is being criticized over his affiliation with the man. --Floorsheim (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Compare Ron Paul

Please consider my comments as a WP:08 "cofounder" and a veteran of the same battle at Ron Paul's article. Five months ago Paul was attacked (again) for newsletters he'd overseen that had his name on them, and which often implied that he'd written them: the newsletters had many viewpoints described as racist and by other epithets, and his associations with the actual writers (and whether he was an actual writer) were hotly debated. The article was locked down for a week, tempers flew, and I opted out for awhile because so messy. Well guess what. We sprinkled the newsletter controversy throughout the article with strict chronological methodology; we included one to two paragraphs on its late flareup in the campaign section; and we directed all editors to rant (seven or eight paragraphs) at the campaign article instead due to the main article being a Former Featured Article Candidate. And the edit war DIED COLD. That has not happened here. There is still a faction that believes any mention of a controversy is somehow verboten as if such mention could never be NPOV; and there is still a faction that believes that controversies should be played up as much as possible because there is no way to properly contextualize without loads of gory paragraphs. Under good faith, both these POVs are understandable, but guys, you must take the time to recognize them as careless, unsophisticated ruts of mismanaging this possibly most controversial article of all (I don't say that lightly). Only then will the Wikipedian goal of article stabilization be successful. (And if you don't believe in stabilizing this article, you need to reread some of the Wikipedia core documents.) My point is that wars over Ron Paul (who faced an exceedingly similar attack), George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and even Hillary Clinton have not had anywhere near the inability to agree on policy applications that this article has seen. This article rivals (and I think surpasses due to subtlety) the Eastern Europe turf wars (where is Macedonia?). Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. The third Featured Article Review here even was closed with an anomalous result unique in the annals, because there seemed no way for the debate closer to proceed normally; and the debate has continued indefinitely. My POV (digression): It is my firm belief that Clinton (no love lost) will use the very allegations we're discussing, among others, to cannibalize Obama completely about two weeks before the convention, pulling superdelegate rank and winning a dirty vote, prior to her coasting neck-and-neck past McCain (no love lost) in a no-holds-barred, full-attention-diverting "race". The more attention wasted the better for her real plans. See if this prophecy is wrong. That means that this may all be academic soon because it'll be suddenly and painfully obvious that much more attention will have become appropriate to Obama scandals; (end digression:) all the same, wouldn't it be better to have these issues settled long before the flurry of news that anyone can reasonably expect to arise at the convention? JJB 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to make peace. Looking at the other major candidate's article, John McCain, none of that contention is present and there is no debate over detailing random miscellaneous controversies. The article does not have them. However, I don't think it's a good idea to characterize positions cogently argued by 1/4 to 1/3 of the participants on each side as "careless, unsophisticated ruts." The objection of some to coatracking discussion of "unrepentant terrorist" (say some) Bill Ayers into this article isn't that controversies should be ignored; rather it is based on BLP and on an argument that it is not a bona fide controversy - it is a minor, failed piece of attack politics that is covered elsewhere, not relevant to the subject of this article, and does not satisfy weight concerns. The objection of others to "whitewashing" the candidate is not entirely without merit either. They correctly point out that each of the controversies is verifiable and has enough reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, and that readers coming to this article want to know about them, at least to be pointed to where they can learn more. What has broken down here is not content but process. We have repeated polling, lots of incivility, edit warring, wikigaming, an outstanding sockpuppet report, and now an AN/I case. Wikidemo (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A fine point, but John McCain does have controversies. Also, your observations demonstrate my language precisely: it is a careless, unsophisticated rut either to insert "unrepentant terrorist" by citing sources (which is a coatrack here), or to delete an informative link to Weathermen by citing BLP. The approach indicated by WP and yourself is to determine what middle ground is due weight in each case, and to avoid every gameable invocation of other processes. This can hardly be the first ANI case on this page, and with recent news it's going to get worse before better. Anyway, hoping to catch up with you on cooler pages. JJB 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. Exactly right, John. Look, I will support any compromise that allows a fair treatment of Wright, Rezko and Ayers in this article. Keep it as short as you want, but make sure that readers understand there is a controversy, and why there is a controversy, by reading this article. What is the weight that is due to Bill Ayers when a compromise is reached? At least one sentence maybe two. For Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, at least one substantial paragraph each, maybe two, maybe more later if the right win 527s make a big deal out of them.

I hesitated to take a voluntary 30-day vacation from the topic of Barack Obama, because it would be difficult for the people like Noroton left here to control the impulses of what Bigtimepeace describes as "Obamanators." But since BTP is here, I feel more comfortable doing so. Pay attention to what BTP says. I'll be back. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Obama really black?

The news media keeps reporting that Obama could be the first black president, but is he really black? I tried to look up some information about his race, it seems he is only 1/4 black, hardly qualified to be a blackman. Correct me if I am wrong, I didn't see any information regarding this in the article, I could have just missed it. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He is biracal. His father was from Africa and his mother was Caucasian who lived in Hawaii. He also self-identifies as African-American according to his auto-biography --8bitJake (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

However, this calls into the question of what one would consider African-American. There is a segment of that population who believe that more recent immigrant groups from the continent of Africa should not be considered African-American, who trace their history to those who were forcibly brought to the United States through the slave trade. Rather they contend that they should be catagorized based on their nation of origin.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article African American spells this out quite adequately; we link to that article. As Jake said, he self-identifies as African American and black and the mainstream media do so as well. Tvoz/talk 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is, he is half-black and he was raised by the white side of his family. Fixedit1980 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There are very, very few "African-"Americans who are anything approaching purely negroid ancestry. Obama probably falls right around the median in that regard. The issue is that his father was a voluntary immigrant and not the descended of West African slaves, and therefore Barak is not heir to the legacy of American black slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormwoodpoppies (talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling him solely African-American perpetuates the one-drop-rule. Further, most African-Americans don't have a white mother; so, this argument isn't solely about his father's emigration. Stop perpetuating racism, because that makes you a racist. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The label isn't "Heir-to-Legacy-of-American-Black-Slavery." The label is "African-American," which means an American with African ancestry. Life.temp (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing people forget, that is extremely important, is what he considers himself. If he considers himself an African American, then who are we to go in and tell him differently. For example: if a person is born by a Jewish mother and a Christian father, which are they? Christianity identifies through the father (I.E. what your father is, you are.), yet Judaism identifies through the mother (I.E. what your mother is, you are.) so which are they? It is up to that person, and only that person, to choose which religion/race to identity with. So if he considers himself an African American, then so be it. Brothejr (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I have stated elsewhere, if he called himself Asian, there would likely be some sort of asterisk explaining it away. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the African immigration to the United States page here on Wikipedia it clearly states that there has been a delination between the two groups, and that one group is may not be considered by the other group as part of the larger African-American groupage. Furthermore the page claims Senator Obama as representative of that group. This is not to say that some may consider this group as a sub-group of the larger African-American groupage . . . much as Loasians are considered a sub-group of the larger Asian-American groupage. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Establish consensus on racial designation

We should clarify here what Obama's racial designation is and stick with it - there is the beginnings of an edit war.

As far as I can tell the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that Obama is "African-American", point out he is the first AA major presidential nominee, and explain in detail his parentage (Kenyan father, white mother). Unless we find a preponderance of sources to say otherwise that's how we should describe him. Let's establish the consensus here and point anyone who would edit otherwise to the consensus.

Race and racial terms are complex, fluid, and subject to some disagreement. That argument is for somewhere else, an article about the semantics of race, not the article about a particular person with a given racial background.

So that we can build a quick consensus and/or policy argument, please say what you think here, argue here, etc., but not by making controversial edits on the main page. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we also add that he is also the first mulatto/biracial to the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party. I see that it's going to take a miracle to drive it into most of the people's head that he isn't African-American; however, that doesn't mean that we can't also add what I said in my first sentence. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can and should, but down in the personal life section in the discussion about this family background and ancestry. The first sentence is only...one sentence long, so limited room there for a discussion of race. Rightly or wrongly, as of 2008 in America people of mixed white / African parentage are considered African-American even if that ignores the subtleties and differences. That's a matter of the terminology being askew (if you think that's bad, just think of all the imprecision around terms like Native American, Asian, or Latino when people are of mixed parentage). However, there must be articles out there that go into depth on Obama's mixed parentage and what that says on matters of culture and race. That could be worth a sentence or two farther down in the article, where we have room. Wikidemo (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with lead

"He is the first African American to be the presumptive presidential nominee of any major American political party."

Why is this so important that it needs to go in the lead of the article? Seriously, who cares? This is practically suggesting that we should be surprised that a black man is being considered for the Presidency. It's only news in the racially-backwards country in which he's being nominated. I think the rest of the civilized world view this for what it is - unimportant trivia. If anyone is curious about how many black men, brown-eyed men, men who wore pinky-rings, Californian men, men with asthmatic house pets, etc. have run for President, they can just look up the list of presidential candidates and find this info.

Certainly this information is of interest, and I can see mentioning it later in the article (with an appropriate explanation of why this should be considered important - i.e. the struggle for equality among races in the U.S.) but putting it in the lead just suggests that he is somehow less equal because of his colour or that he is a token candidate - something I am sure Mr. Obama himself would deny being. 139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an important historical fact for the USA as it would be, if Clinton would have been the first female nominee. It's that simple. --Floridianed (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax. The original anonymous poster is obviously spewing inflammatory rhetoric; they are naught but a simple drive by troll. I do, however, like the ongoing documentation of such obtuseness. Sociologists of the future have rich pickings herein. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm calm but still had to point it out. If it convinces at least one it was worth the effort  ;-) --Floridianed (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm quite serious. Why would it be of any more interest if he was female? That's simply another category of trivia. The same caveats still apply - making special mention of either gender or race makes it seem like the candidate is a token rather than an equal. Why is this hard to grasp? It should be removed from the lead for the reasons I outlined, and if included in the article, explain why this is "historic" - i.e. the poor state of race relations in the United States. The fact that a racial minority is seen as being worthy to lead the nation would not be news in many other countries.139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's race, like Hillary's gender, is significant for social, cultural, and historical reasons. The United States' particularly dramatic history of racial polarization, segregation, and discrimination makes Obama's race significant, because it marks a major milestone in the history of racial equality in the U.S. Outside of any historical context, and in an ideal world, Obama's race would be beyond trivial. But Wikipedia writes about the world as it is, not about the world as it ought to be. And in the world as it is, race is still a major sociocultural issue. It's true that a racial minority becoming a presidential candidate wouldn't be news in every country. But then, not every country fought a war over race either. There are other articles (including African American itself) which cover the history of race in the United States more than adequately; we need not give it more than a cursory mention here, as most of our readers will already be very familiar with the matter. Centuries from now, any history book which touches on the history of racism in the United States will probably mention that Obama was the first viable African-American candidate, if nothing else; if he becomes president, that becomes all the more signficant. -Silence (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just a little list of Leaders where "the first woman" or "first black"... is clearly mentioned:

Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Nelson Mandela (look below at subcategory: Presidency of South Africa). Well, now should we go all over WP and take those remarks out or just do the same here? Sure, now you'll say well, but he isn't President yet. And? Being the first black nominee is for the United States a major issue and President or not, he allready has his place in our history! Now do whatever you want. Tha-tha-that's all folks. --Floridianed (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm still sore that my insertion "As of today he is the only Roman Catholic elected to the Presidency" was deleted by someone from the John F. Kennedy article. All these achievements are of historical noteworthiness. 69.203.13.82 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Allen Roth

How is being Roman Catholic an impediment to being elected as President? How can you possibly classify that an "achievement"? Becoming President, yes, but because his church had a different shaped cross on the roof he has achieved something special? Please.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

At the time of JFK's candidacy there were significant concerns among the majority of Americans (who are Protestants) that a Catholic president would be more beholden to the Pope than to the citizens of the U.S. While the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism may not be significant now, it was then. The same may ultimately be true of Obama's candidacy/potential presidency. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying again: Cultural perception section

I have tagged the "Cultural image" section for Neutrality. It gives various reasons why people love Obama, while giving the impression that there is not a soul around who has a negative "cultural perception" of him. Fishal (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole paragraph in that section on whether Obama really "counts" as African American. You don't consider that a critical passage? Shem^(talk) 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is true-- my mistake :-/. But even that concludes with the idea that Obama's just too darn appealing to white people... sort of a left-handed criticism, if such a thing is possible? As the campaign has dragged on I know that via the media I have heard all sorts of issues people have with his background (cf. the "arugula" comment and the "bitterness" comment). Both of these faux pas were blown ridiculously out of proportion, but both left a lasting impact on many people's perceptions of Obama. The issue was the cover story of Time (or Newsweek) quite recently, IIRC. Fishal (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Fix it. You too can get reverted. Andyvphil (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just might :-). http://www.newsweek.com/id/134398 is the article. I'd better get on it quickly, since those articles tend to get archived away from the public rather fast. Fishal (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to go forward with this, Fishal. One of the weakest sections in the article. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the {{npov}} tag is unwarranted. Differing points of view are presented, with issues over his "blackness" raised in the second paragraph and specific negative image concerns raised in the third paragraph. The arugula/bitter "faux pas" are transient issues arising from the current campaign which are unlikely to make a lasting impression, but certainly warrant coverage in the related campaign article. I think the section is a bit too long, but I am uncertain as to what (if anything) should be cut. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Throwing in a couple criticisms of Obama amidst such a great deal of praise does not equate to NPOV when there is quite a bit of other criticism out there that is not represented at all. Also, it is impossible for us to say at this point what will and will not lead to a lasting impression. The NPOV tag should stay until all notable, well-sourced, and relevant criticism and negative views are represented, in accordance with WP:BLP. --Floorsheim (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Something about the section seems not-right, although I wouldn't call it an NPOV problem. Maybe a matter of focus and unencyclopedic tone. An extended section on "image" seems like spin, and a bit like pop culture digression. We could probably research, and find enough sources, for an "image" section on every politician but is that how we want to organize the article? I don't see it all as praise though. Saying that people think of Obama what they want to think of him, without knowing who he really is, is not entirely a compliment. The answer is not to pile on every criticism that can be sourced - BLP is clearly not about that. It might be to shorten the section by about half, change and demote the heading to be more specific, and make it sound less like an essay or exposition. Wikidemo (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds largely like something I could get behind. And I agree that we ought not pile on every criticism that can be sourced. The more notable and prevalent criticisms and negative views should be represented and explained, though, possibly including some (sourced) analysis thereof. It's important to an article about a politician to accurately portray how the public sees and has seen him. I think it's useful to include some views about why he is and has been seen in such ways as well. That way, readers are better equipped to understand the overall political context of the person, not to mention formulate their own views in a more clear-headed fashion. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New Cultural perception paragraph proposal: Viral emails

I'm sympathetic toward those who view the "cultural perception" section as a puff piece, though I disagree that it lacks critical analysis (debate over Obama's "blackness [19]," for example). For the sake of getting rid of the POV dispute template, how about this: A paragraph on Obama's struggle with viral emails. He's addressed the emails several times in debates and interviews, and hasn't shied from confronting their content (there's an entire section of his website dedicated to addressing them [20], and his campaign just added a new "internet war room" staff to deal with them [21]). I'm not saying this should be added to balance "positive" information with "negative" information, but to satisfy those who feel there're notable less-than-flattering cultural perceptions/images of Obama which aren't being duly addressed. This seems like something those who are "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" could participate in shaping, and there're wheelbarrow-loads of sources we could draw from.

I'm an Obama supporter, and can assure other Obama supporting editors that I'd be diligent in working with User:Fishal and others to prevent it from becoming simply an extension of the viral emails themselves. Thoughts? Shem^(talk) 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate the effort, although I would hope you would do that last bit regardless of being an Obama supporter or not. :) One question I would have is how seriously does anyone take the viral emails? Although they are apparently taken seriously enough for Obama to address them publicly. If we did cover the viral emails, I think it would be good to debunk their more outstanding claims while we were at it. For all we know, someone could have come to the article right after reading one of the emails wondering if there was any truth to it or not.

The stuff I see as being most important to add, myself, is Obama's falling out of favor with blue collar white males and the surrounding events and sensitivities. That is a view of Obama that many people have and take seriously. It should be brought up and explained.

--Floorsheim (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's terribly important to include the viral email smear, in part because it would be extremely difficult to determine how widespread the smear is and how seriously those who've read it take its contents. If there's a consensus that the tone of the "cultural image" section is too adulatory, I'd support some mention of the elitism charge and Obama's difficulty connecting with some white working class voters, especially in Appalachia. (Here's one possible source for such an addition.)

