Talk:Barack Obama

Obama Infobox and Succession boxes

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

Sign for archiving purposes. Avruch^T * ^ER 16:50, 13 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.

You must be kidding. A black or Indian or Pakistani prime minister/president/chancellor wouldn't be a remarkable development in Britain or Canada or France or Germany? (France, for example, has a grand total of ONE black MP representing the mainland.) Which unbelievably progressive la-la land of a country are you from, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.242.225 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Question: Obama has a white mother and an African father. Does this make him an African American, or mixed race? The accuracy of the lede can certainly be argued -- saying that Obama is "African-American" may (or may not?) be accurate, since he is as much white as he is African. "Mixed-race" may be more accurate, unless the notion is that Wikipedia must comply with the One Drop Rule when denoting the race of a politician. 207.47.19.2 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see #Of African descent below. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:58, 13 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)

I have been wonder this the entire time they have labled Barack as an African-American. How can they do this? Throughout his campain that is one title they use extensively. I'm sure he, just like every other inter-racial person in the United States checks the "other" box on offical documents. So how can he be called the first African-American if his mother is white?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.175.171 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, very few African Americans are 100% African. Regardless, in every interview I've ever seen where he is asked this question, he self-identifies as AA. If he's half African with a black wife and strong roots in the black community, why can't he call himself black? -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 18:41, 14 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 [4]," 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 [5], and his campaign just added a new "internet war room" staff to deal with them [6]). 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)

He's running for the US Presidency, but if we're going to talk about how he's viewed we should consider international perspectives as well. Since the US is one of the most powerful nations in the world (although China is probably running neck-and-neck with us now), international views of its potential leaders are important. But, as I said, I don't have time to fight for it right now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Josiah. The international perspective is notable, important, interesting, and well-sourced. It would be good to incorporate it. --Floorsheim (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Another useful source for international opinions about Obama is this recent survey from Pew, which found:

“ People around the world who have been paying attention to the American election express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama's, as well as in Jordan and Pakistan where few people have confidence in either candidate.

Obama's advantage over McCain is overwhelming in the Western European countries surveyed: Fully 84% of the French who have been following the election say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 33% who say that about McCain. The differences in ratings for Obama and McCain are about as large in Spain and Germany, and are only somewhat narrower in Great Britain. ”

I'll let someone else figure out how to integrate this info into the article, or the election article if it's more appropriate there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 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)

Life.temp has just been blocked as a sockpuppet. This is an unexpected twist in the sockpuppet investigation. LotLE, what's your reaction? WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's troubling indeed. Most of the editor's trouble-making was in other articles and abuse of process (e.g. trying to get other editors blocked). But the comments of those involved is that it is a "skillful" and determined sock puppet operator. It wasn't just the standard obvious sock puppetry of two accounts that were obviously the same person. Under the circumstances I think it's pretty important that we try to verify whether any other sock accounts have been active here, obviously those who edited in support of Life.temp (if any), but possibly some that might not be instantly obvious. There are two open sock puppet reports related to this article, neither of which has been fully vetted (a checkuser was run on one, but seemingly very incomplete). Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 15 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)

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. [7] [8] AFP specifies "12 counts of fraud, two of aiding and abetting bribery and two of money laundering[.]" [9] 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,[10] 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)

I agree that the principle concerns here are WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

One of the things you said, though, Bigtimepeace, is that non-inclusion of the Rezko material would not violate WP:BLP. Others have said similar things. Could you (or anyone else) please explain how that is so when it says in 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.?

It's true that WP:ROC is not an official guideline, so sorry for my mistake there. But isn't it at least worth considering in trying to discern what relevance should be interpreted as meaning in that quote from BLP?

Wouldn't doing so help us make heads or tails about what negative material should be included in the article?

--Floorsheim (talk) 04:51, 13 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. [11] 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)

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)

And, once again, it is impossible not to notice that you hold those who aren't Obama apologists to a different standard, this time to criteria more restrictive than the Wikipedia directive. If there's a problem with Wikipedia, you're a serious part of it - an administrator with no intention of showing neutrality. But that you would show Life.Temp or scjessey or Wikidemp to the standard that you hold the rest of us. Fovean Author (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I made two direct comments to Life.temp before they were blocked as a sockpuppet. See here where I said "this type of rhetoric gets us nowhere" and "I suggest you rethink your approach to editing this article" before mentioning that I would not hesitate to block users editing as Life.temp was. And then a further comment here where I took LT to task for commenting on the motivations of others. I took Kossack4Truth to task on that as well, and so far have only commented to editors who have done something problematic in my view - so far I have not seen that from Wikidemo or Scjessey, but I haven't been here long. I stand by my warning and comment to you, and add that terms like "Obama apologists" are not helpful in the slightest. Please refrain from using uncivil language along these lines on this talk page. There's a lot of incivility on both sides (from a few accounts) and civility blocks are not at all out of the question. I assure you I will not hesitate to block any editor on either side of the dispute who is being uncivil, edit warring, or otherwise being disruptive. I have no vested interest in this article and am only interest in bringing an end to the edit warring and other disruption and making sure this article is NPOV and of a high quality overall. If you're interested in my own personal political views you can contact me on my talk page and I'll tell you about them, but really I'd rather you just judge my actions here. If you give me a chance I think you'll find I'm fair. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:55, 15 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)
• Shem's version looks good for now to me. --Floorsheim (talk) 04:25, 13 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)

It is reading declarations like Life.temp's that makes me less than optimistic about reaching a compromise and article stability. Why hasn't he been blocked? WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:11, 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: [12][13] I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: [14] He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary [15] and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page,[16][17] 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: [18] 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)

Was very happy to see this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 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)

The University of Chicago calls Obama and all senior lecturers professors. See http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.13.169 (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

On the right-wing blogs it's an expression of mild contempt, much like the terms "Shrub," "Dumbya" and "Squinty McCokespoon" that litter the left-wing blogs. The extremes at both ends of the political spectum engage in this behavior. Not notable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The usage is clearly diminutive. Shem^(talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's possible that his dropping "Barry" might show something interesting about him, but the case would have to be convincing before I supported it. He apparently went through some anguish about his identity when he was younger, and he may have explained in one of his books why he changed the name, so this might illustrate some worthwhile statement in the article. If a convincing case were made, then "Barry" + explanation might be put into the appropriate chronological spot, but not up top since he doesn't use it now. Noroton (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The college nickname was on a Newsweek cover "How Barry became Barack" a while back. So it's gotten some media mention. I'm sure it's true that right-wing blogs are trying to insinuate that he's hiding something, or covering up something,or whatever, which is silly. The Newsweek piece was actually pretty silly too: it was a positive spin that purported to explore the meanings of cultural identities or the like. In reality, it means about as much as John F. Kennedy using the nickname "Jack". Still, that nickname is mentioned in that article. A brief mention in "Early Life" seems quite appropriate. LotLE×talk 16:56, 13 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)

A problem with "African-American" is that it has multiple meanings/nuances in different communities, or for different readers. Certainly there is the issue of AAs having non-African ancestry (as most do), and the kerfuffle here around whether 2 grandparent is the same as 1 parent or 4 great-grandparents, etc (and whether he should be called "biracial" or the like). But also, for many readers AA insinuates "descendant of American slaves"; there's clearly a certain cultural sense to this, since that diaspora created many cultural forms and identities. In that sense, Obama isn't in the category. Similarly, many recent Caribbean or African immigrants do not self-identify as African-American (despite having the same skin tone and roughly the same ancestry as people who do); as an anecdote, I found it interesting that a friend of mine who is a joint citizen of the USA and a Caribbean nation said that he was not African-American, but any kids he had (here in the USA) would be.

