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.

Controversy

Where is the controversy page... My dad had to rub in my face today that, "Your precious wikipedia is getting a lot of negative publicity for reporting nothing negative about Obama in fairness." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating (yet more) links on the page

A number of organizations that Obama was involved in or acted on the board of directors for don't have hyperlinks. Example, the Center for Neighborhood Technology. I think it would be beneficial to give people access to that kind of thing, and most of them have either their own webpages or wikipedia pages, so why not link to them? Unfortunately because of the (necessary) lock on the page, it's difficult to add those links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealintomorrow (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 4 March 2009. I wonder how fast this comment will be censored. :) Wikipedia is really getting be be a joke! Unfortunately, this is a really great concept being more and more poorly executed! I'll guess I go back to using Google to find facts, because I just don't feel Wikipedia is unbiased anymore. If they can work with respond acurately and forcefully to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 then maybe the reputation can be rescued. Otherwise, Wikipedia will probably become something of a joke similiar to the Washington Post, et al, along with the accompanying drop in users, readers, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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 72.54.65.33 (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

2 "References" sections

Shouldn't the one containing the {{reflist}} tag be called Notes per WP:CITE and for both consistency and accessibility. It does not make sense to have them both named the same thing. I didn't want to make the change without discussion. Calebrw (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to Notes and References. I don't see where this would have been a controversial change... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It was originally called notes. Some editor changed it without bothering to ask or to look and see that there was a separate section called "references". I thought I had reverted, but it seems that it didn't work for some reason. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Calebrw (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Occidental College

Does it really matter that he didn't graduate from there? He spent half his undergraduate career there. Why discount it just because it wasn't where he spent his final years? I don't think there's anything wrong with being inclusive here. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please stop reverting the article. Telling others to discuss the issue in your edit summary doesn't make it okay. Discuss the issue here yourself or shut the hell up. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:57, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

According to the Alma mater article, that term applies to "the university or college from where a person has attended or graduated." Under that definition, Occidental College should be mentioned in the Infobox. SMP0328. (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And by the way, Equazcion, I edited this passage ONCE. That is nowhere near WP:3RR, in spirit or in reality. So the next time you crawl up on a high horse and decide to call someone out in an edit summary, it might be smart for you to get your facts straight. And I have now done #2, as this user's revert was clearly done in bad faith as an exercise in point-making, rather than in the spirit of improving the article. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was in error when I warned you of 3RR. That having been said, 3RR isn't absolute. You're not supposed to edit war in order to get your version of the article instated, but discuss instead. And there was absolutely nothing bad-faith about my edit. There's no need for accusations. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, in restoring the reference to Occidental College in the Infobox, referred to its removal as a "bad faith edit". I don't agree with that description. While I agree with the restoration, I believe the removal was in good faith. Whether "alma mater" included Occidental College was not clear. SMP0328. (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Equazcion's edit, not the newbie's. The former was made to make a point about a (wrong) assumption about 3RR. Not about the subject matter itself. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an attempt to put a stop to the edit warring, not to make a point about 3RR. As someone relatively uninvolved I thought it might do the trick. If I were an admin I would've protected the article instead, but since I'm not, this seemed like the next best thing. There's nothing bad-faith about that. You'll notice I actually reverted to the version I disagree with. Besides which, if you think continuing the revert war based on the subject matter is somehow more proper, I'd say you're mistaken. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:37, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The best way to put a stop to the edit warring is simply not to edit it again, but to come here and discuss it. While it may be irking that editors put in their edit summaries: "please discuss in talk page first," it means just that. Why not discuss it before elevating the issue to a revert war. While WP:BOLD may mean at times go on in and fix what you see wrong, it also means that maybe it might be better to bring it to the talk page first and discuss it. Sometimes what you see wrong may not actually be wrong in the first place, or is a product of a long running argument that led to a consensus version. Changing things because you, as the editor, want to see it differently is not a good excuse to change things and can even be argued as just trying to make a WP:POINT. Brothejr (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin attended FIVE different colleges for her B.A. alone, but the only one listed is the University of Idaho. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S HER ALMA MATER. Your alma mater is not "any school you attended", it's WHERE YOU GRADUATED FROM. I cannot find a single other Wikipedia page, besides Obama's, that features a school that person DID NOT graduate from as their "alma mater." It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, an alma mater is anywhere you attended. Graduation is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that doesn't matter. The only places traditionally considered "alma mater" and the once places recorded in this spot on someone's Wiki page are where they graduated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I Agree 72.207.65.76 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then someone needs to edit Wikipedia's definition of 'Alma Mater' then, as it says it refers to someone who attend or graduated from a school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.238.2 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama spent two years each at Occidental and Colombia. They were both important to his education and both deserve mention in the infobox. I bet Occidental considers him enough of an alumnus to ask him for money. PhGustaf (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For those arguing for one college equals one Alma Mater, then how about this real life example: A person goes into a program where they first start out in one college for two years. Then they finish their last two years in a different college graduating with a bachelors degree. After a couple more years they attended a third university and attained their master degree. Finally they went to a fourth university and graduated with a doctorate. They technically graduated all four colleges, receives alumni mailings from all four colleges, and thinks fondly of all four colleges. Which is their Alma Mater? (I personally know this person and I've heard of hundred and hundreds of others doing the same thing.) Brothejr (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Facts about Barack Obama

Resolved

 – And we are done here. If you have something to add that in some what relates to the article, and isn't a crackshoot from WND or the Drudge Report, feel free to post a new thread below. This is not a general forum. seicer | talk | contribs 03:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed and archived per above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is wikipedia not allowing edits that question Obama's eligibility? It has been widely reported from many news sources and there are several court case at various levels of the legal system ranging up to the supreme court. Further his associations with Rev. Wright and Ayers are not allowed to be posted. Why is wikipedia allowing a whitewash of history? These are relevant to the historical account. Facts are facts no matter how inconvenient they may be to someones ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt1604 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This is an easy one: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Things that violate WP:BLP aren't "allowed" - otherwise, if you can find citations from reliable sources, it is allowed. But if it can't be properly cited...then it can't be in there, simply put.  Frank  |  talk  00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The Chicago Tribune isn't a reliable source? Read Wikipedia's standard: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Guess what? Reliable sources have been used and it's still being edited in a tainted way. The entry should be flagged until bias is removed (bias from anything critical about Obama on his page) Now, read what else Wikipedia demands: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Does this apply to Obama or not? As the entry currently is displayed, bias is clearly showing by censoring ANY and ALL entries that may show controversy or negatively toward the President.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs) There's an article about his campaign that goes into attempts to paint him with guilt by association. There's also an article that covers all of those frivolous court cases at some length. Those articles have been out there for months, and anyone who knows how to spell "Barack" can find them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC) That doesn't make any sense. This is an ongoing controversy. It is quite easy to verify the truth, from most notable news sources, that this is, in fact, an ongoing controversy. So, again, why no mention of the controversies in the article? 69.248.3.210 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally, if such material is added to the article, I recommend any such material be put into a new section. That way, it will be easier to integrate into the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I have restored the neutrality tag, because this discussion is ongoing. I've seen this discussion over at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As long as at least one editor believes the article violates NPOV, that tag must stay. SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Can you point to this ongoing discussion? And no, NPOV tags should be used when disputes cannot be resolved. A single editor complaining about an article does not validate tagging. You've got to have actionable issues with the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It makes no sense to apply NPOV when the info about Obama's ineligibility controversy is verifiable by linking it to Chicago Tribune, a reputable newspaper. If anything, it seems that leftist bias of an editor is preventing a discussion about a very important issue. It is hard to believe that one biased part of leftist "machine" can murder our quest to get to the full truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokietek (talk • contribs) Wikipedia does in fact have a lot on this subject Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. Do the fringey theories merit inclusion in the main article? They do not. IronDuke 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I propose implementing the solution to a similar problem at the Sixteenth Amendment article. I tried doing it, but was reverted. SMP0328. (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Because it gives undue weight, i.e. undeserved dignity, to a fringe theory that the courts have already rejected. WND and others are desparate to keep it alive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It's clearly fringe material, on the far outer edge of the campaign period blog attacks. Not a single serious reliable source ever reported either questions surrounding his birthplace, or the "natural born citizen" rule, a legitimate claim. The few that reported it at all simply said that somebody made the claim, and the few lawsuits that were filed were not by reputable plaintiffs and all were summarily dismissed. The fact that fringe litigants file frivolous lawsuits against the president, and that partisan publications take up the cause, is not a significant issue in the life of a sitting president. If it were significant the reliable sources would cover it. Most issues that even get a few words of mention have hundreds of reliable sources to establish weight - things that take up paragraph have thousands to tens of thousands of articles. Wikipedia does cover the fringe Obama theories in depth in its own article. But space is limited here in the main article about Obama, and we do not have room for every conspiracy theory people care to believe on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Correct. It is on Wikipedia; we do not censor. However, a Presidential article is long and we can't have everything in it. Since the Kenya thing has little to no factual basis, we place it in its own article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Neutrality dispute? The page is tagged, but I can't find any active discussion here. Am I missing something? Guettarda (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) See the above discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The tag is totally frivolous, and every question the original tagger raises is answered elsewhere. I have posted a complaint about that conservapedia/conspiracist drive-by at WP:ANI. This article is under probation for a good reason. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I do not believe the citizenship issue belongs in the main article. The conspirary theories page is appropriate for that. However, references to the Ayers & Wright controversies absolutely belong in there. These were major issues during his campaign and eventually became some of the most prominent arguments against electing him. If that is constantly edited out this article will continue to be in violation of Wikipedia NPOV guidelines KK5000 8 March 2009, 19:58 (EDT) So why isn't any negative or critical information allowed on the Obama page? As the previous poster stated, Ayers and Wright were legitimate election controversies. If Wikipedia censors only from the left, it is useless as a source. Those aren't bad points, but they're wrong from a Wikipedia point of view. We have stuff -- lots of stuff, on for example Wright: See here. The point being, yes, there are all sort of wonderful negative things one could cram into this article (and also any other majot politican's article) but there simply isn't room, and it isn't nearly relevant enough to make the cut for the main article. I mean... Ayers? Seriously? That's a footnote in the campaign article, let along the main BHO article. IronDuke 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I don't know where Ayers was a "footnote" in the campaign. Maybe on MSNBC. Ayers & especially Wright were covered extensively by the mainstream media. I am not saying an entire section needs to be dedicated to them, but getting a ban for merely adding them to the article when they should clearly be mentioned suggests zealotry on part of the admin. KK5000 9 March 2009, 02:48 (EDT) I'm AB-SO-LUTE-LY APPALLED to learn the censoring going on with this site. I have heard murmurings in the past on some of the podcasts that I listen to as to the validity of Wikipedia as a source for anything. I have at times felt irritated at the fact that my university restricts citing this site as a source for any material. Now I KNOW WHY! I guess I have to preface by giving my party affiliate so that this post isn't simply passed off as a political rant - I tend to dip left in my beliefs. That being said, there are a couple of key points that the site is missing with clear intent. The Ayers and Wright questions/associations is very much a part of this person's presidential bio in that it outlines how he was able to overcome the accusations of another party and rise to the occasion with the support of his voters. How can we just pretend it didn't happen??? As well, it is public knowledge that he has not made his birth records available to public by the simple fact that it's NOT public knowledge. I have seen the response by wikipedia authors that they rely on facts, but that is a twisted response. As a part of many other bios, there are mentions of accusations without conviction. I can assure you, I will only have a couple more limited visits to this site - for the sole purpose of seeing responses to this post. I am now much more enlightened with the ways on this wiki site, which is extremely unfortunate since it has for a long time, been one of the first places that I go to research a wide range of topics. Very unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.92.22 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Comments that Wikipedia is a whitewash This page if for good faith, civil questions and comments aimed at improving the article. Gripes about Wikipedia's supposed political bias, article whitewashing, censorship, etc., are unhelpful. However, rather than adding fuel to the fire by deleting them or closing discussions at this point, I suggest we just move them all to this section and let people discuss it here. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) And yet as long as you separate ALL criticism from Obama's page, you are CENSORING his main page. Compromise: Why not have an entry entitled Criticisms and list all of that there? It appears that wikipedia is carrying obamas water. Pleanty of the "critics" claims about bush are STILL on his wikipedia page yet if you dare bring these you on obamas page you are banned? Shamefull. In fact why not just redirect the entire page to the whitehouse main page? Exactly. Why not remove anything critical of Bush while you're at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs) Then why not give it a subset in the outline entitled Criticism or whatever you wish? You seem to have plenty of room for negative information concerning President Bush on his main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs) This article is clearly a whitewash. I am not some partisan hack with a dog in this hunt either. I am an expat political atheist who can read. All of the censors should be ashamed of themselves. The Wright issue was one of the most discussed issues of the campaign. It's not even mentioned here. In fact there's not a single non-positive element mentioned in this entire article unless you count the mention of his smoking and that's not necessarily negative. It's as though the Obama campaign wrote it. Shame. Ikilled007 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your first contribution in three months. The article is factual, not positive or negative. Had Obama done something negative of note, let's say being arrested for drunk driving or the like, to be sure it would be in the article. As he has not, we just stick to the facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wrong. You are censoring it. And the internet has found out. NewsBusters and Wnd.com are running articles about the removal of the ties to Wright and Ayers. I'm really getting sick of the constant Liberal bias on everything I have to look at on a day-to-day basis. This is a blatant violation of the rules and banning users for 3 days after attempting to add referenced material on the Ayers and Wright connections is too. Enough is enough. --Justin Herbert (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Squawk! Another WND mindless-parrot heard from. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Your selective editing has extended ad infinitum into cyperspace, your credibility for all to seriously consider has now reached critical mass. read it here: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 Furtive admirer (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) If you actually believe what you read in that rag, you should go back to your college and demand a refund for having produced an ignoranimous. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This is fun. I'm really hoping Rush picks up the story; these drones are so mindless and so pathetic. The marching morons.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) As mentioned from an article linked from the DrudgeReport, Wikipedia is accused of censorship. When I look at the two pages (Presidents Bush and Obama), that accusation seems accurate. There is a statement on Pres. Bush's page that states "Many accusations have been made against the administration[120] for allegedly misinforming the public and not having done enough to reduce carbon emissions and deter global warming.[121]" If this is OK, then why can't Pres Obama have a sentence "Many accusations have been made against President Obama that [insert accusation here, see rest of Talk for examples]." There are accusations. Fact. Those accusations have been reported by reputable sources. Fact. Is it a fact that Wikipedia staff are bias? LinuxSneaker (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, no doubt. But as the staff are administrative only, and volunteers all over the world edit the encyclopedia, it doesn't really matter. Oh, I forgot to mention their "bias". They are all very big Yankee fans. Have a nice day!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Great reply. As an attorney, you deflect the conversation without answering the question. You've done way more editing then I - do you recommend (as a volenteer, not as a lawyer) that Pres Bush's or Pres. Obama's page get fixed? LinuxSneaker (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC) We recommend that you go back to your fellow parrots at WND, and tell them we're tracking all of you down, which is why the page remains unprotected at this point - so you will all expose yourselves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Clearly you two are unbiased! Everyone who notes the whitewash must be a Limbaugh listener. What are you, the Obama SS? Your responses here are not helping with credibility. Ikilled007 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) There is nothing factually incorrect with the story. It is a true representation of the events on this page. The fact remains is this: It takes 3 Admins, working in unison, to squelch any/all changes to any article on Wikipedia. You make up any excuse you want, then have your buddies swoop in to agree with you; claim a 'consensus", then ban, ban, ban. The word is out. We know you're liberally biased. We are not stupid.64.53.138.18 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) You people must be crazy, suggesting a criticism section for Barack Obama. Nobody is allowed to criticize him, how could you not know this? Bush's WP page is allowed to contain controversies and criticisms because he is a Republican, but how dare you suggest that reasonable criticisms be included. The Wright and Ayers controversies were a major part of the Presidential campaign but they may not be included because they may make Obama look bad. I thought everybody knew this. WP editors: YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!. - http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 24.187.128.136 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) is that Barack Obama? a) yes B) NO Case closed, you propagandizing shill. 76.243.106.37 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's alreadly low credibility is sinking like a torpedoed submarine. 76.243.106.37 (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Editors and administrators are suppressing dissent.....this is a very troubling trend I don't think all the name-calling is helpful here. We really should be rising above all that. Having said that, I compared the articles on the previous 4 presidents with this one and any objective observer can readily see that Obama is being treated differently. Unlike those other presidential articles, there is practically no discussion of any of the controversial issues surrounding Obama here. (Don't believe me? See the articles on Clinton and GHW Bush to compare/contrast.) Certainly these controversial topics warrant their own articles, but complete censorship of any mention of these controversies or link to the ancillary articles in the main article damages Wiki's reputation, making this article look like a fluff piece and leaving the controlling administrators wide open to NPOV charges. One of the underlying principles of Wikipedia is that we should be writing these articles from the standpoint of consensus, and clearly consensus is lacking in the way this article has been handled. I find it troubling when I see negative references to Wikipedia's credibility making their way into the media. It is important that we maintain NPOV in Wikipedia. But no matter my (or your) personal opinion of Obama, the most important point of these discussions is not the content of the article, rather it is the way that differing opinions are being handled by certain factions in the Wiki community. I find it VERY disturbing that questions about the conduct of certain administrators and editors and their NPOV or possible lack thereof are being swept under the rug without a meaningful discussion. The (quickly) deleted comments by a previous poster were unnecessarily inflammatory, but I must agree that certain editors involved with this article seem far too willing to use the "memory hole". Discussion?: yes! Consensus?: yes! NPOV?: yes! Blatant censorship?: I know what my answer is; what is yours? (Now we get to wait and see how long this discussion topic lasts before it, too, is deleted!) NDM (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I have modified the heading here. If you want your contribution to stand you should honor the letter and spirit of article probation and WP:TALK generally, which is to use this page for suggesting improvements in the article. Crying censorship is not a suggestion for improving the article. If any editor's behavior troubles you there are appropriate forums for that but not here. With that out of the way the article is just fine. It is a reasonable, balanced treatment of the significant matters relevant to Obama's life and career. Of course it can be improved. Any article can be improved. But we'll have a hard time maintaining any reasonable discussion until all the ruckus dies down. Obama has not been President for very long, and there are (despite what partisans would wish to say off Wikipedia) simply no scandals or controversies of a magnitude comparable to those involving Bush, and particularly Clinton. Nobody is sweeping anything under the rug here. These pages are all in the open, and these matters have been discussed to the tune of hundreds of pages, each hundreds of thousands of bytes long. Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon: you have completely missed the point of my posting. Please reread it. I am not talking about "Criticism of Obama", as you have taken the liberty to label my posting. As the heading at the top of the discussion page states clearly: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I am also not talking about any individual editor's bias or behavior. I am talking about a longstanding institutional bias within Wikipedia which is rearing its very ugly head here in this article, that of a perceived "progressive" bias among the administrators by many of the editors. Your "modification" of my heading of this section seems to go a bit beyond the pale, especially when you state that "crying censorship" is not appropriate here. It appears that you have just done some censoring yourself. I have undone your revision of the heading, since it does not directly relate to the content of my posting. I would ask that you not modify it again, but instead limit your comments to the substantive issues that I raise vis a vis the conduct of certain factions within the Wiki community. The fact that "these matters have been discussed to the tune of hundreds of pages, each hundreds of thousands of bytes long" clearly indicates that the Wikipedia community does not enjoy consensus about how the administrators have been handling this issue, determinations of "consensus" by the administrative fiat notwithstanding. It seems clear that Wikipedia administrators can expect to continue to hear the protests from many of the editors as long as these heavy-handed tactics continue, and as long as they continue to label the bona fide dissent that continues to rage in regards to this article as "consensus". NDM (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Please don't edit war over article headings. You should know that it is generally considered appropriate to refactor discussion headings so they describe the discussion topic rather than advocate a position, and also to reorganize discussion pages. If you have a complaint about longstanding institutional bias, as you put it above, or "Editors and administrators are suppressing dissent.....this is a very troubling trend" as you put it in your preferred heading, then this is definitely not the page for that discussion. You're wrong about the state of consensus, and you don't seem to have made an effort to understand the history of this series of articles article about which you are being so vociferous, despite never having contributed to them before today. You're accusing me of censorship and going beyond the pale, so I don't see any point responding to whatever point you may be trying to make. This discussion should probably be closed and/or merged with all the other complaints today about supposed censorship, bias, and whitewashing. You have not been notified formally of article probation but I do suggest you read about it at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon: Please quit conducting your own edit war over the heading of my comment. Feel free to start your own comment section and give it any title you choose. If you feel you must continue to do so, perhaps we need to get an administrator involved to settle our dispute about this point. I have written my original comment in good faith and your changing of the heading of my comment is inappropriate as it tends to obscure the point I am making. I feel this falls under "Modifying User's comments." I must point out that I have not edited the main article itself, and your continued deletion of the title of my heading on the discussion page is vexatious....please stop. NDM (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) As I told you, changing talk headings is fine, and they should be descriptive rather than contentious. I'm leaving a caution on your talk page and closing this discussion as unproductive. Try listening next time rather than doing battle. Wikidemon (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This is a blatant whitewashed version of Mr. Obama. No dissent allowed? Nothing overtly negative about Obama allowed? Come on! Wikipedia needs to be a lot fairer that it is currently. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Obama is a very contentious person, and this should be reflected here. 219.15.120.11 (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Andrew

Place of Birth

point made, discussion is degenerating and unlikely to result in article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know some people are making a fuss over this, but isn't his place of birth a documented and relevant fact? He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and this is a proven fact, insofar as anyone's birthplace is a proven fact, at least. I think we should go ahead and flatly say he was born in Hawaii right at the top of the article. To do anything less or more would be a travesty. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Check out the first sentence of the Early life and career section. Opening sentences in the lead generally only include birth date. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (ec)We do in the info box and the intro paragraphs. We even include refs. Yet, that does not stop the conspiracy theories from disputing that. It boils down to this: no matter what we say, show, or back up, they still will not believe it. Heck, even if Barack Obama would release his birth certificate, they still will not believe it and will proclaim it a fake. Sadly, there is not much we can do or say that will sway them. Brothejr (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain's Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND's coverage. 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 74.42.127.232 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Obama's place of birth is irrelevant. His father's citizenship disqualifies him. End of story. --71.223.114.96 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Mark Yannone Regardless of if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii the fact is that there are LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS, and as a reference, wikipedia MUST include the claims, even if it is just to say, "There is ongoing dispute as to where Obama was born." To present that Obama was born in the US as fact, when his vault copy of his birth certificate has not been released is to do a dis-service to those who use wikipedia as a reference. 66.252.94.61 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)DadOfFour Actually Timothy, the "President" and his lackeys have made every attempt to PREVENT a provable fact. There is no verifiable evidence that he WAS born in the US, since they refuse to release a copy of his birth certificate. Insofar as it pertains to this article, the controversy SHOULD be included because there is no verifiability to his being a US citizen. Without a birth cirtificate is is impossible to prove he was born in Hawaii. To quote the administration, "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth." There is no verifiability to his citizenship, so either the controversy should be included, or any mention of his citizenship or place of birth be EXCLUDED. To do otherwise is to show bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.254.111 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) The presupposition of his birth certificate not being exhibited strongly suggests its a fake and that he knows it can't stand up to a cursory examination. NPOV as appears for Clinton and George W. Bush on Wikipedia applies just as much to Obama. Read them! NPOV requires that Wikipedia reference the dispute. Sky (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Sky

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)

Article and talk page maintenance

Suggest IAR and semi protection of talk page

I'm aware of the policy that both an article and a talk page should be protected simultaneously. Due to the heavy vandalism of this talk page, suggest we IAR and semi protect this talk page anyway for a limited period, say 72 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a strategy in play, referenced on WP:ANI, to let as many of these lunatics as possible expose themselves here, so that the checkuser case can cast as broad a net as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia Admins like Bugs allowed to resort to name calling? 64.53.138.18 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am an admin, then I am allowed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is the place for IPs and new users to point out errors on a semiprotected article. Sometimes they make good points, albeit not so much today. But I'm not in favor of disabling that feature. Now, if we could sell tickets to the talk page while the WND zoo is around... PhGustaf (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what Bugsy meant was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barrack Obama. I'm all for cracking down on sockpuppetry, but the downside of leaving the page unprotected for that purpose is having to revert anti-Obama/Liberal/Wikipedia rants and other types of vandalism almost literally every five seconds, which is a real pain in the ass to do. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe the user who requested leaving the shields down (was it Wikidemo?) should be consulted to see if he's got enough fish now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, who died and appointed me Wiki-dictator? It was just a suggestion. There are people around here who know a lot more than I do about CU and how to manage article melt-downs. But yes, I think we've had enough fun watching this. If there's sockpuppetry I'll bet we will find it at this point. If not, I think playing whack-a-mole with a swarm of dittoheads is not going to help the encyclopedia, and it will only give the dittoheads more to complain about. Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted it on the request for protection page. I asked for semi-protection. That should put the breaks on the IP's and the redlinks, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is warranted in this extreme case. No comment on the content of t6e article other than that it isn't as balanced as it could be. Enigma^msg 05:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think protecting might just give them something else to shout about - they do love a potential conspiracy. Better to just quietly revert and not create another cause. Mfield (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may be moving beyond the scope of checkuser at this point. As the Good Word trickles down from the WND/Drudge queen bees down on to the unwashed masses, it is likely going to be different people with the same agenda. There's already a topic over at the FreeRepublic ("Wikipedia Scrubs Ayers and Wright From Obama Biography", can't link directly) about this and how to hit protected pages. Tarc (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lock down talk page as well

With Fox News attacking this wikipedia article on air and online, even this talk page will soon devulge into a discussion of whether Obama is a athiest-muslim-marxist in a Che beret -or- a socialist-black liberation theologian-Anti Christ in a Malcolm X tshirt. Please admins lock down this talk page as well, or it will look like Conservapedia's entry in no time. 137.52.150.212 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

anyone with the kind of partisan investment as demonstrated in the above paragraph should not be editing an article of this nature.

actually, the discussion has beem quite hospitable. other than a few drive-bys, nothing extraordinary has occurred. Locking this page would also violate WP:NEWBIES. Whether you like it or not, conservatives are Wikipedians too. Bytebear (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input here at Wikipedia, sport. It is against the rules here to lock down both the article and the talk page. You can lock down one but not the other. Welcome to collaboration, it can set you free, have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, it isn't against the rules, which simply state that it should not be done, not that it cannot be done. Please do not misrepresent Wikipedia policy. If this shit-storm persists, then it may not be such a bad idea to prevent new single-purpose accounts from using this talk page for a bit. Tarc (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a s-storm? Rarely would a talk page be full protected. Semi-protection would come if there is a big influx of especially troublesome IP vandalism, and it's usually pretty short in duration. Barring that, it's really up to us to police manageable levels of problems, e.g. by deleting obviously impertinent stuff, consolidating identical discussions, closing discussions when they're done, moving stuff that's out of place. And a key component here is enforcing article probation, and finding willing administrators to warn, block, and ban abusers. A slew of editors were blocked a day ago and may be coming back online. Also we do need to start getting some of those RfCU results back. That will hold things down for now, but I don't think we can have a reasonable consensus discussion or return to normal article editing until things calm down. Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can be bothered to skimread the article at "Fox News", it doesn't attack this article. Rather, it reports what has happened, predictably emphasizing comments from the far right and pushing the significance of Wright and Ayers and the significance of their (near-) absence from the article. The sky is not falling. (But then I haven't seen the teevee version: I think I'll wait for the Onion News Network riff on this.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

De-collapsed FAQ; collapsed internal questions to make more adhd friendly

Since it's pretty clear that a lot of people are seemingly unable or unwilling to read the FAQ when it's collapsed, I've gone ahead and de-collapsed it, but made it quite a bit less space-consuming by collapsing the answers, leaving only the questions as headers to collapsible sections. Hopefully this will help a bit more. --slakr^\ talk / 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. It does take up a lot more vertical space, but that horse is out of the barn already, and people are more likely to read it if they can see which questions are addressed there. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. Personally, I think a bombardment of information upon arriving at the page is more likely to encourage people to scroll past and read none of it, but it's no big deal. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of the recent posters are making their very first edits to Wikipedia. There's nothing to suggest they know what talk pages are, and they certainly know little of policy at this stage. They won't notice this. That said, I prefer the unwound FAQ: it will help new editors who are really trying. As opposed to those who are trying in the other sense. PhGustaf (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory article

Folks might want to have a look at the recent edit history of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I don't know if I'll be reverted again, but I have to go, and besides I'm at my third revert, although I think it's pretty clear that this stuff meets WP:FRINGE and that the overall consensus here is that it is, indeed, a fringe approach. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:19, 9 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)

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)

New section: first African-American

question answered - see FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is a misrepresentation that Barack Obama is the first African-American to become President of the United States. He is the first bi-racial man to become the president of the United States. This is verifiable through the fact that his mother was Caucasian. Michelle Obama is the first African-American to be the First Lady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsie4120 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It is how he is commonly referred to, and he has never indicated he prefers another descriptor. We might as well keep it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Please review the FAQ at the top of this page as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Race is a social construct which depends on self-indentification. Obama identifies as African-American. Reliable sources call him the first African-American to be POTUS. We can only follow available, reliable sources. At the same time, his origins are clear in the article. Guettarda (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) As has been said around eleventy-billion times, the "African American" designation comes from the preponderance of reliable sources that refer to Obama in this way. Some reliable sources use the term "bi-racial" (or something similar), but most (several orders of magnitude more) use "African American", and Wikipedia must necessarily reflect this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Obama calls himself African-American, and so does all the mainstream, non-fringe media, so that's what we call him. rootology (C)(T) 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) In addition, Elsie, have you read the FAQ at the top of this page? There is a useful discussion of this very point there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I don't think this is the best place to get into an argument over semantics. Save it for here Talk:African_American--T1980 (talk) 02:28, 10 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)

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)

Grammar

If somebody who's not on a mission from some loony-right website may raise a point hereabouts....

"Neither Obama nor McCain are is a Martian." / "The race was between Obama and McCain, neither of whom were was Martian." / "Nixon bequeathed Liddy and Colson, neither of whom have has met the fate that he deserves." In my idiolect, anyway.

Obama also introduced Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections and the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, neither of which have been signed into law.

In my idiolect, wrong. However, my learned friend Scjessey disagrees. Polite of him/her to compliment me on my faith; but faith be damned, it's grammar that interests me.

(I'd also stick a comma after "elections", or, better, put the phrase "a bill ... elections" in a pair of parentheses rather than commas.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama also introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, and the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, neither of which have been signed into law.

That's my take on the phrasing. Padillah (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying Obama also introduced [A] and [B], neither of which have [...] is grammatically correct? If so, I can only say that your idiolect and mine are different. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Neither" is singular and should take "has" in this case. You may now resume reverting SPA IPs. PhGustaf (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a straightforward as that. It appears that either usage is acceptable (info on this). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that either sounds fine, I lean towards HAVE because there are a plurality of bills so they have not been signed. That's my outlook, but I'm no English teacher so take it as the because it sounds better to my ear that it is. Padillah (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Neither of whom was/were" - does that not take "were" rather than "was" in the same way that you have "if I were" rather than "if I was"? Guettarda (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"if I were" is subjunctive, "Neither of whom was" is not subjunctive in this case. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

←In American English "has" is the correct usage - as PhGustaf says, "neither" is singular, in the same way that "either" is. Try reading it as "either of which is/are a good bill" or "neither of which is/are a good bill". Americans would choose "is". I agree with Hoary that at least commas are needed around the description of the first bill, but I think that parens would be better, because even with the necessary comma after "elections" it can be misread as meaning three bills, not two bills. And since this is all in the past, why are we not saying "was" rather than "has been"? So:

Obama also introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act (a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections), and the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, neither of which was signed into law.

That's how my American ear hears it best. Tvoz/talk 19:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I always thought "neither of whom were" was the correct usage in American English. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Klein article and POV tag

Proposal

I think we should add some sort of special talk header at the top of the page informing WND propagandists that their website cannot and will not be used as a reliable source for whatever claims they want to add to the article. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is WorldNetDaily ever considered a reliable source? If not, then I don't see what good adding such a header only to this article would do. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for WP:SELFPUB, in their own article, they can be. Not for anything else. I don't think a header will work. These people are intent on enlightening us as to their views.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The hagiographic tone of the article, utterly lacking in content that could be considered derogatory or critical, does more to discredit it than any hit piece by WND could ever do. Gruffbear (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

World Net Daily isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia, but Media Matters is sourced all over the place. That's an obnoxious double-standard.

Besides, it has less to do with WND's notability that it does running protectionism for Barack Obama. You can cite very reliable sources (NYT, FNC, MSNBC, Chicago Sun Times) to get plenty of sources for Reverend Wright, William Ayers, eligibility issues, misgivings about his oratory skills.

But for some reason, Libipedia won't allow those well sourced issues to be included. Notability of WND is a red herring. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No NPOV tag?

discussion moot - full protection signals existence of editing dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How can anyone assert with a straight face that "Editors are NOT currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article"? As long as these "discussions" rage here on the talk page -- specifically concerning the balance/neutrality of the article -- how can the NPOV tag be inappropriate? Opelio (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I completely agree. Lawyer2b (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Given the recent disruption, and concern over the legitimacy and intent of a number of the edits, this is not a good time to be considering this. Let the dust settle, see who is truly interested in improving the article, and we can consider it then. However, I do not see that a viable argument has been raised that the article has bias problems or that editors who have participated to any significant degree in the article believe there is such an urgent problem.Wikidemon (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Could someone please remove this tag?[22] And please don't re-add it. There is little constructive discussion at the moment, and what is here is a mess. If we get past the sudden influx of suspicious editors, and external assaults on Wikipedia, and can't resolve this after going through the appropriate discussion and dispute resolution channels, then at least you have an argument for it.Wikidemon (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal who uses Conservapedia as a source of humour rather than information, but I have to agree that there are serious POV issues with this article. Not to have a single mention of Ayers or Wright on either this page or the presidential campaign page (although they are on the primary campaign page) seems incredible. As several people have said, Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability and it's clearly verifiable that both men caused large issues for Obama during both campaigns. The Wright controversy was so big it gets its own article. I would have to say they warrant a brief mention on this page. --Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I think talk of this article being biased because it doesnt mention those issues is wrong, if they were left off the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 or Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 articles then that would be clear bias but its debatable if these issues were so important they deserve a mention on Obamas main article when theres so many sub articles going into more details about these things anyway. However a sentence or two at the most in the campaign section on this article mentioning them (or some of the setbacks during the campaign) would do no harm so i agree it should be included, especially the Jeremiah Wright thing because that issue led to his "race speech" which the media everywhere got obsessed with. But even if its not added i dont think the NPOV tag is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) If you're married and your spouse says, "There is a marriage problem," there is a marriage problem BY DEFINITION, whether you think there is or not. IF the NPOV tag means that some editors think the article may not conform to the NPOV policy, isn't it BY DEFINITION correctly placed on the article? Lawyer2b (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I dont think its biased there for i dont think the tag is needed but if many editors do think the article is biased then the tag should remain. Just because one or two editors claim its biased doesnt justify the tag, people disagree and make claims on many articles.. half the wikipedia articles would need tagging if a small minority disagreeing with something led to a dispute or npov tag. I dont see any reason why there shouldnt be a sentence or two in the campaign section on some of the issues mention above and if people cant provide any decent reasons against it they should be added. If someone then removes it with out explanation, the tag would be justified in my mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) There is no way to tell if many editors think the article is biased. Back in the fall we had a bunch of accounts claiming that the article was a whitewash because it didn't disparage Obama enough. They turned out to be a few editors who had each created multiple fake accounts. The article has been quiet between then and now. Now we have a huge surge of people mostly making the same claims, often uninformed and impertinent. Decent reasons have been given over the course of months, which may all be discussed in due time in an appropriate fashion. Nothing under serious challenge or dispute should be added at this point, particularly not an NPOV tag, without some consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia editors are simply blocking the NPOV tag due to their own bias (check history, the most recent edit was removing the NPOV tag with 0 seconds of discussion). If someone removed all of the criticisms in George W Bush's entry, that the leftists here wouldn't slap NPOV on it immediately. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Criticism of Michael Moore was pushed to a secondary article, and criticism of Al Gore (including his insane ramblings about 'global warming') has been getting scrubbed since Wikipedia has existed. I think you can expect more debate on this subject now that Wikipedia's leftist bias has again been exposed. Sniper Fox (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, that's exactly the problem. Can we please remove the tag again now. And make sure it stays off? Wikidemon (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (after ec) I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this last comment pass without saying something. By referring to left-leaning folks as "leftists", making comments about Al Gore's "insane ramblings", and using WND as a reference you have disqualified yourself from usefully contributing to this discussion by exposing shocking right-wing bias. Decisions about what should and should not be in Wikipedia articles should be based on facts verified by a preponderance of reliable sources and carefully weighted to present a neutral point of view (which is not the same as presenting all points of view). The neutrality of this article is only disputed by biased editors seeking to make it fit their own point of view. An examination of the extensive talk page archive will reveal how thoroughly and carefully every aspect of this article has been debated and discussed, and the text is the result of reaching a painstaking consensus on each detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC) As I said before, I'm definitely a left-wing editor and I'd still argue that the article is biased - albeit in a way that happens to support my personal opinions. The fact that two highly noteworthy events have been left off the article, both of which had negative connotations for Obama, seems odd. What's worse is that I've not seen any good reason why this should be the case. This debate has descended into "you're a biased lefty" if you want them off and "you're a biased conservative" if you want them on. If there is a genuine reason why neither story should appear - all I'm suggesting is a brief mention in the campaign section - then fine. Until then, it really does appear to be a very biased article that pushes a certain POV. --Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The two "noteworthy" events you are referring to have both received considerable discussion (please see the talk page archive). In both cases, they are only noteworthy in the context of one of Obama's political campaigns, whereas this article seeks to represent a summary of his entire life. When viewed from a historical perspective, it is clear that these events are not "noteworthy" at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (outdent) I'm going to have to agree with Scjessey to a degree here. WND is a little to the right of Goldwater, and a little less reliable than my high school gossip maven. If an article "agrees" with WND, it is a clear indicator the article is strongly biased, and almost certainly contains serious factual errors. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (after ec) They're not "left out" - they're in the appropriate articles. Every major politician has so many items that they do not all fit in the main article, and a great deal of discussion and thought goes into which items are in which article of the family of articles about each individual. Sarah Palin's editors discussed at great length before deciding what was appropriate in her main article, and what was appropriate in her candidacy article, and what was appropriate in her mayoralty article, for example. "Not in this article" does not mean "not here on Wikipedia". KillerChihuahua?!? 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Ah. As I was typing that last comment and then being eced twice, Thatcher has added a section about Wright, linking to the controversy article. I think that's pretty much fine now. It just needed a mention. --Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I agree with KillerChihuahua. The World Net Daily and Washington Times are not widely seen to my knowledge as mainstream sources. Their influence is roughly on par with something like Free Republic or The 700 Club, and they aren't widely acknowledged (or even known) by most of America or global audiences. They ought to be weighted and handled on par with similar sources. rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I'd certainly agree that the WND doesn't qualify as a mainstream source. That would be akin to using Media Matters, Alternet, or some other left-wing website as a credible source. But I don't agree that the Washington Times falls in this category. I understand that you may not see them as credible -- but, then, plenty of people feel the same way about the New York Times, too. Them feeling that way doesn't make it so. The Washington Times is cited as a ref quite a bit throughout WP. It's a legitimate news outlet with a point-of-view -- which doesn't distinguish it from virtually any other. Signed with a Sn00p. (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Personally, I'm glad the wiki credibility issues are being brought forth in the mainstream media. The wiki entry for Barack Obama reads like a love letter, while GWB's reads like a HuffPo or DailyKOS entry. There needs to be uniformity, or there will be ZERO credibility. This comment will be deleted in 3...2...1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.12.2 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC) ROFL - which "mainstream media" are you referring to? Surely not WDN, Drudge or some other fringe website? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Ummm, I would hardly call Drudge a "fringe" site according to Nielsen ratings: [23]. You may want to check your sources and be open minded a bit instead of letting your right and left wing views obstruct a fair assessment of the current president's praises as well as his several openly discussed controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.208.119 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I don't usually bother with the political articles, because they are usually very neutral. Unfortunately, President Obama is a bit of a special case since his political rise and election has been rather meteoric. Scjessey, your analysis would be right if it were not for the fact that, up until now, Obama's 2008 electoral campaign is by far **the** most significant event in his young life. To put a mention of the biggest controversy faced in that time in his life is not bias. WND is not crazy, just decidedly right wing. That does not make it entirely innacurate. Though I am still pretty sure of good faith still being acted upon (especially with the new Wright mention) I think Wikidemon is the most correct here in saying the article should and probably will most likely change some when the hubbub has died down, and the trollers are gone. --XF22B (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XF22B (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) But I don't so much think that the sources are the crux of the issue here. Plenty of perfectly mainstream, non-ideological sources for any of these matters can easily be found. I think the bigger issue is what matters belong in what article. And I think an argument can be made that some of these "scandal" issues (such as the Annenberg Challenge and his association with Ayers) primarily belong in some other article. That's not to say that they should be whitewashed altogether from the bio. But neither should they be prominently featured. This seems a fight between one group of people who think these things should be prominent in his bio, and another group of people who think they shouldn't be in the bio at all. I think both are wrong. Signed with a Sn00p. (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Clearly a POV or unbalanced tag until the censorship of this article ends. It needs to mention the notable controversies and/or provide wikilinks to those articles. Rev. Wright wasn't a fringe story, it was covered by the mainstream press and was something Obama gave two speeches about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

POV tag is moot; full article protection signals existence of a dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop removing the unbalanced or POV tag from the article. Until mention of notable controversies and criticisms are included, this article needs to be fixed. Adding a see also section that links to the notable stories is another possibility. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but just because a conservative ideologue manufacturers a BS article for a fringe website claiming Wikipedia left-wing bias, it doesn't mean Featured Articles should be sprinkled with right-wing propaganda and/or labeled as "unbalanced" (a word redefined by FOX). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) As mentioned by a couple of other people, the removal of certain content from this article been documented by a news surce, and has been linked to by Matt Drudge, so it's going to get a lot of attention. And yes, it is Obama's supporters that are watchdogging the article. It seems that sourcing is more of a priority, and standards of proof are much higher, when content that is critical of President Obama is posted to Wikipedia. If you look at the George W. Bush, there is a section titled Image and Public perception, which gives a rundown of what his critics and supporters have said about him, and has a link to an artical called Criticism of George W. Bush. Obama has a smaller section called "Cultural and political image" which reads as neutral to positive, with a link to a completely separate article called Public image of Barack Obama (which, by the way, is locked) which also reads as neutral to positive. So yes, I think that there might actually be something to this crazy conspiracy theory that Obama's supporters are censoring content on his Wikipedia entry.--Drvanthorp (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Support We should have a criticism section on our current president. Wikipedia's first and formost must have a neutral point of view, not get to the "truth". BTW, i voted for Obama, so i am not some right wing nutjob. Oldag07 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Your vote is irrelevant. That a lunatic fringe of the blogpsphere is up in arms because they can't get their favorite Birther/Marxist conspiracy theories jammed into the Obama article is not notable in the slightest. Don't confuse the reverb of an echo chamber with actual notability/popularity. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Inasmuch as we are establishing a consensus, everyone's outlook is very much relevant. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and even the recent Stem Cell policy change are controversial and they are very much real controversies. None of those is a fringe theory. There is not a group of 30 people that think Rev. Wright was a factor in the 2008 primaries, he was a factor. Do we give them an entire section? No. But the mentions currently do not give the proper weight to the controversies (Rev. Wright almost lost him the primaries if I recall correctly). Currently all the article says is it made him change churches. Not quite, he was called on to renounce Wright publicly and had to issue a speech that turned out to be very central to overcomming the controversy. The article hardly represents this well, at all. Padillah (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Um, no, we're not working to "establishing a consensus" on any of this. We're working on beating the vandals, trolls, and WP:SPA's back with sticks. This is a loosely-coordinated, off-Wiki meat-puppet attack, not an attempt to legitimately contribute to this or related articles. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia used to be my favorite site. Now it's not. I doubt they care. I don't care about Bush, Obama, the guy Obama beat, the Democrats, or the Republicans. But I do care about bias on this site, and it is very apparent to me that Wikipedia is strongly biased towards Obama. THIS president's page is completely devoid of any negative statements. Not even George Washington's page is so positive.--I Use Dial (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It is one thing to maintain a neutral POV, what is going on here is something different, it amounts to a manipulation of the Wikipedia rules by the administrators of this page to prevent anything that they view as negative or deleterious to President Obama, under the guise and abuse of the neutral POV rule. If they wish to function as acolytes for Obama, they should take a job with the Obama administration, this is not the appropriate venue for such behavior. And worse it damages the instrument of the Wikipedia itself in the process. For better or worse, topics such as Obama's middle name, William Ayers, the Reverend Wright play a role in who Barack Hussein Obama is. To simply discuss these issues in no way creates a non-neutral POV. Frankly the bullying administrators need to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.33.42 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This is going to get out of hand, and this isn't a war i want to fight. I got a life to live. However, I am not very happy with the events that happened recently, and I feel expressing that is a responsiblity I must take as an editor. A quick ctrl f search finds the word "critic" twice in the whole article. W, has a whole page. As for the birth certificate, it is no more notable than this quote out of W's page. "Critics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot and his irregular attendance." A similar statement on the obama page is all they are asking for. Oldag07 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Well, "they" can go pound sand, honestly. Just because one president has something critical said of him does not automatically justify the inclusion of other critical statements of other presidents. The Wikipedia doesn't have the equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine, y'know. Criticisms are evaluated on their own merits, and judged accordingly. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) W. Bush had eight years to "gain criticism". Now you want to give Obama the same after barely being in office before any clear results from his presidency will show? Ridiculous.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) In my opinion, Wikipedia editors are simply blocking the NPOV tag due to their own bias (check history, the most recent edit was removing the NPOV tag with 0 seconds of discussion). If someone removed all of the criticisms in George W Bush's entry, that the leftists here wouldn't slap NPOV on it immediately. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Criticism of Michael Moore was pushed to a secondary article, and criticism of Al Gore (including his theory about 'global warming') has been getting scrubbed since Wikipedia has existed. I think you can expect more debate on this subject now that Wikipedia's leftist bias has again been exposed. Restored prior delete of my discussion. This is a DISCUSSION page, it's not appropriate to delete someone's comments just because you don't agree with them. Sniper Fox (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) If you think there is too much criticism of Bush on his BLP, bring it up at Talk:George W. Bush. Perhaps you should ask the author of this amazing piece of investigative journalism why the editor he refers to (Jerusalem21) has only edited the author's own bio until this time. I couldn't possibly be that Klein manufactured this entire controversy himself, could it? That would mean that all of you avid WND readers (and Drudge's sheep) have been duped by one of your own. Surely not? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This section is about one POV tag. Not about the overly long criticisms that have been put on it in the past. that is it. As for the FA arguments, since this guy is a new president, I question whether or not this page should be a FA, based on section 1e of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. He will do a lot of new stuff. If anything at least a {{Current section}} should be used on this page. Oldag07 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Achilles' Heel

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr (talk) 16:42, 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) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Barack Obama's entry in Wikipedia highlights and underscores Wikipedia's Achilles' Heel and greatest weakness: an inability to be objective and fair in its treatment of some people and issues. As the article below* demonstrates, a handful of Internet bullies advocating a cause or position can abandon fairness and objectivity in putting forth a whitewashed version (note to readers: watch for the negative feedback from this entry to highlight how these bullies operate!). Unfortunately, as a result, we the people need to be on our guard and use a grain of salt as we use Wikipedia, since this renders the site unreilable. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.8.101 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Also

Perhaps we should add a "See Also" section to the Barack Obama article.

The Jeremiah Wright issue was a campaign issue, but is well handled in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 Article. Could we reference it in a "See Also" section?

Wright is not even mentioned in the current version of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 Fred Talk 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Same also for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

As time goes on there will be more "issue" articles and "controversy" articles related to Obama. They could all be referenced in a "See Also" section.

Robert1947 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope to go down, because "See also" sections are magnets for all sorts of crap that is barely related. This is a summary style article, so much of the detail is explored in daughter articles that are linked to directly in the main body of the article. These in turn link to some of the more trivial or fringey things people are clamoring for. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the huge collection of templates at the foot of the page serve the purpose that would otherwise be placed by a "see also". Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the articles that may have been in a See Also area, are either at the heading of each section, within the paragraphs, or part of the templates at the bottom. The only thing the See Also section would do in this politician's BLP would be a honeypot of whatever articles people want to throw into this article. Brothejr (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a see also section for major articles related to Obama that aren't mentioned or wikilinked in the text would be good (for example Obama's first 100 days). Perhaps a link to a "list of" type article page for the other stories would be sufficient and act as a kind of disambiguation page to readers can find the information they're looking for. There's no point in having articles if no one can find them. That's the whole point of wikilnks. That some editors don't want those issues covered at all is unfortunate and troubling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the sorts of articles people are clamoring for are not "major", and some are only tangentially-related to Obama. We do not want to turn this Featured Article into a link farm for poor quality articles designed to augment the conservative echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are already by random guess at least 100 Obama-related articles, and no room to list all of them as it is. Presumably that number will mushroom. We already have six or more overlapping ways of getting to related articles: (1) categories; (2) in-line wikilinks; (3) templates; (4) wikiprojects; (5) Wikipedia's internal search engine, google, and other searches; and (6) the family tree of child and parent articles. Cutting across that to provide direct links in a "see also" section to the farther out, derogatory, fringey ones is a coatrack / weight problem. Collapsible templates do a good job as the equivalent link pages - they can be general purpose or comprehensive on a subject. Wikiprojects and categories also give broad coverage but I doubt most readers know how to navigate them.Wikidemon (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I counted 224 last night in the main cat + subcats, although that included 60-70 people he appointed to jobs, and may have included duplicated (articles listed in the main cat + subcats). But I would guess it's closer to 150 than 100. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the responses here by Wikidemon, Brothejr, Scjessey, and Guettarda - there are many, many Obama-related articles, and we wikilink, have section head links, and have the bottom templates for a very large number of those that are relevant to the main biography. A "see also" section for those that are only tangential (if not, they would have been wikilink-etc'ed in the first place) would likely be a dumping ground, giving undue weight to otherwise marginal pieces that are here perhaps to serve some other purpose. The present system works well. Tvoz/talk 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that some of the "fringe" articles should be linked in here, simply because they do carry substantial amounts of information that are related to the main topic. When I saw the article, I looked here and was surprised that we don't link out to the controversial stuff. I know those are crank magnets of the highest order, but they should be connected - if only to allow us to point out that the WND article is truly way the hell off the mark. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, add the "see Also" section. If it's right in the GWBush article it's right here. The joke's on WND for reporting on a revert war on Wiki and calling it news. Scribner (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw the suggestion of a "See Also" section. Indeed, the other methods of accessing Obama articles pointed out by other users/editors above are more elegant. We have a clean, balanced article for now. Also, much of the other material that Obama critics wish to include is tangential in the Obama biography. The "Wright" and "Citizenship" criticisms are covered extensively in other, more appropriate articles in Wikipedia and such articles are accessible through the means summarized above. Thanks for the helpful discussion. Robert1947 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing that is not mentioned in these talk pages-the WND article is not an article critical of President Obama, Instead, it is critical of Wikipedia. What the Wikipedia process is saying is that, even as a Senator, Obama was without controversy. No controversial quotes, policies, books, associations. Nothing.LinuxSneaker (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Put it in a "See Also" section and name it "Dispute over citizenship" and link it to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. Scribner (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First 100 days

Given the nature of the world events, economy and huge nature of some of the events, could we please add this section to the Presidency section? Some items to begin adding include the stimulus bill, the visits by foreign leaders, the statements on the economy, the cloning announcement today etc. Let's move on from the campaign issues and document in encyclopedic fashion what is going on today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricMiles (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, partly. But this is a biography, in effect a summary of summaries. We also have Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama for day-to-day updates and Presidency of Barack Obama for coarser-grained reporting. It will take a while to see which of the things he does in his first hundred or thousand days wind up being important enough to cite here. There's no particular hurry. PhGustaf (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

Two of the primary components of a featured article areis that it is:

• neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
• stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  — Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

I believe this article now fails both of those criteria. Regarding neutrality, while there are those who believe much of the brouhaha is due to right-wing political mongering, it appears that enough significant concern about the presence or absence of various pieces of information exist that there is serious concern about the article's neutrality. Furthermore, this article currently is anything but stable, resulting in its needing a full-protection lockdown. As such, albeit the last FAR was in December, enough new issues and instability has arisen that requires us to reconsider this article's featured status until such point as the appropriate issues have all been addressed. I will be filing an FAR for that purpiose. -- Avi (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the right time. The trouble is clearly due to an extraordinary event. No new issues have arisen between the stable collegial editing of last week and the massive troubles of the last 24 hours. There is no way this is regular editing process. Could you please wait until things die down and editing is relatively normal? Wikidemon (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi, as evidenced by the first two responders to your FAR, this is not an appropriate time for a FAR. There is currently too many single purpose accounts/new users that are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to make a FAR/FARC productive. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - In full agreement with Wikidemon and Bobblehead - wait until "normal service" is resumed and the crazies have moved along. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That post is not useful. Branding people with whom you disagree as "crazies" is only going to stoke up the fire, not help quench it. The article as it stands seems to be to be fine. Earlier today, it had no references to incidents that are absolutely, without question, worthy of mention. Any historical retrospective on the primary and election campaigns leading to Obama's election is going to mention Wright, and probably Ayers. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to include them on this page in the campaign summary as well as on the detailed article on that topic. We have had one group of people wanting far too much coverage of those topics and another wanting no coverage. From my perspective, the current compromise of a brief mention for one of the topics deemed important enough to have its own article is quite sufficient. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite the constant interference and chaos going on around, I think we've got a compromise for Wright and will add him. Ayers on the other hand is a different story. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. (btw, thanks for deleting my discussions which are totally valid and even enjoyable to read, thank you) if nothing has changed in the last week, then enforcing Wiki guidelines and correcting the imbalance must wait because of what exactly? JohnHistory (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

What I said in response on my talk:

In light of this screed published today, I think this FAR is ill-timed, as the need for temporary full protection is likely traceable to that. Overall, I think article probation has handled disruption well and there has not been full protection since well before the election, other than pre-emptively on election day and Inauguration Day. Let things settle down after the flurry of drive-bys ends and see how we're doing then, would be my suggestion. Tvoz/talk 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is being challenged by a motley collection of sleepers, WP:SPAs, anon vandals, and the like. Calls of non-neutrality by these types are being made in bad faith, and should be discarded.
• Combating petty vandalism is not edit warring. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainly what has been going on is a group of people, sleepers, and various wikipedians have read the WND article and have tried to push their bias/viewpoints into the article. So far none of them have remotely brought up any brand new information which might have changed the consensus version of the article. When various editors could not rewrite the article the way they would like, they resorted to edit warring and ranting on this talk page. I feel that due to these extraordinary circumstances, this FAR/FARC is ill conceived and maybe even a little bit of wikiwyllering to prove a WP:POINT. Brothejr (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do I think waiting just makes it more likely that Jimbo and his guidelines will be once again thrown into the the abyss? JohnHistory (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

---

I can't believe someone just wrote that "calls for neutrality are being made in bad faith" ???? What to sneak a Trojan horse into your fortified Wiki Compound? This evidence of some highly unhealthy and disturbing thinking. JohnHistory (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Who cares what faith they have or are "in" just worry about the neutrality- kapeesh. JohnHistory (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Hey, John, ProTip; the election is over. Rehashing the left vs. right debate within the confines of the Barack Obama article is not a productive use of anyone's time. See WP:BATTLEGROUND. As for who cares, I care, as do many others. You aren't here to edit, you are here to make a point. As such, your contributions to this talk page are simply not taken with any seriousness. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a fake controversy generated by a lone website as to the perceived neutrality of this article. It's neutral to the all mainstream editors, or else concerns would have been raised by someone else other than a lone far-Right website. The website itself, as seen at WorldNetDaily#Claims about Barack Obama would not be considered a dispassionate, neutral source for use in this. As such, I fail to see how any reporting from them being excluded here could be a consideration in any WP:NPOV concerns about this article. It would be akin to giving Jack Thompson disproportionate weight in any neutrality dispute about Video game, in contrast. This is the same website that alleges our President is a Soviet mole.[24][25] rootology (C)(T) 21:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OF course wikipedia fails on these accounts. The simple fact that the controversies regarding Rev Wright and William Aries being deleted shows that wikipedia has no true desire to be truly encyclopedic. These issues are well documented and well known as fact, and the leadership of wikipedia have decided to become bias in their views and make this a one-sided praise fest. Wikipedia has become nothing more than an Obama lapdog now, and might even be in the democrats back pocket. 98.20.253.208 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another fringe news site (FoxNews) talks about this issue. So, let me get this straight...at what step does someone who has a problem admit they have a problem? LinuxSneaker (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a writer for a partisan website has created a tempest in a teakettle, giving his fellow right-wingers an opportunity to jump up and down on Wikipedia as a proxy for not getting what they wanted in November. Did you not notice all of the discussion here? There is work being done here to deal with these concerns. If all of the folks who have surfaced/resurfaced today because this popped up on Drudge (don't get me started on that) would actually offer some constructive commentary instead of the copious amounts of wharrrgarbl that's been popping up in these discussions, then we'd all be better off. (Yeah, and I do still believe there's a pony under there.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the FAR since FAR is not the correct medium for dispute resolution. Joelito (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FoxNews

Be prepared for more activity. Currently on the front page of FoxNews. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Already been mentioned like 4 times.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Oh well, I wasn't going to troll through this mess to see if it was. Good luck and have fun. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The only difference from last night is that they will bombard this talk page, and for those who have accounts (and know how Wikipedia works) it will also spill into the FAR. Brothejr (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR. I again propose we semi protect this talk page until normal service is restored.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's counter-productive to discussion to dismiss Fox News as "fringe." Is MSNBC considered fringe? I'll say it again...Media Matters (an organization with an admittedly, strictly liberal purpose) is given reliable source status, in spite of it being nothing more than a highly funded blog.

I'm willing to concede World Net Daily is a biased, conservative site and that it doesn't live up to the standards of "reliable source". That being said, can we start scrubbing references from Media Matters? And do we consider both FNC and MSNBC as fringe sources, or neither? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Fox is a reliable source is not the issue. It's that Wikipedia shouldn't change an article just because Fox News slams it. Not unless they have a valid point, of course. Honestly, I would have thought they had a little more pressing news to attend to than the goings on of Wikipedia, but I suppose you can only say "the economy sucks" so many ways. TastyCakes (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the actual irritant is that the article is, in fact, pretty hagiographic. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard Fox News compare Obama to Che Guevara, twice in the last 2 days. How is this neutral ? 137.52.150.212 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Prolly cause you can't tell the difference between news reporting and commentary. 24.5.139.38 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

the valid point is that Wikipedia claims to be an unbias encylopeidia. It has been documented facts of Obama's relationship with Rev Wright, to the point that Obama even defended him in the early days. So for wikipedia to decide what is and what is not proper to place on this article is assnine. When you do that, then you remove all free reign that wikipedia "claims" to follow and support. It is wonderful to know that the moderators of wiki are the true voice in what is right and wrong in this world, and can decide what should and should not be, even if they are dead wrong. 98.20.146.244 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia claims to strive to be an "unbias encylopeidia" [sic], not that it is one. And it is not "assnine" [sic] to crop information out of an article, it is an obvious necessity to make a vaguely coherent article for any subject with a lot of information. Expecting all the information on every subject to be included even if it makes the article hundreds of pages long is asinine (assuming that is the word you were looking for). Equally obvious is that what is "important" in controversial topics is going to be subjective and often people are going to fight over where the line is drawn. If you think something should be included, make a valid argument in the appropriate place. Don't just whine on about Wikipedia in general and not bother to address the actual problems in the article. (Believe it or not, I agree that the article should have more mention of Ayers and Wright, but you people are going completely the wrong way about getting the article changed.) TastyCakes (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, we do use Fox News as a source in many articles, including featured ones. However, like MSNBC or any other news site, Fox News contains both straight news and opinion pieces. So, just like any evaluation of the reliability of sources, we should use sound editorial judgment. The article in question appears in the "science and technology" section, and reads to me like an opinion piece. It even starts right out with the distinctly weaselly phrase "Critics noted..." (and presumably by "critics", they mean WND and some Fox News viewers/readers who have complained to them). szyslak (t) 23:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If Fox News had their way, this article would resemble the laughable right-wing screed at Conservapedia. - All editors please be vigilant. Fox News is declaring war on this article, and the onslaught of lies will be coming. 137.52.150.212 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Loved the bit on the conservapedia article that suggests Obama is a Muslim Atheist. I assume it was sourced from the guy who is kicking up this fake non story too. - Galloglass 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...you do realize that people read these pages, right? I'd rather not have an arrangement whereby Wikipedia sets itself up as an antithetical community to the largest cable news network in the United States - that's absolutely stupid, counterproductive, and sets us up as a partisan group, which (to my knowledge) we are not. MalikCarr (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a respectful warning, Wired Magazine has picked up this story. [26] Wikipedia's edititing community is getting increasing internet and 'established media' attention on this issue.C4Cypher (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wired magazine? Really? Well, that and three bucks will buy you a latte at Starbucks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs penned by ex-felons probably aren't terribly reliable or notable. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wished to draw attention to the fact that the article was on Wired, brining more public attention to this issue and Wikipedia's reputation. The notability (or felonhood) of the author in question is mitigated by the fact that Wired magazine is putting it's name behind what the guy is writing. Your responses are a bit confusing however. Does being a felon deny the right to public dialouge on wikipedia in the marketplace of ideas? Is notability an issue when commenting on the public exposure of the editing of an article in said article's talk page? I could care less about the author's credibility, people reading his article are going to take that for granted. My point was that the giant curtain behind the great wizard of Wikipedia is getting pulled, and the man behind it is getting more attention than the article he's writing. I'm not saying Wikipedia's content or policy should be swayed by public opinion or whatever some journalist cares to say on the issue. I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia's credibility as a whole is being questioned on the ground of NPOV matters.C4Cypher (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This point is, "Wikipedia's credibility as a whole" is only being questioned by highly partisan, fringe, unreliable people/blogs/websites. If the source of the criticism has no credibility or standing, then its really nothing to take seriously or worry about in the long run. Compare this brouhaha to the melodrama that surrounded the Virgin Killer album controversy a few months back. I think if you ask the average person now "Is the Wikipedia a) an online encyclopedia or b) a repository of graphic, hard-core pornography?", most will go with the former. The overall project credibility did not suffer from the censorship wingnuts, and it will not suffer now from the conspiracy wingnuts. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wired.com (more specifically, Wired's Threat Level blog) is a highly partisan, fringe, unreliable website? By what standard do we judge the credibility of sites that bring attention to Wikipedia? C4Cypher (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you are confusing coverage of the controversy vs. promotion of the controversy. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 10 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)

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 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)

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)

Technical definition of McCain

I just noticed: after Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, it says: "Obama now campaigned in the general election against Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee." This should read "the Republican presumptive nominee", as this is what he was at the time. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done that. I rewrote the sentence slightly as well. If that is not satisfactory to another admin, you have my consent to revert or modify without fear of a wheel warring accusation.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 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 [27], 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)

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)

Alternative history

When dealing with political issues such as this biography, might it not be a more honest approach to have Wikipedia post for each of the view points? Clearly it is impossible to straddle the fence to the satisfaction of both camps, and leaning toward the politically correct version only undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.7.97 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, but seems a little un-encyclopedia-like. I'd rather see minority points of view integrated into the main article. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this article on Barack Obama was truly the result of “the collaboration of hundreds of registered users” with “editors from a young age to retirement age, of all political spectrums, and from users in countries spanning every time zone in the world” I really do not think that it would look like he, his wife or some other friend or family member wrote it.

Consensus does not make it right or good. Consensus is more an issue of who is asked than it is of fact or reason. Gama1961 (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"All political spectrums" would tend to mean those not on the extreme lunatic fringe, though. It is an tiny, minority point of view that Obama is a secret Muslim/foreigner, that the Ayers connection is deep and critically important, and so on... Such people are not welcome at any collaboration table in the Wikipedia. They get sent to the equivalent of the kids-and-sullen-teenager table at the Thanksgiving dinner. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see one of our core policies Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the associated FAQ. Basically creating separate articles for separate points of view would violate our core principles. If you're interested in that model, I would recommend Wikinfo. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is enough....

I won't respond to any posts regarding to this on this talk page, or the talk page of my own.

Articles come to be through collaboration. On Wikipedia we have editors from a young age to retirement age, of all political spectrums, and from users in countries spanning every time zone in the world.

Any particular article, in its infancy, fruition, and maturity is a result of such work.

This article is how it is because of the collaboration of hundreds of registered users and IP addresses. Some edits have stayed, some edits have gone. The resulting article is based upon such collaboration.

If you came here because of a politically biased news channel or website, be it World News Daily or MoveOn.org, you are going to be sorely disappointed with the article. There is no way to alter your opinion on the matter. If you want the article to change, you have to work together with the others. This website is not a forum for political debate, and Obama is not the only subject we have that causes contention. Hell, the nationality of Copernicus caused one of the most strenuous debates we have ever had on this site.

Do not come here to prove a point, do not come here to argue politics. This is a place to work together. If you cannot do that, then yes your words will fall on deaf ears. Keegan^talk 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said, the massive constructive community effort that has spent months and years getting this article together, along with related and unrelated articles and the rest of the entire encyclopedia dwarfs the minor and destructive drive-by effort by those with no desire to join in and actually improve what they complain so loudly about. If anybody is interested in contributing rather than complaining and leaving, all they have to do is sign up for an account and participate constructively. All are welcome in that regard. Mfield (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I have no political axe to grind one way or another on this one. I do have issue with the statement "fringe theories, and/or topics". Because the very ideas, of free speech and ideas to name a few, that allow Wikipedia to even exist were once, not all that long ago, thought to be fringe theories, ideas, and/or topics.

And if this article on Barack Obama was truly the result of “the collaboration of hundreds of registered users” with “editors from a young age to retirement age, of all political spectrums, and from users in countries spanning every time zone in the world” I really do not think that it would look like he, his wife or some other friend or family member wrote it.

And for the record Hitler was supported by a consensus in the beginning. So consensus does not make it right or good. Consensus is more an issue of who is asked than it is of fact or reason. Gama1961 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Automatic argument fail per Godwin's law. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add this page to the alerts for project to remove systemic bias, as well as adding George W. Bush's page. I think there are some issues with the article, not intention, but due to systemic bias. Obama's relationship with Ayers is at least mentionable as a item in the 2008 Election section. It garnered much news. The Birth Certificate thing is a farce though, but I think it (the article) would be well served by a go over by the before mentioned project. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Obama didn't have a "relationship" with Ayers. That was a fantasy concocted by the right. They met each other a few times as part of the normal activities of civic leaders in Chicago, but that's it. The right used guilt-by-association to insinuate a relationship, which WP:BLP very specifically talks about. It would show considerable undue weight to bring up what is essentially a right-wing smear campaign in a BLP. That is why it is covered elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I tend to stay out of political pages here, but I can see biasing in both pages (systemic) which I think would be served well by having that project take this on as a top priority. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point I think that both sides have so entrenched themselves in their positions that getting any edits in either way is going to be impossible until the Drive-by WND idiots leave or start making constructive, sourced edits. Soxwon (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some better phrasing

As I was looking into the whole Ayers/Wright issue (btw, Wright is already mentioned in a perfect way, really a manufactured controversy), I found right below it these sentences "Obama has tried to quit smoking several times.[201] Obama has said he will not smoke in the White House.[201]" In an FA! How about "Obama has tried to quit smoking several times, and said he will not smoke in the White House.[201]" Does an admin want to adjust that? Thanks. Joshdboz (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Joshdboz (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Extent of latest 'Controversy'

According to google, a news search for Obama yields over 671,000 entries: http://news.google.com/news?q=obama&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

Now, again according to google, "Obama" + "wikipedia" yields a paltry 300 or so : http://news.google.com/news?q=%22obama%22%20%2B%20%22Wikipedia&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

Since no doubt people will be pushing to add this controversy somewhere in the article as a way of trojaning getting Ayers and Wright mentioned, I figured I'd go ahead and let you guys know: with the exception of the fringe, this is going no where. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's in Gawker[28] and Valleywag,[29] not to mention Huffington Post[30], Wired Magazine,[31] and the Washington Independent.[32] - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, 300 mentions by major news organizations is more mention than most subjects of Wikipedia articles. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's functioning just like the Ayers-Obama nuttery: their are those pushing that a controversy exists, and those who are denying that anything controversial has taken place. Also WND is not a major 'news' organization. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that someone will write an article about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At the moment though, you are correct that it is nowhere big enough to be included in the main article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Amendment of template

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)

archive part or all of talk page

This talk page is very large, and parts of it should be archived. Do not archive all of it as there is currently a dispute over the article. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving is done automatically, currently set to happen daily. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks Griffinofwales (talk) 19:39, 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)

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 of the subject is so mired in controversy that it cannot be responsibly separated from discussing 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 asshats 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. That was sarcasm by the way. No, instead of fighting in an evil mass-murdering war (a compromise term; "genocide" is too harsh), they decided to blow up government property and fuck a lot. Of course the associations are so incriminating. -Stevertigo 22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I 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)