Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20


Kossack's expanded version of Wright

I don't have time to craft a full reply right now, but I strongly disagree with Kossack's expanded version of the Jeremiah Wright section, on several grounds. First, there's no consensus for having a separate subsection of the article dedicated to the Wright controversy. Second, several of the characterizations of Wright's sermons are weighted far too negatively. And the "contradiction" pointed out by ABC News is inaccurate — Obama has consistently said that he wasn't present for the particular sermons excerpted on Fox and YouTube, but admitted that he was present when Wright had said other offensive remarks. I'm sure I've seen reliable sources making that point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Josiah, in FAR there is a consensus that the article is biased in favor of Obama, and that this failure to satisfy WP:NPOV endangers the article's FA status. To restore NPOV, more criticism is called for; and no facet of Obama's character has received more criticism than his association with Jeremiah Wright. If you have a RS stating that "the 'contradiction' pointed out by ABC News is inaccurate," then add it rather than removing this small bit of criticism. But as always, the response to the appearance of any criticism of Obama is to revert it straightaway. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no such consensus on the FAR. --Ubiq (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
These issues can be covered on the Jeremiah Wright article, and not here, otherwise it is WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. You are defending the indefensible, undue weightlessness and misleading summarization. Andyvphil (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the new version. I don't know how a claim of NPOV can be made, when the only two responses are negative. The version now (the older one) has no responses whatsoever, therefore, no POV. Grsz11 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Suppressing responses advances the POV that the subject is insignificant. Policy is that all POV found in RS be proportionally represented, in this case including the widely expressed POV that 20 years of choosing to associate with Wright's ravings tell us a lot about his long-time parishoner. The NPOV response is to add responses that deny this. If you don't attempt this you are just edit warring. Andyvphil (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If your intent were truly to document Obama's 20 years of association with Wright, would you be trying to add 3-4 paragraphs that focus exclusively on the "controversy" news story that arose from the youtube sermons? To provide the appropriate weight for this biographical article, references to Wright need to give equal weight to all of Wright involvement in Obama's life instead of focusing exclusively on the short-term political ramifications of the story that broke out. Such involvement includes:
  1. Bringing Obama into the church/Obama's marriage
  2. Trinity's social and political support of Obama (and vice-versa) over the years
  3. Trinity's overall reputation and what Obama's membership therefore signifies
  4. The impact Obama's Christianity, church-membership, and association with Wright has had on Obama personally and politically
Even all of this I believe should constitute less than 5% of the page's overall content, and the Wright sermon controversy is only one small portion of #4. The cadre of people continuing to insist on 3-4 paragraphs focusing exclusively on what everyone in the media bubble has to say about how Wright's comments will/have impacted his campaign are just missing the bigger picture. johnpseudo 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't insisted on 3-4 paragraphs on the sermons.[1] I have insisted and do insist that the issue not be obscured or misrepresented. This basic demand is not negotiable. As to the other subjects you mention, I am perfectly prepared to cover them at whatever length is justified by the sources we can find. But the subject of what it means that of all the preachers in South Chicago, a subject with which Obama was made very familiar by three years of organizing specifically church political activity, he chose to align himself with an angry demagogue who esposes crazy things from the pulpit is crucial to understanding his past and to his future prospects, and I will not let mention of that issue be held hostage to the development of other aspects of this article. Andyvphil (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy. This has already been discussed about eleventy-billion times, and an overwhelming consensus has repeatedly found that expanding the text to cover all these additional details violated a number of Wikipedia policies and essays, such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:RECENT. You are part of a small claque (to use your favorite derogatory vernacular) who wish to conflate details concerning Rezko and Wright in order to shape the article to reflect a personal opinion that has been inspired by various Clinton and McCain supporters. It is time you moved on from this hate campaign so that we can all stop wasting time and thought on petty squabbling. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Your clams of overwhelming consensus have deteriorated past the point of merely being shabby. And policy is by policy not subject to local majorities. The claque doesn't get to override WP:NPOV. Period. Andyvphil (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what there will be to gripe about when he wins, and this crowd's argument that it's a turning point in his campaign is shot out the window. We've already seen the evidence that it had no lasting effect...how?...he's doing better now than before the so-called controversy!. Grsz11 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If I recall he is doing worse in matchups versus McCain. The Bosnia thing hurt Hillary quite a bit, which is interesting since I could name half a dozen similar things that Barack has said - the problem is that the Bosnia thing feeds into the stereotype people have of Hillary. But nobody wants to believe the Jeremiah stuff, the Michelle stuff, or the stuff in his own book, because they can't grapple with the implications of racism. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
He is actually doing better as of 4/7/08 in match-ups vs. McCain, as well as beating Hillary by 7 points (scroll down on that page and look on the left-hand side). --Ubiq (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at that website in detail I found this chart and data, which seems to indicate, according to the dates of the Wright controversy, that it did indeed hurt him quite a bit. Right now he is in a statistical dead heat with Obama, previously, Obama had a tendency towards strong leads over McCain. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, but that doesn't refute anything I said. Also, you're presupposing the Wright controversy is the sole or main reason for that change, when it could be due to various other things as well (e.g., dem infighting, shift in media treatment of Obama, change in public perception of McCain). --Ubiq (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What he said might not have refuted anything you said, but you just came real close. All those same factors could be said to have offset any decrease in popularity as well. Arkon (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
that chart looks to show Obama returning to his general 2-year levels, that is to say slightly ahead of McCain. So again no poll is showing a long-term trend against Obama, over the Wright affair period, or even after that. They show a temporary spike, and the end of that, over the course of this spring. What people are saying is not that the Wright thing didn't show up in the polls, people are saying its OVER in the polls, until the general election at least. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On marajuana

Is this really so important that it needs to be mentioned in the main article? Legalizing is about as trivial as it gets anymore - you can say you support it in an election, but there sure as hell is nothing you can do about it in the long run. It's the same with abortion now, I wouldn't rule out a pro-life candidate, just because there's no way they can get Roe v. Wade overturned. It just seems trivial to me, especially since he has no definite stance on it, and those two instances are probably the only two times to talked about it. Grsz11 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the text on marijuana added by our resident insect because it uses POV language and cites The Washington Times (right-wing newspaper founded by the Moonies, so far from a reliable source). Please try again, only with common sense, neutrality and a proper source. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
His POV-pushing is really getting out of hand. Actually, there seems to be more than just an agenda at work. Given that he created his account about a week ago and has since been working nearly round the clock on this article and this article only, one wonders if there isn't more to it than simple tendentious editing. "Assume Good Faith" does not mean "Ignore Bad Faith." --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(double edit conflict)Agreed about the relative non-importance of the issue and the POV wording in the Washington Times smear piece. However, as a side note, I'm not quite sure they wouldn't be considered a reliable source according to wikipedia. --Ubiq (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of instances where the Washington Times (while partisan) is acceptable as a source. However, in this case, he was using it to demonstrate not only verifiability, but notability. It passes the first point (it's doubtful that the Washington Times simply made up quotations, although it wouldn't be the first time) but it fails on the second. The issue would have to have some traction in the larger media landscape to even be considered for inclusion here. A single article in the WT attacking a Democrat is not a notable event. This is especially true given that this is the biography article, not the campaign article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ug..really. I gotta say that what was removed didn't fit all that well, some of the information does warrant inclusion. I am just happy that there was enough bad in that edit to not tempt me to revert. Arkon (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am for honesty and full disclosure here is the full text of my modification, the only "POV pushing" is the fact that it is slightly negative of Obama. Ubiq and Scjessey deleting negative facts summarily are more POV pushing than anything.

Senator Obama's stance on decriminalizing marijuana has shown some inconsistency. While he raised his hand at the Democratic National debate in opposition to decriminalization, in his 2004 US Senate campaign he told students in Illinois that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession. The Washington Times found a half-dozen similar conflicts between Obama's stated positions during his US Senate campaign and his US Presidential bid, which include differing positions on the trade embargo of Cuba and health care for illegal immigrants. [1]

Yes, I can see what you guys mean - his inconsistent political positions (depending on who his audience is) aren't as important as the fact that he spoke at a "Save Darfur" rally - the current cause de jour of the left. I can also see how my source, a newspaper that's been around since the 1800's, isn't as credible as this article quoting a food critic as saying Obama can change the world. Nope, a random food critic, who doesn't even live in the US, has an opinion far more important than the facts I presented. The defense rests - disgusted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude. You are confusing The Washington Times with the Washington Times-Herald. The one you cited was founded in 1982 by Sun Myung Moon (yes, that Sun Myung Moon!) and is described as the "GOP's $3 billion-dollar propaganda organ." (ref) -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry, it was only founded a quarter of a century ago - the founder is frankly quite irrelevant. You know why? It is published, in the US, and like other papers they are subject to libel. Just because YOU don't like the paper doesn't make it an invalid source. I don't like Fox News, but they have some good information occasionally - even more so in this election. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just read this sourced section in our very own Wikipedia and ask yourself if you think this biased rag should be considered a reliable source. And even if it was a reliable source, your ludicrously POV treatment of the cherry-picked half-truths the article presented wouldn't come close to passing muster. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
don't let andy hear you say that lol 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As a favor, I'll disregard the entire last paragraph as well as your accusations of me and scjessey being POV-pushers. His stance on marijuana is not something he has even stated to be particularly important. In addition, the word 'marijuana' cannot even be found in hillary's or mccain's articles. I can see, how if the claims in the hit piece popped up elsewhere in media, this might warrant inclusion, but not on his BLP under political views (maybe on his political views page under the marijuana section). If he was constantly criticized for this, I can see how we could justify incorporating it into this article. Criteria for inclusion in a BLP is not simply: fact, sourced, and shines in negative light. This is a biography about his life. Not a collection of tidbits of Washington Times or Fox News postings that's ever been published about him. --Ubiq (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm so happy you brought this up Ubiq. Indeed "marijuana" may not be in Hillary's article, but neither is "Darfur" ("Save Darfur" remains despite its horrible source and relevance). Hillary and Obama have EXACTLY the same grade from Darfur Scores - but the issue is only highlighted in this article despite its minimal relevance. I actually don't think the marijuana thing should be in this article, BUT the rest of the sentence should be in here - about his inconsistency in positions from his Senate race to his Presidential race (any halfway reasonable editor would've left that last part). Look at Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's "political position" sections - notice anything? Yeah - a precedent. A precedent that is being IGNORED by this article, so it can cherry pick which positions of Obama's to highlight and call attention to. This entire, bloated, poorly sourced, precedent-breaking, POV section should be erased and remade to be in line with those articles - which have TRULY NPOV political positions sections.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I consider the pol. views sections of those candidates' articles to be in pretty poor form (perhaps with the exception of Hillary since it's a bit more detailed), and I'm utterly confused as to why they remain that way. But then again, I have a personal distaste for ratings being used to summarize a candidate's position so maybe I'm just biased in that sense. Also, I'd reason that Darfur isn't mentioned in their articles because neither of them have made it as big of a deal as Obama has, at least not from what I've noticed. --Ubiq (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For consideration

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/04/as_the_possibility_of_another.cfm Arkon (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

well that article is a bunch of crap OR, but one of the links was fruitful, and I will add some of it. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, looks to be a blog post anyway. --Ubiq (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The D part in BRD

It looks like Hailfire is on a BRD binge again and went ahead and snipped the section, so basically we'll have to decide what information we want to insert back into the article and what is not needed. The part about his grammys for both books is already in the books section. Here's what remains:

  1. An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world,"[190] the only politician included on the list.
  2. In 2005 and again in 2007, Time magazine named him one of "the world's most influential people."[191]
  3. During his first three years in the U.S. Senate, Obama received Honorary Doctorates of Law from Knox College (2005),[192] University of Massachusetts Boston (2006),[193] Northwestern University (2006),[194] Xavier University of Louisiana (2006),[195] Southern New Hampshire University (2007),[196] and Howard University (2007).[197]
  4. A school in Obama's father's hometown, which the senator visited on his 2006 Kenya trip, was renamed the "Senator Barack Obama Primary School."[200] --Ubiq (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
#3 and #4 are listed in the "Senate Career" section. Grsz11 05:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My bad, didn't catch that. Any thoughts on 1 and 2 then? --Ubiq (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if you read the source for number 1 (and look who the author is) then you'll realize that it was written by a food critic and was meant to promote discussion instead of being some fantastic award. It has no place in this article. In general, I think this lists are pretty worthless, I could add something about him being the 3rd most attractive biracial politician born in Hawaii from People magazine - pointless. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think either #1 or #2 are worthy of inclusion in the article either. TheGoodLocust is right about the lightweight nature of #1 (although wrong about the "food critic" - he is a magazine editor and journalist, and only did the food thing as a sideline because of a cooking hobby). TIME is always making lists of awesome people and pretty much everyone has been in it somewhere. I was prominently featured as Person of the Year in 2006, so I guess TIME's endorsement doesn't count for much. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It hath been settled then. No re-entry. And congrats on your TIME award, I got one too. --Ubiq (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

a foreigner's view of article

My English is not good so excuse me. I was looking at FAR and FA candidates and also talk page of Barack Obama. The article has problem with being too positive that it is not honest article. It is less of an advertisement than before so that is good but still work needed.

Should have controversy tag on top because of serious debates in talk page. This warns reader that they have to make up own mind and not just read things and believe them.

I also am worried but people calling other people socks. There is even talk of ban. So I will sign with my IP to hide my user name (I usually only edit a little because my grammar is bad and someone usually fix it later). My IP also proves that I am not that Indian guy - he is funny, keeps saying "I am KVS". Good luck on fixing article. Looks like we have quite a few neutral foreigners telling you Americans that you need to be NPOV about your candidates, we from UK, India, Singapore, Korea, etc. 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm a foreigner too, and my view is completely different. I think this article is a well-written and informative piece built from a foundation of consensus and neutrality. Any non-neutral content appears to be transient (for example, the dreadful "recognition" section has been folded into the body of the article) and there is no evidence of partisan language. I completely disagree with the idea of a "controversy tag" - anyone reading an online encyclopedia should make up their own mind and draw their own conclusions from any article, not just this one. That is why Wikipedia makes such a big deal of making sure everything is properly referenced. Readers can follow the references to read the commentary and information on which the article is based. Finally, I would say that (in most cases) you will find it easier to have your point-of-view considered if you sign in. IP users, while still welcome, are less likely to be taken seriously in contentious articles like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You are a foreigner too? What country do you live in now? How long have you lived there?TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a British citizen, although I have been living in the US since just after the 9/11 attacks. I have no US vote, and I still vote in the British parliamentary elections (Conservative Party). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems a bit disingenuous to make those equivalent if you've been living in the US since 2001 - especially since both countries share the same language. The people and media around you can easily influence your political positions - a foreigner without Chris "sent shivers up my leg" Matthews on his TV or other, more personal, connections with a political bias has far more credibility for being neutral (not in this case, just in general). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh you think we speak the same language, do you? Dude, we aren't even on the same planet. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Especially when they appear out of nowhere in support of one another, making the same specious point about "fear" of being banned as sockpuppets. Accounts are blocked from editing when they are using sockpuppets or other means to evade a community ban, as you know. Tvoz |talk 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It does seem highly suspicious that a previously unseen editor from India and a previously unseen editor from Korea should make the exact same points, using the exact same language. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Political positions redux

{{editprotected}} Both the McCain page and the Hillary Clinton page have "Political Positions" subheadings which briefly outline their political positions with links to the full articles "Political positions of..." as do the pages for most other politicians that I've seen. However, the equivalent subheading on the Obama page is labeled "Political Advocacy." At the very least, this is inconsistent, and should be changed to be consistent with the accepted form for other politicians. At the worst, this may even introduce some bias into the article, insofar as a "political advocate" has a more esteemed connotation than someone who merely holds a "political position."

