Talk:Barack Obama

Redundant discussions

In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.

Race

• Talk:Barack Obama/race
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Barack Obama is half-white
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Ethnicity in first sentence
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Mulatto, the term is Mullato
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#He's Multi-Racial.
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 43#Obama and race

Religion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Religon
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Religion

Citizenship

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Supreme Court Controversy
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Still no mention on the birth certificate?
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Donofrio v. Wells
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference

Full name

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Article Name
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II

Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read about where Obama was born and have concerns about it, read Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Citizenship facts, rumors and claims and in particular this source which is heavily utilized in the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although "B.J. Clinton" might be appropriate. 156.56.168.135 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

President Obama's Oratory Skills

Cultural and Political Image

I recommend an addition to the second paragraph of this section starting “Many have argued that Obama is and adept orator on par with other renowned speakers…” While this paragraph goes to great lengths to mention President Obama’s oratory skills, it does not address his use of Teleprompters. While it is expected that he would use it for state addresses, his constant use of them for small trivial appearances begins to question his oratory skills. There have been a few occasions were the Teleprompters had failed and the President was criticized for less than spectacular speeches. I would recommend adding the following after the first sentence of the second paragraph:

However, President Obama has also been recently criticized for the constant use of Teleprompters.

I would also recommend adding the following references:

[4] [5] [6]

Moesbob (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps add to the teleprompter article? This article is intended to set forth the facts concerning Obama, not criticisms, not supports. Just the facts, sir.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How do the editors here respond to this? http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

Hi, if you read this talk page, you will see several discussions that touch on it. There is also a discussion going on at WP:AN/I. Please feel free to join in, but if you do, please sign your posts. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would respond that it is biased, unreliably sourced, fringe nutjobbery that has no place in an legitimate encyclopedia such as this. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What, the teleprompter question? Anyway, teleprompters can be fun. I recall when LBJ was droning on through one of his boring speeches when he suddenly started to repeat himself - something had gone wrong on the teleprompter, and he had to improvise. One of the funnier moments in a Presidency that pretty much lacked in humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try again. The last response I posted was deleted. Facts? Then present the facts. It is a fact that the President constantly uses Teleprompters. This includes such trivial appearances as a factory in Indiana and presenting new members of his administration. Even members of the press are beginning to question his use of them. But with that being said, the paragraph I ask that the sentence be added to, presents a positive opinion about his oratory skills. So there are three possible options. One, add the sentence I recommend and balance the opinion already presented. Two, delete the opinion already presented. This would negate the need for my sentence and balance the article. Three, leave the article as is and only present a supporting opinion maintaining the imbalance of the article. If that former is the case, I would guess that we will have to hope that Wikipedia will realize the partisan nature of the current editors and replace them. Or, allow things to continue as is and demonstrate why the Wikipedia experiment has, so far, proven to be a failure. Moesbob (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, might I point out that many of the presidents have used the teleprompters for the majority of their speeches. This smells like a manufactured controversy/criticism to me. Brothejr (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they have, for major state addresses. However, they have not used them on every campaign stop. They have not used them to unveil an economic plan at a Caterpillar plant in Indiana. They have not used it to present their third choice for Health and Human Services Secretary, and then present an uneasy silence as the Teleprompters are stowed for Governor Sibelius to speak. This article presents the opinion that President Obama is a magnificent speaker and compares him to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and President Ronald Reagan. I believe that either this opinion must be balanced by the fact that the President constantly uses Teleprompters, or the presented opinion about the President’s oratory skills be removed from the article. This is not a manufactured controversy or criticism. The editors of this article have made it clear that they want no opinions or criticisms present in this article. Therefore, they must either balance their presented opinion or remove it. Just the facts. Moesbob (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't see that the teleprompter is needed under summary style. Nor that it somehow is "balance". Politicians use teleprompters, some more than others. It's the technology of the day. Go watch the Checkers speech, Nixon is constantly looking down at his text. That is not mentioned in either the Checkers speech or the Nixon article because it is unremarkable. As is this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The matter certainly fails WP:WEIGHT. It's just not important. Obama used a BlackBerry extensively; Bush didn't. That's not important either. PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. The article currently presents an opinion praising President Obama’s oratory skills. Opinion. It is not a fact that President Obama is a great orator, it is an opinion. If this article is going to present an opinion and remain neutral, it must present a counter opinion or removed the presented opinion. The sentence concerning the Teleprompter is the counter opinion to the presented opinion. Either eliminate the presented opinion or offer the counter opinion. However, do not state that this article is only going to offer facts, neither criticisms nor supports, then offer a one sided opinion. The fact is President Obama constantly uses a Teleprompter. This proves he is a good reader, not a great orator. In fact, there have been a few occasions were the Teleprompters failed and the President delivered less than memorable speeches. Facts, not opinions. Review the references I included on the original post. They present the facts, not the opinion present in this article about the President’s oratory skills. I ask that you not try to simplify the discussion to disregard the fact the article is presenting an opinion. I ask that you not try to redirect the discussion away from the point of the article’s opinion. I ask that you not present a straw man to disregard or ignore the fact that this article presents an opinion. Address the facts and remove the opinions or balance them. Moesbob (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire section about his oratory abilities is filled with weasel words and lacks NPOV entirely. I fail to understand why it is present in this form. If there is a section on oratory skills at all, you are not maintaining an NPOV the way it stands. Those asking for the Teleprompter to be mentioned have a point. Either balance the article or remove this entirely. It is not NPOV, it is naked adoration thinly veiled with weasel words. SoheiFox (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cultural and political image section is clearly unbalanced, especially the second paragraph. Such a section is not per se improper, but, as it currently exists in the article, appears to violate NPOV. That material should be rewritten in order to be neutral or, if that's not possible, it should be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading it, I'm compelled to agree. Either we include a weight-permissible mention of the teleprompter issue to balance it, rewrite to eliminate some of the more florid prose, or we excise the paragraph altogether. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I recommend the Teleprompter sentence to highlight the imbalance. The best solution would probably be removal of the second paragraph as mentioned earlier. Moesbob (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, after reading thru many posts on this subject and others, it appears that statements must be backed up by legitimate sources. So the opening sentence in the second paragraph, "Many have argued that Obama is an adept orator on par with other renowned speakers in the past" needs to be backed up with legitimate sources. If not, then the whole paragraph should be removed.Miker789 (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to see that references were added. And after reviewing the references, I think that substitutes should be found for numbers 205 and 207. Obviously, the authors of these articles are fawning over President Obama’s perceived oratory skills and are offering their opinions on this subject. (This is the same as the second paragraph of this section does.) But more importantly, President Obama is the American President. A Canadian and Australian perspective is important. However, the fact that they are not Americans does lead to question of their understanding of American politics and the effects of the given speeches in America. For example, President Bush’s “with us or against us” speech did a lot to reassure Americans after 9-11 and was received well by most Americans. That same speech drew much foreign criticism. (See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec01/bush_9-21.html and http://www.france24.com/en/20090115-bush-make-final-formal-farewell-speech) If you wish to offer an opinion of an American politician’s abilities in America, it should come from an American. I am sure they would do a great job of telling us of Canada’s and Australia’s opinion of our President, far better than our own reporters.

However, adding the references does nothing to address the current NPOV opinions presented in the second paragraph of this section. The paragraph must be balanced or deleted to maintain a NPOV. Moesbob (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposals to increase coverage of controveries

Comment by Skydiver99

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

Suggestion that fringe controversies be treated uniformly

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

Comparison to standard/policy of George W. Bush Article

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

No Mention of Wright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know this was probably missed in the edit warring, but Thatcher seems to have added a rather NPOV and reliably sourced mention of Wright into the Personal life and family section.[7] I'd say we keep it, personally.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Obama's mentor, officiator at wedding and baptizer of children. This is in his own biographies, as well as documented here [8], [9] and [10]

2. The Audacity of Hope was a speech given by Wright, to which Obama himself gives credit in his own book. A self source should be sufficient, but here are more [11] [12] [13]

3. The controversy of leaving the church can be found everywhere, but here are some very reliable sources: [14] [15]

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

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

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

I agree, Obama has mentioned Wright as one of his greatest influences: [16]. I think that the controversy should go in the political section, but the relationship in the personal for as Obama explicitly said, he didn't seek Wright for politics. Soxwon (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is simply not true. A 2 second google search finds this article [17] which is not from a "right wing nutjob." I will find more if you like. Bytebear (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A common Logical Fallacy: Association Guilt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe the Plumber's involvement with Obama was one solitary question. The rest was fodder by the media. Here is another example of Ayers involvement with Obama:, "During Anderson Cooper’s show, CNN researchers concluded: “But the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said." [18] here's another from USNews [19] Bytebear (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there's a problem with mixing with one of the other activists in Chicago? There are hundreds more, this one just had a skeleton. [20] Soxwon (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the best referrence for Ayers is this article from CNN. [21] Here are some exerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bickering over Ayers

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

Bill Ayers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikilinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complaints about Wikipedia

Consensus overrides Wiki rules of notability?

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

No Negative Information Mentioned....??

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

Fairness

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

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

Stewart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New coverage of this pages editing

Just a note that a World News Daily story on what they refer to preferential editing is now linked on the Drudge Report site. So expect a lot of traffic to this page. Article Hardnfast (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disparities need cleared up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

Nobody controls this article.

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

With regards to the reliability of the WND article that started this controversy, please read this article: [22]. It states that Aaron Klein admitted that his co-worker created the edits that were "censored", but did not disclose that fact in his article. He also forgot to mention that he wasn't banned for good faith editing of non-controversial material, but of trying to put allegations[23] that Obama was born in Kenya (and using WND sources, his employer.) Anyway, on with the show... --guyzero | talk 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles very biased

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

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

John McCain and Citizenship

Both Barack Obama and John McCain are both currently featured articles. Both men have had questions raised about citizenship and eligibility to be President of the United States. Neither the John McCain nor the Obama citizenship disputes ever gained much mainstream traction, but there is an entire paragraph dedicated to the issue on the McCain article while any information about questions raised about Obama's citizenship have been consistently blocked.

