Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Refs too long

Hello, I put {{verylong}} into the references section because it takes up half the page. Is there a way to make the list shorter, like a bubble. that would improve the article. Regards, Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 08:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the recently added {{verylong}} tag because it is inappropriate. This article is very carefully referenced (but not over-referenced) because it is extremely popular, and so the references section is necessarily long; however, the overall length of the article (it's readable prose) is within the acceptable guidelines. I have restored the 3-column reflist to decrease the amount of scrolling required, although this will only work for browsers that support columns. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Smuckers may be talking about the physical size rather than the number of references, but I agree that the tag is not appropriate, and there's not much we can or should do other than have the 3 column format. We cannot use the scroll feature for reference lists. Tvoz/talk 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Visiting Service members in Combat Zone / War zone

Obama came to the combat and for some reason people are not allowing it. My personal opinion they are McCain supportors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, please be civil when talking to other Wikipedians. Your edits are being reverted because of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:WEIGHT. There is no political motivation involved. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict - addressed to Ronjohn) You seem to be a little inexperienced about Wikipedia. Please note the assume good faith and no personal attacks policies. Also, you've inserted the material 5 times in the last few minutes which means your account is subject to a block at any time - best to promise that you won't do it again if you want to avoid that. We don't know for sure how anyone is going to vote; few here have announced there political positions. But if it helps, if you look at the article history the three people who have objected to the material are citing value-neutral objections (trivial, not news), and have also objected to the inclusion of biased anti-Obama material in the article as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A US Senator visiting a combat zone where people die not notable Im confused as to how that is trival. if this is so trival why is there a picture of him up playing with deployed service members in 2006. There's not even a vote in process you guys just keep deleting it without even creating a discussion. --Ron John (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is an excellent place to work on user-editable descriptions of current events. I believe that with the unified login system, you should be able to access it using the same user account that you've established on WP. LotLE×talk 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed a non-free image (with an incorrectly cited reference) that is related to this news story. I recommend that Ron John seeks to build a consensus here before making any more changes to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you delete the other pic as well of him in Djibouti playing basketball with service members.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs)

The Djibouti basketball image is in the public domain. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:Ronjohn has been blocked for a short time for the 3RR/edit-warring. I believe that his contributions were initially made in good faith, but just with a lack of understanding of the focus of different Wikimedia projects and pages. After that, I think he got a bit too caught up in a desire for his specific additions to go in this specific location. Hopefully over the next day, he'll have the opportunity to read relevant WP policies and guidelines, and return as a productive editor. LotLE×talk 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So all of Obama's visit's to the middle east this week will not be highlighted in his wiki article as notable I take it.--Ron John (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I'm still convinced you guys are McCain supporters and I'm in-titled to my opinion!

In the context of Obama's entire life (which this biography represents), the current Middle East/Europe trip is not hugely significant. That being said, it has be a significant event when taken into context with his role as a United States senator. Therefore, it seems likely that coverage will end up in United States Senate career of Barack Obama, although this will obviously depend on the level of reportage and the availability of reliable sources. Hopefully, a public domain image will become available too. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Given than McCain and his supporter have been complaining bitterly that Obama's trip to combat zones and other international sites got huge news coverage, with all the news anchors following Obama around the globe, the news services those anchors report for appear to have decided that the trip is at least highly newsworthy. I agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the trip is clearly important as part of the presidential campaign, by noting how much coverage it got in relation to other similar time periods covering Obama. Google News shows [1] 4,746 stories in the past week containing "obama baghdad trip" alone. U.S News has an article [2]about the coverage.Edison (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take it up at Talk: Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 then - at present, unless something major occurs, it is not likely to have enough significance in his overall life and career to warrant a place in this general biography of his life. I can't say offhand if it will be appropriate for the campaign article, but that's where it could go. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ABC News interviewed him at the embassy in Baghdad He met with General Peatrus and discussed policy in Iraq. I'm not understanding what that has to do with his presidential campaign. He went as a U.S. SENATOR!!! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs)

The State Department has determined that both Obama's and McCain's trips are largely about their presidential campaigns, and have directly instructed their support personnel to act accordingly (i.e.. to scale back involvement and provide "minimal support"). That seems to imply that these trips primary function is not recognized by even our own government as senatorial. Quenn (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who runs the State Department? I believe it's George Bush's close friend and mentor, Condoleeza Rice, and she's employed by the executive branch, not the legislative branch. It's a trip Obama took in his official role as Senator, and he's the one who gets to make the decision on where to travel, not the White House. We have an interesting problem here because this article describes perhaps half a dozen trips Obama made overseas in the realm of politics. I'm not sure whether any of them are notable. One does get the sense the State Department is right, but who knows if he would have done this without the election - he took politically motivated trips as Senator too. Perhaps we should eliminate them all and ship them out to the sub-articles, other than the trips to Kenya, which were clearly major life events for him and very inspiring (but a little controversial) for people in Africa. To decide which article it fits in, how much coverage it deserves, and whether it belongs here, I would look at the most serious reliable coverage to see how much there is vis-a-vis other issues, and whether the press is treating it as a campaign event or a Senate event. Wikidemo (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the trip to Kenya is self evidentially relevant, and that there is a real question as to the notability of the other trips. Does anyone have strong feelings that any other particular trip listed in the article has an importance to Obama's biography that would exclude it from being shipped to a sub-article? As there are annual complaints about the size of the article (I think the size is fine, by the way), this may be a non controversial way to streamline it some. Quenn (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that his role as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a highly significant detail in his biography. By extension, his "foreign relations" (meeting dignitaries of foreign lands at home and abroad) are equally important. I'm not sure how you could scale this back and still give his committee membership due weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On an amusingly timely note to the question of the trip's primary purpose, Charlie Gibson's 7/23 interview with Obama includes a direct response by Obama that begins "The main purpose of the trip from my perspective is..." (This exchange begins around 54 seconds into the video): http://youtube.com/watch?v=aAEnu89dxCY Quenn (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"The main purpose of the trip, from my perspective, is looking at some of the most critical issues that next President is going to have to deal with."

Not "I am going to have to deal with" or anything like that. This is entirely consistent with his role in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which gathers and weighs issues concerning the US relations with foreign nations. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You moved my response under yours so it looked like a direct rebuttal to your comment. It wasn't meant that way at all, it was a follow up to my comment. I was simply posting the interview to give a greater insight into Obama's mind set on the trip's purpose. I've moved my response back. I know that this article can get quite contentious and therefore the presumption can be adversarial, but I actually don't disagree with you or your assessment of the interview. Quenn (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Coulter April 2008 article - Obama

Coulter directly quotes Obama in unflattering light and she is a notable commentator. Her observations and criticisms of Obama are notable enough to mention in this article. [3]

Pierre.cardoone (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Also, The Coultergeist is in "bonkersville", to use a term from her own article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Coulter certainly is notable and regarding her personal comments, I am certain the JWR article quotes her accurately. JWR is a reliable source and the subject of the JWR article (Coulter's comments) is notable. Coulter is pundit and by definition, her comments are always subjective. It's not for us to state if she's "bonkersville" or not. She said it, she's notable and she's directly quoting Obama. You are free to read his book if you think she's lying - she gives the page numbers. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but JWR is not a reliable source. Not only that, the standard for reliable sources is necessarily high for Biographies of Living Persons. In any case, this is not how biographies are written. You must propose a change to the article and then make your case for that change on this talk page. We don't regurgitate biased punditry and say it should be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dick Morris says Obama's health care plan includes FREE health insurance for illegal aliens

To quote Morris:

"Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly." [4]

Sounds to me like this should be mentioned here. Dick Morris is a noted political observer and commentator. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See Scjessey's comment above. "We don't regurgitate biased punditry and say it should be in the article." Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama probably does not need Morris to speak for him and announce his programs, since Morris seems to be a McCain supporter. If Obama announces he intends to provide free health care for illegal aliens, then we can revisit the question. Edison (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that Dick Morris is even-minded and notable enough that if he parses someone's comments and comes up with an observation, that observation is notable. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then consider putting the remark on HIS page. He has not been appointed spokesman for Obama. Edison (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup. My spidey sense go up every time I see a talk comment with "X said bad thing about [insert article subject here] - we should put it in." This is not mainstream, and it would be bad encyclopedia writing to include it. WP:SOAP. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Stalk ----- Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do we assume that giving health care to illegal aliens is negative or "a bad thing"? I'm not sure that our value judgements, although ok on a talk page, should creep into our article editing.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue of providing government services to illegal aliens (and sometimes legal aliens too) does tend to cause a stir when it arises and there are cogent arguments on both sides. I'm not sure what the alternative is - letting them suffer outside the door because they can't get into the hospital? Making hospitals eat the loss for treating someone who turns out to be uninsured? Using taxpayer money to fund programs for people who are avoiding taxes (though some illegals do pay taxes)? If and when this becomes a matter of wider public debate it may become notable as a matter of public policy - probably in an article about the health care legislation, should Obama get elected or otherwise have an opportunity to actually introduce it. That later part is just a prediction. For now I don't see much notability to it as a biographical detail about Obama, or even as an issue in the Presidential campaign (unless it becomes one). Wikidemo (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image patrol?!

I and others have added some good images to this article but it seems that the article always returns to having exactly the same old images? It seems therefore that somebody might be 'owning' this article and trying to keep it to their (old) version so I'd appreciate if they would stop doing that and let people add images. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

user:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel|Gustav von Humpelschmumpel]]. I can't find any pic you added recently (going as far back as May) so I'm wondering why you're the one starting this section with posting:"I and others have added some good images...". Which images did you post? As you can see looking at the article history I just reinsert a picture that was removed with a (for me) non-convincing edit summary. So you can't call me an "image patrol member" and yet I have a problem with your post here because I don't understand it. What is it what I don't get if anything? Looking forward for a response from you, Herr von Humpelschumpel [funny name by the way :) ], --Floridianed (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,it is simply that the images that are currently on the article have been there for an extremely long time and whenever anyone adds new images they eventually get removed reverting to the old layout. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very closely monitored and edited article. You should gain a consensus on the talk page before making major edits, such as adding new photos. That is why they are being reverted. Quenn (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, we should take a look at the new photos that were added by user user:Jacoplane as there might be some copy write issues with them. I could not find a clear stance on if the images are publicly free to use from the DOD page that the user had gotten them from. If there is not a clear use statement from the original web page then I recommend removing the images from the page and also deleting them from Wikipedia. Brothejr (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Images created by the U.S. Federal Government are public domain images, so they can be used on Wikipedia. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 00:43

Please see {{PD-USGov}}. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 00:46

Good enough for me. You weren't adding that many shots. Though, in the future, I'd recommend bringing it up on the talk page before you add and fix images in this articles so there is no problems in the future. Especially with an article as closely watched as this one. Brothejr (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

However, there is still no consensus on their addition, so it would be nice if you would self revert and discuss the photo additions on a case by case basis here.Quenn (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, see WP:BOLD. Personally, I feel these images are a great deal more relevant to the article than images such as Image:Coburn and Obama discuss S. 2590.jpg, Image:Lugar-Obama.jpg, and Image:BarackObama-Basketball.JPEG, so I was bold and added the images. If there is consensus that these changes are not appropriate then they will be reverted. However, it is not the case that every change must first be discussed on the talk page, even for a featured article. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 01:01

You are correct that you can edit the article in any way you wish. However, gaining a consensus usually means that your edits will remain in the article longer, and this is especially true for significant edits, such as adding photos. Photo additions in particular have a history of being reverted in this article. Also, talking about significant edits first prevents heavily edited and contentious articles from descending into chaos. Quenn (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters that "two pictures including Petreus is too single-themed (perhaps insinuates some special connection between Obama and Petreus as well)". However, I would suggest that at least one of the images be kept, given the amount of coverage Obama's visit to the Middle East has had in the media. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 01:13

I have removed one of the two images of Obama with Petreus. There's nothing particularly wrong (nor especially necessary) about either, but having two with the same other figure suggests some special closeness of connection that is not indicated in the text.

The issue, Jacoplane, with adding images to the article (or changing the ones here) is not particularly that the new images are any worse (or better) than ones that have existed. We have been though a lot of revisions, however, where editors have apparently randomly added, moved, resized, and/or removed images. These are good faith edits, but it becomes bewildering to figure out the copyright status of each new one, and mostly the preference between them is purely personal taste. Moreover, sometimes images are chosen in order to emphasize some particular aspect of Obama's career over others, by portraying him in some particular activity or with particular people; those aren't really wrong per se, but there's a danger of creating "spin" with that.

The moral is that it's really better to just propose the changes you'd like here on talk. I do not think most editors are especially attached to the images currently in the article (personally, I think there are more than necessary), but it's good to explain reasons for a specific addition or substitution. LotLE×talk 01:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All the images that I and other have added have been freely licensed images that we went to the trouble of searching for and uploading to Commons. As Jacoplane says above people should not have to have detailed discussions about merely adding images unless they are in some way controversial or overly numerous. The article today had exactly the same image arrangement that it had about 4 or 5 months ago and that can only mean in my opinion that a small group of people keeps reverting or undoing changes of others to their own version (this may include text as well). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I was editing simultaneously with Jacoplane above, but I think the explanation s/he provided for inclusion of a picture portraying Obama's Middle East visits is reasonable. I do not necessarily endorse or disagree with the reasoning, but it's exactly the sort of calm explanation that is refreshing to see on this talk page. LotLE×talk 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you, perhaps I was approaching this article like any other Wikipedia article and assumed that as long as I was making good-faith edits there would be no controversy. Probably I should have thought again. Still, I feel it's appropriate to include Image:Petraeus Obama.jpg in the article for the reasons I mentioned above. The Iraq theme is a major one in his campaign and it has received massive amounts of media coverage, so I think it's highly relevant, and not just a matter of "personal taste" pr "spin". Regarding the copyright status, since these are clearly works by the U.S. Federal Government, that's not an issue. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-23 01:23

Forgive my digression into the metasphere but there are a few things different about this article that strain the limits of some Wikipedia practices. It's a featured article, one of the most read articles on the project, it has several dozen people editing it at a time, it's about an issue of current events, and it's been the subject of lots of disputes and edit wars. For all those reasons and more it's best to be extra careful, extra civil, and fairly gradual in changing things - not necessarily because policy demands it but because it helps everybody get along. There's no reason to give up the usual WP:BRD process, just turn the knobs to the lowest setting. Something as simple as adding an image probably isn't even WP:BOLD on most articles but it's bold here given that as soon as you do it, it probably trips a few hundred people's watch lists and will get scrutinized from every direction! Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about it being on a lot of watchlists but it does seem a little suspicious to me that the images and layout keep reverting back to the exact same layout that existed months ago- this would indicate to me that someone or a small group are trying to own the article. I wanted to add new images because I don't think the ones currently in the article are particularly good and the layout is also poor. I spent quite a bit of time scanning through flickr for new free images which I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons- I and others have tried to add these images as well as other new ones but they have all eventually been removed again and replaced with the old layout . Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How "good" the images are, and the quality of the layout, are secondary concerns. The purpose of the images in the article is to support the text, so they have been carefully selected to do so. Every image inclusion/exclusion has been discussed and debated at some length (see archives passim) to make sure they are appropriate. The recent coverage relating to Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe has generated many good images; however, these are more suited to United States Senate career of Barack Obama and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (although the trip is part of his duties as a US senator, this impacts on his campaign too). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that the images in the article should stay there in perpetuity because that is in effect what has happened? Can images only get changed once a year with the approval of a select band of editors? This seems ridiculous and goes against what wikipedia is meant to be about. There are numerous good images at commons:Category:Barack Obama and commons:Barack Obama that could improve this article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the facts or make something more out of this than there is. I have explained what happens already. Images are used to support the text to which they are adjacent. By all means propose better/alternative images (that do the same function) on this talk page, and let us discuss their merits; however, please don't consider adding images just to make the article "look better" or anything like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• To prevent this discussion to die and make my point clear (which seems not to stand alone):