Even if those with more experience here judge that there is no bias, it seems clear that it should be changed to be consistent with other politician articles. 142.58.225.52 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

No. The proposed edit is not without controversy and will require discussion on this page. See for example, this edit summary from July 2007. Revert now please. --HailFire (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the responsible admin to revert this controversial edit. Admins are regular people, and I think this incident demonstrates the hazards of allowing this heavily visited page to remain in fully protected status. --HailFire (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} My main concern is the disparity between the article for Obama and those for the other candidates. I was attempting to find the political positions articles for all three remaining major candidates, and quite frankly, this disparity made me question at first whether Obama had such a page. I say this simply as someone who is largely unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocol, but consistency between the candidates' articles seems to me to be the most important consideration.

I should note that most candidates for the Democratic and Republican nominations have a "Political positions" subheading as I write this. The exceptions, with their subheadings, are:

  • "Positions"
    • Dennis Kucinich
    • Sam Brownback
    • Tom Tancredo
  • "Views" under "2008 presidential campaign"
    • Tom Vilsack
  • "Positions" under "Almanac"
    • Joe Biden
  • "Political views"
    • Bill Richardson
  • No equivalent subheading
    • John H. Cox
    • Tommy Thompson
    • Ron Paul
    • Jim Gilmore

(I was also the originator of this topic. I apologize for putting the four tildes in the wrong place before.) 142.58.225.52 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, we don't have any kind of mandatory template for organizing these articles. Politicians do not lead identical lives, so it seems normal that the structure of their biography articles will be different too. In Obama's case, there is a flow between his work experiences in the years before he assumed public office and how he does politics. The section header "Political advocacy" relects that link and helps promote differentiation between political positions that other people say are important and the specific issues in which Obama chooses to invest the majority of his time and effort, for example, through public speeches, position papers, or opinion columns in major newspapers. There is a daughter article dedicated to an exhaustive listing of political positions, some of which Obama mentions rarely. This article's political advocacy section tells the reader something about which (among the many possible political issues that could be discussed) are most notable to Obama's life. --HailFire (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about this. --HailFire (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the matter with a template? Why can't we treat all candidates fairly? 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama is more than a mere politician - he is the Messiah! We can't just treat him like everyone else - that'd be racist or something. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments like this are disruptive. This is not a forum. Please focus your energy on improving this article. --Ubiq (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested list of recommendations

I commented on the FAC review, and stated my belief that there are many POV phrases throughout the article. With encouragement from User:HailFire, I have compiled a list. I hope this list creates a forum for central discussion. For those of you who may be in question about me: I am not some sort of crazy, partisan out to slander Obama; I am a neutral POV editor dedicated to making Wikipedia a more reliable reference. As an outsider to this article, I hope you take my claims seriously, and I encourage you to remove any pro-Obama bias that may exist (if only when looking over this list :) ). I think this article deserves to be featured as much as the next guy, but there are significant flaws and failures with it when it comes to adhering to Wikipedia policy that need to be fixed.

General issues
  • There are too many quotes by Barack Obama, especially in the political advocacy section. I understand that they are his views on current topics/issues, but our job as Wikipedia editors is not to let Obama tell his story (that's something that you would find on his campaign website), but to write about his views in a neutral manner. This is a big problem, and one that cetainly should demand immediate attention, as it technically fails WP:NPS. The quotes need to be paraphrased, so that the info is coming from us, not him directly.
    • NPS does not cover the inclusion of quotes from primary sources. It's for copying an entire (or a significant portion) of a primary source into an article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using limited quotes. NPS would prevent us from creating an article on his 2004 Democratic convention speech and then creating a section called "The speech" and copying in the entirety of the speech, it does not, however, prevent us from quoting the source of the article in the article itself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using limited quotes.--Bobblehead (rants) 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing "limited" about these quotes. There are many, many ways in which this article does not fare well in a comparison with articles about other prominent politicians, such as George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John McCain. This is just one of them. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree completed with Kossack.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • A further guideline about use of primary sources is here. It says that an example of a primary source is an eyewitness account of a traffic accident. This would include a quoted sentence from an eyewitness, or an entire interview of an eyewitness.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • My mistake; thank you for the correction. With the NPS point aside, would you agree that there are too many quotes by Obama currently being used (my reasoning is outlined above), and that many need to be paraphrased? Happyme22 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • There are too many block quotes from Obama, yes, but I have absolutely no problem using a quote from Obama to support his own viewpoints. Any interpretation of his viewpoints (particularly if they rely upon his quotes alone) are prone to be influenced by biases and incorrect interpretation. In the unique situation of Obama speaking on his opinions and viewpoints, a quote by Obama would be superior to our own paraphrasing of that quote. That being said, there are situations like the following from the political advocacy section where an Obama quote followed by a summary sentence is redundant and one could be trimmed without losing content: "Obama said: "Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution." He proposed a cap and trade auction system to restrict carbon emissions and a ten-year program of investments in new energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil." --Bobblehead (rants) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Okay, well we are going to disagree there; it's probably best if we wait to get others' viewpoints on this matter as well. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
              • For what it's worth, I don't think the article has excessive quotation, especially now that the lengthy quotes from the 2004 DNC keynote have been removed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                • I entirely disagree, my long post on the FAR put condensed a bunch of the unnecessary, and often self-serving quotes. Also, I still think the DNC section should be trimmed down or reworded, since, it really isn't important enough to warrant a sub-section.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • It was Obama's first appearance on the national stage, and as such merits attention. I think that the current small subsection is appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • But it was essentially a speech, it did nothing in and of itself other than to make Obama famous. I think my sentence or two in my State Legislature section is entirely adequate since it links to the full text of the speech.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • GoodLocust, it was merely a speech. But did largely launch Obama's political career, and that in itself is important. I think the section's current length is just fine. Regarding using quotes to display the positions: I have no problem using quotes to do just that; it only becomes a problem when they are descrbing just about everything, and the editors are letting Obama speak for himself. Happyme22 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • I understand it was important, but it objectively it doesn't have enough substance to really discuss, and so the paragraph ends up with pointless sections like, Obama also called for national unity, rejecting the division of the United States by race or into red states and blue states: "We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." In the larger scheme of things, this is competely worthless - what politician doesn't talk about unity? George Bush himself ran on being a "uniter not a divider," but that certainly isn't what he'll be remembered for. Also, the overuse of quotes is a violation of WP: PSTS since Barack Obama is indeed his own primary source. This reliance is most blatantly obivious in the political advocacy section, but the personal life and cultural image sections show it a bit as well. In fact, both of those sections should be tagged as:

TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

                          • Worthless in your opinion. That appeal to unity is something that commentators still cite as a large reason for Obama's success to date. I suppose that if you don't "get" that, that may explain some of your hostility. And you're still misreading WP:PSTS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                            • Then explain that's what the the commentators say about him - this article isn't meant to be a mouthpiece for Barack Obama. I'm not misreading WP: PSTS, but this article is breaking the spirit of the rule when its not breaking the letter of it. Taking a secondary source, and then quoting only the primary source from it, instead of the secondary source's conclusions is breaking the spirit of it. If you want a reason for my hostility, then I have some for you. I was accused from my initial login of being a sockpuppet, people tried to get me banned by scanning my ip address, and have been insulting me behind my back and to my face - I have good reasons to be hostile to many in this crowd. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What about the Republicans? What do they say about Obama? We have a lot of quotes by fellow Democrats and too many by Obama himself, but the only thing I see from Republicans is the "he has been praised by conservative commentators" phrase, which, as I have outlined below, is an unacceptable phrase.
Keynote address
  • In a word, the section is fluff. The three quotes here do not need to be here; I would create a Wikisource article on the speech, include the full text there, and interwikilink it to here. Take the general idea of the speech, such as the major points, and include them in the "State legislature" section. Take the Ronald Reagan article, one that I have worked on immensely and continuously for the past year. Reagan won the nickname "the great communicator"; do you know how many speeches I could pull quotes from and put on his page due to them being "keynote addresses"? Literally hundreds, yet there are few. As a featured article, I expect the same from Obama's article as from Reagan's (also featured), among others.
    • I agree that this is fluff, and I advocated removing it in favor of the version I put forth in the second draft of my State Legislature section - it is also clearly a violation of WP:NPS. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Totally agree this section could be trimmed quite a bit, including an elimination of most of the block quotes. It needs to focus more on the impact of the speech rather than the speech itself. The guy went from an unknown state senator to presidential campaign candidate, largely due to this speech. The speech itself is probably worth a paragraph at most considering the importance of it to his political trajectory. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the reason there is quite a lot about this keynote speech is that it was added to the article at a much earlier time, when it was basically the most significant event in Obama's career. Obviously now that he is running for President, it is somewhat less significant than it was. Similar problems exist with other parts of the article that have become less significant as time passes, and Obama's career matures. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, I think we have it well established that the section should be trimmed down to roughly a single paragraph, outlining the major points of his speech and maybe a quote. Are we agreed on this issue so far? Happyme22 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly am. Although, question is, which section should it be put in? He gave the speech while he was a state legislator, but it was also when he was campaigning for US senate, so the question is, which is the speech most associated with? --Bobblehead (rants) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well I was bold and redid the section. I made it as a level three heading under "state legislator" section, because he gave the address when stil holding that office. Happyme22 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks much better IMO, good work. --Ubiq (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think it is too long for something that is essentially meaningless. The main thing is that it made him famous, everything else is just standard populist and political rhetoric. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It was the single biggest event in his political career before he began running for President. How is that meaningless? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned elsewhere, it was essentially just words, the speech did nothing other than make him famous. My coverage of it in my proposed State Legislature section is succinct, and it links to the full text.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It made him famous and made a lot of commentators note him as a political rising star. It put him on the national radar. That's worth a section of its own, in my view. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Then fine, say those things, or better yet, find sources that say those things, but right now it serves as a bastion of meaningless rhetoric that serves no other purpose than to provide self-serving quotes. Actually, now that I look at it the majority of the section is sourced directly from Barack Obama's website - this is clearly unacceptable, the speech should be summarized by a secondary sources not by wikipedia editors subject to bias. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Directly sourced from a transcript at Obama's website. Are we not allowed to use a transcript of a speech to quote a speech if it's own the individual's own site? That's a bit silly if you ask me. Grsz11 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You are allowed to quote from a transcript, but that's not what happened. The editor decided to "summarize" the speech, the editor decided what was important, or not important for the "summarization" - that is what I object to. The bias in supposed "summarization" - and it clearly isn't allowed by wikipedia guidelines. Indeed, if you look at the area that sources the transcript, most of it is a commentary on the speech, not a quotation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly more significant than Wright's statements, though you want to quote those. Grsz11 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've commented very little on those - my main complaint was that it wasn't linked in the contents, but I have since redacted that desire.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying this. The paragraph is still slightly out of precise chronological order, but its placement here brings smoother flow to the next section, and highlights the impact of the DNC speech on his 2004 Senate campaign. Improvement? --HailFire (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Big improvement. Just looking over the article I have seen an improvement. Happyme22 (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Political advocacy
  • (in bold) "His plan would eliminate taxes for senior citizens with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, repeal tax cuts said to favor the wealthy, close corporate..." - said by whom? said by the Democrats, and Mr. Obama. That needs to be stated, otherwise it is misleading.
Said by the Congressional Budget Office here, the Brookings Institution here, said by this chart (though I don't know what it's from), says these charts from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the New York Times using data from the IRS here. And that's just the first two pages of a Yahoo search. Grsz11 03:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I apologize because I have always believed that it was said that Bush's tax cuts favored the wealthy, never proved. But I guess I'm wrong on thsi one. I apologize for the inconvenience. Happyme22 (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Books
  • "Time magazine's Joe Klein wrote that the book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." - ok, this is probably the most POV statement that I found throughout the entire article. It gives the opinion of one magazine columnist, out of thousands worldwide. It's great that Mr. Klein thinks that, but he does not speak for every magazine columnist and surely not every American. This quote needs to be removed because it is factually and historically innacurate; it is the POV of one single magazine columnist.
It's POV in the sense that it is indeed, someone's point of view, but it's sort of the standard to include people's/critic's direct quotes on books. Further, it's quite easy to label something "factually and historically inaccurate", especially when such an assertion is unfalsifiable. As you said, it's merely one columnist's opinion. To compare, it'd be like if someone said my opinion that Larry David is one of the funniest people alive is factually and historically inaccurate. There'd simply be no way to prove this. --Ubiq (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well there is no way to prove that *this* quote is factually and historically accurate; even including another quote with the opposite POV would only create two stark contrasts, not giving anything to the readers. Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "It was an immediate bestseller and rose to the top of the New York Times Best Seller list by early November 2006." - I'm not so sure "immediate bestseller" is the right way to characterize the book. Perhaps, "it sold many copies quickly and rose to the top...."
If it indeed rose very quickly to the bestseller list (by early November 2006 the article says) then it appears to be an accurate description. Whether or not this is "the right way to characterize the book" is up for debate I guess though, but I can't imagine that the wording here would be that contentious. --Ubiq (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem is with this sentence. It was an immediate bestseller; that's fact not opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Looneymonkey is correct here, by any definition of "immediate bestseller". A post above led me to consider trying to define

"instant bestseller" [Full disclosure: I am in publishing and deal with bestseller-reporting accounts. I know how the process goes. And, 1) Appearance on the NY Times bestseller list qualifies a book to be called a 'bestseller' or national bestseller, since it is the List all aspire to. Arguments can develop over appearances on other Lists and how such lists should be used in describing a book's bestsellerness. Anyway, one sure meaning of "instant bestseller" is for the book to appear on the printed bestseller list of the New York Times the first week it is eligible, i.e. after the first week of the book's sales. This happened with "Dreams of My Father". The on-sale date of the book was August 10, 2004.[I can confirm this fact if necessary, but it is a fact. It was an original "trade paperback", as it is called. The book appeared on the New York Times bestseller list of August 29, 2004, the first week it could be. #10 that first week. [[2]]

Book sales are reported by week to Bestseller lists on the Monday after the week, measured from Sunday sales thru Saturday sales. So, sales of Barack Obama's first book in 2004 were reported to info-gathering media, including the NYTimes, on Monday August 16, for sales through August 14, 2004. These sales are used to determine the bestseller lists TWO weeks out, i.e. for the list printed Sunday, August 29, 2004. (btw, the Times [and most other] lists for the next immediate Sunday are known that Monday, August 16, within the Times and within most publishing houses.MKohut (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another way to indicate bestseller longevity to Dreams of My Father might be to indicate how manhy weeks it appeared on the NYTimes list when it was first published in 2004. It fell off the list and reappeared during his Presidential campaign. MKohut (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