Also on the topic of Obama's cultural image, it might be worth considering a mention of how Obama and his candidacy are viewed internationally. The New York Times had a detailed overview of international responses to Obama securing the Democratic nomination (see here) and yesterday Thomas Friedman went so far as to say, "It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats’ nomination of Obama as their candidate for president has done more to improve America’s image abroad ... than the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years." I don't have the time to slug out how this (or something similar) could be incorporated into the section, but I think that international views of Obama are an important element of the "cultural image" question. If I wanted to make a big stink about it, I would add a {{Globalize}} tag to the section, but I don't think that's necessary or particularly productive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for a globalize tag. He's running for the US Presidency, after all. And I don't think the viral e-mails are particularly noteworthy-- these sorts of things lurk in the background of every campaign. Maybe a mention, though, since Obama himself seems to acknowledge them as a danger. Perhaps a statistic citing the staggering percentage of Americans who still think Obama's a Muslim!

This source is also useful, talking about his alleged lack of appeal to working-class voters. Had I time I would have already added material to the article from it: Thomas, Evan; Bailey, Holly; and Wolffe, Richard. "Only in America: obama's 'Bubba Gap'". Newsweek 5 May 2008. Online: http://www.newsweek.com/id/134398. Accessed 6 June 2008.

And by the way, Seth-- I've been an Obama supporter since the primaries began. He's the first candidate whose name's been pasted to my bumper. I happen to be an Obama supporter who values neutrality. Don't jump to conclusions too quickly.  :)

Fishal (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's religion

His religion is listed as United Church of Christ. But he's recently split from his church ([22] ). So should it be changed to just "Protestant" or "Christian"? Millancad (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He separated from that one church in Chicago but not the entire United Church of Christ which has lots of member churches all over the place. So I would keep it United Church of Christ. --8bitJake (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

United Church of Christ is not a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bop me two times (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a major Christian protestant church. As a member I don’t really appreciate your negative insults of my faith and my Presidential Nominee. --8bitJake (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake, settle down. The editor was just wondering why the religion field said UCC instead of Christian. What Bop me said is technically correct, UCC isn't a religion, it's a denomination of Christianity. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well considered the RNC is currently attacking his time teaching constitutional law and his religion there is no doubt that there is attempts to write it into the article. --8bitJake (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that The United Church of Christ is a denomination. So perhaps "Christian - United Church of Christ" would be better. 64.183.164.250 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Something like that would help. Imagine people who don't know nothing about Obama and his religion. For them it's probably somehow confusing. --Floridianed (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Legitamacy

Many still want to know where & when his parents were married. A photocopy of his birth certificate should suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A photocopy of his birth certificate? Huh? I think you're confusing Wikipedia with The Smoking Gun. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you support the WP:NPOV policy, or do you oppose it?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the push poll. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was speedy nonadmin close per WP:NOT#DEM.

Another simple poll, ladies and gentlemen. WP:NPOV demands the inclusion of all significant POVs, including the POV that is questioning and criticizing Obama about his relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers. This is not a fringe POV. It is shared by mainstream journalists, by Hillary Clinton supporters in the Democratic Party, and by respected, credible conservatives. Do you support the inclusion of this POV, or do you oppose WP:NPOV and prefer to leave the article as it is - expressing only the POV of Obama's campaign manager?

Certain editors find that including the questioning/critical POV is not acceptable from their POV. These proponents have fallen prey to a number of failings, including perceiving their own bias as neutrality, misinterpreting and distorting WP:BLP to justify the deletion of any negative material at all about anyone associated with Obama, ascribing motives, and claiming that opposition to their proposed edits equates to support for the questioning/critical POV. Most editors are able to rise above this, but some are unable to work in a collaborative and collegial manner, and the worst of these may end up being excluded under Wikipedia's banning policy.

There is a tendency for certain editors in particular to seek administrative sanction against those they perceive as opponents. In the case of this article, the definition of "opponent" has in several cases included those who enforce Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and resist their attempts to skew content to be more overtly favorable to Obama. Kossack4Truth (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• STRONGLY SUPPORT establishing WP:NPOV as the governing policy in this article by including more material about Wright, Rezko and Ayers, and commentary from notable persons who are criticizing and questioning Obama about them. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE Look, the "context" that keeps getting advocated to be added is the very violation of NPOV, on the dubious ground that an NPOV description of the "controversy" will confuse people and dissuade them from clicking on the link to the "controversy" article. I (and, I think, others) reject that premise, which is I think the basis of the dispute here. The "context" material sought to be added isn't neutral. It may be sourced — there are plenty of folks out there editorializing against Wright and Ayers — but that doesn't make it neutral. I think the place to source those criticisms are in the linked articles, not this bio, as they're subjective opinions (regarding the relevance of, and the extent to which criticism of Wright and Ayers, should be "transferred" to Obama) rather than objective facts. Mfenger (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't say "material" must be "neutral". It says all POV found in RS must appear in proportion to its representation in RS. Saying Ayers is a "former radical activist" isn't an "NPOV" description -- it's a misleading description. So the real question is whether when the hagiographers say they support NPOV but laugably misrepresent it are they lying or deluded? AGF says we must speak as if we believe they are deluded. But then, what do we do about the fact that they appear to be ineducable? Andyvphil (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion topic is very unhelpful, as is the poll that looks like more of a rhetorical WP:POINT than any reasonable attempt to reach consensus Wikidemo (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have always supported WP:NPOV, but that policy is trumped by WP:BLP, which clearly states you cannot fill the biography with negative commentary, however well sourced, about individuals who are not the subject of the article (in this case, Ayers). Obama is not an unrepentant terrorist bomber/'60s radical/whatever, ergo, you cannot put that kind of material in the article. You can put it in the campaign article (not the campaign section of this article) because Ayers was briefly mentioned in the final debate, and then stoked-up by right-wing biased media. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is as much about relevance as NPOV. I tried to add a section with "back-and-forth" on the baseless allegations regarding Rezko, citing one partisan source and how another contradicted it. But if you're going to cover stuff like this, that's how it has to be covered. You should not write, "Rush Limbaugh said he slept with Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind of two World Trade Center bombings and the U.S.S. Cole attacks and..." You should write "Rush Limbaugh said he slept with Osama bin Laden, after which Bill Maher lept to his defense by bending Rush over his knee and spanking him soundly with a wooden paddle". See the difference? In Version 1 you have a "fact" about Obama elaborated with a "fact" about someone else; in Version 2 you have a "fact" about Obama countered by another "fact" about Obama. Wnt (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The questions about Wright, Rezko and Ayers are very relevant, because they're being asked by the mainstream news media - not just Fox, but respected and unbiased reporters from respected, renowned news organizations. These questions have become issues in the presidential campaign. Stephanopoulos opened a nationally televised debate with a series of questions to Obama about Ayers. But the name of Ayers is nowhere to be found in this article. That is an NPOV violation. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same nonsense, Kossack. The issues concerning Wright and Rezko are indeed relevant, because they directly concern Obama. This is not at all true of Ayers, which has nothing to do with Obama whatsoever. Ayers was a minor campaign issue, so it is worthy of inclusion in the campaign article, but any mention of Ayers in this biography would be a direct violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: One can't claim to support WP:NPOV while totally disregarding WP:NPOV#UNDUE. That aside, such loaded section titles are extremely unhelpful and're a terrible way to make a point. Shem^(talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, Kossack, but I am closing this approach because it baits digressions like the one below. Looking forward to your participation in the other discussions. JJB 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Push polls

OK, another one since it's so much fun:

Do you like puppies and butterflies, and therefore want encyclopedic articles; or do you kick children and want POV digressions here?

Like puppies and butterflies

• Support Butterflies are pretty (and <sarcasm> isn't actually the same as WP:POINT if it's only on talk pages). -User:Puppies and butterflies

Kick children

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Future discussion methodology for Rezko and Wright

Might I suggest we not use "sliding scales" or averages for the next two discussions? Also, which should we tackle first? Shem^(talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We have already tackled Rezko, we used a much shorter sliding scale (which has eliminated much of the problem caused by the longer sliding scale for Ayers) and the consensus supports No. 4. 70.9.18.59 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the disruption arising out of the repeated Bill Ayers polls, I think the approach of going down each controversial subject one at a time by polling is unwise. Our experience to date has embodied every problem raised by WP:VOTE - polarizing discussion, raising the stakes, triggering incivility, leaving off options, triggering expectations of majority rule, improperly interpreting outcome as binding, ignoring encyclopedicity. I got sucked into the Ayers vote, but I've avoided the Rezko vote because it's so contentious and pointless, and think many others may have done the same. We should probably go back to the drawing board on all this and see if the standard approach will work - an organic, free-form discussion among concerned editors, with behavioral guidelines against incivility and edit warring rigorously enforced.Wikidemo (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The true core of civility is to assume brother- and sisterhood. Not that siblings don't argue. But towards abandonment of argument through characterizations of others, replacing it with examination of whatever assertions and suggestions on their merits. (Eg, info about WorkerBee's being a new, campaign-issue-only account, is great. The first time. But thereafter, i/e until something untoward would be smoked out, let's let its repetition slide.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If we must start a new discussion, then it's clear that about a week was wasted in the old discussion. I suggest that a firm commitment to prompt resolution, and avoiding any repetition of old arguments that have already been refuted, should be assumed. Giving up personal attacks, suspicions of sockpuppetry and aspersions against the motives of others should also be assumed. Can we agree on these ground rules? 70.9.18.59 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with IP but I will not moderate. Sat out Rezko for same reason. This article is the remedial summer class for Consensus Building 101 and it has no teacher. "Leave those kids alone" only goes so far. JJB 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Condescension to both sides downplays legitimate concerns about editing abuse. Moreover, the out-of-sequence comment and minor put-down in the form of a new section heading, below[23] turn Shem's response to the new IP editor into a non-sequitur. So I suggest, please help if you will, but don't put down those who are.Wikidemo (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry digression

I've no good reason to give up suspicions of sockpuppetry. Shem^(talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All right then, stop disrupting this discussion with your ugly accusations and take them to a moderator. There's a "Suspected Sock puppets" page, and I've been posting on it. Take your accusations there, and see if a moderator will take you seriously. If they won't, then may I suggest that in the interests of civility, you should give it up, Jack? 70.9.18.59 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't very helpful in encouraging consensus by civility, was it? Wikidemo (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If Shem insists on provoking and baiting him/her, the response should be predictable. Just drop it. If you can't make your case adequately at WP:SSP, don't try to make it here. Such accusations are the zenith of incivility and I will seek to have such a false accuser blocked for violating WP:CIV. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't helpful either. The new IP editor has gone from nothing to accusations and incivility in a few edits. The case at SSP, and behavior here, are probably enough for a long-term block and/or article ban for Kossack4Truth, Andyvphil, Fovean Author, and WorkerBee74. I see no attempt to improve behavior, just defiance. That does not bode well. Wikidemo (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the What's-Good-For-The-Goose-Is-Good-For-The-Gander department: hey, couldn't this article's stability also be achieved simply through blocking recalcitrants unwilling to include even nominal mention of controversial material. :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to equate behavior with content. Article stability could be achieved through all sorts of means, including deleting the article. The concern, though, is a problem with process, not outcome. Wikidemo (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo wrote, "You seem to equate behavior with content."

Maybe I'm wrong, but your mention that "behavior here, are probably enough for a long-term block and/or article ban for Kossack4Truth, Andyvphil, Fovean Author, and WorkerBee74" seems on the face of it to be an attempt to settle a back-and-forth content dispute simply by banning one side. In other words, might such "wikilawyering," or whatever one-sided procedural prosecutions are called, itself be behavior that's crank trollishness? I/e, yes additions of material are behavior as are their deletions, yet efforts to label one or the other of these behaviors as Good Versus Evil obviously defines the resulting conflict as being won only when the offensive behavior is banished! Fine, when such additions/deletions are championed by some lone troll, but not by entire factions of WPdians marshalling evidence toward notability or rationales towards leanness of text, in which case wholesale labeling one side as banishable ogres innt The Wiki Way. To me at least. :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case you are assuming bad faith based on which side I am on, and rejecting my assurance that I am truly concerned about problem editors. I did not bring this issue up in this section. The new IP editor, who is also accused of being a sock puppet, was calling for further discussion based on a ground rule that nobody accuse one another other of abusive editing. That would be fine if there were no abusive editing.Wikidemo (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is better? For me to say, "Lulu and Life.temp are problem editors," or for me to say, "Lulu's four reverts a week ago (albeit one of them innocuous) raised my hackles as does Life.temp's several reverts today"? The first imposes on readers to trust whatever secret bases I have for my judgement while the second shows my readers that I respect them enough to allow them to judge the matter for themselves. That would be more polite, no? So, OK, now take a long look at the fact that you've taken a moment to comment here on the talkpage e/g about your animus toward Favean Author and WorkerBee74's edits. Instead of labeling them as problem editors wouldn't it have been better, out of respect for fellow contributors, to invest the little more effort it would take to explain which of these two's recent edits you find objectionable, allowing us to make up our own minds as to whether we share your negative assessment of their contributions? — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Behavior problems, not edits. When it crosses a line you have to deal with it. There has been some on both sides. Lulu used some quite uncivil language, which Norton rightly removed from this page (I won't point to it because I don't want to beat a dead horse), and Life's edits today seemed confrontational. If either of them keeps it up for weeks on end that could be a problem too and you would have to go beyond the specific edits to make the case that they had worn out their welcome on this article. The administrators watching this apparently agree - one of the four I mentioned is now on a long-term block and another is being considered for an article ban. Respect for fellow editors does not mean one has to repeat the case every time, quite the opposite. The anonymous editor said that to make peace here we should walk away from our behavior complaints, and attacked Shem for saying that he was not inclined to abandon his suspiciouns of sockpuppetry. I don't need to reproduce the entire sock puppet page here on this talk page to mention that there was some pretty disruptive behavior at issue there. There's no secret basis for any of this - it's all there if you follow the links to the sock puppet page, WP:AN/I, block histories, user talk pages, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that there's no chance for civility on this page until most of the people who disagree with you are blocked. Well, that's clear enough. And there's really no point in you, or any other exclusionist, working toward consensus is there? You have the article the way you want it. You can just dig in your heels, make false accusations, and claim that it's "for the good of Wikipedia." Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, will you cut that out? Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as Wikidem, Lulu, Scjessey and a few others agree to be reasonable everything will calm down wonderfully. But they just won't improve their behavior. Nothing but defiance. Clearly the only solution is for them to get long-term blocks and/or article bans. Um... that could've been sarcasam, but actually, it's true! Andyvphil (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus established by other biographies

These issues of connections with politically controversial figures--in the context of the Presidential campaign--belong in the article on his campaign. They don't belong in the general biography. That article already goes into great detail on much of this. Repeating it in this general article on his life is bad form, and an obvious political agenda. Please don't be a dick for your ideals. Thanks. Life.temp (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We should follow a format established in other Wikipedia articles about similar people: George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Kerry and Tony Blair, for example. When I review those articles, I am impressed by the broad and diverse array of names and political expressions I see in the Talk pages and histories of article edits. They form a very broad consensus of editors. Their consensus is as follows: critics of the politician who is the subject of the biography should be quoted and cited frequently in the biography. Controversies regarding the politician should be described in substantial detail in the biography, including bold headlines that clearly identify the controversy, such as "Whitewater," "Keating Five" and "Iran-Contra Scandal."

In those articles "summary style" hasn't been used to hide controversy elsewhere and make the politician look perfect. The opposite in fact. Controversy is dwelt upon at length. Critics are named and their criticisms are extensively blockquoted. Summary style is being used as camouflage here for an agenda: to systematically expunge any mention of any controversy from this article.