Adding pics that are basically uncontroversial and just a matter of personal opinion should be added when available within the good faith of the editor as long as they're added one by one (to keep it easy to follow) with clear explanation in the edit summary. This way we can prevent that picture enhancements will be prevented by having to go to the same long-term discussions that will make images to be outdated when finally "approved". If someone feels "unhappy" with any addition or change of pics s/he can either reverse or bring it to the talk page, not the other way around in (this case). It would be great if we can agree on this since "it is not about controversial edits", it's simple about opinion and there I would like to point out, that I might not be a great editor when it comes to first drafts but I used to be a professional when it comes to pictures (especially choosing and layout, and "hate", that WP has very tight limits when it comes to image layout in general). --Floridianed (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I agree with Scjessey and the other editors here. You should definitely try to get a consensus for a picture on the talk page first. We've had a lot of problems with pictures in the past, largely because the people adding them think they look better but they have no context to the article. Also, photos that could be regarded as campaign boosterism have slipped in. This is a particularly big pitfall on a Presidential candidate's page as photos can be used to demean a candidate or promote an image that is not supported by the facts. If a picture is worth a thousand words then we need to discuss them as seriously as additions to the text. Quenn (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm aware of the "problems" on this page, but still, there has to be a line drawn between pictures and words. If, as you say, "a picture is worth a thousand words then we need to discuss them as seriously as additions to the text", you're right but this doesn't count for every image and I'm talking about inserting such images in my comment above, just to make that clear. Controversial pics have to be discussed on the talk page. No doubt there Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Global Poverty Act

The section on this Act contradicts our Global Poverty Act article; this article says, "The legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid"; that one says, "This is not in the bill; the bill does not require any minimum foreign aid spending." I've no idea which is correct. Henry^Flower 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the Act, and it would seem this article is wrong, with the source called into question. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"No" what? Are you saying the article was correct? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Smuckers doesn't talk a lot even so I think s/he has to say a lot. Don't know why s/he's like that. I had a good personal experience in the first place but now I'm kinda wondering. Smuckers, please be more specific when commenting. You'd know, you're always welcome on my talk page. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I have added a citations tag to the introduction of this article as this article lacks citations in many areas where citations should be stated to confirm validity of the information. Unless many more citations are added to the article, especially in areas where citations are needed to confirm validity of the information stated, much information in the article cannot be confirmed as being valid. Signsolid (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because it doesn't help people figure out what should be done. It also discredits the article in a way that seems to contradict other editors' judgment - it's a featured article and I'm pretty sure that an article with lack of citations throughout wouldn't be eligible. There are 190 citations in the article - far more than most of its size. Do you have anything specific in mind? If you find any specific things that aren't obvious and can't be verified why don't you add fact tags there or better yet, try to find a source? In moderation, please. Wikidemo (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The introduction to this article only has one citation and that only confirms Barack Obama's name is Barack Obama. Information on such as his policies really should have citations, just like the statements on his policies made in the introduction. I know it's probably hard to find citations for his policies but without them there's no confirmation for them to be correct. Signsolid (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm familiar with WP-guidelines there shouldn't be any citation in the lead if possible. On his policies you might want to check out the "Policies and proposals" section. There you can find plenty of citations and also a WP-link to the main Political positions of Barack Obama article. If that is not enough for you please point out more specific missing citations. So please be so kind and point out precisely what is missing. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't place a tag on a section (and certainly not on the entire article) without discussing specific claims that need to be cited. If anything, place the "citation needed" {{CN}} tag after a claim you find to be unverified, but even then do so ONLY after reading all of the other references in the section to see if it is already covered. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Race debate at Talk:Chicago

There is a discussion at Talk:Chicago#Obama about whether to specify Obama's biracial origins in the lead. Looking at the talk page archives regarding race here, I don't want to get into that, but want to bring more people to the discussion. TransUtopian (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Existing criticisms in this article

Kossack4Truth asked above what I'm considering in the current version of the article to be instances of criticism. The eight I count (bold added) are:

1. U.S. Senator, 2005–present: CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on analysis of all Senate votes in 2005–2007, and the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007.

This presupposes that liberal is bad. This is a value judgement rthat we cannot make in reference to the article. The article does not attribute a negative value to LiberalDie4Dixie (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Legislation: Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with McCain of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.

Insufficiently left-wing? Will he ever recover from such a brutal remark? Skepticism is not criticism. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Committees: In a speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke about political corruption and ethnic rivalries.[80] The speech touched off controversy among Kenyan leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.

But absolutely zero criticism from Americans, even though there's a lot of it out there on the left and center, not just the right. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

4. 2008 presidential campaign: In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. ... [entire paragraph]

This paragraph is so short and so watered down that it barely qualifies as controversy. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Policies and proposals: Before the conference, 18 anti-abortion groups published an open letter stating, in reference to Obama's support for legal abortion: "In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway."

This criticism is directed at Rick Warren, not Obama. Makes the anti-abortion groups look loopy. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Family and personal life: The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer and friend Tony Rezko attracted media attention because of Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction on political corruption charges unrelated to Obama.

This not criticism as it clearly distances him explicitly from RezkoDie4Dixie (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's far too short and it's watered down. There's a lot of criticism out there in the media, regarding relationships with both Rezko and Wright, from unbiased and even sympathetic sources that are eminently notable, but it hasn't found its way to this page. Just a mention of Wright, a mention of Rezko, and careful efforts to distance Obama from both of them. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Cultural and political image: In January 2007, The End of Blackness author Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise: "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."

Warns people against drawing implications from Obama's rise in politics. This is not criticism. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

It's hard to define a report that someone is "playing by the rules" as criticism. Sorry, but the whole list just illustrates how whitewashed this article really is, Rick. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the comments WB74 interspersed throughout, they are all clearly negative / derogatory terms. By the standard that they're not criticisms if they don't conclude that Obama did something wrong, the McCain article has no criticism either. McCain was exonerated of any criminal or ethics breach in that, and that article says so, right? Same thing with Rezko, a vastly smaller scandal. Obama was in proximity to the fraudsters but he was never even charged, much less accused than cleared. The negative sections here cover some major negatives that Obama has in the current election in terms of public perception: Perceived closeness to people militant about race (Wright), proximity to local corruption (Rezko), and being overhyped and elitist (saying he's all about expediency and playing by rules rather than a true reformer). I also caught somewhere in there a less than stellar review of the new book and perhaps some other stuff. The point isn't to justify that we're being just as negative with Obama as McCain - our job here is to tell an encyclopedic story, not to mete out criticism. Rather, this is a fair response to the complaint that the article has zero criticism because people are supposedly removing or blocking attempts to introduce it. That complaint only encourages an adversarial approach to editing here, which takes us the wrong direction. Wikidemo (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Of the 19 criticisms I count of McCain, 12 are immediately "explained away" in the article and most of the others are simply facts that put him in not the best possible light (e.g. he also earned a reputation as a partying man - The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries. - During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, the McCains' marriage began to falter, and he would later accept blame - Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,[194] and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated).

It's perhaps overly obvious, but to someone biased on either side of neutral, something that is actually neutral may very well appear to be way on the other side. I'll make no claim that the Obama and McCain articles are perfectly neutral, however they look (to me) to be similarly whitewashed. Criticisms in both are handled quite delicately, and are generally either fairly oblique or (as they say) "contextualized". -- Rick Block (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would characterize the criticism in both articles as largely "neutral", which is exactly what they are supposed to be. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo: our job here is to tell an encyclopedic story, not to mete out criticism It's slightly more complicated than that. Since our job is to tell the story in an NPOV way, it's our job to mention that there was criticism when that criticism is prominent, not to turn that volume down or mute it. It's the same with information that puts Obama in a bad light: WP:WELLKNOWN is specific about that. Rick Block: the Obama and McCain articles [...] look (to me) to be similarly whitewashed. I agree. That's a problem with both articles. We don't tend to tiptoe around criticism in articles about other people in public life (see Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, for example). Our readers deserve better. That said, we're better off concentrating on discussing specific language, because we tend to do a bit better in coming to consensus with it, rather than with more general criticism, although I think this section is a useful review. Noroton (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually even more complicated - each statement must be presented in an NPOV fashion and then on top of that the entire article must not overweight or underweight individual events. The sentence in WP:WELLKNOWN that says:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

does NOT mean (or say)

Any and all allegations or incidents that are well-documented by reliable published sources belong in the article.

All of 1) notable, 2) relevant, and 3) well-documented by reliable sources must be met (keeping in mind the Criticism and praise section of WP:BLP). In addition, for an article written in summary style (as this article is) "article" means not solely the main article but the collection of articles. These factors make it not that obvious what specific "allegations or incidents" to include in this article. I don't think there's any particular disagreement about what "well-documented by reliable sources" means - hence, most of the arguments revolve around "notable and relevant" (i.e. WP:WEIGHT). For a biographical article in summary style, I think the standard for inclusion in the main article has to be notability and relevance to the person's entire life.

I strongly agree with Noroton that we're better off concentrating on discussing specific language, although it might be helpful to also explicitly consider whether a proposed addition meets all of the notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources criteria, and if so, which of the article(s) are appropriate. For example, I'd suggest the Ayers "controversy" should be mentioned in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 (it's well-documented by reliable sources, notable, and [in my opinion] relevant to the campaign but not to Obama's overall life). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add a section on Obama's current worldwide tour

Neither this article, nor Barack Obama presidential campaign (2008) mentions with one word the highly relevant and current tour of the Middle East and Europe. Please add this. TH (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to be bold, and add some content, properly sourced.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast! This is a biography of Obama's entire life, described from a historical perspective. The current tour Obama is on, ostensibly as a US senator but also (to a certain extent) as a candidate for POTUS, is a matter for the Senate career and campaign articles. Anything that makes it into those articles may, at some point, warrant a brief summary here. That being said, since it is a current event it is more suited to Wikinews, which (strangely) doesn't currently have much to say about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to pull a fast one. For my biography ,I imagine that my overseas travels are a part of who I am , and of my history. Perhaps this might not be true in this case. Certainly not a fast one. I just didn't want to do the research and citing for an addition, and was merely recommending that the person who found the article lacking do it. :) Die4Dixie (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Horsten. I was stunned to not see a peep about his world tour. In front of 200,000 people in Berlin...meeting with leaders...this has the possibility of being very historic. What gives?? Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is discussed somewhat in the "Visiting Service members in Combat Zone / War zone" section, above. I think the outcome is that the most recent trip may be one of Obama's more important ones but that some of the trips already discussed aren't individually worth mentioning. Also that it may be most relevant to the Presidential campaign or the Senate career articles. It's a little early to know if this is a life-defining event or not, considering he's still out on the trip right now. We don't move at lightning speed anywhere on Wikipedia, and certainly not on this article. So I would agree with Die4Dixie, give it a shot but be sure to make it well-referenced, concise, neutral, and in the right part of the article! If you have any concerns feel free to propose some text here on the talk page first to see what people think. Wikidemo (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason for your addition of your signature above? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Wikidemo on this. It is probably one of his most important trips and might be even written in history if he'll be elected President but to 'value" his stay in Germany we'll have to wait what comes out in the media at least within a few days from now before making any (then) appropriate edit in regards of this. --Floridianed (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting coverage and events from the tour - Prayergate[5] (which has far more coverage per WP:WEIGHT than some of the supposed controversies here, but probably fails WP:NOT#NEWS) and for a bit of levity that has some lesson in it regarding media coverage and weight, this.[6]

It does look notable and maybe even historic. I'd say give this a couple days to a week to see how this pans out. Then add a sentence or a section on it. However, I do not see a reason to add it right at this moment. Maybe after a short bit this might pan out to be something bigger and better, or it might not pan out at all. Brothejr (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the jury is still out on the significance of this trip from a biographical perspective. but from a campaign perspective, the historic significance is clear. So far as I am aware, a trip of this nature (visiting two war zones and meeting with seven heads of state) by a presidential candidate is completely unprecedented. For that reason, the trip probably warrants substantial coverage (perhaps its own section) at the campaign article. More limited coverage of the official CODEL portion of the trip (Iraq and Afghanistan) is probably appropriate at the Senate career article. I'd support maybe 1-2 sentences here in the bio, with the caveat that this may be expanded, reduced or eliminated entirely as time passes and the historical significance of the trip becomes more clear. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been covered enough in the world media to be so far beyond the notability criteria on Wikipedia that it beggars belief it hasn't been added yet. I'd agree with Die4Dixie and "be bold" but I'm on a business trip away right now and don't have time to come up with something good enough for inclusion on such a high-profile article as this one right now so I'd leave it to others to do the actual work, I just wanted to point out that it's appalling that it's not already there. Wikipedia moves slowly, yes, but a "current event" tagged section outlining at least where he's been and who he's spoken to certainly wouldn't go amiss. As I said I'd like to do it but I realize it's a controversial article and I'm not about to touch it when away on a business trip where I can't quickly follow up on comments etc. Please someone else, be bold, it needs to be added. TH (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering he has just returned it is a little premature to summarize his trip in a historical sense. Let the news cycle do its job and in a few more days you will have some perspective and opinion on the overall trip. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Just a heads-up - I've uploaded several photosets by military photographers of Obama's visits to Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq for anyone who might want to browse or use them. The images can be found in Commons:Category:Barack Obama. Kelly ^hi! 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to put some up but the wiki nazis deleted them from the article.--Ron John (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

An editor deleted a pargraph with the edit summary "totally inappropriate"[7] (I restored a "main article" template that was deleted in the process, I assume inadvertently).

The material in question seems to be of the "some people say Barama is not an ordinary African American" variety - perhaps an enlightening, debatable, controversial point. And it's presumably discussed in the main article. I'm not sure when the material was put here. Any thoughts on whether the material is okay, and whether the deletion is appropriate? If this material isn't right for the article what about the rest of the section - some of the other material is also a little bit controversial and perhaps tangential to Obama's personal biography.

I've avoided reverting, and unless there's some serious objection maybe it stays out? Wikidemo (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I already put it back in because any deletion of that magnitude is bound to be highly controversial. I did a quick look back in the history and it has been there for some time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

<detectivework>

It was added by User:HailFire back on August 26, 2007!