I've condensed the book section quite a bit to the bare details of the books.. Thoughts? --Bobblehead (rants) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that went a little too far- your descriptions hardly had a mention of the purpose/main points of Audacity of Hope. I wouldn't be opposed to removing a POV sentence or two of the reviews, but it should maintain how the book relates to his presidential run. johnpseudo 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you did a really good job - it actually reads like an encyclopedia article now without the excessive praise.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree - a nice section; however, I do not think this line is necessary (per WP:RECENT): "As of April 6, 2008, the book had spent thirteen weeks on the paperback nonfiction best seller list." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ditto - It is much better now. I would get rid of the "As of April 6, 2008, the book had spent eighty-eight weeks on the New York Times Paperback NonFiction Best Seller list" phrase, because that will change next week, and the week after, etc., which means that it will quickly become outdated unless continually updated. Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have left some descriptors about Audacity, if there actually were any. The Dreams paragraph includes a brief synopsis of what the book is about, but the Audacity paragraph had none of that and it really needs it. I even looked on the main article for Audacity and there isn't one there. I haven't read the book myself, so I don't know enough of what it is about to do a brief synopsis, so if someone that has read the book could do that... As for the paperback having to be updated weekly.. I don't see a problem with that. That's why I included the "As of" so that it could be readily identified as something that needs to be updated. Seriously, though, making it onto the NY Times best seller list is notable in itself and being on there for 88 weeks (that's over a year and a half) is even more so. There's only three paperbacks that have been on the nonfiction best seller list for longer and none of the others are ranked as highly as Dreams.--Bobblehead (rants) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Former presidential candidate Gary Hart describes the book as Obama's "thesis submission" for the U.S. presidency: "It presents a man of relative youth yet maturity, a wise observer of the human condition, a figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur." - A quote like this never would have been accepted on the Ronald Reagan article. I don't think it is that bad, and I'm willing to let it stay as long as some of these page editors eventually back me up if I want to put in a somewhat-flattering quote on Reagan's page ;) I do like the other quote that follows it better, and it probably better adhere's to NPOV as well: "Reviewer Michael Tomasky writes that it does not contain "boldly innovative policy prescriptions that will lead the Democrats out of their wilderness," but does show Obama's potential to "construct a new politics that is progressive but grounded in civic traditions that speak to a wider range of Americans."
The Reagan comparison doesn't quite help, and I'm sure if you found a quote that contributed to that article, it wouldn't be much of a problem to include it. --Ubiq (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you wouldn't believe some of the stuff the goes on over there :) Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "An Italian edition was published in April 2007 with a preface by Walter Veltroni, former Mayor of Rome, currently leader of Italy's Democratic Party and one of Obama's earliest supporters overseas, who met the Illinois Senator in Washington in 2005 and has been referred to as "Obama's European counterpart." Spanish and German translations were published in June 2007; the French edition, subtitled une nouvelle conception de la politique américaine, was published in October 2007." - This is just extra fluff which portrays Obama as a very prolific writer, and thus is POV. The Mayor of Rome's support for Obama probably does belong in the article, but this is not the place. Perhaps in the presidential campaign section, or separate article.
Doesn't look POV at all to me. Says nothing about Obama's writing and I can't see why you think it "portrays Obama as a very prolific writer". It merely discusses different translations of the book. --Ubiq (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I really don't understand what your objection to this is. How is discussing the print run and foreign editions (which is standard when writing about published books) POV? How does that "portray Obama as a very prolific writer?" Nobody said he wrote new material for each of those editions, it's just a translation. What does it have to do with being prolific? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of his proposed edits to the book section. In regards to the various language versions, this is pointless to include - most people assume popular books are translated into other languages. It comes off as self-serving and as fluff. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Any better? --HailFire (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, better. The "best written memoir" part still bothers me because it is only one magazine columnist's opinion. I know that reviews to the books are essential, but this is not a NPOV review. Other than that, the section looks great and is improved. Happyme22 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy, reviews are by definition always POV. Sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but always POV. (And about the other languages - I don't know what most people assume, but it is not at all the case that most books are translated into other languages - that is a notable accomplishment.) The section as it is now looks good. Tvoz |talk 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Can an individual review be NPOV? I don't think it can, or that we should be looking for "neutral" reviews of cultural works like books. The key to NPOV in a context like this is whether the review is representative. The praise from Klein is a bit strong, but my understanding is that Dreams from My Father was quite widely praised in literary terms. I haven't had much success in finding specific reviews of Dreams from My Father online, but the mentions in reviews of The Audacity of Hope are almost all positive: "a revealing, introspective account ... [which gives] the reader a heartfelt sense of what it was like to grow up in the 1960’s and 70’s, straddling America’s color lines" (NYT); "beautifully written" ... "touching memoir" (New York Review of Books); "written with ... facility and power" ... "an engaging addition to the literature of twentieth-century African-American experiences" (Watermark Books); "possesses the clarity, openness and ruminative sensibility of a literary memoir" (NYT, again). I did find one review which tempered the praise ("falls somewhere in the fair-to-good range"), but it was from Dean Barnett of TownHall.com, hardly a neutral source.
So it looks to me as if Klein's view, while expressed strongly, is not far outside the consensus opinion of the book's reviewers. I'm not strongly opposed to the Klein quote being replaced with something less superlative, but whatever replaces it should note that the memoir was praised for its literary merits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there is way too much detail in the "books" section. Most BLPs have a simple section like this:

FAQ

"Barack Obama was never a practitioner of the Muslim faith"
"NEVER a practitioner" - Is that 100% true? 8thstar 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
He NEVER prayed as a muslim? 8thstar 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again. See below. Andyvphil (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

—What, never? —No, never. —What, never? —Well, hardly ever. Hardly ever ever praised Allah...

While it's true that Barack Obama was never an active practitioner of the Muslim faith, it's possible that he may have bowed his head in a mosque a few times between the ages of 6 and 10. His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was not religious, but did occasionally attend mosque for community events, just as a non-religious American might occasionally attend a community event in a church. Young Barry sometimes tagged along with his friends when they went to the mosque on Friday, but that hardly makes him a Muslim — I sometimes went to synagogue with my Jewish friends when I was a kid, but I'm not Jewish.

So there's a tiny bit of wiggle room here — but not a lot. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being really, really stupid. And when I say stupid, I mean that in the most sincere way, in the sense that you have no sense, and that you really ought to take the third grade again. Wikidea 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This from the clown who informs us of Obama that "everything gleams" and the "whatever was here when the article was featured should stay as it was... and that includes "new revelations" about his past, e.g. the Jeremiah Wright controversy... All that stuff can be taken ((exiled)) to the sub pages." JRowe is a bit biased, and here only partially informed, but he's bright enough to realize that Wright cannot be kept out of this article and that presumably young Barry did something that looked like prayer when he went or was taken repeatedly to the mosque. Are you? Andyvphil (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we can make any claims about the meaning of something done at the age of six. I don't even think that's wiggle room. I think its just OR mostly... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to different wording in that answer, but in the parlance that I've heard in regards to a "practitioner" of a faith it is for people that are more than attended a few times, it is used in reference to a person that is actually a follower of the faith. So a person that attends a religious ceremony a few times throughout their life would not be considered a "practitioner". Although, perhaps it should just be "Obama was never of follower of the Muslim faith", rather than a practitioner of the Muslim faith.--Bobblehead (rants) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the wording "never a practitioner" is fine. 8thstar asked two questions. It's true by any reasonable definition of "practitioner" that Obama was never a practitioner of the Muslim faith. However, the second question (Did he ever pray as a Muslim?) is slightly more ambiguous, because there's a little wiggle room about what it means to "pray as a Muslim". When my 11-year-old self bowed my head and said the Sh'ma, you could say that I was "praying as a Jew". But I was never actually a Jew. I was a goy showing my respect, sympathy and interest in the Jewish faith. (There's a funny story connected with that, but it's even more irrelevant than this digression.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Obama was a "practitioner of the Muslim faith", but was probably not a believer at the time. His mother was a religious skeptic, and Obama was as well at a very young age. He tells in his autobiography of being required (despite being registered as a Muslim) to engage in Catholic prayer at his first elementary school, and of peeking around when he was supposed to be keeping his eyes closed and seeing no angels, with the clear implication that he thought it was just mumbo jumbo. In his second elementary school he received two hours of training a week in Muslim practice and Koranic recitation, and that includes actual prayer, as could be seen (briefly) in an ABC video of such a class at "Government Elementary School Number 4", showing all of the kids lined up on their prayer mats bobbing up and down, bowing in the direction of Mecca. So, at Mentang Besuki he was both a Muslim(enrolled as such), and practicing (engaging in the practica), but as far as I can tell no more a believer than he was at St. Francis Assisi. Also, he did not just tag along to Friday prayers with his friends, a Christian among the Muslims, going through the motions to show respect, as JRowe suggests, nor was his stepfather "not religious", another JRowe suggestion. The Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and San Francisco Examiner stories all reported that Obama's stepfather was a practicing, though not pious, Muslim. Indeed, Obama himself had written “Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths..."[3][4] His stepsister, Maya Soetoro, also confirmed that her father was a practicing Muslim, in the process of denying that he was a very observent one: "My father never went to prayer services except for big communal events. I am absolutely certain that he did not go to services every Friday."[5] Maybe not every Friday, but some Fridays. The Baltimore Sun wrote "childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque" and childhood acquaintance Zulfan Adi is quoted, "Sometimes, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo and Barry would walk to the makeshift mosque together... 'His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque,...'"[6]. Even the obscurantist Kim Barker, who reminds me of some of the pro-Obama editors here in her attempts to conceal facts, admits "In their first neighborhood, Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said."[7]
Bottom line: Saying Obama was never a practicing Muslim is misleading and controversial and shouldn't be in an unsigned FAQ. It's just not that simple. If you say it's mentioned that his father was a lapsed Muslim, that he's denied ever being a Muslim or (at least his campaign has denied) ever praying in a mosque (btw, he's also falsely said he was "always a Christian" and that his mother was "a Christian from Kansas", which indicates why this isn't dispositive), and that his connections to Islam while he was in Indonesia haven't so far been deemed sufficiently important to mention... that may be sufficiently uncontroversial for an unsigned FAQ. Andyvphil (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
" as far as I can tell" is another example of OR andy, also "clear implication"... I'm hope you realize talk pages are also subject to BLP requirements? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you are making the claim that being a former Muslim is controversial - there is inherently nothing controversial about that statement unless you are a bigot. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact I don't "claim" that Obama was a Muslim. I claim he was a skeptic, and I suspect he still is, it being his conversion to heartfelt Christianity that I find unconvincing. However it is a fact, for which I can provide citation in RS, that he was considered a Muslim by Indonesian school authorities and was accordingly in his public Indonesian school given training in Muslim religious practice. If I were to claim that Obama "is a former Muslim" that would indeed be controversial irrespective of whether I asserted in a bigoted fashion that it was a bad thing, because the terms are in dispute and the consequences of the assertion could be negative even if they ought not to be. It is also however controversial to assert that he is not a former Muslim, for exactly the same reasons, and is entirely inappropriate to assert in a FAQ. It would not, however, be a BLP violation either way unless the asserton were made in such a manner as to be libelous. Nor am I forbidden to engage in OR or mention OR on the talk page. That is a limitation on mainspace citation and, since all material must be cited, consequently a limitation on mainspace content. Whether or not I've engaged in OR is completely irrelevant, however, to determining whether something I've written on a discussion page is a BLP violation. In this case, however, I did not engage in OR. "Clear implication", e.g., is not "OR", it is conclusionary opinion, which I am free to justify and express in a discussion, which is what this page is for. Got all that? Well, there are certain dim bulbs that I am sure got lost at the first comma, but... the rest of you? Andyvphil (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just under the impression that talk pages are under the same BLP mandates as articlespace. Oh well you surely have a fine understanding of BLP, so surely you know that "conclusionary opinions" only go so far in mainspace. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm biased by my own Protestant Christian upbringing to assume that the term "practitioner" implies belief as well as motions. The literal meaning refers to "practices", which would lead us into a discussion of whether Obama ever followed the Five Pillars of Islam. Chances are that he recited the Shahadah in his religion class and on the occasions when he attended the mosque, but as he says in Dreams from My Father, writing about both the Catholic and Muslim schools he attended in Indonesia,

...my mother was less concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call than she was with whether I was properly learning my multiplication tables.

Rather than trying to parse whether a child between the ages of 6 and 10 can be considered a "practitioner" of a faith, perhaps we should just try to find another way of wording the FAQ answer. Is Bobblehead's suggestion of "follower" any better? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
edit warfare! blocked for two hours... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! That fits perfectly with my diabolical plan to go to sleep, after having stayed up all night reviewing the changes to this article! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't really an issue for me, but there is a strong argument that he used to be Muslim. In Dreams from My Father Obama writes, "In the Muslim school the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during the Koranic studies." (from the Philidelphia Inquirer) I've read other quotes about his former classmates saying he was a devout muslim at the time - I could try to find the sources if someone is really interested. Of course, he also wrote, " “It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere. That’s the world! On which hope sits!” but that is unlikely to make it into this article until the Right-wing smear machine runs ads on it later in his campaign.[8] I wonder if his own words from his own book are too controversial for wikipedia? Maybe we could summarize what he "really" means...TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Two corrections. Obama's classmates did not, so far as I know, say he was a devout Muslim. "The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. 'We prayed but not really seriously, ...'"[9] And in the comments on the Chicago Daily Observerr piece you find that the "white folks’ greed" quote in Dreams is Obama quoting or paraphrasing Wright's "Audacity of Hope" speech, with or without attribution is not clear. Andyvphil (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, his "devotion" as a child is difficult to prove and frankly pretty irrelevant. I just think it is silly to say that he was never a Muslim. Everone says he went to Catholic school in Jakarta, but in Obama's own words it was a Muslim school. I did read the comments, and "white folks greed" is NOT a quote, the guy was just showing the "similarity" between that quote and Obama's (another allegation of plagiarism). The article makes it quite clear, towards the end, that the similarities between Obama's book (of which it provides numerous examples) and "Reverend" Wright are likely due to the fact that Obama actually believes the stuff that Wright has been saying, and that he initially claimed not to have heard. This is the kind of stuff that's going to come out if Obama wins the nomination - Republicans will win again if he gets the nom. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked the video to see if Wright says "white folks greed" at the point from which the response says Obama took his words, so I'll put that aside. But the Catholic school is a different school (St. Francis Assisi) than the public school (Mentang Besuki), which latter Obama calls variously "Muslim" or "mostly Muslim". I think it's misleading to say either that Obama was or wasn't a Muslim. By some definitions he was, by others he probably wasn't, and I don't see a shortcut. But see [10]. Andyvphil (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I love the neutrality you bring to this article. </sarcasm> Do all Catholics believe pedophilia is a good thing, since they believe the rest of the stuff the priests preach? Ya, nice try. Grsz11 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(Responding to Thegoodlocust, but indenting to avoid confusion with Grsz's comment above.) To clarify the matters of fact: Obama attended a Catholic school in Jakarta for about three years, and then attended a public school for about a year, where he was registered as a Muslim and took Islamic religious education classes. By his own account, he didn't take the prayers in either school setting particularly seriously. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Picking and choosing quotations out of context is just as bad as creating biased summaries of his words. johnpseudo 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes the famous "context" defense, where the magic word "context" is thrown out there and magically makes everything better. Please feel free to provide the context so us "white folks" can understand him properly. Funny how that "context" didn't get applied to Don Imus or Geraldine Ferraro. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I spent 4 years of my life (ages 4-8) in a Church of England "parish school" in England (St. Giles, Ashtead), and I even attended Sunday School at the associated church (I like singing hymns and carols to this day). When I was at school or church I prayed with all the other kids because that was what we did - we were too young to consider that we had a choice in the matter. However, I have never been religious and I have never believed in God. As soon as I was old enough to understand the correct terminology, I described myself as an atheist - now a strong atheist. It sounds like Obama wasn't exposed to (or experienced) any more of the Muslim faith than I did of the Anglican faith; therefore, I think using those earlier associations with Islam to suggest in any way that he might be a Muslim is patently ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Strawman argument. No one here has suggested Obama is a Muslim. But he lied when he said in South Carolina that he had always been a Christian and his campaign website is being at least extremely misleading when it says he never prayed in a mosque. He never prayed in a mosque in the same sense that you, never believing, never prayed in church. But that's not the way you put it. Andyvphil (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Small quibble

While on the whole I think that the current version of the Wright paragraph is fine, I have a small quibble with one clause: "...including suggesting the U.S. bore some responsibility for the September 11 attacks due to its support of "terrorism"..." It's true that the Jeremiah Wright sermons (or at least the clips from them played incessantly on Fox News) have been widely interpreted as saying that, but I'm not sure that interpretation is either neutral or accurate. It depends on your interpretation of the proverb "chickens coming home to roost". The alternative reading is that Wright was merely pointing out that as terrible as the September 11 attacks were, America has also done terrible things, so we should not feel that our newfound status as victims of violence gives us any moral superiority. This is not the same as saying that America bears responsibility for the attacks — it's saying that while we were victims of attacks on September 11, we have also been the perpetrators of attacks in the past.

Now, I'm not saying that I support this reading of Wright's remarks, but I have seen it made in reliable sources. (I'll try to find them later, although it may be tomorrow before I get the chance.) My point is that the current phrasing is not entirely neutral, and we should try to find another wording which better reflects the ambiguity of interpretation of Wright's "chickens". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying - I think it has been a general pattern of his defense to say that we don't understand the "context." However, the context never seems to be adequately explained, it is like simply using the magic word "context" suddenly makes everything okay. If you want I wouldn't be opposed to a proper modification that perhaps quoted him, as saying that 9/11 was a result of the US's "chicken's coming home to roost."TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that more than one conclusion can be drawn from Wright's words, and it is not for Wikipedia to try to interpret which. I believe that the only way around it is to include references to the other interpretations as well. Since this will burden the article with unnecessary detail, it may be better to avoid that particular comment completely and pick an alternative, less ambiguous comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like an attempt at whitewash to me. The comment is fine, and can be easily interpreted, however, anyone can give excuses for anything someone says. Maybe in Britain they don't have the phrase about "chickens coming home to roost" - but it quite clear what he meant to me and to most other Americans. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not well-versed in such phrases, but I do know it appeared in Chaucer in the 14th century. It may even have been used earlier than that, but it certain predates your colony. My suggestion of substitution was more about the difficulty of interpreting Wright's meaning, and not about interpreting the phrase itself. Just because you say it is okay does not make it so. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure my "colony" has significantly changed the usage since the 14th century. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we just quote what was said and let the reader make their own judgement. Arkon (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, and while I don't think small quotations are bad, I think this article tends to rely on them too much. Ideally, secondary sources should be used instead of his actual speechs. Plus, if we start quoting him, then some people will say the quotes are too small to show the "context," while others, like myself, will think the quotes are too big. This information should be communicated, but it should be done professionally and succinctly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
well our colony sure has its share of turkeys and their roosts, if nothing else. again I argue this is a perfect example of WTA- which recommends use of summary language instead of actual quotes, in the case of inflammatory or biased language. And I agree there are several interpretations possible and WP cannot be in the position of presenting one over the other. So we need to find consensus on a short summary version, if people think its important enough and does not violate undue weight. Because the Wright quote is in fact based on a quote from someone else (Peck). So again direct inclusion of the quote is looking pretty tricky because of all these misinterpretive possibilities/ 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
While I agree in theory, I don't think we should include fringe "interpretations" of his speech. Also, just to clarify, while what he said was based on a quotation of Peck, it is clear from watching the speech, that he made those words entirely his own. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The wording is in response to Andy's complaints in the section a couple up. Granted, he may be back once the 24 hours are up to put his preferred version back into the article, but I was hoping to get a more neutral version into the article that would placate him. There may be multiple interpretations that one can make about Wright's comments in regards to 9/11 (particularly since he was quoting someone), but we're bound by WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR to only include interpretations that have been made by a reliable source and except for one minor source, I haven't seen anyone making an interpretation other than Wright was saying that the US was partially responsible for bringing the attack upon itself... --Bobblehead (rants) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found the source I was thinking of yet, but I did find this article from Salon which said:

But if Wright's "chickens" sermon was unpleasant, the fact is that it was also largely right. He had the bad taste, and the courage, to say exactly what America did not want to hear at that moment. He said that although those who were murdered by terrorists were innocent, America itself was far from innocent. He placed 9/11 in a historical context, instead of pretending that it emerged out of nowhere. Critically, he said that lashing out in vengeful anger, however tempting, was not a wise or just response. To make this point, he used the Bible against itself, citing the terrible Verse 9 of Psalm 137, in which David, speaking in imagination to his Babylonian captors, gives voice to his people's desire for vengeance: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." This path, Wright pointed out, had biblical sanction. But it was not the right one.

However, that article also characterizes Wright's position as saying that "U.S. actions were partly responsible for the attacks", so that would support the current wording. I'll keep looking to find the article I was thinking of. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me give another quote from the same Salon/Gary Kamiya article:

This isn't a brief for Wright. I'm not a fan of Sharpton-style black demagoguery, with its knee-jerk grievance and identity politics. I don't know Wright's political philosophy or racial views well enough to place him on the vast spectrum of black leaders. Based on the few clips I've seen and the excerpts I've read, Wright certainly has his shortcomings. His preaching can be over-the-top, crude and ludicrous. His assertion that the U.S. government spread AIDS in the black population is a caricature of paranoid black demagoguery. In his "chickens coming home to roost" sermon, when he thundered that America's sins were being revisited upon us, he failed to make the essential distinction between saying U.S. actions were partly responsible for the attacks and saying that we deserved the attacks. At times his aggressive, almost gloating tone and delivery made it seem like that's exactly what he was saying.


Now, Kamiya does go on to prove how out of touch he is by saying "...America would have been better off if his uncomfortable sermon had echoed through every church in the country after 9/11...". Most Americans rightly think that if some group kills 3,000 of their countrymen the first order of business is to kill them rather than to worry about whether they have genuine grievances, still less to suggest that American "terrorism" against Indian tribes, Grenada, Panama, Khadaffi, Japan, Palestinians and South Africa is somehow the first thing that should be on our minds. The point is that Obama is in trouble over Wright because Wright comes off as a "Sharpton-style, paranoid, black demagogue" who is "over-the-top, crude and ludicrous", not just someone who makes "charged" sermons. If we don't convey that truth we're just not doing our job. Andyvphil (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's off topic, but I have to admit that you're correct in your estimation of what "most Americans" think about this. I'm not sure about the "rightly" part, but that's definitely what the majority of Americans think. Which is odd, considering how many of those Americans describe themselves as Christian, and as such should presumably reject that eye-for-an-eye morality. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
andy I can see you're trying really hard, and at this point I seriously admire your commitment, but the OR is definitely starting to get the better of your arguments. Your casual use of the term "comes off as" is a prefect example of no matter how many cites and quotes you can produce, it is your final presentation that gets you into trouble. "Comes off" is exactly the kind of non-specific hollow term that we are supposed to be avoiding, and while using on the talk page is one thing, you furthermore say that how Rev. Wright "comes off" is a THRUTH which the page needs to convey. Andy you are breaking so many editing guidelines and its all based on your OR of deciding how Wright has been interpreted at large, when almost all polls and commentators view it as an open issue. Even that actual Salon quote that YOU provided does not come close to equating Wright with (sharpton style demagoguery etc) if you actually read it- it mentions sharpton as one extreme on a spectrum, in fact that quote essentially posits that Wright is NOT at that extreme.
and please realize the more hubbub people make about Wright, the more we learn about the rest of his life. We learn he was not just a navy corpsman, but a Marine for TWO years and then Valedictorian of his navy medical class, and in fact was so trusted that he helped with medical procedures on the President of the United States! So please realize Andy that to some eyes ALL the current Wright text is becoming POV against Wright (taking wright out of context) and if we add more Wright text, it will have to be balanced to meet BLP standards (separate from the issue of how much Wright bio should be on the Obama bio page)
so andy I have been reading your responses and I think the OR shows up again and again. While you always present lots of quotes, and you could perhaps build some adequate encyclopedic text out of the frameworks you provide- the presentation and rhetoric you invariably insert into article space, and that you use on talk, sours the well in almost every case. I'm sure you notice that some of the more successful editors of this page, even if they show clear partisan bias on talk, often add material counter to their interests. Two reasons for that, it shows good faith by putting their edits above their beliefs (something you have never mastered), and second it allows them to structure the debate at some level. So maybe if you took some cues from that you would be more successful adding NPOV text, even if you have personal political beliefs, as we all do. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I haven't been able to find the source I was thinking of (the one which argued that Wright wasn't actually saying the U.S. bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks), I'm going to drop this quibble. If I come across it, or another source making the argument, I may reopen the discussion, but for right now I think this article has other more pressing concerns. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright returned to the question of responsibility for 9/11 on later occasions, notably in The Jan. '05 Trumpet: "A 'war on terrorism'... is a war that does not take into account what the Saudis have been saying to us since 9-11-01. That part of the Arab world told us clearly that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had to do with our government's shameful and shameless support of Zionism... Christians who identify the biblical Israel with the current day Israel... become very emotional... As a result we... ignore the real enemy in this 'war against terrorism!' We don't want to tell the truth about Israel as a country. we don't want to be honest about what caused the attacks on 9-11-01."[11] In other words "terrorist Israel" is our real enemy, and our support for Israel was "what caused the attacks on 9-11-01." Obama presumably got this in his mailbox, even if he wasn't in church for the sermon. Andyvphil (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Again I am forced to ask the question. What has this got to do with Obama? This is about Jeremiah Wright. If you think this information should be in Obama's BLP, then it should also be in Oprah Winfrey's BLP (and anyone else who goes to Trinity that has a BLP on Wikipedia). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that Oprah no longer goes to Trinity, with some alleging it was because she didn't want to be associated with Wright. But if she went there for 20 years it would deserve a mention. Need a RS, though. Andyvphil (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Question for Andyvphil

Andy, why is the detail that you're adding necessary to the summary of the controversy in this article? It doesn't seem to add anything above and beyond what is currently in the article and seems to be too detailed for a summary section. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not some trivial "details" that I'm insisting on. A summary must convey the essential information to be a proper summary of the content is summarizes. In this case, Obama is in trouble over Wright because a lot of people, when exposed to Wright, conclude he is a racially hostile lunatic. You are free to decide differently. You are not free to hide the evidence that will enable those so inclined to infer that he is a racially hostle lunatic, or to hide the reason why Wright is a problem for Obama. Describing Wright merely as someone whose delivered "several racially and politically charged sermons" doesn't convey the essence of the issue. Andyvphil (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"A lot of people" sounds rather weaselly to me. That being said, I completely agree with you that Jeremiah Wright's comments expose him as a hostile racist who abuses his position to disseminate his racism. Farrakhan, Robertson, Falwell, Wright and other lunatic wack-jobs of their ilk disgust me with their abuse, racism and lies. Nevertheless, the actual details of what Wright said, and his motivations for saying them, are beyond the scope of what should be a brief summary in a BLP. They certainly warrant a greater treatment in the accompanying campaign article, but the full treatment they deserve should be restricted to Wright's own BLP. In the context of Obama's life, the Wright comments are still only a minor footnote. They may become more significant later on (particularly if Obama wins the Democratic nomination) but we cannot make that assumption (per WP:CRYSTAL). Look, I'm a strong atheist and I don't like Obama's association with Wright any more than you do, but Wikipedia should apply the same treatment to this issue as it would to any other, and these extra details violate WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Since there was some paring down of the section between my above question and Andy's answer. Andy, I'm not sure why the detail in your preferred version[12] is necessary beyond what is included in this version[13]. Perhaps you could explain why you think the detail in your preferred version and the other version is necessary. That being said, I don't particularly agree with the removal here[14] of what Wright said, a brief explanation of what Wright said that's controversial isn't an undue weight violation IMHO and seems to be a decent compromise to the never ending edit war that is currently going on. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bobblehead that a brief summary of the comments which ignited the controversy is relevant and appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that a short summary is appropriate, and think that this version covers the bases. Tvoz |talk 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think the specifics of what Jeremiah Wright said have no place in this BLP, even as a compromise to placate the smear-hounds. I am equally unhappy about some of the specifics listed in non-controversial sections of the article, but I prefer to look at one thing at a time. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The listing of the chickens that Wright said were coming home to roost is lengthy and I'd be open to another approach that conveyed Wright's instinctive and radical Blame-America-Firstism. And his assertion that the government invented AIDS in order to inflict genocide on colored people shows the extremes of his lunacy, which is a different dimension than his anti-Americanism. Someone not already familiar with Wright who reads this article should get a sense of those dimensions without having to follow the blue links, because that is the problem for our subject. But I'm not going to worry much about rewritng my version if the alternative I'm faced with lies about what Wright said ("questioned....") and misstates the issue (the controversy isn't about what Wright said, it's about Obama's connections to Wright given what Wright said). Andyvphil (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing with you that Wright is a couple of cans short of a six-pack. My problem is that the specific details of his controversial statements aren't directly relevant to Obama. The fact that Wright made controversial statements is relevant, but what those statements actually were aren't relevant. Do you get my drift? They should absolutely be thoroughly explored on Jeremiah Wright, and they certainly warrant a brief summary in the campaign article, but definitely not on this BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Bobblehead's version of the Wright paragraph as a middle way between the two versions being promoted by edit warriors on both sides. Let's try to work together and compromise, people! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sudanese Divestment - Poor sources and misrepresentation

"In a December 2005 Washington Post opinion column, and at the Save Darfur rally in April 2006, Obama called for more assertive action to oppose genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.[132] He has divested $180,000 in personal holdings of Sudan-related stock, and has urged divestment from companies doing business in Iran.[133] In the July-August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Obama called for an outward looking post-Iraq War foreign policy and the renewal of American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership in the world. Saying "we can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission," he called on Americans to "lead the world, by deed and by example."[134]"

I removed this entire section for two reasons. The first is that all of the sources, except one, are directly authored by Barack Obama (should use secondary not primary sources). Second, the highlighted sentence gives the impression that he urged people to divest from Sudan-related stocks in some sort of leadership position - this is not shown anywhere in the source and in fact he was not the first presidential candidate to do so. The cited source actually is two sources, one independent and one from Barack Obama himself - the self-authored one implies he urged divestment from Iranian sources but doesn't mention Sudan at all. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cite specifically what about this section is in violation of WP:PSTS. I can't see it. --Ubiq (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of the sources are directly authored by Barack Obama himself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is not in violation of WP:PSTS. --Ubiq (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
PSTS says this:
"To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."
Meaning it's perfectly okay to use primary sources to prevent information. No judgement of that information is given, no violation. Grsz11 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but try to think of what I am communicating. The section describes his political positions, this shouldn't be done by cherry-picking from the hundreds of campaign speeches and articles he's written. His political positions should be summarized from a secondary source without a POV pushing agenda. In other words, his general positions are not served when wikipedia editors focus on certain issues that may, in reality, not be a significant measure of his general political positions. Everyone knows Darfur is bad, pushing this information, is merely a biased attempt at proppping up Obama. So yes, it is indeed in violation of either this or original research since it is painting a picuture of his general political positions without merit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not in violation of either, since the statements are sourced, not analytic/interpretive/evaluative, and the sources themselves are reliable. I'd recommend reading over the policy pages again before trying to use arguments like these to make changes based on this sort of reasoning. --Ubiq (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that you look at the sources, but you seem entirely unwilling to call them into question and so I'll break it down for you:

In a December 2005 Washington Post opinion column, and at the Save Darfur rally in April 2006, Obama called for more assertive action to oppose genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.