The form that mentions his Kenyan father and African ancestry manages to be more precise without sounding forced or using circumlocution. And contrary to the below discussed Jr/II thing, the "Google test" shows close enough usage. Yeah, the ancestry version is 2-3x less common, but it's not rare (i.e. > 10x predominance of AA). LotLE×talk 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick point, you are absolutely correct that immigrants in the U.S. who are from Africa or the Caribbean more often than not don't identify as African American. I live in a largely West Indian neighborhood (though that's not my ethnic background), and a lot of the folks here who hail from Jamaica or Trinidad might actually take some offense at being called African American (for reasons which are not at all worth getting into). However as your friend says their children would generally be considered African American. For example the parents of a friend of mine are both from Trinidad, but my friend was born and grew up in NYC and has never even been to Trinidad. He absolutely self-identifies as African American (which is not to say he discounts his Trinidadian heritage at all). I think that is basically the situation with Obama and explains why he self-identifies as African American and is also generally so identified in secondary sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally opposed to not using the wording used by the Senate historian, the media, and Obama himself. "African American" is appropriate, and I oppose the change. See Bigtime's comments above. Shem^(talk) 20:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to using a terminology that isn't overly common within the US, I'm also concerned that in the context it is being used that may be a bit of WP:OR. I haven't seen a reliable source that has said that Obama is the first American of African descent to be the presumptive nominee for a major party, it's always been the first AA.. or the first black.. Without a reliable source using that terminology we have no way of knowing if one of the previous presumptive nominees for a major party had an African ancestor somewhere in their tree. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not split the difference and say both that he is "African American" while keeping Fovean Author's language (at the top of this section). The fact is that it's important that he is perceived by many as an African American (certainly important to a lot of African American voters, judging from the primaries), and it's also been important that he's of this particular heritage. Of course, it's explained in the article anyway, but it's worth noting that he's a "first" and worth emphasizing with Fovean Author's language that he's got this particular heritage. I think Shirley Chisholm and Collin Powell were not descended from American slaves, but they were/are descended from Caribbean slaves, right? Anyway, we don't need to explore all the ins and outs of it if we include both "African American" and Fovean Author's brief explanation. I'll support whatever the majority wants just in order to get a consensus. Noroton (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is unnecessary to say that he is AA because his father is from Kenya. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and including his father's birthplace in the lead is an unnecessary detail that does not add anything to the article. If someone is all twisted up about how Obama is classified as an "African American" they can read the Early life and career section where his father's birth place is mentioned. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --Floridianed (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's pretty clear - you've convinced me that it's less than universal to describe Americans as being "of African descent" and that people may not always understand that as being synonymous with "African-American". I'm perfectly fine with describing him as the first AA major presidential candidate, as we do, and then mentioning his parentage and cultural heritage in more detail farther down. I do think there's room for describing his mixed-race status if that can be reliably sourced and meet weight concerns (but not to use the word "Mulatto" because that's occasionally considered derogatory or archaic in the US). Wikidemo (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is, not only is he nowhere near the first Presidential Candidate with African parentage, five others with higher percentage have won the office, some of them Democrats. So what's he first at? -Syberghost (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate the problem; on the first paragraph of this entry, we have a statement that is a campaign proclamation of Senator Obama's campaign, but is not factual. Senator Obama claims he will be the first African-American Presidential nominee of a major political party in the United States. In order to test this claim we must establish two facts: 1) That Barack Obama is an African-American. 2) That no previous nominee has been African-American. Let's look at #2 first. Andrew Jackson was 50% black. His older brother was even sold as a slave, which was only legal for blacks. This alone disproves Obama's statement, and is sufficient for removing the campaign propaganda from this article. However, we should, for completeness, examine the first claim as well. We know he is 50% Caucasian. There is evidence he is over 43% Arab. In Kenya, Arab African is a racial classification distinct from African Negro. In the US, since Ex parte Mohriez in 1944, Arabs are considered Caucasian. Thus, legally, Barack Obama is 93% Caucasian. By what stretch of the imagination is a man who is 93+% White and less than 7% Black a Black man? That's a question that isn't to my knowledge answered by US law, but I'd be very surprised if it's never been answered to US courts, because there are many government programs for which that answer would determine eligibility, such as minority preferences in government contracts. In any case, however, the claim in the first paragraph has been proven false, and should be modified at the very least with a disclaimer that the claim is in dispute. -Syberghost (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:FRINGE. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not African-America -I can't believe this is not accurately addressed in wikipedia. My mother is from Mongolian and my father is of mixed European descent. I cannot rightly call myself a "mongolian america" any more than Obama called me called a "african-american". The phrase is misleading and people need to respect myself and others of 'mixed race'. There will only be more of us in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.10.241 (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Of African descent" history

I see that this conversation has gotten a bit skewed, and I wanted to address the original topic of this section without being associated with the "out there" comments that had gotten inserted; that's the reason for this subsection.

I think that this term, "of African descent" is perfect. In fact, I had originally tried to insert it in the article nearly two years ago. The problem with "African-American" is that it has a connotation very different for many people—namely, someone who is descended from slaves. Indeed, early in his campaign their were a few African-Americans who verbalized that, because of his ancestry, Obama was not "one of them". Now personally, I think that a person's self-identification should be used (unless of course, the person's self-identification is a patent fabrication. Obama does have the right to call himself an African-American. But it would also be equally accurate for us to call him an American of African descent; it doesn't contradict his self-identification, and it respects the logic of those who limit African-Americans to the descendents of slaves.

I don't really care one way or the other. But I think that Fovean Author's suggestion is worth supporting, as it is as NPOV as they come, IMHO. Unschool (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I've been thinking about that may make a difference in which wording we use is that "American of African descent" is actually different than "African-American", particularly in regards to how race is used in the United States. American of African descent just means that your ancestors came from Africa and is not a representation of a person's "race", as an example, a Caucasian whose parents are from South Africa is an American of African descent because of where their parents came from, but would not be considered an African-American. This would be similar to an African-American whose ancestors spent a decent amount of time in Europe before coming to the US, they are African-American by race, but Americans of European descent by lineage. So, just in case I wasn't clear, ancestry is different than race. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not go by Wikipedia and look up "African American"? :) --Floridianed (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. And that article says 55% of whites in America consider him white, and 44% of blacks in America consider him white. Which is fringe theory according to User:Bobblehead. In any even, whether you use the "one-drop rule" or consider percentages, Andrew Jackson still beat him to it by a couple of centuries. Evidently thinking Andrew Jackson was President is fringe theory too. But clearly, the consensus on this issue is that biographical information about Obama will consist of campaign press releases instead of factual information, so I'll just leave it until things have cooled off in a couple of years. Nobody expects Wikipedia to be accurate about anything political these days anyway. -Syberghost (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No.. WP:FRINGE is your theory that there have been 5 African American presidents. Additionally, Wikipedia does not use opinion polls to determine content. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget the poll. Polls are about what question is given and in that case it was: "...when they are told that he has a white mother...". Would they've just been ask what they consider him without a lead the result would have been totally different. Focus on the whole article, not that poll. --Floridianed (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And the poll is from December 2006. People hardly knew anything about him if at all. --Floridianed (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As a history teacher I can't in good conscience let Syberghost's comments go unanswered. The Andrew Jackson "theory," such as it, seems to come from a book by Joel Augustus Rogers written over 40 years ago. I'd never heard of it but it seems to basically be an unsourced and utterly speculative pamphlet written by someone pushing a POV (as we say around these parts). It's also fundamentally wrong from what I can tell. Andrew Jackson's parents were immigrants from Ireland (they were white, as was basically everyone in Ireland at that time). His father died not well before he was born as Rogers seems to contend, but rather just a few weeks prior to Andrew's birth. The claim that Jackson was African American is simply not true and is so fringe and bizarre that I'd never even heard it before (and I'm aware of a lot of fringe theories about American history).

Three of the other presidents Syberghost is mentioning as "black" are Jefferson, Lincoln, and Calvin Coolidge. From what I can tell the rationale for these (coming from Rogers) is also speculative nonsense (for example one of the points against Lincoln is that his opponents drew cartoons of him as though he were black - hardly surprising given Lincoln's opposition to slavery and supposed status as a "Negro lover" in the hateful white supremacist jargon of the day).

