Talk:Barack Obama

Website?

I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated. http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html user:chasesboys

BarackObama.com is already included, I move to delete this section. natezomby (talk)

I moved the presidential website link above the senate website link (as obviously the presidential bid is more important and deserves the prominence) and I hope this is a decent resolution for everyone. Inseeisyou (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence

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

I'm closing this again due to it being a rehash of the same argument. Please see the FAQ for reasoning behind the term African American. Brothejr (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I've followed this issue for months and all the past conversation about it has been pointless due to too much absolutism.

This sentence:

"Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president"

is not false, but it is inaccurate because it's specific to the point of falsity due to fact exclusion. It should read like this:

"Obama is the first candidate of African American heritage to be nominated by a major political party for president"

I haven't followed the conversation for months, and I'm not pouring through 35 pages of archives to find it, but here's my two cents: I think this is ridiculously complicated because of political correctness. I think there is merit in not wanting to broadly paint Obama's ethnicity with a brush, but I think it's understood by most level-headed people that "African American" means an American with at least some black ancestry. I don't necessarily agree with this collective consensus, but it's not something I'm going to climb the Reichstag in a Spider-Man suit over. Besides, when it comes to something like this I believe that it's the person's own identification that matters unless it's a ridiculous assertion, such as Uncle Ruckus saying he's white.

And regardless of all that, the second sentence is technically incorrect. "Of African American heritage" would entail that Obama's father is from Detroit or something. But he's Kenyan, so he's African not African American. Therefore, Obama may be considered African American, but he's not of African American heritage. If your goal is emphasize that he's not 100% black (which probably a sizable portion of the African American population isn't), then you'd need to use different wording. --Amwestover (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence I offered as an alternative says the same thing, but with more precision and clarity. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that, but what it really does is introduce ambiguity when there previously was none. He calls himself African American, the world media considers him African American, that is the general consensus here as well, therefore, that is how it will remain. Case. Closed. Duuude007 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• My suggestion does indeed suggest something other than a singular assertion and that's why I offer it. It is simply factually false that Obama "is" African American. My best friend is 1/2 Irish and 1/2 Italian. Is he "Irish American", "Italian American" or "Of Italian and Irish heritage"? It's only people who want to help advance the POV myth that Obama "is" African American exclusively who oppose my very reasonable edit. What my edit does is offer a common description of Obama, while leaving room for the fact that the common description is imprecise. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• This was archived? Does that mean that some people have a problem with letting others discuss this point here?.. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Barack's Current Kansas Family

Current members of Barack Obama's Kansas family include Margaret McCurry Wolf of Hutchinson and her son Milton R. Wolf, M.D. of Leawood, Spence McCurry of Wichita and his children Spencer, Frank, Kelli and Jamie.

Perhaps this should be added to the main page?

I doubt it. They're not members of his immediate family, they're part of his extended family. If anywhere, they should be described (with sources) in Family of Barack Obama. --GoodDamon 13:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Significance of Barack's Kansas heritage is often cited by Barack himself. As such, it seems that he considers this to be of central significance, immediate family or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationispower2008 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If we were to list every first cousin twice removed in this article, it would be insanely long. The fact that he values his Kansas heritage is notable and worthy of mention with proper citation. An exhaustive list of every distant relative is not. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I included only his current Kansas family. Informationispower2008 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Question of Barack Obama's Place of Birth

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

ObamaCrimes.com states the following on Barack Obama's REAL place of birth:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on the last day to file a response, for the obvious purpose of delaying Court action in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by delaying the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama was “natural born.”

It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.

[4]

Angie Y. (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So? Look at the source. Do you really think there work has any place in an encylopedia? Obama was born more in the US than McCain was, but both as citizens. Grsz^talk 04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) We've discussed this odd little conspiracy theory already. Obama was born in Hawaii. Obamacrimes.com is not a reliable source. The suit, even if real, is not notable. Anybody can file suit against anyone in America, and apparently one has. Berg has also sued George Bush and perhaps John McCain on other conspiracy theories it seems. Given the editor's recent edit history and the article probation status (see notice at top of page) I'll caution this editor not to promote conspiracy theories on important article talk pages. Wikidemon (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be added. It's something involving Barack's true place of origin. Angie Y. (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively not. This will never happen, and I ask you to give it up right now before you end up with an incident report. "Obamacrimes" is not a reliable source, and the idea that you could push it as a reliable source over real newspapers and the state of Hawaii is laughable. This discussion is over before it began, but I'll leave it archived here temporarily as a blunt warning to others of three things:

• This article is on probation
• WP:BLP applies
• Poor sources will not be tolerated

Do not bring this up again. As a relatively experienced editor, you should know better. --GoodDamon 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, I am not a WikiPedia expert or anything like that. However I find your comments troubling on not even allowing any questions on Obama's place of birth. I thought Wikipedia was a searcher for truth. The tone I am reading from you comments is one of "this is the truth and we should not question it". I would think a better tone to take with someone who makes a statement without facts is to say more proof is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I won't "allow" such questions. If someone simply asks where Obama was born, I see no reason not to answer such a question by pointing out the in-article citations that list his place of birth as Hawaii. But in the discussion above, no question was being asked. Rather, a laughably biased source was presented as proof-positive of Obama's foreign birth (something I'm fairly sure U.S. Federal Election Commission might be interested in if there was even the faintest scrap of evidence). Wikipedia uses reliable, secondary sources such as newspapers and peer-reviewed academic journals, with solid reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. "ObamaCrimes.com" has no such reputation. Furthermore, this is a biography of a living person, meaning anything libelous that ends up in it may be grounds to sue Wikipedia. So when patently libelous accusations like those in the closed discussion above appear, Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to shut them down, and shut them down fast. Now, let me make something clear... Let's say the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or some other reliable source of information came out with a serious journalistic investigation that presented irrefutable evidence of Obama's foreign-soil birth. Then it would merit inclusion in the article. Until then, though, absolutely not. --GoodDamon 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications. I use Wikipedia quite often and really like the fight against POV. While I appreciate your concern against liabilities, I am noting a perhaps overly quick use of adverbs, like "laughably". Rather than characterize something outrageous, I would say understatement would make points even louder, a.k.a. the deafening silence. Anyway, Wikepedia is a great resource that should be protected, defended and even debated but never forget the openeness that has made it so startling. Carry on GoodDamon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'm glad you find it to be a useful resource. I suppose my vehemence comes from constantly having to respond to every POV warrior who comes along with astounding evidence that Barack Obama eats a live puppy every morning before praying to Satan over the blood of virgins, as proven at www.obamaisatraitortoallhumanity.com. It makes makes one a little snarky. --GoodDamon 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Question of Barack Obama's Place of Birth 2

Closing this as disruptive, and highly unlikely to result in a change to the article. Can we please, finally, keep the discussions here about improvements to the article, not conspiracy theories? --GoodDamon 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times.

Here's the link:

[5]

also here is one for the Philadelphia Times Herald :

[6]

Now do you guys believe me when I say that Obama's not natural-born (born in the US) and cannot run for the Presidency? Angie Y. (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Quite simply, if there was any truth to this, it would have come out to the media with all the details that attempt to prove his citizenship long ago. Besides, I can file a lawsuit claiming that you stole everything I own in an attempt to furnish your home on Mars. That doesn't mean you actually did it, it just means that I've filed the lawsuit. If someone can provide the supposed proof of this allegation to the media and the media outlets who publish it are deemed reputable sources, I'll take a look. The two article you link to provide nothing but talk of the lawsuit and the hearsay that they've been presented. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article says, "Several fact-checking groups, such as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com have determined that the certification posted on Mr. Obama's Web site is authentic." If authentic, the birth certificate establishes eligibility. Nothing else needs to be said about it.--Appraiser (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also from the WT article:

He has filed suits for clients against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, claiming they knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before they happened.

I would dare say that you won't be able to use this lawsuit to include such an assertion on their respective pages either. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Obama Supporters image

Supporters in Austin, Texas.

I recently added an image of some supporters in the political positions section, which I thought made a good example of supporters at a rally supporting Obama's political positions. This is the image to the right. Usergreatpower (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this image adds anything to the article. We have other images that show supporters, and this one does not portray the bio subject himself. Obviously, if other editors see the value of it, comment so here. LotLE×talk 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the value in it.LedRush (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. This isn't particularly notable, either. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad picture, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article. Is there an article specifically about Obama's political rallies? It might fit better there. --GoodDamon 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If the picture were to contain Obama it would be a different story. As it is , it really adds very little.--Buster7 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

magna cum laude

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

Closing this discussion.Brothejr (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the campaign has refused to release his college transcripts and test scores and there has been no independent verification that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. Absent any evidence to the contrary we should remove that reference. If and when the campaign releases his transcripts and we can independently verify that information we can add it later.

It's interesting that they refuse to release his transcripts and test scores.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Barack_Obama%27s_grades_in_college

Lordvolton (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Before we just start to remove things from the article, what do third party (I.E. reliable sources) say about his graduating magna cum laude? Brothejr (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Doing a quick check of various sources, all say he graduated magna cum laud. Brothejr (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I bet those sources got it from this wikipedia article. We may need to get an independent verification from the school itself or perhaps the campaign (i.e., release of transcript). There was no citation to the magna cum laude reference.

I'm removing it until we can get independent verification. A call to Harvard Law School might be in order. They might be willing to make a public statement. Lordvolton (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Such a call would be original research in violation of Wikipedia's policies. We report what reliable sources say. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvard Law School can do a press release that is freely available to the public. The only way to independently verify the claim is from the Law School directly or a release of the transcript by the campaign. But an unverified claim, which apparently slipped unnoticed until now, is simply not up to snuff. I have no idea how long that unverified claim has been sitting there, but the Lord only know how many journalists referenced it.

We probably need to pay closer attention to uncited claims within the article. Lordvolton (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources:

• Fornek, Scott (January 22, 2003). 'Blessed by God,' rooted in two continents. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 8:

  He was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1991.

• Kodama, Marie C. (January 19, 2007). Obama Left Mark on HLS; Profs fondly recall Law School alum as he launches presidential bid. The Harvard Crimson:

  The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School in 1991;

• Kantor, Jodi (January 28, 2007). In law school, Obama found political voice. The New York Times. p. 1:

  He was a black man who had helped one of Harvard's most celebrated professors, Laurence H. Tribe, with an article on law and physics, and would graduate magna cum laude.

Not a reliable source:

• an edit six days ago by "Mazer Rackem" on WikiAnswers, "a wiki-based Q&A project powered by contributors from all walks of life. Anyone can ask, answer or edit questions, building a global Q&A database, covering all topics."

Newross (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are those truly reliable sources given the fact that that campaign refuses to release his transcripts? If we can verify that the transcript has never been released then it will open up a whole new can of worms. How do these "reliable sources" know he was magna cum laude if the transcript was never released?

Did they have access to his law school transcript? For all we know they're referencing this uncited wikipedia statement or Obama is making claims off the record about his grades while simultaneously preventing anyone from viewing his transcripts.

He cannot have it both ways. Lordvolton (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, first off, you don't need access to his law school transcript to find out he graduated from Harvard with as a magna cum laude. All it takes is a staffer, lawyer, etc, to go into Harvard's files (while not violating Barak's privacy) and verify that he was magna cum laude. Next, if you read each article they all verify that he did graduate as a magna cum laude by simply doing some research. Finally, this sounds more like a "crusade for truth" argument that for some reason if Barack shows us his college transcript, then we would see all the "bad" stuff and that he is lying about being a magna cum laude. Did I get that right? Sadly enough Reliable Sources say he graduated Harvard a magna cum laude, that satisfies a variety of rules including the big one: WP:BLP. Brothejr (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I assume he graduated magna cum laude. I'm not a political expert, but doesn't his staffers fact check his Wikipedia page? If he didn't graduate magna cum laude certainly someone would have removed it by now. Frankly I was shocked to see the statement uncited. As much as I'd like to take it at face value, the reality is that it's been sitting there for a long time as an unverified claim and absent doing something along the lines you're suggesting we may never know.

I attempted to read all of the "reliable sources" although one required a password. It's not clear to me that they independently verified the reference. The Crimson Tide has an email address for Marie C. Kodama and there is a form email for Jodi Kantor who wrote the above referenced NY Times Article. Maybe we should check in with them to see where they got their information?

Regarding a mission for truth, if the Obama campaign only releases information pertaining to his magna cum laude status I can already see the media complaining that he's cherry picking his academic information. But that's for others to decide and probably not relevant to the discussion at hand.Lordvolton (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there are numerous reliable resources that say he graduated magna. Your quest for transcrips is original research and unnecessary. The language stays until proven false by other reliable resources.LedRush (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We may need to have someone else review the process, since there is no way of knowing they were not relying on this uncited article when they inserted the claim in their articles. It should stay out until we verify that they were not referencing this article -- which did not cite a source. I'm sure it won't take long for someone to verify it from the most reliable source: Harvard Law School.

Let's remember that this is a verifiable fact. It's not like we're talking about something that is opinion. He either graduated magna cum laude or he didn't. Lordvolton (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of reliable sources for the statement, and until something contradicts the overwhelming evidence and citations, the statement should stay.LedRush (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily overwhelming given the fact that Wikipedia made the statement without a citation. There is one rock solid source: Harvard Law School. It's a verifiable fact, you seem very eager to pretend that wikipedia making an unverified claim didn't taint the waters. We'll get to the bottom of it and then there will be no question about it. I'm operating on the assumption it's true, but I recognize the effect our articles can have on news stories that are not well researched or fact checked. Lordvolton (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this discussion? There's really nothing more to say on the subject. On one side, multiple reliable sources are cited which prove this fact is true. On the other side is simply one person trying to edit-war over their own personal conspiracy theory. What a waste of time. Unless multiple reliable sources can be found that contradict the ones we already have, there isn't anything to even begin discussing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the best. A 3RR report has been opened. Grsz^X 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Race discussions

See Talk:Barack Obama/race for any active discussions of Obama's race, ethnicity, birthplace, citizenship, religion, etc.

I've taken the above step to try to separate these matters from other work on the article. I've set up archiving there so if it works they will get archived on a slightly slower scale (15 days) to the main archive. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussions moved so far: -Obama's True Ethnicity -Ancestry

I'm not sure this is an appropriate course of action. The creation of a sub-discussion page is generally limited to discussions that have become quite large and that certainly isn't the case for the frequent appearances of people complaining about Obama's race. The use of a sub-discussion page will also encourage more discussions being created on the race as people that are coming here to make the comments will not be used to the discussion taking place on a sub-page and will assume that no-one has brought it up before. All in all, the best course of action is to A) point anyone that questions Obama's ethnicity to the FAQ, then close the discussion. B) If the person is bringing up the "He's an A-rab!!" smear, replace the content of the section with <The content in this section was removed due to a violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy> and put {{uw-blp}} on the talkpage of the user that created the section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblehead on this. Tvoz/talk 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Yes, it's annoying to swat down the same thing several times a week, but moving the discussion won't solve that. If anything it will make the problem worse. I say we just keep doing what we've been doing (per Bobblehead) --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What are we doing? By Bobblehead's reasoning both discussions could have been summarily removed, although BLP isn't the real reason. Let's face it, the real problem is a combination of newbyism, failure to read the FAQ and Wikipedia guidelines, and the matter of perennial proposals. Some are simply misguided and innocent. Other times it's repeat disruption, sockpuppets, or people pushing fringe agendas. If we leave them up there they become troll magnets. If we explain or politely refer to the FAQ, it usually doesn't persuade someone who believes these sorts of things. If we delete citing policy that's WP:BITEy and sometimes leads the editor to start revert warring or posting again and again. I don't see how it makes things worse to give people their own space, out of the way, to discuss this to their heart's content. Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I've gotta side with Bobblehead. I don't think it's a good precedent to set to move discussions -- even when they're perennial repeats -- into subpages. Sure, everyone's annoyed by them, but they're easy to shut down with simple statements of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --GoodDamon 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Case in point:[7][8][9][10][11][12] There are several of these every week, sometimes more than one a day.Wikidemon (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I still see these editors coming to the main discussion page and posting their new theories. I do not see that the new sub talk page is going alleviate any of these recurrences. Brothejr (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes them easier to deal with. There's a new one today from a seemingly tendentious editor.[13][14][15][16] When someone announces that the article needs to change because it is racist there's really not much to discuss. What to do? I'll respond to this conversation[17] on this page but it's hard to imagine it going anywhere productive. It just seems better not to have to deal with topics like this[18] on the main talk page.Wikidemon (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

POV in "Cultural and Political Image" Section

The information given in this section seems biased toward a critical, negative view of Obama's cultural and political image. Does anyone else believe this section's material to be unbalanced? NJMauthor (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite specific passages you feel are POV and state why? It's hard to discuss without specifics. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll go point by point, because I'm highlighting a cumulative POV.

The first passage contains: >"Obama's early life experiences differ markedly from those of African American politicians who launched their careers in the 1960s through participation in the civil rights movement.[165]"

This can either be viewed as neutral, or negative, trying to distance obama from members of the civil rights movement.

>"In January 2007, The End of Blackness Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise: "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."[166] David Ehrenstein, writing in a March 2007 Los Angeles Times article, compared the cultural sources of Obama's favorable polling among whites to those of "magical negro" roles played by black actors in Hollywood movies.[167]

This passage involves assertions that obama is not "a true black" or "black enough", and implies that a black person born to the decendants of a slave and a black person born to a father in kenya are somehow going to be discriminated against differently based soley on race. It contains, also, Barack's comment, which appears neutral to the nature fo the issue.

>"In a December 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "The Man from Nowhere," Peggy Noonan, advised "establishment" commentators to avoid becoming too quickly excited about Obama's still early political career.[169] Echoing the inaugural address of John F. Kennedy, Obama acknowledged his youthful image, saying in an October 2007 campaign speech: "I wouldn't be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation."[170]"

A "warning" is given. she "warned" the "establishment" commentators. Obama's comment doesn't directly relate to youth; only previous generations.

>"A prominent part of Obama's political image is a belief that his rhetoric and actions toward political reform are matched with a political savvy that often includes a measure of expediency. In a July 2008 The New Yorker feature article, for example, Ryan Lizza wrote: "[Obama] campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist."[173]"

Essentially accuses Barack Obama of hypocrisy or misleading campaigning.

I'm not asserting that the quoted statements are true or false, simply that they are all either neutral, or bear negative connotations. They lack any positive cultural/political image comment, or comments cast in a positive or more neutral light.

NJMauthor (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the stark contrast can be seen between the Cultural/Political image in the John McCain article, and the Obama one. NJMauthor (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking something obvious - and this is not a rhetorical question - but how would you say the McCain article differs? As a comment, it seems inevitable that any discussion of Obama's image will address questions of race, specifically perceptions within both black and white communities a black man's becoming a leader in a majority-white culture. There are obviously some who question whether Obama is "black enough", or whether his perceived "whiteness" (i.e. fitting in with norms that some would attribute to majority culture) is a repudiation of the black part of his heritage. Such questions follow many successful black men. Some think this is a legitimate issue; others find the very question offensive or divisive. To me that seems like a rabbit hole we do not necessarily want to jump down in a main bio article. It might be better to ship that whole section to a sub-article. That would leave the question of exactly what part of Obama's public image is worth discussing here. Public image sections are tough because it's hard to know what is important. How much does it really matter what anyone's public image is anyway, and why does this get covered for some politicians but not, say, most business leaders, sports stars, entertainers, or authors (unless there is something particularly notable or distinctive about their image). Sure people vote on politicians. But they also vote with their dollars when they attend a film, read a book, or buy a product someone has endorsed.Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True, true. So how about this:

Would you object if I added some cultural/political image material that isn't cast in a negative light to this page? Properly sourced, of course, and not with junk blog sources. I noticed that on the McCain page, every possible negative under the political/cultural image section is followed by an apologist's justification. NJMauthor (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the cherokee section

This article acknowledges every little piece of his black and white ancestry but not a drop of his native american ancestry. If we are going to mention his French and Dutch ancestors why shouldn't we mention his Cherokee? YVNP (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the "Cherokee tribe" category. I could not find any sourcing that Obama is a member of the tribe/nation. Please provide such sources if you have them. Even if he were, this particular category does not seem to be used to tag members.Wikidemon (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dreams memoir says Leona Payne was part Cherokee.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will assume for the sake of discussion this is true and can be duly sourced (though in reality, self-professed Cherokee ancestry is notoriously unreliable). Obama's maternal grandmother's mother proudly claimed to have Cherokee ancestors. In that sense, nearly everyone alive has all kinds of ancestry. If we're making throw-away references to French ancestry I see no reason not to mention Cherokee, but I also don't see any particular reason to do it either. The way to do it would be a few words in the right place - if there's a category it should be one that is normally used for the purpose, if there is one. I'm also taken aback by the repeated comment that there is some kind of racist implication to leaving it out, or some imperative to put it in. It's editorial discretion.Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Obama-Ayers: "Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama" -- The New York Times, page 1

closed as disruptive - Wikidemon (talk)

Top of the front page, The New York Times, October 4: Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths by Scott Shane. Article continues to page A14, where it covers that entire page, including with five pictures.

The Times basically follows what Wikipedia has already included in Obama-Ayers controversy, without some of the POV pushing. There are no new revelations. But the Times considers the matter important enough not just to cover, but to cover as an important matter because it has become important to Obama's opponents.

Reasons the Times gives for showing that this matter is important enough for its readers to know about (and important for our readers to know about):

• Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator., in his bid for the presidency.
• Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday [October 3], juxtapose Mr. Obama's face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings.
• In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, asked, "How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?"
• More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers [...]
• A review of records [...] suggesst that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have b' een close.
• In the stark presentation of a 30-second advertisement or a television clip, Mr. Obama's connections with a man who once bombed buildings and who is unapologetic about it may seem puzzling.
• Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. [...] But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired. "I don't think there's a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings," Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications. "If you're in public life, you ought to say, 'I don't want to be associated with this guy" [...]
• The Ayers-Obama connection first came to public attention last spring, when both Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama's Democratic primary rival, and Mr. McCain brought it up.
• It became the subject of a television advertisement in August [...]
• It [...] drew new attention recently on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page and elsewhere as the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge at the University of Illinois were opened to researchers.
• Opponents of Senator Barack Obama have created advertisements linking him to Mr. Ayers. (caption for pictures of two Obama-Ayers advertisements at the bottom of the page -- it's been more than just one advertisement)

The first four points above were on the front page, paragraphs 3-6.

If editors here would get it through their heads that when someone's running for president the matters that are considered important not only to the candidate's adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanatics are not the only matters to be considered important but also the more important concerns of opponents, then we could get away from POV pushing and do what The New York Times is able to do and actually cover what's considered important about Obama, regardless of the hurt feelings of the adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanatics. This would, of course, mean Obama supporters would have to separate their personal POV preferences from NPOV encyclopedia building. It isn't the role of Wikipedia to protect a candidate from bad publicity.

The point of the article and of this post, isn't to say that Ayers was so close to Obama that mention of their relationship belongs in the parts of the article dealing with those years (this article supports the idea that Ayers was NOT an important INFLUENCE on Obama, which is one of the two main criticisms of the relationship, the other being how this reflects on Obama's judgment -- see Chapman and McCain campaign comments in the article; the article does NOT SUPPORT the idea that Obama's associating with Ayers was UNIMPORTANT -- it is important because so much criticism has resulted). See especially the Bradford A. Berenson quote in the fourth paragraph from the bottom. Instead, mention of the relationship belongs in the "2008 presidential campaign" section, since it has been an ongoing feature of the campaign since the Spring.

Obama supporters need to separate their support from their encyclopedia building in order to have a WP:NPOV article. Anyone still opposed to including mention of Ayers in this article needs to explain away this massive New York Times coverage and explain why their editorial judgment is better than that of the Times in this matter. -- Noroton (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not characterizing Obama supporters who hang around this page protecting their candidate from criticism as being adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanatics. Far from it! All Wikipedia editors here are committed foursquare to WP:NPOV editing that charts a strict course between adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanaticism and demonizing, anti-Obama fanaticism. That's why I brought this matter up on this page: When The New York Times decides, in its august, ever-neutral no-POV way to cover this matter extensively, I'm sure my fellow open-minded, mature, sober, prudent, trustworthy fellow Wikipedians will want to consider the matter with due regard, despite what those adoring, worshipful, idolizing fanatics elsewhere are mouthing. Have I made myself clear? -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not clear at all. Just cut out the insults. If you have a proposal, make it in a neutral way without complaining about other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the article, I see nothing new in it. This looks like just another push to get Ayers into the article against consensus. Brothejr (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. You miss my point about what's new here: the prominent coverage (and the coverage of the extensive coverage and comment elsewhere). Why don't you respond to that, Brothejr? What separates your stance from POV pushing? I've explained what separates my stance from it. How is your editorial judgment better than that of the Times? -- Noroton (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We could do without yet another proposal to disparage the candidate and without yet more complaints about other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What we can do without is Wikidemon's continued ignoring of new, prominent coverage and ... extensive attempts over months to keep widely covered, prominent information about Obama from being mentioned in Wikipedia's article about him. I guess the Times is trying to disparage Obama here, eh, Wikidemon? What horrible, horrible POV pushing The New York Times is doing at the top of the front page. -- Noroton (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, we should close this discussion unless and until Noroton is ready to address other editors in a civil tone.Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't try to taunt me, especially when you just wrote, We could do without [...] yet more complaints about other editors. Do you have something substantive to contribute, Wikidemon? -- Noroton (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Wikidemon's disruptive attempt to box and close this section, which he calls "disruptive". Don't be disruptive, Wikidemon. -- Noroton (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am closing it again because your proposal is unlikely to result in a change to the article and because you are continuing to insult other editors. Do not re-open it unless you are willing to redact your insulting comments and carry out discussion on this page in a civil way. As you know this article is on probation. You are not welcome to edit Obama-related articles and talk pages in an abusive way and if you continue, you are not welcome at all.

Take it to AN/I. Don't try to close it again on your own. I've issued a clarifying comment above to address your sensitivities. -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop insulting other editors. If you won't, then don't edit here. How hard can it be to refrain? Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How about a link in the campaign section? "A campaign controversy arose concerning Obama's /blah blah blah/ Bill Ayers, Obama's colleague at the XYZ Foundation."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, for reasons already discussed. This proposal has been made several dozen times, several of which involved this particular editor re-proposing it after finding a new article on the topic. We extensively discussed the weight, relevancy, POV, and coatrack issues, and came to the conclusion that all considering it is not worth mentioning Ayers or the partisan attempts to Obama to him to terrorism in this article. Thus, I do not even think it is worth discussing why a single new article in a source, however reliable, among several hundred thousand other articles about Obama, merits that we reconsider yet again the long-rejected proposal.Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that no new information has come out here. Using a quote from the article, a lot of this is simply: “typical campaign shenanigans.” I agree with Wikidemon that this is just a rehashing of the same argument to try and push into the article something a variety of editors have said that there was no weight to the issue to merit a mention in the main article. You can try and push for a line or two in the child articles, but there is still not enough weight to the issue for it to be mentioned in the main article. Also, while the Times is a reliable source, just because it published an article about how some people are pushing the issue, does not mean that the controversy has more weight then before. Plus, if you read the article itself, most of the time it says there is not that much of a connection between Obama and Ayers. The article kind of works against the argument for including the controversy in the main article. Brothejr (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that new coverage never budges Brothejr's insistance that there's not enough WP:WEIGHT in the sources to ever include any information on this. That's the problem. For editors to distinguish their positions from from POV-pushing, they should be able to show, reasonably, how certain bad publicity isn't prominent. Kinda hard to do when that publicity is at the top of the front page of the New York Times, in addition to all the other publicity the same criticism has received for months on end, from the most prominent rival candidates to prominent newspapers and prominent magazines and prominent candidates' debates and prominent, bestselling books and on and on and on and on. Brothejr lets assertion do the work of argument by simply not presenting his reasoning, only his personal preference. The "rehashing" is all on the part of Brothejr and Wikidemon, who have no new arguments when new information comes forward: they have only the pretense that nothing new exists when a new article is on the front page of the Times. Wikidemon seems to think that if a matter has been decided once, new information, such as added prominence, is somehow improper to bring up (when the main argument against inclusion was WP:WEIGHT -- since all other arguments were even weaker). Wikidemon hasn't ever explained how, if there is a supposed WP:COATRACK issue, the matter keeps on coming up in relation to Barack Obama in the sources themselves. Aren't these two editors embarrassed to keep arguing the same thing when their arguments can't account for new information? The Obama-Ayers issue keeps getting bigger and bigger while Brothejr and Wikidemon keep arguing that it's still not worth a mention. It's worth a mention everywhere but in this article, apparently.

Two other top Republicans said the new ads are likely to hammer the senator from Illinois on his connections to convicted Chicago developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko and former radical William Ayres, whom the McCain campaign regularly calls a domestic terrorist because of his acts of violence against the U.S. government in the 1960s. -- from today's Washington Post

This censorship of Wikipedia for publicity inconvenient to a partisan candidate isn't good for the encyclopedia. Lack of reasons other than that editors just don't like it isn't good for Wikipedia either, not to mention its readers. -- Noroton (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose to close