We reject that agenda. Wikipedia is not your battleground. The Wikipedia format for biographies of politicians is well established. IF you want to change the format of all these biographies to summary style, this is not the way to do it. Get a Wikiproject started or whatever, and get some supporters for your initiative that are greater in number than Scjessey, Life.temp and Wikidemo. WorkerBee74 (talk)

Please stop making this personal. That is uncalled for. Nearly all editors here would favor some coverage of Jeremiah Wright, so I think that is a straw man argument. I disagree with the analysis, though. The McCain article is not a litany of minor controversies, quite the opposite. Nor does that article have a plague of contentious editors trying to insert them. Keating Five was a substantial event in McCain's career, as were Whitewater and Iran-Contra to the people involved. Seven or eight editors so far have advanced the position that the Bill Ayers mention in particular should not be included here because: (1) WP:BLP issues relating to Bill Ayers, (2) coatrack, (3) It is not relevant to Obama, (4) it is covered elsewhere, and (5) per WP:WEIGHT it is not significant enough to merit coverage here. Those arguments stand whether or not other controversies about Obama are covered. Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Recognizing that certain editors have an agenda doesn't make it personal. I would like to reach some sort of neutral compromise with you and your allies here on the subject of Ayers and other controversial material. But I worry that this may not even be possible, because you won't compromise. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The best way to get a consensus on this is to support the position that any mention of Ayers would be a violation of several policies, guidelines and essays. The argument is essentially between exclusion (not violating WP:BLP) or varying levels of inclusion (how much of a violation of WP:BLP should we go for). I cannot imagine that you would ever reach a consensus for violating WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(to WorkerBee74) I asked you to stop making it personal. Making it personal means singling out by username someone you are not in a discussion with for purpose of making argument. Your earlier post mentioned three editors including me, blamed them for making the article into their battleground, claimed no others supported their positions, and told them to get lost. Please take that request seriously and do not respond with further accusations. I have no agenda, allies, or position on "compromise." I am simply editing the encyclopedia, as are you. If you take it at that level, and do not group people you disagree with into "Obama campaign workers", agenda-pushers, or whatever term you have been using to accuse them, we might get somewhere. Wikidemo (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo is right. That particular comment by WorkerBee was unhelpful to the discussion. Also urge compliance with WP:AGF for other editors.

Scjessey, as I have pointed out, including the Ayers material would not be a violation of WP:BLP provided the third party coverage is significant. On the contrary, it would be a violation to leave it out. You continue to assert that those of us who support its inclusion do so on the basis of guilt by association. That is simply untrue. The argument I and others have given is rooted in the significant presence of third party sources that discuss it. I make no claims whatsoever as to guilt--by association or anything else. I simply point out that an issue discussed significantly in third party material ought to have a representation in the article. To me, that is WP:COMMON sense. Additionally, it is what BLP policy tells us to do. As I have quoted before,

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

The presence of significant coverage in this case demonstrates notability and well-documentedness for obvious reasons. As for relevance, WP:ROC suggests the following as relevant:

Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Groups of disparate facts lack such context, and should be avoided.

For Obama, significant media coverage demonstrates relevance because it will have, in all likely events, had impact on his public perception and that it has certainly had impact on his presidential campaign, which is his primary noteworthy trait. According to the guidelines set up by WP:ROC, it therefore qualifies as relevant.

One thing I keep hearing is the claim that because this material is relevant to the campaign article and is discussed there, it must not be relevant here. There is not an implication there. People also seem to be of the view that Wikipedia has some kind of policy against discussing the same issue in multiple articles. Not so either as User:Silence pointed out below. The standards for inclusion are notability, relevance and verifiability. There is no non-duplicity requirement.

--Floorsheim (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Most of the time we avoid forking the same content to two different places. That's a constant across the entire project, whether we're talking about political campaigns or McDonald's and all - its - different - kinds of hamburgers. Also I would be careful about including stuff on speculation that people will think it affects people's opinion of something. It ought to be directly relevant. Wikidemo (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

("...including stuff on speculation...")

Yes, it's Obama's campaign that provides his primary notability: a campaign featuring a gauzy, supportive biography set against the furtive shadows of an opposing narrative as both are informed by the glare of an incredible public scrutiny. Which picture of Obama should WPdia faithfully reproduce? I'd suggest...neither...and both; that while it should refrain from stubbornly accepting contributors' private musings about questions of direct relevancy and so on, it should dutifully reflect whatever the secondary souces of the major news outlets believe relevant, etc. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at, and that seems to be a bit of a late-night effort, but relevancy is always a matter for editorial judgment, not external sourcing. A factual account of the man's life that avoids the routine petty character assasinations of the political process is far more encyclopedic than breathlessly reproducing every calculated partisan attack. There is no such thing as external verification for a proposition like "this satisfies Wikipedia's weight and relevance requirements". That is for reasoned discussion, not counting news articles.Wikidemo (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there are cases, perhaps even many, where it is best not to duplicate certain information in multiple articles. The McDonald's example is clearly one of them. My point is that there is no policy or guideline against it (that I know of). And I don't think it is a constant to avoid it. In the case of Hitler's article (and similarly with others listed below), it was decided (wisely, from my perspective) to represent his rise to power both in his own article and an expanded version in an article of its own. Obama's presidential campaign significant enough to his notability that it was decided to have a section on it here in addition to having its own article. Surely no one is suggesting we do away with that entire section are they? On the same grounds that that section should be in the article, issues receiving significant media coverage should be here even if they are also in the campaign article, although certainly the tolerance for inclusion should be set higher here.

Here is a list of articles with abbreviated sections that are expanded upon in other articles: Hurricane Katrina, Frankfurt, Bristol Channel, The Wizard of Oz (1939 film).

Also, I don't see it as any great speculation to assume an issue receiving significant coverage in third party sources, especially the news media, has had some effect on Obama's public perception.

--Floorsheim (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow is right. Wikipedia should dutifully reflect what the secondary sources (major news media) believe relevant. It is not character assassination to neutrally report what these neutral sources are saying. Is it a "calculated partisan attack" to accurately and neutrally describe Rezko's criminal felony convictions, and accurately and neutrally describe Rezko's real estate deals and fundraising efforts for Obama? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You can "dutifully report" Rezko's criminal activities (that are completely unrelated to Obama) in the Tony Rezko BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do find a New York Times article that says "we have concluded that this material is relevant to Wikipedia standards" let me know, but even then, it is the editors and not Times journalists who interpret our own rules. By those standards, actually, the lack of coverage of Ayers in the press would demonstrate lack of relevance. There mere fact that something is covered (and perhaps notable) does not say that it is relevant to the subject at hand. The calculated attack is the Ayers controversy itself, and even more weak stuff like the flag pin and the chain mail going around about refusing to say the pledge of allegiance. Well, the last one is a meme so maybe it's uncalculated. They get lots of press, more than Ayers. But we don't conclude that it's "relevant" from that. In the case of Rezko, however, the corruption charges were clearly relevant to the controversy in two ways. Most directly Rezko was under indictment already as of the time of the land deal, something Obama knew about. Much of the questioning of Obama's judgment relates to why he would accept Rezko's assurances that it was going to be okay, when he knew Rezko was under indictment. Second, Rezko was under indictment for public corruption - the very thing that could be wrong in doing a deal with Obama. As it turns out the land deal was legitimate, but it was scrutinized for possible illegality / ethical breaches, a reasonable concern. Wikidemo (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Untrue, Scjessey. Rezko's criminal activities have affected his presidential campaign and have in all likely events affected his public perception. Therefore they are related to him. --Floorsheim (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "affects public perception" is a strong argument for including something in a Wikipedia article. People base their perceptions and votes for all kinds of unencyclopedic, often illogical, reasons. One of those reasons is guilt by association. Ideally, if we can organize the sum total of knowledge a little better, they base their understanding of the world on facts as well. We include material to educate and inform people, not what is logically irrelevant but might nonetheless catch their whim. Wikidemo (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many people base their perceptions and votes on illogical reasons. I even agree that the Ayers situation may very well be one such case. That's one more reason why it should be represented here, though! Here, on Wikipedia, we have the chance to present the facts surrounding the Ayers thing in a straightforward manner and get them straight so people can see the situation for what it is. That way, the only place they're hearing about it from isn't the media, presenting things in its usual twisted, sensationalist, guilt-by-association manner. If we do that, people are much more likely to come to well-reasoned views about it. In any case, WP:ROC specifically points to influence of public perception as a grounds for relevance of information as it does in general to influence of noteworthy traits. To me, that makes a great deal of sense, not because such things guarantee material as being sensible but because they guarantee it (1) as being an important part of the overall story surrounding the subject of the article (Obama in our case) and (2) as being something a fair number of people will have heard about and will be wanting to know the facts about. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also taken from WP:ROC: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. I'm more concerned about WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#UNDUE, which are of paramount importance. Shem^(talk) 03:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP says If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. So it references relevance as one of three criteria which, if all three are met by some negative material being considered, means that it should be included in the article. BLP itself doesn't explicitly say what relevance is. WP:ROC, while not on the level of policy, provides a useful expansion of what relevance means according to the community and is a good (probably the best) outside source to turn to in determining what meets this criterion specified in BLP.

I agree completely with WP:NPOV#UNDUE concerns. I think the Rezko and especially Wright issues should receive more article-space than the Ayers. I also think both of those don't receive as much weight as they should, especially as compared to some of the positive items in the cultural and political image section. Additionally, as I've said before, I think the "A More Perfect Union" speech and its response doesn't receive near enough weight nor adequate summary.

--Floorsheim (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Downgrade of article protection

This site, as most of you know, is a wiki, which tries to allow as much freedom as possible in content management. Having an article indefinitely fully protected from editing is generally considered a sin against the spirit of the wiki, and this is doubly so when the article is as high profile as this one is. It's been a long-held view of mine that full protection should only be done in extraordinary cases where blocking will not suffice.

After years of dealing with biographies of living persons, the Wikipedia community has formulated a policy that states, in explicit terms, that unsourced negative information must be removed immediately, with prejudice. From the page history, it is clear that certain editors are not willing to abide by this, but on this site, it is non-negotiable. Anyone who tries to insert contentious, unsourced information will be blocked.

As to the issues of undue weight, it is incredibly important to remember that this article is about the life of Barack Obama, not just any controversies he may or may not have been in, not just his recent bid for the presidency, not just his time as a Senator. Please keep that in mind when adding information.

If you feel one section needs more substance than another, or if you feel that one section has far too much substance currently, discuss on the talk page first. It is what is done for nearly every other contentious article. You discuss any major changes before making them. Else, you risk being reverted and / or blocked.

Please remember that when you edit here, you do so as part of a greater community, a community with the goal of creating a free online encyclopedia. Please do not make that trying to achieve that goal unpleasant. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily an issue to be discussed here (a discussion might be better situated at WP:RFPP, e.g., of course), but I would wonder whether we might try un-s-protecting for a bit; it may well be that persistent vandalism and problematic editing (In include "problematic editing" because, even as semi-protection should almost never be used in mainspace except to prevent vandalism, lest registered users should be preferred to anonymous editors, but our semi-protection policy does provide—wrongly, IMHO—for the use of s-pro to protect against the insertion of BLP- and NPOV-violative material [in the context of content disputes, that is]) will require that indefinite semi-protection be restored straightaway, but it (almost) never hurts to give unprotection a go every few months, in order that one might adjudge whether the net effect of s-protection continues to be positive. Joe 06:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review the long and sometimes sordid history of this article before making such a decision - this article has been subject to vandalism of the worst kind - racist and vicious - and every single time semi protection has been lifted it has had to be replaced very quickly. The semi protection has been here long before the latest gang of POV pushers descended here, and was not at all put there or sustained there because of content disputes. This is a highly viewed page, and having vile and disgusting racist words and images, as well as wildly inaccurate characterizations of the subject's religion and background - all having nothing at all to do with content disputes or POV/NPOV questions - is deeply damaging to Wikipedia and the editors who work here diligently to keep the article honest and fair. It is true that this page is on many, many watchlists, and vandalism gets reverted quickly, but every minute that vicious language sits here it is seen by hundreds, thousands, of readers who don't know that it is vandalism and either think it is accurate, or that Wikipedia is the unreliable wasteland that so many of the public think already. This has nothing to do with protecting Obama's image - it has to do with protecting the encyclopedia. I feel the same way about semiprotection on any article that is attacked in the way that this one has been consistently attacked. (I do not support full protection, however, except for very short term interruption of edit wars.) Tvoz/talk 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wright consensus build

The current text in the article is as follows:

In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. After ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" that addressed issues of race. After Wright reiterated some of his remarks in a speech at the National Press Club, Obama strongly denounced Wright, who he said "[presented] a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for." On May 31, 2008 Obama submitted in writing the resignation of his membership with Trinity after disparaging comments were made towards Hillary Clinton from the pulpit by visiting Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, and later explained, "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles."

I think this existing text perfectly encapsulates the controversy surrounding Wright, and I cannot see any reason it should be changed. Thoughts, anyone? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one: I agree! --Floridianed (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs more specificity regarding what Jeremiah Wright said; fewer quotes from Obama trying to distance himself from his close personal friend and spiritual mentor of 23 years; and one quotation from a critic (not necessarily conservative, there are plenty out there who aren't). Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake. Let's name the whole Article "Mr. Obama's life with Mr Wright". --Floridianed (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Jost one paragraph. ;) Right now the paragraph has two long, long quotations from Obama, and both are masterful spin from a master spin doctor. Cut one of them. Replace it with one quotation from one of his critics (in the Democratic Party or from the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or ABC News). Gaia forbid that we allow any Republican or other conservative to be heard in this article unless he's praising Obama. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, you'd be hard-pressed to find a source of the slant you desire. If you want Republican input, how about: Huckabee Joins McCain in Supporting Obama’s Wright Defense Shem^(talk) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Good weight to a decidedly notable component of the 2008 primary season. Shem^(talk) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

More or less right. Wikidemo (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about process. The question of whether to add more or less specificity is the wrong one to ask, and the process of trying to go down derogatory sections concerning Obama one by one to ask these questions seems problematic. There are specific edits, and issues, with this section that cannot be captured so easily. Overall I would refactor and recast the paragraph, and integrate it into the article rather than leave it as a stand-alone controversy. The presidential campaign section is too long as it is. This is not the article to cover every in and out of the 2008 presidential election, nor is it a point-counterpoint forum for allies and foes of Obama to make their arguments. The paragraph begins by saying that a controversy broke out in 2008. If Christianity, Trinity Church, and Wright relevant to Obama they should be covered in that context as part of his life, not primarily part of the campaign. That apparently started in the 1980s, not 2008. This is supposed to be a biography of the man, not what people think of his former pastor. However, I don't see any source to say that Wright is particularly important to Obama - at least not the source cited for it, it's not there. I don't think the length or amount of detail are particularly bad, but the focus is off. Wikidemo (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) note - after posting this, Norton pointed to plenty of info that clearly establishes that Wright and the church were important to Obama. Based on that I think we should cover them more, in the personal life section, and reserve this section to describing the break-up as it relates to the campaign. Wikidemo (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The presidential campaign section is too long as it is. It is the one event in his life that makes him more notable than any other freshman senator. If it's space you're trying to save, cut out the fluffy trivia like his chili cooking skills. Wright represents the one great controversy of the campaign (so far) and it deserves attention. If you need a source to clearly state that Wright is (or was) particularly important to Obama, then Obama's own book will do nicely. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We have an article about Obama's 2008 campaign, so no need to WP:FORK controversies here. If you believe it is improper to cover chili cooking skills feel free to suggest we do not. If Wright is not important to Obama then that, like the chili skills, is not relevant to him. To support coverage of Obama's relationship with Wright, we need reliable sources to say that there is a substantial relationship worth covering. Wikidemo (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Kossak's aims, but as I pointed out earlier, the Project for Excellence in Journalism did identify the Wright controversy as the single most-covered element of the 2008 primary season. Shem^(talk) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there is no need to go into any specifics about what Wright actually said, because (like with Ayers' misdeeds) they are not directly related to Obama; however, I do believe that Obama's resignation from the TUCC was a pivotal moment in his life. The paragraph above neatly describes the series of events that led to Obama's resignation, and if it was to be sliced up and folded into the main content I do not believe it will be clear to readers what actually happened. I am beginning to think that this is more suited to the "personal life" section, since it concerns a very personal aspect of Obama's life. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly good. I think the description of Wright, and Obama's speech in response, has just the number of words. However, the recent addition on Pfleger seems longer than it should be in the story. Resigning from TUCC should be mentioned, which probably means something about the triggering reason; the longish direct quote from Obama explaining the reasons could be summarized in fewer words (and summary is better than direct quote, where possible). LotLE×talk 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) - I agree that it could be trimmed a wee bit, but the overall tone seems to be just about right. What do you think of moving it to the "personal life" section? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not first or second choice. Would accept if it developed as a consensus, but it won't. It must first make the style correction of changing "Trinity" on first reference to "Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ". However, as it stands, first sentence is fluff (except for linking the controversy article, and yet the controversy article per sitewide consensus should be renamed). Remaining sentences do not quote any Obama critics at all! Their structure is a threefold repetition of "After something controversial happened, Obama spun it thus"-- including the word "after" all three times, and repeating even the accusation made by some of us editors that guilt by association will be used at every opportunity! (It sure helps a POV argument to quote the article subject making the same POV argument!) This raises a WP:REDFLAG because Obama himself is leaning towards bad-faith assumptions of imputation. All of this though is just to say that this structure is very flawed. A proper controversy structure is: 1. This controversial occurrence happened. 2. One side said this. 3. The other side said this. I'm going to make a very rough example just so people understand what NPOV writing is about; this is not an exemplar at all, simply an attempt to build consensus from the proposed text above:

In March 2008, a controversy began when ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright;[1][2] after an associated priest, Michael Pfleger, spoke disparagingly about Hillary Clinton at his church[3] and Wright continued to affirm his own remarks,[4] Obama resigned his church membership on May 31.[citation needed] Critics said Wright's comments, such as "etaoin (10 words)", indicated Obama had poor shrdlu (20 words).[citation needed] Obama repeatedly condemned Wright's remarks, ending Wright's relationship with the campaign,[5] stating his own race position in the speech "A More Perfect Union", and stating his belief that any authorized statements made within the church would be imputed to him.[6] Note that resignation goes in the "what" sentence #1 because it is an event, not a spin. Note that sentences #2 and #3 should be very close to the same length, and they're not because, um, the details have been purged and I'm not bothering to unearth right now. Like I said above, I won't be around to teach this class every day. JJB 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an impressive Wright rewrite, and I think that structure is the way to go. The first sentence is off a bit, factually. The controversy had been simmering on Fox News for a while, and I think it's difficult to say when it "began" (or perhaps someone can correct me about that with a link?). What if we said something like

In March 2008, a controversy began to receive widespread attention when ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Obama's 23-year pastor, Jeremiah Wright[1][2], whom Obama had previously called "a close confidant"[source to Chicago Sun-Times article] NEW SECOND SENTENCE: Video clips of Wright's sermons showed him making racially divisive statements, such as calling AIDS a U.S. government conspiracy to kill African Americans, as well as politically charged statements, including one in which the pastor called on God to condemn America After Wright reaffirmed such remarks[3] and the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting preacher who also had longstanding ties to Obama,[source to same Chicago Sun-Times article], spoke disparagingly about Hillary Clinton,[4] Obama resigned his church membership on May 31.[citation needed]

One of the top stories of the campaign season needs to be fleshed out a bit more than JJB does. Since Wright has such a longstanding, influential tie to Obama, we should mention that and give more detail about his sermons (with the new second sentence). Also, Pfleger is important enough to be mentioned by name, with a link to the Pfleger WP article. Obama's resignation did not happen close to the time Wright's statements first became public, or even after he repeated his views at the Detroit NAACP dinner or at the National Press Club, but only after the sermon by Father Pfleger, whose longstanding relationship with Obama should be sourceable (see my bulleted remarks further down on this page). Pfleger is influential in Chicago politics, with the current mayor announcing he would run for re-election at Pfleger's church. Noroton (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for detailing the specifics of what Jeremiah Wright said, particularly as it implies that Obama was in some way associated with Wright's statements. Please remember that it is Jeremiah Wright who is controversial, not Obama. Once again, you are ignoring the rules about biographies found in WP:BLP. And the controversy "has been simmering on FOX News for a while" because the organization is essentially the media division of the GOP. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion is not backed up by the facts of the controversy, which is over how much Obama tolerated Wright's statements and Pfleger's attitudes and why that might be. If those questions weren't raised, there would be no controversy. We can't recap the whole thing in this article, but one of the very top stories of the primary season is worth having a sentence with a couple of short examples of what the problem was. That's the justification. Also, you say, the organization is essentially the media division of the GOP. Uh, your intolerance for other points of view is showing, and it's been one of the generators of the anger on this page. Casually throwing around your personal disgust with institutions you don't like doesn't exactly promote confidence that your goal is an NPOV article. My point had to do with a simple fact -- and was completely independent of anybody's view of Fox, which is irrelevant to this discussion. Noroton (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Noroton says: We can't recap the whole thing in this article, but one of the very top stories of the primary season is worth having a sentence with a couple of short examples of what the problem was. Precisely why this should appear in the CAMPAIGN article, rather than the BIOGRAPHY article. This is something that involves the process of running for President, and has nothing to do with the personal notability of Obama. Scjessey's points are supported by this repeated contention. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's value in the biography article is threefold: Wright has been important to Obama in Obama's coming into Christianity and into organized religion; Wright (and Trinity United church) has been politically valuable to Obama; Obama's attitude toward Wright's statements has been a big question that has affected Obama's public image. I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't think we have to explain all that in the Obama article (I think it's too complex to be treated adequately in this article). But I don't think a prominent aspect of the campaign can be kept out of the campaign section, and it's an aspect of Obama's biography beyond the campaign (more than two decades with Wright and close to two decades of knowing Michael Pfleger). The personal notability of Obama is not the only criterion for including information in the article. Information that helps the reader understand the essentials of the subject is the broad criterion. Noroton (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Noroton! My draft was deliberately imperfect, as advertised, because I haven't taken time to learn all the details and nuances. However, for additional guidance, the statement about AIDS is sufficient to exemplify both "racially and politically charged" statements without the statement about God condemning America (unless consensus grants it sufficient space). Sentences in the style of the first and third above should constitute part 1. The "new second sentence" should go after as part 2, and the space which Noroton occupies with "condeming America" should be occupied with a third-party critical commentary instead; and do not neglect part 3. The length can be increased if both parts 2 and 3 remain the same length and part 1 remains a description of the events only, not the responses. Scjessey, I might respond, "Please remember that it is Talk:FOX News that is the page for discussion about FOX's GOP ties, not Talk:Barack Obama." JJB 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I could go with one example. I think that one will work. Noroton (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with JJB and Norton on this point. Given that we're going to cover it, this should have some context as to why this is important to Obama and why Obama distanced himself when he did. It would be best if we could summarize rather than quote or even paraphrase Wright's statements. Just state that he made them. Something along the lines that "after criticism arose over Wright's repeated condemnations of America and accusations of an American conspiracy to spread AIDS, among other controversial statements..." (I'm not precise on the detail because I don't actually know all that Wright said, only that it offended a lot of people). I hope that comes with an expanded treatment of Obama's involvement in the church and relationship to Christianity, that part preferably in the personal life section. Wikidemo (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Where matters of politics are concerned, FOX News cannot be regarded as "mainstream media". They are the only "news channel" to constantly refer to Obama's supposed "controversies", so it is clear they are biased toward the Republican agenda. Anyone who doubts this need only refer to incidents like when E.D. Hill referred to the Obamas' fist pump as a "terrorist fist jab" to see where they are coming from. Let's here no more of this FOX News propaganda, please. "Fair and balanced" my ass. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable The passage doesn't makes it less clear why Wright's remarks were found to be offensive than it could. This is against WP:ROC: The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Exemplary quotes from the speech should be included. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight trimming

How about this for the last part (LotLE×talk):

Obama resigned from Trinity, on May 31, 2008, after a Catholic priest gave a guest oratory that disparaged Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid an impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

Sounds good to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, despite the immediate belligerent reaction by K4T to my proposed shortened language (and simultaneous insertion of the exact language into the article by K4T?!!), I agree that the form currently in the article that puts in a wikilinked mention of Pfleger is better. Y'know, K4T, you might try a little less insult and outrage... I proposed some language on the talk page for discussion. Once that discussion happened, I realized the name and link were missing. LotLE×talk 05:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Oh, right. You don't want Michael Pfleger's name in the article so that people might click on it and learn more about him, is that it? And you don't want to say why Jeremiah Wright's comments were controversial, isn't that right? And the one thing you do want very precise and quoted is Obama's evasive comment about a man he knew and knew well, Michael Pfleger -- oh, that's right, the Catholic priest whose name you're censoring out. Great job, guys. Totally NPOV. How could anyone possibly have a problem with it. Why don't you just cut it down to a sentence:

After some religious figures delivered some sermons at a church Obama attended, he left the church, saying, "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles."

After all, as Wikidemo says, I don't see any source to say that Wright is particularly important to Obama. Why of course he isn't. It was someone else who brought Obama into Christianity, officiated at the marriage, baptised his children, and was just the kind of preacher that Obama said in his writings and interviews back in the 90s were the politically active, black-theology church leaders that the left needed more of. Oh, and where did that phrase, Audacity of Hope come from? No, information about these guys would provide no insight whatsoever into Barack Obama. Great job guys, great job. Noroton (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was Kossak4Truth who made the change you dislike, not Scjessey. Shem^(talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. I'll put his name back. Sorry about that. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, Kossack, for seeing the mistake. Now here are some inconvenient facts to make most of you uncomfortable:

• Quote from Obama speech from 2006, from Obama's website: "And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone. And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope. link. Whose church do you think his turn to religion occurred at?
• "Obama’s ties to the priest are clear. During his 2004 senate race, Cathleen Falsani of the Chicao Sun-Times interviewed Obama about his religious views (it is this article that revealed Obama’s as-often-as-possible attendance at Trinity, and called Wright a “close confidant”). According to Falsani, the future presidential candidate cited “the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn-Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years,” as a key source of spiritual guidance. The piece also includes words from Pfleger himself, praising Obama." -- Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, [24], May 20, 2008, "Left in Church: Deep inside the Wright Trumpet."
• From the same article: "As Obama himself notes in a 2004 newspaper interview, within the constraints of his schedule, he regularly attended weekly services at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. In that interview, Obama characterized his relationship with Wright as that of a “close confidant.” We know that the doctrines of “black-liberation theology” are included in new-member packets, and are taught in new-member classes, which Obama and his wife attended. It now emerges that over the years, Obama has worked closely with Wright on a number of political projects." Noroton (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're getting so tied up in things you're overlooking the obvious, which is that I might just mean exactly what I say when I say something, and I am not necessarily making a rhetorical argument. In this case I meant exactly what I said, that I saw no source, at least not the one cited for the proposition, to say that Wright was important to Obama. If you're going to tie someone to his associate's scandal you have to say why it affects him and justify why it's important to his life. If he is, he is...so then source it! That's all. Nothing "uncomfortable" about the truth. Given that Obama apparently admired Wright, that Wright brought Obama to Christianity, oficiated the marriage, baptized the children, and supplied the title of his book, why isn't that in the article? Frankly I did not know this. I'm approaching this article from the point of view of following policy and honoring sources, not from predefined ideas of who Obama is. I would say that if we're going to have an encyclopedia and not a scandal sheet, a biographical article like this should cover the relationship itself, not just the scandal surrounding the end of it. Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You don't need to agree with Kurtz' opinions to get my point: Wright and Pfleger were acknowledged as close to Obama when Obama thought it was all right to say so, but not now that they've become radioactive. But the source Kurtz cites (and it would be nice to have a direct link) strongly indicates he was close to them. And there is plenty of information around that one thing Obama liked about Wright and Pflegler was that they were politically active. Kinda makes you wonder what Obama's relationship is not just to them, but to their ideas about politics. Not proof, but makes you wonder. Also, Obama knew precisely what kinds of radical statements these guys were making. But, why bother with all this. After all, why should we consider them important? Noroton (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're getting so tied up in things you're overlooking the obvious, which is that I might just mean exactly what I say when I say something -- you didn't see a source and I showed you one. You didn't see importance, I demonstrated importance. If you're going to tie someone to his associate's scandal you have to say why it affects him and justify why it's important to his life. Reread the quotes, they're close to him and he knows just how radical they are. Follow the link. I just demonstrated that it can be sourced. I didn't think you knew this, that's why I provided it. You're welcome. I would say that if we're going to have an encyclopedia and you're going to try to influence it's content, you might want to read a bit more. I didn't assert anything more than what I said, and that was encyclopedic information. Noroton (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you did, you've convinced me. Thanks. They can be sourced. It is a simple question with a simple, encyclopedic answer. This article has 195 sources and I must admit I have not read them all to find sources for sentences that are not fully cited, nor can we expect every reader to do the same. It will improve the article actually source the importance of Wright and the church to Obama somewhere, or better yet discuss and source (which logically takes us beyond the campaign section to a discussion in the "personal life" section on religion and the church in Obama's life). Wikidemo (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I guess I am too irritated right now. I'll break off. Wikidemo, you know why I'm irritated, but I realize you're still pretty reasonable overall. I should explain what I think this language should look like: Basically the same type of thing I was looking for with Bill Ayers. And let's have none of this rhetoric that we're making some unfair "guilt by association" McCarthyite charge. Association with controversial characters naturally raises suspicion, just as his relationship with the disreputable Rezko does. Let readers make of it what they will and quoting Obama about it is just fine by me, although a quote from him in that Chicago source might be valuable if we can get it. We can describe briefly what the best sources say was his relationship to the two, and Wright was certainly far more importnt than Pflegler. I do think, as I thought with the Ayers info, we should give a good, brief description of just what was controversial about Wright, and the closeness of the relationship makes it more important and worth more space. It seems to me that racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright is an inadequate description. Better would be racially divisive sermons, such as one in which Wright called AIDS a U.S. government conspiracy to kill African Americans, as well as politically charged sermons, including one in which the pastor called on God to condemn America It's worth describing in another sentence or two just what Wright's relationship is to Obama. I'm not sure of the exact language for that. Noroton (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, JJB and Kossack make good points here. The paragraph belongs in the presidential campaign section. To provide the context required by Wikipedia policy, I suggest using three quotations: one from Wright, something like "God Damn America" or "The government is using AIDS to kill black people" to illustrate the outrageous nature of his remarks, one from Obama to tell his side of the story, and one from Hillary to show how it was used against him in the campaign. She said something like "If my pastor said something like that, he wouldn't be my pastor for long." WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need of "context", as you call it. There is no justification for repeating any of the Wright comments in this article because they were not said by, or directed to, Obama. They belong in the Jeremiah Wright BLP, which is blue-linked for those who wish to know more. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean quotes or descriptions? Noroton (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Both. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party endorsement

There is no information on this page regarding his association with the New Black Panther group (including a direct link from his website to theirs), an issue he took considerable criticism for during the early primary. This needs to be added, as it is an extremely relevant and important piece of information about his candidacy. 75.85.92.198 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (first edit by this account)

What link on his website? Nar Matteru (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After a controversy arose about it, the link was removed. Would you like to see a link to a Reliable Source? This is a screen shot of the page on Obama's campaign website before it was removed. [25] Evidently anyone can start a Myspace-style page on Obama's website, endorsing him. When Fox News and the right-wing blogs made some noise about it, the page was removed.