For a long time it has been rumored that Warren G. Harding had an African American great grandmother. The rumor was popularized by William Chancellor, a raging racist and partisan Democrat who feared that Harding would be the first black president and was part of some racial conspiracy. Rumors that the Hardings were partially of African descent were in the air in their part of Ohio before Harding ever sought the presidency, but they were never proven then and have never been proven since. It's possible that there is some truth to those rumors, but as of now they remain rumors and nothing more. Thus our best information, based on reliable sources, at this point is that Obama, if elected, would be the first African American president. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If the percentage of various components of one's ancestry are not relevant, then we're all African-Americans, and I'd like to sign my business up as minority-owned for contract preferences please. After all, my ancestors did come from Africa at one point, even if by eventual way of Ireland. -Syberghost (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal name

According to his birth certificate, which can be viewed here: http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg his legal name is in fact not Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. but Barack Hussein Obama II. Is this worth changing, or are the two interchangable enough that it doesn't have to be changed? DanyaRomulus (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.147.254 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That does look particularly authentic (they had laserprinters with helvetica type in 1961?). In any case, if more reliable sources than somebody's userspace on Daily Kos can be found for this claim then we should change it. Otherwise we should stick with what the reliable sources currently say. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the laserprinters comment, chances are the image on DKos is not Obama's original birth certificate, but rather a recent reprint from Hawai'i's official records. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Politico is using the version DKos found, I'm not sure how that improves the reliability... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We should use the most common version of full name (per WP:NAMES, not per se the form listed on a birth-certificate). A quick "Google test" shows far more hits on the "Jr." form than the "II" form (i.e. over an order of magnitude). LotLE×talk 20:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with using the Google test, but I'm sympathetic to the sourcing concerns raised here. Let's leave it as "Jr" for now. Shem^(talk) 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, WP:NAMES would be more inline with using II than Jr. as, according to his birth certificate, his full legal name is Barack Hussein Obama, II, not Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Granted, have no way of knowing if he legally changed his name to Jr at some later date. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You just made my point. Names on birth certificates only tells you under what name a person is born and nothing about their recent legal name that you can change later. My legal name isn't exactly the same as on my birth certificate stated. --Floridianed (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Da rulz: According to WP:NAMES#Names: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known."

• Argument in favor of "II": Do we even know if he used "Jr." in the past? (After the death of a father [in this case 1982], people often drop it, although there are tons of exceptions.) He doesn't use "Jr." on either his Senate or campaign web sites, from what I saw, which is a good case for using the most official version from the birth certificate.
• Argument in favor of "Jr."" One problem with "II" is that it's nonstandard when son and father both have the exact same name, and both Obama websites (and Wikipedia) mention the father as a "Sr." But a Google test is also persuasive. If there's an objection that "II" version is official, the answer is that WP:NAMES doesn't demand the "official" version, just the "full name", which we don't definitively know. Even a birth certificate is not definitive (driver's licenses and the IRS and Social Security Administration don't necessarily go by birth certificates, so what's "official" mean?). See Harry S. Truman#Truman's middle initial for something a bit similar. The "S." is nowhere on Truman's birth certificate, although it's "official" because that's what he decided to call himself and that's the way it "officially" appears on U.S. government documents.
• Suggestion: Where reliable sources differ and we don't have a definitive answer, use both and explain in the text where we mention his birth. It's going to be confusing enough to many readers, so that it's worth explaining (briefly!) in the article. Maybe the most practical consideration is that we may be revisiting this again and again as people attempt to make the change to what they think is best. And maybe we're confusing readers a bit about what his exact official name is, either way. I suggest using "Jr." up top and then when we mention place of birth put the "II" version in and say in the text that it's what's on his birth certificate but that that version is used less often than "Jr.". The explanation fits in nicely at that spot. We footnote it at both versions (providing a link to the source), and say in that footnote that for this article a consensus of editors decided to use the more popular "Jr." version in the first sentence.
• Either way, explain it to the reader in the text and in a footnote: Anyone who has an itch to change it will likely see the footnote and abort the mission (or come to this page). For those that don't, we can revert and, in the edit summary, say something like "as per WP:CONSENSUS as noted in footnote". It seems to me that this will cause the least work for editors in the long run (and by "long run" I mean years and decades from now). If someone wants to revert against consensus, it provides a quick way for any admin to look it up and take a definitive action (hopefully just a warning). I also suggest we link to this discussion in the footnote when this discussion is archived (if that's against some style guideline, let's invoke WP:IAR). If we're wrong in whatever we decide, editors always have the option of bringing the matter to the talk page to try to overturn consensus, but a link in the footnote will make it very likely that this discussion isn't ignored.
• Suggested language: in Barrack Obama#Early life and career, right after "although her great-great-grandfather Falmouth Kearney emigrated from Ireland in the mid 19th century." we add the sentences:
  • The official name on his birth certificate is "Barrack Obama II", although "Barrack Obama Jr." has been used more often. His U.S. Senate office and presidential campaign use neither "II" nor "Jr."
  • FOOTNOTE: Cite the birth certificate source and add: "Jr." is used more commonly with his name than "II", and therefore a consensus of Wikipedia editors decided to use it at the beginning of this article, as recorded at [this spot in the archives] Noroton (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Noroton on this. The "Google Test" isn't per se governing, but when "Jr" is used over an order of magnitude more often, that's at least a good sign in favor of it. However, adding the brief explanation in "early life" seems like relevant background. Question though: The birth certificate identified is clearly a reissued version by the State of Hawaii; do we really know that the original was coded the same way? It seems quite possible (but I'm guessing) that the numbering convention simply follows Hawaii regulations, which were not necessarily identical over the last 46 years. LotLE×talk 00:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote must not mention Wikipedia, per WP:ASR. Wikipedia's content is licensed in such a way that forks and mirrors are explicitly allowed. After it's forked (or mirrored) this footnote would not make sense. WP:IAR does not apply. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's what makes WP:IAR apply. We'd be doing it for the best interests of Wikipedia, the classic defense for WP:IAR. It looks like WP:ASR is concerned with not confusing readers of versions of WP articles outside of Wikipedia and therefore seems most useful in preventing unnecessary self-references that might confuse readers. This self-reference would be much less confusing (it might be a little confusing, although we don't actually have to mention "Wikipedia" -- we could just say "a consensus of editors" and we could just provide a web link to the archive page). Noroton (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This isn't definitive, (America's Intelligence Wire: "'He was best man at my wedding and I was best man at his,' said Malik, who likes to point out that his younger brother's name is actually Barack Obama II, ..."), but it indicates it wasn't just Hawaii recordkeeping (and if Hawaii did it that way for all its birth records, they wouldn't have a way of distinguishing between the "Jr."s and the "II"s, which would cause problems). This is more interesting because it indicates the preference is "II", but the direct source (a reader posting on a blog) isn't reliable: "The Harvard Alumni Directory lists both the Obamas thusly: / Mr. Barack H. Obama II ( HLS 1991 ) / The Honorable Barack Obama II". This gives me the impression that the reliable sources, when they're finally found, are going to side with "II". Obama did have to put something down here because his father was also an alumi of Harvard Law (class of '65), but it's interesting he put down "II" rather than "Jr." -- if this unreliable source is accurate. We'll probably have to revisit this in the future if we go with "Jr." but I still think both are worth mentioning in the article, somehow. Noroton (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes found that Obama's self-usage was roman numerals, this is how Wpdia's lede should read, with the factoid about the commonality of the "junior" usage mentioned later in an aside. — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source: It's "II" The "America's Intelligence Wire" source turns out to be an old AP story from when Obama was running for U.S. Senate in 2004. I went through the subscription-only newsbank.com site (I get free access through my local library card). There is a reprint from The Grand Rapids Press newspaper with the same exact quote: "He was best man at my wedding and I was best man at his,' said Malik , who likes to point out that his younger brother's name is actually Barack Obama II, because their father was the original Barack Obama. It just defies reason that Malik Obama would be wrong about that, and even if the other two sources I mention above are unreliable, they do make this source more believable. So let's go with "II" in the first sentence and footnote it. I don't see any sources to tell us that "Jr." is anything more than a popular misconception (popular misconceptions are worth noting, but not endorsing in our first line). I suggest this sentence in the "Early life" section, unless editors think it should be in the lead section: Although Obama's full name is "Barack Obama II", he is often called "Barack Obama Jr." His U.S. Senate office and presidential campaign both refer to him simply as "Barack Obama".