In light of the ongoing incivility - directed against me, which I do not appreciate, and also against other editors - and this being a re-hash of an old discussion, I suggest we close this discussion. I also suggest that further discussions from this editor be summarily deleted, redacted, or closed to the extent they contain complaints about others here. That is explicitly covered in the article probation terms. It would be extremely easy to bring up a content proposal here without disparaging the other editors. That Noroton chooses to do so suggests he is unwilling to edit within our guidelines. Unless I hear a good argument from someone other than Noroton that this discussion should play out, I will close it again. Although I do not support the proposal, I would not object if Noroton were to make the proposal without accusing other editors of censorship, POV pushing, editing the article to support their candidate, etc.Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing is disruptive and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Actually addressing arguments isn't. -- Noroton (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What you've been doing, Wikidemon, is essentially to simply cite WP:NOTAGAIN. But you can't just cite policies. You have to explain them. Even if it's complicated. Go ahead and allude to your position again, filling in the snapshot with enough strokes to provide coherence to someone just now tuning in or to help old timers' recall what your position is. Think of a senior senator briefly making reference to a complicated policy position at a committee hearing or even on the stage at a public debate. It doesn't have to be several paragraphs of perfectly nuanced prose, it can be some kind of jargoned shorthand. (Alternately, heck, if you're up to the challenge, translate the major thrust of your meaning into a pithy soundbite that somehow "says everything.") Maybe dispense with restating your position at all and simply mention why you believe Noroton's argumentation arising from the Times piece wouldn't change it. But at least say something! As failure to be specific opens you up to a charge you're only arguing "impossibility of worthy new ideas," a pretty bogus premise.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My position remains unchanged. Forcing us all to re-stage a long contentious debate we have already had a few dozen times, with the same result each time, is an enormous waste of editor time. I am particularly unwilling to spend the time in an atmosphere of abusive accusations and taunting misrepresentations of my edits. Again, I would not close this discussion, and would simply restate my opposition, were the proposal made without the attendant insults. Anyone who wants to see those debates, and the arguments I made, is welcome to search my edit history or the talk page archives. One page I wrote on the subject, which does not move, is here. Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to walk away, Wikidemon. I'm sure others will take up your banner. The talk page is here to improve the article. If discussion about improving the article makes you uncomfortable, disengage. Or suffer the fact that not everyone agrees with you. -- Noroton (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Talk:Barack Obama/weight page doesn't address my arguments that this has been addressd prominently by reliable sources and that therefore WP:WEIGHT favors inclusion. It is certainly a prominent, ongoing feature of the campaign. -- Noroton (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The argument on the weight page directly addresses weight concerns, that: (1) Ayers does not rise to the level of importance in Obama's life to include in the Obama article, and (2) it is not covered often in reliable sources. I will not walk away from the articles, I will not discuss this in response to abusive comments, I have made my arguments, and my position remains unchanged since last time. I will repeat this position every time you bring it up. Kindly desist from making untrue statements about what I have said in the past, and stop insulting me. Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(My own attempt at a soundbite): "When an aspect concerning a decade of the subject-of-a-WP-bio's life merits a lengthy piece in the NY Times above the fold, this WP bio ought to provide a minimal link to the subarticle covering that aspect, so people reading the main bio can find it." (How's that?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

At minimum, this should be the case. I still think a couple of sentences in the campaign section is warranted. -- Noroton (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow's proposal, essentially using WP:RS alone as the sole inclusion criterion, is not a workable WP:WEIGHT standard. We cannot have a link to a sub-article plus the necessary context for every subject under the sun that merits a long article in a major publication. That would require an encyclopedia many times bigger than Wikipedia, and an Obama article several times the length of Wikipedia's. To have a cogent biography - a featured article at that - we have to exert some judgment in how to present material. The best way is to choose details that are relevant to the subject's life, and of sufficient importance to be worth reading. Importance is either something obvious to most editors (e.g. birth dates and parentage) or, in cases where editors question or disagree, is verified by reference to a preponderance of reliable sources sufficient to say that the body of serious, unbiased authors who write books, magazine articles, and newspapers consider it important to devote a proportion of the telling of the person's life story. The significance of this issue is clearly not obvious to most editors here - they do not think it should be included. The general sentiment is that Obama's contacts with Ayers are incidental and say nothing about Obama. As for external validation, only a tiny minority of sources that describe Obama see fit to mention Ayers, confirming that writers off Wikipedia do not see it as significant.Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Brothejr's Proposal

From the outside, this looks mainly as a political stunt/election stunt in an attempt to WP:COATRACK as much dirt on Barack Obama to stop the reader into voting for him/votinf for his opponent and give more ammo for those voting against him. If the editors, who are proposing this, are only just trying to improve the article and do not care about the election or who votes for Barack Obama, then they would not mind suspending this argument/inclusion until the election is over. This issue was not a major/minor/or really any importance to Barack Obama's life. It did not shape his life, it did not shape his actions, etc.

Now, if the editors feel this is an important election issue and must be included, then this article is not the appropriate article it should be included in. This discussion should be moved to it's own article (which it has) and then covered in the presidential article.

Yet, if this is not an election issue, then it can wait until after the election and then debated/added then. Brothejr (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that I said it is an election issue and that's where mention of Ayers should be. And I am shocked, shocked, Brothejr at your horrible personal attack on me, accusing me of committing a "stunt" with "dirt". Careful, Wikidemon might set up a box around your new section and "close" it for incivility. If this is so indefensible, it should be easy to present an airtight case against including the information, and to present it calmly. You should be able to say how an enormous front-page article in the Times and a continuing feature of McCain's campaign against Obama (on top of all of the other notability) is just too obscure to mention in this article. If you can't do that, perhaps that means there's something here to discuss. Rather than discuss whether or not we should discuss Obama-Ayers, why not simply discuss Obama-Ayers? Your strong arguments should easily make me speechless, unable to cite proper sources or policy. -- Noroton (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, let me help you in actually discussing the idea of including mention of Ayers in the article. A WP:COATRACK article is, according to that essay, a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject What's the tangentially related bias subject here? Is this not an issue in the campaign? Has it not received prominent coverage in reliable sources and has it not been widely publicized? Please defend your so-far-undefended assertion. -- Noroton (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then if it is an election issue, why are you not proposing it in the correct article: Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. This issue should be discussed/added to the daughter articles way before it is added here. Either way, this issue can wait until after the elections. Wikipedia is not here to dissuade voters, push for one side or another, or heap as much dirt on someone as we can. Brothejr (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say I have to go through that rigamarole before I go through this rigamarole? Why can't it be added to both? It's prominent enough. -- Noroton (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I second Brotherjr's proposal. A month is no time at all. (Noroton and others seemingly have made edits on the subject for years now; even myself, for months!)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should it wait till after the elections? -- Noroton (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying wait, due a rule. I'm saying wait so contributors may better concentrate on the issue at hand and not the election. And this in the interest ultimately of writing a better encyclopedia.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

While recentism must be kept in mind, I have to agree with Noroton here. To set an artificial date after which it would be permissible to include this content (specifically, after the election) would seem politically motivated as well. I say it would be best to include it here as a brief note, with a link to a larger and more detailed explanation on a sister article; this was also done with news about the hacking of Sarah Palin's email account. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Close the discussion!

This rehashing of the exact same non-argument, by exactly the same editor, for the dozenth time or more, smells strongly of bad faith and WP:POINT. This nonsensical discussion should be closed immediately, and ideally Noroton should be sanctioned for the violation of article probation so evidently exhibited above.

If this non-connection was actually of biographical significance here, it would continue to be significant in a month, and could wait until then for any insertion. It is not of any remote notability for the main bio, of course, and the urgency Noroton feels to include it is nothing more and nothing less than attempts at diverting this article into anti-Obama election campaigning. No, no, no, again, for the twentieth or thirtieth time! LotLE×talk 20:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Enough, already. Why do we need to go through this entire process repeatedly with Noroton? It's just ridiculous. And I guarantee you that in a week or two somebody will write an editorial in the Weekly Standard or wherever that mentions the Ayers attack and Noroton will start the whole thing all over again. Can't somebody write a bot script that will respond to his arguments every time they get repeated so we don't have to continually waste time with it? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If there were such thing as an anti- ad hominem bot, it would leave behind only a few inches of text in this talkpage section. If only. It would surely refine this discussion.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) LotLE, You call my arguments "nonsensical" without showing how or why? You accuse me of "attempts at diverting this article into anti-Obama election campaigning"? As opposed to, oh, say ... pro'-Obama election campaigning? Why LotLE, you should be sanctioned for violation of article probation so evidently exhibited above! It is not of any remote notability for the main bio, of course, I know it would be a violation of something or other to ask, but please tell me: How is it not notable? I've explained at length why I think it's notable. Please review WP:TALK, for instance: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you, and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Explaining an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus. Also: Your opinion will typically carry more weight depending on the quality of the rationale you provide for making it. Take your time considering a good rationale, based on how the project operates.

Here's another great passage from WP:TALK: Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material -- Noroton (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If no administrator is going to do it, then the editors of this page should go ahead and enforce the terms of article probation so that we can be productive here. Editors who are not willing to abide by cooperative editing practices should basically be ignored, and their uncivil edits dismissed without ceremony. Proposals like this that are made uncivilly or tendentiously, particularly those made by editors who has done it repeatedly, should be closed, deleted, or redacted by the editors here so we can keep a productive editing environment. I see a majority of editors here wishing to close the discussion, and no evidence of any change of consensus. Accordingly I have suggested the discussion be closed. Having done so a couple times and been reverted, I don't want to be the next one to close it, but if someone will take the initiative I support it. Wikidemon (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - the editor starting the above discussion has filed an ANI case about its closure, here. Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion

Based on Wikidemon's comments at AN/I, I've removed Wikidemon's disruptive closing yet again, and I'll continue the discussion with the rapid new developments that continue to give more and more prominence to this issue. Perhaps Wikidemon and other editors can refrain from closing the argument down, whether or not they like the subject coming up.

Yesterday and today, four more developments on this ongoing, prominent feature of the presidential campaign:

• Palin attacks Obama twice on Saturday (10/4) for "palling around with terrorists" [19]
• She repeats the same phrase on Sunday (10/5) in California. [20]
• Obama campaign releases ad responding to the McCain campaign's new ads that feature the Obama-Ayers connection. ("No wonder his campaign wants to change the subject.") [21]
• It's a subject brought up today on the Sunday talk shows. [22] ""It's about his judgment and who he associated with during those years and right on into his political campaign," U.S. Senator Mel Martinez said on ABC's This Week.

Yet again, the matter comes up. It's been said in news reports that it may well come up yet again on Tuesday in the next presidential debate. The matter has come up continually and prominently since at least the debate in March.

What was that argument about WP:WEIGHT again? -- Noroton (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* Yes, the McCain campaign is repeating the same attack line. And they'll probably keep repeating it every day this week. So what? That's not a "new development" and it certainly doesn't retroactively make this an important biographical detail about Obama. The NYT article that you so breathlessly rushed here to open the discussion again with said basically the same thing. That, while his opponents keep trying to make this an issue, there is little connection between the two. We've covered this ground dozens of times. Give it a rest. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they're repeating it is of course a new development. The fact that they're making it a more prominent part of the campaign is of course something that makes it a more prominent part of the campaign, which goes directly to WP:WEIGHT. I've said repeatedly that I propose mention of this goes in the campaign part of the article because it is, after all, not just an important element of the most important campaign of Obama's life but a biographical issue in that campaign. I don't propose putting it in any of the chronological sections of his life. The case for putting it in one of the other sections could be made -- not because Ayers was an important influence on Obama (I don't believe he was) but because it's caused a significant comment that it raises concerns about Obama's judgment. But that is primarily now a campaign issue.

Now I wonder if Wikidemon would be concerned about you saying I so breathlessly rushed here, Loonymonkey. Are you trying to comment on editors more than on the actual subject at hand? Please focus. while his opponents keep trying to make this an issue No, it is an issue when it gets this amount of coverage. Issues are what are contested. It only takes one side to assert something, while the other side disagrees, making it an issue. Obama doesn't get to control what is prominently said and reported about him. The "connection" you say is "little" is considered important by a significant number of reliable sources, as proven by the fact that we have all those sources from way back in April, and during the summer, and now more and more this month. Nothing in policy prevents inclusion and the prominence of the sourcing demands it. there is little connection between the two is your personal POV, not what so many sources say. That POV belongs in whatever passage we put into the article about this, as what a number of other prominent sources state. -- Noroton (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Palin's and McCain's ongoing smears against Obama based on Obama being "pals" with terrorists (which the Obama campaign describes as a "lie" and CNN describes as "false") are indeed a notable issue in the campaign (albeit to call them anything beyond minor at this point is recentivism). The weight argument is that they in substance insignificant as an issue in Obama's life, and as per the reliable sources an insignificant matter in proportion to the overall coverage of Obama's life. Beyond weight/relevance there is WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV, and depending on what is said about Ayers, WP:BLP. If we were to cover it at this point, neutrality would mean that we have to honor those reliable sources and report it as a smear campaign condemned as untrue. But I have said so before, and I will say so again - additional news articles, and additional campaign attacks, that merely continue what has come before are unlikely to change the arguments, much less the consensus against including this content, unless they represent a dramatic expansion in the nature or scope. It would really have to be one of the defining moments of the campaign, to be worth including it in our condensed campaign section, and I do not see that here.Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Addendums

Responding to Wikidemon at 19:48, (and if anyone violates WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK by removing this comment you're going to get a complaint at AN/I; have fun with that): I'm not arguing that each news development be included in the article, obviously. I'm arguing that they all add WP:WEIGHT to the article. You haven't explained how sources talking about Obama-Ayers are somehow a coatrack in a campaign section in which the Obama-Ayers controversy plays a part. You haven't explained how WP:NPOV is violated when that very policy states that Wikipedia allows the opinions of others to be reported in Wikipedia articles. I believe we already note criticism of Obama elsewhere in the article. You well know that we can cover this topic in a short passage while not violating WP:BLP. If you've actually addressed any of these points before, ever, feel free to link to the diff. It's the Obama-Ayers issue as a whole that should be in the brief passage, with a link, of course, to the article about the subject. additional news articles, and additional campaign attacks, that merely continue what has come before are unlikely to change the arguments. The point you continue to ignore is that they add to weight and erode the WP:WEIGHT argument to nothing. Obviously, new developments don't merely continue what has come before. -- Noroton (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have restated a position I have stated dozens of times. I do not wish to re-argue the position, engage in debate, or find diffs. I am not required to do that. Anyone who wishes to find my argument is free to search the archives. My opposition to this stands, as does my comment that merely adding new sources and new utterances of the smear by McCaign campaign operatives does not change things.Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Norton, you are citing wikipedia rules in poor context. Please, end this childish smear campaign. NJMauthor (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NJM, I love you, too. Wikidemon, you're not required to discuss anything at all or respond any way at all, of course. The fact is, we have an NPOV mandate and prominent criticism of any public figure, Republican, Democrat or anything else, is a proper part of the article, especially a presidential candidate and either an ex-candidate or president-elect. This is one of the most prominent criticisms of Obama and it has gotten more prominent. I guess at this point I should be suggesting specific language. -- Noroton (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• BBC: "Weathermen: Home-grown US Radicals" (Oct. 5)
• BBC: "Obama rejects terror link 'smear'" (Oct. 5)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Just wanted to say good job to everyone into getting this into featured status.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See also

I recently added a "See also" pointer to the Obama–Ayers controversy, which has been attracting considerable attention lately, notably at the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Reverted by Loonymonkey, with the comment "It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with this biography. There is already a category link to all Obama sub-articles, btw. Why highlight this one?"

Obama's relationship to Ayers is relevant because it is part of Obama's work experience, which is (or should be) part of his biography. Why bury it two layers down in a category, where almost no reader from the general public is going to find it? In fact, a number of other Obama-related articles should also be put into the "See also", so that ordinary readers can easily find them.

Other opinions? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

At the very least we should have a "See also" link to one of the controversies that constitutes one of the most prominent criticisms of Obama -- at least the most prominent one that is not mentioned in the prose of the article. Criticism of Obama and a controversy involving Obama is of course something "to do with his biography". Loonymonkey's explanation is absolutely inadequate. Other prominent articles about Obama are included in the Obama box at the bottom of the page or are linked in other ways. I don't know of any legitimate reason not to have a "See also" section link -- unless we impliment what I propose above: a short passage in the Campaign section. -- Noroton (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any other things to See Also makes it a convenient loophole to bypass lack of consensus to insert mention of the controversy into the article. It even advertises the link. People read the intro and the See Also section. Having a section devoted to a link to the controversy article is ridiculous. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" is linked in the primary article, when it was discussed more than one out-of-the-blue article. Grsz^X 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that campaign-related events and controversies aren't being chronicled in the main campaign article. It would seem that the major events that followed the DNC, including the return of this particular controversy, should appear there. Obviously, a smear tactic by a campaign competitor has no place in this BLP, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be chronicled in the appropriate place. Perhaps even the timeline (or should that be time horizon?) article? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we put a "see also" for this? It's notable and relevent.LedRush (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable how? Of all the things that have happened in hi life, how is this more relevant than others? If Obama was not running for office it would never have came up. It did come up in the campaign, and that's where the issue is addressed. Grsz^X 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not an appropriate "see also" link. I believe this has been discussed before, but I would apply the same standard as with a mention in the text (and if it were mentioned in the text it would be linked there, so a "see also" would be redundant). The text material fails on weight/relevancy grounds with some NPOV and WP:COATRACK implications, and has never gained consensus, so a wikilink fails too.Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is borderline recentism. There is nothing new in the Ayers controversy, the only reason it has been making headlines in the past few days is because of the NYT article and Sarah Palin accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists". But in the long run, this is an article about his biography, and as the NYT article stated, "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers". Simply because it has been the subject of recent headlines does not mean that it should be added to an article about his biography. We can add it to the campaign article instead. Khoikhoi 06:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

re: first african-american president candidate

Maybe Warren G. Harding should also be mentioned.[23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.147.133 (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whats in a name?

Hello everyone! I am curious to know how appropriate would it be to place the meaning of Obama's name here. Any comments? I know I was curious enough to search for it and found it on his website. Other's may be interested to know the meanings too. I would add it but am unsure exactly where to place it at on the page. Below is what his website says of the possible meanings of his name. If this is already present on the page and I am simply missing it please point that out to me. hehe. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) By Adoyo - Aug 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm EDT Also listed in: 9 groups

Tags: barack, hussein, meaning, Name, Obama For those who wonder about the real significance of Senator Barack Obama's name:

Barack:

baraka: blessing (Kiswahili) baraka: also berakhah , in Judaism, a blessing usually recited during a ceremony baruch: Also related to "berakhah" or bracha (Hebrew: berakhot), which is a blessing. baraka: also barakah, in Islam and Arab-influenced languages, meaning spiritual wisdom and blessing transmitted from God "Baraka", a rarely used French slang term for luck, derived from the Arabic word Baraka, aka Nigella sativa , a spice with purported health benefits

Hussein: an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "beautiful" or "handsome".

Obama: a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya (Nyanza Provice) which may derive from "obam," which conotes "bending" or "leaning". also a surname in Japan and Equatorial Guinea

All told, Senator Obama seems to be a living embodiment of the name his parents gave him: he has lived a blessed life and seeks to share his blessing; he is beautiful to behold and to listen to - people are drawn to him and inspired when they hear him speak and consider his ideas; and in public life he is flexible and dedicated to leaning where necessary to help uplift others.

I examined my own name and found that it accurately indicates some of my innate tendancies. Curiously enough, both my Luo name and my English name mean the same thing: thoroughness, purification and wonder/curiosity (among other things...) - who'd have thunk? How about you? Do you embody your name's meaning?

Sources: Wikipedia (baraka, baruch, hussein, obama)

Other sources: My mother; multicultural childhood & education including Luo and Kiswahili.

Obama/Acorn

Why is it that there is no information about the Obama/Acorn connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiemae (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)