In my opinion, it's not worth mentioning. It's one step removed from webpage vandalism. But Ayers, Rezko and Wright should not only be mentioned, but Obama's relationships with them should be explored in detail. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

screenshots of a webpage aren't reliable sources as they could so very easily be altered. (Not saying it isn't true, but I'd like a much better source before even thinking of including it, which I'm not sure if its even notable enough for that Nar Matteru (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree this is not worth mentioning. This is also nothing to do with Wright, so I'm making this a full section, which will be archived if no one touches it for a while, rather than a subsection of the Wright issue. Noroton (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't let him fool you with his fake screenshot. Obama refused the endorsment of the Black Panthers! --Floridianed (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cousins

On this website, it showed that Obama and McCain are 22nd cousins twice removed.--Sli723 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And Obama also is a distant relation of Vice President Cheney. Interesting trivia, but WP:TRIVIA suggests we use trivia only when we can put it into some relevant context. I don't see a relevant context for it. It doesn't tell us anything more about Obama. So let's leave it out. Interesting, though. Also, I'm making this a full section because it has nothing to do with the Wright section. Noroton (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

22nd cousins twice removed. That's silly. That's like connecting the entire human race to each other and calling them a cousin. 64.183.164.250 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Article on Presidential Campaign

I just noticed that there is an article exclusively for the Presidential campaign. [26]. That's where all this stuff about Rezko and Ayers belongs. Even the people pushing for it here, are justifying it because it is allegedly a campaign issue. My new opinion is that the entire section should be turned into a stub summary, and any info not in the campaign article should be moved there. Life.temp (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Life.temp, you have deleted a substantial amount of material in the Barack Obama article without first establishing consensus on the article's Talk page, despite numerous warnings on the Talk page from administrators. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, why is this here on the general Obama talk page? Also, it seems to me he did bring it up on the talk page, did give reasons for it, and even had links to the article where all that information was located. It also seems to me as if you're more angered by the fact that in trimming some of the excess words out of the article, he removed bits of information you have so passionately argued, edit warred, and what-not to get into this article. So lastly, I see no reason for the warning. Brothejr (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me he did bring it up on the talk page, did give reasons for it ... Um, but he/she didn't get consensus for it. He/she didn't even get one voice in agreement before doing it. He/she just announced it, and did it. Admins have repeatedly placed warnings on this talk page against such conduct. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think half of your problem with it was because he removed information you have been fighting to get into the article. I have also noticed in the past and of quite recently (even when admin's have been warning against it) you adding and removing bits of information from the article without consensus. As I mentioned before, I believe your outrage and revision is based upon your fight to include information you feel must be included to "inform" the reader. Hey, before you comment back, I'm just making observations. All a person has to do is look back to your previous edits/comments/wars/etc and see enough evidence of what your stance is. You say one thing and then do something completely diffrent. You have been warned repeatedly by admins not to edit war, but you continued to do so. Then when someone moves information you fought so hard to get into the article, you revert the change and then slap a warning on the person. As I mentioned before, I'm just making observations. Brothejr (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[ec]... in trimming some of the excess words out of the article, he removed bits of information ... Nice distortion. He/she chainsawed out a total of 732 words, announcing in the Talk page message above that this "turned [it] into a stub." This conduct is indefensible. Don't even try to defend it. If I had added 732 words in the same fashion, I would be blocked instantly without the courtesy of this warning. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "conduct" is stipulated by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sections that cover the exact same topic as another article are supposed to contain a summary of that article, and a link. This article currently violates that policy, by containing considerably more than a summary. In addition, Wikipedia articles are supposed to have an upper limit of 30-50k or readable text (excluding references, footnotes, etc.). This article exceeds that guideline. So there are two reasons to remove that text, grounded in policy and common sense. Finally, while I removed material from the article, I didn't remove it from Wikipedia or from its proper place in Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, all that material is redundant, because it is already in the article properly named Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. If you feel there is important material on the campaign that is missing from the article on the campaign, please add it to that article. This is a life-story article, not a campaign article. Life.temp (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, warnings are generally for repeated problems. The edit you didn't like is the first significant edit I've made to this article. Life.temp (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop. Please just stop it. The edit warring must stop. WP:3RR is not a license to do three reversions in a 24-hour period. Life.temp is an experienced editor and familiar with the fact that not just the letter, but the spirit of the rules is enforced. The lower half of this Talk page was covered with warnings from administrators to not do exactly what Life.temp did. All editors must stop the edit war; discuss your proposed edits here and get consensus. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion FWIW is for folks refusing to compromise regarding their pov's of how text should read to state this recalcitrance once, leaving the floor to discussion of new proposals from folks who are willing to meet adversaries part way. With the last piece toward effecting article stability being to warn edit warriors indeed of whatever stripe that they will---be---blocked. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Obama's presidential campaign warrants more than just a brief summary simply because 90% of Obama's encyclopedic importance is tied into that campaign. Our Adolf Hitler article spends many, many pages on the section "Rise to power" even though we have a separate article on the topic, Hitler's rise to power. Every article must be able to stand on its own; daughter articles, being optional, should not be the sole location of any crucial datum. If Obama's campaign section gets too long (without trivial details creeping in), the solution is to start breaking it up into subsections--e.g., a subsection for the primary campaign and one for the general. If Obama's importance in areas other than the campaign grows in the future (e.g., if he becomes president), then we can shrink the campaign section down a bit to compensate. Until then, we do a disservice to our readers if we misinterpret "summary" to mean "blurb". A summary's length varies greatly based on the number of important and relevant facts, and the relative significance of the topic to the overall article. There is no policy that says "summaries must be two short paragraphs long". -Silence (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't warrant more than a summary: there is a guideline about it, and the reason for the guideline is obvious. There is an article for the topic. The comparison to the Hitler article merely begs the question of whether that article does the right thing; would you like to see the long list of articles that do comply with the guideline I mentioned? As for consensus, please show where there was a consensus to add that material (in violation of basic guidelines). Life.temp (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the presidential campaign section is way too long. We should trim it to match the approximate treatment that's generally used, and refer people to that article for the more in depth material. I think a good exercise would be to imagine yourself reading this article 20 years from now, assuming he did (or did not) win the election. Either way, about how much material would belong in the bio article about the campaign? Wikidemo (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Silence is right. 90% of Obama's encyclopedic importance [notability] is tied into that [presidential] campaign. "Personal life," "political beliefs" and "career in US Senate" have three separate articles. But combined, they add up to about 3,000 words in this article. The presidential campaign is the only thing that makes Obama more notable than any other freshman senator. I think the campaign merits at least 1,000 words, just like those other three sections that have their own articles. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The importance of the campaign has already been addressed: by having an entire article about it. This matter is addressed very clearly:

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).

Note the point is to move and replace the text, not merely copy it to somewhere else, which obviously doesn't address the size & style problems. [27]

From the Wikpedia page on summary style...

• Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place
• Summary sections are linked to the detailed article ...

And...

Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles. What constitutes 'too long' is largely based on the topic, but generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover its topic and that the extra reading time is justified.

[28]

This article is well over 30k of readable prose. It is around double that. Are you telling me how he got his mortgage isn't a detail? Life.temp (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you that if it's really space considerations that you're worried about, rather than whitewashing the article, you'll move the trivial fluff about chili cooking, his alternate career as an architect, to Early life and career of Barack Obama. The series of real estate deals (it wasn't just one deal) with Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko, who was already under investigation for fundraising related crimes, isn't just a detail. It is part of a major controversy. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. There are other sections that need to be summarized, since they redundantly cover what is already covered in the article they link to. So deal with it. I picked one subtopic to work on, you're free to pick another. Life.temp (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The style of Wikipedia biographies about high-ranking politicians is well established. Look at George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, John Kerry and other articles like them. Controversial material is explored in detail. The editors dwell on controversies at some length. Critics who use these controversies to bash the politicians are quoted, and their lengthy rants are linked. There are bold section headers such as "Whitewater," "Keating Five" and "Iran-Contra affair" that announce these controversies. These articles represent the consensus of a large number of Wikipedia editors and administrators. They can't be ignored. Summary style, as it's being practiced here at this article, is wrong. There is a more appropriate practice of summary style, and it can be seen all around us, in similar Wikipedia biographies about similar politicians. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference and you showing it with leaving McCain out as an example: We're in mid-election and therefore outh to be very carefull. --Floridianed (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way. Since you mentioned the "Keating Five" scandal why don't you add it to the McCain article? Would it be to much detail? --Floridianed (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Floridianed, I suggest you go to the McCain article and do a search on Keating.. I'm counting 2 paragraphs including several mentions of Keating elsewhere in the article, including the lead. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the main one on this. Big ops --Floridianed (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Keating Five incident is a major event in McCain's career - it was a major, substantive issue, the subject of senate hearings, and almost cost him his position. The McCain article does not cover a bunch of little scandals. It has a few words about the "lobbyist" controversy (which is a few words too many, in my pinion). So far the Keating Five matter has not become a big issue in this election and it may never be - old news, already dealt with. So the information is mostly of biographical interest, not an election-related controversy. Wikidemo (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the article on Kerry contains a two-paragraph summary for the presidential campaign, and a link to the article of that topic. [29] The section on his the controversy about his military service contains a one-paragraph summary, and a link to the main article of that topic. [30] This article contains more text on Rezko than the Kerry article contains on the Swift Boats controversy, even though the Swift Boats controversy relates directly to a major part of Kerry's personal life and career. Life.temp (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles Problems

1. Barack Obama was not a Professor at the University of Chicago. He did not teach the necessary number of courses to qualify as a professor. He only qualified as a 'lecturer.' Source from Article "Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama" Note 1 http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/867973,CST-NWS-sweet30.article

There was a lot of discussion going on in the media about this and that [31] cleared it up. --Floridianed (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The law school says that Obama "served as a professor", and the law school also has clarified that this is not the same thing as saying he "was a professor."[32]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Ann Dunham's ancestry is relevant to her article. It should not be featured in someone else's biography.

3. Note 65 is dead, and the Library of Congress Database does not indicate any compromise bill that bears any resemblance to Senate Bill 2348 (Obama's legislation).

Wrong #. See here [33] --Floridianed (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The original link was in reference to a bill that concerned the reporting of water leaks from nuclear power plants. It had nothing to do with relief for the Congo. How does your reference factor in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.239.189 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be other errors in the article. I will continue to examine it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.239.189 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor

Please see Was Barack Obama Really a Constitutional Law Professor?

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

The "Obama was not a professor" canard comes directly, almost word for word, from mainly right-wing attack web sites and blogs. Please read the quote above which is coming from the institution that hired him itself. -- Quartermaster (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun Times does not seem to be a right-wing attack site.[34] Moreover, factcheck.org appended this correction: "Update March 28: As originally written this item stated flatly that the law school 'confirms that Obama was a professor.' We have rewritten the item in parts to more accurately reflect the nuance in the law school's news release"[35] Perhaps this Wikipedia article ought to reflect the nuance as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are being astonishingly disingenuous here since the Sun Times source you are using is an op-ed column from an anti-Obama partisan, and not some sort of hard hitting piece of investigative journalism. Many of these canards and shibboleths eventually do find their way into reputable sources mostly by the power of repetition in large numbers of venues like this. This massive repetition of trivial information, amplified to a level to make it appear as if "something might really be there" is called The Mighty Wurlitzer. Well played, sir. -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not worth arguing. Only people who care about this shibboleth are those who politically run against him (and their supporters). If you think this is a critical element of the life of Barack Obama, go for it. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun Times thought it was important enough to publish an article about it.[36] Factcheck.org thought it was important enough to publish a statement about it, along with an appended correction.[37] The University of Chicago Law School also thought it was important enough to publish a statement about it.[38] The people who wrote this Wikipedia article thought it was important enough to mention that he was a "professor." And you, Quartermaster, have thought it important enough to repeatedly address in this comment thread (along with insulting accusations that anyone who wants this article to be factually correct must be running againhst him). Since you say this is not worth arguing, I assume you won't bother to object if the matter is corrected in this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrected to say he was a professor (at least according to his employer)? Last I checked, it already says he was. :) The school seems to be using the principle that there is a difference between Professor of Law (note the capitalized letters) and a professor. Professor of Law is an official job title, while UofC is using professor to mean anyone that non-student that teaches at the university. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by Quartermasters' remarks. He just made a statement about how he thinks about it and gave a go ahead ("go for it") so I changed it. --Floridianed (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This Wikipedia article currently says in the lead paragraphs: “A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university professor[1][2], political activist, and lawyer before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.”

That sentence in the lead is problematic for a couple reasons. First, it gives the impression he taught undergraduates, when actually he taught law students. Second, it makes it sound as though he was a professor, whereas the University of Chicago Law School says that Obama carried out (or “served”) a function of a professor -- teaching a core curriculum course -- while at the same time not holding down that rank.[39]

I also suggest that the later statement in the article should include the pertinent footnotes that are in the lead, plus a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article.[40] I’ll do this if there are no objections.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and incl. it but also incl. a footnote to the statement from the University. Alright? --Floridianed (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes. I think it's okay to say in the lead paragraphs that he "served" as a professor (which is how the University of Chicago Law School put it), as long as it's clarified later in the text that his title was technically "lecturer."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You said nothing about incl. that somehow silly sounding "(technically called a "lecturer")" besides that he was most of the time a "Senior Lecturer". --Floridianed (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to mentioning that he was a senior lecturer, then? If not, I'd be glad to put that in the article, though as you say he was not a senior lecturer the whole time. As I said above, we shouldn't make it sound as though he was a professor, given that the University of Chicago Law School says that Obama carried out (or “served”) a function of a professor -- teaching a core curriculum course -- while at the same time not holding down that rank.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it says "professor" w/o a capital "P" and having two footnotes I don't see a need for it besides it would look very funny as I mentioned before. Could you agree with that? --Floridianed (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget any micro-controversy, let's get the terminology to fairly say what he did. Capitalized or not, I think the term is misleading. Reading it one would instantly jump to the conclusion that he was on faculty. "Instructor" is more accurate per the common usage of the term..."Instructor of Constitutional Law" or something like that. Technically he may be an "adjunct professor", which usually means a non-tenure-track part time member of the community who comes in to teach courses. That's better than "Senior Lecturer" because titles given without explanation tend to be less clear than the common plain English wording. I would take it out of the lede entirely (too many bios use the flowery term "educator" or "writer" for someone who barely did it professionally), except that it's quite a prestigious school and he taught there for ten years, so it is something of an honor, definitely something would put on a one-page resume. Wikidemo (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs seem okay the way they are. As for the part later in the text, I guess it's true that we don't want to confuse people with all kinds of different titles like "adjunct" or "instructor", but on the other hand we want to be accurate and up-front with people. I'd suggest this: "Obama served part-time as a professor (though his title was not technically "Professor Obama") at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'm waiting for your sugestion. --Floridianed (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest this: "Obama served part-time as a professor (though his title was not technically "Professor Obama") at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I ment Wikidemo but at least you react. Still, let's wait what he/she has to contribute. By the way, you forgot to sign your 2nd last post ;) --Floridianed (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[out] How about a simpler statement: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time from 1993 until his election..." We don't need to say he was a professor but he wasn't a professor - we don't need the footnote that answers that question if we don't raise the question in the first place. Tvoz/talk 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the separate statement in the lead paragraphs? If that statement in the lead paragraphs remains as-is (i.e. using the word "professor"), then we also ought to mention later in the text of the article that his title was not tecnically "Professor Obama", IMO.23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Ferrylodge (talk)

Then we have the same (doesen't sound smooth) as before. I start to tend to Tvoz solution even so I'm a little bit "unhappy" that some input comes after 4 hours of work here. Oh, and Wikidemo prefers to fight with Kossack after leaving a seemly smart comment. Nice. PS: And all I wanted in the first place was to give some info's. lol --Floridianed (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks Ferrylodge - I meant to include that too - I'd change the intro from "served as a law school professor" (which I find a bit awkward anyway) to "taught constitutional law" as well as the change in the article text. Tvoz/talk 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT "taught Constitutional law." Strunk & White maybe wudda preferred "Churchill often composed poignant commentary on human events and also enjoyed painting landcapes" to "Churchill was an oft commentator on human events and also a weekend landscape painter" anyway. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I hope people are okay with (or at least can tolerate) keeping a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article.[41] The entire article is devoted to the issue we've been discussing.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that the controversy is gone from the article what is it good for? If it belongs somewhere it would be here on the discussion page. Neither makes sense. --Floridianed (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's very useful in the article is to accompany the footnote to the Law School's statement. The news article discusses the meaning of the law school statement at great length. If we're going to keep a footnote to the law school's statement, then we ought to include a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article discussing the law school's statement, IMO. It's only a footnote, after all.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Then leave it but one might read it and wants to include that "controversy" in the article and then.... there we go again. The law school statement by the way makes sense because someone with interrest might want to know more about his work there. --Floridianed (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it in one more time, although OrangeMarlin seems to be around. Including the footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article will help someone to realize that it would be best not to again put "professor" into the text of this Wikipedia article. If anyone tries to put in the text of this Wikipedia article that there's a controversy about whether he was a "professor", then I'll personally revert (and very severely chastise). The point is, the article very much clarifies what the statement says. Anyway, here goes....Ferrylodge (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm on OrangeMarlin's side and the editwar already started. Told you so :) --Floridianed (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, an editor of great perspicacity reverted for me.  :-) Nothing like an edit war about a footnote!Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Schools vary greatly in whom they call "Professor," "Distinguished Professor," "Adjunct Professor," "Junior Professor," "Lecturer," "Senior Lecturer," "Instructor" and several other variants along these lines. Even inside the USA, you can't always tell what it "really means" that someone had a certain formal title unless you know that specific school (and frequently even different schools in the same university have differences in how they give titles; U.Chicago Gradual Business School may well not follow the same pattern as the Law School). When you move beyond the USA, the use of these titles goes even farther afield, with lots of different national conventions, but lots of schools that don't quite follow the dominant conventions of their resident country.

Saying "Taught Constitutional Law" is perfectly factual, and a footnote explaining the exact names that particular school uses is extremely helpful. Not all of us did our law degrees in Chicago, after all... or even if in Chicago, it might have been at Layola instead. LotLE×talk 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times political opinion columnist Lynn Sweet's misleading March 30, 2008 Chicago Sun-Times political opinion column No 'Professor' Obama at U. of C. is not an appropriate source for this article. It was Lynn Sweet's misleading August 8, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times political opinion column Obama's book: What's real, what's not that started this "controversy".