FOOTNOTE: Maliti, Tom, Associated Press, "We are one family,' Obama's brother says - The U.S. Senate candidate gets support from his family in a sleepy Kenyan village", as published in The Grand Rapids Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, October 27, 2008, retrieved June 12, 2008 via newsbank.com subscription-only online archive</ref>

Doing this kind of search is what I should've started with, rather than writing that long post above. Sorry. Noroton (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand: From a Richmond Times-Dispatch opinion piece by Ross McKenzie (June 1, 2008): "Obama has a similarly dubious story. On this year's anniversary of Selma's bloody Sunday civil rights march, he said: "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So [my parents] got together and Barack Obama Jr ., was born." Trouble is, Obama's 1961 birth came four years before Selma's 1965 Bloody Sunday march." But I wouldn't regard that as more than a kind of rhetorical flourish, giving the audience a "Jr." it can easily understand rather than a "II" that might cause a head-scratching distraction. Noroton (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New information on legal name

The case for calling him Barack Obama, Jr. in the lead instead of Barack Obama II just got weaker. His campaign has posted a small copy of his birth certificate on this campaign website, and it clearly shows Barack Obama II (there's a better version published by Daily Kos from an image given to them by the Obama campaign here). Combine that with his brother's statement that I quoted from higher up in this section and the case has gotten considerably stronger for calling him "II" instead of "Jr." It's an odd situation: We have lots of media reports calling him "Jr." but the most solid reports say "II". With as many media reports as we have, it seems worthwhile to include both and explain the matter. Should it be done in the lead or in his early life section? Should we continue calling him "Jr" in the first line and not mention "II"? Noroton (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted an image of the birth certificate here: Image:BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg

Let me quote myself:"Names on birth certificates only tells you under what name a person is (was) born and nothing about their recent legal name that you can change later. My legal name isn't exactly the same as on my birth certificate stated. --Floridianed (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC) ".

We just don't know what his legal name really is and would be the only "main" source claiming to know better. --Floridianed (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To summarize what we do actually know:

• He was born "II", which is the most official thing we have
• A half-brother in Africa who was the best man at his wedding, said back in '04 that it is "II"
• The vast majority of WP:RS news accounts, if they use anything after "Obama" use "Jr."
• He uses neither "Jr." nor "II" now.

This is not a case for leaving out one or the other, it's a case for using both. But the "II" should be emphasized over the "Jr." in the top line with something like: Barack Obama II (often called Barack Obama, Jr.)" with a footnote stating what's on his birth certificate. Noroton (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Friendship with local academic and (ca. the '70s) underground revolutionary

[Related to above mention of contributors' back-and-forth contributions/deletions of disputed info]: Important. Would Wikipedians pleeease stop removing mention, within McCain and Obama bios' campaign sections, of each one of the primary political conflicts between the two campaigns, as summarized by most observers?

Which, with regard to Obama, includes his friendship with Dr. Ayers: "The raw material for swift-boating this year is already apparent. There is Obama's loony pastor, his friendship with a former radical, his dealings with a convicted financial sleaze. McCain's friendship with a woman lobbyist is an issue the New York Times fumbled, but it could resurface. McCain was one of the Keating Five, tied to a financial and influence scandal from the early '90s that could be brought down from the attic. And there is his alleged bad temper, a potentially legitimate issue that could be blended with his age in unsavory ways."----MICHAEL KINSLEY ( — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC))

Error in lead

I'm aware of the controversy involving the use of "professor", however I think the current lead doesn't suggest the right timeline, and regardless of whether "professor" is used should be fixed. It currently says:

A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, served as a law school professor, and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

Whether professor or not, he taught at UC from 1992 to 2004. This sentence at least strongly implies he stopped teaching after being elected to the Illinois Senate in 1997. I'm not sure how to fix this other than adding another sentence, perhaps:

A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. From 1992 to 2004 he also [taught|served as a professor of] constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

I don't care about "professor" vs. "taught" but I think the time interval should be addressed. Flaming about this is probably not a good idea, but please comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, and the alternative you suggest works for me. I would hope this would not be particularly controversial and can be resolved without debating the merits of the term "professor" since that's a tangential issue. It's significant that Obama taught con law up until he started his senate run (I assume) so we need to be accurate about the chronology here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good clarification of chronology. As before, I really don't care about the word "professor" (it's certainly colloquially accurate, but it's hardly necessary to use over the other ways of saying he "taught law"). LotLE×talk 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoring protected version

It's time to discuss a return to the protected version of this article for the presidential campaign and personal life sections. All edits made after protection was removed were unsupported by consensus. The large scale deletions by Life.temp, a sockpuppet account that has now been blocked, briefly destabilized the article, allowing other edits to slip in that had no consensus. These unsupported edits should now be reverted to create the starting point for further discussion and consensus building. State support or opposition to this, and briefly state your good reasons below. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Proposed. LT stirred it up. Now it should be restored to a pre-LT condition. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• For clarity, you're talking about this version, right? The reason the article was protected was because of an ongoing edit war. Almost by definition the version that ended up protected was not a consensus version. If the idea is to start fresh from an earlier consensus version I'd think the starting point would be a version before the edit war started. Looking back through the history it's not obvious to me when that might have been. Perhaps the version at the close of the last FAR, which would be this version. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is the evolving process of editing an article by incremental changes. The current version of any article is more or less a consensus version by definition. Life.temp's edits were quickly reverted so the current version does not reflect them. We can't arbitrarily revert articles back to their prior state on theory that they evolved without widespread discussion. In some cases one can describe changes as needing consensus. In other cases one can say that inclusion of material needs consensus. Those two things are often in tension. If there are specific things to question I think it's more productive to discuss those. Wikidemo (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

* Strongly Oppose Your proposal is based on the incorrect premise that the version at the moment of article protection is the consensus version and all edits afterwards are against consensus. That's not the case at all. There is no consensus for adding this material and this just sounds like an end-run around consensus. If the version at protection had not included the material you wish to add, it is hard to imagine that you would be using the same rationale. Consensus is not achieved by a roll of the dice. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then let's talk about Wright, Rezko and Ayers

These are the three most disputed topics in the biography. Anyone can see from the "Lewinsky scandal" and "Whitewater and other investigations" in the Hillary Clinton biography (despite separate articles about these topics), and the two paragraphs about the Keating Five scandal in the John McCain biography (despite separate article about Keating Five) that Wikipedia biographies about presidential candidates explore controversies and scandals in substantial detail, even as the campaign is going on.

A review of the George W. Bush and John Kerry biographies during the 2004 campaign confirms that this practice is the well-established standard at Wikipedia. See this version of the Bush biography in October 2004, containing some version of the word "critic" or "criticize" 13 times and at least one direct quote from a Bush critic on global warming, and this version of the Kerry biography from October 2004, containing Bush criticisms of Kerry regarding the central campaign issue of the Iraq war despite the existence of the John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 article.

We see the same pattern for other prominent politicians such as Tony Blair, Stephen Harper, John Howard, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy. Despite the fact that they were involved in political campaigns to be elected or re-elected as president or prime minister, and despite the existence of separate articles (in some cases) that covered the campaign, their biographies discussed campaign related controversies in detail. This is the established consensus at Wikipedia. It represents the consensus of thousands of WP editors. Claiming that Wright, Rezko and Ayers should be excluded for the sake of summary style or WP:BLP concerns is disingenuous, to put it charitably. Since notable critics are using Wright, Rezko and Ayers against Obama, and since information about these three men comes from many neutral and reliable sources, they belong in this biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is talking about excluding them (besides Ayers). It's about finding consensus about the extend of information given in Obama's article. Once again, this is not Wright's or Rezko's (and neither Ayers') biography. So let's start again in a calm and civilized way. --Floridianed (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing: starting again in a calm and civilized way. Ayers belongs in the article. Based on these other biographies I've cited, since political opponents and the neutral press are mentioning Ayers, this biography should mention Ayers. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument for including things here. In covering any political scandal within a politican's biography we ought to keep in mind a few things: cover only what is relevant to the politician himself, provide enough context for links to other related articles but avoid WP:FORKing content that is covered elsewhere, keep WP:WEIGHT in line with importance to the politician's life and career. By that standard the interaction between Obama and Ayers is an insignificant event to Obama's life, important only to the extent that it is the subject of partisan attacks by his opponents in connection with this particular election and already treated as such in the campaign article(s) and its own article. It has gotten very scant coverage in proportion to the overall coverage of Obama - several hundred articles out of a total of several hundred thousand. It is therefore minutia not worth mentioning here. The other two are worth mentioning and linking to, to some degree, keeping these principles in mind. However, turning politicians' articles into lists of bad things that are said about them plunges us into the same morass of partisanship and attack politics that besets the political process. Our purpose is encyclopedic knowledge, not current events news, and by any reasonable analysis the claims made as political theater of disparaging candidates is not encyclopedic. The existence of the political theater may be, but it gets its own treatment in campaign articles. None of these things are comparable in magnitude to Monica Llewinsky (misconduct in office lead to impeachment of sitting President, threw nation into political crisis), Keating Five (senate ethics probe over political favors cost three senators their careers), or even Whitewater. Wikidemo (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, I strongly suggest you look over WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, particularly the second paragraph in the lead: When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

See also, the last section, Precedent in usage: when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his movie pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. By and large, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project.