I'm not trying to make an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, what I am saying is that high-profile and politically sensitive featured articles should follow the same standard if they are going to appear unbiased. -Neitherday (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because Obama not being born in Hawaii is the realm of conspiracy theory wackos while McCain was born in the Canal Zone. TastyCakes (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See here. TastyCakes (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to point one thing out: A wacko conspiracy theory should be mentioned if it reaches the standards of notability, of course, like getting reported over and over for a year or something. Then we should mention it with due weight and criticism, just like with anything else. Tempshill (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. WP:FRINGE. -Neitherday (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't adjust article content to placate partisans' sense of bias. I haven't visited the McCain article but if there is a fringe citizenship conspiracy theory in his BLP, you can take it up there. Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I took a field trip over there and think the subject of McCain's eligibility for the presidency, being the first born outside the 50 states, controversy, being the prospective oldest, etc., has entirely too much weight in that article. He wasn't elected so it's pretty trivial. Nor was any of this a significant issue in his life - obviously, his birth circumstances were, but not any improbable legal theories. But like I said, that article is over there, and this one is over here. Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll bring this issue up there, too. The same standard should apply to both articles for the sake of maintaining an unbiased presentation, however I am neutral as to whether it should be excluded from both or included in both. I believe that there is a need to coordinate certain neutrality issues between articles. -Neitherday (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the main part of the argument: with Obama it is a debunked conspiracy theory. With McCain it was an actual issue dealt with in the campaign. TastyCakes (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm ... in the case of McCain, it was debunked too. The only reason to classify it as an "actual issue" in one, but not the other is bias. Heck, in the case of President Obama, there is an actual sourced article about it. To me, that says it is at least worth a one-sentence mention and a link. In both cases, the claim that they were not legally qualified to be President was frivolous. --B (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Foretunately, it's not up to you. Remind me when Obama went before a special legal panel for his citizenship, then claim "bias." Soxwon (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, B, your use of "debunked" isn't quite right — one was an actual legal question and the other is conspiracy-theory-land. (That said, I personally think the silly Obama citizenship question is on the edge of qualifying to be mentioned in this article.) Tempshill (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? When did McCain go before a "special legal panel for his citizenship"? In both cases, the claim was fanciful. In both cases, lawsuits were filed. Just because you don't like the Obama claim but you do like the McCain claim doesn't mean they are difference. Both were born on US soil. Both have issues that someone might potentially have a legal question about (in McCain's case, does the canal zone count and in Obama's case, does his then-dual citizenship preclude him from being a "natural-born" citizen). I don't see the reasoning for treating them differently. It can be treated tastefully - a single sentence in the article could say, "Obama's Kenyan ancestry has given rise to conspiracy theories about his eligibility to hold the office of President, none of which are accurate". That way it doesn't get too much into it here and it links to the article so that a reader with questions can get those questions answered. --B (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to the editors here: if birthers turn up here, please direct them to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and keep the nonsense out of this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The McCain and Obama situations aren't parallel. In the McCain case, even assuming the WP:RS fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, there were reputable academics who thought the constitutional question was not settled. That's what that article mentioned, after making clear that the legal and political establishments were completely behind McCain and there was no danger he wouldn't become president if he won the election. There was also a conspiracy theory that he was actually born in Panama, outside the PCZ; that we didn't mention, as there were no WP:RS behind it. In the Obama case, all of the objections either claim a conspiracy theory that he wasn't born in Hawaii, or claim weird legal theories regarding foreign/dual citizenship being disqualifying that no reputable academics support. Different story. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A mention of Ayers and citizenship could both be taken care of with a mention of negative campaigning in one sentence, I don't understand the problem. I'm not fighting for inclusion but I'm a little surprised this wasn't handled better. Nothing should be sacred on Wiki. Scribner (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

please discuss Ayers in the section above. I don't want to have to jump around to two different conversations about the same topic. Bytebear (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

99% of academics are Democrats. On political issues, the appeal to authority doesn't hold any weight with me. That any so-called academic gave any credence to McCain not being a citizen says more of them than it does of the law. (The same is true on the other side as well - both McCain and Obama are unquestionably native-born citizens.) --B (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Academics are trained, usually, to know what they're talking about when pertinent to their field. When they get involved, it's usually because their knowledge is worth something. People tag academics as liberals as a way to devalue their opinion, for no other reason than it's a different opinion. Who do you have more faith in as it concerns your general health? A Doctor or your best friend Ted? You want to trust experts on some things, but not on others. Well cherry pick all you like; it won't change the outcome. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that must be it. To answer your question, I would certainly trust a doctor with a question about my health more than I would trust a researcher at a med school. But I digress. A liberal "academic" saying that a Republican candidate might not be eligible for the Presidency holds zero weight with me. A federal judge saying it or an elections board saying it would be of some interest. Heck, I'd even take "lots of academics", not just one. Give my best to Lane Kiffin. --B (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no partisan facts. If an argument lacks merit, that can be factually shown: in the case of Obama and the birth certificate, the only people who kept up with that 'controversy' were the fringe. That's one of the reasons why it picked up so much steam at the fringe; no one in the 'MSM' was paying attention. The facts are that Obama was born in Hawaii, and is fully qualified to be the President of the United States. The conspiracy about his birth is completely made up. McCain was not born in the United States was is properly implied. Indeed, it was decided and affirmed by Congress that he was eligible to serve as the President. But it was not so clear up till that point, it was as a valid legal question and hence why it was actually an issue for McCain and deserved what mention it does (which is not extensive or negative btw).

Btw, if you don't trust people, there's no reason for them to trust you either. UT Football is going to suck.216.96.150.33 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)A key distinction between these two eligibility issues is the one alluded to in the foregoing anon comment: McCain's eligibility was the subject of a formal resolution passed by the Senate. Obama's wasn't (and, when every Senator and every Representative was given the opportunity to raise the issue, at the counting of the electoral votes, not one did so). That difference is an objective indication that the issues concerning McCain had more substance and/or attracted more attention. Therefore, our coverage decisions in the articles are consistent. JamesMLane t c 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Negative Campaigning, Continued

Mention of Ayers and the Obama citizenship issue are aspects of negative campaigning both brought to light smear and derail Obama's campaign, both should be omitted from this article. Scribner (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss specifics about Ayers and/or Obama's citizenship in the appropriate sections above. Blanket statements are not useful. Bytebear (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My point being that Ayers, Wright and the citizenship issue are all connected to negative campaigning. The only reason Wright is mentioned in the article is because he was a integral part of Obama's life. Scribner (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but it is hard to follow all the comments about the Ayers issue if there are multple discussions on the same topic. I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Bytebear (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand your position and I think it violates the Wiki Criticism and praise guideline of avoiding inclusions that contain "guilt by association". Otherwise, I have no problem mentioning Ayers and citizenship in a context of negative campaigning, but not in this particular article. Scribner (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 campaign issues of only temporary relevance? If only we had articles like Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or Obama-Ayers controversy or Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories then maybe these claims of bias at wikipedia could be laid to rest. What? Those links aren't red anymore? You guys are fast.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Those articles have been around for months, ten months in the Ayers case. Scribner (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he knows that Scribner, it was sarcasm. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not wasted energy pointing out that the Ayers article has been on wiki for ten months now. Scribner (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to try to help

I believe that there is a cultural difference that is causing the disputes here, and I would like to try to explain. An example of this difference might be the Rush Limbaugh article. That article has a "Controversies" section which takes up about half of the article. Please note that the Obama article has no such section.

Limbaugh's article contains an entire section about Viagra use. This entire section should be immediately deleted, because it is extremely personal, prejudicial, and resulted in no public consequences. Yet there it is, and nobody has objected, because the paragraph is properly sourced, and is for a known public figure. I would object to its removal.

And yet, the Obama article contains not a single reference to Bill Ayers. I'm sorry, wiki-whateveryouares, but that is simply preposterous. The fairness of claiming this association aside, I will point out that this controversy was extremely important in the 2008 election, and that the association continued for years. President Obama started his political career in Mr. Ayers living room. That issue does not deserve a mention?

I trust the editors around here to get such controversies into perspective. When editors make edits that conform to Wiki rules, you really should be more circumspect with your reverts. At the very least, you should not ban someone just because you don't like what they said. Ever heard of NPOV???

I know you have to protect this article against people who make insane edits, and I know that work is hard. But really, edits that meet Wiki rules deserve better consideration. If you really believe in what you are doing here, then please go over to the Limbaugh article and delete the "Controversies" section. That would prove that you are being honest. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to help. This is an example to the Limbaugh article, since this is a FA, not the other way around. Ideally, the controversies in the Limbaugh article should be merged into the text. Even were that not so, your argument is simply WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. There is a controversy on the Limbaugh article about maintaining the "Controversies" section, and I believe that it is a real issue. For a public figure, it is possible that multiple controversies are swirling around them all the time. It is not until later that the true relevance of the so-called controversy can be determined. In other words, both Obama and Limbaugh have current swirling controversies. How do you propose do deal with these, other than reverting editors you don't like?Jarhed (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning: Limbaugh is not now--- and never has been--- the President of the United States. His article is, notwithstanding the fact that he is Rush Limbaugh, therefore somewhat less important than Obama's. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you advocate different treatment for different people in Wiki biographies of living persons. I would like to see how you can justify that attitude.Jarhed (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Limbaugh is not now and never has been the President of the United States. Sorry, but he is simply not as important as Obama. So, he deserves different treatment. The Limbaugh article, for what it's worth, is generally favorable and leaves out a lot of derogatory material which could have been included. By the way, have we ever seen the vault copy of Limbaugh's birth certificate? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure I'll get flack for saying this, isn't Rush a much more controversial character than Obama? Has he not made a career out of stirring up emotions? Rush is controversial and he wants it that way. Obama, if anything, wants to avoid controversy, perhaps to a fault. A "controversy section" may, therefore, be more justified (and difficult to blend into the rest of the article) for the Limbaugh article than this one, in my opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but Limbaugh doesn't run the country. That said, let's keep on topics of improving the article. Bytebear (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to help or looking to argue here? There is a unique standard for every article, in that each person and every other subject has its story, and we tell that story, as best we can, from reliable secondary sources. The Ayers example is not a good one - Obama did not launch his career from Ayers' living room, nor did that attempted smear do anything to change the course of the campaign or election. If you're going to argue that anyone should care about Wikipedia being unfair, based on its refusal to print things that are not true, you're losing me from the beginning. Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

please assume good faith and don't attack other posters. I would also argue that we are not telling a story. We have no objectivity. We simply present facts. Also, please discuss specific topics such as Ayers in the appropriate sections. Bytebear (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For pete's sake, dont' lecture me. My comments are on target and I make them here. The editor's comment was soapboxing, based on not reading and/or not understanding the facts. If the editor sincerely means to understand and help Wikipedia they need to read the sources and not lead off by lecturing people out of ignorance on how unfair they are.Wikidemon (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed is right the majority of the controversies section of the Limbaugh article needs to be removed and kept confined to his radio show article. Scribner (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Go over to Talk: Rush Limbaugh and discuss it there. This conversation doesn't belong here. Tvoz/talk 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does belong here. It was being used as an example. Scribner (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, it does not. Argue the topic on its own merits, not on some sort of fraudulent "I saw it there, so it must be here too" rationale. As I noted earlier, the Wikipedia does not have an equivalent of a Fairness Doctrine; just because one article has a critical passage does not mean that another article must also have a critical passage to achieve some sort of magical criticism balance. Nor does it mean that another article's should be removed if there's none here. Each is to be discussed on its own merits, or lack thereof, not bargained with as if in a game. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, criticism sections shouldn't be used in biographies, period. Scribner (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've got your work cut out for you, then. Happy editing. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

YOu would think Bin Laden would have more than a single sentence of criticism. But I agree, a section on criticism is generally never a good idea. It's better to weave such items in the content where it relates. For example, Ayers would go into Obama's early poltical career as a community organizer. Now, why does Bill O'Reilly have an entire article dedicated to his criticisms? Bytebear (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they call that "live by the gun, die by the gun": there is simply so much material of criticism against him that it just piles on, and it has to be moved to separate article due to WP:SIZE. Criticism of George W. Bush also exists. I believe we call this, in Wikipedia, WP:SUMMARY. Nothing sinister, really. In fact, around Barack Obama we already have one such article: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.--Cerejota (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

←I actually agree, Scribner, and have argued many times, that separate criticism sections generally demonstrate weak article-writing, and should be avoided - that criticism should be integrated into the appropriate articles, not set apart. But that doesn't mean that the way other articles are written, like Limbaugh, are appropriate for discussion here. Tarc has it exactly right. Tvoz/talk 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

POV and NPOV

Folks, this really applies to several threads of comments under several headings.