</detectivework> -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor had just removed the section again with little explanation. The editor put this as the reason: "one reason should be enough to explain it." I don't think that person has a real reason other then a personal reason. Personally, I do not see a problem with the paragraph and added it back because of the same reason as SJC. Brothejr (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor also lopped off the first "public image" paragraph on the John McCain article,[8] which has since been restored. They've also been making a string of sometimes idiosyncratic and occasionally dubious edits elsewhere without edit summaries (e.g.[9] - mentioning fame is peacocky elsewhere but not for this particular individual). We can't read minds! Also, before removing significant chunks of content any editor is advised to consider that anything that is in the McCain or Obama articles has gone through quite a vetting process and is probably in there for some reason, whether you agree with the reason or not. Wikidemo (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I've noticed that this editor has gone around and removed serious content from other articles without an explanation. Brothejr (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop blocking criticism of Obama

I remember when we had a lot more editors actively taking part on this page. Many good editors have been driven off. We have also seen one of the editors who were blocking all criticism of Obama, abandoning a long-term account of many years because he was concerned that he would be outed. I suspect the information that would have been revealed was that he was linked in some manner to the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party.

Others were helping him, however, and using tactics that were not in WP's best traditions or best interests: and by the time Rick Block called the question after offering a drastically shortened version of the Rezko material, they were the only ones left to vote.

Please stop blocking material that may cause Obama to be criticized. You know that compared to George W. Bush, Tony Blair on the day it became a Featured Article, and other WP biographies about similarly situated politicians, this article contains a severe shortage of anything that resembles criticism, but you continue to employ every trick and stratagem in the book to block its introduction.

I am inviting Scjessey, LotLE and Noroton to join me in mediation.

If you are blocking criticism solely for the sake of blocking criticism:

Please stop. Examine your motives. Compare this biography to other biographies about similar people, and allow this article to reflect WP:WELLKNOWN: if it is notable and well-sourced, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't "call the question". I suggested a shortened version, a variant of which was introduced by this edit, not made by me. I actually didn't notice this edit until several days later. I'll also note that the reason the long term editor left is not precisely known and your supposition about the reason has no basis in fact. Some editors here make no particular effort to hide their real world identities. Some editors apparently go to great lengths such as creating a WP:SPA and using it only from what they know are untraceable IP addresses. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting this section is an auspicious audacious way to return to the article after a week-long block for incivility and wikigaming. I suggest we either ignore it, or close it as incitement not reasonably directed to improving the article, and ask editors not to incite things by using the talk pages to complain about other editors. Wikidemo (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

... your supposition about the reason has no basis in fact. Well, he was fighting like hell to keep anything that resembled criticism out of an article about a very prominent Democratic politician, using false accusations as a primary method of debate; and then someone did a search and discovered that he had a COI. Very abruptly, he stopped fighting like hell and went into hiding (WP equivalent). That's a pretty good basis in fact. Actions speak louder than words. It's likely that he was a Democratic Party operative, and it's possible that he differed from other Democratic Party operatives on this page only in his lack of discretion about covering his tracks.

... an auspicious way to return to this article ... I'm asking for mediation. Let's see whether anyone would like to resolve this through mediation, Wikidemo. Would you be interested in that? Or do you like the way things have been going on this page? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think mediation would be productive. That seems like yet more wikigaming and prolonging an already-resolved issue, and by opening the matter with the above statement attacking other editors you're pretty much guaranteeing that the process will be contentious. Your contributions to this page have been disruptive in the long term. It would go far to improve conditions on the page were you to stop editing here, as has been proposed a number of times at AN/I. Wikidemo (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) - I'm not clear on exactly what you are seeking mediation on. I was not aware of any existing content dispute that you have been involved with. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

... already-resolved issue ... If you think this is resolved, you've got another think coming. We haven't even started talking about Ayers yet, the ACORN material is following the same tired pattern of disagree/ provoke/ report, and the Rezko paragraph will inevitably be reopened no later than September 3, when he gets sentenced and the 527s start Swiftboating Obama for it. I'd like to resolve all of these content disputes amicably, under the supervision of a large group of people experienced in dispute resolution; so that they can see for themselves who's really gaming the system, and who's really got the best interests of the WP project as their only agenda. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "disagree / provoke / report" pattern - that accusation is just more of the rancor you're bringing to the article. I trust the "another think coming" isn't going to be from you. If one or more seasoned editors / administrators were willing to moderate this article and its talk page that might help. However, to date they all seem to think conditions here are too contentious for them to do any good. A formal mediation process removed from this discussion page, with the contentious editors at the table who should have been topic banned already, seems unlikely to do any good either. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The disagree/ provoke/ report pattern is well established here; and now everyone can see who is offering mediation, who is refusing it, and who is claiming that others "should have been topic banned already." WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, there does not appear to be an ongoing content dispute with anything you have previously been involved with. The Rezko issue has been dealt with, and you would have to begin a new consensus-building process to even get to a point where mediation might be necessary. Mention of Bill Ayers has no place in this article, because Obama's tenuous relationship with Ayers is an insignificant detail with respect to his entire life (and vice versa). It received a tiny bit of attention during the primaries, so it might warrant a brief mention in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, I'm filing an AN/I report on this disruption.[10] Perhaps the nth time is the charm and this can be dealt with in some lasting way. Wikidemo (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So once again the stability of this article is being threatened by Worker Bee's clear partisanship. Ayers does not belong in here, and Rezko has appropriate weight. Rezko's sentencing should not change anything in this article; if Swiftboating occurs, it would at most belong as a mention in the campaign article. The point about relevance to the man's entire life is, of course, exactly on target - this is not a campaign piece, it is a biography. I wonder how many times that has to be said. And I agree with Wikidemo's comment about topic banning of contentious editors - should have happened long ago. And I further agree that this section should be closed - its title and intro proves the point. Tvoz/talk 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All of this must be covered in an WP essay somewhere that rouses contributors to pick up rhetorical swords and silence anybody holding a minority position or viewpoint (which by its nature involves controversy as to whether it's to be reflected in mainspace and how). Could somebody point me to it? 'Cause this telling of another contributor essentially "F/u, you ought to have been banned" etc. feels out of order to me.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no attempt to silence minority opinions, and please don't jump into the discussion with that kind of reflexive accusation of bad faith. This is a long-term disruptive editor and proven WP:SOCK who has been dragging this article and its editors through the mud for nearly two months now. There's an AN/I report right now, so if you wish to comment more on the subject please direct your efforts there. This page is for discussions related to improving the article. Wikidemo (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if think your comment was in bad faith as much as it's my impression it didn't address how to edit this article so much as it was letting your a/n/i type commentary leak out onto this talkpage.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC) However I'm not gonna to look at diffs or comment at the an/i. I'd warned WB74 before (ie patronizingly scolded) to at minumum work on demeanor so as to try and avoid heat from Wiki powers that be.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're off base. There's no picking up swords, no silencing, no telling anyone off. There's simply an attempt to deal with an editor who has ruined the editing environment here through long-term disruption. AN/I is for raising issues that need administrative intervention. It was not until his last comment here,[11] where he turns his disingenuous appeal for mediation into a way of attacking me, that I thought the issue was ripe for AN/I. I don't need to be scolded or patronized over that, and it's unhelpful because it only enables him and prolongs the trouble when you take his side. He's already picked up on your "fuck you" language and he's berating me via a sock account over at AN/I.[12] Because it is there now, so there is not much more to be said here. Wikidemo (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to understand it from this perspective. A single-purpose account user, who has contributed nothing but disruption, edit warring and a lack of civility, has returned from a week-long behavioral block and immediately "requested mediation" on a long-since resolved content dispute. His first post upon returning to this talk page is an accusatory, inflammatory diatribe against perceived censorship that features claims of conflict of interest and "driving off" other editors. How exactly are we supposed to respond to that? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

{§ I remember when Shem had just been doing mostly the odd edits here and there to Barack Obama mainspace before he first made his splash onto the talk page to advocate heavily re the original Ayers "vote." I remember reading something he'd written somewhere, not on the article, that had led me to imagine even way back then that he was involved in the campaign somehow, obviously something completely independent from WB74's speculation to that effect now. Is such speculation pointless? Sure. But so is, I think, decrying the situation that lead to Shem's taking leave from us. He spoke his piece here and then he decided to go. Life goes on.}
Surfing Wikipedia, I come across the tidbit that in 2002 a congressman in Peru, Eittel Ramos, challenged the country's Vice President, David Waisman to a duel; these guys are priviledged with contemporary versions of title and nobility (immunity from petty prosecutions, their views generally given no small weight, etc.) Look folks, King Jimbo's empowered the whole lot of us in this wiki to contribute here----so, Your Excellencies, let's pull the huge feathers out of our three-pointed hats and quit wanting to push our sword through the gut of some fellow when we feel our honor's been impugned and go back to our desks and channel all such disagreements through WP's version of Parliamentary procedure, shan't we?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that serious mediation, entered into in good faith by all parties to the content dispute (and let's not pretend there isn't one) would be very constructive. Someone here claims he wants more senior editors and admins involved? Well, the Mediation Cabal is packed with them. Anyone trying to game the system will be quickly found out. But here I am, suggesting mediation. And there Wikidemo is, refusing mediation. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop these games? Wikidemo (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to mediate. This article has moved on since you were blocked for your disruptive behavior, and the content dispute was resolved (in large part due to the absence of your disruptive influence). All you are trying to do is re-ignite an old argument because the resolution doesn't fit your point of view. If you have new content concerns, express them here and try to build a consensus for changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of things to mediate, not the least of which are your conduct and LotLE's. This conduct was the topic of WP:ANI threads by respected, well-established, trusted, non-SPA editor Noroton, so it's not something I'm making up; there are others who have noticed that you're not exactly a pair of angels. This goes hand in hand with the illegitimate resolution of the Rezko content dispute. At the start, there were 15 editors participating and the ones who wanted to include more criticism had a 9-6 majority. At the end, there were only three: Tvoz, LotLE and SCJ. The rest had been driven off, or prevented from participating because they were IP editors, or baited and tormented into conduct that was then reported at ANI with demands for a block. Even Noroton had been driven off. There's also the following Ayers question, which is already undeniably an unresolved content dispute. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my conduct, file a report. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Directed to all, let's in general keep the an/i page completely separate from this one somehow. Discipline ourselves from harping on past stuff. Cut down somewhat on the repetetiveness of our arguements arguments. (Can't spell.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to talk about William Ayers

Since the Bill Ayers election controversy is sufficiently notable to have its own rather long WP article, and since it's only this election that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator with a 300-word biography, the Obama/Ayers relationship is notable enough to be included in this biography. All my previous observations about the prevalence of criticism in WP biographies about prominent politicians, including Tony Blair on the day it won Featured Article status, are still very appropriate. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not s'posed to argue what I'm about to, but here goes. In Lizza of the NYer's seminal, contextual narrative about B's political immersion before the milestone of his Illinois senate service, Ayers is mentioned in a couple of sentences. Now's the part where I gotta whole lotta splainin to do. Therefore, lol, we'd not be remiss if we ourselves only dedicate----whatever percentage a-few-mentions-out-of-a-half-score-pages is----of this preliminary period's coverage to user-of-flag-as-patio-mat Ayers (which preliminary period's entire narrative in B's WP bio, as chronologically dedicated to it, is thus far zero incidentally anyway. That is, about 1% of our article's at present zero mention of pre-Illiois-senate-service political activities: 1% x 0 being 0).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no mention of, for instance, John Hagee on John McCain's page.--The Bruce (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be. Was Hagee the co-founder of a terrorist organization that set off bombs on US soil? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a joke about Hagee's claim about terrorism by God in New Orleans? Just wondering. If so, maybe you should take up drawing cartoons for The New Yorker. (Hagee has also attacked Catholicism, Islam, homosexuality and Jews, according to his article. I don't believe he has been specific as to whether their death and destruction should come on or off US soil. There's also Rod Parsley and now Bud Day.) Flatterworld (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's a fairly strong argument that any mention of Ayers here would violate both the "Undue weight" and "Neutrality and verifiability" sections of the WP:NPOV policy. I think it's easier to talk about concrete rather than abstract suggestions, so what specific wording would you propose adding and where? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of Ayers violates WP:WEIGHT. Simple problem, fully solved. LotLE×talk 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, you don't WP:OWN the article, so dismissing the problem as "fully solved" exhibits a flippancy that, if I had exhibited it, Wikidemo would have raced over to WP:ANI to start a thread about. Please dial it down. Rick, I don't see any point in writing at any length about the controversy in this biography. But since the other article exists and no one here has nominated it for deletion, it is a significant event in Obama's life. I was thinking of something like this, in chronological order in the presidential campaign section:

The Bill Ayers election controversy made headlines after George Stephanopoulos, moderating a televised debate on April 19, started by asking Obama about his relationship with Ayers. As a co-founder of the 1970s anti-war group Weather Underground, William Ayers had set off bombs in the Pentagon and other US targets.

WP:FRINGE is inapplicable, WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPOV demand its inclusion, and WP:WEIGHT is rather vague. It has no specific, precise formula indicating how much material to include. I think two sentences is a little short but a reasonable compomise with folk like LotLE. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"...William Ayers had set off bombs in the Pentagon and other US targets."

The Ayers article seems to need an overhaul. It's states:

"Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot.[7] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.[8] The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and blown up again by Weatherman on October 6, 1970"

Mmmmh... --Floridianed (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with Obama? I could perhaps see a footnote-ish reference in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 but is there any evidence this had any impact on the campaign, let alone Obama's life? From WP:NPOV#Neutrality and verifiability: A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. This seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to connect Obama to Ayers's past. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DITO! My intention (regarding my comment above) was to show how misleading WB's proposal is, even in the facts about Ayers, (not to mention the non existing connection between Obama and Ayers radical past). It is a non-issue in my opinion ["undue-weight" is indeed a concern] as I similar stated quite some time ago. Let me state the basics here again. Ayers: If mentioned at all, just very very briefly. Rezko: To be mentioned but still pretty briefly. Wright: To be mentioned for sure, less briefly but w/o going over the top with to many details especially about Wright himself. For all those three: Make sure there is a WP-link within the text to lead to those individuals for readers looking for more information. Wright and Rezko is already covered (not the way I would have done it but I'm "ok" with it). So now we're stuck with Ayers and if we could agree on "not blowing this issue out of proportion" by staying on the facts while discussing, there might be a chance to get a result and consensus in a reasonable amount of time. --Floridianed (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayers issue is a non-starter

On the substance there doesn't seem to be any relevance or importance to Bill Ayers via-v-vis Barack Obama. It did not figure significantly in his life, and it did not affect either in any real way. As the New Yorker piece (Ryan Lizza (2008-07-21). "Making It:How Chicago shaped Obama". New Yorker.) describes, Obama was associated with dozens if not hundreds of politicians, fundraisers, businesspeople, and other and prominent community members in his rise to power. We cover only a few of the most important - Ayers was nowhere near being important, a footnote if even that in Chicago politics.

On the sources establishing weight / importance, Obama/Ayers gets 450 news hits,[13] as compared to 175,000 for Obama overall[14] Only 1 in 400 news pieces about Obama even mentions Ayers, and most of those are either not the focus of the article, or in blogs and editorials, or both. Nobody else seems to think it's important either.

On the weight issue I've I've looked at the weight we give various people and issues. See my new subpage, Talk:Barack Obama/weight. Of the 45 people we mention 10 are family members and 6 are people who simply commented about him. Of the 29 others, 17 are fellow politicians he ran against or sponsored legislation with (of all persuasions), and only 12 can be said to be friends, associates, or colleagues - of which 8 are his campaign or senate staffers. That leaves only four people we mention as being informal associates - the two pastors Pfleger and Wright, his close strategist Axelrod, and Rezko as a scandal / controversy and mid-level campaign supporter. I just don't see the room in there to start adding people he had a casual relationship with and who happen to be former terrorists - it's not balanced. The New Yorker piece, which is twice as long yet only covers about 1/4 of the territory as this article, devotes 2 sentences to Ayers (dividing up sentences that discuss multiple people). It covers 81 people in total, 34 to a greater degree than Ayers, 43 less than Ayers, and 3 get the same 2 sentences. Just by math that would suggest Ayers deserves 1/4 sentence here (i.e. zip)... but before even thinking about that we should consider some of the 34 more important people. Of them many of the ones most important to Obama's Chicago power base are simply not covered here: Toni Preckwinkle - 33.75 sentences there, not covered here; Will Burns - 27.75 sentences there, none here; Emil Jones - 27.5 sentences there, none here; Alice Palmer - 18.5 sentences there, 1/2 here; Bobby Rush - 16.5 sentences there, 1 here; and so on. In fact, of the 34 people who figure more prominently into the New Yorker article than Ayers, only 8 are mentioned at all in our article. And the New Yorker piece is on the very subject for which Ayers is supposedly notable, how Obama chose his friends and associates in his early political rise in Chicago.

Thus, Ayers doesn't pass the test for weight or relevance, either logically, by looking at reliable sources, or by a detailed analysis of how much space we and others give to various events. It's a no brainer. I think it's very unlikely at this point that Ayers can be included here, or that there are sources out there at this point that can make a case that he should.

This whole discussion came up out of turn. I suggest we wrap this up and move on to something more productive. Wikidemo (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My best 2¢ is, ----What Wikidemo says.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you "squeeze-in" please make it notable. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Floridianed. It's just I'd mentioned analyzing the percentage of Ayers' being mentioned in Lizza's remarkable piece up above (did ya notice?) before Wikidemo wrote his amazing treatment of the same idea, hency my "Wish I'd said it that way" comment.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for "wrapping this up". I just made an edit above the same time you did here and could've spared my time for replying to your comment. Well, now I did and my first sentence says it all ;) --Floridianed (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to concerns

The Ayers article seems to need an overhaul. It says ... FE, what you seem to be saying is that I didn't represent the facts accurately. If you'd please read the Weatherman (organization) article, you would find this section: "On 19 May 1972, Ho Chi Minh's birthday, The Weather Underground placed a bomb in the women's bathroom in the Air Force wing of The Pentagon. The damage caused flooding that devastated vital classified information on computer tapes." [15] Please don't base your decision on a misperception. I've represented the facts accurately. All this has bedrock solid sourcing.

And what does any of this have to do with Obama? Rick, the same question was asked about Wright and later about Rezko. Tempers flared and harsh words were posted here. I will answer the same way and hope tempers won't flare this time, and false accusations won't be made this time. The generic challenge that's always made is, "How does this Relationship X have anything to do with Obama?" The answer is, "The most notable news media in the English speaking world, and Obama's political rivals, have made Relationship X an issue in the presidential campaign. Since without the presidential campaign Obama would be as notable as Jon Tester, the controversy should be mentioned with a link to the article about it."

The New Yorker piece ... Isn't an encyclopedia biography, Wikidemo, and should not be used as a guide on how to write one. The guide on how to write a WP biography about a famous politician is, of course, all the other WP biographies about famous politicians, where controversies and scandals thrive. In those other WP biographies, scandal is called "scandal," controversy is called "controversy" and criticism, without hesitation, is called "criticism." These are dealt with in substantial length and detail, even when there is a separate article devoted to the controversy itself. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The most notable ..." - is this a quote (if so, from where)? Obama's political rivals have attempted to make his relationship with Ayers an issue in the presidential campaign (true fact, lots of sources). The most notable news media in the English speaking world have duly reported on this (true fact, lots of sources - note that these sources have not "made [it] an issue in the presidential campaign", they've reported what the political opponents have said). However, mentioning it in a biographical article on Obama implies significance. But there really doesn't seem to be any. We don't include all news articles related to Obama (like, for example, his recent visits to Iraq and Afghanistan). There are simply too many. Mentioning this particular story gives it a non-zero WP:WEIGHT, implying either Obama has a significant relationship with Ayers (which I don't think anyone has claimed is the case) or that this story had some effect on the election. The fact that it was reported is simply not sufficient reason to include it. We similarly do not include McCain's relationship with Vicki Iseman in the main article on McCain, even though (in contrast to Obama's "relationship" with Ayers) McCain spent significant time with Iseman and supported her clients' interests on multiple occasions. Per WP:NOT, all content hosted in Wikipedia is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nexis is an extremely powerful tool in circumstances such as this. A search can be structured with exquisite precision. I am finding a lot of prominent news media sources that discuss Obama's relationship with Ayers, without even mentioning McCain, Hillary or any other political rival of Obama's. The New Yorker article just cited by Wikidemo is an example of another type of noteworthy news media treatment: while (A) the Ayers relationship is explored and (B) McCain and/or Hillary get a mention, A is not directly linked to B. The article does not discuss any criticism from the political rivals regarding Ayers. So the media are not simply reporting attacks by political rivals as you claimed.

(By the way, that New Yorker article is a marvelous source for a few other tidbits that I'll be exploring in a couple of days.)

A comparison with McCain and Iseman is not valid, as we have previously discussed on my Talk page. Thanks for your response, but you've offered a false dichotomy here: mentioning Ayers in this article implies that either (A) the relationship was significant, or (B) the controversy had a provable impact on Obama's electability. I suggest that we have at least a (C) here: see WP:WELLKNOWN. If it's notable and well-sourced, it belongs in the article, even if it's negative and Obama dislikes all mention of it. The fact that there is a controversy, and that it's significant enough to have a very substantial and well-sourced WP article on it, indicates that it's notable enough to be mentioned here with a link.

I point out also that on the AfD, the consensus among the uninvolved editors is Keep. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep on mentioning WP:WELLKNOWN as if it's some kind of magic wand that makes your points valid, but that simply isn't the case. Although Obama is well known, his alleged relationship with Bill Ayers is not. What little of a relationship exists isn't even controversial - they have briefly worked together on the Woods Fund. What of it? The "relationship" was briefly notable when it came up in a TV debate, but beyond that it is all but non-existent (apart from by the right-wing propaganda machine, of course). So any mention of this so-called "relationship" in this BLP would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, any attempt to shoehorn it into the article would only be for the purposes of linking Obama to Ayers' alleged misdeeds, and guilt-by-association is expressly frowned upon in WP:BLP.

As far as the AFD is concerned, I will also point out that the discussion there has caused me to rethink my initial nomination. I still think it is a non-neutral piece of POV garbage, but I conceded it may have value. It definitely needs to be renamed though, as the current title is completely misleading. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy is indeed the magic wand here, SCJ. There's nothing "alleged" about the relationship. It is confirmed by many reliable sources. A prominent Chicago physician who advocates socialized medicine described Obama and Ayers as "friends." Three years in the lifespan of a man in his 40s cannot reasonably be described as "briefly" but they served together on the Woods Fund board for three years. They've also appeared together on at least two panel discussions and Ayers participated in the launching of Obama's career in politics in 1995. WP isn't attempting guilt by association, merely reporting the reactions of notable news media and notable politicians to this friendship of many years. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh come now, WB74, that's just incredibly misleading. Their connection has been correctly described as "tenuous". Let's drop this smear campaign now, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A mention of Ayers is not going to happen - no consensus to so at this point to include, well-founded objections from several that the information is POV and trivial/irrelevant, it's been discussed at length without resulting in consensus, and this new discussion isn't going anywhere. I don't see much point repeating myself but my own position until further notice is a firm "no." I'm not sure if there's anything else to talk about right now about the article but if there is we should move on to that. Wikidemo (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing the least bit misleading about anything I have said here, SCJ. Nor am I engaged in a smear campaign and your baiting and provocation is not going to work. In your opinion, the Washington Post blogger's description of the relationship as "tenuous" is correct. But that's all it is: your opinion. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yet if we were to sandbox a short section about political activities prior Obama's legislative service, would it be reasonable to propose a sentence about Ayers that would fit into the context of that?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact a paragraph on Obama's early political activities in the "Early life and career" section. Developing Communities Project and Gamaliel Foundation are briefly mentioned. I noticed someone named Gamaliel posting in the AfD, wonder if there's a connection. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the Gamaliel Foundation. I've been editing Wikipedia for four years and I didn't even vote for Obama in the primary. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an old saying "you're known by the company you keep". The Ayers information must not be downplayed. Ayers is an admitted perpetrator of violent, terrorist acts and the historical record makes plainly clear that Ayers helped launch Obama's political career. That connection in and of itself is notable - if only because no other recent Presidential candidate has associated himself with such a violent man - a man of criminal activities. Those who oppose WorkerBee74 on this point have not persuaded me to anything. I categorically reject all to-date stated justifications for downplaying the Ayers connection. Ayers did seriously bad things against USA and never repented. Knowing this, Obama still accepted (accepts?) his help. People are entitled to know that. Pierre.cardoone (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There also is an old saying "guilt by association", sometimes rendered as "smear". Tvoz/talk 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia policy "let the facts speak for themselves." Put the facts out there and let the readers make up their own minds. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but if these "facts" are (a) over reported and (b) dubiously sourced then readers will draw false conclusions from these misleading "facts". -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. To avoid "over reporting," I'll get it down to eight words plus a link. To avoid "dubious sourcing," I'll use only the gold standard of sourcing. Deal? WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything more than zero words is over-reporting, per my analysis in the section above. I have yet to see any reliable sources that establish that this is actually a significant matter but for WP:WEIGHT purposes you would probably have to show that there are hundreds, if not thousands. Even stuff that many people consider too trivial to mention such as Obama's basketball playing has eight times the apparent amount of attention ([16] versus [17]) and sixty times the news stories ([18] versus [19]). Perhaps people will entertain a concrete proposal but there is no more support to add an Ayers mention now than there was for the 7-8 weeks (and likely much longer) this has been discussed and I seriously doubt any amount of further argumentation is going to change that. Wikidemo (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And, you're not going to get "pre-agreement" for adding anything that's unseen. If you have a suggestion for an 8 word addition, by all means suggest it here. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, here goes. It should be at the start of the "state legislator, 1997-2004" section. (The Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article should be merged here, due in no small part to the fact that when you boil it down to the body of the article, it's only a few words longer than this section; and it's already been used as an excuse to dump Obama's more controversial state senate activities anywhere but here.) Here it is, with existing text in italics:

---

See also: Bill Ayers election controversy

Obama's political career was "launched" by William Ayers. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer ...

---

All right, let's hear it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not reliably sourced. The "Launching" comment comes from a leftist blog, "Musings & Migraines", by Maria Warren.[20]. That's not a reliable source at all, and Boston Globe does not rehabilitate the source by quoting it without approval. The full quote is: "When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom 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." There are some other problems but that's the most obvious. Also, that it's probably untrue. Inasmuch as the paragraph is about Ayers and Dohrn it speaks more to their frame of mind than any causal connection between their efforts and the launch of Obama's career. Indeed, the author herself claims that this was taken out of context as a claim that Obama and Ayers are connected. The Lizza article on the subject of the rise of Obama's career credits Alice Palmer with having "launched" it.[21] If we could get past reliably sourcing the claim to a responsible journalist (which we can't, because it's not true) we still have to get past the statement being a coatrack, counter to many other sources, and of undue weight. Wikidemo (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Not even close. And I find it increasingly hard to believe you're even trying to be NPOV here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am absolutely eager to hear a counterproposal that involves a number of words greater than zero, and a link to Bill Ayers election controversy. By the way, Wikidemo, that "Obama basketball" Google comparison is completely bogus. All it takes is for Obama's name to show up on the same page as some NBA highlights or the NCAA tournament, and it jacks up the hits. Use Nexis if you want to get serious. And when you claim that an Ayers edit has been discussed for "7-8 weeks," don't forget to subtract the 6-7 weeks in the middle when we were talking about a Rezko edit and we weren't allowed to talk about anything else. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody is free to weigh in and propose in good faith whatever they wish, but my proposal is that we close this line of discussion as not having consensus, and move on to any other unresolved concerns that need to be discussed. Wikidemo (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Twenty words

Wikidemo, that's the fourth time you've tried to shut this discussion down and no one else is supporting all of your attempts. We are all aware that your vote is "No, no, a thousand times no," so your further participation in this discussion is not necessary. Since you are so eager to talk about something else, I encourage you to go to another section of this Talk page, or perhaps another page entirely, and talk about something else. It's clearly going to take more than eight words to satisfy your demands. Let's try this version. This goes after the Wright paragraph in the campaign section:

In April the Bill Ayers election controversy arose when George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his friendship with bomber William Ayers.

Each and every word is undeniably, pinpoint accurate. The source is the gold standard of sourcing. We could also use the word "terrorist" rather than "bomber," or even substitute the words "unrepentant terrorist" and it would still be undeniably, pinpoint accurate with solid gold sourcing. But that would increase the number of words from 20 to 21. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's no good either, because it violates at least three policies:

• WP:WEIGHT - the question in the debate was an insignificant fraction of what occurred during the months of campaigning (even the flag pin thing got more attention), and it is even less significant when taken into the context of Obama's entire life.
• WP:LIBEL - you cannot claim someone is a "bomber", or any other variation that indicates a criminal act, unless the man has been convicted of said act.
• WP:SYN - Obama's campaign described it as a "friendly relationship" but nobody has characterized this as an actual "friendship" (see transcript of debate).

Also, there is no such thing as a "Bill Ayers election controversy" because (a) Bill Ayers isn't running in any election, and (b) there is nothing controversial about his tenuous relationship with Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:WEIGHT concerns, this article tells us that Obama is left-handed. There are 347 Google hits for that (using Wikidemo's method) but 19,600 hits for Ayers and Obama, a ratio of 56-to-1. Regarding WP:SYN, a prominent Chicago physician who supports Obama and advocates socialized medicine (Dr. Quentin Young IIRC) says they are friends. Again, this is supported by solid gold sourcing. The Obama campaign also says they have a "friendly relationship" so that's good enough. Regarding libel, Ayers has actually bragged constantly about being a bomber. It's in his book. Regarding the title of the linked article, you haven't proposed a decent substitute at your own AfD. But if you'd like, we can remove the offensive word "election" and use Wikimagic to preserve the link to that article. That has the added benefit of reducing weight to 19 words.

You've complained that I don't listen to reason. Physician, heal thyself. Listen to reason. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the other point about WP:LIBEL. Brothejr (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Strikeout by me. Though, I would say that any comment about him being a bomber, terrorist, or anything of that sort would be better on his page, not Obama's. We must remember that this is about Obama not Ayers. Brothejr (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

... His page, not Obama's. The same argument was used in an effort to exclude material about Jeremiah Wright from this article; and that argument failed. It is about both Ayers and Obama. The terms "bomber" and "unrepentant terrorist" immediately signal to the reader the cause for the controversy. This is the same argument that was used to defeat the "there not here" argument regarding Wright. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Still not good enough:

• The left-handed argument - I'm not wedded to it, but one can expect there to be a reasonable amount of interesting personal biographical information in a BLP. And since lame arguments are popular at the moment, consider that Obama has only spent of few hours (in total) with Ayers, but he has a lifetime relationship with left-handedness.
• The physician argument - Answering a WP:SYN problem with a "he said, she said" comment? "Friendship" is a much deeper word than the characterization of "friendly relationship", and "some guy says they're friends" is not a good enough justification by any stretch of the imagination.
• The "Ayers bragged" argument - That still doesn't answer the issue of him not being convicted of anything, and so stating he is a "bomber" or something similar exposes Wikipedia to accusations of libel.

Further argument on this is pointless. There is no consensus for adding any of this contentious, policy-violating material despite repeated discussion on several occasions (see the talk page archive). As proposed by others, this discussion should be closed. Naturally, we can reopen this debate if Obama's relationship with Ayers resurfaces at some later point. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All the above, plus the statement's untrue. Not that the weight conclusion would be different if it were described the origin correctly and we got rid of inapt stuff like calling Ayers a "bomber" or saying there was a "friendship", but the mini-controversy (it's more of a partisan campaign tactic than a controversy) apparently arose in February, 2008, when discussion began circulating in the British press, followed by conservative blogs and Hillary Clinton supporters. Wikidemo (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy first reached a substantial public consciousness here in the United States when the question was put to Obama in that April debate. But you're welcome to propose a version that takes into account previous talk in the British press, right-wing blogs etc. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the other point ... Yes I have, Brothejr, and I grow weary of repeating myself due to the reading comprehension skills of others. (See my Talk page for a tiresome example.) Ayers brags constantly about his days as a glorious bomber for the people's revolution. He brags about it on the lecture circuit. He brags about it in his book. If the horse's mouth isn't good enough for you, I've got solid gold sourcing from elsewhere.

I'm not wedded to it ... SCJ, don't race off and delete the "left-handed" sentence; that seems to be your solution to everything. There's a lot more trivia where that came from. This biography is packed with such trivia. The controversy about Ayers is non-trivial enough to survive your AfD attempt by a 15-8 vote. But if you insist that it's trivia, I'll assume for the sake of this paragraph that it is. So what? We have room for a lot of other trivia if it makes Obama look like a great guy, so why not this? The real reason you're objecting to this particular bit of trivia and none other is painfully obvious.

..."He said, she said" comment ... SCJ, the difference between "friendship" and "friendly relationship" explores new ground in hairsplitting. Dr. Quentin Young is not "some guy." He knows both Ayers and Obama quite well. But if you insist, we can call it "friendly relationship" if you have no objection to increasing the word count by one.

... the issue of him not being convicted of anything ... See above response to Brothejr. If the horse's mouth isn't good enough, there's solid gold sourcing for "unrepentant terrorist." If the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Mother Jones, The Nation and The New Republic can say it, Wikipedia can say it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to insert those BLP / NPOV /RS violations brought on protracted edit warring on the Ayers page after this issue became a political football in early 2008. They certainly don't belong here.Wikidemo (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it brought on protracted edit warring because certain people couldn't handle the truth and, inevitably, this stuff became part of the Ayers page (at far greater length than I propose here) because it is neither a BLP violation (it's true), nor an NPOV violation (see WP:WELLKNOWN), nor an RS violation (due to the gold standard of sourcing). WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It was because most people there, like here, are serious about following policies and guidelines to create a neutral, encyclopedic article. Calling Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist", "bomber", "terrorist", etc., was rejected as a BLP violation, POV editorializing, not reliably sourced, and counter to reliable sources, on the Ayers article. We don't need to have that battle here. I don't care to argue the point further for now - this is just rehashing the exact same thing that has been discussed plenty of times. There's not consensus for including the material at all, and an outright rejection of this version. Wikidemo (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then replace the word "bomber" with "radical" if you insist. I'm trying to compromise here.

The Bill Ayers controversy arose when the British press challenged Obama about his friendly relationship with radical William Ayers.

Nineteen words. Happy now? WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, WorkerBee74! You keep waving WP:WELLKNOWN at us, but that isn't your personal seal of approval to violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:SYN, or be disruptive, combative and uncivil. There is no "truth" for you to expose. This is a cordial relationship between a Chicago politician and a Chicago civic leader and distinguished professor that is not significant enough to warrant a BLP mention, and barely makes the cut in the article about the primary campaign. Enough of this agenda-based activism already!-- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN is policy. None of the other policies you've mentioned above are violated, for the reasons that I have already exhaustively set forth. Stop accusing me of "agenda-based activism," my only agenda is to make this BLP about a famous politician look like other WP BLPs about famous politicians, where criticism and controversy thrive. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale is "to make this BLP about a famous politician look like other WP BLPs about famous politicians, where criticism and controversy thrive." In otherwords, make this BLP as bad as the others. Your arguments have failed, and your proposed addition (for which there is no consensus, and probably never will be) violates half a dozen Wikipedia policies. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It violates zero policies, SCJ, for the reasons I've already cited numerous times; and if you think those other BLPs are "bad," I have specifically and repeatedly cited Tony Blair, a BLP whose lifeblood was criticism and controversy on the day it became a Featured Article. Not so long ago, Noroton completely eviscerated your "those other BLPs are bad" argument by finding several GA & FA BLPs containing abundant criticism. How quickly you forget. Do you need a link to that page and section in the archives? A map and a flashlight perhaps? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying there is a general prohibition on criticism, just that this specific incident is not weighty enough to include in this article. Opinions about this (and these are opinions) differ. Hence, no consensus to add here. I'd suggest crafting some words to add to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW - reading through the current version of the article I count 8 instances of what I'd call criticism. For comparison purposes I count 19 in the McCain article. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• This matter merits zero words in the general biography. Conceivably it might be worth fewer than 20 words in the campaign article. We have been through this many times, let us just start ignoring the provocations and sophistry of the SPA who wants to stick in disparaging/libelous violations of WP:BLP. LotLE×talk 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point in further discussion, especially now that the matter is resolved - no consensus for WB74's proposed edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Provocations and sophistry"? Stop baiting me. Rick, what we have here is a de facto prohibition of criticism. (A) K4T proposes introducing criticism about Wright. Every WP policy gets cited in attempts to obstruct it. (B) Noroton proposes introducing criticism about Rezko. Every WP policy gets cited in attempts to obstruct it. (C) WB74 proposes introducing criticism about Ayers. Every WP policy gets cited in attempts to obstruct it. Now look at the cumulative effect: zero criticism in a BLP about a major party's presumptive nominee.

Furthermore, these policy citations are completely bogus. For example, I'm using the gold standard of sourcing and I still get WP:RS thrown at me. You know, it wasn't so long ago that staffers for several Democratic congressmen were caught whitewashing their bosses' BLPs. The only reason they were caught was that they were editing as IP accounts that could be easily traced to their bosses' Capitol Hill offices. Not so hard to figure out how to get around it ... WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'd like to elaborate on the process, Rick. Whenever a well-intentioned editor suggests the introduction of any criticism or controversy, each and every WP policy is thrown at him, one at a time. Laboriously, he changes words here and there, finds better sources, and bends over backward to satisfy all these demands. Each and every objection is completely demolished.

WP:WEIGHT is always the last line of defense because it relies entirely on their opinions. There's no magic formula to resolve it. It's just opinions. We need outside help here. We need RfC or mediation. Probably both. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now let me illustrate something else. Suppose there are 30 editors working on the BLP of Joe from Cincinnati, and 29 of them want to add a paragraph with a bold section header that says, "Joe from Cincinnati is a child molester," but the sourcing is "I read it on a blog somewhere," and the 30th editor says, "Wait a minute! What about WP:BLP?" Should those 29 editors prevail by citing WP:WEIGHT and voting?

Wait a minute! What about WP:WELLKNOWN? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, WP:BLP wins, hands down. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion

WB74, while your behavior has been troubling, you've made a fair point. Rick Block observes that there are 19 instances of criticism in the John McCain article, compared to only eight here. Let's start evening it up. I support the addition of WB74's 20 words. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works at all. We don't arbitrarily add criticism in order to "even the score" with some other article out there. We weigh each thing on its own individual merits. Achieving neutral point of view and avoiding undue weight are the concerns here, not a tit-for-tat tally of who has more criticism in their biographies. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. Let's add WB74's 20 words to the article. Coincidentially, that would have the effect of starting to even it up. Curious bystander (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of mentioning that there are 8 instances of criticism in the current version of the article was to show that the consensus is not always against the addition of criticism. What folks are saying here is that the Ayers "controversy" (this specific issue, not "any issue that might reflect poorly on Obama") is no more relevant to Obama's life than the Iseman "controversy" is to McCain's life. I assume most folks arguing for mentioning Ayers here would argue equally strenuously against adding any mention of the Iseman story in the McCain article - and I strongly suggest no one suggest this at talk:John McCain per WP:POINT. Furthermore, I suspect that at least some folks arguing against mentioning Ayers here would also argue against mentioning Iseman on the McCain page. Neither of the McCain or Obama articles are immune from the addition of criticism, but there's no "criticism quota" we need to achieve either. We also certainly have no obligation to achieve "criticism parity" - although I'll note that 8 for Obama and 19 for McCain is roughly proportional to how long they've each been in the public eye. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There you make a point that was always in my mind but didn't commented on it because when I was in the mood to do so, I always was in a very "sarcastic mood" and would've made "crappy" comparisons, and by "crappy" I mean comparing amounts of crap that can be delivered over time. Not going further into that or I do just what I prevented myself to do :) . --Floridianed (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I support WB74's proposal. By the way, I would be interested to learn which bits and pieces of this article Rick Block perceives as "criticism." Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been getting a lot of constructive comments in the RfC concerning this issue, so I'd like to keep this thread from being archived. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More info needed on Obama's nine years in Illinois legislature

I've undone this edit by user:WorkerBee74 which adds what seems (to me) to be a highly POV account of the passage of the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act, sourced to http://www.countercurrents.org/pringle220508.htm (which would appear to be somewhat less than reliable). I suppose we can discuss it if anyone cares to. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well let's discuss it Rick. There's a severe shortage of material about Obama's nine years in the Illinois Senate (compared to his three years as a US Senator and 18 months as a presidential candidate), an allegedly unreliable source is effortlessly confirmed using the Illinois legislative record and the well-known and trusted Chicago dailies, and I'll again invoke WP:WELLKNOWN. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The length of time is not directly proportional to the importance or significance. That being said, the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article could certainly benefit from some expansion, provided that expansion did not violate WP:NPOV or WP:RS (as your recent edit to Barack Obama clearly did). Naturally, such an expansion would also have to take WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP in mind as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The amendment to the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act (IHFPA) was carefully tailored to enable Blagojevich's five appointees to take control of the board. It reduced the number of members from 15 to nine, making five votes a majority: and it achieved the reduction by providing that six Republican appointed members would be removed.

Within 60 days of the passage of this amendment, these five Blagojevich appointees and their wives donated a total of at least $15,000 to Obama's campaign. (Just one, Michel Malek, donated $10,000 within 30 days of its passage.) I could prove all of this by citing five or six separate unquestionably reliable sources. (SCJ, since you also have Nexis, it's easy enough for you to see what I'm talking about.) Or I could use Countercurrents.org, or one of the other sources where Evelyn Pringle's series of articles has been published. How do you feel about Opednews.com, or Scoop.co.nz?

And we haven't even started talking about the pension fund yet, or how many thousands of dollars Blagojevich appointees to that board contributed to Obama's campaign. Appearance of impropriety? WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

These would be matters for discussion at Talk:Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, not here. The addition you are proposing is way too much specificity for the BLP. Also, you have described it in a non-neutral manner, with phrases like this: "[It] was carefully tailored to enable Blagojevich's five appointees to take control of the board." Furthermore, there is nothing "improper" about stacking the deck with Democratic appointees, just as it wouldn't be if the roles were reversed. See the current administration, SCOTUS, etc., for spectacular Republican examples of same. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

SCJ - I think you're missing the point. WB's suggesting including allegations of kickbacks for favors granted. Per BLP, doing this anywhere (even implicitly) requires impeccably reliable sources without resorting to WP:SYNTH, conjecture, or speculation. I think it's safe to say this would be HUGE news and, since it doesn't seem to be, I imagine WB will have a very hard time with this. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick, please review the edit you reverted. Nowhere did I even mention these campaign contributions in the article mainspace. But if you'd like, we can certainly go to a very reliable source called OpenSecrets.org, where Michel Malek and the date and amount of his contribution to Obama's campaign are listed (along with the names, dates and amounts of all the other donations from all the other Blagojevich appointees on the Health Facilities Planning Board and teachers pension fund board, who now control billions of dollars in government funds as a result of Obama's legislative efforts).

Then we can go to the Illinois legislative record and get the dates and the texts of the amendments to these laws and we see Obama's committee reviewed and approved them in record time and he pushed them through the full legislature, just weeks before the money was donated to his campaign.

Then we can go to the Illinois government websites and look up Michel Malek and all these other appointees, and show that they were appointed by Blagojevich. Then we can show how one of them testified at Rezko's trial in exchange for immunity. Most of the individual portions of this can also be found in the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. SCJ has Nexis just like me, so he can do this in a few minutes if he's so inclined, and if he structures a search properly.

I'm not violating WP:SYNTH because somebody else named Evelyn Pringle put all of this together. Or, if you prefer, we can just restore the edit you reverted. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

None of this is permissible due to the prohibition on original research. All info in the article must be attributed to a reliable source, and crosscurrents.org does not appear to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research Gamaliel. I didn't do any of the research on this. Evelyn Pringle did. Her work has been published in at least three sources. Let's pick the one that's most reliable.

SCJ, you know that Bush and his father nominated several justices to the Supreme Court; so imagine the reaction if McCain had sponsored legislation (back in the days when the GOP controlled Congress) reducing the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to six by removing the Clinton appointees (and a moderate Republican like Justice Stevens). And within 60 days of its passage, Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia donated buckets of money to the McCain for President campaign. This isn't an ordinary case of stacking the committee. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are talking about, WB is the very definition of original research. You can't go poring through government records, reported campaign contributions and courtroom testimony to draw your own conclusion. That's not how Wikipedia works. If such accusations have made against Obama in a verifiable, reliable third-party source than let's discuss those references here. But, this being a WP:BLP keep in mind how high the bar is set. Blogs and editorials aren't good enough. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with what Loonymonkey just said. If you are telling people to go look up government records, then you are proposing original research. If you have reliable sources, let's see them. But they must be acceptable according to Wikipedia's rules for WP:BLPs. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I've done here. Evelyn Pringle did the research and published it on three different websites, and I will allow others to decide which one is most reliable. I'm not Evelyn Pringle. I've just gone to what are probably the same sources she used, employing the same Nexis search engine that she probably used, to confirm that she is a reliable source; and I'm inviting any of you who might also have Nexis (such as SCJ) to confirm for yourselves that she is a reliable source. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So which one is most reliable? Countercurrents.org, Scoop.co.nz, or Opednews.com? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

After examining the sites, my assessment is that none of them fit the criteria of WP:RS. You are welcome to seek other opinions here and at the reliable sources noticeboard, of course. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a serious question, none of the above. The way this works is if it's a real story it will show up in mainstream reliable sources and then (and only then) do we even consider including it here. We don't come even remotely close to "breaking" stories here. Unless and until this is a mainstream story appearing in reliable sources there's 0% chance we'll mention any part of it here (including the supporting "facts" with the intention of letting readers "draw their own conclusions"). You're quite welcome to bring this up again if it surfaces in the mainstream, but continuing to push for it now is starting to border on disruptive editing. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would concur. None come close to being reliable sources, in fact. Evelyn Pringle is a non-notable hack who can only get published in exposé/underground/activist websites. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

None of these fit the definition of a reliable source. In fact blogs such as those are explicitly excluded as sources in a WP:BLP. Plese read WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Plus, as this is an extraordinary claim, the bar is even higher. As of now, WB74, you haven't even come close to meeting the standards for a reliable source with this claim so what's left to talk about? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And what does your Nexis search tell you about the facts she has presented? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source with Nexis, please provide it. Otherwise, this issue is pretty much concluded. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the point is not whether there are reliable sources for the "facts" Pringle is using, but reliable sources for the inferences that she's making from those facts. Presenting the "facts" here by themselves making only implicit accusations is no different from making explicit accusations. We're asking for reliable sources for the accusation whatever it might be. For example, your original edit carries an (implied) accusation of the form "Obama was part of a plot to give control of whatever board it was to Rezko et al.". Since there's no other way to read this particular juxtaposition of "facts" than as an accusation, you need a reliable source for the accusation (not just for the individual supporting "facts"). You've been pointed to this before, but please review WP:NPOV#Neutrality and verifiability. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For an example of WP BLPs that use Evelyn Pringle articles from Scoop.co.nz as sources, please see James Gottstein. Other articles that use Evelyn Pringle articles as sources include Modafinil, BLP Richard Burr, BLP Dan Olmsted, Bjork-Shiley valve, TeenScreen and Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005. She's had about 50 articles published according to Nexis, in two fields (A) medical technology and pharmacology, and (B) exposing corruption in government. In the latter area, she's clearly non-partisan, going after Republicans and Democrats with equal vigor. I don't understand why there's a problem. The source (Scoop.co.nz) and the writer (Pringle) are both being used as sources in other WP BLPs. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So you saying that shoddy sourcing in other BLPs is a justification for using unreliable sources in this article? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessarily provocative response there, SCJ. Please stop putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that just with the other BLPs about famous politicians that use the word "criticism" so very frequently, and devote so very much space to controversy, the use of Scoop.co.nz and Evelyn Pringle as sources has already been vetted and found to be acceptable by other teams of editors. It is well-established practice. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. That is complete nonsense. Wikipedia is littered with poorly-sourced articles, and all you have done is identified a few which use your preferred source and used them as justification for your proposed inclusion. You are advocating lowering the standard of this BLP to bring it into line with shoddily-written BLPs. Awesome plan, that. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If a source is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policy, it doesn't matter how many editors want to use that source or that other editors have used that source in the past. The use of a source in another article confers no special status upon it. Many Wikipedia articles have used unacceptable sources in the past and the proper response was and is to remove those unacceptable sources. I notice you don't mention that you received a negative response to your question about using these sources at the RS noticeboard. I think the reasons these sources are unacceptable was explained there rather clearly by User:Itsmejudith. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention it because I hadn't seen it yet. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I hadn't checked for any response because when I posted my question there, I could see that there was a long queue ahead of me and did not expect such a rapid response. How do you feel about a source like Drudge? You can't walk through a newsroom these days without seeing Drudge's homepage displayed on someone's PC monitor, laptop or PDA. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Drudge is exactly the kind of source that the RS and BLP policies were designed to keep out of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read the WP:RSN response from Itsmejudith a bit more carefully, Gamaliel, and it's not the blanket refusal you described above. Judith described Scoop.co.nz as a site for breaking news and the mainstream media often picks it up. (That didn't happen in this case for some reason.) I'd describe Drudge in much the same way, except the MSM almost always picks it up.

Judith's response regarding Opednews.com is far more encouraging: at that site, it isn't the source that is reliable or not, it's the author. And some fairly prominent, reliable people have written articles that were published there.

So Evelyn Pringle, with roughly 50 freelance articles in publication, and with all of the individual facts of her story confirmed by thoroughly reliable sources, is not reliable at Opednews.com? The Wikipedia policy also suggests that we could qualify this material by adding five words at the start: "Investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle said ..." Is such an idea, particularly in light of another WP policy that says "let the facts speak for themselves," completely wrong and if so, why? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How many of these "50 freelance articles" have been published in the mainstream media? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see for yourself using Nexis, can't you? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I only have access LexisNexis at the library, but I would imagine a fair guess would be around zero. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

There's no realistic chance that this material would be included in the Obama article in its present form, or supported by this source. Singling this legislation out as a favor for Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich, incorrectly describing the scope and history of the legislation, and sourcing it to a blatantly anti-Obama editorial, is too much of a WP:COATRACK by a few orders of magnitude. At most, if the bill to avoid sunsetting out of the health care ordinance in Illinois is an important piece of legislation that Obama was instrumental in passing, and if that's a notable part of his career, we can include a statement as such without the political analysis and ties to convicted / accused fraudsters. Until and unlesst hat happens I think the discussion has shown that there's no consensus to add it. Wikidemo (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I brought up the Evelyn Pringle series of articles months ago on this Talk page, when they were first published. There wasn't even one response at that time. Not one. Now, all of a sudden she's being attacked as an unreliable source. Put the facts intop the article without editorializing, and let the facts speak for themselves. Obama was the driving force behind legislation that enabled a few people, all of them appointed by Rod Blagojevich, to take control of two state boards that control billions of dollars in state funds. Within weeks, these same people were donating tens of thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign. Those are the facts. We don't need to link to the Pringle articles to prove them. We can use sources like the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, the Illinois legislative record and Open Secrets. We don't need to mention that they are Rezko cronies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T, I am reminded of something you said at WP:ANI when User:Therefore complained about you removing a BLP violation at Heather Wilson. You talked about it on the article Talk page and didn't get any action. Then you removed the BLP violation, and Therefore reverted you in just six minutes. And here he is, following you back to Barack Obama and taking the opposite approach to the inclusion of criticism. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Condense Pfleger material?

This attempt to condense the material about Pfleger article[22] was reverted,[23] reinserted,[24] and reverted again.[25]

The edit effected this change:

"Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, after Catholic priest Michael Pfleger gave a visiting orator guest oratory that disparaged Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

Personally, I don't object to the change and think it's for the better given WP:WEIGHT concerns over a scandal of diminishing interest. However, I think we get the most bang for the buck in terms of encyclopedic value if we keep a little more info:

"Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, after Catholic priest visiting orator Michael Pfleger gave a guest oratory that disparaged Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

Neither the fact that Michael Pfleger is a Catholic Priest, and the self-serving (even if true) rationalization by Obama are all that informative. They're the weakest links in this section so they can go. If any reader wants to know more, they can follow the link to the Pfleger article. Wikidemo (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article might ought to mention that the homile/ sermon was given at Trinity and orator seems to obfuscate that he was in the capacity of visiting pastor. I'm open to good faith discussion.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already mentioned Trinity in the sentence so we could clear up the circumstances by saying "after visiting pastor Michael Pfleger gave an oratory there disparaging..." Is "oratory" a term of art or can we use the more common terms like "speech" or "sermon"? Also, the Pfleger article uses the term "mocking". Is that more accurate than "disparaging?" Another version might be "after visiting pastor Michael Pfleger mocked Hillary Clinton in a sermon there."Wikidemo (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable. I think it is clear and forthright as Wikidemo has put it. I think speech robs it of some context. Sermon would be accurate as he did this from the pulpit. I think that " After visiting pastor Michael Pfleger mocked Hilliary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity...," as the introductory clause might even be more poetic and reads better, but Wikidemo's idea is acceptable.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never been comfortable with this. It seems to indicate that Obama's resignation was a direct response to Pfleger's oratory, which would be something of a synthesis. While I agree that the resignation is important (and I think we should give Obama's reason for it), I think that the oratory (and who gave it) is not - per WP:RECENT. I would say that the oratory itself is more a matter for the Michael Pfleger and Hillary Clinton biographies. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't why he quit? Do we have a reliable source on what the reason is beyond Obama's explanation? It seems so obvious Pfleger's speech was the final straw but we can look it up in the sources. "After" is appropriate as long as there is some clear causal connection, even if we can't pinpoint the exact nature of the connection. Anyway, I think it's good practice to be specific (naming notable people and providing wikilinks rather than referring to them by generic occupation), and don't see what the harm is. Wikidemo (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither source given states that Obama resigned from the church because of comments made by Pfleger One of them mentions he has been discussing the matter with his wife since the National Press Club comments. That is was Pfleger had no bearing on the matter. That fact of his resignation is important, but it would still be something of a synthesis to link the event to the guest pastor. This would make more sense:

Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, stating his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

Anything more than that wouldn't really be necessary, and the details of who said what about whom seem more suited to the Michael Pfleger and Hillary Clinton biographies. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think mentioning Pfleger's name is important. It lends a false specificity, per Wikidemo's excellent count of the people mentioned and the lengths at which they're discussed. "Visiting orator" is better since it expresses just the fact it happened at Trinity, which is the point. "Oratory" is definitely the correct term-of-art, in contrast to more generic "speech", "talk", or even "sermon" (it wasn't the last, because the visitor was from a different denomination, etc). I'd be happy with "mocking" instead of "disparaging"... it even seems a little more accurate. LotLE×talk 16:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Visiting pastors from other denominations often give sermons. Sermon is not generic in the slightest, while oratory deprives the reader of the religious context in which it was given. If pfleger's name is not important, then it should not be problematic to include it. Mysteriousness that make these comments of some masked man seems counter intuitive.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting about is that being deliberately general and referring to the category rather than the instance seems a little awkward and detracts a bit from the content quality. It would be like saying that Obama enjoys playing a "team sport" rather than basketball, or cooking an "American comfort food" instead of Chili, that he ran a "prestigious leal journal" rather than Harvard Law Review, that his mother's family might be related to a "Confederate Leader" rather than "Jefferson Davis", etc. Per the weight thing I think we've mentioned Pfleger whethe we say his name or not. For me the decision to mention him or not seems to bear on whether that speech really was a tipping point in Obama's decision to resign as traceable to reliable sources (on the substance), and whether that fact is considered significant in a fair number of places (as evidence). I had just assumed that it was, because it seems so obvious. I haven't yet actually tried to look at the sourcing for this. Finally, I really don't see any NPOV / relevancy issue here because unlike Rezko, Ayers, or even Wright, Pfleger himself isn't necessarily a controversial figure that tarnishes Obama by association. The very point of the the story is the opposite, that Obama felt he had to distance himself from his church because he didn't agree with or want to be connected to what was being said there. Wikidemo (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Die4Dixie just reverted the version as it existed a few days ago. Can we leave it in that state for a spell so we can discuss? In the interest of disclosure he did ask me for help gathering consensus here, and I agree that we really ought to leave the status quo for now. This shouldn't be too hard for us to figure out. So let's all work constructively. This is a very minor section of the article and not a big controversy, at least the Pfleger part. So let's set a precedent that we can all improve the article together! I might have to step away for a few hours but I hope everyone can edit in a supportive collegial way. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[26] is a reliable source. This was a sermon. Here we have third party sources making the points that we object to as "synth". This was a priest, not some itinerant orator. this was a sermon, and not a speech. I can provide more sources to illustrate these points if someone would like to discuss this further in good faith. Perhaps we should make suggestions here be forte we remove this cited material.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring over that paragraph? That would reopen a can of worms that is best left sealed. There was a lot of argument over that paragraph about six weeks ago, and after much acrimony and a few blocks, consensus was reached. Please, let's just restore it to the consensus version, and leave it that way. Curious bystander (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For sure we shouldn't edit war, and I strongly think we should leave as-is for now. I agree we shouldn't be too quick to revisit the scene of old edit wars. But from what I remember of the page history (ignoring a whole bunch of things like issues that went smoothly, random vandalism, perennial issues like the definition of African American, and something I paid zero attention to about images) is that page protection resulted from simultaneous edit warring over three issues: (1) Tony Rezko; (2) Bill Ayers; and (3) the Jeremiah Wright / Trinity issue, including Pfleger. We tried discussing them all at one time, which went nowhere, then somehow decided to discuss them one at a time. We left Bill Ayers behind (no mention) and Wright/Trinity/Pfleger where it was (the version we have now), to discuss Tony Rezko. That took 4-6 weeks to get everyone extremely close to each other on wording, and after a while either we had consensus or people just stopped talking about it. Next, WorkerBee74 brought up Ayers again. That's been discussed in the past week - I won't comment here on the state of consensus. And now one of us has resurrected the question of Jeremiah Wright again. It may be more fair to say we have a "truce" version than a longer term consensus. A long way of saying, the conversation isn't necessarily played out and see no harm in continuing the chat if we can keep it friendly. Wikidemo (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[27] and [28] are also both reliable ( cnn and chicago tribune]. Curious, we are not adversaries, and I restored it to your last version. Some want to reach a new consensus, which is acceptable, but I have provided three reliable sources to answer the concerns of other editors. I'm fine with the version that I reverted to, but it could be better. What i think is that it should stay there until a new consensus is reached, or barring that , it just remain. I don't want an acrimonious edit war on such a minor detail either. Let us build a consensus or leave it.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Die4Dixie, we are not adversaries, but colleagues. Let's make this a better article and let's not dismiss WB74 out of hand. I believe that even the worst of us has some redeeming virtue and while he is abrasive, he seems to be a very effective writer and makes good points about policy. Curious bystander (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey has demonstrated quite strongly above that the claim that previously existed in the article was improper WP:SYNTH (and probably simply false). That is, there does not seem to be evidence supporting the idea that Obama quite Trinity bacause of Pfleger. Unless we have evidence that that specific claim is true (and supported by reliable sources), we cannot include it in the article, no matter what earlier consensus might have been reached. LotLE×talk 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LuLu. this from the cnn article:"Obama said the Pfleger controversy made it clear that, as long as he remained a member of the Trinity congregation, remarks from the pulpit would be "imputed" to him, even if they conflicted with his personal views." The article makes the synthesis for us. the three sources are reliable. I offered to find more. Please review the sources while i find more that make the point for us, clearing up any original research concerns.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I have a tremendous respect for WB's keen intellect. I also happen to agree with him, it appears , on some issues. I have tried to recently contact him by email. I believe that if we work as honest brokers of consensus, there will be room for all opinions to be respected here. If tones are not moderated, and a more friendly atmosphere generated, then this article will remain at impasses while we endlessly argue things that should be easily dealt with. If after the the protracted mutual antagonism that Wikidemo and I have experienced , we can be courteous then I believe that this article can be worked on in a much more harmonious way. All it took was his thanking me for adding his signature. I was tired of the drama and incapable of compromise. There are obviously no stupid editors on this page. As bright as we are collectively, we should be able to figure out how to make this work. If we can't then, hell I'll go edit the pages about Spanish literature, something I know something about and which won't cause me any grief.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me, Die4Dixie, that the "Obama quit because of Pfleger oratory" is supportable. The Tribune cite doesn't seem to get that, but the CNN one does. It does look like CNN is trying to shoehorn a connection, but they are WP:RS, so if they do it, it's not our place to question it. I have restored the version that mentions this reason. LotLE×talk 02:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is so much more pleasant.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec X 3) In the interest of saying something nice, WB74 is clearly smart. Since the summary I added at the start of this topic we've had six more reversions in 7-8 hours.[29][30][31][32][33][34] LotLE has partly self-reverted the last one of these[35] so maybe people have come to their senses and this little flare-up is over. But folks, next time can we discuss first? Being WP:BOLD is okay once, but if there's meaningful disagreement be prepared to establish consensus. The burden is on those proposing a disputed change to establish consensus. Wikidemo (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The final issue here now is whether to link to Pfleger and mention him by name - why not? I see no reason to avoid the name and link. The two cited sources, particularly the CNN piece, mention Pfleger extensively (in comparison to the total content of the articles). Also, if we want to polish this to the point of perfection was he really a "visiting orator"? That sounds kind of awkward and unclear. Orator is a bit of an archaic and stuffy word. CNN calls him a "visiting priest" who mocked Clinton during a "sermon." Associated Press (via MSNBC) doesn't mention his being catholic but does call him "Reverend" and "Father", and says he mocked her "as a guest speaker". So why don't we say "after guest speaker Michael Pfleger mocked Hillary Clinton in a speech"? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Speech" does rob it of its religious context. The word sermon is used in the tree impeccable sources to which I have linked above. Bottom line , when I go to church on Sundays, I go to hear a sermon. The three sources I gave above say sermon. I'm trying to get a church bulletin now ,and if it says sermon...... Rev. Father Pfleger, then I'd say he delivered a sermon.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment (sorry, couldn't resist), some churches are a lot more secular than others, and some like Trinity are overtly into politics. If it was part of the worship service it's probably fair to call it a sermon even if Pfleger spent his time talking about Hillary Clinton rather than anything religious in nature. But let's check to see if it might have happened in a church-sponsored event that wasn't a service - you know, like a lecture series or a forum, even an announcement at the end of the service, in which case it might really be just a speech. Wikidemo (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(Meanwhile I typed this but I won't squeeze in above; it does it purpose here too I guess).

Just right out of my head as I remember, the reasons Obama to leave the church were in main part because of Wright's repeated controversial remarks, also reinstating some old ones and attacking Obama directly ("...typical politician..." as an example) on two occasions. Read Jeremiah Wright, Political controversy, where there is no mention of Pfleger, yet, as he held his sermon right in that short timeline of Obama's decision of renouncement it should or could be mentioned (with or w/o naming Pleger with his name) since he included Pfleger's "Hillary-bashing" in his speech('s). So it's just a matter of looking for sources that certainly exist "en mass" and then get to the "hard" part of agreeing in the right wording (as usual). But that shouldn't hold us up to get done with this paragraph. --Floridianed (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I prefer not to mention Pfleger by name is the false specificity thing I mention. Let me try to clarify though: By putting in his name, it suggests that Obama was especially offended by Pfleger, or that that was an outrageous person to invite as guest speaker/orator/whatever. It seems more accurate that Trinity invites a variety of outside speakers, many of whom Obama is likely to disagree with; that it happened to be Pfleger that particular week isn't the main point about the resignation. However, I don't care that much, and if anyone puts back his name, I'll leave it (but please no descriptions beyond just a wikilink at his name).

On the oratory/sermon thing: it's my understanding that in many denominations, only someone in the same denomination (or a "theologically compatible" one) can properly give a "sermon". Pfleger, being a Catholic, can rather offer an outside view, but perhaps one of religious subject matter. I know the word is old-fashioned and perhaps pedantic, but I think it's actually the correct one. That said, I defer to me estimable co-editors if they want speech/sermon/whatever. LotLE×talk 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LOLU (and others of course). I don't care at all about NOT to include Pfleger's name. He's not notable enough to be mentioned by name here. It could've been someone else giving that speech or sermon or both at the same time (I wasn't there to judge) and therefore it doesn't really matter to me if his name is mentioned here or not. I would prefer if not since he's (again) NOT notable in general public. --Floridianed (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, you do not have consensus for this edit. The "new editor with an 'interesting' focus" won't appreciate your innuendo, I'm sure. He asked you to please stop editwarring and I join him in that request. I am opposed to the removal of Pfleger's name and the fact that he mocked and disparaged Hillary Clinton during his guest sermon. If you want to reopen the discussion about the Wright paragraph as a whole, let's discuss it and reach consensus; and while we're at it, let's reopen the discussion about the Rezko paragraph. Deal? WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said at the top of this section, I agree that the edit was hasty and that the old version should remain pending discussion. LotLE's edit was the 11th, and your new one is now the 12th revert. Please note that the edit warring has already stopped after LotLE reverted his last edit in part, accepted Die4Dixie's newly proposed sources as proving a point, and is participating amiably in the discussion as it seems to be nearing consensus. We're almost at the resolution of a small chunk of material we can all agree on. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say about the material about Pfleger's sermon/speech and Obama's decision to leave Trinity. To do that, let's just keep calm. No agreements to reach, no reopening the Rezko matter that we just closed a week ago, and no tying this to larger issues. Wikidemo (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an effort to remove the name of Michael Pfleger. I am opposed to that effort. It is clear that his guest sermon precipitated Obama's resignation from TUCC. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said before. Who said what about whom (Pfleger mocked Clinton) is not as important a detail as the fact that Obama resigned from a church he had long been a member of. To be honest, I have no problem with the existing wording; however, when viewed from a historical perspective I think that these less important details aren't necessary. Bear in mind that this is a summary of a larger treatment in the primary campaign article, where the specifics of who/what/whom are more important. I'm fine with it staying as it is for now, but (per WP:RECENT) I do think that it can (and will) be cut down eventually. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If all we are concerned about is the historical perspective, we can sum the article up by saying " Barak Obama was the first African American politician to be a major party's presumptive presidential nominee in US history." That would sum it up. I think the article would benefit from some amplification, and part of it is his religous life that he gave no small part to in his autobiographical writings. The separation of a man from his church is significant in the life of a self professed christian, and it should be adequately explored. His campaign has made much hay over his religion, sending emails, hiring people to "debunk" myths about his religous views etc. I comfortable that the inclusion of who said what and its relationship ,draw from reliable third party sources, is appropriate.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Pfleger material

I came here from the AN/I thread about LOTLE's edit warring on this segment. Having read the diffs of 'both' versions, I support inclusion. The guy has his own page, is clearly of some notability, and expanded understanding here can only assist interested readers. Other than trying to whitewash the situation as 'Obama left cause he's so damn holy', there's no good reason to remove it. Understanding WHY he left a church of long standing is important, and frankly, an extra 200 characters to explain that isn't that much. I see that it's been referenced adequately, and can't understand the blanking, except to spin Obama's reputation. ThuranX (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I note and mostly agree with your position. I think the editors here have already agreed on a version that preserves the existing reference, rewords it for clarity, and removes Obama's own statement about the affair. If we can avoid muddying the discussion with complaints about other editors the only outstanding issue being whether we refer to Pfleger by name or indirect reference, something we can quickly resolve. Under the circumstances to accuse editors of whitewashing, regarding Obama as "holy", spinning reputation, etc., tends to drive a wedge in the spirit of cooperation that has emerged. Can we just stick to the content here please, and the very minor remaining wording yet to be resolved? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten sidetracked for a spell by some wikidrama that followed. Do we have a consensus then for something close to the following?

"Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, after Catholic priest Michael Pfleger gave a guest oratory that disparged delivered a guest sermon that mocked Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

By "consensus" let's not sweat every last word and we can make minor modifications. Do most people feel the new version is either no worse than, or an improvement on, the current language? - Wikidemo (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am ambivalent on removing the second sentence, but I support the above wording either with or without it. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also comfortable with the wording with or without that second sentence. Brothejr (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the wording, too. I also support the second sentence. If there are competing explanations for what Obama has done, then this kind of wording is pretty much ideal: We stick close to the facts, we mention his explanation, we note the event that some say was the real reason. LotLE made a good case for not using Pfleger's name, and it wouldn't bother me if it weren't there because it doesn't much matter who he is, but I marginally favor including it, partly because Pfleger is prominent in Chicago and Obama knew him. Noroton (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton had a similar idea on my talk page, which I had not thought of, but makes a lot of sense. That is, I still believe the "false specificity" thing I've described about naming Pfleger. However, it was Pfleger who gave the sermon/oratory/whatever rather than someone else. We could use the common noun as a link term, e.g.:

Obama resigned from Trinity on May 31, 2008, after a visiting Catholic priest delivered an oratory that mocked Hillary Clinton. Obama stated his resignation was to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church.

What do editors think? LotLE×talk 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EGG, I think this has to be either after a visiting Catholic priest or after visiting Catholic priest Michael Pfleger. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the fact that Pfleger is Catholic so important? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to go to the trouble of saying it was a priest, it seems sensible to specify the denomination (particularly because it differs from the church itself). That being said, I don't think who said what about whom is important anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd just be simpler to say something like, "Obama resigned from Trinity after a visiting orator mocked Hillary Clinton." Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

All I meant is that linking "Catholic priest" to "Michael Pfleger" has to be avoided. I'm expressing no other opinions on the wording here. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No link, and no particular reason to say he's Catholic. It seems worth mentioning that he was not only visiting but not of the same denomination - because that shows that he is not part of the church. I have no idea of the relevance and for weight reasons it's not worth more than a word or two. I do think identifying him as a "Catholic priest" is more apt than saying he's an "orator". The former is probably closer to describing his profession. Not a big deal either way but if we're going to make the article as good as possible I think it's more encyclopedic to identify people by a primary trait like occupation than by their situational relevance (e.g. "Prominent lawyer John Smith was in a car crash" rather than "speeding driver John Smith was in a car crash"). Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends a little, doesn't it Wikidemo? If John Smith is in the story because his speeding led to the article-topic car accident, it seems more relevant that he was a "speeding driver", and his occupation is irrelevant. However, if the story is about an ethics investigation into bribes where the payoffs are made at the carwash, the fact he sped to get there seems irrelevant. Not that I mind any of the variants about Pfelger's speech, really. Rick Block is correct that my proposed linking strategy would violate WP:EGG, I had not noticed that guideline; I withdraw that suggestion. I still prefer to omit Pfleger's name, but probably both the fact Pfleger is a priest (i.e. not a member of denomination) and spoke inside Trinity are relevant. E.g.: "...after a visiting Catholic priest delivered an oratory that mocked Hillary Clinton." LotLE×talk 16:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As Pfleger has a page here, it's to our advantage and in keeping with WP guidelines to link to him for more on his part in the situation. As he's of a different denomination and was the person whose actions were the proximate cause of Obama's withdrawal from that congregation, it's worth noting. Those advocating dropping both parts will be left with 'after a visiting speaker appeared, Obama left'. That's easy to just drop off the article entirely as 'too vague to be notable, if notable would've said more', and boom, another whitewashing of the page. There's an obvious intent here to reduce the size and importance of the event to the point where it can simply be pulled off the page. A number of editors in the above section seem to be quite clear that if they could, they'd simply remove the entire thing, cite WP:BLP as trumping WP:V and WP:NOTE, and move on to how the sun only shines when Obama smiles. Leave the sentence in as it currently is, giving his name, denomination, and position. ThuranX (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments duly noted. However, please assume the good faith of editors trying to improve the article. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfAr

Following the dispute concerning this article (and consenquently other related ones) which came to the attention of the ArbCom, I must say that some problematic inteventions and edits by some IPs and suspected sockpuppets accounts will be faced with firm admin actions according to our policies and guidelines. This is a message to all involved parties and failing to abide by those rules will definitely lead to blocks as per my explanation here. I hope this is clear. If you have any question in regards to this matter, please contact me (e-mail or my talk page). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My recent Edit

I put the priest Michael Pfleger in apposition and clarified that the comments were made at at Trinity and that , per the sources that I referenced above, it was a sermon.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good - neutral, matches sources, improves readability and accuracy of article. Wikidemo (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean excluding notable POV

Take a look at the current three-day Gallup rolling average. Obama is ahead of McCain by only 45% to 43%. This means that 43% of the American people believe that McCain is a better candidate. WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV define this as a substantial minority viewpoint that must be proportionately represented in the article mainspace. The fact that you have such a small number of tiny scraps of something purported to be "criticism" flies in the face of the definition of NPOV.

From WP:NPOV: "The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'. ... NPOV says 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."