Newross (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting revelation. Is the op-ed column of a partisan who's been grinding this axe for years an appropriate source? I'm of the opinion that if both the University and Obama himself use "professor," the opinion of Lynn Sweet is moot. While we can speculate and share anecdote about how "professor" is used in other countries, Wikipedia articles're based upon appropriate, neutral, reliable sources (which it appears Lynn Sweet is not). Trying to contradict the University of Chicago's usage (and they are the ultimate authority and source on who was and was not a professor at their institution) with nothing more than an op-ed column strikes me as bordering on original research. Their wording, including "his 12 years as a professor in the Law School" (no "served as" qualifier) makes it clear -- Obama was a constitutional law professor at that institution. Shem^(talk) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - but I don't think including the words "professor" or "senior lecturer" is important - the important thing is that he taught constitutional law at an eminent law school - what they called him is not important, nor is the nitpicky debate about it that is attempting to make some kind of implication. I don't particularly think we need the Sweet opinion piece however, if we're not addressing this very minor matter as I think we should not be - the UChicagoLaw item covers it . Tvoz/talk 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's that the underlying motivation behind the attack on and removal of the word "professor" is partisan on its face that bugs me. If it's not important, why not let it stand, y'know? Shem^(talk) 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not unaware of what they're trying to do - I was attempting a HailFire-esque sidestep to avoid this idiotic "controversy", but probably should have known better. Anyone who has been anywhere near a university knows that the only time the title really matters is when the paycheck is cut - people, including deans, colloquially refer to any college+ educator as "professor" including adjuncts (who are often more prominent than the staff faculty, in fact). And it doesn't make a bit of difference in Obama's biography if he is called a professor or it is described as having taught constitutional law. This is pathetic. Tvoz/talk 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are two pieces by Lynn Sweet at issue here, from the Chicago Sun Times, one from 2004 and the other from 2008. The former was basically a book review, and is not cited in the Obama article. The latter is a straight news article that is cited in this Obama article. Is there any false or misleading statement in the 2008 piece?

Hears a snippet from the recent news article by Sweet: “'He did not hold the title of professor of law,' said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school....Nagorsky said Obama carried out, or served, a function of a professor -- teaching a core curriculum course -- while at the same time not holding down that rank." Are you claiming that Sweet made this up? I don't see the harm in footnoting the Sweet news article, and letting readers decide for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem because Sweet appears to be twisting the University's words to attack Obama's record -- she removes a nine-word comment from its context to create the appearance of contradiction where none exists. No, he did not hold the title "Professor of Law" (which Sweet probably should have capitalized in her piece), but that doesn't contradict the University's prior statement that Obama "served as a professor" and was offered tenure during his "12 years as a professor in the Law School." Shem^(talk) 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to disagree with the description of Sweet's op-ed column as a "straight news article." Shem^(talk) 05:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You agree that Obama did not hold the title "Professor of Law." What's wrong with including a cite in this article that says so? If you have a better cite for the same proposition, then that would be fine instead. As far as I can tell, that's all Sweet was saying, and all Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky was saying.

Certainly, it would be very preferable not to describe him in the text of this article as a "professor", without also clarifying in the text that he did not have the title of "Professor". Alternatively, Tvoz's suggestion seems okay, i.e. to not refer to him in the text as a professor. But I guarantee that the word "professor" will come back into this article, unless we cite a reliable source that Obama was not "Professor Obama." Geesh, the guy has enough real accomplishments, without us having to puff up his teaching career.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, since there're clearly editors opposed to the change, could we discuss it more before implementing the change? The length of the discussion in this section tells me the change shouldn't be made lightly. Shem^(talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay...but attack or no attack "professor" conveys something in common usage that isn't true, that he was a faculty member of the institution. I think the damage of creating that misimpression far outweights the damage of forsaking the school's designation for the common English term. "Taught constitutional law" is a matter of fact description that does not seem biased and gets the precise point across. Then in the article body you can say something like "taught constitutional law as a part-time non-tenure-track professor" or something like that. It seems silly for this to be a dispute here, or in the wider world. Top law schools all have comparable, and very high, standards for who can teach a constitutional law class. Wikidemo (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumb argument

This really is an example of making a mountain out of a molehill. UC Law School refers to Obama as a "professor". The term is used both as a title and as a type of honorific. I was called "professor" by some of my students when I taught a few programming classes, but at best I should have been regarded as a "guest lecturer". It really doesn't matter whether the word is used in the article or not - all I know is that when we tried to remove it before, it kept on getting restored by other editors (mostly IP editors) all the time. In the end, it seemed better just to leave it because it wasn't a big deal. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Summarization

• Obama refers to himself as having been a "professor."
• The institution he worked at refers to him as a "professor."
• Many other institutions commonly refer to those teaching classes as "professor" independent of more formal employment titles.
• An op-ed column by an anti-Obama partisan in the Chicago Sun Times challenges Obama's use of the term "professor" and is referenced as a reputable source.

Next, a number of WP editors debate this extensively and conclude that the whole assertion should be "nuanced" in order to inform readers of Obama's biography of this incredibly important fact, followed by mutual pats on the back for neutrally engaging in the issue.

The reason to call him a "professor" can be sourced to Obama and the institution at which he worked. The reason to "nuance" these claims (i.e., either not use the term "professor" or explain the use of term in a number of different contexts) seems to serve the sole purpose of diminishing Obama's role at the University by diminishing his title. I'm betting that the next step is to consider not referring to him anywhere as a "teacher" since all he really did was "lecture." -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope you weren't including me in your "mutual pats on the back" - I think this whole thing is idiotic, and the people making an issue of it have lost sight of the fact that this is a biography of a whole life, not a means to promote or attack a presidential candidate. I came up with something that is factual ("taught constitutional law") and avoids the nonsense of the implication that he is somehow exaggerating his status (which he is not, based on the university's own statement) and we're backing it up so that what- he gets elected president? Because of this? This is one of the stupider fights that this article has been subjected to, and it's still June. I don't give a rat's ass about enhancing or diminishing his role at the university and I frankly think any attempt to do so, either way, is pathetic. Tvoz/talk 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not very important. Tvoz' "taught constitutional law" avoids the whole issue, but I can go along with whatever most people want, because the only real issue is whether readers would be confused by "professor" in the American context, and I think hardly any will. Let's not spend a lot of effort on this one. Noroton (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, Professor Ann Althouse wrote an interesting blog entry about this little controversy, here. Of course, we shouldn't link Althouse in this Wikipedia article, since it's just a blog entry, but readers of this discussion page might find her blog entry interesting nonetheless.

I have said all along that I have no problem whatsoever if this Wikipedia article refers to Obama as having been a "professor" in the lead paragraphs and elsewhere. However, if people want to do that (instead of merely saying that he taught constitutional law), then it should also be mentioned that he did not formally have the title of "Professor" Obama. It's really a very simple matter of being straightforward. However, I have better things to do than complain forever about this small example of puffery. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, Professor Obama is not a title. Obama never had the job title of Professor of Law, but chances are he was referred to as Professor Obama by his students (unless he was one of the profs that preferred to be referred to by their first or last name) and it seems the school would have referred to him as "Professor Obama" if it had call to do so. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The specific "Professor of Law" position at University of Chicago is irrelevant if they still counted him as a professor, which they did. Wikipedia being an encyclopedia based upon third-party sources and UofC being the authoritative source on the matter, that's what Wikipedia should refer to him as. If we agree that this shouldn't change on account of a blog post or opinion column, let's move on. Shem^(talk) 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Attack sites

Republicans have an attack site at “Change We Can’t Afford” (from the Republican National Committee). Is this appropriate in the external links of this article?

Likewise, Democrats have an attack site at McCainpedia. Is this appropriate in the external links of the John McCain article?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a place for propaganda from either side! --Floridianed (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Get those sites out of both articles, if you haven't already! Fishal (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They're gone ;) --Floridianed (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If either of those links is added repeatedly, we can stick them on the spam blacklist. Neutral sources, they're not, though I can see a mention on the 2008 Election's main article, if things get really nasty. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Socks of all stripes...

I saw something amusing when I got to my hotel (too long day of flying, so it cheered me up): Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Apparently I should welcome Life.temp to my evil plans... glad to have you doing my wicked deeds while I have to muck with flights.... FWIW, I haven't looked yet at whatever it was Life.temp apparently deleted, and the usual K4T/FA/IP brigade denounced as "Obama campaign workers". I have to go eat, then I'll see if I think his/her edits are meritorious. LotLE×talk 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, assuming you are not socking, I think it's best to let things like that roll off rather than joining the fray. If you are, shame! Wikidemo (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying here is that you're travelling, meaning you have access to different IP addresses - now, who was it who based an accusation of being a sock puppet on just that? Oh, yeah...... Fovean Author (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's generally beneficial if the editors have a pattern of similar editing, Fovean Author.. Life.temp has edited this article a total of three times and in a manner inconsistent with LotLE's patterns.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact, Life.temp shows up out of the blue to engage in an edit war with K4T, as LOTLE has done many times. It's pretty clear to me that the latter is breaking in a sock puppet. LOTLE frequently posts as an IP address with he wants to accuse someone he doesn't like, now he's trying this. Fovean Author (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack reverted Life.temp's edits first, while Life.temp reverted Kossack's reverts.. That's hardly Life.temp coming out of the blue to engage in an edit war with Kossack. Coming out of the blue to engage in an edit war with someone would be a magical appearance to revert back to a version that LotLE agrees with. Life.temp's actions are indicative of someone coming upon another discussion and then taking a look at someone's edit history to see what the heck everyone is talking about.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is the talk page to discuss an article about Barack Obama! Please move your conversation to a personal talk page. Thank you. --Floridianed (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my Wikipedia friends, Rezko was convicted of bribery

In his/her edit summary reverting me, Bobblehead denied that Rezko was convicted of bribery. He was convicted on two counts of aiding and abetting bribery, two counts of money laundering, and 12 counts of fraud -- a total of 16 felony counts. Here are the Daily Telegraph and the Associated Press. [42] [43] AFP specifies "12 counts of fraud, two of aiding and abetting bribery and two of money laundering[.]" [44] If you'd like, I'll add the AFP link to the article mainspace. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What Tony Rezko was (or was not) convicted of is a matter for the Rezko BLP. The federal trial had nothing whatsoever to do with Barack Obama, so the discussion about its specifics is moot. This article should only cover the details of Obama's relationship with Rezko. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You've made that point about 20 times, and I've made my point that details about other people are essential to understanding why these relationships are controversial about 19 times. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko's relationships with other politicians, and his subsequent trial, are not related to Obama. It's as simple as that. Wikipedia is not a blog. I agree that the minor controversy surrounding the land deal is relevant, but none of that other stuff you are trying to push is. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosack is a blogger. He's saying it himself. --Floridianed (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did he say that? Regardless of who he is, he's right. In order to understand the controversy about Rezko, readers need context. Context is required in the Wikipedia description of summary style. Summary style cannot be used as an excuse to delete unpleasant facts about the political allies of your favorite politicians, when those facts provide the context that Wikipedia requires. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. Also, the relationships and the trial are relevant for the simple reason that they have impacted Obama's campaign, which is his primary noteworthy trait and that they in all likely events have influenced his public perception. --Floorsheim (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Both Scjessey and I have since edited this section in a way that removed the specific charges, although I re-added that there were "corruption" charges. I don't think the specific counts (which K4T seems to be contentiously inserting and re-inserting) make any difference. However, Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction on public corruption charges is relevant as I argue elsewhere. Obama knew Rezko was under indictment at the time of the land deal, as per the sources. Obama acknowledges, and many sources report, that the "scrutiny" over Obama's relationship with Rezko is in part a questioning of Obama's judgment in dealing with a person he knows is under indictment. The second issue, which Obama considers more important (per sources) is the appearance of impropriety in doing business deals related to a fundraiser. Both sides (fundraiser and politician) are supposed to know better than that. When the fundraiser turns out to be convicted of political corruption, that tends to explain why the fundraiser is ignoring ethical standards and why the politician then comes under scrutiny. It is all very routine stuff, well covered by the media, and I don't think there is much dispute as to the underlying facts. Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when Obama purchased the house and Rita Rezko the adjoining property, Obama was not aware of an investigation into Rezko's dealing with the Illinois State boards. It was only when Obama wanted to purchase the 10 foot strip of the adjoining property that the press was reporting on Rezko's investigation/indictment and, according to Obama, he took extra care to make sure the purchase of the strip was "ethical and fair". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor recently added a sentence detailing Rezko's criminal charges,[45] claiming this is a "previous version" but without otherwise discussing the edit. Another was repeatedly adding the bribery charge/conviction quite a few times in the past few days. The sentence that mentions the specific charges, at least, is a semi non-sequitur and ought to be deleted in my opinion. However, I don't want to revert even once given the history of edit warring here. I hope people will respect this.Wikidemo (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A clear case of tendentious reverting. For the record (and as stated on his talk page), I agree with the Wikidemo treatment of Rezko. It mentions the corruption in the proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with "corruption charges". However, Wikidemo and Scjessey, I do think you should have gotten consensus for this edit here on the talk page before making it. --Floorsheim (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Both you and Scjessey were making substantial deletions in violation of the conditions established on this Talk page by multiple administrators. Both of you are daring these admins to block you for edit warring and disruptive and tendentious editing. Adding one word or one reliable source, or deleting a redundant phrase, is not a substantial edit unless it changes meaning. When you want to make a substantial edit, get consensus first, then edit. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you are joking. What violation? My edits have been in accordance with Wikipedia rules. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What violation? Please read WP:TE and WP:DE. You have already been warned and blocked multiple times for edit warring. Administrators have left multiple warnings on this Talk page, asking edtors not to do what the two of you have just done. Please stop edit warring. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Er.. no. I've received a single, 12-hour block for edit warring some 2 months ago. My recent edits were in accordance with all policies and guidelines concerning biographies, and I wasn't edit warring in any way. Simply stating a bald-faced lie does not make it so, and coming from an edit-warring single-purpose account user like you, I think it is pretty astounding that you should make these baseless accusations. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(to Workerbee74) That's barely worth a response. Please desist from hyperbole like that in discussing content changes you oppose. The warnings were against tendentiousness, edit warring, and inserting poorly sourced information that violates BLP, not against good faith edits. Your reflexive reversion of the edit, simply for being a change, is closer to how one would define a revert war - but you only did it once, and we only inserted it once, so as long as we do not get caught up in reverting each other this is normal editing process. Wikidemo (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I was looking at Lulu's extensive history of blocks for edit warring. So remove the two words "multiple times" and the rest of my previous edit was 100% accurate. Both of you have been previously blocked for doing exactly what you are doing now. Three different administrators (Anonymous Dissident, MZMcBride and AndonicO) have placed detailed and crystal clear warnings on this Talk page against exactly what you are doing now. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Er.. no they haven't. You obviously need to go back and read what they said again. They did not offer any support for BLP violations like you are proposing. They reiterated the importance of reliable sources, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to insert unrelated crap into the article to suit your biased agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Scjessey, it is you who is insisting on WP:BLP violations. You insist on leaving out relevant, well-sourced, and notable material of the exact sort BLP policy tells us to include on the grounds that it is not directly about Obama himself. What you refuse to acknowledge is that that is simply not what BLP policy tells us is of concern but is rather your own belief about what should go into the article. Please stop claiming your own personal beliefs to be Wikipedia policy. --Floorsheim (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That claim has appeared a few times here. Accepting for the moment that relevant, well sourced, notable information is being omitted, that's not a BLP violation. BLP is a prohibition against including poorly sourced controversial information, not a demand to include derogatory information if it is well sourced. Nor does it establish notability and relevance standards. Notability is for whether an article should be here, not the material inside the article. Those terms serve as shorthand. As far as I know every proposal to actually define relevance has failed.Wikidemo (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Accepting for the moment that relevant, well sourced, notable information is being omitted, that's not a BLP violation.

?! But it says specifically on WP:BLP under Well-known public figures: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

It's true BLP itself doesn't say anything about what relevance is and is not. But WP:ROC does give guidelines, which apparently have considerable consensus. What it says is that subject matter having an influence on the subject of an article's noteworthy traits, explicitly including public perception, is relevant. Material receiving considerable media coverage fits this criterion for Obama because it will have influenced his presidential campaign, which is his primary noteworthy trait and in all likely events his public perception as well.

--Floorsheim (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ROC is an essay, it is neither a policy nor even a guideline and does not really have much bearing on the discussion here. I don't think the BLP policy does either—including the Rezko material would not violate BLP but nor would non-inclusion. The real issue here is WP:NPOV in general and more specifically WP:UNDUE. For an article to remain neutral it cannot be a whitewash that excludes criticisms, but nor should negative (or for that matter positive) material be given undue weight. The question with respect to Rezko is if we mention him and how we do so. We make the decision about how to proceed based in large part on the necessity for keeping the article as neutral as possible. Quite frankly there is not a clear-cut answer to the question which is part of why this debate is so heated, but we should at least be aware of what policy is most relevant to the debate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[EC] - to wokerbee: Yes, Lulu is quite the contentious editor isn't he? But while you're off digging up dirt to throw at your opponents you might as well get it right. I can't speak for Scjessey but I was blocked for several minutes last year while on troll patrol, which is hazardous duty, by a misguided administrator who got suckered into using the tools to side with sockpuppets in a content dispute. I gave him an earful in the arbcom case but his block seemed to be in good faith, if against policy. I'm more experienced now and have learned better how to let sockpuppets dig their own grave instead of my digging it for them - lest I get blocked again. We got the trolls though, several people, including administrators, permanently gone from Wikipedia. You really don't want to be flirting with that kind of dispute. "Exactly what [I am] doing right now" is making single incremental good-faith edits to improve the article while discussing changes on the talk page, exactly how one is supposed to go about things. As a word of friendly advice, your approach to this article hasn't gone unnoticed, and if you want to stick around and contribute to the project you really ought to tone down the name-calling, personal attacks, contentiousness, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

@WorkerBee:Haha. I saw what you tried at article "Waterboarding". --Floridianed (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Snipping material in subarticles

Obviously, I'm not Life.temp. I got a chuckle out of the report by FA, since it was such a transparently stupid attempt to "get even" for me filing a sock puppet request (which I think is entirely accurate, other than someone's addition of Andyvphil, who I think is an entirely different person than K4T/et alia).

I have now had a chance to look at what s/he trimmed from the Prez Campaign section. I like the overall goal of reducing it substantially, and leaving most details to the child article. However, the actual edit was a little bit off... for example, it left in the mention of S.Dakota and Montana, while leaving out the (excessive) details on the other primaries. I don't think we need to trim quite that much. A few words summarizing the primary campaign would be good, but not state-by-state details anymore. Maybe a little bit of before/after Super Tuesday though... like 3-4 sentences in total. Probably a slight mention of the Wright stuff even makes sense... less than we had, but some way of finding maybe three sentences that wrap up the whole: "Wrights remarks were publicized; Obama made a speech; more controversy around TUCC and Obama resigned the congregation". Better written and cited than that, but a quick overview with pointers. LotLE×talk 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Compare this article with other Wikipedia biographies about prominent politicians such as Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton. There are entire sections devoted to scandals and controversies. Some of them use the word "scandal" in the section header. There is no reason to treat this one differently. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

May I add McCain? You really like to leave him out yet he is the most important one to compare. Don't you think so? --Floridianed (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They are all important to compare. John McCain isn't the only other biography of a prominent politician here at Wikipedia. There are hundreds. I've been reviewing them, and looking at corresponding Britannica biographies, for about a week. But since you insist, let's look specifically at John McCain.

Even though there's a separate article about the Keating Five scandal, there are two paragraphs about it in the McCain biography and it's even mentioned in the lead of the article, something we haven't yet tried to do here with Rezko and Wright. Is that what you're suggesting? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider "Rezko" and "Wright" to be of the same level of importance as "Keating Five"? Perhaps if people are still talking about them in 10 years, but I'd consider that questionable now. Don't fall subject to recentism. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we "even" them out as much as possible and give fairness to each. As I pointed out earlier, we are in an election year. That's the reason there is so much traffic and controversy (edit/talk and vandalism) on specific pages. I'm just talking in general, just that there isn't a missunderstanding. --Floridianed (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is not to give equal weight to the failings of each politician. The McCain article has no coverage, and no fighting over, these trivial manufactured controversies - save, as I mentioned, for a few words devoted to the "lobbyist" scandal that I would remove from the McCain article if I had my druthers. The Keating Five is not a campaign controversy, it is a rather central, key event in McCain's career that almost threw him out of politics. Obama has no similar scandal in his past. If he is ever called into a Senate ethics probe of that sort, investigated by an Independent Counsel, etc., then we could say it's important to his biography. That's not to say we shouldn't cover Wright and Rezko if we can keep it appropriate, just putting it in perspective. Wikidemo (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You have repeatedly given this false portrayal of the Keating Five scandal as something that "almost threw him out of politics" or "almost cost him his seat." Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Democrat controlled Senate completely exonerated McCain. Their own chief counsel admitted that the only reason McCain was dragged into it at all was to keep it from being an all-Democrat scandal.

Unlike McCain, three Democratic senators were formally censured by their Democratic colleagues. They didn't even try to run for re-election. They knew better than that. Their careers in politics were finished. By comparison, McCain has run and won by wide margins four times since then. It had no lasting effect on McCain. I think the comparison is a fair one to make. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, McCain did survive the accusations. There's nothing false or minor about facing Senate ethics charges. McCain was accused, and was clearly involved, in an event that forced three of five Senators out of politics. That's a significant career event, unlike the minor campaign material in this article. Other exonerated people in this category include Bill and Hillary (for Monica Llewinsky and Whitewater), Oliver North (Iran-Contra), Clarence Thomas (sexual harassment), and so on. I'm concerned that you're arguing about "Democrat controlled Senate", "all-Democrat scandal", "Democratic colleagues", etc. That indicates you're looking at this whole thing as a Democrat-versus-Republican issue. We're talking about a biography of a person here, not keeping track of political scores.Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not "minor campaign material." The polls say it's a close race. The combined effect of all these controversies could make thedifference between winning and losing for Obama in November. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This belief of yours (that propagation of these controversies could change the election's outcome) seems to be your sole motivation for editing here under your current account. That aside, what "could make the difference" in November's irrelevant because Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. Shem^(talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody needs a crystal ball. The Wright controversy has already cost Obama a lot of votes, even within the Democratic Party, as proven by the poll results I posted a few days ago. Assuming that the poll means nothing would sound a lot like WP:OR no matter how you present it. These controversies have cost Obama a lot already. Publications like Newsweek are already forecasting a series of attacks against Obama from the 527 groups, similar to the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry in 2004, but with much better funding. When the "crystal ball gazing" herein comes from a solid gold, neutral, reliable source like Newsweek, it is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, because every meaningful poll shows Obama spanking McCain by an ever-increasing margin. Perhaps that's because McCain referred to "vetoing beer" and "President Putin of Germany" recently. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, allow me to give you a little piece of advice, K4T. Don't embarrass yourself with things like this or this. You'll only draw the ire of Wikipedia Administrators who see through your silly games. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I'm referring to the poll that was specifically on Wright related issues. CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 1-3, 2008. [46] It says that 22% of all voters, including 18% of Democrats and 19% of independents, feel less favorably toward Obama as a result of the Wright affair; 60% of all voters, including 71% of Democrats and 53% of independents, disapprove of the way that Obama handled the Wright matter; and 18% of all voters, including 12% of Democrats and 17% of independents, are now less likely to support Obama in the fall election as a result of the Wright matter. This is the poll that is specific to the Wright matter, and there are others like it. With results like these, the overall ratings you've cited for Obama are lower than they otherwise would have been. This makes Obama look beatable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything you just mentioned is about the campaign. It belongs in the article on the campaign. This article is an overview of a life. Life.temp (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Astonishing POV push

Scjessey and Loonymonkey are now engaging in an astonishing POV push in the article mainspace. With no consensus established on the Talk page, they have gutted the paragraph about Rezko. Here is the POV-pushing excuse offered in the latest edit summary: NPOV means NON point of view, not "all non-fringe" points of view Here's what WP:NPOV has to say. It refutes your argument completely: WP:YESPOV

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.

The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints.

There is only one POV represented in the article: the POV of Obama's campaign manager. It's been like that, off and on, ever since I started editing it: a hagiography, where never is heard a discouraging word. You've just been shown that NPOV emphatically does not mean "no point of view," which is the rationale given for your edit. Revert your edit, please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, all that from a single reversion of one edit? Once again, remember that the burden for argument and consensus falls on the editor wanting to include the material (you) not editors who revert you. As for the rest, there's not really any way to respond to your oft-repeated claim that Wikipedia is one big Obama-controlled conspiracy (and anyone who opposes you is an "Obama campaign worker") so I'll stick to the NPOV issue. To refer to your quoted text, are you really trying to claim that your edits have been "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject?" Really? --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - From WP:BLP, the most important Wikipedia policy when it comes to biographies (I've added extra emphasis):

"[Content] should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."

In otherwords, you cannot use the misdeeds/mistakes/scandals/whatever of other people to provide negative color commentary within a biography. WP:NPOV is applied to the subject of the biography (if proper sources can be found). I applied those rules with a pair of edits (diff1, diff2) which Wikidemo then refined by adding a necessary soupçon of context. There was nothing disruptive, tendentious or astonishing about these edits, and they were supported by a trio of editors afterward. You cannot discard or ignore WP:BLP and seek solace in other policies, just because it handicaps your attempt to push your non-neutral POV. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't he - because you're doing that? I mean, seriously, you've almost taken this to sickness level with this fear you have that some negative information is going to make it onto his article. You need to let some honesty drip down onto your messiah. He's clearly had a relationship with people like Ayers and Rezko. He's OBVIOUSLY been influenced in his life by Wright. Have you LISTENED to Wright? How do you attend sermons by him for TWENTY YEARS and then not be influenced at all? The purpose of the article is to define his life. That includes the pastor who CLEARLY tried to tie himself to the candidate, the crooked land dealer who tried to get in on his success with a few early favors, and the former domestic terrorist who, as an integral member of the Chicago machine, had to give him the nod before the Democrat party got behind his first campaign. As your hero Bill Clinton said, "He's running for President, not pope." Fovean Author (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FA, that was...I'll be polite...unhelpful. You are free to express your disdain for Obama (though ideally it would be in a way aimed at helping to edit the article). However, I would like to request that you not accuse editors with whom you disagree "sickness", holding Obama out as their "messiah" or Bill Clinton as their "hero"? This page is for discussing article content, not for complaining about other editors. In the future will you please align your talk page contributions with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This biography is being hijacked

All of the following are currently being discussed as hot topics on right wing blogs:

• Obama: black, biracial, mulatto, or octaroon?
• Why does Obama lie about being a college "professor"?
• Why can't we include in his biography his association with known white terrorists?

I cite as evidence the astonishing amount of text (posted above) devoted to these (and other similar) non-issue topics for a biographical article on Barack Obama. You will often find the same editors who are so assiduously pursuing inclusion of these issues similarly contributing to the hagiography on John Mccain; that is those who post under an account name and not an IP address.

I suggest we start to focus on his use of a "terrorist fist jab" with his wife following a recent speech. That is obviously of similar import.

Agree or Disagree?

-70.230.180.50 (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit... If you have a problem with what is being discussed on this talk page, I suggest you join in the discussion and try to get it ended with consensus as quickly as possible. I also suggest you stop with the personal attacks and try to approach the discussions assuming good faith and in a civil manner. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New start about controversies

Remarks

Read all incl. "Rules" before you make any comment!

If after at least 24 hours there no consensus for my effort feel free to "dump" it!

Courtesy of --Floridianed (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Since the discussions are widely spread and hard to find I thought it would make sense to start a new section that should be kept "clean", meaning: Just say what you think of each issue at the appropriate place w/o writing an essay. I'll include a spot for those (essays) at the end of the section named "General remarks and other". So other than there please try to keep it as clear and simple as possible!

Rules

1. NO POV, only NPOV (POV you can include in the "General remarks and other" section)

2. "NO RIGHTWING" OR "LEFTWING" CONTRIBUTIONS (everyone who can't because of personal believes stay out)

3. CONSIDER THE "OTHER" SIDE TOO AND RESPECT IT

4. Feel free to add another sub but please keep it within of my intend and above the "Time line and placement..." sub.

Out yourself as:

Liberal

• In spirit, an Old Right individualist slash decentralist leftist (who most often votes Democratic, anyway) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Leftist

• Its scary trust me. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. So very other. LotLE×talk 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. an indepentend liberal democrat republican. No joke. --Floridianed (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. all over the spectrum Nar Matteru (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm an independent conservative liberal republican democrat libertarian authoritarian socialist reactionary communist fascist. --Ubiq (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm just a normal human worm baby, and any attempt to label me as a member of the Mighty Irken Race shall meet with horrible doom! Lemony fresh victory shall be mine! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This list is so funny, I thought I would add to the joke. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you believe the various POV pushers here on Wikipedia, I'm a Democrat-sympathizer, Republican-lover, Obama-hater, Obama-fanboy, Clintonista, Anti-Clintonian, McCain-supporter, McCain-hater, Nazi, Communist, fascist, and <insert epitath here>, but I prefer to refer to myself as Bobblehead. So, how is this supposed to be a consensus building exercise? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

@ Bobblehead: The point here is that everyone can tell the truth or lie as they wish. I put this section in when I realized how much fun it might be (and in my mind it is). Besides, some give an honest answer if they're really proud of their believes (what they should, no matter where their are) and those who don't, well; read between the lines if you want. At least it gives some picture and when you compare their claim of NPOV with this "thread" here....! No one is forced to "out" him or herself and every one can lie as much as he or she wants. ;) --Floridianed (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: That shoud be in the "General remarks and other" section. --Floridianed (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting!

To everyone who reads this, please stand back and do not edit war over the Tony Rezko section - or any section - of this article! If you can, please take a deep breath, have a cup of tea, be patient. Even if you think that means leaving the wrong version in place, that's better than destabilizing an article read by 250K people per day. Please? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The version on there now is the correct one in my opinion. Are you saying that you're going to leave it? Fovean Author (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For the moment so as not to participate in an edit war, yes. The material is disputed. If someone removes it again, I urge people to leave it out. If someone adds it back, leave it in. Let them be the ones risking a block. The point is, don't edit war. It destabilizes the article, could lead to renewed protection, and brings disrepute on Wikipedia given the prominence of the article and its subject. Maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but I do not think administrators issuing blocks will care who is right or wrong about content, or who has offended whom - they will want to restore order. And your cup of WP:TEA does not care either. Please, we can deal with this through consensus, dispute resolution, or normal editing process once cooperative editing resumes. Wikidemo (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you will, I will. I can guarantee you that sock puppet user:Life.Temp has no such integrity, but there you go. I've added an intentionally neutral comment Jim Johnson's removal from the Obama's vetting committee today, making sure to note everything that Obama has considered important, such as the fact that Johnson was a volunteer, and left off the Republican criticism. Fovean Author (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised Ferrylodge hasn't reverted this yet, since it's not in the campaign article that this section is summarizing. And, I'd suggest it is more appropriate for inclusion there anywhere. Has this had any impact on Obama's life? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial content like this should be discussed before being added, and the person who adds it certainly should not revert another editor who reverts them with the comment "If you don't like the accurate information, discuss its removal." Inclusion is what calls for discussion, and defending an insertion of new info based on "it's accurate" is not going to fly here. Fovean Author has been warned not to edit war over this any further. This is precisely the kind of behavior that will result in blocks. If you add something and someone else reverts you, a further revert on your part will be viewed (by me at least) as disruptive. I want to head off these kind of disputes way before it gets to 3RR and if that requires blocks for disruption so be it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

End of the edit war

I'd ask editors from both "sides" to accept a compromise while discussion continues. It includes all the recently added context (including conviction and that Rezko was a prevalent fundraiser), but without a laundry list of charges and other politicians Rezko's contributed to. Shem^(talk) 04:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm ok with it at the moment and wish nobody changes it again without consensus. --Floridianed (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Fine by me, and if it wasn't I still wouldn't revert. Good effort! Wikidemo (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• It'll do. Noroton (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know the full specifics behind this particular Rezko dispute (I don't believe I've edited this article before, though I have edited a couple of articles connected to Obama) but that seems like a reasonable version and if it stops the edit warring for awhile then great. I've intentionally avoided this article because the talk page has seemed like such a mess but I'm going to do my best to keep an adminly (adminish?) eye on it now based on recent discussions on ANI. This article is too important and viewed too often to be going through these insane revert wars. Continual full protection is not an acceptable option obviously. Personally I feel we need to establish a rather strict policy against edit warring here to be enforced by short-term blocks if necessary. And it isn't just a question of going to 3RR and then pulling back. This is one of those pages that needs a 1RR kind of spirit to it. There seem to be a number of editors committed to talking it out and that's a good sign, but I'm also seeing several folks committed to edit warring and that needs to stop. If I can lend a hand at all over here dealing with rv warring (by any party) don't hesitate to drop me a line at my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate that despite making no Talk comments on the matter, both Kossack4Truth and WorkerBee have continued their controversial insertions (including once via a misleading edit summary). Shem^(talk) 17:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• That's the problem with such a massive Talk page. It's to easy to overlook something like this. Now that I've seen it, I'd lke to suggest restoring the Rezko paragraph to the condition it was in just after protection was lifted. No edit after that was supported by consensus. But for right now, I support Shem's initiative. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• I am eager to not only agree, but to defend the agreement. I will do my best to keep the inclusionists (my side) from breaking the agreement. (I point out that this will mean I'm going to try to deal with such hot-tempered folk as Fovean Author and, when they inevitably return from their blocks, WorkerBee and Andyvphil.) You must, in turn, do your best to keep the exclusionists (your side) from breaking the agreement. (That includes Life.temp, Scjessey and Lulu.) Do you agree, Wikidemo? Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  Of course. You'll note I have already cautioned Scjessey and Life.temp on their talk pages (and sometimes here) to avoid edit warring - a "friendly" caution perhaps, but I did ask them to stop. Maybe they listen to me more than you. A few caveats - none are my "friends" and I can't make promises for them. Actually, I'm on closer wikiterms with Norton than anyone else on this page. I'm not making an agreement and I don't always have a side. I just do what I think ought to be done. But beyond that, sure, I'll urge everyone to cooperate and keep things stable and polite, and give them a nudge if they aren't. Wikidemo (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well fine then. I will make a proportionate effort with the inclusionists. Even if you don't feel comfortable making that agreement, I will make that commitment: to follow your lead when I deal with the inclusionists. I would also like to thank Bigtimepeace for making a commitment to this article, since it needs more attention from neutral admins. Welcome aboard. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not fine at all, and it is not fine in a way that puts the article in violation of numerous guidelines and policies. The article violates policies regarding sections that are supposed to be summaries of linked articles, regarding article length, and regarding neutrality & undue weight. The default consensus is always against the addition of material. Adding material carries the burden of proof. It has to, otherwise you get a license for disruption that works like so:

1. Add material without consensus
2. When it is reverted, object
3. Since you object, the revert is intrinsically without consensus
4. Revert the revert on the grounds that it was done without consensus

That what's going on here, and it is garbage. To excuse or back down from it in the name of consensus only legitimizes a way of editing without consensus. The basic rule must be observed: adding material carries the burden of proof. No consensus is required to remove material that was added without consensus. Those who edit war over this point must be blocked, or the principle of consensus is subverted. Life.temp (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - your have stated your position. You'll see that I asked people to back down in the name of stopping a revert war, not to legitimize anything. People on both sides of an edit war are often rightly blocked without getting to the issue of whose is the right version or who has consensus. The rare exceptions are fighting vandalism, copyright violations, and to a limited extent BLP violations. But even there you risk getting blocked and have to explain yourself - it's often better wait for an administrator to sort it out, if available, than jump in. A few minutes after writing the above you deleted a substantial amount of material, and another editor promptly reverted...nothing gained. The only way to stability and a good article is going to be to quiet things down first so we can at least talk about what the article should look like. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Certain editors are attempting to wage a political campaign in this article. You seem to be assuming good faith, which is a mistake in this case. AFG is a principle that applies when there is doubt. There is no doubt here. You don't assume anything when you have sufficient history to know. Many of these editors are plainly not sincere about achieving consensus or following policy. Life.temp (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But isn't the problem that editors on the other side of the dispute are saying the same thing about you and others who share your view? That's why this type of rhetoric gets us nowhere, and I actually think what is most needed here is a healthy injection of good faith, regardless of what one feels about another's motivations. And you're right that consensus is important, but there seems to be a consensus that a temporary "cease-fire" on the Rezko issue as proposed by Wikidemo is desirable right now, even if more haggling over the language is necessary. It's hard for me to view that as being in any way negative. I suggest you rethink your approach to editing this article because as Wikidemo says above mass deletions (and talk page comments which offer opinions on the motives of other editors, see also my comment in the next section) are not going to get you anywhere. The bar for "disruptive" editing is considerably lower at this point and has nothing to do with who is right or wrong about issue x but rather with edit warring, significant additions or deletions without prior discussion, persistent incivility, etc. I won't hesitate to block anyone who engages in that kind of behavior. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The problem is not what they are saying, but what they are doing. What Kossack4Truth et. al. are doing isn't comparable to what others are doing. Sometimes, you have to consider the motives of other editors, when you are trouble-shooting editing problems. You have to know whether continued good-faith effort at discussion and consensus is likely to work. That involves thinking about motives. Of course, you always start with the assumption of good faith. But, behavior history can change that assumption, which is why people are sometimes blocked. Calling my edit a "mass deletion" is a distortion, since all the material has already been moved to the spin-off article. We are supposed to replace spun-off detial with a summary. That's not a mass deletion; that's a Wikipedia style guideline. Life.temp (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fact that you deleted material, if you don't like the term "mass" that's fine but it was a deletion. This did not really accomplish anything because now it has been restored. I'm not commenting on whether or not that material belongs in the article, I'm simply saying that significant deletions or additions (notice a comment I made to Fovean Author in this respect as well) without discussion are not helpful. This dispute is too heated and nasty right now to begin worrying about who is right or who is wrong. What needs to stop is the edit warring and the sniping at one another on the talk page. You are welcome to entertain whatever thoughts you might have about the motivations of others, but repeating them here does not help anything (I said the same thing below to Kossack). You are of course welcome to comment (in a civil fashion) on the behavior of other editors but that's quite different than saying "many of these editors are plainly not sincere about achieving consensus or following policy." My experience in these kind of disputes is that generally everyone involved thinks they are on the side of the angels and of Wikipedia policy while their opponents are POV pushers, edit warriors, etc. Ultimately one side may be more right about their characterization of the other side, or both sides might be engaged in problematic behavior with some constructive editors on both sides as well. I'm not interested in making those determinations right now. I'm interested in seeing an end to the edit warring, to significant content changes that are not discussed, and to uncivil, bad-faith-assuming comments on the talk page. Wikidemo essentially called a time out above and I think that's what is needed right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's a fact. It's a fact that I "gutted", "butchered", and also that I "replaced with a summary." Words matter. What I did was follow a guideline, which doesn't say "move and mass delete." It says "move and replace with a summary." The latter description is fairer because it represents my good-faith intention, and because it doesn't imply that I tried to keep any information out of Wikipedia. This editing will only return to normalcy when certain editors are blocked. Life.temp (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's your position and you're sticking to it, then you'll be the first. Kossack4Truth (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists

I would like very much to take a 30-day voluntary break from all Obama-related articles. But I would like a commitment from the involved administrators that they are going to monitor the conduct of a small but determined group of exclusionists on these articles.

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: [47][48] I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: [49] He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary [50] and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page,[51][52] proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: [53] None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus.

It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. This goes hand in hand with similarly intentioned efforts by User:Scjessey, User:Loonymonkey, User:Wikidemo and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp, a warning for the other four, and a seven-day topic ban for all five of them. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, Life.temp is doing a pretty good impression of a Kossack "bad hand" account. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and yes, you're right, it's a very good impression. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus." And there you have it: 4. Revert the revert on the grounds that it was done without consensus. What goes unmentioned is that none of the material was added with consensus. The burden of obtaining consensus is on those who add material. P.S. I've edited the article 4 times in my life. Life.temp (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You've also been warned against this specific conduct a total of one time in your life, plus other, more general warnings on this Talk page by three different admins, but then you did it again. Your edit summaries contain personal attacks. This won't be tolerated. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored, as closely as reasonably possible, the Rezko paragraph version at the time that protection was removed. The only significant differences are K4T's addition of AFP, a reliable source that no one has objected to, and the correct listing of the charges for which Rezko was convicted, as the AFP article confirms. I don't see how anyone can object to a correct listing of the charges. Other than that, it's exactly the same as the protected version.

If you want to change it, get consensus first. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Workerbee's edit comment:"This restores, as closely as reasonably possible, the Rezko paragraph at the time protection was removed. AFP source added, charges correctly identified. Those are the only two significant differences)"

A plain lie. How dumb you think we are? --Floridianed (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please remember that the burden for argument and consensus falls on editors attempting to include material, not on those who remove it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was reasonable (under the circumstances) for WorkerBee74 to seek to restore the Rezko paragraph to the way it was immediately after the protection was lifted. He hadn't noticed Wikidemo's offer of a truce. His effort to restore the paragraph was less than perfect, but he's right about the starting point. All edits after that were unsupported by consensus. We should discuss restoring the protected version of teh paragraph as a starting point for further talks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi WorkerBee, I mean Kossack, sorry! WorkerBee did that easy task with a lie in the edit-comment to add his own POV. You know it and everybody who looked it up knows it. It's not that hard to copy and paste a pevious section to restore it, isn't it! --Floridianed (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you here in order to inflame the situation? If not, I recommend stepping back for a moment and rethinking your approach. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much impossible to imagine that any good can come of a talk page section headed "Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists," and unsurprisingly there is nothing constructive here. Terms like "exclusionist," "POV pusher," "political campaigners," etc. do nothing to forward the discussion and instead only inflame tensions. It doesn't matter whether the terms are accurate or not, using them doesn't help anything. When other editors use inflammatory language or make accusations about motivations (and there are editors on "both sides" of the dispute doing that), the best thing to do is to ignore them. Please let's put an end to the labeling of one another and the not-so-subtle accusations of puppetry along with the edit warring. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading use of edit summaries

Edits like this are anathema to consensus-building, Kossack4Truth. You pretended to simply undo Life.temp's deletion back to the compromise text, but actually re-inserted your preferred version of the controversial material. Shem^(talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And this blatant re-insertion of the controversial material by WorkerBee74, disguised as "restoring as closely as reasonably possible at the time of protection," makes the second use of misleading edit summaries on this article in 24 hours. Shem^(talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama is not a professor.

I noticed an error in the article. It states that Obama was a law professor, but in fact he was only a lecturer. This error needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdemarre (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion above under the Professor heading. --Onorem♠Dil 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully not another suck puppet. I'm getting tired of them.... --Floridianed (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up presidential campaign article

Just a note that Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 already has 79k of readable text to cover the primary, so discussion of how best to split up the Primary and General election portions of the campaign is under way here. Since at least one of the proposals so far involves linking the future primary and general election article from here directly rather than creating a main campaign article and then a primary sub-article and general sub-article from that article, I figured I'd invite the editors from this article to join in on the discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I support you and wish you good luck. Little bit of sarkassm but you know how I mean it. --Floridianed (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Barry"

I believe the mere fact that many people knew him as "Barry" during his youth and even his college years is worth mentioning in the entry, if only for the reason that such a high-profile person was known by a name different than the one he is known by now. Here is the newsweek article about when he decided to go by his formal name....http://www.newsweek.com/id/128633/output/print (UTC) June 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.146 (talk • contribs)

A slightly interesting biographical tidbit. I have no problem including it. And I usually call him "Barry" while talking about him with others. That or "Rocky Bama," which is what my nephews call him. Fishal (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a name different from the one he is known by now - it's an obvious nickname. Doesn't seem particularly notable to me, although I do see it popping up on the right-wing blogs as if it has some deep significance. Tvoz/talk 14:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Of African descent

I actually like a recent addition of Fovean Author: His Kenyan father makes Obama the first American of African descent to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party.

We've had a little brouhaha (minor as this talk page goes) over the use of African-American (vs. bi-racial, mixed heritage, whatever). I think FA's phrase does a nice job of being factual, not-too-wordy, but also avoiding a somewhat loaded term. Moreover, whether or not he's really the first candidate since (whomever) to have a non-American parent, it would be nice to mention that fact in the lead. LotLE×talk 05:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it too. I think a little consensus and some research is in order before using the term though. It means more-or-less the same thing as African-American, in this context, right? But it's a more descriptive and accurate term, and as far as I can tell it's about as uncontroversial as you can get to use this kind of terminology: "of African descent" ... "of European descent" ... "of Asian descent" ... "Of Jewish descent" ... and so on. Keeping in mind that few matters of race are precise, and setting aside the issue that we all apparently come from Africa, I think this answers the objections regarding Obama being biracial. It does not deny his white heritage. He is of African descent and European descent. But he is the first of African descent to be a major party candidate. I also think it avoids making us look strange and sticking out to the readers. I think most people would read "of African descent" and not raise an eyebrow. But we should check to make sure the term really is uncontroversial and inoffensive, and that there's not already a style guideline on this. Also note that this answers the objection but doesn't actually address the fact that Obama is also the first person of mixed parentage to get the nomination. That's not on everyone's mind right now but perhaps it will be someday. Hope that makes sense.Wikidemo (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone new to this article and strictly offering my editorial as opposed to admin opinion obviously, I find the idea that there is any sort of problem identifying him as the first African-American major party nominee quite bizarre. "Of African descent" is definitely not offensive language, but it is rather stilted and is simply not a commonly employed term of reference for black Americans (it's usually used in a more global sense to refer to members of the larger African diaspora, e.g. comparing Obama with someone from Jamaica who is "also of African descent"). By using it here we would be using terminology that is not generally employed and doing so for no good reason that I can see.

Of course racial categories are socially constructed and quite nonsensical as most any social scientist will tell you. The fact that Obama is generally identified as "black" and not "white" given his parents' background is strictly a product of slavery as it developed in the United States and obviously relates to the so-called One-drop rule. Sadly, the basic racial schema of the slavery era largely carries over to today. This is not the place to challenge that, to re-invent the racial wheel, or to choose overly artificial terminology. We are a tertiary source and we report what other sources say. The mass media, scholars, and voters overwhelmingly refer to Barack Obama as African American or black (the former definitely being the preferred and more formal term). He also self-identifies as such. On what basis would we change it to "of African descent?" This would need to be based on some second-party sources, not our own editorial whim. Two Google searches suggest (unsurprisingly) that Obama is referred to vastly more often as an African American than as a person of African descent. Given that a rather compelling case would need to be made for why we would need to switch to the latter and right now I do not see that.

Also there is a larger issue here. Categories like African American politicians (and many similar categories) suggest that Wikipedia has no problem using the term African American (I'm quite certain a significant number if not a majority of people in that category have mixed-race ancestry). That category also includes people like Shirley Chisholm - both of whose parents came from outside the US, though both were of African descent - and who is described as "the first African-American woman elected to Congress." I don't see why we would change the pattern with Obama. See also articles like Benjamin Banneker (who probably had a white grandmother) or, more importantly, P. B. S. Pinchback, "the first African American to become Governor of a U.S. state" whose father was a white slave owner. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if it would be nonstandard and sound stilted, then we should not use it. My comment is premised on it being a commonly-accepted term, something I'm not sure about. Frequency of use is a clue but not necessarily the final answer. A quick google search shows Obama + "African American" leading Obama + "African Descent" by only a 2-1 margin, far closer than I would have expected. That's not meant as an argument, just a potential direction of inquiry. Where two terms are truly equivalent we can use more precise one instead of vernacular here, if it is truly uncontroversial, and do not need sourcing to choose among adjectives. For example, one need not find a source to replace the word "fast" with "rapid." I agree that it's up to anyone who wants to use the term to justify it. Wikidemo (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually seems to be more like 3-1 (460,000 vs. 150,000) but no matter. I basically agree with your point here, but I do think this is a bit different than choosing between adjectives like fast and rapid. Racial and ethnic descriptors are always dicey and often contested, to the point that there are real, intense debates about "black" vs. "African American" or "Hispanic" vs. "Latino" among folks who consider themselves members of one of those groups. Obama clearly seems to prefer (or at least more often employs) the term African American as opposed to African descent and that is also what secondary sources generally use (I'm sure anyone who has followed the campaign closely would agree that news broadcasts, newspapers, and periodicals overwhelmingly use African American or black and very rarely use "African descent" - in this respect see the Google news archives, though there are a lot of false positives there obviously). Since we are dealing with adjectives which are rather fraught, I think it makes sense to fall back on common usage, which not insignificantly also seems to coincide with the preference of the article subject. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)