I've argued on this page before that we should generally do what we've done before in other, similar cases of this type. By looking for ways to apply the same principles across the board, we cut down on bias and we have an independent standard to look at so that we're not unconsciously acting out our own biases. None of the examples cited at the top of this section is exactly like this one -- no two ever are. Anyway, I'm not sure there's a lot of disagreement as to whether there should be coverage of Wright or Rezko, just how much. Noroton (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Noroton. Obviously we're having some trouble here working out exactly what negative information should appear in the article and to what depth. Looking to other articles for guidance and precedent is a good idea. --Floorsheim (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this just about Ayers, or do you have issues with content pertaining to Wright and Rezko as well? -- Rick Block (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Material on Rezko in the article as of June 15

I thought this would be useful in the discussion "Zeroing in on Rezko for now" just below. As of this point, all the material in the article on Rezko can be found in the Barack Obama#Personal life section, Paragraph 2:

The land adjacent to their house was simultaneously sold to the wife of developer Tony Rezko, a fundraiser for several prominent Illinois politicians from both major political parties, and the transaction later drew scrutiny from news outlets over Obama's dealings with Rezko. While Obama was never accused of wrongdoing, Rezko was under investigation for and later convicted of unrelated corruption charges, and Obama donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.

Noroton (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Zeroing in on Rezko for now

WorkerBee (and others) it would be helpful to speak in specifics rather than generalities, and to take these one at a time rather than all at once. The Ayers issue seems the most fraught, so perhaps its better to start with Wright or Rezko (I have a thought about how we might approach the Ayers issue, but let's leave that to the side right now). I agree with Floridianed in that I don't think anyone is saying Wright or Rezko should be excluded, the debate is about language. So WorkerBee, perhaps you can pick one of those and explain what you would like to change. Currently we have a paragraph on Wright and a couple of sentences on Rezko. What adjustments are you looking to make? Let's try to avoid general speechifying and (especially) uncivil comments about other editors as we discuss this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Rezko has been mentioned in the campaign, the material about his criminal case and his past fundraising for Obama belongs in the campaign section. Like JJB did with the Ron Paul newsletter material, this should be spread through the article. A brief mention of Obama's work for Rezmar in the early life and private career section, a full paragraph in the campaign section, another full paragraph in the personal life section, and links to the related articles where Rezko is addressed in greater detail. Rezko was convicted on fundraising related federal charges. These should be itemized, because they are directly relevant to the politician himself. It was principally fundraising, but also the early Rezmar legal work and the Kenwood property deals, that links Rezko to Obama. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope you're willing to compromise on that. It's a bit much to ask for two full paragraphs plus a third mention spread out through the entire article. I don't know who JJB is or what they did at Ron Paul, but probably that is not pertinent here. In general criticism (or events which led to criticism) should be spread throughout the article, but that does not mean individual (and fairly minor) points of criticism should be spread throughout. How about having one main paragraph in either the personal life or campaign section (the former probably makes more sense, but I'm not sure) and then a brief mention in the other section? I'd have to know the details of the Rezmar work to figure out what you are looking for there. Also I don't know what you mean by itemizing the charges of which Rezko was convicted - are you suggesting we list out every charge in the article on Obama? That seems excessive, and I don't see a problem with the current situation, though perhaps we could mention the most serious charge of which he was convicted and then allude to other charges as well. Would that work?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

JJB's citation of the newsletter content dispute at the Ron Paul biography is very relevant here, since the exclusionists on that page used many of the same talking points we see recited here. But in the end, substantial newsletter related material was spread throughout that biography. Simply and briefly listing the charges for which Rezko was convicted (just five words, "bribery, fraud and money laundering") should be sufficient. All are equally serious charges, so it's difficult to pick one to mention. These could send Rezko to prison for the rest of his life. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(first paragraph, edit conflict with above) As to the Rezmar issue, I took a look at this article which I'm guessing is the original source for what you are alluding to. We could probably say more in the article about what kind of work Obama did at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, but the Sun Times article itself, which is obviously a very critical piece, says "Just what legal work -- and how much -- Obama did on those deals is unknown." I'm sure we can pull some stuff from that and other sources that gives a sense of what Obama did at the firm, but I'm not sure we can refer to "Rezmar legal work" because it's unclear exactly what that means or if that's even an accurate description for what was going on. If you have other reliable sources which go into more depth about this issue let me know.

Let's avoid terms like exclusionist and inclusionist - they do not help matters here. I still don't know what exactly you are talking about at Ron Paul, but really let's just focus on this article. I'd be fine with mentioning three specific charges against Rezko, so long as it's made clear that those had nothing to do with Obama as the current version explains. I'm still not seeing the case for spreading significant Rezko content throughout the article. I'm sure he can be mentioned in more than one section, but the overall controversy can easily be described in one discrete paragraph. Relative to the Wright controversy, or even Obama's "bitter" comment, the Rezko issue has not actually received as much play in the campaign (at least so far) and should not take up an inordinate amount of the Obama bio article. WP:UNDUE is very relevant here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I see the Ron Paul discussion above, though I'm not necessarily convinced by JJB's argument. This is a different article, a different kind of controversy, and might well require a different approach.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There are limits to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. At some point, other stuff stops being merely "other stuff" and becomes standard, well-established WP practice. Ron Paul is only one article, and only one example of a content dispute on a biography of a famous politician, but there are many similarities. I have spent over two weeks reviewing the biographies of prominent world leaders in both WP and Britannica. Show me a WP bio on a prominent politician who's been through at least one close election since 2003, and I'll show you controversies being discussed in detail in his biography during the campaign. It is the Wikipedia way. Quotes from critics included. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, I think there's wide agreement that some coveage of Rezko (and Wright) is worthwhile. It's the details where there may be disagreement. I think all the details will have to be defended on the grounds that they help us understand Obama himself. Bigtimepeace asked at his 21:23 post at the top of this subsection, What adjustments are you looking to make? Here's a similar question: What specific language would you like to add and where? Noroton (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I should hope it is not standard practice on Wikipedia or any serious encyclopedia (and I don't think it is) to address the underlying claims made in political attacks merely because the attacks have been made. These attacks claim facts - real, imagined, alleged, distorted, relevant, irrelevant, and out of context - that may or may not be true and may or may not be relevant to the candidate's life. If the attack itself is notable then it makes some sense to report it, but generally in an article about the campaign. But that does not bootstrap the claims made in the attack to the level of relevancy. That's how attack politics works, to get untrue and irrelevant stuff in the newspaper because the newspaper is reporting on the controversy. There is a tendency of Wikipedia to become news-is and scandal driven about current events, particularly politics, but that does not establish a precedent or consensus for doing so. Those other articles get cleaned up as well. But this one is a featured article, one of Wikipedia's most read articles about a leading Presidential candidate. This article needs to set the high standard for political articles, not mimic lower standards elsewhere.Wikidemo (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the Rezko information (and notability) is based on news reports, which is what we footnote in the Rezko passage. I've just looked through two articles that I think put a lot of this into perspective. This Chicago Sun-Times piece gives some good background and this piece in the Washington Post is extremely good. Note the expressions of concern from Chicago people who are not presented as political attackers but local good-government types. It seems to me that some expansion would be justified here. When a candidate calls a move "boneheaded" we should think about including the quote that appears in. There should be a brief way of describing the ongoing relationship with Rezko, and we can note that Obama contacted Rezko when Obama was looking for a house. Noroton (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Given that this particular incident seems to be important and relevant enough to cover, it becomes a question of focus and weight. News sources can also be scandal-mongers and guilt by association in a partisan or nonpartisan way. We still have to separate what actually has some substance from what is just scandal for the sake of scandal. Those two sources do seem particularly good, but not that even they describe Obama's "error in judgment" as a political misjudgment given campaign dynamics, not as an ethnical lapse or anything that hints of illegality. Wikidemo (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemo, it's a bad idea to put untrue and irrelevant stuff on Wikipedia. I do think it's a good idea, though, to put the relevant and accurate facts surrounding well-known criticisms and negative viewpoints into the article. This way, readers have a picture of where the controversy is coming from. Additionally, it allows them to form a clear-headed appraisal of the situation for themselves based on good information rather than the kind Wikidemo speaks of. After all, Wikipedia is one of the only places in the world that you can reasonably expect to find such information. --Floorsheim (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the land deal is worth mentioning as a significant episode in his life because it led to embarassment during the campaign, and the only reason that it was embarassing for Obama (and the reason he called it boneheaded) is because it shows he was cooperating too closely with a man who had ethical problems (even criminal problems) in dealing with elected government officials. "Avoiding the appearance of impropriety" is a standard that's been around since before Obama's time and it's called an ethical standard. It's either the mildest or near mildest of ethical standards, but it's an ethical matter, not solely a political misjudgment. There also deserves to be a sentence in that passage stating that Obama was criticized for working so closely with Rezko on the real estate deal. That criticism came not just from political opponents in the primary or from Republicans, but also from good-government types in Chicago and, I'm sure, newspaper editorials even from newspapers sympathetic to Obama. We can either state that there was widespread criticism from these corners and footnote it or add to that a quote as an example, followed by quoting Obama's word for it ("bonehead") and a one sentence quote from Obama, but we shouldn't emphasize Obama's response more than the criticism, or vice versa. The reaction can be summed up in roughly as much space as WorkerBee74 gives it in his suggestions below. Noroton (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the adjustments I'm looking to make