"In proportion to the prominence of each," in light of all of the polls, demands that more space must be given to genuine criticism, not a brief mention of a controversy followed by vigorous wordsmithing to insulate Obama from it. Post quotes from and links to a fair sample of the multitude of criticisms from notable sources. Even, Gaia forbid, a conservative or two. Kossack4Truth (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten, but Wikipedia articles are not just for Americans - just ask any of almost a quarter of a million Germans who showed-up in Berlin yesterday. What the current polling of less than 3000 registered American voters think has absolutely nothing to do with how we should write a biography about a world famous person. Wikipedia suffers enough from systemic bias already. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't structure wikipedia biographies based on opinion polling. That's ridiculous. By that same logic, since Bush's approval rating is below 30% should his biography be over 70% criticism? I don't think so. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Loonymonkey. George W. Bush is a Good Article, so it can't be dismissed by SCJ as a bad article, and it has 16 separate conjugations of the word "criticism." It had the same number just before the 2004 election. Do the math. By that measure, this article should contain nine conjugations of the word "criticism" It has zero and it has always had zero. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You still seem to have this bizarre notion that all biographies on wikipedia must have the exact same number of "criticisms," no matter who it's about. Sorry, that's not how it works. Each edit is made on its own merits with regard to that article only. We don't increase or decrease the amount of criticism in articles to satisfy some perverse sense of "balance" with other articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he specifically asked you to "do the math ... By that measure[.]" Loonymonkey, you invited the use of Bush's 30% approval rating to measure the proportionality of criticism in in his Wikipedia biography. You have opened the door to this. If Bush has a 70% disapproval rating with 16 uses of the word "criticism" in his biography, then Obama, with 43% of poll respondents preferring his opponent McCain, should have nine uses of the word "criticism" in his own — by your own measure. Best regards — Curious bystander (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Before we spend too much time on this peculiar suggestion we might want to wait for the outcome of this.[36][37] If it sticks, we'll just be talking to ourselves here. Wikidemo (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere. Neither is Die4Dixie or the new editors, Curious Bystander and Pierre.cardoone. All four of us have expressed serious concerns about this issue. There is no criticism in this article.
If you don't like opinion polls, look at the results of the recent elections. Berlusconi is back in Italy, Sarkozy in France, Merkel in Germany. It is an undeniable fact that worldwide, conservatives are a powerful voice representing at least 30-40% of the world population. Conservatives are not fond of the politics that Obama represents. They would criticize Obama with great relish, and at great length, in any forum for his long and close relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers.
But judging from this article, they don't exist. The POV that is critical of Obama (whether conservative, progressive or somewhere in between) is at the very least, a substantial minority. WP:NPOV requires proportionate space in this article for their criticisms. Not these tiny bits and pieces of something that you're pretending is criticism.
Regarding systemic bias, Jimbo Wales has acknowledged that Wikipedia editors tend to be left of center. A show of hands, please, from all editors on this page who are not going to vote for Obama, or (if you're ineligible) would not vote for Obama if given a chance.
Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of poll is both inappropriate and irrelevant. Editors are editors and NPOV is NPOV, regardless of who you vote for. Focus on the article content, not the personalities involved. Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee, there are dozens of articles relating to Obama in Wikipedia now, and not ALL of them have to include your favorite criticisms. We have an entire article about the so-called Bill Ayers controversy, and that's enough. This particular article is his overall biography, and as such it includes what's important, not what's popular in the rightwing press. Also...you may want to check out what Berlusconi, Sarkozy and Merkel have been saying about Obama lately - they're very enthusiastic. As for 'long and close relationship' with Ayers - are you serious? Wright for sure, Rezko within limits, but not Ayers. (btw - I fixed your breaks so they wouldn't appear as separate unsigned comments.) Flatterworld (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, there are dozens of articles in Wikipedia now, and not ALL of them have to include your favorite criticisms. What you seem to be saying, Flatterworld, is that if all Obama articles in the aggregate satisfy WP:NPOV, this one can violate it because it's counterbalanced in some other article, even though the other article isn't linked here. This article must proportionately represent all the content in all those other articles, including Bill Ayers election controversy.

We have an entire article on the so-called Bill Ayers controversy, and that's enough. But it isn't linked here. If there's no link, how do readers even know the controversy exists?

... Check out what Berlusconi, Sarkozy and Merkel have been saying about Obama lately ... Isn't diplomacy a fine thing? I could link photos of Chamberlain shaking hands with Hitler and smiling, and Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein and smiling; but if we could ask them now, both Chamberlain and Rumsfeld would not be smiling. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you want to include this (from Sarkozy) in the Obama article? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/sarkozy-to-obam.html Flatterworld (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have some corncerns with the article; however, I am weary of conflict. I am willing to give a lot to get a little here. With all respect WB, I don't want to be painted with the broad brush that you and Kossack4 Truth have been painted with . If you see his topic ban discussion at ANI, my recent attempts at reaching out have be labeled an "unhealthy interest". I don't want to be topic banned, and the administrators there are trying to lump us all together. So hey , Let's take a chill the fuck out, edit as as harmoniously as possible give a little, get a little, and have some fresh starts and some fresh dialogues. You asked who would vote for Obama? Well, I wouldn't. I don't know if I can vote for John McCain , either. Guess if I do, I'll have to hold my nose while I do it. I agree with you on a lot of things, but I can get into my own shit here. If you wonder why I'm a little weary, see:[38].Die4Dixie (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

D4D, it's clear to me that there's a significant POV that's being excluded here in violation of WP:NPOV. Whether it's called the "conservative POV" or the "criticism POV" or the "questioning POV" is not important to me. Abundant reliable sourcing exists for it. Well-established practice in other WP biographies about famous politicians encourages its inclusion. WP:NPOV requires it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no matter how many times it is explained, you fail to understand that you cannot arbitrarily violate WP:WEIGHT in favor of documenting insignificant details - regardless of whether or not they are covered neutrally. I could probably find 1,000 reliable sources that say that Obama is African-American (and talk about it at some length), but that doesn't justify having 14 paragraphs about it. You need to find a sense of proportion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting 14 paragraphs for Ayers or any of these other controversies. In the case of Ayers, I've said at least three times that I'd settle for one sentence and a link. It should (no, it must) be proportionate to the coverage in the mainstream media, which after all has decided almost all other questions regarding notability and weight. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed one sentence and a link. Curious bystander (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT

Didn't Obama help push and pass legislation in Chicago to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? I don't see anything mentioned in the article. Maddyfan (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source to support that, I would be happy to include it since Obama and LGBT rights are the two areas where I have focused my Wikipedia editing. However, since Obama never served on the Chicago city council, It would not be possible for him to "push and pass legislation in Chicago." He was an Illinois state senator, making it possible that he pushed and passed legislation of that nature in the state of Illinois. Curious bystander (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama apparently co-sponsored legislation in the IL State Senate that would have banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but it did not pass until after he was elected to the US Senate, see this google search. I wouldn't think this would be worth mentioning here, although possibly in Political positions of Barack Obama. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Serious BLP concern

A great deal of what has been posted on this talk page lately about Ayers feels to me like it is dangerously close to libel. None of it has anything to do with the actual topic of this biography article, but even about a different person, and even on a talk page, the accusations seems to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to possible legal action.

I'm not really sure what the best place to take up this issue is, but it feels to me like material that reaches the level where not only should the comments be deleted, but the history should be purged of them. These are really seriously inappropriate material. LotLE×talk 00:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Although the concern isn't farfetched, my reading of BLP is that we can state our opinion, conjecture, etc., on the talk page for purposes of healthy debate in the article space. Clearly we need more room in the talk space to do this than would be permitted in the mainspace. For example, one can argue here that "Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist" or "President Bush committed crimes against humanity", if only for purposes of discussing why such mentions are wrong in the mainspace. If we couldn't do this we could not reasonably discuss things. BLP applies to talk space in the sense that you can't say "Mr. John Q. Smith of 3848 Oak Street, Anywhere, Kansas is a pervert who is suspected of being a peeping tom". However, it's necessary to be able to state your position on article content. Sometimes that gets tendentious, disruptive, etc., but I simply can't see that as a BLP violation. We are absolutely, positively covered by the First Amendment here so Wikipedia itself is in no danger from such talk. The "Do no harm" policy doesn't greatly apply because talk page is for editors improving an article, not for the readership. Also, everything here gets archived quickly and thereby shunted even farther out of view. Erasing archives is somewhat Orwellian, and deleting things from edit history as an administrative act that is nearly impossible for high-traffic pages due to technical limitations. Wikidemo (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we really are not covered against libel by the First Amendment. That's basically the entire reason that WP:BLP was firmed up, and "delete on sight" policy was instated for violations that constitute libel. The last few posts by a few editors have gone way beyond stating opinions and tendentious argument: they've started saying "Ayers is guilty of terrorist acts, committed murder, bombing, etc" as non-circumscribed, asserted facts (never mind trials, evidence, laws, etc.). I am inclined to delete all of these acts of libel myself, but an admin is needed to purge the history, which I think is really needed. Frankly, this latest stuff seems likely to need bureaucrat or Foundation involvement... it's way beyond the pale of appropriate commentary. LotLE×talk 02:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Libel is a red herring issue. The Foundation is protected, among other things by the First Amendment, from being sued for allowing people on talk pages to advocate their positions on whether or not Ayers is an "unrepentant terrorist" and other statements on matters of public importance. Tendentious editing and off-topic discusison is another thing, and I agree that we should not be having this discussion here because the chance is more or less zero that the phrase is going to make it into the article, but I don't think you're going to quell it by simply deleting other people's comments. That proposal will, if anything, inflame tensions more than dissipating them. Best to simply urge that we put this issue to rest and move on to the next point. Wikidemo (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If I've gone beyond what the sources say, point it out to me and I'll remove the comment myself. Public figures in the U.S., unlike, say, the U.K., have very, very circumscribed grounds for charging libel. Calling Ayers both a "terrorist" and "unrepentant" has been done in news accounts. Any edits here reflect that. Removing sourced statements would be an abuse of BLP policy. But again, if we've gone beyond what the sources say, point it out, and I'll be happy to make changes to my own comments. None of which paint Ayers in a worse light than his own actions have already done. Unfortunately, some over-eager, under-knowledgeable admin (I'm NOT thinking of anyone in particular -- really) is likely to change it anyway. Oh well. Welcome to Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be having this discussion here because the chance is more or less zero that the phrase is going to make it into the article -- Yeah, agreed. I do think the web links here may be useful if the Ayers issue heats up in the campaign and we revisit this. But no, it's not worth going on for the practical reason you give. Noroton (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we just move on? This bickering about whether WikiM will get sued for libel is just counterproductive. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we've moved on to WP:AN/I. Noroton (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Added later: Here's the archived discussion. -- Noroton (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

It now appears that the WP:ANI complaint has been found by the community to be completely groundless. Warning templates have been removed from Noroton's Talk page and from mine. Curious bystander (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not completely groundless - ANI doesn't make rulings like that. Simply not necessitating administrative attention. Some thought so, and one even gave but later rescinded warnings to three editors. But the majority (correctly, in my opinion) do not see this as a BLP violation so the AN/I case went nowhere. Thus, there is no BLP issue with us beating the dead horse of Bob Ayers being an "unrepentant terrorist" or not, so I think we can safely pass by this little procedural eddy. Wikidemo (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some of my own comments on this page were open to misinterpretation, and I think they've been clarified. Noroton (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

On my end I will try not to get into political debates that have little to do with improving the article, like whether Ayers is a U-T. Now that I think about it, he probably is. And if I have anything bad to say about anyone I will say it about Pikachu instead of any living people. But that's a different question than the business of writing articles about Mr. Obama. Wikidemo (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fathers designation

See also: Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. § Barack Obama, Sr. or Barack Obama I

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  )

---

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

Crossing from Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. due to significantly higher traffic on this page.

I've noticed a potential naming issue with the designation of Barack Obama, Sr. as "Barack Hussein Obama, Senior" that hasn't come up before, largely because for most of this articles time it was assumed Obama was "Barack Hussein Obama, Junior."

As Barack Obama is, officially, "Barack Hussein Obama II" his father appears to not be named "Barack Hussein Obama, Sr." by naming convention but instead Barack Hussein Obama I or simply Barack Hussein Obama. Have I missed an element in the naming conventions or does the article need to be moved and all references to "Obama, Sr." altered? –– Lid^(Talk) 07:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What is he most commonly called by the published sources? What did he call himself? What did his family call him during his lifetime? It's not unheard of that a son and father use different naming conventions, also that people change their usage of II or Junior, or other titles and honorifics throughout their lifetime, depending on the circumstance or the audience. Respect for the sources, and self-identification, seem more important than cross-article consistency in my opinion. If the two's names appear side by side, that might tip the balance for consistency at least in that usage. Just my opinion. There are some other folks who've given this naming issue a lot more thought. Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the conundrum - from everything I can find he referred to himself simply as Barack Obama while contemporary sources who have written about him since the rise of his son (well, one of his sons), have simply assumed he was Barack Obama, Sr. To explain my view: Assume Obama, Sr. was the one who became notable and his son became notable because of his father, his listing would be that of Barack Hussein Obama with a mention of "Obama has a son Barack Hussein Obama II. It just seems that there's been no real looking into whether the naming was accurate. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting.

(Naming conventions can be pretty seat of the pants. Eg Who's referred to by Andrew Jackson, Sr.? Answer undefined. While Pres. Jackson's father had also been Andrew Jackson like himself, the president's nephew-through-marriage was adopted as Andrew Jackson, Jr. So we've

1. Pres. Jackson's father Andrew Jackson
2. The Andrew Jackson
3. Pres. Jackson's adopted son, Andrew Jackson, Jr.

(For extra credit, What is John Sidney McCain, Sr.'s, father's name? Answer: Mississippi plantation owner John Sidney McCain. So we've

1. Manor-born John Sidney McCain of Mississippi
2. Allied-forces' Aircraft Commander John Sidney McCain, Sr.
3. American "full" Admiral John Sidney McCain, Jr.
4. Distinquished U.S. Senator John Sidney McCain III
5. Annapolis plebe John Sidney McCain IV)

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's keep in mind that the father would not have officially been named "Sr." or "I". Those designations aren't needed until there is a Jr. or II, creating a need for a way to distinguish between the two. Also, the father left and returned to Kenya when his son was 2 years old. Being continents apart from his son, it appears unlikely the father would have been known as anything other than "Barack Obama". We also know that the son was known as "Barry" until sometime in college. It's not at all uncommon for a father to be known by his name only, without a designation. We don't have any sources that say this isn't the case here. Of course, it doesn't make sense to point Barack Obama at that article, since 99.9999999% of people typing in "Barack Obama" will expect this one. Probably Barack Obama (Kenya) is the most logical place for the article on the father. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Barack Obama, Sr." seems to be the most common way the father is referred to (looking at sources like The New York Times, The Washington Post and books about Obama), whatever he called himself. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says, When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?. Although the guideline (and it's only a guideline) is about article naming, not naming within articles, the same reasoning seems to apply. That page mentions that there's a certain tension between being precise, being simple and being obvious, and probably no solution is going to be perfect, but using "Sr." seems to be the best solution. In any event, we shouldn't be deciding it on this page but over on the Barack Obama, Sr. page. The rest of the encyclopedia should follow whatever is decided there. If he called himself something else, that needs to be explained on his article page. Noroton (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Noroton is right about article name. "Sr." should definitely have that as article name; however, the version of name that appears in the first sentence of an article (usually the first words) is supposed to be "full official name"; I think that argues against including the "Sr." in the lead, it's a popular designation but certainly not one he was born with, and probably not one he ever used in legal documents or the like. LotLE×talk 16:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Noroton is right, with Lulu's tweak of the first line. We discussed this over at Barack Sr. when that page was first set up - for clarity and ease of finding the page, it makes most sense to use Sr. for the father. And first line should have the closest we know to be "official" name. Tvoz/talk 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really annoying that this discussion is going on at two different places at once. Per WP:MULTI this second discussion never should have started here. I've got half a mind to cut and paste this whole thing over to the discussion thread on the Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. page. I also wanted to make the point that it's probably most important, in the "Sr." article, that an explanation of the "Sr." business, citing sources, be put close to that bolded name so as not to confuse readers. The way it reads now, we've got "Barack Hussein Obama" in boldface at the top and the next section starts off with "Barack Hussein Obama, Sr." If there's an explanation somewhere in that article (which I haven't read all the way through), then it deserves to go in a spot high up in order not to confuse the reader. Of course, this comment belongs on that talk page. Noroton (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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