Let's recall some things here. First, POV and NPOV don't mean "correct point of view " and "incorrect point of view." Frankly, the notion — for example — that Ayers, who was the subject of multiple controversies, apparently had some impact on the polls, and was the subject of questions in the actual debates, has not enough significance to even be mentioned in the article, seems to me to be in itself a statement of a point of view. Given that there clearly are a significant number of long-time Wikipedians who feel it ought to be included, it should follow that it should be included. The exclusion of one widely-held point of view on a controversial topic like this is necessarily in itself a POV issue, even if it is a minority position. Knowledge is not advanced by suppression of the minority.

Second, it is possible to hold a "conservative" or "Republican" view, or even to have read WND or Free Republic, honestly. On the other hand, it's difficult not to question the desire to maintain "no point of view" when we're calling names — like "wingnut." So try to recall that pejoratives directed toward any point of view, even wingnuts, are unhelpful.

Third, there are a lot of mentions of such and such being the "consensus". On the other hand, there are a lot of people being banned by admins for inserting certain topics. It is entirely too easy to manufacture consensus if enough dissent is deleted and the dissenters suppressed.

Frankly, we should understand that this is a challenge to the whole idea and organization of Wikipedia. The decentralized nature of Wikipedia is, in my opinion, a strength, but with the corresponding weakness that we end up giving pretty arbitrary power to admins. Accordingly, admins should try to be exceedingly careful when using that arbitrary power. Like Cæsar's wife, it's not enough to be virtuous if we give the appearance of failing in virtue. Giving the appearance that any opinion is acceptable as long as it is the politically popular opinion simply damages Wikipedia's reputation.

(Oops, forgot to sign it. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Ayers was a minor associate of Obama's, nothing more. Ayer's past doesn't warrant him being mentioned in Obama's biography. Scribner (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please post all arguments for or against Ayers in the appropriate section. And your opinion is just that, an opinion. Bytebear (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear why are you here? You seem to have nothing to add to the debate. Scribner (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, aside from being exceedingly rude, I would say your arguments has no bearing on this page. I have the support of several other editors, and have been very civil. I have heard nothing from you other than a vague argument of "it isn't warranted" with nothing to back up that position. I have presented verifiable facts to back up every position I present, and I am trying to keep each debate focused and not branch into duplicate discussions. Why are you here? Bytebear (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, one might make the same argument about you. Did you have something to say about my point? — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've replied to you once. You're very verbose, by the way. Scribner (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually I charge by the word. You're getting a deal. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Which is why you go to the articles about his campaign to find all of the relevant facts about Ayers and Wright. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's relevant enough to have a section in the Election article, isn't it relevant enough to have a mention and link in this main article? — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This may be old news, but has everyone seen this? Landon1980 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Havne' yet, will if I can ever complete an edit here. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, had a look. Doesn't seem excessively well-informed, but it's clear the controversy is leaking out. Again, the real issue here — as with other controversies of note, eg, climate change — is whether Wikipedia can manage to maintain a reputation for impartiality. Edit wars aren't helpful, but neither are revert-and-ban attacks. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

When people come here for no other reason than to scream their tinfoil POV and vandalize an article, then reverts and bans are not only helpful, but vital. Tarc (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. Neutral statements of sourced material aren't a "tinfoil POV." — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were actually proposing the addition of neutral, sourced material then you may have a point. Since you're not, you don't. Wright is already in the article. Ayers isn't going into this article. Birther-gate isn't going into this article. I realize that the conservative POV largely exists in its own echo chamber, where all is right and nothing is ever challenged, so it must be a rough adjustment for some to make once they hit the larger world here. But the reality here is that you simply aren't getting your way, and it is galling you to no end. I'm sorry, but there's simply not much that the Wikipedia can do for you.

Info on Obama is already presented in a neutral and objective manner. What you seek to insert would violate WP:NPOV, among other policies. Obviously, your opinion about that is contrary. But your opinion is in a distinct minority, and cannot and will not be given equal weight or time. This is about as clear a case as can be made on the matter. Tarc (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ayers issue is hardly a fringe theory. Every aspect of it has been referrenced by reliable sources. I am sorry, but you don't own wikipedia, and you do not speak for all editors. I am sorry that you are confusing the facts of the issue with the implications that you want to avoid. But facts are facts. Bytebear (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, Ayers does not belong in the Early life section. The view he was palling around with Ayers was Palin's rhetoric, and she was not Obama's biographer. No reliable sources say Ayers had any import. Nevertheless, the POV is included in the Obama vs McCain campaign articles where it belongs. Abstracting it into campaign section summary would be giving the rhetorical POV(s) undue weight here relative to all other campaign rhetoric that occurred. Modocc (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Tvoz/talk 06:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, i have previously pointed out several reliable sources, the best and most conprehensive is probably the CNN article, which is quoted extensively above. Bytebear (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't even a rudimentary grasp on editing guidelines here, I'm afraid. Reliable sourcing is only one of many criteria to meet, it is not the sole arbiter of inclusion. The fringe (and yes, it is) Ayers story already has an article of its own. The issue here isn't sourcing, but relevance and undue weight. Bill Ayers simply isn't important or relevant enough in an article solely about the biography of Obama. Trying to include it here is an exercise in pointy editing, an attempt to link a (in your opinion) unsavory radical to a president. Protip; "pals around with terrorists" didn't work for Sarah, and it ain't working for you either. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about undue weight. No weight is POV, undue weight is a significant amount of focus on Ayers. No one is asking for that. But no mention of Ayers, when CNN has clearly defined a long string of political connecitons, regardless of the implications, is POV. If we said "pal around with terrorists" that would be POV, but to omit all mention is equally POV. No one has asked to quote Palin in this article, so please don't use hyperbole to make a false point. Bytebear (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is about undue weight. There is no legitimate controversy surrounding Obama-Ayers itself. If there's any at all, is was more about people like you and Sarah trying to make it into a controversy, hence the separate article about all of it. You've lost this debate, rather badly. Time to move on. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) And the facts say there was no connection. If anything, the entry in the campaign section in reference to Ayers would at a minimum say "A connection was alleged, but all evidence supported the contrary opinion." Thank you for pointing out the obvious, we'll note it in the future. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

CNN makes several points of connection between the two. That is fact. The implications of that are not in discussion, and would be opinion anyway. But that connection did cause a major controversy in the 2008 campaign. No one has made any claim to introduce opinion into the article. Bytebear (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it both ways. CNN noted that the connections were not really connections at all and were, as everyone with any sense of rationality had already by that time figured out, that the connection was not relevant. Being a controversy isn't enough. There was many many many controversies during the campaign, as fleshed out in the CAMPAIGN ARTICLE (just thought I'd drop a hint dere...) that do not need to be elaborated on in Obama's biography, lest we scour the entire internet and add every controversy ever to the article. That isn't going to happen, so I don't know why you're all still barking up this tree. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a quote that says "the connections were not really connections at all?" Because the article I read said "... the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show." which is exactly the opposite of what you claim. Bytebear (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"A CNN review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved." Oh look, the article basically says what we new all along: Ayers and Obama were not palling around. "Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are." Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

So now that we've verified that there was no substance behind the fringe theory, we can let the issue reside in the pertinent article instead of misplacing it here, in the biography. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is asking to include a synopsis that Obama did anything inappropriate. But the association did cause a major controversy which is notable, and the other aspects of Ayers certainly apply to his entrance into politics, which is covered heavily in the article, including his work as a community organizer (on boards with Ayers) and the article mentions Alice Palmer who is also mentioned in the CNN article [24], which by the way is not a blog. So why is she noteworthy but Ayers is not? Bytebear (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) The association did not cause major controversy. There was nothing of substance in the 'relationship' to offer any credibility to "controversy". What caused controversy was the idea of a controversy that the fringe repeats over and over and over and over and over. They got lucky enough that Palin picked up the line, but once the MSM investigated and found out how much of a non-issue the Ayers connection was, no one took the issue seriously except as a way to discredit the originators of the "controversy." To the extent it effected his campaign, it is covered in the relevant article. "I like this fact better than the other facts" is not valid enough to overturn consensus on what the section should cover.

Also note that Palmer preceded Obama. Who had the seat before him is relevant to the article. Why even bring it up?216.96.150.33 (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaking fact from implications. The fact is that Ayers did have an association with Obama, and the fact is that there was a controversy regarding that relationship. Now your opinion may be that it was a lot of hooey, and that is your perogative. But it is not your right to supress those facts because you are worried that someone might come to a different conclusion. Wikipedia is about presenting facts, even if we don't like them. And I would re-read the article- Palmer is discussed in more depth than just the predecessor. Bytebear (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You assume bad faith, and you wonder why your edits are looked at with less and less credibility. "Right to supress..." Wash, utter complete, baseless wash from the deepest depths of ignorance. Adding Ayers is only relevant to Obama insofar as the fringe attempted to make him relevant. Is every taxi-driver Obama ever got picked up by relevant enough for this article? Every homeless person he helped during his organizing days? Every reporter from every end of the spectrum he shared the same air with? If there is substance, then you may call something substantial and add it to the article when relevant. There is no substance. It gets mention in the relevant article. This page is not relevant for the purpose of elaborating on a debunked conspiracy theory.

There are three mentions of her name in the article. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a referrence to the debunking of any of the facts I have presented? Bytebear (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, delicious. If you care about the Ayers connection, you would come in here and make us aware of the fact that we do not have an article discussing the subject. Then, realizing that we DO have an article about the Obama-Ayers "controversy", you would note that it might deserve warrant in the pertinent section of the main Obama biography - but this would be working under the following framework:

(1)That there was a controversy surrounding Ayers and Obama.

(2)That this controversy is significant enough that it deserves mention over the other controversies hitherto deigned worthy of placement.

As it pertains to (1), there was not and has never been an actual controversy (i.e., WND does not count) surrounding Ayers' and Obama's relationship. All sourced material states that their relationship was politically insignificant thereby discrediting the idea that something controversial had happened. The only thing that was controversial was believing and spreading the belief that Ayers and Obama were engaged in a controversial relationship.

In sum: it is incorrect to state that there was any sort of controversy surrounding the relationship, because the only thing controversial (and dear Lord am I furious at having to retype that word over and over and over again as if I'm stuck on some in between dimension in Dante's inferno) was believing in a controversy. This undermines the entire idea that Ayers-Obama is significant outside the fringe which is not to be given undue weight as WP's guidelines state.

(2) You must now, regardless of (1)'s validity, present evidence that this controversy was so important that it overshadows all other issues currently mentioned, or that it is significant enough that it actually warrants including more items within the relevant section. If this is the case, you undermine (2). The fact that Ayers-Obama must exceed all currently listed and accepted items in significance only means that the relevant article needs to be expanded with the bevy of accurate, credible sources you must have to back up this critical expansion.

The argument that there was a controversy is now bunk, as my prior analysis indicates. Also the argument for expanding the article to include the connection anyways is refuted. Thank you. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I don't understand your call for a reference "debunking" any "facts". It's simply not the case that, if we establish that Obama and Ayers were on a nonprofit board together, it will go into the article, and that the fact will stay out only if it can't be sourced or can be debunked. There are lots and lots of facts about a President of the United States that don't go into the main bio article, even though they're magnificently sourced and impervious to debunking. We're writing an encyclopedia article, not a multivolume biography, so we have to make judgments about what to include.

This has always been a problem for the NPOV rule. To give an example concerning a Republican: I've worked a lot on the Sarah Palin article. If I were writing the article according to my views of what's important, her exploitative and atavistic attitude toward the natural world would receive much more attention. In fact, however, putting such emphasis on environmental issues is my personal opinion. I haven't tried to insert a lengthy discussion in the article because I try to apply a standard of what's objectively important about the bio subject's life. Here, every unbiased source that's examined the subject has concluded that the Obama-Ayers connections were tenuous or casual or otherwise unimportant. Therefore, the issue isn't that someone is going to spring out of the bushes with a document proving that one of them resigned from the board before the other one joined, thus "debunking" your claim. The issue is that Ayers was one of innumerable people with whom Obama has come in contact during his life, and this particular contact didn't have a significant effect on Obama. It did have some effect on the campaign. That's why it's summarized in the campaign article, as well as being accorded its very own article for full exposition of the details. You'll note that there's a lot of other stuff in the campaign article that doesn't make it into this main bio article. That's an example of the correct application of the Wikipedia:Summary style guideline. JamesMLane t c 06:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said, sir! Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You clearly did not read the Ayers section of the talk page. You assumed I wanted referrences to conspiracies. You're assuming I want a long diatribe on Ayers. Please read *all* of my thougths before judging me. Thanks. Bytebear (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I made no assumption about what you wanted. (In other words, your assumption about my assumption is incorrect.) Your argument was to set up a false dichotomy to present your POV as the reasonable compromise: One side would be the adoption of Palin's smear as if it were fact (or one side would be the inclusion of a long diatribe), the other side would want to omit the subject, therefore a brief mention is a reasonable compromise. In general, however, we don't try to write our articles by finding an ideological midpoint among editors. Otherwise, as this example illustrates, the process would be subject to gaming by POV pushers who would set up an extreme so as to shift the midpoint. There was never any serious suggestion that we would assert in the article that Obama was palling around with terrorists, which would clearly violate NPOV. By contrast, the position that we should cover this campaign squabble only in the campaign article is fully supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as I tried to explain to you. JamesMLane t c 06:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To address the anonymous poster, your analysis was missing any referrences, so it ends up being opinion an original research. You need to understand the difference between the facts and the implications of facts. You are arguing against the implications, but I am not presenting or suggesting implications go into the article. Bytebear (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Denied. I am not unfamiliar with fence-straddling as a way of pushing NPOV. "It's just the facts!" What the facts say obviously matters or they wouldn't be bothered for inclusions in any articles. Since you have no logically justifiable reason to include the Ayers connection in this article, the idea is bunk and will not be included. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the key problem with this article is the lack of any critical comments regarding Obama. None at all. It may well be sensible to take an editorial decision not to refer to Ayers. It may well be sensible to take an editorial decision not to raise the eligibility question, and not to dwell on criticism of his first budget, etc, etc. The problem isn't that any particular criticism is mentioned in this article, it is that none are. And yet space is given to anodyne comments of praise such as "Many commentators mentioned Obama's international appeal as a defining factor for his public image". Of itself, taking an editorial position to write biographies in this way, may be reasonable, and all of the arguments offered in the FAQ are reasonable. The bias lies in this being the only article I am aware of that takes this editorial stance. The pages of other (living) people often mention criticism - and for some people are littered with it. I think you're always going to create discord as long as you try to take an editorial stance on this article that is so out of kilter with everything else on Wikipedia. Hibbertson (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems with the approach you suggest. Firstly, there really isn't anything truly notable to criticize Obama about. It's not like he committed the country to a pointless war based on lies, or anything like that. Secondly, Obama is (arguably) one of the most important people in the world, so it is absolutely essential that his biography is a close to perfect as possible. We should not lower the standards and quality of the article just because others don't meet the high standards found here. This is a Featured Article because it is an example of how all biographies of living persons, particularly of notable politicians, should be written. Also, what seems to be fundamentally misunderstood here is that this is a summary style article. The sheer quantity of information means that only the most notable (and in some cases, the most representative) information about Obama's biography (note the scope here) can make it into the article. Much of the detail is necessarily pushed to daughter articles (of which there are many). The consequence of this is that whenever you try to add something, for example, about William Ayers to the article, it elevates the importance of it to a point where it represents undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not arguing to add stuff about Ayers. I'm just very much against taking the approach of knocking back each criticism one by one without considering the criticism in aggregate. Not everyone is fully supportive of Obama or his policies - we should not imply that they are. But these are early days in his Presidency. In six months' time, after what, no doubt, will be further arguments with Congress and 40 senate votes against him, there will be more things to add (just as there will be more things to add in his favour). In the meantime, maybe it would be better to omit bland praise such as "Many commentators mentioned Obama's international appeal as a defining factor for his public image", which is pretty meaningless anyway - so that at least there is not the implication that we are not biased towards Obama, just because we do not offer detailed criticism of him. Hibbertson (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You are advocating that we remove positive-sounding material (it isn't "praise") simply because it doesn't seem balanced? That doesn't seem like an appropriate system at all. Also, you have to remember what we are comparing here. The "Ayers thing" was a campaign-specific right-wing smear campaign, whereas Obama's "international appeal" is a broader issue that is biographically-relevant (and has resulted in a significant improvement in international relations). Likewise, the way certain votes may go in the future will not be a matter for this biography, but rather it will be a matter for the article on the presidency. Again, you are misunderstanding the summary style thing - you cannot put everything in one article. You can only put biographical, particularly noteworthy or highly representative things in the BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No. "Many commentators mentioned Obama's international appeal as a defining factor for his public image" is unattributed praise, and weasel words. If there is a particular group of people that considered the point and came to that conclusion, then name them (in the article). If we can go no better than weasel words, then omit it. (I'm not looking to be for or against Obama - quite frankly I'm neutral, and will be at least until he gets a fair way into his presidency so I have something to judge him on.) I'm not misunderstanding a summary style - I am understanding that there are example of weasel words that sound like praise. If I know who the commentators are, I can consider whether they are suitably qualified, whether they are biased, whether they are worth taking note of, why they might consider Obama to have "international appeal". If they are just "many commentators" on Obama's (apparently self-evident) "international appeal", that is bland praise.

I should add that there are other examples of such weasel words (but not too many to be honest). Either firm up the attributions, or omit them. Hibbertson (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note...editors should guide criticisms of the Presidency of Barack Obama to that particular article first. I imagine criticisms will be summarized here at some point. Scribner (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting without referencing the source (because this isn't meant to be specific to one person): "[T]here really isn't anything truly notable to criticize Obama about." This is a very specific example of the point I was making: the notion that someone might be so much the paragon as to brook no "notable" criticism seems improbable. I could manage notable criticisms of Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Amendment of template

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversy or Criticism sections and subarticles

Obama may be the most rational, articulate, and intelligent president in living memory, and I for one think he is doing and will do exceedingly well. With that out of the way, it must be said that anyone who deals in controversial issues generates controversy and even criticism. There may be honest arguments against the creation of criticism sections, and IMHO "controversy sections" are less vulnerable to such arguments. But there nevertheless are controversy and criticism sections for the simple reason that they are necessary and not to mention useful; they contain difficult elements within a particular framework wherin they can be "neutralized" and treated encyclopedically.

As proof of their usefulness, we can look at the number of "criticism of" articles (criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Wal-Mart, Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of Christianity, the list goes on), and a searchlist of controversy articles will show the same thing. This is also true of Bush, another U.S. President, who's article has a number of critical subordinates: Criticism of George W. Bush, Public perception of George W. Bush, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush. None of which should be particularly controversial.

This is also true of Obama, who has at this time at least one controversial section: Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#Campaign_controversies, which only leads to another article, the speciously named "Bill Ayers presidential election controversy" article. When in fact Bill Ayers does actually run for president (of UIC maybe), this article title would be quite accurate, althought the body text would have to go somewhere more appropriate.

So, here's the point. I like the guy. And I'm sure he wont "fail," as some here may "hope." But I also like controversy and even criticism sections. They can't not exist: even ESPN and recycling and The Lion King have "criticism of" articles; each of which grew from sections in the main article. Its just a fact of Wikilife that we have to deal with controversial topics, and one of the primary ways of dealing with such things is containment first, and then development if necessary. I think Obamaites here are obviously violating the spirit of Wikipedia in deleting, censoring, erasing, whatever you want to call it, any controversial concepts, regardless of how inane. In fact, its more inane not to deal with them: if there is no substance in such charges, dealing with them only shows how little substance the beings who promote them have. Indeed, it would be cosmically ironic if someone of Obama's substance were "defended" by people of such little substance that they didn't understand this basic concept. -Stevertigo 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your well-thought question (and well-made point) is that there is an active corps of editors who are deft with POV edits that cast the president in a positive light, while wrapping themselves in the warm blanket of unilateral "neutrality." Newguy34 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But to be fair, there is also an active corps of editors who are deft with POV edits that cast the President in a negative light, while wrapping themselves in the warm blanket of unilateral "neutrality." Both have either not read, not understood, or else simply choose not to adhere to WP:DBAD. -Stevertigo 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that what is listed above for examples have had years, some even decades, to garner such criticisms. Wal-Mart, Bush, recycling, etc...have been subjected to numerous, in-depth critical analysis from reliable, mainstream, widely-recognized sources. The current president has barely gotten the seat warm yet, and what criticism exists so far is little more than a Two Minutes Hate litany, rattled off by ideological, fringe foes. As reliable sources have time and material on which to offer critical commentary and analysis, I have no doubt that some day a Criticisms of Barack Obama will appear here. We aren't at that point now, though. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cut Tarc wrote: "I have no doubt that some day a Criticisms of Barack Obama[sic] will appear here. We aren't at that point now, though." How long will it be? Please format your answer in minutes. IYHO, can we stub the "criticism of" article now, and populate it as we go? It can be basically empty, like the 2016 Summer Olympics article, or movies that haven't come out yet, and have a "this article contains future [criticism]..." for a headerbox. I understand that we don't like all the player-haters coming in and basically vandalizing the page. If they had their way, we'd be, well, Conservapedia. Which is just a sad thing to read. But anyway, I eagerly await your answer. -Stevertigo 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally do not dignify strawman constructions with answers, so you may be waiting a long time, fyi. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including controversies and criticisms in this article, so please stop acting like the only way to do this is by creating a criticism/controversy section. The existence of criticism/controversies sections in other articles is not a valid reason for including such a section in this article and the constant bring up of "But WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS!" by those that want to add one to this article is about as tired and worn out intellectually that it is just laughable on its face and makes one wonder if people that constantly bring it up are, to quote Stevertigo, "of such little substance that they didn't understand this basic concept." (Thanks for the personal attack, btw) The only reason why criticism/controversy sections exist is because editors can sometimes be too lazy to actually work them into the existing sections of the article. If there is a criticism/controversy in regards to Obama's presidential campaign, is it really that hard to work it into the campaign section of the article if it is a "major" controversy/criticism, or, if it is a "minor" controversy/criticism, into the campaign sub-article? Stevertigo, before you go hitting others with cluesticks, give yourself a good beating. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that there is another way of doing it, but if I was ambiguous in my first message, let me make it clear to you: Controversy and criticism sections are good. Controversial articles without them tend to suck. And FYI its not "lazy" (thanks for the personal attack btw) to be confused and hampered by bad writing that tries to dance between positive and negative concepts: "Obama promoted embryonic stem cell research, but some were opposed to it. Obama promoted fair housing, but some were opposed to it... "

Treating controversy this way is fine if you want to be POV and treat any controversial concepts in only one-dimensional form. Again, I tend to find most such criticism of Obama to be one-dimensional in its own right. It would be foolhardy not to let such criticism be self-explanatory.

By the way, after that long list and search links above (demonstrating at least the ubiquity and 'widespread universality' of controversy and criticism sections and articles) this: "The only reason why criticism/controversy sections exist is because editors can sometimes be too lazy to actually work them into the existing sections of the article" has to be one of the stupidest concepts ever expressed on the subject. But I know you were only joking, and yes it was funny. -Stevertigo 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

-

(edit conflict) Then take it to WT:NPOV as WP:STRUCTURE seems to strongly disagree with you on thinking that criticisms sections are good. WP:NPOV is not negotiable.--Cerejota (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that a controversy/criticism section would very quickly become a honey pot for whoever has some gripe against Obama and would degenerate into a whining session of things that people don't like about him. Instead, if it is a real controversy with some merit behind it, then there would be no issue or problem incorporating it into the body of the article. Brothejr (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not enough of a reason to avoid controversial topics. I don't like criticism sections. I think it breaks up the narative of the page, but I do not believe we should avoid presenting something that is factual, verifiable and noteworthy because we are afraid someone might add something that isn't. Bytebear (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep on saying it is factual, verifiable, and note worthy. The thing is there is very few facts involved, the majority of the reliable sources that mention it, says there is nothing there, and it is not noteworthy outside the conservative blogs. Brothejr (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. I gave several well documented referrences, the most comprehensive by CNN. Someone (I believe it was you, but don't quote me on that) retorted with a CNN blog calling it popppycock. The CNN article specifically said (and I am quoting this for the third time) "the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show" [25] Bytebear (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you are incorrect. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

Your own source (cnn) disagrees with your assessment and agrees with the status quo that including Ayers in anything gives undue weight to the idea he was anything more than the other people Obama knows but are not mentioned. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you just say that blogs were not verifiable sources? Bzzz!!! Try again. Bytebear (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I need to point it out: the source happens to be CNN, the material happens to contradict your tired quote-mining and makes the entire debate with you an exercise in inanity. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The souce was a CNN blog (not a reliable source) and it also was commenting specifically on Palin using the phrase "palling around with terrorists." I agree that that particular phrase is incorrect, but the facts about Obama and Ayers having a polticial relationship are clearly factual. Palin's conclusions are not. Bytebear (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) No. Blogs owned by Steve the Mechanic are not reliable sources. Blogs used by mainstream media organizations, when not clearly marked as editorials or opinion pieces, are as relevant as any other source but not preferred over other sources if they are available. The piece refuting your steaming pile of bunk is not an editorial or an opinion piece, so you can stop trying hold them as equivalent right now. The conclusions about their relationship are true actually: but only those conclusions that say "there was no relationship, this is all just a pointless waste of time!"*

• They also need to come from reliable sources, like CNN and not WorldNetDaily. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest an alternative?

There is a lot of arguments here about the inclusion of certain information. As someone who has not worked on the article, I would like to offer an objective viewpoint. We could possibly add information to the Public image of Barack Obama article about Ayers, to make it accessible. We could also add short, blurbs about Ayers and Wright to the Cultural and political image section of the article. This would solve a lot of problems. First, it would add what many editors argue is relevant information with significant news coverage. In contrast, it would also not give undue weight to these topics, and would pass no POV judgements on whether they are valid. It is indisputable that both Ayers and Wright affected Obama's image for many groups, so it would not be unreasonable to add them to this section while also maintaining neutrality. Just a simple opinion from a detached editor. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How is this helpful? How does it address the comment above? -Stevertigo 21:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayers is elaborated upon in the appropriate article. If you had observed objectively; first the arguments for the inclusion vs. the standing arguments against, you would know that Ayers and all of his 'ties' to Obama have been written about, in appropriate detail, within the relevant articles. The only way to add it here is to produce evidence that it was more substantial than anything else currently contained within the article now. Since you want to add it to his public image article, you must now demonstrate the same thing: that Ayers - William Ayers himself, and his views - was a substantial moment in defining his image. The view that it indeed effected Obama is one held only by the fringe and the right (had you objectively observed this talk page you would have realized this also), so as per wikipedia policy regarding fringe material, it will not be added and the suggestion is without merit. Have a nice day. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cut In some contexts (I'm using tedious language here now), overlap and even a little redundancy is good. Sometimes its OK to define a concept using other concepts, and liking to those other concepts without explaining what they are. On the other hand, if it only takes a sentence or even two, its often useful to explain what a compositional concept means, even if that concept has its own article.

Its also possible (more tedious language here) that some people, who are sometimes called "partisans" or "POV editors", are under the impression that they should remove negative information (deletionism). If they can't for whatever reason delete it outright, they have no problem marginalizing it away from the core and toward the extremities, where it can be sanitized and de-referenced from the core. That's just the way POV editors tend to operate, and like certain sci-fi character archetypes, find it nearly impossible to accept what they really are.

Rather than identifying particular people as partisans, or even to focus on particular controversies, we Wikipedians have traditionally preferred to simply isolate the troublesome matter and treat it effectively. Criticism and controversy sections are not controversial nor POV, nor "lazy," nor "fringe." I appreciate your dictatorial style though, and you too "have a nice day". -Stevertigo 22:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If this is such a context you must demonstrate this - being only possible if similar arguments have not already in the past been raised. Since this article did not just pop out of thin air you can assume that many editors have spent a lot of time on this article, and in doing so probably came to a consensus on the current formatting. Are you saying they did not take into account the possibility for criticism / controversy during his term? Do you think the linked subsections that detail every thing Obama did during the campaign are full of glorious praise for our Dear Messiah?

When you start with the supposition that the current problem is due to phantasmic partisan forces then you must ask yourself this: why are you here in this festering pit of liberal dogmatism?

My point: If your aim is to productively collaborate, assuming your other editors are closed minded ideologues will not achieve that end.

Now do I personally believe that YOU are a partisan POV pusher underneath an (apparently) thin veil of trying to "help?" No. I think that you're assuming too much bad faith, and not doing the necessary ground work before you begin to type your responses in this thread. I could be wrong; I'm not God nor am I the arbiter of the truth, but I see what I see.

In regards to our implied hand-waving of criticisms and/or controversy, please note that A) nothing controversial has happened, B) nothing controversial enough has happened yet to require expanding those aspects of Obama's presidency outside their necessary articles (policy and etc.). Those items (Ayers, Birth certificate, Wright) that people are lobbying so hard to include are the only things being specifically labeled as fringe or partisan muck, and for a good, already firmly established, reason. If you also have a problem with controversy and criticism sections being labeled as "lazy", you only need such a section if the majority constituent of the subject is so connected to controversy that it cannot be responsibly separated and discussed without including discussion of the relevant controversy, they aren't avoided because of some vague mafia of style nazis that run things from space.216.96.150.33 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the Ayers/Obama relationship is not a fringe theory. It doesn't even come close to qualifying as fringe. Aside from the fact that they both worked closely on the same comittees, that Obama wrote a review of Ayers book, that Obama praised Ayers work in education and the comittee he chaired gave money to Ayers' programs. All of these things are well documneted facts with reliable sources. Bill Ayers is not bigfoot! (Really this needs to go into the FAQ.) The other fact is that the Republicans made a big stink about this relationship. That too is a fact. The implications are somehting Wikipedia doesn't deal with. This is the "fear" that you seem to have. That if given the facts, people might come to the wrong conclusion. Well, you cannot determine anyone's conclusions. And you cannot supress facts just because you are afraid of what people might think. So, drop the "fringe theory" because that dog don't hunt. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a "fringe" theory, but its definitely an "asshat" theory. Yes, the Weather Underground were kind of a bunch of idiots in their own right, and any guilt by association style criticism is no doubt due to the fact that there are no such asshats on the Republican conservative side. No, instead of fighting in a barbaric war, they decided to blow up government property and fuck a lot in a bus. Of course the associations are so incriminating. -Stevertigo 22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

do not believe the issue here should be if it is a fringe theory, otherwise, people like Howard Kurtz, George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, all of which made the alleged connections a campaign issue, must be classified as fringe theorists. Ayers affected Obama's image when McCain used it as a major campaign device. Obama found it public image affecting enough to issue numerous answers to the claims. To say Ayers was not part of Obama's image during the campaign and now, is, frankly, ridiculous. But, as some have pointed out more eloquently than I, Ayers should not be given undue weight and should be dealt with as far as he is notable. I believe the issue is and was notable enough to Obama's image to warrant one sentence at least. Whether or not it was true or misleading has nothing to do with its effect on the President's image. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And that one sentence should go into a controversies/criticism section. -Stevertigo 22:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the fringe theory, I assume is that Obama is a terrorist because he associated with Ayers. But that's not what any of these people were talking about (except Palin, but she was a nut). Ayers had some very radical ideas about public education. He wrote a book all about it. Obama endorsed that book, and the organization he chaired gave money to Ayers' organization. So, the "fringe theory" is really that Obama's ideas about education are as radical as Ayers. Sounds reasonable to me. Too bad the media chose not to investigate it further. Bytebear (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the extent to which we should cover it in the article is one sentence like: "McCain, Clinton, and others criticized Obama for what they perceived as an inappropriate Bill Ayers, using the ensuing controversy in their political campaigns." This would cover who said it, why it was notable, and would not argue for any side. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it better to be covered in the section about his early political career and mention the two boards he was on, then mention that while on these boards he worked with Ayers on education reform, and then mention that this association was criticized by ..." This acomplishes two things. 1) it gives some insight on what he was doing as a community organizer (in a neutral way) and 2) it gives background as to why he was criticized. Bytebear (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Scapler, that edit already exsists in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article. This is where a "See Also" addition would be helpful. Scribner (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Both articles also state that Obama announced his campaign on 2/10/07. The fact that is mentioned in another article is not relevant, because the issue here is whether it should be in this article. If you do not believe it should be, then your opinion is welcome, but I suggest you see WP:SUMMARY: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." (emphasis added). Also, please remain civil and refrain from sarcasm. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to reiterate, I do not think we should mention Bill Ayers in the Obama article, and I do not think this is the appropriate time to try to build a consensus for that. Once the article returns to normal editing I'm all ears, though skeptical. Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts to discuss the issue. Yes, we have had a few drive bys on both sides (but not moreso than usual), and yes, the media attention has drawn in some new faces, but I look at it as an opportunity to have a fresh look at what is clearly of concern to a lot of people. I also want to avoid biting the newbie. Nothing wrong with discussing the issues now. We may even come to a reasonable solution. I certainly feel the discussions have been worthwhile. Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I noticed you haven't addressed the issue of avoiding guilt by associations in the BLP guide. Why the silence on this? Scribner (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(interupting) The policy states "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." No one is suggesting making any claims about Obama's character. No one is suggesting that the claims of the critics are true. Presenting facts is not the same as making claims. Bytebear (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, for those arguing for the see also section, take a second or two and look at the bottom of the page at the templates. Also take a moment or two and look at each section and the main articles at the top of each section and the wikil;inks within each. If you notice, all the links to the majority of the articles, including the controversies, are already included. Also, why is it so important to discuss and push Ayers into the article now? As far as I and others know, no new information has come to light between the two and basically everything that has been brought up already has been brought up in the past and is mainly of a synthesis nature. Brothejr (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. No details about their relationship has changed. No new details have surfaced. Ayers has yet to be so pertinent to Obama's life that he need mention outside the campaign article. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You are basically arguing againt a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia: Consensus can chnage. Bytebear (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)It may change if there is new information, yet there is not. So again, all that is going on here is drudging up an old argument in the hopes that maybe this time it might go into the article. That is what all this boils down to, no matter which way it is said. Brothejr (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Which certainly doesn't count when the new consensus comes from WorldNetDaily.216.96.150.33 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine line between harping on Consensus can change and WP:IFICANOUTLASTTHEMMAYBEICANGETMYWAY, though. That's not how it works, and no amount of consensus can override core policy. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is "them?" Is it you? Is it me? Bytebear (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be those who know that Wiki policy does not allow what you want to appear in this article. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear obviously, a lot of people don't buy your hellbent motive of being purely in the interest of historical fact. I don't, but that aside, the Ayers' mention doesn't warrant mention in Obama's biography. Scribner (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But why? I have not heard one good argument. I have heard it's "fringe" but that's total bullshit. Then the argument shifts to "it's unfactual" and I prove that it is. Then it goes to "it's not noteworthy" and I give several referrences that prove that it is. So why? Let me hear a decent argument, instead of the crap I have been given. To start you off, I will help, "It's not noteworthy because... " Bytebear (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, please read WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Ayers and Obama sat on two totally non-controversial boards together and participated in a couple totally non-controversial academic panels together. That's it.

The so-called "palling around relationship" generated some minor excitement (and smears) from certain VP candidates and conservative blogs in the last week or so of the 2008 campaign. NPOV coverage is given to this campaign event and their relationship in the relevant campaign article. There is also an entire article devoted to discussing this campaign event and their relationship in what appears to be mind numbingly microscopic detail. It's one thing to argue for a brief NPOV mention of the campaign issue in the campaign section of this article as a convenience to the reader, but your proposal above tries to paint Ayers as a significant factor in Obama's life by expanded coverage of someone who was objectively not really significant. Minor campaign blip? Sure. And we already cover it appropriately in campaign and topic articles. Large enough factor for his summary style biography? Nope. And giving it undue weight is unfair to both the reader and the subject. --guyzero | talk 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly this conversation is turning into an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Maybe it is about time to close this as there will be no end to it. Brothejr (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see adding a mention of Ayers, even that he was on boards with Obama as undue. But this argument does negate several others, specifically: fringe, noteworthy and verifiable. You must then agree that the Ayers information passes those tests to move to the "undue weight" argument. The article mentions Alice Palmer several times. Is she more noteworthy tham Ayers? Read the CNN article. It goes well into depth of Obama an Ayers. It wasn't about palling around, but about their similar views on education reform. And it wasn't just republicans who brought it up. Clinton also brought up the issue in the primaries. So, I don't see the issue as undue weight at all. But omiting isn't undue weight (even by your definitions), it is no weight at all which is clearly POV. Bytebear (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more POV to cherry pick one individual from a lifetime of mentors and name him as being so influential in Obama deciding to run for office, particularly when Obama denies that claim. Scribner (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, if that individual were not noteworthy. But Ayers is. Linking Obama to, say, Blagovich would be inappropriate because there is no reliable sources discussing the two. But with Ayers there are. Plenty. Bytebear (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) You must prove that (1) Ayers the person was substantial to Obama's life. You must also prove that (2) Ayers, as a detail of Obama's life, deserves special consideration when deciding what to include and what not to include.

(1) Is refuted by all available evidence: Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are. as per http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/ also http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

(2) Is refuted as a function of the argument: if Ayers is so important he deserves mention, then he deserves more mention than is given in the summary of a biography, and would be given his own article as he related to campaign, which is already the case. Either Ayers isn't substantial enough to deserve mention, or his significance is such that limiting him to a small portion of a summary is inappropriate.

You may go, "BUT WAIT! He still deserves mention within the middle ground of the dilemma you have falsely burdened on me!" But you see there is no middle ground: only if you assume that this article popped out of no where, that it's current format was arbitrarily decided amongst a monocled liberal cohort, and that no one else did any investigation or thinking when constructing this article, can you claim that Ayers deserves mention. you see, because otherwise you realize that Ayers-Obama was an item evaluated against the multiplicity of other items that are elaborated upon in the relevant $_Obama-$_thing article, and that their inclusion or disclusion was the result of careful deliberation amongst many dedicated editors. If Ayers-Obama deserves modification in some way, it is to happen in the relevant article and not anywhere else. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The CNN article was written because Ayers was mentioned in the 2008 campaign. CNN says that the sum total of Obama and Ayers relationship is that they were on two non-controversial boards together, that they spoke at non-controversial panels together, and that Obama endorsed Ayers' book. Insignificant stuff in the context of Obama's entire life, and honestly to argue otherwise is trying to push fringe POV.

Why aren't we talking about all of the other board members or panel members or book endorsements? The CNN article shows that their relationship is insignificant, so writing about extensively (i.e. anything other than a short sentence inside the 08 campaign section) effectively continues the (false) smear by (insignificant) association. Your idea that they have "similar views" on education is just your opinion. --guyzero | talk 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I will use Alice Palmer as an example. Was she more important than Ayers? She is mentioned three times. You also use your blog as "proof" that Ayers and Obama didn't pal around. But that blog (aside from being a blog) is discussing the phrase "palling around with terrorists" which really doesn't play into the issue of verifiablity. Finally, I will repeat the specifics from the CNN article (not a blog) [26]:

• "... the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show."
• "Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project."
• "For seven years, Ayers and Obama -- among many others -- worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers. "
• "While working on the Annenberg project, Obama and Ayers also served together on a second charitable foundation, the Woods Fund. It was that foundation that Obama referenced in the debate -- not the Annenberg Challenge."
• " CNN review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved." -this is important because it isn't the intent of myself to portray this connection as innappropriate.
• "In 1995, months after the little-known Obama became Annenberg chairman, state Sen. Alice Palmer introduced the young lawyer as her political heir apparent. The introduction was made over coffee at the home of Ayers and Dohrn."
• "Dr. Quentin Young, a longtime physician, now retired, referred to the gathering as the political coming-out party for Obama."
• "Obama praised Ayers' book on the subject in a 1997 Chicago Tribune review, calling it 'a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.'"
• "the Obama-Ayers connection exploded into the national news Saturday when McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accused Obama of "palling around" with a domestic terrorist." - I point this out only to show that this particular referrence can be used to show that the issue was "explosive".

By the way, if these boards are so innocent, why are neither of them nentioned in the article? Bytebear (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I belive the lack of mention of the Annenberg project is because it will open the door to Ayers, so we lose vital information because of censorship. So even though an important part of Obama's life with no negative conotations is being hidden because of potential implications. How very sad. And none of you seem to be bothered by that. Protecting the innocent reader from learning about Ayers is more important than presenting important facts? Bytebear (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to prove that any of this is significant to Obama's life. Sorry to spoil your conspiracy theory and claim of censorship but, both boards (Annenberg, Woods) are mentioned in this article. --guyzero | talk 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, so they are. I guess my search feature wasn't working. All the more reason to show how such connections led to a major (not a minro blip) controversy in the presidential campaign came to be. Serisously, all you have to say in one sentence is "It was during this time that Obama worked with William Ayers, an association that caused some controversy in his 2008 presidential bid". That's it. Simple.Bytebear (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I don't know how many ways or home many times this needs to be explained to you. Here's another try. Obama, meet Ayers. Ayers, meet Obama. See? They met. There's really not much to it. Where the WP:FRINGE comes in though is that there was something notable and exceptional about an aspiring politician meeting with an aging radical. Conservatism had a field day with it, and the reverb of their blogosphere was deafening. When reliable sources touched on it though was to note the brouhaha over the far right's making a big deal of it, not about the assertions themselves. As I said earlier to another WP:SPA, "I believe that you are confusing coverage of the controversy vs. promotion of the controversy." Tarc (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, we are back onto the fringe theory. Sorry, ayers is not bigfoot! Bytebear (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and pease avoid personal attacks. I have plenty of experience on Wikipedia to warrant my views and my place here. Bytebear (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's safe to say that we are no longer obligated to respond to your queries. Your arguments have been met and refuted multiple times not just in the recent past but back within the ol' dusty archives as well. There is no significance outside of the fringe between Ayers and Obama, it fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, and was thusly omitted. When you provide evidence to the contrary, in a manner and tone suggesting we would not be wasting our time by addressing you, then perhaps we will no longer be at an impasse. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, since you seem to either fundamentally misunderstand core Wikipedia policy, or this is a simple case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it is not an attack at all. It is an assessment of your actions on this page. It doesn't matter how many times the same ground is rehashed by the WND Brigade, or how many basic policies and guidelines they ignore, they are still going to come to the same end; there is no justification for Bill Ayers being in a biography of Barack Obama. I think all that can be said has been said on this particular tangent, so until a new angle crops up, I'll leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No so fast, my friends. Are Obama and Ayers close? That calls for subjectivity. Did Ayers host a fundraiser for Obama? The record is clearly, yes. Does this discussion belong in this article? Well, that depends who you talk to. But the partisan attempts to paint this as a right wing fringe theory and to, in the process, attempt to dismiss the discussion out of hand is embarrassing and transparent. Maybe what Fox News claims is true... Newguy34 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that we are losing sight of the issue, we are not and should not be trying to prove ties between Obama and Ayers. The tie or lack thereof should not be the fact presented in the article. Rather, the fact that others have criticized Obama for there perceptions of the connections between the two is. We are not here to push an agenda, so we should not assert anything about the truthfulness (or truthiness ha) of the claim. The fact remains, Obama has been criticized on the issue by notable political figures, and it has become a part of his public image, at least enough for one sentence. One sentence in the midst of the thousands of sentences in this article would not be undue weight. It is relevant enough for that, the connections are not to be proved here, but the existence of criticism of Obama on the subject is irrefutable. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to poke a hole in your theory, but outside the small conservative blogsphere, no one is talking about this other then to comment how the conservatives won't let this go. The only people who are still bringing this up are those who are still sore over the election. Claims that this is part of his public image is not enough to add a line to the main article. As it has been mentioned many and many and many times, it has to be a significant part of his life for a mention in this main summary style bio. As it has been said over and over again, none of this has been a major or even really a minor part of his life and only those who are pushing an agenda are still saying that we must include something about this in the article. Brothejr (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, I am obviously an evil editor trying to push an agenda. I have remained nothing but cordial here, but you are determined not to be. Unfortunately, it seems that, though you absolutely refuse to accept it, not all editors agree with you. Yours is not the only viewpoint, and, at the moment, the article contains little criticism of the man interspersed throughout, despite the presence of such criticism in reliable sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as you keep trying to ram a minority POV into the article, despite repeated policy guideline citations that tell you that that simply cannot happen, then you are going to keep running into a brick wall. [WP:AGF]] can only go so far, and cannot be used a shield to protect oneself from tendentious editing. Tarc (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am calling it what it is. Yours is not the only viewpoint, and, at the moment, the article contains little criticism of the man interspersed throughout, despite the presence of such criticism in reliable sources. So you are really saying and pushing for exactly the same thing as everyone else. That in itself is not good faith and even in a way not cordial. As has been pointed out, all it is, is a form of disruptive editing. A variety of people have come in here and have told you and others that there is very little chance that Ayers will be mentioned in the article, even one sentence, due to a variety of reasons and policies. It also seems that a good portion of editors pushing for the inclusion didn't even read the articles they are using as references to back their claims up, are not fully aware of Wikipedia's policies, may not have even read the article itself, followed the wikilinks within it, or looked at the templates at the bottom. The majority of this "cordial" discussion has been done in a bad faith attempt to push more criticism, as they see it, into the article. Finally, one line would not do it with most editors arguing for inclusion. Let's end this farce and close this non-productive discussion. Brothejr (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not "disruptively" done anything. I merely saw the heated debates here, and attempted to propose an alternative. You disagree with me, fine, that is what I brought it up for, to have a discussion on the two sides of the issue. But, as with all the previous discussions on this page, this one has turned into finger pointing and insults (from both sides). I am NOT pushing a POV! I only observed something that many editors viewed as a problem, I have not pushed that any relationship between Ayers and Obama is true, only that it has been covered in the press. Please, many have not stated it well, and some have crossed the line in their arguments, but do no blanket people, some are actually trying to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections

Main pages: Wikipedia:Criticism and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Criticism and praise

Again, I dislike most of the "criticism" against Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that such exists. Again, there are controversial topics, and we use controversy and criticism sections to contain such issues, protect the rest of the article, and develop and explain such criticism. Opponents would have us believe that such sections are rare, when in fact, a simple search for "criticism of" site:Wikipedia on Google shows 16,700 hits! [27].

Criticism sections do exist. Why? That's not the real question; the fact is that they do, and if someone doesn't like their usage in one article, they have to challenge their usage in all articles. The real question is why do people think this article should be treated differently than any other controversial article? Are they biased? Did these same people work on George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception and its developed article Criticism of George W. Bush? A certain stereotype might be (or have been) supportive of criticism, criticism sections, and criticism sub-articles, related to the Bush article, but against these things in dealing with Obama. Would that be hypocrisy? It actually would be. The converse is also true; there are those who opposed elaborations on criticism in the Bush article, but support such here. Hypocrisy, also, if true. What this means, if true, is that partisans need to be demoted to other duties, such that encyclopedists can take over and make some improvements. Its not bad as it is, it just has the appearance of being cleansed, by people with that agenda keenly in mind.

Opponents have cited a couple "policy" pages; Wikipedia:Criticism sections is not policy, but an essay that used (until I made some heavy edits) a Jimbo quote out of context to back its own criticism of criticism sections. Jimbo said they can be useful or else can be a problem. I wonder if he still holds that view, and would be willing to clarify or update it. WP:STRUCTURE doesn't really rule criticism sections out either, if one reads it carefully. Wikipedia:Criticism is the core policy page on the subject, and some of this discussion should perhaps migrate there, such that it any ambiguity can be dealt with. WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise, though much touted, makes no mention of criticsm sections perhaps its because there are in fact too many useful examples (16,700 according to a little web page called "Google") to rule out their usage entirely, as some here seem to want to do. -Stevertigo 17:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

False dilemma: As if we are limited to either liking all criticism sections or we're not. What a load of crap. YOU must justify a criticism section for this article - without using the justification that "other articles do it!" Such puerile statements serve no purpose.

You don't even care to seriously contemplate the reasons for the absence of a criticism section here; ignoring previously made arguments pertaining to their omission from the article, suggesting that there is some ulterior motive for the differences found in two different articles about two very different people edited by different groups of people. The only partisan problems we've had have been those originating from WorldNetDaily and the still-weeping losers of November 4th. To suggest otherwise is to suggest bad faith against the multiplicity of editors that have hitherto been working diligently on this article.

Also, FYI - Criticisms (when they exist) are built into the relevant article, which can be easily found within the apt subsections - controversy's surrounding policy are usually located within those articles dedicated to Obama's Presidential policy.

If you want to complain about Bush, then go to his article and complain.216.96.150.33 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing, the controversies that have merit have already been worked into the article (I.E. read the personal and family section.) and there already are links within the article for people to follow if they want to learn more about any controversy (Take a look in the Public image template at the bottom of the page.). The only two things that a controversy section would do would to give criticisms and controversies more weight then they really have and also to become a honey pot for any person who has a gripe against Obama. If there is any new controversy (His presidency has only just begun give it time something big will come along), then we can incorporate it into the article. Right now, everything that is being complained about are election stunts by those still pissed off over the election. Currently they are covered in the correct articles and have no merit to belong here. Brothejr (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, your search criteria is faulty. You are performing a search for the word "Criticism" (google doesn't do searches for the word "of" if another word is in the search field) in all wikipedia articles, not just the ones that have "Criticism of" in the title. No one is arguing that the word criticism can not be used in the article. If you do a proper intitle google search, you only get 157 returns intitle:"Criticism of" site:wikipedia.org. Out of the millions of articles in Wikipedia 157 returns on a proper intitle search is very small. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty impressed how low that number is, although even some of those could probably go. Let's forget all the policy and pseudopolicy and essays for the minute. Somebody propose what a "criticism" section in this article would contain that would make the article better-written than if the same information was merged into the rest of the article. Or better find me any reputable source whose biography of Obama is organised in this way. How many criticism sections does Britannica have? Three! "What a puff piece!" Bigbluefish (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the number, if not about the idea of deleting them. But I was also including the concept that the search would indicate which articles have criticism sections (or controversy sections in the other search term). My term may have been far too wide, indeed. But yours appears to be too narrow. Perhaps there is a way to include sections in the search term? -Stevertigo 19:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a way to search section headers, but there is bound to be a way. You might try asking on WP:VPT. Regardless, the existence of Criticism/Controversy sections in other articles does not mean a section should be created in this article. There are going to be a fairly decent number of articles that have them, but a majority of articles will not have them so identifying articles that have a criticism/controversy section is not going to help you any. You need to explain how a section dedicated to criticisms is a superior article format than including the criticisms in the appropriate sections of the article. Above you said that interleaving them into the existing prose sucks because you end up with "Obama has X position, but Y criticized him because Z". I don't see how that would be different than the structure of criticism sections which invariably go "Y was critical of Obama for his position on X because Z." And since we have to be NPOV, that is almost always followed by "However, A was supportive of Obama's position on X, because B." I have yet to see a criticism section/article that has been managed properly, especially if the person is living and in the public eye. Invariably the section turns into a pile of drek (see Criticism of Bill O'Reilly) in which someone finds a minor criticism/controversy about the person and blows it out of proportion. Who cares that O'Reilly got Pepsi to drop Ludacris. I believe the argument for inclusion goes "But Franken mentioned it in his book!! We have to include it!! This article is about criticisms and this is a criticism!!!" --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is pretty simple: Criticism sections allow for the context of criticism to be dealt with in depth not possible in a main article. In the main article, criticism issues are often destroyed or else undeveloped. Of course, this depends of what one considers to be "developed" or "undeveloped", but in general, this issue to me is no different than Falun Gong or astrology, or any other article which adherents attempt to keep sanitized. Criticism issues also hamper the development of a main article, whereas a subarticle can contain all of the controversial editing. Paranoia against hacks and quacks, instead of being contained to the subarticle, means that such criticism need to be purged, and handled in accord with much much more strict BLP standards. 'Strict standards' in this case often just means exclusionism. You aren't arguing for exclusionism are you? BLP articles thus are easy to game, with regard to removing criticism. Critical sections or subarticles contains the "drek", and is an easy way to find both NPOV compromise, and to comply with NPOV itself. Certainly, an argument against criticism articles is the classic accusation of "POV forking" - practically a nonexistent phenomenon, and thus a red herring to raise as an issue.

"Who cares that O'Reilly got Pepsi to drop Ludacris. I believe the argument for inclusion goes "But Franken mentioned it in his book!! We have to include it!! This article is about criticisms and this is a criticism!!!" Take it easy. I don't care either what is on that article at all, never mind the topic itself, and nor should you. That things be where they belong is the point. And certainly you would agree that its good that such is not on the main article, which is the point of making the criticism article. We have subarticles for many different things, and they all do one thing: they show concepts in a different dimension. Not interested in criticism of GWB? Read 'attempts at impeachment?' Don't want that? Read 'public image of'. Etc. Even topics like science - pretty straightforward, need subarticles to deal with different distinct dimensions: History of Science, Philosophy of science, Scientific method, Scientific disciplines, Scientists,Science education, Science events, Fictional science, Scientific folklore,Science occupations, Scientific organizations etc. These are dimensions of science - not just subtopics, but dimensions of the actual topic. Criticism is just another dimension. Consider this: "Criticism of" articles about ridiculous people tend to be quite substantive. "Criticism of" articles about substantive people tend to be quite ridiculous. Don't censor the ridiculous by taking it too seriously. Let the ridiculous speak for itself. BTW this reminds me of how people originally wanted to kill all the 911 conspiracy crap off Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how stupid it is, what matters is that it is. -Stevertigo 22:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but is "criticism of Obama" a notable topic? There is certainly some of it afoot, but unless one can identify it as a distinct phenomenon / issue, it would seem like a random collection of disparate information. One might find some subtopics in there that could stand on their own feet, and of course there is a "public image" article which is a well defined topic. Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Wikidemon and hear the points that Stevertigo makes. My underlying question/concern would be how would we keep such article from devolving into a rant/fringe article where anyone and everyone will post whatever thing they don't like about the man. Also, many of the controversies that might be placed in such article would also involve a lot of syntheses and how would we relate that the the various policies of Wikipedia including find reliable sources for all of these? How would we keep people from posting false controversies in an attempt to make them noticeable and thus something they can sling around during another election? That last part might even become a problem for Wikipedia legally. Brothejr (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I dare you to find a "Criticism of" article that doesn't violate NPOV and UNDUE, especially with regards to BLPs. Even the ones that are reasonably well written (Criticism of Islam/Criticism of Christianity) become honeypots for every minor criticism about the main topic and result in sanitized main articles (again, take a look at Islam and Christianity). If a criticism of a topic is so minor that it doesn't belong in the main article or one of the sub-articles, then that criticism does not have a place on Wikipedia. The example I gave above is a perfect example of what happens to all "Criticism of" articles. Every criticism, no matter how minor, gets placed in the article, regardless of how poorly sourced that minor criticism is. All the while, the main article and sub-articles are having the criticisms purged under the banner of "We have a 'Criticism of' article for this, no need to have it here as well." I would also question your comparison of the creation of criticism articles to the inclusion of Truthers. Much of the Truther purging was centered around lack of reliable sources and an over-reaction by certain editors to Truthers trying to give undue weight to their opinions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Barack Obama article