I cannot cut and paste, so edit conflicts on a long edit can be extremely frustrating. I type about 10 WPM. Please be patient, leave this little section alone for an hour, and I'll put it together for you. All right? WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I've noted a couple of good sources just above. Noroton (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. The first section, "Early life and career," has doubled in size during the past two days without any complaints, so I think this shows that the summary style argument has been employed selectively.

One paragraph should be expanded to read as follows. All material I suggest adding will be italicized and preceded by the boldfaced word, "Add." Material I feel should be removed will be in brackets and preceded by the boldfaced word, "Remove":

In 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm, [Remove: specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development,] where he was an associate for three years, [Remove: from 1993 to 1996] then of counsel from 1996 to 2004. [Remove: with his law license becoming inactive in 2002] Add: After his election to the Illinois State Senate, he worked only during the summer. Obama worked on cases where the firm represented community organizers, and pursued discrimination claims and voting rights claims. He also worked on real estate transactions, corporate law for small businesses, and defending clients against minor lawsuits. Mostly, Obama drafted contracts and other documents for legal teams. Obama also worked on obtaining taxpayer supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., which is co-owned by his long-time political supporter and friend, real estate developer Tony Rezko.

This makes it less about the firm, and more about Obama. I would also like to move most of the material about Rezko's criminal case to the campaign section, in a paragraph just after the Wright paragraph:

Add: Obama also faced questions about his long alliance with Tony Rezko. Hillary Clinton called Rezko a "slumlord." On the first day of fundraising for Obama's first political campaign, more than half the money donated came from companies owned by Rezko. Over the years, Rezko donated or raised more than $250,000 for Obama's campaigns. Rezko was convicted on 16 felony charges for bribery, fraud and money laundering in June 2008, many of them related to political fundraising. While Obama has not been implicated in any crimes and has donated $150,000 in Rezko-related donations to charity, critics continued to question this relationship.

Finally, the two sentences starting with "The land adjacent to their house" in the personal life section needs to be replaced with this:

Add: Vacant land adjacent to their new home was purchased on the same day in June 2005 and from the same seller by the wife of Tony Rezko, who was already under federal investigation. Obama brought Rezko along the first time he viewed the house. While the Obamas' offer for the house was $300,000 below the asking price, Rita Rezko paid full price for the vacant land. Obama said he learned about the investigation later, but still purchased a strip of the Rezko land in January 2006 to widen his yard. Regarding this series of transactions Obama later told news media, "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," admitting that it was a "boneheaded move."

Thanks for your patience. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

...and thank you for taking the time. For the moment I won't worry about minor word tweaks. In the first of three proposed additions it's only worth mentioning Obama's assignment to Rezmar projects if that was a significant part of his legal work for the firm. Otherwise, that's just there to telescope the controversy and has nothing to do with Obama's career at that point. Many young lawyers work for clients who they already know, or who they come to know through work. Even if it is included, mentioning Rezko as Obama's "friend" and "long-time political supporter" (three different claims) should only be done in each case if it is legitimate, supported by reliable sources, and occurred before the work was done. If Rezko became a "friend" and/or a "political supporter", but only after Obama did the work on the account, it is not relevant to this part of the bio - it is only relevant to the later portion on the scandal. Not saying it should be excluded, but it could be added later to the first mention of Rezko (e.g. "...on whose project Obama had worked while an associate at....").

Regarding the second part, "long alliance" should only be used if it's sourced - I don't think the two had an "alliance" what I remember of the sources. Obama claims they ran into each other once a year. The "first day" and "more than half" is out of context and irrelevant. The only salient thing here is that Rezko raised $250K total (a small but real portion of Obama's overall fundraising). Mentioning specific charges, the number of charges, and the implication of fundraising-related charges, is completely unrelated to Obama and only serves to further guilt by association. Obama is not at all connected with these charges. The language I had earlier proposed was "federal corruption charges", which gets to the point without banging the drum unnecessarily. "Critics continue to question" is too unclear and assumes too much, that there is a "relationship" to be quesitoned.

"Vacant land...." - this is misleading without full context, which would have a weight problem. The reason the purchases closed the same day was that this was the schedule of the sales process, not that there was any dealing among the purchasers. We have another article where this has been put in full context. Best to summarize here. "Strip...yard" is also too much detail. We should simply report that there was some question raised over a real estate deal, which the article does just fine now. "Boneheaded" - he seems to have said it to a single reporter, not "the media." Even though he said it himself it presents weight problems to use an informal word of self-deprecation like this. How about saying more directly that he considers it a mistake [of what, though? - nothing illegal or unethical, but a political mistake]. Wikidemo (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Addressing some of your points, Wikidemo, take another look at the short Chicago Sun-Times piece: One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. (Number 3)

Re: Long alliance: Obama left community organizing in Chicago to go to Harvard Law School. That same Sun-Times piece says that in 1990, Rezko offered Obama a job, which Obama turned down. When Obama does go back to Chicago, his boss, Allison Davis, is involved in a partnership with Rezko's company and Obama works quite a few hours in negotiating a deal between WPIC and Rezko. Small town, Chicago, eh?

RE: Vacant land: From the Washington Post article: Obama said Rezko, who knows the neighborhood, was one of several people he called for advice on the real estate market. Rezko told him he knew the developer who renovated the house. In a later conversation, Rezko said he intended to buy the empty lot and build on it. This provides a lot of context, which we don't need to add to the article, but this shows that the "vacant land" business is not misleading. We don't need to know everything in order to present information together that shows the possibility of Obama and Rezko working together. There is no unfair implication here. Noroton (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Noroton) This is a good start and hopefully we can come to some agreement here. I'm in agreement with Wikidemo on a couple of points. First about the work for Rezmar, as I said above unless you have a better source we can't include that. The one article I read about it made clear that no one knew to what extent Obama did work on behalf of Rezmar. The Obama campaign said he worked on things relating to Rezmar for a total of 5 billable hours during a number of years at the firm. It was actually somewhat unclear, but it seemed he may have worked on things that involved Rezmar and other companies. Just as importantly, the Sun Times article (see above for link) pointed out that Rezmar was essentially the preferred company of the Chicago mayor when it came to developing low-income housing. That Obama at his firm would have had some contact with their account (or whatever) is hardly surprising, but it seems he may have only spent a few hours working on things which were even vaguely Rezmar related. Barring more specific info, this cannot be included because a) we don't really know what was going on; b) it simply is not notable, and is a major undue weight violation for this section. You'll need to find better sourcing for this. I don't mind the other changes to that "early life and career" section.

"Long alliance" is not a term we can use even if it is sourced somewhere. For one thing it is no longer accurate - clearly Obama has no alliance with Rezko now. I would simply say "association with Tony Rezko" or something to that effect. It's not our place to characterize it as long or not. I also think the last sentence of that needs to be reworded, as it ends on a vague accusatory note and is not very NPOV as worded (shouldn't be too hard to fix though).