This cites this source by Obama and this source which blurbs the Darfur rally. The secondary source, only has a single quote by Obama and the article itself makes no claims about Obama since many other speakers attended the event. The first source one is written by Obama himself. Now go back and look at the sentence - the only way that called for more assertive action to oppose genocide... could've been put in that article is through a wikipedia editor summarizing Barack Obama himself. That is clearly not allowed. The secondary source makes no claims about Obama's assertions.

He has divested $180,000 in personal holdings of Sudan-related stock, and has urged divestment from companies doing business in Iran.

This also uses two sources to back it up - a secondary source, which only mentions the Sudanese divestments and a primary source again authored by Barack Obama himself. This primary source is the sole source for the claims of Iranian divestment - this should be from a secondary source. Also, the sentence combines two unrelated subjects, which make the two seem related - Iran and Sudan divestments. In fact, for the Sudanese divestments he wasn't the first presidential candidate to remove related investments (as stated in that source).

In the July-August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Obama called for an outward looking post-Iraq War foreign policy and the renewal of American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership in the world. Saying "we can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission," he called on Americans to "lead the world, by deed and by example."[140]

This statement is entirely based on this article by Barack Obama which is clearly a primary source. And yet, the wikipedia author who added it felt the need to describe it as an "outward looking post-Iraq War foreign policy and the renewal of American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership in the world." Such descriptions with loaded language should come only from secondary sources instead of wikipedia editors views and summarizations of Barack's own writings - clearly WP: PSTS violation like most of this entire section. Hopefully you can understand what I mean now. Please, if you can't comprehend it, then try rereading it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think you have a good understanding of wikipedia policy, namely WP:PSTS. It's not against this policy for an editor to summarize passages from a primary source. And I don't really see your gripe with the summary having "loaded language". It looks to me like a pretty fair (unloaded) description of the positions stated in Obama's column. I can sort of see your point about the Sudan and Iran divestments being in the same sentence, but at least they're separated by a comma and don't appear to be connected. Maybe they could be broken down into two separate sentences. All the labeling of the sources as primary/secondary is unnecessary. It has to be shown that a primary source isn't reliable or that the description of it is somehow analytic/evaluative/interpretive and I definitely can't see how the description of the source does this.--Ubiq (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't understand - when editors decide to say things like "assertive action" and "outward looking" those are indeed "evaluative/interpretive" statements since they have no basis for using such language. Remember, that WP:PSTS says, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." This is exactly what is occuring here. This majority of these sources are primary, this is obviously not "only with care." TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think they're pretty accurate descriptions. I wouldn't call them evaluative. In any case, I'm pretty exhausted of this discussion right now. --Ubiq (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how you can't see this. Even the first sentence, "...at the Save Darfur rally in April 2006, Obama called for more assertive action to oppose genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan," this is based entirely on this small blurb from SFgate, "Today, we know what is right and what is wrong. The slaughter of innocents is wrong," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told the crowd in Washington. "Women gang raped while gathering firewood is wrong. Silence and paralysis in the act of genocide is wrong. ... I know that if we care, the world will care. If we bear witness, the world will know. If we act, the world will follow." This is simply ridiculous - the wikipedia editor apparently wanted to include "Save Darfur" in the sentence because of the positive connotations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty impressive that you can know what goes on in the minds of other wikipedia editors. --Ubiq (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Way to address the issue - besides I thought you were tired of the discussion. The editors for this section summarized inaccurately, with poor sources and biased language. This is simply a fact. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About WP:PSTS

Thegoodlocust has been regularly complaining about the number of direct Obama quotes used in this article, citing WP:PSTS. I thought that he was misunderstanding that policy, and asked for an outside opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#PSTS and BLP. The view there was that the use of quotations from the subject of an article to support statements about that individual is not what WP:PSTS is about. The editor did express a concern relating to WP:SPS, which I think is applicable to the (few) quotations which use barackobama.com as a source. But the point is that merely quoting Obama about Obama is not problematic to WP:PSTS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kossack puts in more Wright and Rezko again

Completely ignoring all of the previous conversations, the carefully worked out consensus and my pleadings on his talk page, User:Kossack4Truth has once again restored his favorite Rezko wording and added a long-winded polling quote to the section he has once again entitled "Wright controversy". So I guess we are in for yet another round of consensus building on the same damn thing, are we? Wake me up when its over, will you? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't in there, people will wonder why it isn't in there. The reason will be obvious: a violation of WP:NPOV. Scjessey's solution is to shovel everything that's less than angelic about Obama into a satellite article that no one will ever read. That only continues the NPOV problem here. I am trying to preserve this article's Featured Article status. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not being neutral to put information in about a Rezko's trial when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. Jons63 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not being neutral to fail to mention it at all. Well-grounded criticisms have been raised in FAR. Let me be clear about this. I am a Democrat. I voted for Al Gore. I voted for John Kerry. I think George W. Bush is the worst disaster in the history of the United States presidency. I believe this war is illegal. If Obama ends up as the nominee, he will have my vote unless Rezko testifies that he was involved in Rezko's crimes, or some other major scandal erupts with solid evidence against Obama. But Obama is no angel. The readers of Wikipedia deserve to know the whole man, not just what Obama's campaign manager would say.
Rezko is on trial for federal crimes directly related to political fundraising. Rezko raised over $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns. So yes, Jons63, it has something to do with Barack Obama. Furthermore, at first Obama claimed that Rezko had only raised $80,000 for him. Only later, when the heat was on, did Obama admit that the actual figure was over $250,000. Furthermore, there's a shady real estate deal involving Obama's house and Rezko's wife. It gives the appearance that Rezko arranged for Obama to buy the house at a substantially lower price than the buyer was asking. The purchase price was $1.63 million. That was $300,000 under the asking price. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the trial has nothing to do with Obama. None of the charges has anything to do with any of the money he has raised for Obama. That is the impression that is left when you place information about the trial in an Obama article. Any mention of the trial is not neutral. Jons63 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"None of the charges has anything to do with any of the money he has raised for Obama." Are you absolutely sure about that, Jons63? Have you been reading the Chicago papers? Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This has already been explained to you a number of times but it obviously isn't sinking in.
  1. Wikipedia articles are not written with the number of page views in mind. In fact, since this article is long and popular, it actually makes some technical sense to shove as much as we can into sub pages (per WP:SUMMARY).
  2. Before your recent additions, the article had a neutral point of view. Although your additions didn't really change that, they added details about other people, violating WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT (which also, by consequence, affects the neutrality). They also had the effect of giving additional prominence to a transient event, which is against the spirit of the essay WP:RECENT.
  3. It's nice that Barack Obama is a Featured Article, but what threatens that FA status is the instability caused by squabbling and edit warring - consequences of the actions of a handful of anti-Obama/pro-Clinton/pro-McCain editors like yourself.
I am hopeful that you will read and inwardly-digest what I have said, and perhaps come to realize the mistakes you are making. I won't be holding my breath. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
By the numbers, then:
  1. "Wikipedia articles are not written with the number of page views in mind." In this case, it just doesn't seem that way to me. Anything about Obama and his associates that isn't fluffy and sweet is shoveled into a different article that no one ever reads. Only the fluffy and sweet stays here.
  2. The details about other people are about other people who have been closely associated with Obama. Obama has admitted that there were periods when he was on the phone with Rezko every day. This is not a casual acquaintance. In the first day of Obama's fundraising for his first political campaign, half of the contributions came from companies owned by Rezko. It's called "seed money." Once other potential donors see that a candidate is getting contributions, they are more inclined to make contributions of their own. If it wasn't for Rezko's money, Obama wouldn't be in politics. Now we are finding out that it's probably dirty money. Ignoring that fact in this article is irresponsible. Covering it up is even worse.
  3. What threatens FA status is its WP:NPOV violation and the efforts to preserve the violation. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(After an edit conflict) Show me what is "fluffy and sweet" that you object to. Explain to me how "If it wasn't for Rezko's money, Obama wouldn't be in politics. Now we are finding out that it's probably dirty money." isn't demonstrating how totally biased you are. And as I said before, it is only you anti-Obama crowd who are claiming the article isn't neutral in the FAR. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no content here that's objectionable to me. What is objectionable is the absence of other content that shows Obama is not an angel. The "fluffy and sweet" needs to be balanced by other material that isn't fluffy and sweet, and the material exists -- from credible, reliable, notable sources. This article could have been written by his campaign manager. Add at least a couple of paragraphs that could have been written by Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, or John McCain's. -- Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (this signature added by User:Scjessey after edit conflict)
Why? What possible justification can there be for putting in negative campaign spin? Are you suggesting that we actually conflate whatever negative commentary and information we can find as a way to make the article seem more neutral? Make one giant mountain out of a handful of molehills? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, the entire article is positive campaign spin. What you call "negative campaign spin" I call "commentary by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other notable, credible and respected news organizations with renowned fact-checking departments." It isn't coming from the McCain campaign, or Karl Rove, or the Hillary campaign, or the RNC. It's coming from journalists and opinion columnists, many of them clearly to the left of center. This article is loaded with praise. There is abundant criticism available from notable sources. Balance the praise with a little criticism. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But that isn't what you are actually doing, is it? You have added an extra section header to make sure Wright's name appears in the TOC, added biographical details about Tony Rezko and included a second link to the Rezko BLP. All of those actions are smear tactics. They have nothing to do with balance, or reliable sources, or even Barack Obama. This is a pure example of a guilt-by-association smear campaign. These tactics violate the policies and ignore the guidelines of Wikipedia. -- 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"Explain to me how "If it wasn't for Rezko's money, Obama wouldn't be in politics. Now we are finding out that it's probably dirty money." isn't demonstrating how totally biased you are." Here, I'll post it again: "In the first day of Obama's fundraising for his first political campaign, half of the contributions came from companies owned by Rezko. It's called 'seed money.' Once other potential donors see that a candidate is getting contributions, they are more inclined to make contributions of their own." Because Rezko was raising money for Obama, other contributors became more willing to donate to Obama's first campaign. It was from this seed, on the very first day of fundraising for his first campaign, that Obama's political career has grown. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
None of that matters. Obama was not aware that Rezko may have been doing anything illegal when accepting the campaign contributions. I'm sure many contributions for all candidates end up coming from donors who later get into legal difficulties. Is Obama supposed to consult a crystal ball before accepting donations? Don't be so ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey, Obama can pretend that he "was not aware that Rezko may have been doing anything illegal," but when it's published in the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times that Rezko is under investigation by federal authorities for crimes related to political fundraising, and a Chicago politician continues to accept campaign contributions from Rezko and claims that he's unaware, it takes a suspension of disbelief that's got better engineering than the Golden Gate Bridge to believe him. The indictment of Rezko and the guilty plea of Stuart Levine, a Rezko associate who is now the star witness against him in the trial, were made public in October 2006. The Sun-Times was reporting that Levine would plead guilty in early September 2006. [15] Just in case Obama happened to be in Washington DC at the time Levine pled guilty, it was reported in the Washington Post as well. [16] Another member of the conspiracy, Joe Cari, pled guilty even earlier -- in May 2006 -- and it was reported as far away as California. [17] It was all over the news media that Rezko's buddies were pleading guilty to fundraising related federal crimes, but Obama continued to accept money from Rezko, and didn't start donating it to charity until 2008.
Either this magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law never reads a newspaper, doesn't have any staff members who read newspapers and is completely oblivious to what's going on around him, or he's lying. In either case, it is notable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Obama was not aware that Rezko may have been doing anything illegal when accepting the campaign contributions." Huh? How can you assume this? This is not a fact this is your impression of the situation. This article is totaly biased and spun to reflect Obama in a positive light. How is the Priest with a following of 8,000 people whom Mr. Obama chose to join in prayer not a HUGE part of his life? This is a storey of his good deads not abiography his life and what shapped him.

I am totaly new to this, I am not a sock(whatever that is supposed to be?) or some fake account as SCjessey claims anyone whos opinion differs from his own must be. WTF I used to think Wiki was a good thing, but how can some fan boy be in charge of a page that people are looking to for information about who they might pick in an election. I came trying to get a grasp of who this guy Obama is because the media in the USA is selling copy using his name not telling us who he really is. Sadly I must continue to look for an unbiased source of facts as this wiki is far from unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.63.108 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 67.180.63.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, I'm sure you did. Sorry you missed the election that took place over two months ago. Grsz11 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And another thing, can you point out where Scjessey said what you claim he did? Grsz11 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
67.180.63.108 says: "Sadly I must continue to look for an unbiased source of facts as this wiki is far from unbiased."
Perhaps this is what you are looking for? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd honestly suggest this page if you want a real encyclopedia article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
yeah if you're looking for outdated poll info lol! 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Works

Wikisource has original works by or about:
[[:s:|]]
Isn't that sufficient? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey is correct that other BLPs (including McCain's) are simple lists of the books he/she authored. I really don't care either way, but I thank HailFire enormously for removing the Klein quote and substituting another in its place. And I think I came off wrong above, when I said that Klein's quote wasn't part of a NPOV review; of course, there aren't any NPOV reviews, but it was a bloated quote. But no need to dwell on the past, I suppose. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The change is great, but we are still left with a section on 2 books that gets more coverage than his entire Illinois State Senate career. Isn't this a case of undue weight? Is the justification that his books are more "biographical" in nature (befitting a BLP), because I'm not sure that's a good enough reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama is a bestselling[18] and Grammy Award winning[19] author of two books with mostly positive reviews. So this is well worth the weight that it has been given in the article. Also, some article history that helps explain how we got here. Let's close this one and move on, please. Happy, where to next? --HailFire (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cultural and political image
  • "Supporters and critics have likened Obama's popular image to a cultural Rorschach test, a neutral persona on whom people can project their personal histories and aspirations." - What a swell guy! He makes everyone feel great! - POV! And that is what this is implying. It is saying that he is a neutral figure who everyone can talk to and he can make you feel better. That is completely POV. This phrase needs to be restructured and have a balanced side to it, reflecting how others, who are not so flattered by the senator, may feel.
    • Actually, I see the "Rorschach test" line as cutting both ways. It can be seen as flattering, as you suggest, but it can also be seen as saying that Obama has little substance save what is projected on him by the expectations of others, like Chauncey Gardner in Being There. I think this sentence is important, as it explains part of why Obama's appeal has been broader than other African-American politicians. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps there is another way to say the same thing, but in a less flattering tone? Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • "Rorschach test" is not flattering or unflattering ... it's just means that people read into him what they like, good bad or otherwise, just as people see pictures out of a blob of ink. Saying this doesn't describe Obama, it describes peoples' reactions to Obama. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Speaking to an elderly Jewish audience during his 2004 campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama linked the linguistic root of his East African first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning "blessed."" - the only point I see here is to say that he is blessed. I don't see any other reason to include this than to encourage that point.
It looks to me to be an explanation as to the meaning of his first name. I doubt it carries that much weight in the mind of anyone reading this. I'm sure if the name Adolf happened to mean "lovely", it wouldn't much influence people's opinion of Adolf Hitler. --Ubiq (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it does carry much weight, at least on a concious level, but it is essentially fluff and trivia, and is entirely unnecessary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the GoodLocust on this one; it is purley trivial. Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So you agree with GoodLocust when he says that he agrees with you? Well, that's certainly informative. Quick! GoodLocust! Post a response to Happyme22 saying that you agree with his agreement of your agreement with his statement! Keep in mind that consensus is not reached by two people repeatedly responding "I agree" to each other. That's log-rolling, not discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sir, perhaps you should act in better faith. I did not even here of GoodLocust before coming to this talk page, and I have never communicated with him before. I never said that concensus is formed by two people; it can be, but not in this case. In fact, I have never said anything about a concensus on this talk page at all. Let's discuss the issues at hand, not take shots at other people. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Writing about Obama's political image in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s." - What about the other side's argument? According to WP:NPOV, both sides arguments need to be present, and that is not the case here. I see that there is a phrase attributed to Peggy Noonan below this one, but that phrase is not sufficient because it is not giving an opinion of Obama himself, but rather a "warning" to Republicans to not get too caught up in him. There definitely needs to be more balace here.
Keep in mind this is a BLP and that we're not exactly looking to make every praise countered by a criticism or vice versa. The "balance" you're looking for might be more well-suited for subjects of a different nature, like for areas where a particular controversy happened (e.g., including criticism over a scandal and making sure to include defense/rebuttal where it applies). --Ubiq (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We cannot simply discard this argument. I understand that it is a BLP, but the praise far outweighs the criticism on this page. Please keep in mind that I am an outsider to this page, with no particular strong feelings of Obama either way. Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to go out of your way to convince me or anyone else you're neutral in this matter. I do my best not to make assumptions about people's views. As far as the "praise far outweighing the criticism", I think that both praise and criticism could be removed from the article. If you compare the John McCain article with this, you'll notice that McCain's article has pretty much no criticsm or controversy. It only mentions his perceived level of conservatism/liberalism (which I happen to think should not be included in a wiki article). However, it also has far less praise than Obama has in his article. I tend to think this discrepency is due to the fact that McCain has had a very long career, which is much easier to write about. By contrast, Obama has had a shorter career, and much of his image has been shaped and defined by the attention he's gotten during this time. --Ubiq (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so he has had a short career compared to McCain. Many people like him, that's true. But there are those that don't. And their arguments deserve a voice here too. It is a flattering quote of Obama with only one view represented; I see no indication of another side's view. And BLP or not, it only shows the POV of one side. I'm not asking for this quote to be removed, or cut down at all; all that I am asking for is equal representaion, perhaps a quote, or even a sentence about what someone who is not so wooed by Obama might think. Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "...and has been praised by conservative commentators, including George Will who encouraged him to run for president." - I brought this up on the FAR page as an example of the POV, and User:HailFire agreed that it needs to be reworded/fixed, because it is lumping all Republican commentators (including conservatives) into this category. Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Neil Boortz, and other Republican commentators deserve their own voice too, and cannot be spoken for by only George Will, one of few conservatives to support Obama.
I agree about the "lumping", though I'm sure it wasn't intended to sound this way. If anything it could be removed or perhaps reworded to state "...and has been praised by some conservative commentators, including..." or "...and has even been praised by some conservative commentators, including..." As for the Sean Hannity et. al. deserving "their own voice too", I'll just point to my above point about this being a BLP. --Ubiq (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoah whoah whoah, Ubiq, you come across to me as a very dedicated editor who strives for the best. And I am honestly shocked that you don't even see how POV this is without an adequate representation of both sides! Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The prose in this article has a neutral tone, and nowhere do I see evidence of editors' point of view being injected into the article. I think what you're referring to is undue weight, which impedes upon NPOV. On that page is a quote that applies to this situation: "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." and further down: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I can't quite see how adding the opinions of random anti-Obama conservatives helps the reader better to understand who Obama is or what he's done/accomplished in his life (this is the point of a biography in my opinion). I also don't think it would do anything to help balance his biography out. Like I stated above, I think balancing would involve removing some praise and some criticism, but that's just my personal opinion and I'm sure many people would disagree with me on that. --Ubiq (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Not all the prose in this article has a neutral tone; if it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because I wouldn't have brought any of it up. I do not see how fixing this false statement is adding undue weight. It is simply a lie: not all conservative commentators like Obama and this statement is misleading. We cannot throw it out the window because Obama is living. Happyme22 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood some things. Notice above that I was receptive to your initial suggestion and recommended either removing the sentence or introducing the word some into the mix. My undue weight comments were more so a categorization of your complaints--that you felt there was undue weight (i.e., too much praise vs. criticism). I took it that you felt inserting a criticism from the likes of Sean Hannity would counter that unbalanced weight. I was just stating that I disagreed and explained why.
Also, (and I'm totally being anal here) I'm not so much buying the logic in: if the article had a neutral tone, we wouldn't be having this discussion (but we are having it, so it must not have a neutral tone) --Ubiq (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well thanks for that. I would favor removing it altogether and adding in a paragraph on how Republicans feel about the senator (as outlined in "general issues" section above). And I most certainly do not feel that a quote by Sean Hannity should be inserted to counter this. I do feel, however, that there needs to be a paragraph, at the least, on what the mainstream Republican party thinks about Obama. So I would nix this statement because it is a lie; a quick Google search reveals that there is not much more to pursue on this matter. Happyme22 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the word some but on a side note I think it's a big stretch to call the statement "[Obama] has been praised by conservative commentators" a lie. It only means logically that: There exist conservative commentators that have praised Obama. The some is implicit in that statement (it does not imply all), but adding some to be more clear shouldn't hurt. I didn't want to remove it entirely because I feel a change that dramatic would probably need some consensus, and I don't want to disrupt the flow of the paragraph. I'm largely opposed to adding a paragraph devoted purely to Republican criticism of him and I can't imagine that idea would pick up too much steam. I can't find a pres. candidate that has the equivalent of such a paragraph/section, and besides, there's already criticism interspersed throughout the article. But who knows, other editors may be receptive to it. You may want to make a new section proposing something if you really think it would improve the article. I've really got to get some sleep though, night. --Ubiq (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I expect discussion to occur on these items, but I hope that sufficient action is taken once the article is unprotected. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Happyme22 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with everything you have said. I've brought up some of these issues elsewhere and others I'd meant to bring up but haven't had the time to articulate yet. Thanks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
the "rorshach test" bit is also on the HRC page fyi... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reset the third paragraph of this section because it had strayed widely from its NPOV balance, perhaps because the intended balancing was not obvious to some editors that had reworked and embellished parts of it. I hope Happy and others will have a second look at this and perhaps help make more explicit the themes that some editors apparently missed. To do that, I'll take you through it and try to make more explicit what may be too implicit in the version that has just now been reinstated.

Eugene Robinson (and also Jennifer Senior, in New York Magazine) were among the first to pick up the "post-1960s Obama as unifier" theme in major news publications. They were joined later by MacFarquhar, writing in the New Yorker. This unifier image has become a part of Obama's political image, no doubt coaxed by Obama's people, but it is out there nonetheless and worthy of inclusion.

Obama's major critics don't really dispute the unifier image, instead they typically mock it as naive or (for more rabid critics) some kind of elaborate illusion. The paragraph tries to reflect that, first by giving Sirota as an example of criticism that says Obama is too cozy with establishment Senators that he should be challenging, and secondly by highlighting Peggy Noonan's critique that he is "The Man from Nowhere" and not yet presidential timber. In an earlier column, Noonan scorned Obama for comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln, an editorial that Obama talks about in Audacity ("ouch", he says). When Obama says nice things about Reagan, Noonan remarks sarcastically, "Ronnie would be so pleased." Obama's supporters and image makers counter this "too young" image by drawing explicit parallels to JFK, a popular "new generation" kind of president. All notable, and all necessary to a comprehensive treatment.

George Will's argument was that even with limited experience, a large number of Americans wanted Obama in the 2008 race because the unifying theme has such broad appeal, and for Will, it made good political sense that Obama not wait. The Sirota-Will juxtapositioning aims to show how projecting the image of a reasonable man may alienate your base but can also attract interest from unlikely fans ("Obamacans" is what Obama calls them). The search for common ground is a big part of what Obama has talked about all his political life. It's clearly notable, and it is an important element of his political image, just as the cultural image aspects discussed in the previous two paragraphs, are also notable.

So, I don't think that this third paragraph is unbalanced, but I would agree that parts of it may need updating soon. Still, we need to beware of recentism, and an election year may not be the ideal time to get this kind of "verdict of history" definitively sorted out once and for all. But I don't think the answer is to delete or to jumble this paragraph's content to the point where these notable elements are excised or no longer recognizable. Finding consensus on these last lines may be an impossible dream, but we should try. So please jump in here. Comments needed! --HailFire (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this version is just fine, and I'm glad someone thought to use WP:BRD to see how it sits with the current editors. I can foresee a time when this section may need to fall under the auspices of WP:SUMMARY, but I certainly have no objection to its existing content and neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reset this too (1st paragraph). The source that was used previously for barack as baruch ref was broken, but found a better one. --HailFire (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, since you just wrote a lot about Noonan and what she had to say, why not include some of that? I mentioned up in the first section that a piece, even just a few sentences, of what Republicans think of Obama would be a help. Noonan, being a prominent speechwriter to a Republican icon, would be great. Perhaps, "But in a December 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "The Man from Nowhere," Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan advised Will and other "establishment" commentators to avoid becoming too quickly excited about Obama's still early political career. Upon comparing himself to former President Abraham Lincoln, Noonan scorned the Senator for his "greatness-free zone" and called him an "egomanic." " (source: Conceit of Government by Peggy Noonan) -- This would serve as a stark contrast to quotes above about his unifier image while not completely disowning them, and provide a Republican argument. Thoughts HailFire? Happyme22 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Good points. I'll think on it and return with some more comments. In the meantime, I'll leave you with this. --HailFire (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please browse through these Wall Street Journal opinion columns from Noonan in their order of publication:
Conceit of Government, June 29, 2005
‘The Man From Nowhere’, December 15, 2006
Out With the Old, In With the New, January 5, 2008
A Thinking Man’s Speech, March 21, 2008
My take away is that if we're searching for a source offering a stark contrast to "What a swell guy!" type observations about Obama's political image, Noonan's opinion columns are not the best place to find it. Also, if you have a copy of Audacity, check out pages 123 and 124, where Obama talks in some detail about Noonan's "Conceit of Government" column from June 2005. The overall theme I get from all four of her columns is that the public sees Obama as "new". Possibly that aspect could go into the article more clearly, though the 2006 headline that is already in the paragraph does capture it quite nicely, I think. Thoughts Happy? --HailFire (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly not out to smear him. I'm looking for a Republican argument against Barack Obama. And, while I do agree with you that Noonan finds Obama to be "new", I think her first column Conceit of Government gives a pretty good view of what mainstream Republicans think of him: his ego is somewhat large and he has been known to speak out of both sides of his mouth, as seen here. He compared himself to Lincoln, and Noonan, in your words, scorned him for it. I don't have a copy of his book, but since he apparently mentions her column in some detail, I think some sort of inclusion regarding the Abe Lincoln matter and Obama's response to it from his book might be a notable addition.
As for me, I am much more satisfied with the article's current form. Thank you to all the editors who helped out, especially HailFire, because it is much more neutral and a much better read, in my opinion. I don't have anything more to "complain" about, and some are thanking God for it. Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Crocker hearing (Obama questions Petraeus)

Fovean Author's edits raise questions about inclusion/exclusion of today's hearings in the article. Disregarding his unnecessary placement of Wright's name next to Obama's name in every instance possible, we should at least discuss whether today's hearings warrant inclusion. Obviously, Fovean's edit wouldn't suffice, namely because of his unsourced/untrue personal commentary in this line: "He continued on to restate his opposition to the Iraq War, and didn't take the opportunity during the hearing to ask any questions"

As you can clearly see in part 1 and part 2, Obama most definitely asked questions. One issue here is whether we should acknowledge any recentism arguments against inclusion of this. My argument would be that the exchanges in this hearing aren't particularly notable in respect his career and don't add too much that's new to the mix (except maybe his talks about diplomacy with Iran). Keep in mind that Obama questioned Petraeus back in the September Progress Report, with the nature of their discussion being fairly similar to today's discussion, and of course, nothing from that hearing has made its way into this article either. --Ubiq (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything particularly noteworthy to come out of the hearings. The key moments were:
  1. McCain trumpeted out his usual "surrender is not an option" continuation of the Bush policy and had another minor Sunni/Shiite goof.
  2. Clinton came across tired, but asked an important question about why the Iraqi parliament gets to debate on policy when our own Congress doesn't.
  3. Obama made a McCain-like goof when he mistakenly said "Iraqi" instead of "Iranian", but managed to ask important questions about what the standards of success were, neatly encapsulating what the two hearings had been trying to get answers for.
Some of the MSM has been suggesting that Obama called for a "diplomatic surge", but this actually came from a Republican senator and Obama merely reiterated it. Nothing from the candidates was particularly impressive, and I think any treatment of it would probably fall foul of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. It's probably worth a mention on the candidate campaign pages though. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Ubiq (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Allowing that he asked questions, he also defined himself and his position, intentionally and very specifically, by calling once again for opening up discussions with Iran, calling this a 'Diplomatic Surge' (a term which the major media picked up on). I don't care what Clinton said or what McCain said - this part of Wikipedia is about Obama, this is a defining statement and deserves inclusion Fovean Author (talk) 8:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said just above, the "diplomatic surge" term came from the Republican who was speaking just before Obama (I think it was George Voinovich, but I'd have to check) and Obama ran with it. On that basis, I'm not exactly sure what part of his Q&A you consider to be noteworthy. Could you elaborate? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I just went back and checked the transcript of the hearing and it was actually Ryan Crocker himself who said they were doing a "diplomatic surge", which was then questioned by Chuck Hagel, Voinovich, Obama and Biden. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting record dispute

Since the information concerning Barack Obama's Senate voting record has been removed per WP:WEIGHT, I have relocated it wholesale to United States Senate career of Barack Obama. I believe it has a place there, although it probably needs a little tightening-up and tweaking. This sub article seems to have been strangely neglected, so I recommend interested parties add it to their watchlist. Does this adequately resolve the dispute, or does the BLP need a succinct, one-line summary perhaps? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think that a summary of the various voting metrics would be useful, although I'm not sure whether we can adequately summarize them all in one line. An interesting side perspective on the question of how liberal Obama is or isn't: today electoral-vote.com has an analysis of the voting records of all 100 Senators, averaging the ratings given by seven liberal interest groups, and concludes that both Obama and Clinton are measurably less liberal than most of their Democratic colleagues in the Senate (and that Obama is slightly less liberal than Clinton). Of course, that's not a reliable source and we can't use it here, but the data is interesting and may help us decide what is and isn't a neutral way to summarize the rankings. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How about something like this?
Metrics attempting to describe Obama's Senate voting record have yielded mixed results, with one study classifying him as the "most liberal senator" in 2007[2] and another as "among the least liberal" of the Democrats.[3]
I'm sure it needs refinement, but since that gives two diametrically-opposed results it should appeal to pretty much everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I'm not sure that electoral-vote.com meets our standards for reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. I know that the site is run by a respected and published computer science professor (Andrew S. Tanenbaum), and it has been historically accurate; however, WP:RS doesn't offer any insight about these data-gatherings sites. One thing I would say is that it is no more or less reliable than Project Vote Smart, from which Electoral-vote.com seems to draw some of its data. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that Obama's ADA rating in the electoral-vote.com table is only 75% because he missed 5 of the 20 votes the ADA uses in his rankings and despite voting on the liberal side in all 15 of the votes he participated in. The "Votemaster" seems to have missed this in reaching his "among the least liberal" conclusion about both Clinton & Obama. Which is very odd, since he supplies a link to the 2005 rankings[20] where the "most liberal" Senator is....oops...Obama. You'd think he'd have remembered that result. Andyvphil (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for mediation?

Looking at the article's history today, it looks increasingly like the editors of the article are dividing into opposing camps and failing to listen to each other, or compromise. I think the time may have come for mediation. Andy has previously said that he's open to this, and Bobblehead said it was worth a try (although he was pessimistic that the edit warring would stop long enough for the mediators to take the case). What do other editors think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And just to add, mediation is really only for content disputes, it isn't for complaining about another editor's conduct. If anyone on this article has a problem with another editor's conduct during this edit war, WP:RFC/U is that way. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't resist this: "I'm willing to stop edit warring as long as the page is left the way I want it!"
Seriously though, I'm still hopeful of compromise before mediation. I'm still waiting to hear back from Andy and his crowd on my suggestion above regarding the voting record, for example. The big problem area concerns Jeremiah Wright, and I'm not sure how that is going to get resolved. Is it possible to get a section-by-section mediation? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've only seen mediation accepted at an article level, but within the overall article mediation, it's up to the mediator/participants to decide how to mediate the disputes. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited this page although I edited the Obama presidential campaign article. I do think mediation would be a good idea. I do think that people are divided between those who are sympathetic to Obama and those who hate him, and it does seem to me that the people who want to include negative information about him do hate him. JonErber (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have made a valid point. There are:
  • Pro-Obama editors (small group)
  • Anti-Obama editors (small group)
  • Neutral editors who are labeled as pro-Obama editors by the anti-Obama editors (large group)
  • Vandals (enormous group, may they all burn in hell)
Neutral editors came on board because of all the edit warring to act as mediators, but now we're all caught up in the edit warring as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree there are only certain sections which suffer from problems. I guess I don't understand why people are so afraid of mediation, but I'm new. It seems to me that some people cite WP policy and recommendations, and make good faith edits, and some users don't. If mediation is going to resolve that situation I support it. But if mediation is going to take what is, as far as I can tell, a minority position on certain content issues, and give it more than due weight in order to prevent further "edit warring" then I am not sure I support it. And considering admins seem to be repeatedly viewing BLP supportive edits as justified, I'm really wary of even calling this an edit war, and not a pointy content dispute, which is more what it seems to me ( a very pointy content dispute indeed). 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
And that's pretty much how I feel as well. Certain editors (they know who they are) are unwilling to yield to overwhelming consensus, so resort to any tactic they can to get their minority views across. Favorite among these is WP:GAME, which has been usefully employed to force unreasonable compromises, get editors into 3RR difficulties, and cover tendentious edits with a smoke screen of disruption. It's all been a bit demoralizing of late, frankly (and I realize that is part of the strategy too). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
as someone who has witnessed other (expensive) co-ordinated public opinion strategies in a web 2.0 format- I would say this bears many similarities. part of why I'm so heavily involved. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder here, mediation is about finding a resolution to the content dispute and has nothing to do with the conduct of certain editors. In the above comments I see very little consideration of finding compromise to resolve the content dispute, but a lot of accusation about poor editor behavior. If you feel that editors are gaming the system, being disruptive, or being tendentious, then I suggest you go to WP:RFC/U and stop complaining about it here. Until that is done, this will continue to be treated solely asa content dispute and corrective action will be applied equally against all sides of the dispute. If you have enough time to spend all day fighting over the content on this article, then you have enough time to start an RFC/U and see if you can get a particular editor's behavior adjusted. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
so what is the objection to mediation then? Considering the media is making andy their new wiki-darling (so to speak), I am in no mood to rfcu him. The rest are the problem really, and their claims about consensus are the disruptive thing. So again yes that is a content dispute, and furthermore if this level of content dispute is not indicative of rough consensus then I don't know what is. Furthermore you have to realize the admins don't want to touch this stuff until December. So again why force the issue when the indications of rough consensus (vocal minority operating "outside the law", most editors supporting or not objecting to consensus etc) are everywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This, being a highly trafficked article, is best keep unprotected. But if the disruption reaches levels that are unacceptable, I will not hesitate in protecting it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also caution editors, such as User:Fovean Author, not to use this page as a battleground as per this edit summary. Consider this a friendly warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

current wright edit

has lasted a while, bobblehead. is this enough compromise from the "compromise camp" or are you in favor of a longer compromise? Notice how stable things have been since we compromised...do you ascribe that to the content, or the editors? Look at how many editors have edited the page today with few conflicts... that shows how most editors assume good faith and I am not sure we need to go to mediation. Things are relatively fine with only the absence of 2 or 3 editors. So I'm not sure thats such a big problem in the long run... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a new article, Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy, has been created, and further details of the affair can go there. I'd personally be inclined, for example, to put the recently added Frederick Douglass comparison in that article rather than this one. But as for the "two or three editors" — they're the ones who I'd be most interested in hearing from about the prospect of mediation. These editors have been insistent on including details which most other editors feel are either non-notable, POV or unduly weighted for the overall balance of the article. So far their behavior has, in my view, generally been short of disruption, although it has on occasion been tendentious. The point of mediation is to keep the focus on the article's content, rather than on the behavior of contributors. However, if editors continue to be tendentious and refuse to engage in civil discussion with those they disagree with, it may result in administrative action. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition to what Josiah said above, I'd be interested in seeing the snippet of Wright's bio removed from the summary here as well. It has the appearance of being cruft and isn't really related to the section at hand. It's good for the controversy article where the whole anti-American thing can be covered to better detail, but I'm not seeing it as being additive here. I also believe these two edits [21][22] pretty well answer the question of whether mediation is still necessary. There's still the unresolved issues of Obama's liberalism and what weight Rezko should be given. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we have to allow the Wright bio snippet just to achieve a working consensus. Also, I thought the voting record had been mostly handled (see Talk:Barack Obama#Voting record dispute) and we are just trying to come up with a line or two to summarize it? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
and on Rezko, we have the fundraising, property deal, indictment, is there something else we are missing? I have added Rezko text before and I support a full accounting of that (such as it should be on the Obama blp) so if there is something missing please let me know... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we achieve neutrality by adding positive-but-not-really-centrally-important comments to the summary. Just as the exact specifics of Wright's sermons can be left to other articles and summarized here, so I think can contextualizing notes like Wright's military service and the Frederick Douglass comparison. If there is a genuine consensus in favor of keeping these details in the summary, I'll demur to it, but I don't think we're necessarily there yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I am entirely in agreement with your thinking, but I am keen to see this paragraph dispute concluded. There must be a compromise version, satisfactory to all parties, that we can come up with. I'm not really in favor of the mediation process, because this article is likely to remain volatile until the nomination (and perhaps the election) is decided. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It may be interesting to see whether consensus could be reached on the compromise wording without the bio snippet and the Douglass reference left out. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone feel that the paragraph is imbalanced without those two bits? What exactly do they add that's essential to the coverage of this controversy within the context of an article on Barack Obama? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a compromise version of this paragraph is necessary. And I don't object to the mention of Wright's military service and the Douglass comparison, per se. I'm just not sure that they represent a model of Wikipedia's best practices, as a featured article should be. I'm also slightly dubious that contributors such as Andyvphil, Kossack4truth and Thegoodlocust are going to see this as an acceptable compromise. That said, if these editors do sign off on the current wording and agree to stop edit warring about this section, I'm not going to upset the apple cart. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
An interesting question that arises from your point is this: Which is more preferable, a featured article or a stable article? The special circumstances of this article (BLP of Presidential candidate) may make these, for the moment, mutually exclusive. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, since stability is one of the prerequisites of an article being featured, I'd say that featured is a higher standard than stable. However, I agree that the current circumstances may make it impossible for this article to meet the strictest standard of stability. That raises a question for the featured article reviewers: is the definition of "stability" different for a highly trafficked article than for a low-visibility one? And is it acceptable to trade off featured article criterion 4 ("appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") for criterion 1e (stability)? This particular case is a fairly minor step away from the "focus" criterion, but "stability" is a much larger concern for the article as it stands. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
you guys already know what my general opinions are on this matter, so I will try not to repeat myself too much. Basically if you think the "snippets" are unrelated then delete them. The Douglass thing is from the new "the New Yorker" lead article on TUCC, so I though it might be applicable. You know why I think the military service bit is applicable. But it is not those specific mentions which I feel are neccessary. It is the neutral balance I am seeking, and I feel any expansion of the Wright section needs to be a balanced expansion. I find it interesting that we are now discussing "the fabled compromise" as if it must solely be a "negative" compromise. I understand part of the reasoning behind that- that certain users have felt the early coverage was one sided and needed balance. Which is true to a point, but as the recentism aspect of this drama has receeded and we get a better feel for the long-term notability of Wright, we are getting a more nuanced and positive picture of the Rev. and the church. So it seems clear that Wright was a "net" negative for Obama, but we need to decide, was is a "total" negative for Obama? (imo the polls illuminate this question a bit)... I thought the military service mention was a SHORT way of making that point, shortness being more important in my mind than straight applicability. I added douglass because I seriously thought it was perhaps a new level of analysis on the issue. I'm not wedded to either bit, but if we remove them, expect me to play around with something new like a mention of TUCC charitable works, or god knows what, I will try to keep it short of course, but I until I see clear consensus against it I will be working towards some level of balance.
all the other editors are right, it would be more than helpful if certain "increase Wright" editors could weight in here, or even with an edit, so that the regular editors using talk, would know "legitimate" opinion on the page... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, I agree with you. I actually feel that none of these specifics should be in the paragraph. None of them. I'm willing to accept them only to see and end to the edit warring, and only if any expansion is a balanced expansion like you describe, but it feels like making a pact with the devil. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
also they seem even less applicable now that there are TWO daughter articles on the same subject. except I'm not going to advocate a cut-down and merge to daughter articles, because that seems like it will just restart the edit war. I can't tell if it stopped because of the compromise, or something else. The farther out we get from this, I start to think we need to do a re-assessment of the Wright affair's notability. Sure its notable, but considering the polls and recentism concepts, I'm not sure it justifies its own page, a big section in the speech page, a BIG section in the Obama campaign page, and an ever increasing length section here subject to constant edit war. That gives the appearance of more notability than WW2 lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


(outdent) (edit conflict) Just to clarify are you saying that if you don't get your way you are going to be disruptive, tendentiously edit this article, and fail to comply with consensus in order to apply your POV? Isn't that the exact same complaints that you (and others) been making against Andyvphil, Kossack4truth, and Thegoodlocust? I fail to see how the "compromise" wording without the snippet of Wright's bio is any less neutrally worded with the snippet. Just randomly throwing the snippet in looks exactly as one would expect, like it has been randomly thrown in. It doesn't add anything to the summary of the Wright controversy and neither will mention of TUCC's charitable activities. They just look like someone is dumping random "positive" information in. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

and it looks more and more that YOU"RE advocating dumping in random negative info into the page! Most regular editors have repeatedly established consensus on the ORIGINAL two sentence version of wright- and again and again you come along saying we NEED to compromise to stop the "edit war." You say its a legitimate content issue and not the result of several outlier editors, and that you won't RFCU but someone else can. Except from reading the talk page MOST editors feel the edit churn is due to the several editors and not to fundamental content problems. So if YOU are so worried about the edit war, and the page consensus thinks its because of editors and not content- then maybe RFCU is the ONLY option open to you. We AGF and go along with your compromise and demands for mediation, because you generally seem to care about the page. But lately I am wondering- because with all your talk of mediation and compromise (notions other regular editors have been a little lukewarm on) you present a great appearance of bipartisanship, but when we get right down to it, the only text I have ever seen you support through this process has been increased-length Wright text. btw I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Calm down, chaps! No need for insinuations and uppercasery. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(conflict)There are hundred ways we can fit in balance and make it "read right" imo. First of all we could move the entire section from presidential campaign to personal life, and add it to the other reasons why Obama attends TUCC. We could even simply add a mention of why Obama attends (african connection, social service, not-middle class) all of which were dealt with, in depth, in that new yorker cite from the douglass mention. So there is SOMETHING we can use and that would give it flow and balance and notability. and surprisingly enough, we might all avoid being blocked for tendentious editing while we do it bobblehead. notice my use of the word consensus ok? that means more than you and Josiah, and it means i'm not really the disruptive one spouting off legalisms lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy came along and restored his previous edit to the Wright paragraph. I had to temporarily revert it in order to revert a number of edits (which included categorizing Obama as a basketball player, for example) but I immediately put his version back in (but with the redirecting link fixed). I would like to make it clear that I am still not in favor of any of this detail being in the paragraph because I think it violates WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Trinity UCC his religion?

I have not been too involved in this article particularly, but I have been involved in many other articles of elected officials. I cannot think of another instance of a person's church being listed as their religion, which doesn't even make sense... I do understand that the UCC is by nature congregational, each church basically makes its own policies, but I do not believe that warrants specifically identifying each church that a person belongs to as their religion. I am not raising this as a means to push an agenda, rather to have uniformity. Stealthound (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Listing the denomination of a Protestant is fairly common, but you're right, it should be United Church of Christ and not TUCC. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Freemason, Prince Hall, unfounded rumor?

Is Obama a freemason, or the prince hall branch, or what? I can't find what is, to my mind, a legitimate source for this. There is definitely information out there but nothing that has the credibility to justify inclusion in the page. Though if true it would warrant it. 68.46.150.253 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see what links you have for that even if they are not RS...72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright biographical detail

There seems to be some disagreement about whether it's appropriate to mention, in the discussion of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, that Wright served as a Marine and Navy hospital corpsman. My feeling is that although this biographical detail is relevant to an in-depth analysis of the controversy, one which goes into a detailed explanation of the meaning of patriotism and the role of the prophetic tradition in the black church, it's too far from the core issue to be included here in a summary section. What do other people think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Details about Wright's background, from before he met Obama, aren't really relevant at all in this article. Of course they would be well placed in the Jeremiah Wright article but not here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree here. The fact that Wright was a Marine, then transfered to the Navy to be a Hospital Corpsman is not applicable to the summary of the controversy that is included in this article. As Josiah said, it's applicable to a larger exploration of Wright's patriotism etc, but for the simple summary that is here, it just seems like miscellaneous cruft. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
repost from Josiah's talk page
as you have noticed, all the proposed wright additions are increased negative text. Even though guilt by association is not allowed, we are doing it anyways, as I think we should for the sake of accuracy. However if we are going to allow an exception of guilt by association, it is doubly imperative that WP portray even a moderately accurate conception of "the associate". Furthermore, considering the fundamental question in this affair has been Wright's patriotism, I think information which comes close to proving it definitively, should not be excluded simply on the basis of unrelated-ness, when some would argue the entire Wright section is getting unrelated to Obamas bio. We are making a compromise with certain editors to allow moderate length increases (no matter their long term notability) in return for possibly preventing World Edit War I. All I hope is that we could also make a far smaller compromise to provide some degree of equal weight to the section, even if it is not a "gold standard" phrase. We do need to provide equal weight to Wright regardless of what we do, make sure its clear he is not a monster like some editors think, and I think it this is a great way of providing NPOV to his monstrous comments.
Right now the entire section is "he said..." and nothing about "he IS..." so again trying to swing that balance a bit. I know this is a bit more horse-trading than you would like to see on the page, but alack until 2009 as we all know. Please realize that while horse trading may be unseemly, sometimes a man needs to trade his horse, so he can get a better horse, if you follow. Surely working around these new jokers, to make a better page for the real future that exists beyond Denver this August, has some appeal to you.
PS- I was successful making this addition on the BO 2008 page, several weeks ago. Another argument could be, that if we are expanding the Wright section in a NPOV fashion, we should be using the daughter articles as much as possible. And several of the related daughter articles on this topic currently mention Wright's military service. So if you accept the goal of a bit of pro-Wright text for neutrality's sake, maybe the pro- Wright info that already appears on several pages is a good candidate for that. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the addition of biographical details for someone else, other than where they directly relate to the individual, makes any kind of sense on a BLP. You are essentially saying that two negatives are going to make a positive, and I'm not really comfortable with a compromise like that. I'd be interested to see what others think, because it seems to me that this same kind of compromise would multiply all over the article if it gets accepted. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In my mind the question is, have the NEW wright additions (the increase from 2 sentences to 3+) have those additions added in NPOV balance, or POV unbalance? I feel the latter is true, and I feel considering the new text discusses questions of foreign policy, warfare, and medical issues, the applicable bio additions give balance to wright (balance out the Wright is a demogogue type talk). anyways, i am really interested in the question of if regular editors think the new text is balanced or not? And if so what pro-Wright text should be added for balance?72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
PPS- the gallup is at +9 today. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not think adding any new details would be a good way to go. I do think, however, that "when ABC News found several racially and politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright, including his suggestion that the September 11 attacks resulted from American foreign policy, and his questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS" should be cut out. Details like that should be handled on the Jeremiah Wright article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, with that in mind I have excised that part of the sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this particular detail (Wright's military service), as well as the "including his suggestion that the September 11 attacks resulted from American foreign policy, and his questioning of the government's role in the spread of AIDS." need to be removed. The first part is not relevant to the Obama-Wright relationship, while the second part gives unnecessary weight to this article's coverage of the controversy. The second part is something that is already in the Wright article anyway, in addition to being added against consensus when this article came under assault after the protection removal. --Ubiq (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) yes at the very least that sentence needs to drastically modified if not removed. I am very worried about undue weight, especially considering these new justifications for addition, which I can't find any numbers to back up. talk page spam is a phrase I find myself saying more and more these days. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I have changed your recent addition of "temporary" to "brief" to give a clearer indication that the drop in polls was short-lived and already over with. "Temporary" left this ambiguous, and may even have implied that Obama has to recover the lost ground. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
He does.[23] Andyvphil (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(coming back late after the fireworks are over) — I haven't checked the history to see how this went down yesterday and Sunday, while real life kept me away from Wikipedia, but I see that the Wright paragraph is back to the shorter version, without the detail of either Wright's military service or the paraphrasing of the sermon snippets. That works for me, but I suspect that some of our more critical editors aren't happy. Sorry that I wasn't around to help with any disturbances — my mother's undergoing chemotherapy, so I probably won't be able to follow the blow-by-blow here as much as I'd like. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your mother, JR. I'm sure I can speak for everyone and say we wish her well. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Do what you need to do, and best wishes to you and your family. --Ubiq (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
oops I did it again, as part of the much-hoped for compromise. PS- good luck Josiah. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rezko's charges

Just a warning to everyone 'cause I thought this had been cleared up before. The charges against Tony Rezko are not related to his political contributions, they are for extorting money from businesses wishing to do business with two boards in the Illinois state government, defrauding GE Capital out of ten million dollars, and for violating federal money laundering charges. He may have gained influence on those boards because of his political contributions to Blagojevich's campaign, but the charges are not related to those political contributions. Anyone that adds this false information back into the article will be in violation of WP:BLP and will be reported for violating this policy. Thank you.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Bobblehead — I should have noticed that. The distinction is important and I agree that it's a BLP matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead is ignoring my previous response to this assertion. My understanding, supported by a quote above or in the archive by now, is that part or all of the extorted money was or was to be (I'm not clear on the extent to which people succumbed to the extortion attempts) contributions to Blagovich. Do you have a cite clarifying who the checks were or were to be written to? Andyvphil (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring anything. Here is the press release from Fitzgerald's office.[24] In the first indictment, Rezko is charged with 24 counts, of which one of these accounts is "Rezko and Levine also allegedly agreed to tell a seventh firm that it would only receive a $220 million allocation from TRS if it either paid $2 million to a consultant who would funnel the money evenly to Rezko and Levine, or made a $1.5 million political contribution to a certain public official." Neither the press release or the charges themselves[25][26][27] mention whose campaign that was, nor do they mention that they were successful. It's a bit of an obfuscation to say 1/48th of one of his indictments (and there have been 3 indictments and 33 total charges against Rezko so far) encapsulates all of his charges, while the remaining 47/48th of the charges in the indictment involve enriching himself. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So the statement "The charges against Tony Rezko are not related to [extorting] political contributions" is false. Indeed in at least that one instance dollars in political contributions counted for more than dollars paid to Rezko/Levine. There is no question that after '83 Rezko made his living off of purchased political patronage, and some of what he did for Washington and Daley and Blagojevich and numerous others for favors he also did for Obama. Maybe for nothing. Maybe not. NPOV requires that we not hide who Rezko was and what he did for a living behind blue links. Give the readers the information and let them decide what to believe. Andyvphil (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
...oh, and to the idea that Rezko cozied up to Obama because he's a jock sniffer to politicians rather than because he expects something back, consider this story:

"Back in the eighties, Tony had an opportunity to go to the White House with Muhammad Ali," Mahru says. (The occasion was a dinner during the December 1987 summit of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader; Ali had been invited as a guest.) "I commented to Tony, ‘Wow, that is something I would love to do, see history in the making!' He said, ‘Dan, that doesn't make me any money. I'm not interested.'"[28]

Andyvphil (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
More.

Obama hasn't been accused of wrongdoing, but his name has surfaced in the trial. Prosecutors say Rezko ordered a business associate to use part of a kickback as a contribution to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign.[29]

This one looks dispositive. Andyvphil (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
More.

The revelation that Rezko may have used "straw donors" to funnel tainted money to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign has further cast a cloud of suspicion over the Rezko-linked contributions. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Jan. 20 that Obama was the unnamed "political candidate " referred to in a court document in the Rezko case last month accusing Rezko of directing two associates to contribute to Obama's campaign, and reimbursing them with money from an kickback scheme.[30]

Andyvphil (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I keep stumbling across mentions. This video supplies the names of the two asscociates, and the amounts ($10k@).[31] Andyvphil (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
More.

The court is also expected to hear from John Thomas, an FBI mole, who reportedly witnessed Mr Obama and Mr Blagojevich making frequent visits to Mr Rezko. Judge Amy St Eve has said that she will allow prosecutors to offer evidence that Mr Rezko directed two associates to make two $10,000 contributions to Mr Obama’s 2004 senate campaign because he had already donated the legal maximum.[32]

Andyvphil (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If the allegations against Rezko are true, he was not only extorting bribes from contractors who wished to business with Illinois state government; he was also extorting campaign contributions from them. Since he raised $250,000 for Obama over the years, starting with the first day of fundraising for Obama's first campaign, the criminal charges against Rezko are extremely, directly relevant to Obama's career as a politician. Pretending that Obama not only is not, but could not be involved, is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Rezko was his money man. There are many other ways in which Obama and Rezko are directly linked. An Obama campaign spokesman has confirmed that in response to Rezko's request, Senator Obama arranged an internship for the son of a powerful contributor.
The most obvious way in which Rezko and his (more than likely) dirty money is associated with Obama is the Obamas' home. The Obamas purchased that home for $1.6 million, which was $300,000 less than the asking price. From the same seller, on the same day and in the same office, Rezko's wife paid full asking price for a vacant lot. Later, when Obama's wife complained that the yard was too small for their two daughters, Rezko sold them a 10-foot strip of land from the vacant lot for $104,500. Obama has admitted that there were periods when he was on the phone with Rezko every day. Wikipedia readers have a right to know about this man who is so closely associated with Obama. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
statements like "if the allegations are true" and "more than likely" show that you are using your crystal ball contrary to WP best practices. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Allegations have been made by a federal prosecutor. A grand jury believed them and issued indictments. It is irresponsible, and in defiance of Wikipedia's best interests, to suppress any mention of those allegations in this article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a error on the Obama page. Currently the article says, "Rezko, who has raised over $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns, is currently on trial in federal court on felony charges for money laundering, extortion, and fraud."

However according to the Associated Press as recently as 3-14-08 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAIGdfD5fnE04OcfAdWzD_JTcEoQD8VDI2H00), "Rezko helped raise up to $250,000 for his various political races..."

There is a difference between "over $250,000" and "up to $250,000." There is also a difference between independent fund raising, and "helped raise." I don't know what I'm doing. But if someone could fix it, it would be more accurate. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by J dogg110182 (talk • contribs) 05:06, April 12, 2008

Hmm. I agree that the sources don't seem to support "over $250,000", but the Chicago Sun-Times article says "Obama acknowledged that Rezko had raised $250,000 for him". I've changed "over $250,000" to "up to $250,000", because that's what the AP story says. However, I don't know much about the ins and outs of political fundraising, and I'm not clear on what the distinction between "helped raise" and "raised" is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I won't change anything until I check the cite, but when Obama admitted to, if I remember correctly, the Chicago Tribune that his number for contributions from Rezko and direct associates had gone from $160k to $250k the Tribune noted that while $1000 contributions from Rezko associates had been added to the list smaller contributions in the $100 range made on the same day by other employees in the same offices had not been added to Obama's list, so that the list was still incomplete. But Obama had used closing the books of the Senate campaign as a reason to stop the contributions-to-charity offsets, so it was moot. The $250k only includes contributions bundled by Rezko. If you start talking about "helped raise"... well, Rezko was on Obama's Senate campaign committee which helped raise something like $14 million. Andyvphil (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few things we already know. All of this is documented in reliable, notable sources, principally the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times:
1. Rezko offered Obama a job before Obama started working for the slumlords' law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland. Obama turned it down.
2. As an attorney for that firm, Obama worked on taxpayer-supported rehabilitation loans for Rezko's slumlord company, Rezmar Inc.
3. On the very first day of fundraising for Obama's first political campaign, half the contributions came from companies owned by Tony Rezko.
4. In spite of receiving $30 million in such loans, court and city documents show 30 of the apartment buildings owned and managed by Rezmar have since been subject to foreclosures, code violations and lawsuits filed by the city, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. About a third of those 30 buildings were in Obama's Illinois Senate district. "Should I have known these buildings were in a state of disrepair? My answer would be that it wasn't brought to my attention," Obama told newspapers.
5. On the same day, the Obamas bought a $1.9 million house for $1.6 million, and Rezko's wife bought a vacant lot right next door from the same seller for the full asking price. I repeat: both real estate closings were on the same day. And in the same office. From the same seller. Obama saved $300,000. Not to mention the interest that would have been paid on that $300,000 over the life of a 30-year mortgage. The total was probably closer to $800,000.
6. When Obama's wife complained that the yard was too small, Rezko sold the Obamas a strip of land from that lot for $104,500. After news of the deal broke in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said he had erred by creating the appearance that Rezko had done him a favor by selling him a portion of the lot.
7. "There's no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. 'Boneheaded' would be accurate," Obama said in a telephone interview. "There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him."
8. An Obama campaign spokesman has confirmed that at Rezko's request, Senator Obama provided an internship to the son of a contributor.
9. By October 2006, two of Rezko's co-conspirators had pled guilty and were testifying against him. Rezko himself had been indicted on federal charges. News reports in the Tribune, Sun-Times, Washington Post and other major newspapers explained that Rezko was accused of extorting both bribes and campaign contributions from contractors seeking to do business with the government of the state of Illinois.
10. But Obama continued to accept campaign contributions that had been collected by Tony Rezko.
11. When the news first started breaking, Obama donated $11,500 of Rezko's campaign contributions to charity. Months later, the amount rose to over $80,000 and Obama claimed that was all that Rezko had raised for him. Even later, when the heat was really on, Obama finally admitted that over the years, Rezko had raised or donated over $250,000 to his various political campaigns; $20,000 came from Rezko himself. For the benefit of the nitpickers and hairsplitters who doubt that it was over $250,000, here is a reliable, notable source. Please observe that it is not some sort of right-wing attack website, and that Karl Rove had nothing to do with it.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/rezkotimeline.php
So is there any way that the editors of Wikipedia will acknowledge, in the Barack Obama article, that the man who raised over $250,000 for his various political campaigns is now on trial in federal court for crimes related to political fundraising? Kossack4Truth (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
the indictment has been mentioned in Personal Life for a LONG time now. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Actually, on the first day Obama ever got political contributions, $2,000 was from Rezko, $300 from an a "Loop lawyer" as yet unidentified in RS, and $5,000 in a loan from a car dealer. Whether that's less or more than half depends on whether Obama repaid the loan, I guess.[33]
4. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments, expending more than $100 million from the city, state and federal governments and in bank loans. Rezko and Mahru weren't responsible for any government or bank loans or the $50 million in federal tax credits they got to rehab the buildings. Rezmar put just $100 into each project and got a 1 percent stake as the general partner in charge of hiring the architect, contractor, and the company that would manage the buildings, screen tenants and make repairs, Chicago Property Management, also owned by Rezko and Mahru. It also got upfront development fees of at least $6.9 million in all. Under its deals with the Chicago Equity Fund, Rezmar promised to cover all operating losses in any building for seven years, but had no obligation after that.[34]
5-7. "Rezko's troubles had broken onto The Chicago Tribune's front page before the house deal closed, and well before Obama purchased a sliver of land from Rezko in January of 2006."[35]
8. That would be Joe Aramanda's son. "Levine says he "received instructions" from Rezko to split a $500,000 finder's fee with one of Rezko's business associates, Joe Aramanda. Aramanda is not indicted in this case but has contributed money to Obama's campaign. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Obama has returned Aramanda's money. The paper also reported Aramanda's son interned with Obama's Illinois office in 2005."[36]
11. You missed the $157,000 level of admissions. That's the amount Obama donated to charity. When he raised it to $250k in March he didn't donate the difference. Andyvphil (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Here'a a good cite for the heat being on when the Obama list was at $85,185. [37]Andyvphil (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ [38] The Washtington Times
  2. ^ "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007". National Journal. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
  3. ^ "Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races". electoral-vote.com. April 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_16&oldid=1136296649"