Talk:Public image of Barack Obama

role

Should someone mention his role in America. I see lots of Barack Obama pop art material in places. --Spikeleefan (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Overseas

Of course there is a huge controversy over his 200,000 listeners at a rally in Berlin, but I keep hearing about how he's immensely popular in Europe. I saw in an article on WP once (forgot which one) which provied poll data about how Europeans are rooting for him to win. This should be included in here. I know I should be bold but I really don't have the time to add this in myself. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama, Religion, and Redundancy

Obama converted to Christianity under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright. This is a huge deal for him in his life story, as communicated in interviews and his autobiography. Striking this from the article is improper. And, after we establish that Obama is a Christian, it becomes redundant and in poor form to go on to say "incorrect belief". That's a given. Trilemma (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The section is meant to describe Obama's cultural and political image with respect to his religion. It is not meant to cover all aspects of his religious beliefs and church habits. Please confine the details to the actual subject, and avoid adding any unnecessary stuff that is better covered elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

His relationship with Jeremiah Wright, his church habits, etc. are all part of his cultural and political image. Trilemma (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. They are part of his personal life, not his public image. Please note the title of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

His personal life is inextricably intertwined with his cultural and political image. Have you read the version for John McCain? Please do so. Trilemma (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not edit articles based on what other articles do, because that can mean lowering the standards of Wikipedia to the lowest common denominator. It is not "inextricably intertwined" - as evidenced by the fact that we have successfully managed to extricate it. This section is about the Muslim/Christian issue, not about his association with Jeremiah Wright (which is covered at length elsewhere). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but it is not our role as editors to 'extricate' public life from personal life. This article is to report on the cultural and political image of Obama, and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright is a part of that image. Trilemma (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor is it our role as editors to 'conflate' personal life with public life. My complaint here is not that his relationship with Jeremiah Wright should be excluded. It is about the relevancy of that relationship in the context of the public perception that he is a Muslim. Consider these two sentences as an example of what I mean:

1. John Doe is an omnivore because he has been seen eating meat products, but public perception is that he is a vegetarian.
2. John Doe is an omnivore because he has been seen eating meat products, such as the Double Whopper with cheese and bacon he had at Burger King, but public perception is that he is a vegetarian.

If we assume the "Double Whopper consumption" is adequately covered elsewhere, it is redundant information in this context - even jarring. The same is true with the attempt to shoehorn Wright into the section, because that relationship is not relevant in this context and it is better described elsewhere - perhaps even in a separate paragraph of this section, if necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Currently, this article is practically a hagiography. A user as refused to allow mention of Jeremiah Wright in the article, specifically in the race and culture section, despite the huge controversy and the resulting impact it had on Obama's image, as it doesn't meet his standard of 'public life.' Trilemma (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the wording of this RfC as being grossly misleading. The article mentions Wright with a wikilink to the entire separate article about him. An elaboration here that complied with all Wikipedia policies could be considered for inclusion, but what Trilemma has tried to insert is the assertion that "Obama, previously non-religious, became a Christianity in the 1980s, under Jeremiah Wright" -- violating WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and probably a few other policies. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll be happy to provide the relevant quotes from Obama's books. And a redirect above the article simply does not cut it. There's no discussion of how the Wright controversy affected Obama's cultural and political image, which is the subject of this article. Trilemma (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Obama's relationship with Wright, and how that affects his cultural and political image, should be in a separate paragraph. It his nothing to do with the perception that he is a Muslim. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree that the Wright and Muslim controversies are distinct and should be covered in seperate paragraphs. AzureFury (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE that an RfC is supposed to be written in a neutral manner (Please read WP:RfC for a further explanation of this rule). This is simply one editor's POV commentary written in the style of an RfC, but doesn't seem to be a legitimate request for comment. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I sadly have to agree and hope the editor of the RFC will rephrase it in proper style within WP-guidelines since s/he had not obeyed them in the past even so S/he acted in good faith. --Floridianed (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article

This article is an essay and relevant information should be merged into the main article. It seems that there is a tendency lately in wikipedia to have a navbox with these lame non enciclopedic "articles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.149.244 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Using daughter articles to treat narrow aspects of a broader subject is standard Wikipedia practice. This was also done with regard to the articles about the major-party candidates for President in 2004 -- see, for example, George W. Bush substance abuse controversy and John Kerry military service controversy. See Wikipedia:Summary style for a comprehensive explanation. JamesMLane t c 09:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are controversies. This is definitely an essay. delete. --76.19.149.244 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a component of a summary style article, spun of the main article due to lack of space, and completely consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The article stays. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with the name it should be called Public image of Barack Obama not Cultural and political.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.149.244 (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's your proposal, then you're really asking that the article be moved. There's a procedure for that. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves and decide if you think it's worth the effort. For my part, I think the two titles are fairly close in meaning, and it's not worth bothering with a move, which would entail also moving the parallel McCain article and then fixing links to both of them. JamesMLane t c 08:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article begin with "was nominated as the first African American candidate of a major political party for President of the United States" and then three sentences later, says his mother is White - making him HALF African-American and just as much white? It's contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.74.99 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say it looks rather dubious having this article. It seems in danger of becoming a POV fork. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe articles like this are important for chronicling the images of political figures. However, (and this may be more appropriate to mention on the main article) I think that a better effort is required to summary this article in the Barack Obama article instead of copying and pasting certain paragraphs. --Amwestover (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama as a politician section

I believe that this article could use a lot more content, and I've therefore added it to the request for expansion list. I've focused on the "Obama as politician" section and made the following contribution that has been reverted, but I don't see how it violates Wikipedia guidelines:

During the 2008 election season, Barack Obama's experience has been a topic of contention. Both Democratic and Republican politicians have criticized his experience and whether he's ready to be President of the United States. Since his nomination the criticism has been mostly from Republican politicians; many Democratic politicians now believe that Obama is ready. Criticism has almost exclusively centered around his readiness for the position of commander in chief as opposed to his abilities as a public servant. Hillary Clinton often stated during her unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination that Obama wouldn't be a candidate who's ready on "Day One". Since conceding the race for the nomination she has endorsed Obama. While campaigning for president, Joe Biden believed that Obama could eventually be ready for the job of president, but that at the time he wasn't ready. Biden, now Obama's vice presidential running mate, has since revised his beliefs on Obama's readiness, but his quotes from the 2008 Democratic Debates have been used in campaign ads for John McCain. Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman has criticized Obama's experience and readiness, citing his response to the Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008.

If you see any guideline violations and have any comments, suggestions, or additional contributions, please reply. --Amwestover (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This would definitely be in the wrong article, as it does not discuss Obama's image, and it relates directly to the campaign. Also, this seems like a very one-sided paragraph, with Democratic comment coming from early on in the primary season and everything else coming from Republicans and conservative commentators. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Campaigns are imperative in shaping a politician's public image. If everything related directly to the 2008 campaign or events leading up to it were removed, this article would be less than 2 paragraphs and be a candidate for deletion. So I don't believe that's a valid argument against my contribution or any future contributions which may and probably will reference opinions or events from the campaign, often as their focal point. In addition, to many people a person's experience level is very important in shaping the image of a person, just as much as their religion or ideologies. For instance, a person considered to have "wisdom", which would be part of their image, could only achieve that if they had experience. So contributing opinions and comments on said person's experience would be valid in an article on their public image.

My contribution is about the contention over the experience level of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign, undeniably important in shaping his image in the eyes of many people. It cites various respectable and verifiable sources and quotes respectable politicians' opinions and conclusions. The narrative presenting the quotes and paraphrases does not give opinion or draw conclusions. In addition, to further address your comments, I don't see how a.) there are any sides to this, and b.) how the fact that Democrats called his experience into question earlier in the campaign and how later Republicans called his experience into question would make this one-sided since that's how the order of events actually took place.

If you believe that more can be added, I encourage you to contribute. Wikipedia is an iterative process.

--Amwestover (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I think the contribution is (a) misplaced and (b) non-neutral. The first two sentences, in particular, are seem to be negatively-biased and unsourced original research. I assume you mean well, but I think you need to begin a consensus-building process for its inclusion before putting it back into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles of numerous political figures (the section below has a good sampling) have contributions similar to mind. I don't believe it is misplaces, especially since there's an existing Experience section in the article. Campaigns, amongst other things, are part of a political figure's public image. As for your non-neutral claim, contributing praise or criticism does not make an entry non-neutral; wording does. The narrative supporting the quotes does not draw conclusions or give opinions. The first two sentences in my contribution (the first three, actually) are a summary of the rest of the paragraph.

As I've said before, if you believe that more can be added or things should be changed then I encourage you to contribute; Wikipedia is an iterative and non-perfect process. I'm having difficulty reaching a consensus with you because I haven't heard what you think needs to be changed or how it needs to be changed. Reverting the contribution every time it is posted is counter-productive, and not warranted in my opinion since this is not vandalism or against Wikipedia's core content policies: the entry is worded neutrally, sources are verifiable, and no conclusions or opinions are drawn outside of sourced material.

--Amwestover (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Move title to "Public image of Barack Obama"?

"Cultural image" is not terribly clear or precise, while "political image" is needless to be said about a politician. Since the subject of this article IMO is the Public image of Barack Obama, or, "Obama's life..." (his (1)personality (2)lifestyle, and (3)background) "and its reflection in his public image" -- a much simpler title would be had through this move.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to propose the move before you do it. Last time you got into this we had about eleventy-billion moves of the Ayers/Obama article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't even figure out the point of this article. What is covered here that isn't covered (better) elsewhere? This seems like a content fork if anything. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that while the Obama main article gets so much attention, this one remains thin. Anyway, a list of sections or subarticles/stubs of the type is

- Condoleeze Rice - Public perception and criticisms

- Hillary Rodham Clinton - Cultural and political image

- Public image of Mitt Romney

- Mike Huckabee - Public image and personal life

- Public image of Sarah Palin

-Cultural and political image of John McCain

-Public perception of George W. Bush

- Dick Cheney - Public perception

- Bill Clinton - Public image

- Ronald Reagan - Cultural and political image

The move was a bit arbitrary. (Guess I'd been over-impressed that "Hey! A title is out there with two fewer words!")  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Encounter with Joe the Plumber

There appears to be some dispute over the relevance of Barack Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber in regard to shaping his political image. This explanation is intended for Scjessey who recently disagreed with the relevance of the issue, but there may be others who share the view.

I for one believe that Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber is paramount in contributing to his political image. It has been a polarizing issue regarding Obama's tax policy, which is obviously relevant to a politician's image. Enough credence has been given to the encounter that Joe the Plumber now has his own Wikipedia article (which went through several deletion requests) and is also mentioned in the United States presidential election debates, 2008 article. The amount of media attention the encounter received was astronomical, and the aftermath is still a popular media and campaign topic. If anything, I think the section is a little light. The opposing opinions on the matter can and should be expanded; and also I think it is warranted to mention the Obama/Biden campaign's reaction to the event and its aftermath because I think this has also contributed to shaping the campaign's image. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your position on this. I do not believe "Joe the Plumber", or the media circus surrounding his brief discussion with Obama, has made the slightest difference to Obama's image. This is backed up by a complete lack of reliable sources that say Obama's image has been changed with this "event". This might be a significant campaign-related event, but to suggest this is significant to the public image of Obama is overreaching recentism. Since this is a child article of Barack Obama, I believe this can be considered to be a BLP concern. As such, you must build a consensus for the inclusion of this material. Until such time that a consensus for inclusion is reached, the section in question should be removed per WP:BLP and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see how you'd think that Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber has had no effect on his political image. It is directly related to a political aspect of Barack Obama -- his tax policy. In addition, it has been a very polarizing issue. I can't see the reason for disregarding this because it is a "campaign issue" (which are very relevant in shaping a politician's political image) or recent, which is neither a policy nor a guideline. Because the contribution is still in its infancy, their seems to be a lot of weight given to the encounter itself; in order to discourage elaboration of the encounter itself I've include a further information link to the Joe the Plumber article. I think more time needs to be spent on exploring the reactions the encounter garnered and I believe a case can be made that the Obama/Biden response may be relevant also but there would of course need to be source material to back this up. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly believe that this should be fully documented on Wikipedia, but this is the wrong article to do this because it does not seem to be related to Obama's public image. The fact that this issue has made no apparent difference to the polling data is telling here. This is more relevant to the McCain campaign article, in fact. This really should be removed from the article until (and if) there is a consensus for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's drastically changed his public image either, but I don't think that should be a requirement for exclusion. The article is called Public image of Barack Obama, not Events that have changed the public image of Barack Obama. What the event has done is invoke discussion and reactions on beliefs that may have already existed, and because of that I think this is all very relevant to his political image. For instance, one thing this event has done is invoke questions about how far left Obama really is. This was the first major event that invoked reactions that his positions on some issues, tax policy in this case, may be so far left that they're socialist. These beliefs may have existed in many people's minds before the event, but what other event could be attributed to invoking those beliefs?

As I've said the actual encounter with Joe the Plumber isn't the import part, it's the reactions it invoked which are pertinent. The other articles focus more on the encounter itself, this is the place where public reaction to the encounter should be documented. That is why I said earlier that more credence should be given to the reaction and less to the event itself. But since the encounter was the catalyst, it should at least be briefly mentioned. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For inclusion, you would have to find a reliable source that specifically states that the "Joe the Plumber" stuff has changed Obama's public image. Continued speculation isn't going to be helpful. In any case, I do not believe this issue has caused people to believe Obama is "more left" or "more socialist" - at best, it has reinforced the erroneous beliefs of a few misinformed Republicans. In fact, the whole things has made the McCain campaign into something of a laughing stock - especially with their "I'm Joe the Plumber" ad invoking Spartacus. Sorry, but I'm afraid it's reliable sources or bust. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've said this multiple times, this article is not about changes in the public's image of Barack Obama. If that were a requirement then most of this article would need to be removed, but that is not the case. A shift in people's opinion of someone is not required in order to be pertinent to this article. In addition, the sources that have attributed to the contribution are indeed reliable. If you believe otherwise, please specifically cite where in the policy you think otherwise.

And I think it goes without saying, but you personal political opinions on this matter are irrelevant and do not warrant reply. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP concern

Again, I must point out that this is a BLP-related issue. The burden of demonstrating the relevance of an inclusion falls upon those who wish to include. As a child article of Barack Obama, this falls under the auspices of WP:BLP. This is a campaign-related event that has no impact on Obama's public image, and there are no reliable sources given that disagree with that statement. Until a reliable source can be found, edit warring this section into the article is disruptive. Seek consensus before inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

References note

I ran a tool tonight that converts bot added titles and bare references. I wanted to leave a note to let the editors of the article know that if there is not an issue with some of the references used on the page, there could be in the near future. References that are from ap.google, google news, or yahoo news are time limited. If you will look at any references that come from there, it's highly probable the same exact stories can be found on TV news or more prominent newspaper websites that won't expire, and can be replaced before they become dead links. There are some that were already dead links tha have been updated. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Andy Martin Slander

There seems to be an effort to slander Andy Martin in violation of WP:BLP with edits such as this. Labeling him a "vexatious litigant" is not what wikipedia is about. It is against [[WP:NPOV}} and WP:BLP despite this not being his article. Glen Twenty (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Though let's remember Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Quark1005 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

What is the consensus on the introduction to this page? Could there be more said than just his race (and I guess implicitly the significance of his victory? Quark1005 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. This article needs an introduction that summarizes and presents the main points of the article, and includes the article title in bold text. Can someone who's highly active in this article start working on that? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Public Image

I re-added sourced information that was removed without explanation. EagleScout18 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And I deleted it. WorldNetDaily is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reliable source. Also, this has nothing to do with his public image. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus requested

"Citing "security concerns," Sen. Barack Obama's campaign reportedly banned signs and posters from a scheduled outdoor Berlin speech the German media is reporting may draw a crowd of 1 million." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70197 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/22/bild-barack-obama-bans-protest-signs-in-berlin/

Keep Valuable information for article. Keeps a balance, NPOV. EagleScout18 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these sources meet the standard for BLP-related articles. Furthermore, the information has nothing to do with Obama's public image. Continued attempts to place this in the article are disruptive. Strongly opposed to inclusion, obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding German source: http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/politik/2008/07/21/obama-verbietet/schilder-bei-seiner-berlinrede.html and mention of ban in LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/25/nation/na-berlin25 EagleScout18 (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First source is in a foreign language, and therefore unusable. Second source is okay, but your proposed addition still has nothing to do with Barack Obama's public image. Consider the election article instead (although you will have to find consensus there too). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is slightly off topic but I a disagree with one of the statement made above. While I do agree that the protest ban is NOT something that needs to be added to the article I do question the claim that foreing language sources are unsuable. At least two different AFD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of Hearts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto: Shippūden the Movie 2 have come to the exact opposite conclusion. To reiterate I am not arguing for adding the protest ban or arguing for the particular foreign language site (I have no clue if it is reliable or not) but simply pointing out that the language of the source itself is not itself a good enough reason to declare the source unusuable. --76.66.187.161 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree Especially if the foreign language source is credible, notable, etc. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Information pertains to public image, belongs in article. EagleScout18 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This has no place in the article. Even if you find reliable sources, the current prez and past presidents do that all the time. Definitely non notable, as in 'dog bites man' is not notable. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Propose to close RfC as marginal proposal extremely unlikely to gain consensus, brought prematurely before any reasonable attempt at discussion - Wikidemon (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Close it as a non-notable minor news item. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Close non-notable news item, which EagleScout18 seems to be single-mindedly forcing multiple RfCs for. I don't see anything notable about this. Dayewalker (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support closure — aside from the non-notability of the info, there's no indication that this has anything to do with Obama's public image. Is this a claim that he's seen as an opponent of free speech? Any RSes that make this connection? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Close and keep trivia out of article. Consensus was requested, and consensus has been found. ~ priyanath ^talk 06:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Remain open Leave other (unbiased) editors time to respond. EagleScout18 (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Close RfC and Oppose mention in this article. This has no more to do with this article than it has to do with the other places one editor is trying to insert it. Tvoz/talk 08:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Item for possible inclusion

"Obama Pakistan comment prompts local protest" by Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Chicago Tribune [1] EagleScout18 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I reformatted it. I think the information is interesting and notable, and probably belongs in the encyclopedia somewhere, but it's not a sufficient enough part of Obama's public image to be in this article per WP:WEIGHT. I wonder if there is an article somewhere that discusses Obama's dealings with Pakistan, or Pakistani-American participation in politics, or something along that line. If not, maybe a reason for a new article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion! The report on the ban might also fit there. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let's have a page containing every complaint connected with Obama. Be sure to include a link to the Limbaugh page. And don't forget to write about that frizzy-haired idiot in St. Paul who spoke to McCain and he shushed her - for being an idiot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, leave out the part about frizzy hair. Some subjects are just not notable.Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It got plenty of airplay. Certainly more than the other two items did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

More airplay=greater significance? Maybe work on the Rihanna article instead. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If that confrontation, seen on national TV, is not notable, I fail to see how a couple of random protests matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to start a frizzy hair article. The subject of the protests is the discussion at hand. Two editors so far find it significant. 2-1, top of the third. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)