Probably some wording adjustments need to be made on the third paragraph but I don't know enough about all of the details of this. I'm fine with the "boneheaded" quote as regardless of its provenance that has been widely quoted. It's a telling quote and seems worthy of inclusion.

WorkerBee unless you have a better source about how much work Obama did at the law firm for Rezmar (and frankly I doubt there is one) I'm hoping you can drop that point. We can try discussing one of the other two paragraphs first. We also have to consider how to make this work for the whole article if we are mentioning Rezko twice. I could still see simply expanding the personal life section so it includes all of the Rezko information, and then putting a short paragraph in the campaign section which references the problems (maybe with a "see below" comment) and which focuses on a couple of specific criticisms during the campaign, for example quotes from Clinton and from McCain.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the above proposal has too many details, but more importantly, there is definitely a POV problem I'd like addressed, it contains another example of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation. " Over the years, Rezko donated or raised more than $250,000 for Obama's campaigns. Rezko was convicted on 16 felony charges for bribery, fraud and money laundering in June 2008, many of them related to political fundraising. " Two neutral statements juxtaposed in a POV manner. Modocc (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Modocc, you left out the immediate next sentence. Over the years, Rezko donated or raised more than $250,000 for Obama's campaigns. Rezko was convicted on 16 felony charges for bribery, fraud and money laundering in June 2008, many of them related to political fundraising. While Obama has not been implicated in any crimes and has donated $150,000 in Rezko-related donations to charity, critics continued to question this relationship. So why doesn't the boldfaced part answer your objection? Noroton (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Norton, that little part does not at all negate the insinuation. Either this POV is encapsulated with an attribution or a rewrite excludes it. Modocc (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But my question was "why" you don't think the boldfaced part answers your objection. I think sourcing can be found for a statement that puts this whole passage into perspective. I'd rewrite to explicitly state that the charges against Rezko were not related to Obama, and (for perspective) I'd remove critics continued to question this relationship and replace it with Numerous critics questioned Obama's judgment in associating with Rezko. And the footnote to the Washington Post already in the article substantiates that. We don't call NPOV facts, "POV", when the facts are reliably sourced and their placement is logical, and the two sentences you're concerned about are what lead up to the final phrase. Wikipedia isn't accusing Obama of anything: It's presenting relevant facts. Obama didn't give that long interview with the Sun-Times because it was ridiculous for anybody to be concerned about his Rezko relationship. The fact is, Obama was criticized for associating with a guy who has been proven to be corrupt. That point is not POV. As long as that underlying point is in the article, then, if you still think the wording suggests something more, feel free to propose alternate language because I think we could all agree on it. Noroton (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Logical statements, of which the first two are an insinuation of course, and contrary to Wikipedia's core NPOV policy as I've pointed out. I've no alternative to propose, but this problem must be adequately addressed. Modocc (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo and Bigtimepeace, Obama went on at length in this interview with The Chicago Sun-Times about his relationship with Rezko at various times. This is well worth reading, particularly the second time Obama speaks. Much farther down, Obama states that he still considers Rezko a "friend". I think in the context of Obama's associating with the wrong people -- not in the context of Obama being corrupt, which we already make clear -- there is enough information out there to demonstrate that we need to expand the Rezko mentions in the article. I have minor problems with WorkerBee74's additions, but not with the overall thrust. Please take a look at this interview and if anyone would like, I'll provide a few quotes from it. Noroton (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look at that, and just to be clear I don't have a problem with some expansion of the stuff on Rezko. I have specific quibbles as mentioned above, but I'm sure we can work it out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

long alliance — I think the interview transcript I link to just above might actually give enough evidence for a "longtime alliance" by 2005, but I'd like to see what other people think. I agree that it's a strongly worded characterization and it's going to need airtight sourcing. Do editors think that the Sun-Times interview transcript fails to justify "longtime alliance"? Noroton (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed Bigtimepeace's objection to the word "long". I would have no problem replacing that with something like political allies from 1995 to xxxx I think the Sun-Times interview establishes that. Obama says Rezko was a "friend" who raised a significant fraction of the money for some of his races. I'm sure we can find a source for whatever the xxxx is. Noroton (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The bad news is that I prepared a detailed refutation of Wikidemo's arguments and was edit conflicted. Remember, I can't cut and paste, and I type about 10 WPM. The good news is that Noroton covered several of the points I was trying to make. Please leave this little subsection alone for an hour and I'll retype my answer. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

... it's only worth mentioning Obama's assignment to Rezmar projects if that was a significant part of his work for the firm. I disagree. There were many small ways in which Rezko was involved in Obama's career besides fundraising. He offered Obama a job while Obama was still in law school, for example. This is a very brief mention and is the most neutral way, without violating WP:WEIGHT, to illustrate Rezko's early contacts with Obama.

Even if it is included ... [it] should only be done in each case if it is legitimate, supported by reliable sources, and occurred before the work was done.' Of course, WD. I wouldn't have it any other way.

The "first day" and "more than half" is out of context and irrelevant. To the contrary, it shows that Rezko was really dedicated to making Obama a star from the very beginning of his political career. Donating a few thousand dollars to Obama's campaign today is a drop in the ocean. But giving the same amount of money to Obama on his first day in politics, as a complete unknown, was far more significant.

... "long alliance" should only be used if it's sourced ... I think 10+ years is a long time for a 46-year-old man. For the word "alliance," this source should be good enough: [19]

... Rezko raised $250K total (a small but real portion of Obama's overall fundraising). Again, you underestimate the importance of early money in politics, also called "seed money." For all of Obama's campaigns before his US Senate run, he received an aggregate total of less than $500K from all sources. In those days, Rezko was providing the lion's share of Obama's fundraising. His importance to Obama before the US Senate run cannot be overstated. He was at least as essential to State Senator Obama as oxygen to a scuba diver.

Thanks for your continued patience with my pathetic skills on a computer. Hire the handicapped. More later. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We really cannot include every little detail about Rezko and Obama. To the extent we discuss Rezko, we are not going to chronicle their entire relationship from start to finish, rather only highlight what is most critical. For example Rezko offered Obama a job but he turned it down. I don't think that remotely bears mentioning because it adds literally nothing to the article in terms of our understanding of Obama or even his relationship with Rezko. Likewise Obama apparently spent 5 hours working on something connected to Rezko's company while he was at a law firm. But in the lengthy interview linked by Noroton above, Obama specifically explains that he hardly knew Rezko then and did not form a real relationship with him until later. His law firm specialized in the same area (low-income housing) in which Rezko worked, so there is really nothing notable or interesting in that Obama worked on something connected to Rezko's business while a young associate of the firm. I also agree that it's just silly to mention what Rezko kicked in for contributions on the first day of an Obama campaign. Total fundraising, absolutely (though you are incorrect to say that Rezko raised the "lion's share" of Obama's money, at least according to the interview with Obama), but we don't need to go into the minutiae. As I said some compromise is going to be needed here so you need to be a bit flexible.

Also I think we can easily come up with more neutral language that "long alliance" and I think Noroton's proposal above makes sense in that regard. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bigtimepeace generally that we're going to have to limit coverage of Rezko in this article. I want to read through this section again before coming to any conclusions about specific language, but anything about Rezko included here is going to have to be clearly illuminating about Obama, and it's got to be important. Details are going to have to be very limited, and we'll need to justify them as important in helping the reader to understand something important about Obama. Obama, in that Sun-Times interview, mentions that Rezko was an important early contributor and he describes how, so there's something to that, and I bet we can describe it very succinctly. But Obama's lawyer work with Rezko in '93 or so may be dubious. Let's try to look at it all with fresh eyes tomorrow. Noroton (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

After reviewing everyone's input, I think we can find some middle ground for a compromise. In that section on personal life and career, the paragraph about the Davis law firm needs to be rewritten the way I did it, to make it more about Obama and less about the law firm, but remove the last sentence about the work he did for Rezmar. I will make that concession in order to reach a compromise.

The concession I'm asking in return is for you to accept the term "long alliance" as fair, accurate and well-sourced; that critics are questioning this relationship and that it was a relationship (which, again, is accurate and well-sourced); that the 16 charges should be summarized as shown ("bribery, fraud and money laundering") with the clear caveat that Obama hasn't been implicated in any crimes: that for the early fundraising, such terms as "first day" and "more than half" are not only relevant, but exactly the sort of context that WP summary style requires; and that the level of detail I've provided about the real estate deals, including the "boneheaded" remark and the second deal for the 10-foot strip of land (at a time when Obama admits he knew Rezko was under investigation), also is necessary for the context required by WP summary style.