I would like to see the history for this page. In particular, there seems to be no discussion at AFD about it, and likewise the talk page was deleted. According to a particular deletion rule, but apparently improper nonetheless. Was the article just speedy deleted and not voted on? I also would like to see what the content was. A brief restoration period would accomplish this. -Stevertigo 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A summary: 31 edits, speedily deleted four times, twice as attack pages, twice for lack of content. The most developed version was created and edited mostly by 300wackerdrive (talk · contribs), a confirmed sockpuppet of one of our most tendentious banned editors and rightly deleted on that point in itself. I personally won't be restoring, because of that fact alone; other admins might, I dunno. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case I suggest if anyone really wants to see it they can restore it to their user page or have it emailed to them. Wikidemon (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Email is fine. I'll check it when I get back. Thanks in advance. -Stevertigo 22:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Critism of George W. Bush be deleted too?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to exist, if you mean criticism of George W. Bush might I refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Soxwon (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya, nice comeback. Rather typical. Sounds like a broken record.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So do you have anything constructive to post, or just here to troll? Soxwon (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if an article is created which does not otherwise violate Wikipedia policies, it may stick. Since every version has either violated WP:BLP or WP:ATTACK or WP:BAN then I see no reason why any of these should be restored. If you create one that does not violate these policies, or any other, be our guest... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton, the criticism of Obama article was deleted most recently because it had no content. The version before consisted of 5 profound points including #2 "i don't have change can i guve u a candy?" and #4 "He is black". Are you really suggesting that articles like those should be kept? Guettarda (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This inspired me to write an essay. "Criticism of..." articles should be removed from Wikipedia entirely. There are ways to cover criticism in proper weight and tone without making a page devoted to attacks. SDY (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Obama is in the news

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dablinks are supposed to precede amboxes

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

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

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

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

Suggest reversion to semiprotection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad faith all around

All over this talk page, the only consensus reached has been that Liberals and Conservatives two competing groups of editors will insult one another. Neither will show even a little bit of respect toward the other. This talk page has become an AGF-free zone. Comments that fail to comply with AGF should be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that apply to this comment as well? Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say all comments were in bad faith, but in general the comments on both sides have been insulting toward one another. SMP0328. (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

While this may be true, how would this help improve the article, or stop the rampant reoccurring rehashing of old arguments? Brothejr (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Because this argument will never end voluntarily. Each group will continue to claim the other is part of a nefarious conspiracy. Deleting AGF violating comments could be done in conjunction with other actions. My point is that nothing is, or likely ever will be, resolved via commenting on the preceding sections. SMP0328. (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

← This isn't a dispute between liberals and conservatives. Both groups, and the moderates in the middle, have usefully contributed to this article and its various offspring for years. No, the current disagreements are between normal Wikipedians and batshit insane fringetards (and the poor sheep that follow them). The arguments have moved out of the mainstream into the realm of the ridiculous, where it is proposed the article should contain all sorts of fringey, crackpot nonsense that reasonable people just laugh off as wacky. These range from the only slightly ridiculous (article should contain criticisms to be "fair") to the completely ludicrous (Obama is a socialist communist terrorist Muslim from Mombasa). This is way beyond the normal discourse and consensus-building we are used to here, and it is all predicated on this manufactured controversy from Aaron Klein. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why referring to him as a "communist" and "socialist" is reticules? Isn't he both? See socialism and communism - they are political ideologies which Obama supports; he has a long record supporting radical politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.55.178 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, your opinion that he is a communist really lends nothing to this discussion or this article. It is OR, please read WP:OR. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread WP:No personal attacks, where one is cautioned against "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" (emphasis added) and "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. " (emphasis added). I would caution you to avoid these "types of comments [that] are never acceptable" (emphasis in the original. Personal attacks would certainly include painting editors as "batshit insane fringetards". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What personal attacks? seicer | talk | contribs 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that referring to editors as "batshit insane fringetards" is a personal attack. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that depends now doesn't it? Is he referring to us or them?99.135.173.51 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my above comment, which I do not consider to be a personal attack. The commenter I was replying to had said that the disagreements were between conservatives and liberals, and I was pointing out that this is not the case (or at least, a gross oversimplification). The recent attempts to shove inappropriate fringe material into the BLP have not been made by Wikipedians, but rather they have been made by transient or new editors with extreme (well outside the mainstream) views. These sorts of people appear to be completely incapable of normal discourse and consensus-building. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. But they like most non editing people have a simplified view on what wikipedia, and didn't understand wikipedia cultural norms. As wikipedia editors, we should be careful what we say about others. Oldag07 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian public schooling

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

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

Pronunciation guide

While I'm glad to see that there's an IPA pronunciation for Obama's name here, I know some people object to the use of IPA in articles, so it might be a good idea to add a respell-based guide (see Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key). For this article it would be: bə-RAAK hoo-SAYN oh-BAA-mə (wikitext: {{respell|bə|RAAK}} {{respell|h'''oo'''|SAYN}} {{respell|oh|BAA|mə}}). Any thoughts? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia IS a forum?

In the past few days some of the discussions here have been on subjects far broader than specific, actionable proposals and questions for improving the Obama article. Setting aside the random stuff, many of these discussions are thoughtful and important - on issues like neutrality, editing process, consensus, the nature of BLPs, etc., as they relate to Barack Obama. Although the trigger (the World Net Daily) article is by all appearances a sham, it has brought people here who have sincere questions. Those questions are sometimes not very germane to actual editing process on this particular article. I am wondering if there is any way to bifurcate this talk page, create a sub-page, or something like that, so that people who really want to discuss questions of bias, neutrality, and so on can do so. Any thoughts? Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just have something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Concerns . Getting people to actually post there rather than here could be a challenge, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything which isn't about this article isn't about Barack Obama, even if it was the trigger. WP:CENT would be a good place to start this kind of debate. I haven't got the patience to tell if there's anything worth debating that has come out of this, since it's all dominated by pages and pages of misunderstandings of the purpose and policy of Wikipedia, but that would be my suggestion if there's something important to debate. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant navigational templates

I noticed that some of the navigational templates at the bottom of the article seem to be redundant, delivering the same information. Specifically, those relating to Obama's cabinet; {{Current U.S. Cabinet}} and {{Obama cabinet}} seem redundant to {{Obama Administration personnel}} (which shows the cabinet). Hope this helps! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

Well it seems that WND ppl have finally given up, so are there any major changes or any new additions being considered? Personally, I advocate adding a couple of lines about Wright's influence in personal life (see above: [28]: What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics.") While Wright is a controversial figure, that doesn't necessarily reflect him as a person, and I'm hoping someone can summarize it in a way that shows the real story of a man who had the moral support and guidance of his pastor on his way to bigger and better things. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Obama give Wright that big a role in his autobiographies though? My impression was that most of the comment about Wright's influence was in response to the scandal that embroiled around him. Consider that his grandmother and mother are much better known for their role in his development, but this doesn't make it into this article either. If Wright is to be mentioned in this article, it's surely got to be to do with the scandal. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, like you said, that was then and not now. How would we resolve that against the fact that he later publicly rejected wright? The article currently reflects the rejection and shift away from Wright. Though, I wouldn't put anymore info on Wright past the line that is in the article now. This is mainly due to the fact that the article is written in Sumary Style which means we don't go in depth into each portion, but summarize the highlights and then leave the details to the daughter articles. If you read the portion on Wright in the personal section, you will see a link to not only the man himself, but also the controversy too. That is enough for the main article, no need to expand into a discourse into Obama's interactions with Wright. Brothejr (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wright had a rather large impact upon Obama's life. Attending Wright's sermons is what convinced Obama to become a Christian instead of just being "spiritual" and Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC and his Audacity of Hope book were inspired by a sermon from Wright. So one could argue that without Wright, Obama may not have had the meteoric rise he had following his primary victory in 2004. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Does Obama give Wright that big a role in his autobiographies though?" Considering, Obama chose the title of his book from the title of one of Wright's sermons, the answer seems clear. Bytebear (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with how Wright was handled back before the whole controversy exploded.[29] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely worth mention is his reason for leaving his church of 20 years, the one in which he was baptized and married. Scribner (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's already in the article. Granted, it wasn't before the WND article, but it is mentioned now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bobblehead, I was responding to your mention of not seeing a problem with the way Wright was handled before the controversy. Scribner (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant how Wright was handled in the article before the whole Wright controversy exploded in addition to why Obama left the church and cut Wright off. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our confusion arose from the fact that there are now two controversies, one in which cast Wiki in a very negative light. This blatant omission in such a major article, deliberate or not, severely mars the integrity of Wiki. Anyway, I'm moving on. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Someone please move the sentence about Obama saying he wouldn't smoke in the White House...hardly a way to end the section about the POTUS. Scribner (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wright seems to be mentioned well in the article, he shouldn't be given too much weight. Good to see that things have cooled down around here. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of the controversy around Wright seems to be appropriately covered, but the overall coverage of Wright is a bit lacking, IMHO. As I mentioned above, Wright was what drew Obama into being Christian vs. just "spiritual" and Wright's sermon was the inspiration for the theme of Obama's 2004 DNC speech and the Audacity of Hope book. Both the conversion to Christianity and the speech/book are pivotal points in Obama's biography and to leave out Wright's role in those pivots leaves this article with holes. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama and Ayers

Instead of just posting Klein's paragraph, please you join in on one of the existing discussions above. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.142.77 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Your point? That text, which looks like it comes from another article on Wikipedia on the subject, is far too long for a summary article on Obama's overall biography.Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINKS, Official Sites

Add: www.usaService.org

He promotes it in a commercial, and someone might come to wikipedia looking for the link.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.225.44 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

External Links, Official Sites

Is www.My.BarakObama.com a different site, or a different name for the same site. You should consider including both names. Thank you.