To summarize, I propose that we get rid of the sentence about Rezmar, but keep the rest as I've presented it above. Remember, I can provide several examples of politicians' WP biographies that contained detailed explorations of the controversies their opponents were exploiting. Even in the middle of a hotly contested campaign, and even with a WP article elsewhere that focused entirely on the campaign. The two best examples of this well-established practice are George W. Bush in October 2004, with a separate article about the campaign and 13 various conjugations of the words "critic" and "criticism" in the biography, and Hillary Clinton in March 2008, with a separate article about the campaign and two separate sections on controversies with bold section headers, "Lewinsky scandal" and "Whitewater and other investigations," in the biography.

This is the Wikipedia way. It is well-established practice and we should follow these precedents. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That doesn't sound like much of a compromise, though. Even if we were to accept that campaign-oriented criticisms are a desirable feature of bio articles on politicians there has to be a limit, and standard for inclusion and for what and how to present them. My objection to each of those is based on what I think is the best standard - weight, relevance, avoiding forking controversial issues, and maintaining neutrality. Wikidemo (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can he really be considered black, if he's half Caucasian?

Ethnicity wise, he's mixed and biracial. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just call him the first racially mixed person running for the presidency? Intranetusa (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Color wise, as the H&K 2 movie puts it, "he's barely even brown."

See above: "Of African descent" sub --Floridianed (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers

Back when Senator Barack Obama was playing marbles in knee pants, his present casual friend, Dr. Bill Ayers, who's now an academic, had been involved in some rather extraordinarily reprehensible activities. Yet the context of these neighbors having met is shrouded in mystery since Obama and Ayers, perhaps smartly, decline to respond to inquiries about it. In any case, this has been met with a mostly reluctant coverage akin maybe a sniff by the mainstream media, mostly immediately after the famous exchange between Obama and Mr. George Stephanopoulis in the City of Brotherly Love in April, when Obama said Ayers "is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis" [etc.]

After which Senator John McCain piccoloed in a riff into the campaign's musical score about Obama's ongoing friendship with Ayers "...while the guy was unrepentant over his activities as a member of a terrorist organization, the Weathermen. Does he condemn them? Would he condemn someone who says they're unrepentant and wished that they had bombed more?" To which the counterpoint was played by Mr. Bill Burton, along the theme that..."Unable to sell his out-of-touch ideas on the economy and Iraq, John McCain has stooped to the same smear politics and low road that he denounced in 2000" [etc.] The question is, which theme should Wikipedia's coverage/lack thereof echo? The Obama campaign's (about "smear tactics," etc.) via no mention of Ayers? The McCain campaign's (through detailing what facts are known about the apparently casual friendship between neighbors), letting readers make of it what they will? Or the mainstream media's allegorical, collective sniff (that is, perhaps through Wikipedia's making barest mention of Ayers name with a link)? — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that we should really try to take one thorny issue at a time so discussion does not get completely out of hand. Several people are currently trying to work on the Rezko situation above. Can we hold off on this for a little bit?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think we're going to make progress on that one at this time. It seems to me that if the Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers election controversy articles had their many gaps filled, there will be a point where we can revisit the issue with more light, which might result in less heat. Let's keep that one on the back burner and stir this Rezko pot and the Wright pot on the front burners first. Noroton (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that we might almost have the Rezko content questions resolved. Why don't we address Ayers when we get Rezko finished? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Height?

How tall is Obama? Is his height noted somewhere in the article (if it isn't it should be since that is a valid personal fact), and is the information verified/sourced? --172.162.95.66 (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He holds people’s gazes as he speaks, and he has an unerring physical sense, knowing just how long to clasp a shoulder, linger on a hug, double-grip a hand. While Obama exudes great warmth, he doesn’t arouse the suspicion he has overrelied on sex appeal in his career, though he’s got it (six foot two, good-looking, smile like a white picket fence). People are just as apt to express their admiration around him as they are to flutter.----NEW YORK MAGAZINE (Sep. 25, 2006) [Michelle is five-foot eleven.] — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)And Sports Illustrated's S.L. Price specifies Barack as 6-foot-1+1/2 (and fifteen pounds different from Price's own, unstated weight). — Justmeherenow (   ) 17:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Balance regarding Trinity U.C.ofC.

IMHO black liberation theology's somewhat unfairly maligned, its efforts to engender racial pride caricatured by those appealing to an identity politics subtly appealing to the white majority. Instead of just "God damn America!" how about the context that (according to yesterday's Washington Post)... "At the very core of its mission, Trinity seeks to reveal and broadcast racial inequalities. A product of black liberation theology, it teaches members to identify with their African roots and take pride in the African American experience. Sermons sometimes mingle biblical lessons with those learned from slavery or the civil rights movement." — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious chronology @ infobox

Since John McCain's change from Episcopalian to Baptist is given in the infobox at "John McCain," I figured I'd fill out the religious information at "Barack Obama" to spell out that while Obama's been with the United Church of Christ since 1992, previously he'd retained what he termed in his 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech a "skepticism of organized religion," while acknowledging his maternal grandparents as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists." — Justmeherenow (   ) 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that, and don't believe I've ever seen anything like that in an infobox. This is precisely the kind of change you should discuss rather than just make, as it is significant and likely controversial. First of all I see no reason why we would refer to his grandparents' religion - the infobox is not about what church his grandparents did or did not go to (and why only mention his maternal grandparents?). Secondly, I don't believe we generally include earlier religious skepticism under the "religion" category of the infobox. George W. Bush became a born-again Christian in his early forties and continues to identify as such, but we don't explain in his infobox that he had a religious conversion (he switched from Episcopalian to United Methodist, which we explain in the article, not the infobox, though in that case we could probably mention that in the infobox). Thomas Jefferson was raised in the Church of England but we don't say that in the infobox, nor do we say that he was anti-Catholic nor that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus (again we discuss these things in the article). When Richard Nixon was young he believed in the inerrancy of the Bible but abandoned that later, and despite nominally being a Quaker he was pretty far from a pacifist, but in his infobox we simply say "Quaker" (one could argue whether that was even really true by the time he was president). McCain completely switched denominations which is worth mentioning, but in general that infobox should really just identify someone's current religion, not say "in his 20s he struggled to find his spiritual identity" which is basically the case with Obama and half the rest of the world. Where that can be discussed is in the article itself. It's already largely there, but I think we can slightly expand the last paragraph of the "personal life" section. I'm strongly tempted to revert your change but will hold off pending further discussion and actually hope you might self-revert. Again, in the future please discuss these kind of changes before making them. You're adding new material and if you have any sense it may be even minimally controversial you should bring it to the talk page first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-reverted, pending consensus----as it's conceivable some portion of it might be controversial. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see what others think, but if you want folks to come around to your view you might want to find examples where we list "skepticism of organized religion" or something similar in an infobox to note that someone was not in a church their whole life. If there are few or no examples of that it would suggest we should not start doing it here. The other problem I didn't mention is the way it appears on the screen with "skepticism of organized religion" being the first thing someone would read. Because of the formatting it's not immediately clear you are talking about a former belief, so someone who casually peruses the infobox (which is probably exactly what most people do) might only notice the first line about skepticism. It doesn't make much sense to display his past belief (or lack thereof) more prominently than his religion of the past 16 years.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah-hah----yes! true. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ulta pov

This page is super duper POV in favor of Obama in almost every aspectHeatsketch (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have lost sight of an important point. This is supposed to be a biography of a notable individual - his whole life, career, family, accomplishments, points of view, etc. It is not an article about a political candidate or a campaign - you'll find that elsewhere in the encyclopedia, such as in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and Political positions of Barack Obama. So the idea of this being "in favor of" him doesn't really make sense in that context. There should be, and are, neutral descriptions of controversial matters that he has been involved in, if they are truly notable in the context of his whole life, not just a political flash-point. Will any given item be seen as significant in his life if we look back 10 years from now? 10 months? in some cases, 10 minutes? That should be standard by which we judge this biography and all others. Unfortunately, you are not alone - many others have similarly forgotten this fundamental point, as evidenced by much of the activity here. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking for this page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama