Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Kids Pick the President?

Why is it not mentioned about Barrack Obama's recent victory on Nickelodeon's Kids Pick the President?

72.65.91.58 (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

http://realitytvworld.com/news/barack-obama-wins-nickelodeon-kids-pick-president-poll-1015365.php

There's a source. It may seem trivial, but I do think that the opinion of EVERYONE is important in defining a person, especially an elected official.

72.65.91.58 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, kids' opinions may not be adequately represented on Wikipedia. The Nickelodeon program may be worth its own article, but as a matter of WP:WEIGHT it's a fairly minor ingredient in the overall election pie. There are probably articles in every state and every country, for example, on how people in that location feel about the election, and we just don't have room to include all of the opinions. In fact, we have very little coverage of anybody's opinion. Most of that goes into the election articles, under polling.Wikidemon (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't usually do much to articles, just grammatical things I notice when I'm reading through. Figured this might be important since kids typically vote the way their parents do and this poll has been right 80% of the time.72.65.91.58 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. I just created a new article, Kids Pick the President. I hope you like it. It could use some filling out, links, categories, and so on. It's interesting to see there are at least two other major nationwide children's votes this year. Too bad, but I still don't think kids opinions are relevant enough to be covered in this article. Maybe that will change if Nick has its way. Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of absolutely zero significance to Wikipedia: Every time I scroll by this heading, my brain substitutes the shortened "Kick the President" for the section title (and side article). Perhaps my very selective dyslexia is politically motivated :-). LotLE×talk 21:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be a new tradition: first kids-pick-the-president then kids-kick-the-president. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Magna Cum Laude revisited

Jodi Kantor, the New York Times reporter who referenced his magna cum laude status, has stated that she read it on a curriculum vitae page at the University of Chicago which has since been taken down. She suggested that the Harvard Law School be contacted directly -- and they cannot verify it for privacy reasons.

So we have no existing corroborating document. So let's keep it off until we can actually verify that he did in fact graduate magna cum laude. The campaign refuses to release his transcripts so it's impossible to substantiate this undocumented claim.

Lordvolton (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no need. What you're describing would be original research on our part. When a source as reliable as a New York Times report makes a statement of fact, it's not our job to second-guess it. I'm sorry, but this has been gone over time and time again. The major newspapers all say he graduated magna cum laude? Then we say it. What's key here is verifiability, and we have definitely achieved that. --Good Damon 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There are countless references that support the magna cum laude statement, including the Harvard Crimson which is cited at the end of that sentence. I've added two very reliable ones - The Guardian newspaper and Obama's article (signed) from Encyclopeda Britannica. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lordvolton should note that WP:V requires that things be attributed to reliable sources such as have been cited for the magna cum laude, not that transcripts be examined by Wikipedia editors to verify it. Edison (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This pops up often enough that I'm beginning to think we need an entry on the FAQ for it as well. Look folks... We don't need to go in and make sure the freakin' New York Times is accurate in any statements of fact they make. There's a reason WP:RS specifically makes a clear delineation between primary and secondary sources, and it sure doesn't prefer primary ones. --Good Damon 04:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, GoodDamon is correct pointing out that it is well sourced by reliable RS sources that Obama did in fact achieve magna cum laude. This does need to be included into the FAQ so we can all move on to more up-to-date fringe theories. 70.250.214.209 (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an archived discussion about this at Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive 36#magna cum laude (Lordvolton was the only one arguing about it). An addition to the FAQ would help, but is there anyone beside Lordvolton pushing this particular POV? ~ priyanath ^talk 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not that I remember. Most of Lordvolton's argument the last time he brought it up was based less on the magna cum laude theory then the fact that Obama's campaign has not released Obama's transcript like Lorbvolton would like. I think he is hoping that there is something deep and dark hidden in the transcript that we all should know about and that the campaign is hiding. (Sound familiar to other theories?) Brothejr (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Early life and career

The following sentences about Obama's father given the impression that his father saw him only once from 1963 through 1982: "They separated when he was two years old and later divorced. Obama's father returned to Kenya and saw his son only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982."

Is this really true? Obama Sr.'s wikipedia page has a picture of him with Obama taken in 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk469 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note the "once more" and note that its placement in the sentence is after mention that Senior returned to Kenya. This implies that from the time Senior returned to Kenya in 1963, until his death in 1982, Obama only saw his father once. The one time Senior saw Obama was when Senior visited Obama in Hawai'i in 1971. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote and ACORN

According to the Project Vote page, its association with ACORN started in 1994. Obama worked there in 1992. PhGustaf (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No serious editors are asking for ACORN stuff in here, are they?LedRush (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ol' 300wack just placed a reference and had it reverted; I'm just preempting a bit. PhGustaf (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, then. 300wackerdrive is a single-purpose account pushing to turn the ACORN article into an attack page and tie Barack Obama to it. He just came back from a block for edit-warring there. --Good Damon 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

According to ACORN, they were involved in Barack Obama's 1992 registration drive and Obama has been teaching an annual leadership seminar for ACORN ever since.[1] 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The link you've provided says march 2004, not 1992. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO the ACORN link is too weak to be part of the Barack main wiki page. I can't even get a single small link to Barack's endorsement history wiki page. ACORN has been involved with a lot of politicians, but that's nothing new or bad. The United States worked closely with Saddam Heusein, but that does not make the United States evil. One can find weak links to every politician. Besides, so far there's no evidence that ACORN has done anything wrong.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What you're seeing is the result of summary style. There's only so much room in this article, and there are literally books-worth of information out there, so we have to be extremely frugal with space. --Good Damon 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

ACORN is not a relevant enough part of Barack Obama's life to be included in a summary style bio. Specific election year talking points typically have a very short life cycle, and little or no lasting significance to the subject's life. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that 300wackerdrive has been blocked from editing for edit warring. Hopefully there will now be a short reduction in disruptive editing hereabouts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Social Security Blurp

I added a small detail of Senator Obama's proposed social security plan. It wasn't covered in the article, and obviously Social Security is a notable point to include into his political position subsection. Let me know what you think. Digital ^Ninja 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is, but frankly your edit looked like a bit of coat-racking, and you sourced it to an editorial, which is a no-no for statements of fact. --Good Damon 20:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the source and used Money News instead, and it was reverted again. How is this coatrack or undue weight? Some people want it to be a Welfare like service, while some want private accounts. There's no way everyone will agree, so who cares? Digital ^Ninja 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

NewsMax isn't a reliable source. Find a real news source that characterizes Obama's Social Security position as "wealth redistribution." Better yet, find several to establish weight. And please, no more tabloids. --Good Damon 20:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's still just presenting an opinion, in this case from a Republican talking point man, former White House economic advisor Larry Lindsey. And any piece presenting that 'view' will just be an opinion piece. It also violates WP:UNDUE for a bio about the life of Barack Obama. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys, check out the latest revision. I'm actually pretty proud of it because it's unbiased and actually reads well, and helps improve the article. Feedback? Digital ^Ninja 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because it's not relevant enough for this article, i.e. WP:UNDUE. Go to the 2008 campaign article. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) By what logic would you classify a politicians position on Social Security as weighty? That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Also, Gooddamon, it's MoneyNews, which is a very reliable source when it concerns anything economy/money. Digital ^Ninja 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, how is someone supposed to improve the article when an edit is made, criticism is brought, the edit is made to reflect the criticism, so the edit is modified some more, and finally when all criticism is met someone simply says "this is the wrong place". Do you guys know my wife by any chance? Digital ^Ninja 20:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

By what logic would you classify a politicians position on Social Security as weighty? When it's entirely opinion and not the politician's position, for one. Your edit is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. Moneynews isn't 'suggesting' anything. Republican talking point man Lindsay is the one with the opinion (again, not news). Since when are republican talking points, stated by said republicans, relevant for a bio on Obama? ~ priyanath ^talk 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your issue with adding this here - it's called 'consensus'. Wives also have consensus, at all times, so that's just coincidence :-). ~ priyanath ^talk 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

lol, nice "wives have consensus at all times" rebuttal. That's the truth! Anyways, here are some more sources supporting my addition to the article. I would like it do be a fair summary, because I really think his position on Social Security should have a small mention (thats a "key" issue, just like Iraq and the economy). Anyways, do what you will...honey :)

Digital ^Ninja 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objections in principle, provided it's well sourced that these are common opinions about his social security proposals, and also that the sources establish that this is an important issue for him and the voters to meet due weight (I have not actually reviewed them for that, but it seems plausible). There is room in the article for summarizing a handful of key issues and positions, although I agree that the main place for this is in a child article. I would think it goes in "political positions of", not the campaign article. Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the "Political positions" section of this article is a factual recounting of Obama's positions - not partisan analysis of those positions. If his position on social security can be added to the article—not analysis of, not Lindsay's opinion on social security, or any other politico, left or right—then it might work. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead image change

Yet again. I really don't care which one is used, but I see no discussion of the change here. That makes me skeptical about it, even fairly opposed. We've been through such attempted changes way too many times, with consensus for a different image never being reached. LotLE×talk 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to change the lead picture to something more respectable. When logged in it shows his United States Congress picture, but when logged out, it shows him smoking a cigarette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.7 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

strange. Did you try clearing the cache?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism. Two trolls who added the image blocked, image deleted. You might need to purge your cache to get rid of the old image. --barneca (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell's endorsement for Barack Obama

Since it's a part of Barack's history could someone please add to the wiki article the Colin Powell endorsement for Barack Obama?--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is Barack Obama's biography. As such, individual endorsements are completely beyond the scope of the article. There are so many, in fact, that a separate article exists specifically for this purpose. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we please add a link to List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008 in the Wiki article?--PaulLowrance (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the election is only one component of Obama's life, it seems that a direct link would probably be undue weight; however, the article does link to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, which then links to List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008. Don't forget that this article is a gateway to a whole slew of child articles (per summary style) which (in many cases) have child articles themselves, as in this case. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that one single link places undue weight. I for one would have liked to have known of this List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008 wiki page. Could you please reconsider placing one single link in this Wiki article?--PaulLowrance (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about Obama's campaign, which means it does not make sense for it to link directly to Obama's campaign endorsements. It is enough that they share a common article (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008) and a common category (Category:Barack Obama). In fact, this is precisely what categories are for, is it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that when this article contains the history of Barack Obama? His presidential campaign is part of his history. IMO the endorsements should be directly in this wiki article. So to say the least there should be a link to the Barack endorsements. Can we please take a vote here? It is possible this blocked action is part of a biased opinion of Barack Obama. Thanks. --PaulLowrance (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got to side with Scjessey, here. Anyone who wants to read details about the campaign can follow the link to the campaign article. Then, if they want specifics on the list of endorsements, they can follow a link from there to the endorsements. This is a fairly typical scenario in large families of interconnected articles such as the ones on Barack Obama. Read the guidelines for summary style for details on why that sort of organization ends up being used for complex, multi-layered topics. --Good Damon 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's silly to not place one single link that is regarding his history. I've been a system admin to over a dozen websites and a site owner since 1997 and it is common practice to place all relevant links on the page. The idea that this link will over weight the page is illogical.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you'd want to include this material here - after all, it's good material, it's reliably sourced, and it's part of the campaign, which is part of his life. I appreciate that you feel that the material you want to add is important, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing it to the table. But we can't include everyone's contribution at the top level. This material can be covered in depth at the endorsements article, and depending on editor consensus as to relative importance with other events in the presidential campaign (see Wikipedia:Due weight), it could also be mentioned in the (campaign article. But unless we start hearing that Powell's endorsement has made an impact on Obama's life - rather than his campaign - it is unlikely to get a mention here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand wanting to prioritize information, and hence the good reason for creating a separate endorsement page, but in this case we're talking about a single link, and one that is part of his history. Good web page design is one that includes good linking. The concept of making people read articles after articles just to get to a certain related link should be discouraged. Why not add an Internal Link section in this wiki article. I believe you acknowledged this is part of Barack's history, and hence a good reason to at least include such a link.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Ahh, I think I see the issue. It isn't a good idea to treat Wikipedia like a regular website, due to the sheer number and inter-relational nature of article topics. Wikipedia's category system is designed as an answer to that problem. Look at the bottom of the main article page, and you'll find a box that says "Categories." In that box, there's a link to Category:Barack Obama. Every single article in that category is listed there, including the list of endorsements. Anyone who wants to see, at a glance, every article related directly to Barack Obama can find it there. --Good Damon 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Toward the bottom of the wiki article is the "Categories:", which is probably what you're referring to. The "Barack Obama" category is the seventh link. The previous 6 links are unrelated to Barack Obama, which are "Featured articles," "Future election candidates," "Spoken articles," "1961 births," "Living people." None of the categories are about Barack. How about moving the "Barack Obama" category link to the first category link? It should go without saying that the odds of someone finding the seventh "Barack Obama" category link and then sifting through that entire page to find his endorsement history page is slim and none. Since this is part of Barack's history I just think it's far more important and relevant. As it stands there's next to no chance of someone finding the endorsement history wiki page.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good point, but I'm not sure how to reorganize the categories. My wiki-fu is strong, but not that strong. It would make sense if the first category was the one named after him. Does anyone know how that's done, or even if it's possible? --Good Damon 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Is it perhaps a template? It's just a minor change. I'm certain someone knows how to do it.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was able to make the change. :-) Modocc (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! How were you able to do it?--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Per all the other experienced editors, I agree that a link to the Powell endorsement does not belong in this top level biography. An encyclopedia isn't a link farm. Less strongly (but still fairly strongly), I also feel that the general "endorsements" page also should not have a link on this main bio. The campaign article is, and should be, linked to from here; that article is the one that should logically mention the endorsements list. Conceivably, if the Powell endorsement is especially important (versus all the other endorsements), it might merit very brief mention directly in the campaign article (with details fleshed out in the endorsements article). Discuss that issue on the campaign article, definitely none of it should be on main bio. LotLE×talk 17:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone suggested to possibly adding a short statement in the wiki article to Colin Powell's endorsement, an important event in Barack's life. IMO that's far more important that the following text that is presently in the wiki, "Obama plays basketball, a sport he participated in as a member of his high school's varsity team.[164]" I seriously doubt that Obama plays basketball is more important than the Colin Powell's endorsement.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing: Barack baptized at Trinity United Church of Christ

Hi,

It was ~ a month ago the Barack Obama wiki article mentioned that Barack Obama was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988. What happened to the text? I can't even find it in the history. I know it's possible to delete history, but without a trace? Was it an admin or inside hack job, a possible attack on Barack's campaign? Anyhow, could someone please reinsert it? I have found that a good percentage of people falsely believe Barack is a muslim, so IMO this information is important.--PaulLowrance (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It was probably deleted by Jeremiah Wright. I've heard he sometimes spews racial, radical, anti-American sediment while editing Wikipedia. But yes, I do think it's important to mention that Jeremiah Wright baptized Obama. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign in) Digital ^Ninja 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it shouldn't matter where (or even whether) Obama was baptized, given that we are supposed to be a secular nation. That being said, I am puzzled as to why the information is not in the article. If you can locate a reliable source, I see no reason why it cannot be added to the last paragraph of the "Family and personal life" section. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It was this very wiki article that I learned of Barack being baptized in 1988, but it appears to have been deleted even from the history. If we find the sources then is anyone going to add it?--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a quote that used to be in this wiki article, but was deleted, interestingly enough. It is not the 1988 reference that I saw last month, but at least it makes reference to his 1988 baptism. Quote, >>>Obama writes: "It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized."[134]<<< Again, this was already in this wiki article in under "Personal life." I have no idea when this was deleted. Can we please reinsert it? Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=181289394 --PaulLowrance (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The above quote was added in November 2006 and deleted in March 2008. I agree that it should be reinserted.--PaulLowrance (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the person who is doing to baptizing is what counts according to the Christian belief. When you say, "I've heard he [Jeremiah Wright] sometimes spews racial, radical, anti-American sediment" you are probably referring to Jeremiah Wright's anger toward American war aggressions and racism-- reference: Jeremiah Wright controversy. There are a lot of good Americans who have voiced similar opinions.--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall any other Reverend of "Christian belief" that says things like; "US of KKK-A", "The government invented the HIV virus to destroy black people", and "God Damn America". I'm Christian, and that doesn't sound like my pastor. But hey, like I said, I think it's important to illustrate that Obama was baptized by him. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign in Digital ^Ninja 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

First of all I am not defending the reverends words of anger. I am saying that such words are not uncommon from reverends, pastors, or whatever title you wish to give them. Anyhow, please show reliable references regarding the "US of KKK-A." As far as the the other quotes, sure you can. The famous John Hagee, a well thought of Christian (not by me) said things such as God sent Hurricane Katrina. Surely you recall John Hagee. He's the pastor that John McCain was associated with. Other famous Christians with similar statements include Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. I'd much rather be associated with a reverend that thought the US government created HIV than a pastor who thought God sent Hurricane Katrina to kill human beings. Anyways, this discussion is getting outside the topic. Lets please not enter some heated debate.--PaulLowrance (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I know your not defending him. I apologize for sounding bity. I just have strong reactions towards him. Here is a link to a video showing Wright himself saying "US of KKK A)[2]. Regards. Digital ^Ninja 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I apologize if I sounded biased. I agree that the reverend has in the past taken such issues way to far. According to Wiki page, "The Jeremiah Wright controversy gained national attention in March 2008 when ABC News, after reviewing dozens of Jeremiah Wright's sermons,[1]" Barack Obama has voiced his outrage of the reverends words-- Obama's response.--PaulLowrance (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, when you say "I seriously doubt the person who is doing the baptizing is what counts", are you say that when John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ, that it wasn't really notable that John did it. Instead, it was simply only notable because he did? I think I understand now. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign in Digital ^Ninja 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

No, I am saying that according to the belief that it's not the person doing the baptizing that makes the difference.--PaulLowrance (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We agree there. The act is the most important. I was simply stating that it's notable that Rev. Wright performed the baptism. Digital ^Ninja 14:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And getting back on topic... The reason editors removed the text isn't any sort of conspiracy to keep it out. It simply lacked a reference. Rather than leave a ^{[citation needed]} tag in the middle of a high-quality featured article, the text was removed. I'm sure if someone can find a good reference for it, the text can return. No great mystery here, folks. --Good Damon 15:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think sourcing is really the secondary issue. The main issue is why should the quote be included in the article? What new information does it bring to the reader? At this point, with the article length being what it is and most sections already budded off into daughter articles (per summary style) every new paragraph added must have a strong argument for inclusion. Simply saying "I like it" or "it used to be there" isn't good enough. So far I haven't seen an argument for inclusion on the merits of the quote itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It does have a reference. It was part of the wiki for nearly two years. You need a consensus to remove such a well established famous Obama quote. This is an important quote, far more so than Obama playing basketball.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, "it used to be there" is not an argument for inclusion. Why does the quote need to go in the article? Further, you're incorrect about consensus. The burden for consensus falls on the editor seeking to add material to an article. You have to gain consensus in order to add it (and please, please, do not make the argument circular by saying "I'm not adding anything because it used to be there.") Argue for inclusion on its own merits. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, now that I've seen the text, I'm of the opinion that removing it was the correct decision. It's complete fluff, and does nothing for the article but add verbiage. If anywhere, it belongs in a sub-article, but it's definitely not substantive enough for the main article. Perhaps without the quote, it wouldn't seem so fluffy, but with it it's just beyond the pale. --Good Damon 15:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not fluff. It's more important than the mention of playing basketball.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same reason why any quote becomes notable? 1) It is an important part of Barack's history. 2) It educates people that Barak is not a muslim, but in fact a Christian, so much so that he takes his 1988 baptism seriously. 3) Too many people are spreading false information that Barack is a muslim.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the aforementioned quote is the only mention of Barack's baptism.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The article already mentions Barack's membership to a Christian church. That is enough to convey that he isn't a Muslim (besides, anyone with any type of objective mind would see the truth in that smear). So far, the information you're providing isn't particularly substantive nor worthy by nature, as the key fact I see you've presented is to weigh and overpower that he's a christian for political reasons. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, I admit I would love the opportunity to link Obama with Reverend Wright further than what it already is, however that doesn't mean at the expense of article prose. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot better than John McCain's link to the famous John Hagee, a well thought of Christian (not by me) who said God sent Hurricane Katrina.--PaulLowrance (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the wiki article did not mention his baptism. IMO that's far more important that the following text that is presently in the wiki, "Obama plays basketball, a sport he participated in as a member of his high school's varsity team.[164]"--PaulLowrance (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the following short text instead, "Barack Obama was baptized in the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988." followed by the reference number. --PaulLowrance (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There was relatively recently a sentence very similar to this added to the article. I removed it after the editor who added it was unable to find a reference after a reasonable time, and after discussion of it on the talk page (now archived). The long quote is definitely too many words, but a simple sentence like PaulLowrance suggests seems perfectly relevant if someone locates an actual citation.

A partial citation was located in the recent discussion, but it only stated when Obama was baptized, not where. At the time the editor was arguing that it was likely the baptism occurred at Trinity. I agree it seems likely, but we cannot speculate here. I'm happy with the sentence either with the location removed, or with the location mentioned if citation is found. LotLE×talk 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is this same discussion from two weeks ago: Talk:Barack Obama/Archive_38#Baptism.

Quote reference --> Obama (2006), pp. 202–208. Portions excerpted in: Obama, Barack (October 23 2006). "My Spiritual Journey". TIME. Retrieved 2007-09-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) See also: Guess, J. Bennett (February 9 2007). "Barack Obama, Candidate for President, is 'UCC'". United Church News. Retrieved 2007-09-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Consensus interpretation: We will not allow one single mention on the entire WikiPedia website that Barack Obama was baptized in 1988. Show me one place in this entire website that you'll allow such a quote to exist, including the reference.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than spending so many thousands of words ranting about conspiracies against WP:TRUTH and strange and irrelevant digressions about the meaning of John the Baptist to Jesus, you could just provide a CITATION for what would be a completely non-controversial short addition if cited. Neither of the sources you give above mention Obama's baptism (at least not according to Ctrl-F). I guess it's more fun to brag about your persecution than it is to spend a few minutes with citable sources. LotLE×talk 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So, according to you, John the Baptist is irrelevant and nobody cares about Jesus Christ? Digital ^Ninja 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read the source. See page 6 of the source. It's there.--PaulLowrance (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did read that page. It says he was baptized, but it doesn't say that happened in 1988. So we have a reliable source that he was baptized and where. But it doesn't say when. --Good Damon 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys all kill me; "Barack Obama was baptized in the Trinity United Church of Christ by Reverend Wright in 1988." [3], [4], [5]. Digital ^Ninja 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't verify that material in any of those sources. Time says he was baptised in 1988, and the UCC may claim him as a member (that wasn't clear from a quick glance), but it doesn't mention baptism at all, and I don't see any verification that Rev. Wright performed the baptism. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so leave the Rev. Wright bit out (although I thought it sounded good). The rest is sourced and accurate. But just an FYI: I talked to Obama personally and he said he was in-fact baptized by Wright. Digital ^Ninja 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"when John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ"

Do you have a citation for that? And no, The Bible is not a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Gasp Gasp, OMG*..."And no, The Bible is not a reliable source" it's gonna be a long afternoon :) Digital ^Ninja 20:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Still no answer as to where in wikipedia one can add that Barack Obama was baptized in 1988. Where? It was in the Barack Obama wiki for nearly two years. This is WikiPedia with rules, not "a group can take over the Obama page and do whatever they want." Why allow statements in the wiki that Barack plays basketball and refuse to allow one single mention in this entire wiki website that Barack was baptized in 1988? Can anyone answer?--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul, you need to submit this question to the Barack Obama Article Cable board of Directors (BOACBD). If you want, you can repost in a new section and I will make sure this matter is addressed in due time. Thanks for using Obama Talk Page Services.

P.S. Please see new section below, and make your edit. Digital ^Ninja 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the date and location of Obama's baptism is in the article. Look at the article, Control-F, search for Trinity. Please don't start new sections for existing topics. --guyzero | talk 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More on the baptism

First off, you guys are no fun at all. Joking aside, it's perfectly acceptable to note that he was baptized given the fact that we've established:

He was in fact baptized
The baptism was preformed in 1988
The baptism was held at his church

Digital ^Ninja 19:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out vandalsim

Please note: "Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged, per WP:VANDAL.

Can we all refrain from editing other peoples edits. Because of this, I look like an idiot a few paragraphs above by what seems like I had a nice conversation with Obama while enjoying a cup of coffee or something. Digital ^Ninja 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, reverting uconstructive / disruptive edits is necessary maintenance work for the talk page, without which things would quickly grind to a halt. ~~Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism.~~ If your comment gets caught up in the archiving, you're free to move, delete, or update it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of vandalism, and I tried to sound "light hearted" about the whole thing because I know that no malicious intent was intended. I just felt completely overridden in a very reverted manner! Digital ^Ninja 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've stricken part of my comment, accordingly. Regarding making good natured comments to lighten up disruptive threads, all I can say is if you stand by the puddle you might get splashed.Wikidemon (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed/resolved topics

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

note - I don't know where else to say this, but I just deleted an attempt to recreate a redundant version of one of the closed discusions, as well as a warning that was left in response.[6] I am about to sign off Wikipedia for several hours or longer and won't be reverting or watching this, but let's please stay orderly here on the talk page please. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Jermy

Why are changes like adding "mohammad" to his name at the top of the article keep making it in? Why can people edit the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.2.175 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone who is able to needs to remove the vandalism from the section "Early Life and Career" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlizard19 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the links under footnote 20 leads to a downloader virus my antivirus blocked. I dunno how to remove it (sorry...I'm inexperienced at this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.76.126 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Will someone with the correct authorisation please remove the "he's half monkey" quote from the bottom of paragraph one.

Offensive lines

Would someone please delete the offensive three lines that were inserted under the second heading in this article.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So not appropriate, respectful or even particularly civilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.75.236 (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

~~What lines are you referring to specifically?--JayJasper (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)~~

The offensive remarks were self-reverted and are now gone.--JayJasper (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory remarks entered in last edit. Please remove.

Rjwildcat (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Barbara Johnson

The vandal self-reverted. They are gone. Please refresh the page. --Good Damon 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time, please check the history, compare versions, then delete whatever vandalism was made. You don't really need to post a comment about vandalism; on a page like this, someone will see it within minutes and change it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Erase the horrible comments throughout this document

Who ever is the CEO or person in charge of WIKIPEDIA need to correct and block this article from futer abuse. **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetmenmine (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, what comments are you referring to? The article currently has semi-protected status, and what vandalism does occur is usually deleted almost instantly.--JayJasper (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, it is now erased. There were some horrible things under the early life section. Thank you, God Bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetmenmine (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I too, get frustrated with the vandalism of this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I read in the first part the sentence "he's half-monkey". Doesn't this qualify as vandalism? Fred 87.14.193.44 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

2004 US Senate Campaign

The information on this campaign is very cursory, and nebulous. Since the lead Democratic and Republican challengers both had to drop out of the race early, which give Obama an advantage of running unopposed, I think this should be discussed in much more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.138.20 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Assassination plot

The recent assassination attempt all over the news right now is certainly interesting, but I don't think it relates to Obama's BLP article. It's more of a news event than a biographically significant event, since the attempt failed. On the other hand, it is most certainly notable. So... do we do anything with it? --Good Damon 23:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The attempt never even started. This is just some rednecks getting pissed off. We knew this would happen. Move on. GlassCobra 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not biographically significant - something for Wikinews, if anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Question withdrawn. --Good Damon 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama (please edit)

The middle name given for Obama on his Wiki page is both false and offensive. Will an established user please correct the page? Lacrosseizmygame (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that is actually his middle name. See the certified copy of his birth certificate here. Some Republicans have emphasized Obama's middle name in rallies as part of an attempt to make him seem "foreign" and "other", which has caused some people to react strongly when his middle name is used; but that is his name. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Hello.

Is there anybody who knows anything about the "stem cell research" with Barack Obama?

And also The financial crisis with Obama?

If you know a site I can find the information on, please write it :)

Thank you. Hope you can help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.17.11 (talk)

Wikipedia has Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Embryonic_stem_cell_research --Elliskev 14:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fringe citizenship/birth/lawsuit/other discussions

Closing and consolidating as unlikely to result in any change to the article. --Good Damon 18:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Return of the fringe birth theory

Unfortunately, some edits by Ferrylodge returned the uniformly rejected stuff about fringe conspiracies and lawsuits over Obama's allegedly non-USA birth. In contrast to some other editors, FL inserted this stuff into a footnote, and with less breathlessly indignant tone. Nonetheless, fringe rumors are strikingly non-notable. Anywhere, but especially in a WP:BLP.

Aggravating the bad edits, several other editors came along and made the wording worse by several small steps, each bad. Bad, bad. I've rolled back a few versions to the stable description of "Early Life" that no one has suggested any good reason to change here on talk. Please bring any proposed changes here first... but just skip any needless discussion of fringe theories that might get added there. LotLE×talk 06:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right, I merely augmented a footnote. For the record, here's what the footnote said, citing multiple reliable sources:

"To counter rumors that he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, his campaign posted an image of his short-form birth certificate. See "The truth about Barack's birth certificate". Obama Campaign. Retrieved 2008-06-13. According to FactCheck.org, "The document is a 'certification of birth,' also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns." See “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama's birth certificate”, FactCheck.org (2008-08-26). A lawsuit was filed in Hawaii in October of 2008 seeking a copy of Sen. Obama's long-form birth certificate. See Roig, Suzanne. “Suit targets Obama document”, The Honolulu Advertiser (2008-10-18). A similar lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania. See Haberkorn, Jennifer. “Lawsuit questions Obama's eligibility for office”, Washington Times (2008-08-28)."

Instead of this, the footnote now merely says: "The truth about Barack's birth certificate. my.barackobama.com. Retrieved on 2008-06-13." In other words, we're linking directly to the Obama campaign site, without any neutral statement like the one I presented from Factcheck.org. I have no idea why the Obama campaign is refusing to provide a copy of his long-form birth certificate. But footnoting two articles in reliable newspapers (Honolulu Advertiser and Washington Times) hardly seems like WP:Fringe to me.

I would also note that the John McCain article mentions the controversy about his birthplace in the main text of that article (not just in a footnote).Ferrylodge (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's an actual lawsuit, and since debunked, I, for one, see no problem with the mention of it. It can certainly be written as NPOV. It may be a fringe theory, but not all things on the fringe violate WP:FRINGE. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 07:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a WP:BLP violation and has no basis in the non-fringe press. It may be worthy of a mention on a campaign related article as it is a campaign-related "event" but not in a biography. --guyzero | talk 07:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about the placing of the information. However, does a lawsuit, as it is written violate BLP? It's not an assertion, but a legal document. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 07:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can submit a lawsuit making any claim, legitimate or otherwise. The existence of a claim in a lawsuit is not grounds for its inclusion in a BLP. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec, agreed with Joshua) -- Every bit is judged individually for a BLP, right? And weighted to the relevance of his life, the notability of events, etc. The fact that this suit exists isn't really notable in his life, nobody is talking about it except fringe blogs and a few press mentions where they basically say "this false smear is going around the fringe blogs." It's not any more notable in his life than the endless "secret muslim" email chains and nobody will remember this lame lawsuit on November 5th. cheers, --guyzero | talk 07:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already been deleted from the campaign sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one could file a lawsuit dealing with just about anything. However, I was asking if it indeed violate BLP, and second, if it the lawsuit itself passes WP:N, is there a problem with inclusion? ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 07:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't pass WP:N or WP:FRINGE in relation to WP:BLP --guyzero | talk 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lee Harvey Oswald was a finge nutcase, and that doesn't mean we remove him from the JFK article. Per WP:Fringe: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Obviously, the Washington Times and the Honolulu Advertiser qualify, as does FactCheck.org. It's not like I was putting this in the text, people. Nor do I think it's likely that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Ferrylodge (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if the guy tries to shoot Obama we might include it. For now it's a non-notable tinfoil hat theory that a bizarre out of kilter individual scraped together enough money to file a federal lawsuit over. The filing of a lawsuit is not notable. The way it works in articles like this, two major 2nd / 3rd tier sources making a mention of something somebody claims is not enough to justify its inclusion. The fact he has amplified his claims by making a federal filing does not elevate them. Most anyting worth mentioning about Obama is covered in thousands of articles at a minimum. If 2, 5, or even 100 sources were the standard for covering this bio would be millions of bytes long. Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there were two lawsuits, one in Hawaii and one in Pennsylvania, that were described at length in reliable sources (Wash Times and Honolulu Advertiser). So, you're incorrect to say it's just one lawsuit or just one guy. And there are other lawsuits pending on the very same issue, such as one in Washington State.

I guess it just rubs me the wrong way to have our footnote direct people straight to the Obama campaign team, as if there isn't another side to this. And there is another side to this that is not fringe at all. The fact is, Obama's website merely presents his short-form birth certyificate. If he would bother to post his long-form birth certificate, then all of the rumors would cease. The long-form birth certificate is what all of the lawsuits in multiple states are seeking. And we can't even mention that a long-form birth certificate exists?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the state of Hawaii doesn't release long-form birth certificates at all; the short-form birth certificates are good enough for the US State Department, so why shouldn't they be good enough for anyone else (including Wikipedia)? That said, you're right that it's not best NPOV practice to reference a disputed point solely to the campaign website, so I've changed the ref to the FactCheck story. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I think that's a definite improvement.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that I don't think a fringe theory violates WP:FRINGE de facto, just as making a point here doesn't always violate WP:POINT. This and this and this and this do not really constitute fringe journals, IMO. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of those are indeed reliable sources (I'm not sure about the Canada Free Press), but the real question is whether a mention of this lawsuit (and the supposed ambiguity it introduces about Obama's birthplace) in a summary article constitutes undue weight. I think that it does. Berg is at best a vox clamantis in deserto. If a judge decides that the case has merit enough to force Obama and his campaign to respond to it, then maybe it might merit a footnote. But as it stands now, I think even mentioning this as if it's disputed gives Berg more credit than is justified by the limited coverage of his lawsuit in reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of this is undue weight, because this is a fringe character who files many such lawsuits. The Wash. Times article says he also filed lawsuits against Bush and Cheney "claiming they knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before they happened." ~ priyanath ^talk 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mombasa, Kenya

I edited the article to restore neutral point of view concerning the birth place. It is a place of an ongoing legal dispute and both possible places are mentioned. Incidentally, Berg's story makes perfect sense at this moment and he also has testimonies of Obama's black grandmother and half-siblings. [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931] --Lumidek (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Berg's lawsuit represents a fringe theory, and as such cannot be included in the article. WorldNet Daily is not a reliable source. Obama has produced his birth certificate (the oft-claimed difference between a "certificate of live birth" and a "birth certificate" is specious). Please do not re-insert this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with next section) Hi, I've only skimmed the WP debate on birth, but I've been here a few times before. Please see the latest outbreak as of 10/21 in reliable sources: [7] and [8]. I considered the phrasing "apparently born ... but three lawsuits dispute this" with the WPTV link, which strikes me as sufficiently NPOV. I believe this October surprise will become necessary to insert somewhere. Please keep in mind that when three of your family members allege something to which ONLY the family as a group has firsthand knowledge, it is NOT a fringe theory by definition. The POV of the three members is significant and rapidly becoming more so. Thanks! JJB 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at those sources...

To fight the birth rumors, the Obama camp posted a document issued by Hawaii confirming his birth there. Critics call it a forgery, although the nonpartisan FactCheck.org examined the original document and declared it legit.

Also worth noting is a birth announcement in the Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listing Obama's birth there on Aug. 4.

Of course, it is possible that Obama's family, knowing he would seek the presidency one day, planted a false announcement.

And, if you enjoy conspiracies, isn't it interesting that Obama is cutting short his campaigning this week to visit his grandmother in Hawaii?

Is she really sick? Or is he trying to keep her quiet? Or is this silly stuff going to be kicked out of court forcing us to find better material next week?

As has been said before, this "silly season" stuff is notable within the context of the presidential campaign, not Obama's life. In other words, this is the wrong article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Court filing claims Obama not eligible to run for the president of the United States

I hope that this will stop the useless debates above. The judge in Pennsylvania just ruled that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to run for the White House. [9] He must also pay USD 48,300 to Philip Berg to cover all the expenses so far. --Lumidek (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not jump on that court document immediately, on first glance I think it's actually Berg's proposed order and judge has not ruled. "MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PHILIP J. BERG." But it does demonstrate the flareup! JJB 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be right in which case I apologize. --Lumidek (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not signed, and it's attached to a motion. It's more or less impossible that a judge would issue such a ruling, but if he did you would hear about it through the mainstream press for sure. That's why we require secondary sourcing.Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed WP:FRINGE and the FAQ, I continue to be of opinion that this has been mischaracterized as a fringe theory. This is a question over a historical fact, and the determination of prevailing or mainstream view should most certainly not be made by consulting the political class (among which it might be a POV of sufficient departure) but among the primary (family), secondary (biography), and tertiary (court) sources. IMHO and from a distance, those sources give the Kenyan position a minority, not a fringe, status. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 14:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it not fringe? From WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." This is a textbook case. The overwhelming majority opinion is that the lawsuit is hilarious and unfounded. It has no bearing on Obama's life, and even the McCain campaign won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Berg's a crackpot, and while it's amusing that he filed a lawsuit he has no hope of winning and no standing to engage in, it's not exactly affecting Obama's life... or his campaign, for that matter. --Good Damon 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama has not objected to the accusations, therefore legitimizing them legally according to obamacrimes.com74.212.31.26 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)ED

"obamacrimes.com" is Berg's own website, not a reliable source. I am constantly amazed at how many people believe this bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is the biography of Barack Obama. The place to discuss election talking points is Talk:United States presidential election, 2008. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the "Do Not Edit this" crap! This is a discussion forum! This is NOT a freaking PRO-Obama WEBSITE! Take your political posturing somewhere else! The people here want some TRUTH. I don't know what the truth is, but I would like some REAL, NON-Biased information on the subject.
I will tell you this much, The Birth Certificate posted on Obama is BRAND NEW, with forgery prevention paper, mostly used for Medical Prescriptions and is completely modern. I will not and nor should you, take this as ANY kind of proof of anything. Obama is a SENATOR! Do you not think that he, or one of his staff members could not just call in a favor and have someone print out a new Birth Certificate?
No, he is going to have to produce the original, or a copy from around the same time period. I am 30, I have my original. My Mother has her Original from 1954. If this man is going to be our president, then he should at least be as responsible as I am, or my mother is. TheСyndicate 22:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.188.221 (talk)

OK, I'll answer this point by point. Please read each wikilink in my response.

This is a discussion forum - Yes, it's a discussion forum for improving this article. Fringe topics will never go into this article. Ergo, there's no point in discussing them. And bringing them up over and over ad nauseum is disruptive. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page for a good summary of just how disruptive: We specifically have an entry on it for Obama's place of birth, which you obviously haven't read.
This isn't a pro-Obama website - No, it's not. You are correct. It is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias generally do not publish conspiracy theories about their topics.
People want truth - You appear to want some version of it, at any rate. The rest of us are just very tired of answering the same questions over and over. You'd think the Elections Commission or the DoJ would make, y'know, a comment here or there if they thought maybe Obama wasn't born here. But maybe they're just too busy to notice?
Shiny new birth certificate - Have you actually read any of the links debunking that? Any at all? Or are you just reading ObamaCrimes.com? Look... We use high-quality reliable sources on WP:BLP biography pages. Every single reliable source has made clear the certificate is legitimate. You are free to believe them or not, but you are not free to decide they are no longer reliable.

Let me be blunt: Unless the lawsuit somehow succeeds -- perhaps because the judge suffers a bout of insanity -- it will have zero impact on this article, because it will have zero impact on Obama's life. Now... Read each link above. And this discussion is closed. --Good Damon 07:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Closing as trolling started by account with history of vandalism on this page; avoiding deletion because of modicum of conversation on the topic - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence in the opening section is completely absurd. What "official business" would a senator have? The article hardly mentions official business abroad in the body, nor does it appear that Obama has anymore official travel abroad than anyone other senator, but in fact the contrary. The way this reads right now gives a subtle impression of POV prose that should result in either this sentence being removed or the information in the body of the article being expanded per WP:N. 70.250.214.209 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Look who's there. The POV vandal is back with opinion rather than with facts backed-up by sources. if you DO have sources for your claims just state them here instead of getting editorial in your comments, please.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it suggests that Obama has foreign policy experience. Thats why it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.218.39 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See the Barack_Obama#Committees section where this is well referenced. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee often have official business in .... foreign countries. ~ priyanath ^talk 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it seems like a subtle POV push. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not a POV push, but still, the mention in the Committees section consists of just a single sentence. The lead is meant to summarize the article as a whole - this one tidbit doesn't seem notable enough to mention there. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That is laughable. Does this warrant a weighed mention in the opening section? I can't find one clearly sourced piece of information that is relevant to how he improved foreign relations. When Times Magazine, CNN, Fox News, and ABC all reflect lengthy articles pointing to Obama's complete lack of foreign policy, Wikipedia glorifies a few paid vacations to shake some hands once or twice. Not taking away from some of the obvious good work in this article, this fact doesn't seem very neutral in the least. 75.33.218.39 (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, quick, close the discussion before healthy discussion can take place. Because once the article is written, it is perfect and can never be changed or evolve again! 75.33.218.39 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please close this discussion now - the IP who started it, 70.250.214.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a problem troll/vandal here,[10] who I believe is connected to some long-term harassment of editors, and it is attracting more trolls. Thegoodlocust is edit warring over trying to keep it open. I closed it initially, but have self-reverted lest any wikigamers see my article monitoring as a 3RR violation. Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not opposed to closing the discussion once it's discussed, I just would like to know why that sentence persists, when it's such a small detail in the body of the article? Why would that much weight need to be given to his small amount of foreign experience. Plus, the sentence is out of place and doesn't add any context to the opening at all. I would just like a rewording, or removal, or expansion, or anything really. 75.33.218.39 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it seems Thegoodlocust, SoCo (I think?), and myself all agree that it is just not notable for the intro. Can't we discuss ways to improve. I personally think something like this; "Obama has also traveled aboard during the two years he served on the foreign relationship committee" or something. 75.33.218.39 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First African-American nominated?

Please see the answer to Q2 for why Obama is referred to as the "first African-American nominated". Closing discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)}} I am not clear on the claim Mr. Obama is the first "African-American" nominated...since his mother was Caucasian, is it proper to refer to Mr. Obama as "African-American" ? Should it more properly by the first "half-African-American."? It seems that if he is half African-American and is half Caucasian, could he not be also properly called "Caucasian."? Why is Mr. Obama always referred to as "African-American"? It seems with other groups, if one has one parent that is German, Irish, etc. and the other not, they are often referred to as "half-German" or "half-Irish" etc. For example, I don't believe Tiger Woods is necessarily referred to as "African-American." I am not clear here in terms of the biology/lineage issues here. Is there an expert in this area that could comment? Thanks.Vextration (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This question is asked once or twice a week so it might not pay to recreate the whole discussion. Please check the FAQ, and also search through the archive pages. In America, it is within the norms to call someone of mixed African heritage "African-American." The vast majority of the reliable sources use that term. Racial concepts and language are very complex, political, and subject to change over time - Wikipedia does not have the luxury of trying to be out front to improve the precision of the language and of people's thoughts on race. We simply follow what the norm is. Obama himself self-identifies this way, and most (but not all) people agree, so we are not dishonoring him or them by doing so. Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the legalistic interpretation. However, it seems odd, like the elephant in the room. This is a case of prima facie evidence. Mr. Obama may refer to himself as African-Amercian, but he is only half, and as such one does not need a source to know this (although there are many sources out there that could be quoted to this effect).Vextration (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What one person might call prima facie evidence, another might call original research. When both the individual concerned and the vast majority of the reliable sources agree on a description, it's not appropriate to push for alternative interpretations. Also, your interpretation suggests a biological view of race, and most scholars now agree that race is more of a sociological construct than a biological reality. As such, the patterns of racial classification aren't always logical. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Most who use the term are aware of the issue you raise yet consider Obama and others of mixed African and non-African ancestry to be African-American. In that sense one can be AA and mixed race at the same time, or both African and Native American, African and Hispanic, etc. Prima facie reasoning on matters of race will get you lost every time. Words too. The meaning of terms comes from usage, not deduction. Wikidemon (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean do many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all." Rharrykelly (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama birthplace

Closing discussion per WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)}} Obama was born at Kapiolani and not at Queen's, right? "Center for Women and Children" doesn't exactly strike some people as signifying hospital, and so someone somewhere supposed he was born at Queen's Hospital when they read "Honolulu". A coupla people, Philip Berg and some guy named Corsi, alleged that Obama's paternal family members had said the Obama was born at the Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. This is an obvious stretch for one reason: airline policies don't make sense. The Kenya story says that Obama's mom flew to Kenya and then tried to leave due to Kenyan mistreatment of women, and that the airline prevented her from doing so because she was too close to term. So how would that airline allow her to fly to Kenya in the first place? She would've been obviously pregnant. The Kenya story is hogwash, plain and simple, and Bam was born either at Kapiolani or Queen's. But are you sure Kapiolani is the right hospital? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Kapiolani is what the source says. The rest is nonsense and the lawsuit was tossed. Tvoz/talk 18:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We should cover Obama's groundbreaking political techniques

And I quote Barack Obama's website [11],

"Studies have shown that kids can affect their parents and their siblings’ opinions and even change the opinions of older family members . . . including those of voting age. Are you still with me? Great, Let’s get started!"

And also here:

"For the first time in campaign history, children ages 12 and under, have a place to go and actually vote—through their voice. What a great way to be introduced to politics and to express your support for Senator Obama."

Obviously this is pretty groundbreaking and this deserves a mention in the article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, notable or relevant? Grsz ^Review! 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That word "obviously" is doing a lot of work. Show us some reliable sources that make this assessment, please. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it does say for the first time in history - I'd say that makes it notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For the first time in history what? Kids can sign a poster for Obama, whoa, how revolutionary! Grsz ^Review! 18:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's false. Children have mock elections all the time. See Kids Pick the President. It's also not reliably sourced. A politician's own website is not a good place to source claims made on the novelty of the campaign. Moreover, even if it were true, a childrens' outreach section of the Obama website does not rise to the level of being biographically important. What does it say about Obama's life, or even the election? It might belong in a grandchild article somewhere, or some other article on children's involvement in American elections.Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Since a politicians website is not a good source then we should remove the statement made that "Barack opposed the Iraq war" which is only sourced from Barack's website. In fact, I could quote Bill Clinton saying such a statement is the "biggest fairy tale" he's ever heard. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Fox News is the ONLY balanced news station on the planet right now. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS...they're all in the bag for Obama. They talk about this all time time on the radio. Sean Hannity is always calling out how bias all the media networks are besides Fox. Digital ^Ninja 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And PS. Grsz11 just template warned me...how rude. Digital ^Ninja 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, because Hannity is the archetype of journalistic integrity, right? Grsz ^Review! 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) He's not a journalist, he's a commentator with a moral compass that actually points North. But yes, I was hoping someone would see the irony in that statement. Digital ^Ninja 19:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust, please take more care when reading what other editors have written. Misquoting - or misunderstanding - another editor does nothing to further any discussion. Two editors now (myself and Wikiedemon) have asked for independent sources to verify your claim that this material is notable. If you can't provide them, this discussion isn't going anywhere productive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - what have I misunderstood? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly Scholastic has conducted child elections since 1940 [12]. Grsz ^Review! 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Three editors (myself, Grsz11, and Wikidemon) have now questioned the notability of this material. If an independent reliable source isn't put forward that establishes its notability, the material cannot be included. In that case, further discussion will be unproductive and the thread should be archived. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for explaining why I was wrong. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim that Barack obama gave $1 million dollars to "racially charged organizations" which have been described as "controversial"

This isn't going anywhere and is just an excuse for people to reignite past conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)}}

[13]

For example, the South Shore Village Collaborative says, on the first page of its application, "Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us." Since these have been described as controversial and racially charged - and not by me, then appropriate adjectives should be included to describe his actions with the Woods fund and CAC in this article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We can consider including this when other reliable sources have provided more context. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How many sources do I need? The current source is one of the biggest news organizations in the US. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please remove this trolling - I've already deleted it twice, and don't want to revert war. The poster just came back from a weeklong block for this behavior (incivility, edit warring, repeated posting of fringe theories, etc)[14]. Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you keep on deleting this well-sourced information so people can't even see that this is an issue. Why don't you just discuss the merits of the information? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't think Fox News would let fact-checking get in the way of an attack on Obama. But my opinion is neither here nor there. Notable events, by definition, are those that are documented in multiple independent reliable sources. Once multiple sources have evaluated the importance of this story, we'll have grounds to include it, and we will also be in a beterr position to judge whether it would be best covered as part of his life, the election process in general, or the Republican campaign. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah thank you for explaining it to me - if other people cover this then we can include it. And I don't see what the problem with Fox News is since several other organizations have falsly attacked McCain/Palin like the New York Times, CNN and ABC - can I list those as unreliable due to their past actions?TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) You are most welcome to propose a re-assessment of those sources at any appropriate Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do I go to do that? CNN and ABC have both flat out misquoted Palin and McCain and used those misquotes to smear them. The New York Times even had to print a retraction on one of their hit pieces. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, I think we need to have a cup of tea on this one. Lets keep it civil. In fact, why don't we just all meet and have a nice, relaxing Wikiparty. I'll bring soda, GoodLocust can bring the chips, and I know; all the rest of you guys can merge all your wealth into one location and use the combined sum to contribute any food/drinks you'd like according to each one their need. That way, we can get along and agree with how to proceed. :) Digital ^Ninja 19:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We should remove the text that says "Obama spoke out against the war"

~~Since wikidemon has told me that Barack's website isn't a good source and~~ the source given is Barack's website. It is source 116 so you can find it easily. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

no, and stop.Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop what? It was a question. You said his website isn't a good source, and I agree with you, because it is a bad source we should remove the text, sourced from his website, that says he spoke out against the Iraq war. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The source is a transcript that will be the same no matter where it's published. Grsz ^Review! 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust, Wikidemon only said that "A politician's own website is not a good place to source claims made on the novelty of the campaign". You're intentionally misrepresenting what people are saying here and trolling, all after coming off of a block for disruptive behavior. If an admin is watching, I would suggest another block is in order. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I quote NPR, "Even in this era of YouTube and camera phones, a recording of Obama's speech is all but impossible to find. The Obama campaign has gone so far as to re-create portions of the speech for a television ad, with the candidate re-reading the text, with audience sound effects." And so if there is no record of the speech, then how is a transcript from the candidates own website a good source? This does not make any sense to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a vanity recreation, but the first bit is enough to get the point. Grsz ^Review! 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this please. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Updating this and related articles

Most of these desribe Obama's funding on the AAAN as "controversial" and I suspect these would be also good for updating the Rashid Khalidi and AAAN articles (among others) in addition to adding more detail in this article.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/obamas-education-groups-funded-controversial-organiations-s-tax-returns/

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-barackbash1,0,7527621.story

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS134696+25-Feb-2008+PRN20080225

TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Enough about your fringe/conspiracy attempts. Either try to improve the article or stick with blogs, etc. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was told I needed more sources to describe Obama's funding of these groups as "controversial." I have complied with more sources. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodLocust, I'm convinced you'll find Conservapedia more to your liking. Grsz ^Review! 03:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Republican, and even I know Conservapedia is a joke. It's like a mixture of Wikipedia and Unencyclopedia all rolled into a big conservative orgy with no real point but to provide a quick feel-good feeling in knowing some people are normal, regardless of how ill directed they are. 75.33.218.39 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got that one right. Point for you ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are unnecessary Grsz - and I actually happen to be a democrat. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Democrat, Republican or whatever. Your self-proclaimed (and non-provable) affiliation has nothing to do with it. Take a closer look at your Reuters source. The source of this article is "Aaron Klein" who is affiliated with WND.com. Can you hear a bell ringing here? Oh, and you're a Democrat with lower case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk • contribs) 03:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If he's a Democrat with a small "d", doesn't that just mean he's not a Socialist? 75.33.218.39 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You've just lost your +point from above and owe now several. *big smile*--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you guys even read the Fox News article? That's actually a surprisingly well referenced link with some very interesting information. What would be the harm in looking at that objectively for this article? It covers decades in Obama's life...hence relevant to his bio IMO. 75.33.218.39 (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fox news when it comes to Obama? Then let's make the Huffington Post reliable for each attack on McCain! Oh, no. That would be violating WP policies in both instances. So I guess we have to stick to the facts here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You're right. I suppose it's nothing worth noting that Fox News is one of the largest (or largest period) news networks in the world. I suppose most of the world is biased though...right? 75.33.218.39 (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between Quantity and Quality and yes, everybody is somehow biased; There is no escape and being so close to the election it's getting harder and harder to get the truth out of news. Certain news channels (and Fox is not the only one I'm referring to) become less reliable every day and it certainly won't change till after the election is over. In my mind that is not just an opinion but a fact, (unfortunately). But enough of forum-soaping here. Wrong place for it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose we close this as yet another pointless discussion trying to insert poorly sourced fringe-y anti-Obama material into the encyclopedia. Any objections among the established editors? Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikidemon. Close it now or I'll do it. Already wrote way to much soap in response.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fox news and the Florida Sun Sentinel are "poorly sourced?" If there is a consensus among sources that Obama funded controversial groups then it should be included. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sun-sentinel (a rewrite) and Reuters (it's a press release) are both from WorldNetDaily. Closing. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(My personal views on, eg, one underlying question would probably align more than not with the harsh criticisms offered by those such as Chomsky and Khalidi..... ) however, FWIW, as a news junkie and Wiki-contributor, what amazes me the most is the impression of incredible insecurity given off by center-left dominated places in the media, through the apparently absolute imperative they feel to immediately silence even the slightest bit of arguementation as arises from anywhere on the conservative side of the spectrum. (I mean, geez, the general-interest news site Slate at least has one journalist who is Republican; Wikipedia articles concerning Obama cannot countenance open participation from even just one.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 05:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof of Wikipedia hacking & abuse!

Since this thread is wasting the time of editors who are trying to help someone who does not want to be helped, it isn't funny anymore and has been archived. --barneca (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

At this very moment you can see the google cache for yesterday, Oct 28, 2008 10:36:43 GMT.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1lCewv9YnT8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama+%22barack+obama%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a

If you hurry up and view googles cache before google updates it you will see there is no mention of Barack's baptism at the Trinity United Church of Christ. So this Barack Obama wiki went from detailed information about Barack's baptism (~~ one month ago) to nothing (as of yesterdy) to it's present outline of his baptism.

As of late yesterday I could not find any history of yesterdays insertion of Barack's baptism in this wiki article. This proves that wikipedia pages are being modified at a high level. As suspected, to say the least the wikipedia website is being abused for political purposes. I know for fact that ~~ one month ago the Barack Obama wiki article contained detailed information about his baptism. For example it mentioned the entire name of the church, which is "Trinity United Church of Christ." At this moment the Barack Obama article only says "He was baptized at Trinity church in 1988."

I searched high and low. I've been a system admin for several Unix servers since 1997. I've been a software engineer for ~ 30 years and was programming computers since the age of 13. So I know how to search a web page, and I literally search dozens of times on the Barack Obama web page.

So without any wiki history the wiki article went from a detailed mention of Barack's baptism, to nothing, and now back to an outline of his baptism. At least I now have my personal proof what is happening at wikipedia. Having been a system admin and software engineer, I know how easy it is to place backdoors on websites to allow key people to modify the pages and history logs without a trace. What a shame. Can't humanity accomplish anything free of abuse?--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the IP address, 209.85.173.104, of the above link is owned by google. It is not my IP address or web server.--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be my last day at wikipedia for awhile, but if you care about your wiki community then could you please report this to higher authority? I'm certain the founder would like to know if wikipedia is being hacked or abused, especially for political purposes. I provided the proof. As you can see the google cache server recorded the Barack Obama history page yesterday showing there was no mention of the baptism, but as of late yesterday it magically reappeared. I checked every history change that occured yesterday and there was no insertion of his baptism.--PaulLowrance (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

BARACK OBAMA + JIMBO WALES + MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL = ????. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul, you seem to think Jimbo would want to know about this. From the evidence you provided about "key people," what makes you think it isn't Jimbo himself? RonCram (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked the revision history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=history? Looks to me like it's all there. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I closely analyzed the history more than once. It's none of my business who believes me, but that I inform you. As expected, of course the abuser is going to eventually edit the history log. I tried my best to inform people as quickly as possible so they could see before the abuser changed it. I have my personal proof. One area the abuser cannot modify is google cache. Yesterday on several occasions I tried to *re*insert the Obama baptism, and in every case it was removed. Now it's there. The google cache provides proof that I was telling the truth that it was not there yesterday.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The cached version you posted seems to be exactly the same as what our records say was there at 10:36 on October 28th. Do you think differently? The sentence about his baptism was inserted during this edit by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood. As I clearly said, yesterday I tried to reinsert the Barack baptism text, but it was removed, and suddenly it reappeared with a history trace. When it reappeared I checked the history in detail numerous times to see who added the Barack baptism. There was no history. As stated, I expected the abuser to eventually redit the history to prove me wrong. It is of no concern to me what others think of me, but that I do what I believe is correct, which is to inform people as quickly as possible. The admins and such of this server and website are advised to carefully watch for unusual activity. I have my personal proof at least one person is editing the site without leaving a trace. IMO the people who are trying to make this appear as if I am seeing things or whatever their intent is should be a good starting point of those to carefully watch.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realize you were alleging that this was a conspiracy, in which all the evidence has been changed so as to disagree with your version of things. That explains a lot. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama and Khalidi close friends

discussion seems to be over; no reasonable likelihood of leading to improvement to article

According to a new unreleased video tape, Obama has a close friendship with a Palestine Radical according to mainstream media. Is it notable to mention his close friendship with him? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Having the occasional dinner and attending a party with a Chicago professor is not notable within the context of Obama's biography, no. We don't document the latest smears per WP:NOTNEWS --guyzero | talk 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And McCain, when he was chairman of the International Republican Institute, funded Khalidi's organization with a half million dollar grant.[15] Neither of these Zomg news items are relevant to the bios of their subjects, reliable sources notwithstanding. See Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM for a broader understanding of what an encyclopedia is and isn't. And WP:UNDUE for good measure. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please declare a moratorium on election-year talking points in all Obama and McCain related articles until November 5th? Unless McCain eats a puppy on live television or Obama sets himself on fire at a press conference, no OMFGBIGNEWS coming out between now and the election should go into any article. --Good Damon 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, "OMFGBIGNEWS!!!11!!1!!!1!!11!!!!!!!111!!!!" was pretty funny. Ok, I can agree to keep the fluff out of the article, unless something comes out that is completely devastating (e.g. McCain eats a kitten, Obama sets himself on fire, or if a certain video of Obama sitting at a table toasting to Khalidi, Ayers, and Bernidine while sitting at a table surrounded by Palestinians). The latter would definitely be note worthy though! 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENTISM and I can't find the specific texts which suggest adding mention of Obama's association with with Khalidi or Ayers to violate any of those. Is the text you are referring to in WP:BLP? I genuinely interested in familiarizing myself with said policy, and would be very grateful if someone could help me find such specific text. Regards, Digital ^Ninja 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news; we're not here to break any news about Barack Obama, John McCain, or anyone else. Recentism is a bad habit many Wikipedians engage in; because something is happening now, because it's in the news now, because politician A is talking about politician B now, it absolutely positively has to be in the article and oh my god isn't it just the biggest thing to ever happen ever ever? No. It's not. And in two weeks, we'll have the perspective to see that. Recentism in articles about living politicians is most commonly engaged in by POV pushers who would like to override a body of content covering a lifetime with new, and often largely inaccurate, information coming out now, typically from partisan sources. Case in point: Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi is not a terrorist. He is not a particularly controversial figure. He is an activist for Palestinian rights, and an Arab studies scholar. He's an American, too, but I'm willing to bet you didn't know that. Now then... If we crammed in all sorts of things about this guy into Barack Obama's BLP, we'd have to go in and remove it after today's talking point died down. Better to do the research first, say "hey, this is just a campaign talking point," and disregard it. Now then... Are you going to stop "researching" at the blog containing today's talking points and contribute to this article, or are you going to continue disrupting this talk page with your bogus questions above? --Good Damon 20:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually did find why it shouldn't be included. However, it was in WP:BLP and NOT in WP:UNDUE since the sourcing was very good. However, on the lead in back on traveling to foreign countries, this does violate WP:UNDUE since it is in-fact such a small piece of his life. Adding that into the bio of a person is unjust, whereas adding it into the job requirements of the position he held, or mentioning it in the article body, is fine. That is how it should be. Digital ^Ninja 20:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) And I certainly hope you didn't think my questions were bogus. I sat here and read for 20 minutes trying to find out what I was doing wrong (or, more to the point why my pattern of thought was inconsistent with policy). If I'm going to contribute effectively, I need to know what I should do regarding my contributions, and that is exactly what I'm trying to learn. I'm actually a little offended that you'd say I was posting bogus questions; I really hope I didn't send any innuendo that I was attempting such actions. Digital ^Ninja 20:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that GD had you confused with someone else. The question is obviously sincere.Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries if that's all case. I know I can AGF with GD (hence why I didn't accuse him of anything) :) Also, since apparently consensus is against me on removing that random sentence in the lead, I'm going to just ignore it while reading the article. So, until if/when consensus changes (maybe after the election), it's ok in my book. Just keep in mind, if anyone asks me if Obama ever traveled on official business I'm going to simply say consensus hasn't been reached on that IMO. Digital ^Ninja 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad, sorry about that. Guhh... Been on article patrol too much this week, it's turning the brain to mush. Striking "bogus" comment. --Good Damon 20:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Digital, the unwritten rule your action (viz., pointing out background details concerning the Democratic nominee with which some in the electorate may not be in full harmony (and not me, by the way; I'm personally more than fine with many elements of Khalidi's advocacy!))) violates is that it provides information that is incorrect -- politically. Please make a note of this and begin to act accordingly and you will have no further problems editing hereabouts. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah! After all, how can people make an informed decision about Obama if they don't know he's a foreign-born Muslim (and scary black Christian extremist!) who pals around with terrorists, wants Socialism, steals votes through the ACORN branch of his campaign, bought his house for free from a crook, won't recite the Pledge of Allegiance, won't wear a flag pin, and will always lie to get his way, just like Saul Alinsky taught him? America deserves to know these things from Wikipedia, and suppressing them is suppressing free speech! ...Did that cover all the bases, or did I miss something? --Good Damon 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that he was trained in terrorist madrasas. Are you trying to hide something from the voters who need to know the truth? ~ priyanath ^talk 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You also failed to mention that he's directly to blame for the 2008 financial crisis, and is the anti-christ. Digital ^Ninja 21:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Justmeherenow, that is basically the way I understood it. Sometimes it takes a while for the meaning to sink in. It's difficult with hot topics like this to force yourself to not read "the letter" of each policy sentence, but instead try and grasp the meaning of such. I'm guilty of that, but I'm honestly trying to improve. Digital ^Ninja 20:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Digital, these stalwart believers have taken down very nicely an entire army of hyperbolistic strawmen [while against your iconoclastic proposal has not been landed one glancing blow!]

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 11:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Will this article become more NPOV once the election is over?

There are several editors here who will not allow any of the controversial issues in Obama's life to be referenced. This is a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Here are just a few that have not made the article.

Obama's support for Rashid Khalidi, [redacted - BLP]. [16][17]Khalidi admits he served the PLO as advisor at the Madrid Conference. [18]
According to the AP, Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko received money from Nadhmi Auchi [redacted - BLP]. [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79390] [19]
Obama and Ayers funded [redacted - BLP]. [20]
Obama has had a lengthier and closer relationship than he has admitted. [21]
Experts say [redacted - BLP] [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79403] [http://wnd.com/files/FictionFixer-Obama-Ayers-2.pdf]
Obama's aunt found living in rundown public housing in Boston. [22] [23]

I will be glad when the election is over. Hopefully Wikipedia can get back to its mission on November 5.RonCram (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

redacted a couple BLP vios Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Parts redacted restated more precisely to fit the RS cited. RonCram (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP violations redacted once again per WP:GRAPEVINE. n+1 warning that WP:BLP applies to talkpages as well. --guyzero | talk 07:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that BLP applies to Talk pages as well. I am pointing out that these are not BLP violations. The sources are RS. It is against Wikipedia policy to censor well-sourced and relevant information, even if it is negative in a BLP. I am not trying to insert this into the article and will not until after November 5. But I think it is important editors come to terms with Wikipedia policy regarding negative information. If it is well-sourced and relevant, then it is important enough for Wikipedia readers to know. There is no question Rashid Khalidi was tied to the PLO. There is no question Nadhmi Auchi was tied to Saddam Hussein. RonCram (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are not proposing to add this material to the article, then you are abusing this talk page as a soapbox for what are generally poorly sourced, partisan talking points. Please stop. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily can only be considered a reliable source for the opinions of its authors. It is not a reliable source for any factual information, particularly when it comes to attempts to insert fringe theories into a biography of a living person. This has been explained to you previously. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I cited the Los Angeles Times, Sun Sentinel and WorldNetDaily. You only discuss WND. WorldNetDaily is quoted on Wikipedia more than 1,000 times.[24] Not all of these have to do with the opinions of its authors. The Wikipedia community as a whole considers WND reliable, only certain editors claim it is not RS. I have also cited one of the papers WND referenced in writing their article. While people may consider the theory Ayers wrote (or doctored) Obama's book as far-fetched, there is no reason to consider the WND article as falsified or even controversial. They have supplied the original document on which the story is based.RonCram (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Do not continue to disrupt this talkpage with BLP violations. WP:BLP covers talkpages as well. You are welcome to take you claims regading WND to the reliable source noticeboard. --guyzero | talk 15:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, WorldNetDaily is not considered reliable by the "Wikipedia community as a whole." Quite the opposite. It is considered neither reliable nor verifiable and, far from having a reputation for fact-checking, it has a reputation for espousing fringe theories and repeating blatantly false information. The fact that there are plenty of poorly-written and poorly-sourced articles out there in the dark corners of Wikipedia is no secret. But we don't use those articles as an excuse to insert unreliable sources into Featured Articles. There isn't much more to say on that subject. Please stop disrupting this talkpage with fringe conspiracy theories that will never be inserted in this article (before or after the election). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. WND is considered reliable by all but the politicos of a certain bent. There is nothing fringe about the story in the LA Times or FOX News or Sun Sentinel. You all are just trying to censor this page which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Blog posts like DailyKos, Huffington Post, iReport and LittleGreenFootballs are not reliable. I have no problem with that. Those have no editorial oversight. WND does have editorial oversight. There is nothing fringe about the stories from LA Times or FOX News but you want to act as if they are on the same level as LittleGreenFootballs. It is folly. RonCram (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's really more than enough. Ron, for what is hopefully the last time, this article talk page is not a forum for recycling the latest partisan talking points, conspiracy theories, guilt-by-association for everyone who once occupied the same room as Obama, and lowest-common-denominator smears. It is beyond me why you retain the ability to edit either this article or talkpage, given your record of consistent and unapologetic abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox. Please consider taking a break until after the election, at which point you can once again militate to include this litany of clearly unencyclopedic material if you like. MastCell ^Talk 16:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for discussing process here, but I have been considering an appeal at AN/I to deal with several problems and to monitor this page more closely from now out through the election. In the past few days we have a surge of conspiracy theories, bickering, closed threads, and 3-4 vandal blocks per day. It is a major time sink, and it seems that any productive work here is hopeless. Perhaps we should be on lockdown until after the election. I can't see anything coming up of such significant biographical importance that it cannot wait until after the election. Not page protection, but a stern, short term, zero-tolerance approach could do a lot to keep the peace. Is it worth proposing? I don't want to start an unnecessary AN or ANI if we've already got it covered. Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to happen, since it's likely to get worse every day through Nov. 4. More admins watching and ready to quickly block trolls, fringe theorists, and vandals would be a good start. Full page protection may be necessary at some point. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I for one think that a full page lock is a great idea. If that doesn't work, maybe we can figure out a way to keep all opposition from changing the article for the worst. Great call everyone. Digital ^Ninja 19:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a matter of fairness, we can change every single article about any living person and take out everything that is considered negative. If we do that then we can all be happy, because nobody looks bad.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a noble idea, and in fact the agenda on at least this article's persona. Digital ^Ninja 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing. There's nothing in this section that will end up in the article. There's way too much acrimony and too many insults flying around in this section. There's no real reason to maintain it any longer. If you have a source for information that is not from CNS, WND, NewsMax, or BarackObamaIsSatanIncarnate.com, feel free to open a new discussion on it.

Reopening. You make a blanket statement that there is nothing in this section that will end up in the article. That is not true. I have cited LA Times, Sun Sentinel, AP and other news sources. The discussion is ongoing and active. It is contrary to Wikipedia policy to exclude negative information from a BLP when that information is well sourced. The purpose of this discussion is to prepare the article for updating on Nov. 5. RonCram (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see where Nov. 5 comes into this. If there's a consensus to make a change, it can be done now, vie the {{editprotected}} mechanism. Conversely, if consensus is against a change, it's unlikely to be made at any time. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)OK, let's play this game. I will reply to this once more, and then I ask for consensus to close this discussion as disruptive. Let me go through your sources point by point, and explain why they will not result in changes to the article.

Rashid Khalidi cite 1 - This story never mentions the PLO or in any way indicates that Mr. Khalidi is associated with terrorism. It presents the fact that Obama and Khalidi know each other, and then talks about Palestinian and Israeli relations and how Obama may impact them. While notable and quite possibly a reliable source for something, it is not about what you say it's about.
Rashid Khalidi cite 2 - This is not a reliable source, and is to be summarily discarded.
[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79390 Tony Rezko cite 1] - This is not a reliable source, and is to be summarily discarded.
Tony Rezko cite 2 - This is not a reliable source, and is to be summarily discarded.
Ayers cite 1 - A reliable source under some circumstances, but it adds nothing new to Obama's biography, and is counterbalanced by the vast majority of reliable sources that find no significant relationship between Ayers and Obama whatsoever. It carries no weight here, but may be worth adding a sentence or two to Bill Ayers presidential election controversy.
ACORN cite - It seems you're going down the laundry list of campaign talking points. Again, the vast majority of reliable sources do not indicate some kind of special relationship with this organization. Frankly, it smacks of attempting to prove a point, and prematurely at that. Yes, ACORN is under investigation. No, nothing has come of that investigation yet. No, we don't possess a crystal ball that will tell us whether or not this relationship will ever be notable as anything but a campaign talking point. As is, it belongs in the campaign article.
[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79403 Ayers cite 2] - This is not a reliable source, and is to be summarily discarded.
[http://wnd.com/files/FictionFixer-Obama-Ayers-2.pdf Ayers cite 3] - This is not a reliable source, and is to be summarily discarded.

There, I've answered every one of your citations. This matter, just like the last 200 threads on similar topics brought by POV-pushing editors, seems to be closed. May I have some consensus now on closing this? --Good Damon 20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - please close. It's had too many BLP vios, and the proposals are very fringe-y, blog-y. It reads like a laundry list of talking points, mostly smears and cheap shots that even if true would have little or nothing to do with Obama's life. All of them have either been dealt with at great length and/or are too trivial / POV / poorly sourced to include. Re-proposing the "Ayers wrote Obama's book" nonsense, for example, is ridiculous. The whole discussion is posed as a complaint about the article, not a proposal for improving it. If there were a serious proposal to add material it would be made a single point at a time, and limited to reasonable, well-sourced material that is relevant to Obama. As it stands, this does not seem to be reasonably directed to improving the article, nor is there any likelihood of it resulting in changes to the article, particularly not during page protection. Therefore, I see no use in prolonging this discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far this section does not appear to be generating any actual discussion of content, so I'm going to go ahead and close it again. --Good Damon 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Is it common practice for you to make pronouncements and take actions without hearing from the other side? Doesn't seem very democratic or open minded to me. And it is certainly against Wikipedia policy. This encyclopedia is supposed to be NPOV. WP:BLP does not prevent negative information if it is relevant and well-sourced. Your comments above do not show an interest in making the encyclopedia the best it can be. If that was your intention, you would have asked for better sources if you thought one or more of them was lacking. I have added a citation of Boston Herald, but I will address your comments one post at a time. RonCram (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Rashid Khalidi's ties to the PLO, there are a good many RS. How about a book written by Khalidi that admits he advised them at the Madrid Conference. See [25] RonCram (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the information about Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi, I understand your position on WorldNetDaily. I do not agree but I understand it. But by what twisted form of logic can you call an AP story published in a daily newspaper not RS? You should be embarrassed. RonCram (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the radical organizations the team of Obama and Ayers funded out of CAC, you say FOX News is RS "under some circumstances" but claim this is not one of them. What kind of ridiculous special pleading is that? This is a criticism, not just of Obama's connection to Ayers but of the types of organizations they funded. The money did not go to help children learn but to politicize the kids with radical political notions. RonCram (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Obama's payments to ACORN, this is not in dispute. The Obama campaign filed a report showing they paid ACORN more than $800,000 during the primary campaign. As you note, this has become a big deal in the campaign. It is certainly notable and Wikipedia readers have a right to know about it. Censorship is not the answer. RonCram (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron, campaign stuff goes in the campaign articles, please. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield, I have not found a suitable campaign article. Also, I fundamentally disagree. Please note, I am not saying this needs to go into the article until November 5. I am saying that editors here need to prepare mentally to make this more NPOV once the election is over.RonCram (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why oh why oh why doesn't some lazy ass admin get off their chair and block RonCram for five days? Has he made any productive edits in the past several months?!? He has made it abundantly clear that his only purpose on Wikipedia prior to midnight on Nov. 4th is to agitate in favor of various attacks on Obama, many of which have been discredited even by the frikkin' GOP leadership. I mean, holy crap, this is a guy who actually believes the conspiracy theory that Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams of My Father. Seriously! If that doesn't win you a tinfoil hat and a nice preventative block, I dunno what does... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I will ask you nicely not to make personal attacks. I have provided reliable sources for the information. If you disagree, provide a reliable source that disproves the news report. RonCram (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, Jay, somehow I just don't see myself as a "lazy ass admin". I would rather encourage and help editors - no matter how troublesome - to become better editors than boot them out. I think issuing a block might actually be the lazy option. Certainly it would lead to more drama, if not properly justified. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, SheffieldSteel, if RonCram makes ONE non-reverted edit to the mainspace in the next five days, I will take it back. Seriously. ONE. One edit, mainspace, not reverted, next five days. I just don't see it happening. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RonCram, please just give it up. These will not go into the article. Not today, not tomorrow, not on November 5th. On the specifics:

The AP article on Rezko - Not sure how that happened. I was doing a lot of C&P, and must have overwritten what I intended to say: There are no great ties between Rezko and Obama, and Obama himself was not implicated in Rezko's illegal behavior. Whoever else Rezko had direct dealings with may be notable for Rezko's bio, but not for this article. This article is about Barack Obama, and you will not be permitted to make it into a guilt-by-indirect-association attack piece concerning Rezko.
Khalidi - Of course he has interacted with the PLO. He's a Palestinian rights activist. That doesn't make him their spokesman. Stop slandering the man, immediately. Just because this isn't his biography doesn't mean WP:BLP doesn't apply here.
Fox news and Ayers - You have 1 theoretical RS that makes claims about where the money was spent. There are hundreds, if not thousands, that distinctly counter Fox's spin on that. Yes, Fox is a barely reliable source, but when the weight of other sources is a veritable torrent, I don't see why we should cherry-pick Fox's interpretation. Do you really want me to dig up all the articles that debunk it, or will you just give that one up already?
ACORN - Why yes, that is notable as a campaign issue. Why don't you take it to the campaign page?

Now then... This thread has gotten messy, and covers too many topics, without any chance of going anywhere. I would like to close it again, purely for ease of managing the talk page. Would you be willing to let this thread close and start new threads on each topic individually? As is, no one is even going to read this monster by November 5th. --Good Damon 18:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDamon, and other editors that the laundry-list of proposed content is either poorly sourced or campaign-related. Support closure. Modocc (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Another source showing Project Vote, where Obama worked, is a sister organization of ACORN

[26]

As if that wasn't obvious from my previous source which lists it as such and shows they have the same address. This new source also says ACORN was given a donor list by the Barack Obama campaign although that may have to wait until we get an ACORN section or put it in a different article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will answer this exactly once, and then close the discussion. Read your source. It does not state as fact that Project Vote and ACORN are sister organizations. It says "Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote" describes Project Vote "as a sister organization of ACORN." And then it provides an opposing view, from a current Project Vote representative. This source, at best, provides one person saying "yes it is," and another saying "no it's not," and the story itself does not make any judgment on who is correct. Exactly the sort of he-said-she-said crap that absolutely must not be in a BLP article. You are misrepresenting the content of this source. Now, stop it. It is disruptive, it will not result in a change to the article, and the vast majority of editors here have rejected it on multiple grounds, not the least of which is that the vast majority of reporting on the matter indicates that ties between ACORN and Project Vote are tenuous. This discussion was over before it began. --Good Damon 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Banning editors and the "protection" of the Obama page.

I have only been a silent observer up until now, but I would like to point out that most of the editors who have been "protecting" the Obama page and using wikipedia policy to do so are somehow absent from doing the same on the McCain and Palin pages. Go figure. If they really were interested in stopping vandalism and making pages less POV, then they should share their infinite wisdom and protect more pages than just Obama, otherwise it looks very political to stop such edits and ban editors who wish to add the information on the Obama page and not any other candidates. Any editor or admin who uses wikipedia policies to revert political ideas with citations, that they do not agree with, should be ashamed of themselves. That is not what wikipedia is here for. Remember that wikipedia is a community project and editors do not own this page or any other.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You just posted a nearly identical comment, without the "should be ashamed" scorn, on the talk page of a recently blocked editor. You're trying to defend disruption by castigating the people who keep Wikipedia running. It's quite a leap to assume that people who objected to edits they called disruptive did so merely because they disagreed with the ideas expressed - you have zero backup for that. Wikipedia is here to create informative encyclopedic articles, in the form of free content. It is not here to argue, bicker, create a free speech forum, balance the evils of the world, or anything else like that. We write articles. People who bicker, fight, attack the institution as a travesty, etc., are not interested in building an encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Civil as your tone and personal attack on me is disruptive. I defend my position and would not have expected a civil response from anyone who disagrees, although I would have expected a non-partisan non-bias reason for reverting good faith edits.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, users who are here solely in an attempt to game the system do not deserve to be heard, and are blocked for disruption. Grsz ^Review! 01:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I also invite you to read WP:CIVIL, rather than just blindly point to it - something you're accusing each editor here of doing. Grsz ^Review! 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Jojhutton, with all due respect we're here to comment on edits, not editors. Implying that the edits of an editor are somehow suspect because they haven't edited some other topic you feel is a polar opposite is not civil. Every editor is free to edit whatever articles they wish, and checking an editors contributions for the purposes of determining their worth isn't productive. Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflict)There are also editors on the McCain and Palin pages who are protecting those pages from vandalism, but never appear here. Good for them, and for any editor who is helping to prevent some of the awful vandalism[27][28][29][30] and talk page trolling on all of these pages. My hat is off to people like Wikidemon, Gooddamon, guyzero, Grsz, Tvoz, Looneymonkey, Lulu, and many other volunteers who are doing the real work here. Same goes for those unsung heroes at the McCain and Palin pages, who I don't know because they never come here. They all deserve barnstars for showing extraordinary patience and goodwill in the face of trolling, personal attacks, nonsense, and extremely ugly vandalism. Thank you all. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to point out one of my many faults. Wp:Civil is one of the key policies that I try and keep from violating, same as good faith. Any properly cited information should be added according to its weight. All information that is useful to the reader should not be kept out. WP:Fringe does not exclude the addition of information that may be useful to an article.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. He wasn't here to scold us, he was here to push his POV. Grsz ^Review! 02:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack on me but, I will ignore it. What am I pushing exactly? All I would like to see is useful and properly cited information not be reverted and editors who disagree with it, not be banned.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, gaming the system. Well, not as much though. Still linking to tons of wikipedia policies to try to scold us. We don't need people like you; we need the people that don't waste time like you are and keep the articles running.WikiReverter (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Another attack, but I digress. I mentioned two, not tons, of policies. Good faith and weight. Civil too, but that's a seperate issue.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with a particular edit, please discuss it. Making vague statements implying that everyone who edits this article and not another is pushing a POV isn't productive. Dayewalker (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories, no matter how they are sourced, have no place here. Grsz ^Review! 02:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget wikipedia:own. And please just stop with the personal attack statements; they don't belong here. If you have a quarrel with any of us go to our talk pages.WikiReverter (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a quarrel with anyone. And how am I being accused of WP:Own? I have never edited this page, except a few weeks ago when I reverted obvious vandalism. I have not made one personal attack on anyone. I pointed out a possible problem with how this page is being managed. That is not an attack. I have not singled anyone out nor have a refered to anyone in particular.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

...and my attempt to answer Jojhutton's WP:AGF issue on the blocked editor's page has been twice by the blocked editor.[31][32] I know all this will go away soon but in the meanwhile, folks, please do not feed the trolls. Thx, Wikidemon (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase, sorry for the inconvenience I got like no sleep last night. The personal attack I was referring to was not you making a personal attack, but claiming that you've been the victim of one multiple times. And the wikipedia:own statement was how you said you only referenced 2 wikipedia policies (plus the civil), and i mentioned that you mentioned wikipedia:own earlier. Hope that clears things up.WikiReverter How am I doing? 02:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I figured I'd miss one. You got me there. But that still does not equal tons. If you see where I am going from there.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness we do have many sensible editors here, so closing the disruption. Modocc (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Preparation of the election

proposal to create sandbox page acknowledged but did not gain consensus; will be featured article on election day

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wouldn't it be useful to start to prepare a page in a specific area that could be put on line rapidly once he is elected ? Hektor (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because there's no guarantee he will be. Please do not use this talk page for campaigning against or for Barack Obama. This is his biography, and any presumption that he will be elected President is premature. --Good Damon 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A) I am French, I live in France, so I have nothing at stake in this election. B) If you want that can be done for both (main) candidates. Except if you think a third party guy can be elected, I think there would be no harm in this. Hektor (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Therefore I reformulate my proposal : couldn't we create Barack Obama/President, and John McCain/President and we just put the winning page on line once the result is known ? That would allow an expedited update process and avoid multiple simultaneous small mods at the same moment. Hektor (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to create those articles in Wikipedia article space. However, if you want to start work on article(s) in your User space, and invite other editors to collaborate with you there, that would be fine. Might I suggest User:Hektor/President Barack Obama and User:Hektor/President John McCain? Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reacting to news is a purpose of wikinews, not Wikipedia. If Obama is elected president, we have 8 4 years in which to update the articles. There's no rush. In the mean time, you might want to consider posting a note at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates if he is elected. -- Suntag ☼ 04:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a very nice principle statement. Unfortunately it will not withstand the test of reality. As soon as the election is announced hundreds of edits in any direction will be made. I still think that it would be much preferable to make a single well prepared edit and then lock the article for a few days. Hektor (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If Obama is elected

We should not describe him as president-elect, until after the Electoral College votes in mid-December. In the meantime presumptive president-elect would do. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow the terminology used by the mainstream media, such as the Associated Press and the New York Times. They will probably follow the practice of many decades past and call the person with the majority of presumptive electoral votes the "president elect," as soon as the a candidate appears to have the states with a majority of electoral vots in his column and the loser has conceded. See Eisenhower called President-elect by the New York Times November 8, 1952[33], Roosevelt called "president-elect" in November 1932[34], Hoover called "president -elect" November 10, 1928[35], Wilson called "president-elect" Nov. 19, 1912 [36], Taft called "president-elect" Nov 22, 1908 [37], Grover Cleveland called "president elect" November 20, 1892,[38] , Garfield called "president elect" Nov 24, 1880 [39] , Grant called the "president elect Nov. 17, 1868 [40] , Buchanan called by the term Nov. 6, 1856,[41] etc. Edison (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork, Edison - I was going to make the same point. We're getting ahead of ourselves, but I agree it's putting way too fine a point on it to insist on "presumptive" president-elect - common practice is to use "president-elect" once the victor is called. 2000 was an anomaly. Tvoz/talk 04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't count your chickens before they hatch, remember the United States presidential election, 1948!!! Somehow I think history may be about to repeat itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.198 (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.198 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember that polling techniques were very poor in 1948. --74.167.246.83 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For the tinfoil hat crowd

issue duly noted and discussed - no active proposal for improving the article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The judge threw out your lawsuit re: Obama's place of birth ("ridiculous", "patently false"), so you can move on to another talking point.[42] ~ priyanath ^talk 16:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

While you're right on the facts, perhaps the mode of delivery is less than ideal. Nothing's accomplished by mockery. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Even considering the plaintiff's background (lawsuits against Bush and Cheney for the murder of 2,800 people on 9/11), and the nonstop vandalism here, my delivery was unwarranted. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration. Dealing with conspiracy theories (and conspiracy theorists) can be maddening. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Normal modes of communication are lost on conspiracy theorists, or they would not be conspiracy theorists. We haven't found a good way to deal with them other than persistence, reverts, and if necessary, blocks. Once in a blue moon someone repetitively posing fringe material responds to the facts or to Wikipedia policies/guidelines. More likely they cry censorship and start making repetitive personal attacks on people. Who knows, taunting might work. Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with conspiracy theorists a lot, both online and off. Taunting never works. It just seems to offer them justificatiib for their belief that they are persecuted. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 16:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly joking about that one. Nothing direct seems to work though. One just ushers them on to ranting somewhere else.Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I've found -- at least online -- that the same people turn up believing the same fringe things across the various areas most deeply affected by conspiracy theorists. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the section header for this discussion to be small-minded and offensive. Tinfoil hats have been shown repeatedly to protect the wearer from all sorts of government monitoring technologies, not to mention dangerous gamma radiation from space. Wearing a tinfoil hat is a legitimate lifestyle choice, and anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously a tool of the NSA spreading anti-tinfoil propaganda in a transparent attempt to bolster government mind control efforts. Wikipedia has a responsibility to tell the world about the risks that people incur by forgoing tinfoil hats. It may not be verifiable, but IT IS THE TRUTH! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama wears a tinfoil hat. I have an email that proves it. Where's the discussion about this?--210.248.139.35 (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What's well known is that for the sine qua non safeguard of one's thoughts from government snoops one should wear a hat providing at the very least a waver-thin shield of lead.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 06:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am able to prove logically that Obama was born in Kenya.

I read an article on Worldnet Daily and here is the quote that caught my eye. "Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists."

"In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174

The Governemt of Kenya by admission of sealed records proves that Obama has legal documents that are held by the Government of Kenya. Now look at it this way.

If Obama was not born there, did not live there, does not claim citizenship in Kenya then Kenya would not have any records to seal, now would they.

By their comment that all documents are sealed by the Kenyan Government proves by their own admission that Obama's birth certificate is the only plausable document that could be sealed by the country.

Remember, Obama went to school in Indonesia, Hawaii, California and New York. Because of this he would have no school records in Kenya.

By his own admission Obama only visited Kenya. He never lived there so any records of home ownership, drivers license, voters list, etc. do not exist.

With all the above being true then the only answer is that the Kenyan Government admits they are in the possession of legal documents that are sealed therefore the only legal document that they could be in possession of is a birth certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj1951 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Or it could just be that he had citizenship in both Kenya and the United States until he was 21 because his father was a Kenyan citizen. When he was born, Kenya was a British colony and was governed under British citizenship laws which stated that Obama was a British citizen (due to his father being a British citizen) as well as an American (due to Obama being born in Hawaii) citizen. Therefore, Kenya would have documents relating to Obama's citizenship which lapsed when he turned 21. Your "logic" is easily picked apart with very basic research. Also, there is no room for "logic" arguments in a wikipedia article if they are undocumented. Its original research and doesn't belong here.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.186.130 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Various proposals

Unreliable Source that Obama spoke out against the war (reference 116 looks to Barack's own website)

issue apparently resolved - consensus is that sourcing of speech is solid and mention of low turnout unwarranted

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I quote NPR, "Even in this era of YouTube and camera phones, a recording of Obama's speech is all but impossible to find. The Obama campaign has gone so far as to re-create portions of the speech for a television ad, with the candidate re-reading the text, with audience sound effects." And so if there is no record of the speech, then how is a transcript from the candidates own website a good source? This does not make any sense to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a vanity recreation, but the first bit is enough to get the point. Grsz ^Review! 19:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How does this video not help prove my case? Barack "recreated" part of the speech and included audience effects. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodLocust, seriously, you're on a not very fun path. I'd suggest to lay low for a while and edit some band pages or something. This is going nowhere good for you. Don't try and fight everyone at once. Less emotion. Digital ^Ninja 19:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone catch my reference to Karl Marx when referring to the editors on this page? I thought it was kinda funny...but I'm weird :-D Digital ^Ninja 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i caught it, I thought it was a reference to Obama's "spread the wealth" comments. But anway, it wasn't my intention to fight anyone. I'm just curious how we can include something that is so poorly sourced. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you find a way to include something that is poorly sourced into a FA, by all means PLEASE let us ALL know how :) Digital ^Ninja 19:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What does his speech have to do with his website? There is a perfectly good record of his website here: http://www.barackobama.com. If challenged, the website may not be a good source for a transcript of a speech. However, by republishing the speech the campaign endorses the contents, i.e. that Obama spoke out against the war. If he didn't do it at his speech he certainly does it on his website. As a primary source that is not as strong as a published account in a major independent reliable newspaper, which would be preferable. A cite to the campaign website can then be made as a supplemental, or courtesy link. I have a feeling all this commentary about reliable sources is a lost cause, though. There is zero chance for removing the statement that Obama is against the conduct of the war, although if you want to do some good you can propose a better source for it. Recreating this contentious section after it was archived, though, appears to be chasing a WP:POINT of some kind, though I can't tell and frankly don't care what point that is. Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But the wikipedia article says he spoke out against the war - not that he "endorses" the message as you seem to be claiming on his website. It is far different to say that you strongly opposed something after the fact - especially when there was no record of him doing so at the time. I don't understand how there is "zero" chance of removing it - there is no evidence from the time that he gave this speech, and no recording of it anywhere. Facts are facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Some new information here. It looks like the Chicago Tribune article that covered the event, of pretty decent length, didn't include any mention of Barack Obama at all - or any state senator for that matter. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't even the full article. Unless you used your library card. Grsz ^Review! 20:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can register to look at it or read it on numerous other websites that have reprinted it like this one. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, he isn't mentioned in the article. Our article doesn't say he made a breakthrough speech or something along those lines, it says he gave a speech at an anti-war rally. That's a simple fact. Grsz ^Review! 20:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is a simple fact then it should be easy to find a source from the time period showing that he did make such a speech - not some after-the-fact account after years of Obama claiming he made such a speech on the stump. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a little strange. I just wish it wasn't so fringy feeling. Digital ^Ninja 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I does kind of feel that way, but the facts are the facts - no record of his speech, and even the local paper that covered it didn't mention Obama speaking at the time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec X2) (addressing tgl) So what? The (claimed) absence of coverage in one account means it didn't happen? Please reread the article. Footnote 115 contains four citations to stand for the proposition that Obama attended the rally. If you need more, use google. For what it's worth, here is a sixth source.[43] to stand for the proposition that Obama spoke out against the war at the Chicago rally.Wikidemon Enough of these conspiracy theories about Obama.(talk) 20:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Are any of those sources from the time period or are they after years of Obama making the claim on his website and at stump speeches?TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are two clicks away from figuring it out for yourself, but as a hint you're barking up the wrong tree. Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I already looked at your source - it was written 6 years after the alleged speech and after several years of Obama making the claim. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I make this any simpler? Tree. Woof. Woof no good. Bad dog. To answer your question "are any of those sources from the time period" the answer is "yes, some of those sources are from the time period". Go back to the article, look for footnote 115 at the bottom of the page, and click on the blue hyperlinks there. You should figure these things out for yourself before you waste other editors' time with yet another conspiracy theory that "the facts" about Obama are not as they seem. Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) First off, please try to be respectful. Second, the source you mention is broken, but it refers to the story I linked above - and it contains absolutely no mention of Barack Obama. Again, I repeat, is there any source that mentions Barack Obama's speech from the time period? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Time period is irrelevant - your theory that Obama could have made up a speech he never gave and hoodwinked the press in the intervening time into believing it is too far over the line of weirdness and fringiness to be worth considering. Most or all of the links in footnotes 115 and 116 are not broken, and some are from the time. They describe the speech Obama gave. The new link works for me, and it apparently works for you - you deduced when it was published. I respect everyone's chance to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia; I do not respect repeatedly wasting people's time with fringe claims, inaccurate claims about what sources are in the article, and spurious interpretations of what those sources say. Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually time is relevant - otherwise wikipedia opens itself up to revisionist history. I have no doubt that he made a speech, but I do have questions about the claimed content since most of the claims have occured years later and come directly from his campaign website and stump speeches. Oh, and none of my claims have been inaccurate or wasteful - in fact, this entire discussion has improved the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to propose a new rule that newspaper accounts of past events are unreliable, take that to WP:RS, not here. Please heed my caution and others to be more careful, and not waste people's time. 95% of your contributions today have been pointless, wrong, or both. Don't keep blustering through this.Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil and don't attack me with straw mans. And, for that matter, quit deleting topics every time I try to have a discussion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

← Oh for crying out loud. The sheer laziness of the people who desperately try to find justification for their extremely biased view is unbelievable. I paid $2.95 to get this contemporaneous article from the October 3, 2002 Chicago Daily Herald:

Date: October 3, 2002
Page: 8
Section: News

300 attend rally against Iraq war:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson called on the Bush administration Wednesday to "lead the world, not rule it" at a downtown rally protesting plans for war against Iraq. State Sen. Barak Obama, a Chicago Democrat; the Rev. Paul Rutgers, chairman of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago; and former state Sen. Jesus Garcia of Chicago, among others, joined Jackson in urging the federal government to avoid a military strike against Iraq. "While we're looking at Saddam Hussein, we're taking attention away from our economic problems," Jackson said, pointing to the recent stock market plunge and the $2 billion national deficit. Obama, along with several of the speakers, acknowledged the necessity of war in some cases, but only as a last resort. "I don't oppose all war; I oppose dumb war," Obama said. He also said a war in Iraq based on passion and politics would provoke the worst impulses of the Arab world. Police estimated 300 people attended the event.

- Greg Bryant and Jane B. Vaughn, Medill News Service

© Copyright Daily Herald, Paddock Publications, Inc.

You can do it yourself: Go to the Daily Herald archives and enter "obama" as your search term and choose the date range October 2, 2002, to October 3, 2002. You'll get an abbreviated search result indicating Obama's presence and support but you too can pay $2.95 to confirm the whole article. Will you stop now or are you now going to say it was talking about someone else because it misspelled his first name? Tvoz/talk 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the first citation in this thread? It even explains why there isn't much coverage of the speech.

“

... back then, Barack Obama was a little-known state senator with an eye on a U.S. Senate seat.

Now, at nearly every campaign rally in his run for the presidency, Obama cites the speech he delivered on that day, in which he came out strongly against the Bush administration on Iraq.

Obama told the anti-war rally that day, "I don't oppose all wars. I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war."

The speech, delivered five-and-a-half years ago, allows Obama, now the junior senator from Illinois, to say something that his rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), cannot: that he never supported the war. At the time of the speech, the U.S. Senate had not yet given President Bush authorization to use military force to topple Saddam Hussein.

”

Seems good enough to me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's use the first source. Should we use Tvoz's source to in order to show the size of the crowd or would that be too POV? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The size of the crowd is not the issue, the speech and it's timing is. There's more:

Obama said the U.S. should focus on Afghanistan and on capturing Osama bin Laden. He spoke of "weekend warriors in the Bush administration with an ideological agenda." He called Saddam Hussein a butcher, but also stressed that the Iraqi dictator posed no imminent or direct threat to the United States. On that day, Obama also predicted a United States' occupation of Iraq of undetermined cost, length and consequences.

It's quite relevant that Obama predicted that this war would have undetermined consequences. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the size is an issue, the wikipedia article currently says it was a "high profile" rally - which seems POV to me. Also, what is your source for those claims about Obama's speech? We don't have many sources from the time indicating what he really said. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, the source is the NPR link you provided at the beginning of this thread. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah I thought you had a source, from the time, which quoted him as saying that - not an article written 6 years later. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

All things considered, the way the article currently presents Obama's position on the war is a very good summary, and extremely well sourced. I can see why this was made a featured article. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you take out that it had a low turnout?

The source says this, "Despite the small turnout, the rally marked the first high-profile public disapproval in Chicago of the Bush administration's war against terrorism."

Keeping in that it was "high profile," but leaving out that it had a small turnout gives a very misleading impression of the rally and it is very POV. We should either remove both, or put both in - not mix and match the adjectives we like. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, and I agree that we need to keep the integrity of the quote/source. Digital ^Ninja 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Thegoodlocust's addition of "but low turnout" to the description of the anti-war rally because the number attending the rally ranges from 1,000 to 10,000 depending on the source (Chi Trib says 1,000, Sun-Times says "Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000"). So calling it "low turnout" is entirely subjective and POV. It was very high profile, since it was covered by every major newspaper in Chicago and even beyond, according to reliable sources. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the two anti-war rallies - the first one ranged from 300-1000, and was described in the article as having a low turnout - keep in mind that this is Chicago we are talking about. Also, the low estimate of 300 people was given by the police - organizers tend to overinflate their numbers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The turnout is still irrelevant to the context of this article - which is that Obama spoke out against the war at that early date. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Then "high profile" needs to be removed too - if you just say it was a "high profile rally" then it sounds like it was a big gathering - not a small group of people like it really was. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose addition of low turnout claim as irrelevant and POV. I mildly oppose removing the "high profile" because that phrase is relevant and gives necessary context, and the statement "first" would likely be inaccurate without it. A less weaselly sounding adjective could be used if it can be kept concise, e.g. "well-covered" or something like that. The alternative is to say "a rally" without an adjective, but that suffers from a lack of context. Why would we describe a particular speech Obama gave at a rally in his BIO, when politicians give speeches all the time? The reason this is notable is that Obama was one of the very first moliticians to come out in a prominent way against the Iraq war.Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be something like an "anti-war rally" which gives the context just fine. Also, it wasn't very notable at the time, and only became notable after Obama began running for higher office- lots of low-level politicians opposed the war. We probably have close to ten thousand state senators in this country. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon above -- this speech, and Obama's stance on the Iraq War in general have been mentioned many, many times by reliable sources, thus the "high-profile"ness of this speech and the contents. I suspect the words high profile came directly out of one of the sources. Anyway, I'm for looking for better adjectives by way of compromise; "well-covered" might work. --guyzero | talk 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"High profile" is a direct quote from the NPR source - we could put it in quotes but that would be awkward. NPR was being neutral. In the article here it might sound like opinion, although paraphrasing to make it sound less so takes it farther from the source.Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep 'high profile' then, since it's from a neutral reliable source. It surely refers to the media coverage of the speeches - we've seen the heavy print coverage, and there was probably quite alot of tv at the time. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No NPR did not categorize it as "high profile" - the old source from when it first happened said it had a low turnout but was also "high profile." Just to be clear I SUPPORT either including both descriptions from the same sentence of the source OR removing both descriptors all together - I just want it to be consistent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and to "priyanath" - if there was "probably" a lot of tv and "heavy print" coverage, then how come we've only been able to find a few articles of the event at the time? And half don't even mention Barack Obama - plus there is no video of his speech. I think we can do better than "probably." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I cannot act as a source, but I was at that rally. He did make the comments above (from what I can remember, it was 6 years ago). It was the first time I came in contact with Mr. Obama. I would state it as "high profile" because of who was there speaking. I think "low turnout" is in the eye of the beholder - what counts as low-turnout? Only a few hundred? Only a few thousand? From what I remember, there were a few thousand (probably about 3,000-5,000) people at the rally. It didn't feel all that big, and paled in comparison to the size of subsequent rallies and marches that have been held in Chicago (anti-war, immigration, etc.). Use this information for what it's worth. --Sasouthcott (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's official! So, let's get to work updating all applicable WP articles

LA Times headline re now foregone conclusion → "New Mexico newspaper headline: Obama Wins!" $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 01:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice "joke". Is there anything that would contribute to this page?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Levity perhaps. Justmeherenow has a history of unprovoked good cheer. Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's what you gotta do when you only print two editions a month. Grsz ^Review! 01:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good one :) . Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama "magna cum laude"?

I was under the impression that Harvard Law School does not rank their students, and hasn't since the 1970s. How did Obama graduate magna cum laude? Also, where is the original source for this?

Click on the footnote links next to the words magna cum laude to be taken to the sources (The Guardian and Encyclopedia Britannica). Quick google search shows that multiple additional reliable sources document his graduating magna cum laude. I removed your edit-request template as you did not specify a specific edit to be made, as per the instructions on the template. --guyzero | talk 03:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention of foreign trips in lead

The previous topic was closed due to the involvement of IPs with bad reps; per Wikidemon's suggestion, I'll post my rationale for the change here.

The lead of an article is meant to summarize its contents. Currently, a sentence in the lead lists countries which Obama has visited during his time in the Senate, representing only one sentence in the larger article. Given that John McCain has made more international trips than Obama, and yet no mention of these is given in the lead of his article, plus the aforementioned conflict with summary style, I would suggest that the mention of foreign trips be removed or replaced with a sentence mentioning Obama's international travel without providing a list of countries. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some changes can be done but not because "other stuff exists". You could argue the opposite at john McCain's page to include more details because "stuff exists here". Clear enough?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion of that 13 word sentence—which is about as short as a meaningful sentence can be—and provides a summary of an important aspect of his Senate duties as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:WAX. I just noted a discrepancy and thought change might have been needed. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to brake it to you but this guideline doesn't apply here since (here) it is not about an entire article and not even a sub. If applied in spite of my first argument against it, it would have the same merit to include parts in question to other articles. So now the question is, which way to go. Since every article has its unique merits and reasons there always will be differences compared to other existing "stuff". There is just no default in that matter. This guideline speaks for and against inclusion and therefore is a wash. Obeying this policy does not lead to a binding conclusion and one rule alone rarely solves a problem. As in most cases it is a healthy mix of several rules/guidelines and policies which can (and usually do) lead to resolve complex issues.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(yes, a vandalistic IP who is now blocked for 8 days) I support keeping the wording as-is. The twelve words in question, "and made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa", (later expanded to thirteen when it became a separate sentence, with "and" replaced by "He also") were added on June 10, 2007.[44] That was a summary of a 300+ word, three paragraph section "Official travel", one of two covering Obama's entire senate career. That is slightly less than the ratio of the entire lead (280 words) to the entire article (4,700 words) at the time. It was all well sourced. The article made the point that Obama's foreign relations subcommittee work, and the foreign travel involved in that, was important to both his career and his life. So it is well within reason for editors to decide travel is worth mentioning in the lead. The section does not seem to have been seriously challenged for sixteen months until now so it is safe to say there was a stable consensus on that part of the lead. By early 2008 the senate career section had been reorganized by the two sessions of congress rather than by subject,[45] and the travel information pared down to one long paragraph. Around May 2008 it was reorganized again[46] to divide the material into "legislation" and "committees." The travel section remained at one long paragraph. There was a general campaign to shorten the article over the summer and we managed to trim the article down from 6,300 words / 137,000 bytes[47] to 5,000 words / 117,000 bytes.[48] However, the travel section got trimmed without discussion as a separate matter[49] by a disruptive anti-Obama editor, now topic banned.[50] He made a lot of changes in short order that were more or less accepted by the community, after some reversions and further edits (see Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 33#Wholesale changes to Featured Article without prior discussion). There was no specific discussion at the time of trimming the travel section, and perhaps it got lost in the shuffle. Looking back, perhaps it got trimmed too far. However, there is an inherent problem with listing travel destinations that is similar to listing legislation, namely what to include without it becoming a laundry list. It is clearly an important issue, but it is hard to justify why one trip gets mentioned when another does not. At any rate, there is no weight problem here. We could probably find thousands to tens of thousands of articles about Obama's trips overseas as a senator, far too many to count. It is up to the editors here to decide how important that is to telling Obama's life story. I would say the 50 words now in the main article and 13 words in the lead is about right in proportion to the overall trajectory of things. Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicely said, well explained and laid out. It's quite complete and basically nothing of importance to add on.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

religion?

As of reading it at 19:50, GMT the page lists Obama as a follower of Islam? the article then goes into detail about his Christian beliefs, baptism and personal convictions on the subject of Christianity, and the semi-smear campaigns lodged against him to portray him as a Muslim. This seems, at best, contradictory?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.110.242 (talk • contribs)

Must have been a vandal. It's been removed, thanks for the heads-up. ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Protecting political articles subject to OMFGINTHENEWS syndrome

Would the idea of creating a Wikiprojects - Current Elections (worldwide) perhaps help? If we can build a small team of editors who improves/maintains articles of current political candidates and articles related as such, I think we can much more effectively manage increased trolling/vandalism in such articles. We already have a fairly diverse group on this articles talk page, and I'm sure more would be willing to join. Wikidemon and Gooddamon in particular seem fairy well versed in Wikipedia policy, Grsz is a good "watch dog", and I could help balance you guys out and keep things interesting :)

I don't know, just a thought. I'm just not a big fan of full protection, it's so iky feeling. Digital ^Ninja 20:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As a long time, high-count editor of this article I can tell you that in the last 2 years it has only very rarely been under full protection. It was after he received the nomination and some partisan anti-Obama editors descended here to edit and distort - without a real understanding of how neutrality, verifiability, reliability, civility, and other core principles work - that short-term full protection was needed. The vandals are kept under control - I've long advocated semi-protection for the political articles because I think it puts too much of a burden on editors to continually revert the nonsense and often downright evil things that trolls and vandals add, but I do not advocate full protection except in very extreme circumstances and only for a very short time. I personally doubt adding another level of bureaucracy will be any more effective in controlling vandals and trolling than we already are. In general the idea of "review boards" has never gotten much traction here, maybe because it goes against the basic spirit of the project - I'm not questioning your sincerity in making the suggestion, but don't see what tools such a group would have that would make a difference, but maybe I'm missing something. Tvoz/talk 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't to have additional "tools", but more in additional "people". Consider this; if we have a WikiProjects - Current Elections, and have 20-30 editors listed, we would ultimately have this article (and others) listed on more watch pages lessening the duty to the current group of editors. Additionally, we could gather a little broader range for building consensus. Without any accusations or ill intent implied, it's probably safe to say that most serious edits on this article favor one side of the political spectrum (and the same can be said for User:Ferrylodge over on McCains talk page). I just think it would be better for the community, and ultimately the project, if we could kill two birds with one stone: broaden the folks watching, editing, and protecting these current election pages, and opening up the partisan "isles" to allow broader ranges of consensus. I might be missing something as well, but I just thought I'd make the suggestion and see who might be interested. Digital ^Ninja 22:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections. It's been quiet lately, but earlier in the election cycle it provided a vehicle to get rid of dedicated "Controversies" articles or sections for all the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, please be aware the Ferrylodge is not the only major editor on the McCain articles! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah you are correct! You've done a good job over there as well, and my statement obviously wasn't all inclusive :) I would be over there joining you, however I'm best served diluting this article a little first (pun intended). Digital ^Ninja 20:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wording change

[...bad joke...] Ok, that first sentence was really just for Gooddamon and Wikidemon. Everyone else, anyone up for suggestions on trimming the article? Right now, it's sitting at 300 sources and is substantially massive. Is there any room to make it a little cleaner? I was thinking about removing some of the less relevant campaign subjects, since that sub article is quite thorough in it's own right. I'm not talking about anything massive, just a little here and there. Just an idea :) Digital ^Ninja 00:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Massive how? Do you mean thorough? Grsz ^Review! 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, this sentence was a little weird I thought: "On August 28, Obama delivered a speech in front of 84,000 supporters in Denver and viewed by over 38 million on television. During the speech he accepted his party's nomination and presented details of his policy goals." The period in the middle seems strange. What about something like this:

"On August 28th, Obama delivered a speech among 84,000 supporters in Denver which was viewed by over 38 million worldwide. During the speech, he accepted his party's nomination and presented his policy goals."

Thoughts? Digital ^Ninja 00:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a non-controversial wording improvement. LotLE×talk 00:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically thats about it, but being how this article wears some people out, I wanted to discuss it first just to be on the safe side. And, it was supposed to be a bad joke :) Digital ^Ninja 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Weasel

Many commentators mentioned Obama's international appeal as a defining factor for his public image

Although it is cited, is there a better way oof phrasing this? Per WP:Weasel.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's a statement of people's opinions, I'm sure it falls under WP:Weasel. See Exceptions at the bottom, though I could be off. Grsz ^Review! 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the three exceptions of Weasel and it doesn't seem to fall under any one of them. Perhaps others see it another way, I am just mentioning it, because it looked funny just sitting out there they way it is written now.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to ignore all rules, but I may be mistaken. Basically, if rules stand in the way of making wikipedia better, you knock down the rules, not wikipedia :D. <--Look at that awesome summarization!WikiReverter How am I doing? 04:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hello everyone!
I have fully protected this page (along with the pages of the other candidates) until after the election because it is becoming impossible to handle the vandalism, edit warring, and pure drama that these pages are generating. As such, non-admin users will be unable to directly edit the page. Fear not, however, this is still a wiki and you have my firm promise that I and as many neutral admins as we can spare will be watching this page and the others to make requested edits. Simply start a new header and place {{editprotected}} along with an explanation of your edit. If your edit may be considered controversial, some time will be given to determine community consensus before it is made.
I am very sorry for the inconvenience this will cause but I believe the benefits outweigh the losses. Please feel free to direct any questions about this situation, my choice to protect, or protection in general to my talk page. Thanks, and have a wonderful weekend. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with continuing the lockdown thru November 5. However, the huge tag is hideous. The small padlock symbol would work just as well. We have been through this before.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Be real, the only reason you locked the article is because you don't want any negative information added about your canidate. BarackBlows (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Family of Barack Obama is the article that should be protected, if any. It has seen much hate-filled vandalism during the last few days. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

BarackBlows, you couldn't be more wrong. You might notice that I also protected all the other candidate pages. This was not politically motivated. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Page vacation?

Anyone for a vacation from this page? Now that the article is locked, it is unlikely that any significant edit will be done until after the election. Therefore, for the most part discussion here is moot - we can return to add the election results, archive if the page is messy at that point, and take it from there. Perhaps just watch out for page vandals. Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, do you have any opinion about the tag at the top of the article? The page can be locked up without such a huge and obnoxious tag. In fact, the John McCain article was locked up for a couple days without that huge tag (but the tag was inserted today). The tag at the top of the talk page is fine with me, and will let anyone who's confused understand what's happening.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean the little move protect padlock on the upper right, no? Sure, that's a lot more pleasant looking. It depends on the message. Do the 100-150K people who read the article every day need to know it's edit protected or not? The bigger the tag, the more press Wikipedia will get. I'm wondering if "deal with vandalism" is the best way to say it - it sounds kind of undignified. How about "until after the election to maintain article stability"? I'm not offended either way though.

Yes, the little move protect padlock on the upper right is what I prefer. Readers who visit the article now will simply go elsewhere, once they see such a huge tag that says the article's been vandalized. If the little padlock is used instead, then editors would be able to figure out what's going on from the tag at the top of the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already cut back my attention on this (and related pages) significantly, although this is partly due to the total awesomeness that is winning the World Series. Like Ferrylodge, I am not a big fan of the big ol' template at the top of the four pages of the apocalypse; however, if the template wasn't there we would be inundated with claims of Wikipedia censorship by the tinfoil hat brigade. I would prefer the standard mini padlock approach (given that it is explained on the accompanying talk pages), but I can see the argument for the existing fugliness too. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So basically, now that this article is perfect, according to some editors, the article gets locked so that those same editors no longer have to worry about it. This article, as it stands now, is candy coated, and its a shame that a pack of editors decide to gang up on anyone who trys to add cited information that is not only true, but useful. Unlock the article, it belongs to the community.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What productive was being added? Please answer me that. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to propose whatever content changes you like. If they:

Are not campaign talking points reeking of recentism
Are not sourced to partisan blogs and editorials
Establish weight in the context of Obama's life
Are not already covered in a sub-article, since this article is in summary style
Are not WP:BLP violations
Are not fringe theories
Are reflected in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources

...then I'm sure they can be included, with everyone's support. Yes, this means that you can't use this article in the presidential campaign, but that would be inappropriate use of Wikipedia articles, anyway. Incidentally, all of the above applies to the John McCain article, too. --Good Damon 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Has anyone added or tried to add Obama's comments that he made about small town Americans, or is it too Fringe for the article, to actually add something Obama was quoted as saying? He has also been quoted as saying he would like to Spread the wealth around, or does this violate a policy on wikipedia? I didn't see it, but it may be hidden in the article somewhere.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why can't you all actually let me respond before coming in and adding more. It keeps giving me edit conflicts, because I am responding to a pack of editors, while I am defending my position, but one or more editors are adding while I am responding, therefore making me have to readd and reedit every comment.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jojhutton that those two quotes should be mentioned or alluded to. Additionally, the extraordinary number of times that Obama voted "present" in the state legislature ought to be mentioned. These things can be fixed without removing the full protection. Perhaps Jojhutton would like to offer specific language for the proposed edits?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, um, we'll ask permission next time? Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jojhutton, GoodDamon forgot to mention WP:UNDUE, which would cover your comments made by Sen. Obama, then exaggerated and taken out of context by his opponents. (Note: most editors use the term "consensus", rather than "pack of editors".) ~ priyanath ^talk 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) (and... Edit conflict!) That's just the nature of editing on Wikipedia. Someone makes a comment, a bunch of people want to respond, and boom... Edit conflicts. You get used to it. Now then... Look, how much weight does either quote have? The first is largely taken out of context. I can do the same thing with John McCain quotes, too. That's a campaign tactic, and has no place in Wikipedia. And the second quote is just one of the day's talking points. What does "spreading the wealth around" mean? Well, if you're a partisan attempting to insert a biased POV into this article, I'd guess it means "take money away from hard-working people and give it to welfare cheats." But perhaps it means "make everyone richer and bring about an economic turnaround." Is it important which is the correct interpretation? Only if you're here from DailyKos or FreeRepublic. --Good Damon 23:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I never mentioned interpretation, I only mentioned what he said. If any reader wants to use his/her own judgement of what Obama said versus what he really meant, well that is up to that particular reader and not up to "page protectors" to keep the quotes out.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So without interpretation, what makes that particular sentence more notable than the several thousand other things he's said that also aren't in the article? --Good Damon 23:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote about spreading the wealth around was widely reported in the mainstream media, and it was augmented by subsequent press reports about a 2001 radio interview in which Obama endorsed the notion of redistributing wealth. See here. To omit any and all discussion of this from the present article does not seem right.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add it to the article. Be bold. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Selective cherry picking of Obama quotes by his opponents-which cherry picking has been picked up by the mainstream media-is entirely about the United States presidential election, 2008. It will be old news by Nov. 5. That's why it's being rightly called Recentism and News by the majority of editors here. Give it a try, but I predict consensus will continue to support that view of Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS ~ priyanath ^talk 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cherry-picking what is left out is just as much of a sin.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The coverage I read suggests that the "spread the wealth" issue is mostly an election-year disparagement of the candidate, and was taken out of context in a misleading way by those promoting it. For example CNN calls it "misleading".[51] Although he may have said the words, he has said many words. Choosing a short phrase that is taken out of context as the latest talking point of his opponents fails as a WEIGHT / POV / COATRACK issue unless there is substantial enough coverage of the matter, independent of the election, to suggest that this statement has some biographical importance to his life. I just don't see it, not by a mile. Even if it were not a misrepresentation of his position it does not seem very relevant to his life. It may be worth a minor mention in a campaign article, to the extent one can source it as a significant campaign issue but even there one would have to fairly report it as part of the mechanics of negative campaigning via misrepresenting candidates' words. Further, I do not see much point discussing disputed additions right now. There is no realistic chance of the clear consensus it would take to add the material despite opposition to a protected page. Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

John McCain saying "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" received a lot of coverage. But we don't cover it here. Why? Because it's a minute portion of a larger speech that by itself isn't the best. We don't cover the day-to-day disputes of a campaign, especially in a biography. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And *"bomb, bomb iran" mccain* still gets 1,388 Google news hits. Talk about mainstream media coverage. And no, I'm not seriously suggesting it should go into the McCain article. All these things are part of the relatively short news cycle of a presidential campaign, not part of a serious biography that covers the main points of a person's life. ~ priyanath ^talk 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm monitoring this page for proposed changes to be made. Is the agreement here that the quotes shouldn't be added? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not on. There is no consensus for protecting these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not what I asked. I asked if there was agreement to add or not add the quotes in question to the article. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see any reason why those quotes should be mentioned at this time. That would be a little coat rack-y. There is no good way to explain the context of that quote, which has been turned into a campaign talking point, into the life bio of a political figure. Perhaps once the dust settles after the election we can debate if it should be added. At this time, the best thing to do is to keep the integrity of the article as it stands -- a Featured Article. Digital ^Ninja 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the vandalism?

... that warranted a page protection? I do not see any evidence of vandalism that would warrant protection of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is barrack obama. First of all it has been vandalised, and if it hadn't...the chance of it getting vandalised is HUGE! Protection is annoying but neccesary.WikiReverter How am I doing? 04:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my friend. Protection cannot be used as a preemptive measure, as per protection policy; see Wikipedia:PROTECTION#Full_protection ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, full protection has no consensus. It's supported by a small, very predictable cadre of editors - extremely dedicated and unusual in the degree of their devotion - because it preserves the current criticism free version of the article. Obama could be indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald today and because of full protection, they'd be able to block it until after the election by arguing and delaying consensus. They have successfully blocked any criticism from this article, and full protection serves to preserve their editwarring victory until after November 4. Valid, notable, well-sourced criticism about Obama's associations with shady characters and organizations, ( WP:BLP vio redacted ), and his own controversial comments about the redistribution of wealth and white people "clinging to their guns and their religion" have been vigorously excluded, citing every Wikipedia policy, guideline and essay under the sun, but always falling back on WP:WEIGHTas a last line of defense because it's the Wikipedia way of saying, "I just don't like it and I'm going to get my way." WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey WB, if Noroton's brief couldn't wade throught the an/i minefield, what makes ya think your polemics are gonna last!

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 16:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after reading Wikipedia:PROTECTION#Full_protection I can clearly understand that full protect can not be used as a preemptive measure, and that Jossi is 100% correct in his choice to voice opposition. I'm in agreement, now that I understand policy, that full protection is not the right thing to do here. I do not see a constant stream of vandalism in the history, which would warrant the full protection. It's simply not there. If this article, and any other article that was full protected as a preemptive measure isn't restored to semi-protection, then I'm going seek intervention. Digital ^Ninja 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found the method for intervention here. Please, people passing by this page, even if you're not a registered user, please weigh in your opinion by clicking on the link. Digital ^Ninja 13:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 just got off a week's suspension, and he's itching to get his POV stuff into this article again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a great example of the argument over page protecting this article, and here is what should happen, IMO:

WorkerBee74 start POV pushing
He is reverted
He adds the material again
He is reverted by another user again
Total time lapsed, 30 seconds
He starts talk page edit warring
He's told to stop
He continues
He's reported to AN/I
He's block is reinstated
Total time lapsed, 90 seconds
In the mean time, 2 good faith editors make edits to the article (grammar correction, spelling, etc.)
The spirit of the Wiki is preserved

Digital ^Ninja 16:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Grab your pitchforks and kick WorkerBee off Wikipedia's campaign coverage! Cf.: this Dallas Morning News report. -- Wait, WP articles are not part of the campaigns?

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 16:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. And if you're here to edit because of the presidential campaign, you're here to edit for the wrong reasons. This is not the place for campaign talking points, for or against Obama. And why did you link to an opinion blog there? I'm not sure of the context for that. It doesn't even mention Wikipedia. --Good Damon 16:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I intended irony with that line, Damon; would you agree that even nonfringily Republicanesque critiques are not really brooked here? Say, above, from Ferrylodge.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see one proposed lately that isn't fringy or of undue weight, and they're all emerging from the John McCain campaign or surrogates. They are not suitable for inclusion in Obama's biography, any more than Democratic claims about McCain are suitable for his. Now then, real controversies that have honest-to-gosh affected Obama's life, such as the Wright controversy, are already in the article. Why? Because they affected Obama's life, or were demonstrably important to him in a direct way. --Good Damon 17:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree folks ought not be here cous of the pretzel campaigns. (Full disclosure: I'd literally likely vote for Bernie Sanders if he were to run in New Jersey so eg "spread the wealth" ain't no anathema to me.) But I also think WP should respect encyclopedia readers' intelligence and not be so afraid they will misinterpret factual information. When ppl make an argument eg "No! WP can't report that Obama is friends with a Palestinian. Ppl might draw the wrong conclusion" -- my rebuttal is, "An encyclopedia's job isn't to shepherd ppl's conclusions so much as it is to provide a factual basis for folks to come to their own conclusions." Which enables ppl to turn to Wikipedia after hearing some widespread snippet of innuendo, in order to ascertain the actual facts.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 17:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders? You mean Barack Obama isn't the socialist candidate for president? zOMG!!1!!1!1!!!one!!111!!!eleven. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I'd suggest the best modus hereabouts would be to pose two questions. Is it a fact? Yes or no. Does a large contingent of the public believe it important? Yes or no. Two yesses, the item should be deemed to pass WP:Weight. Really, folks, a presidential campaign's coming in 2nd place is pretty much prima facie evidence its viewpoinst qualify for inclusion in WP as minority opinions and not to be banishing as fringy. Their coverage also has the added benefit of allowing a large swath of Wikicontributors to participate in their sourcing and in fine-tuning compromises as to which precise facts are essential and pertinent and what the most neutral way to inform readers of them would be.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 18:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it should be in the correct article. I can find all kinds of reliable sources saying that orange juice is high in Vitamin C, but should I put those fine, well-sourced pieces of information in the article about elephants? No. Campaign talking points, especially ones that get widespread play, are definitely notable in the context of the campaign. They're just not notable here unless they have a demonstrable impact on or interaction with Obama's life. Let's say the Ayers smear resulted in Obama losing this election... That would be a consummate example of weight, and thus it would merit inclusion in his bio, having significantly affected him, although we would have to note that the bulk of reliable sources find the smear to be without merit. The smear itself would have affected him greatly, and thus including it would be proper. But right now? No, it's still just a campaign talking point. A notable one, certainly, notable enough for its own Wikipedia page. But not of import on Obama's life. At least, not yet. --Good Damon 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

^ I don't know who wrote the above comment (they forgot to sign, and I'm too lazy to view the history) but that paragraph actually made me smart(er). In fact, I'm tempted to mash my head against my computer screen to try and absorb some more of it through Osmosis. Seriously though, you explained your point very well. Digital ^Ninja 18:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think we need to separate the question of neutrality and bias, from the question of article disruption (although bias is one of the claims some of the disruptive editors claim as justification for their misbehavior). With the exception of a few editors blocked or banned (and discussions closed) for repeated attempts to introduce fringe, BLP-violationing material, the vast majority of abuse and rancor has come from simple vandalism (the N word, comparing Obama to certain non-human primates, and "gay" everywhere), polemics about what bad things are going to happen to America if Obama is elected, attacking and insulting other editors, and tendentious wikigaming. That is not acceptable, no matter what the perceived political slant. As often happens throughout the project, there happens to be a lot of trouble coming from those who do not favor a neutral article and want to use the article to disparage its subject, but that misses the point.Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected... for now

Hi again everyone. Something of a compromise has been worked out and for now, I have returned this page to semi-protection. Please watch it carefully to ensure that vandalism is reverted ASAP. The page will be re-protected on the morning of Nov 4 until [within reason] the election results are officially posted. Thanks for everyone's patience and have a wonderful halloween. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that the article is back to semi-protection — it seems that 42 hours of full protection broke the vandalism cycle for a bit. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Me, being conservative, would say the vandalism wasn't ever there to begin with :) Digital ^Ninja 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Would all conservatives consider these edits to not be vandalism?[52][53][54][55] Or is it just you, being conservative? There are more such difs, but since protection was lifted we seem to be having a nice spell of quiet. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Of course I would consider those vandalism. However, it was well within manageable limits. I was simply stating that semi-protection is the best way to go here. Perhaps you are correct that the brief period of full protection has reduced vandalism as a whole. Looking at it another way though, with 115 page views a minute, do you really think thats the case? One thing we do agree on is the page is definitely quieter than it was! Cheers Digital ^Ninja 19:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies for my snarky assumption - obviously I'm a bit sensitive about some of the hate attacks here. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all :) Actually, it's refreshing to find people intelligent enough to talk to, debate with, and stand corrected by regardless of differing views. That's probably what I like about Wikipedia the most. Regards, Digital ^Ninja 19:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No editor or Admin has the right to lock pages, thereby keeping those who oppose their views on the subject off the page. We must let each page be open and let each edit stand on its own. Revert what is vandalism and keep what is properly cited. That goes for every page, regardless of who the subject is and what the subject matter pertains to. This article is suger-coated, plain and simple. Not one mention of anything truely useful for every reader of this page. Keep it open and keep it fresh.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(<----) Jojhutton, please stop being disruptive. Digital ^Ninja 19:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrator lock?

I propose a week-or-so-long administrator lock on both McCain's and Obama's articles. Why? Because just think not only of the aforementioned muiltiple and simultaneous edits, but also alllll the heavy vandalism we're in store for on Tuesday night. Who thinks this proposal sounds good? Tim010987 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So basically this is a proposal to halt free speech during a national election, in a country that prides itself on free speech? Not what we need to do at this point, regardless of vandalism. Any true patriotic American should not be in favor of locking these pages.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. Tell us another one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inspired to start all of my sentences from now until Nov 4th with, "Any true patriotic American should..." as those words alone are awesomely persuasive, regardless of what follows. cheers, --guyzero | talk 00:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to end with "and if you don't agree, you're obviously a communist." It's a nice finisher. Wins every debate. --Good Damon 00:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

lol - are you new here? Unless there's some related new story in the news, I'd say everybody has had more than enough 'free speech' in these Wikipedia articles to last them a long, long time. We should all be able to take a break on Election Day and not have to be watching for vandalism every second. What's with all the johnnie-come-latelies who suddenly want to jump in, anyway? I completely support the Election Day full protection. Flatterworld (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jojhutton, Wikipedia is "private property", and the only right is whatever Wikimedia decides it wants to do with this website. In fact, they would be well within their rights to turn this entire project into a massive Pro-obama machine. Flatterworld, this line made me laugh; "are you new here" LOL Digital ^Ninja 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I never infered that wikipedia was public, although it can be agreed that wikipedia belongs to the public. My point is that if we are discussing a topic about a free and open election, isn't it a bit ironic to cut off free speech, even on wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, Wikipedia does not belong to the public regardless of how much we'd like it too, or how much we believe in what it stands for. It belongs to Wikimedia, a private entity. Stop diluting you thoughts with bent ideas leaning on philosophy instead of reality. Second, this is not a soapbox for you to preach about the free world. I already left you a message on your talk page about disruption. Please find a neutral article to work on, or something. I'll help you with something if you want. Just let this article be as people are already wore out enough. Digital ^Ninja 19:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is WP is not built on free speech. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

←Ok -let's move on from the constitutional argument please. Tim and everyone, see here - it has been more or less agreed that the articles about the four principle players will be on semi-protection until Tuesday, full protection starting Tuesday morning until the results are announced at which time we'll go back to semi-protection. Assuming nothing changes. Tvoz/talk 20:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. And, Jojhutton, of course I wasn't attempting to supress anyone's free speech. I just don't want all the vandalism that is undeniably ahead of us come Tuesday, and I think Tvoz and others have made a wise decision to enact full protection. As a testament to free speech, it is amazing that during the course of a huge ongoing election that these articles have only been semi-protected for any Wikipedian to edit. Anyway, cheers. Tim010987 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, honestly I'm only reluctantly going along with it - I'm not a fan of full protection, but I think that Tuesday is a very special case, and I hope that we return to semi-protection very quickly, because I'd like the payoff of being able to write/edit about the outcome, having paid more than my dues in maintaining this and other related articles for the last two+ years. I do think the downside of keeping it only semi-protected on Tuesday is worse than the downside of short-term full protection, so I can live with this compromise. Tvoz/talk 09:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Free speech concisely addreses Jojhutton's point.--chaser - t 18:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, all trouts should come addressed to me...

~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 18:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin lock would be good, on all the pres elect pages, as a precaution, and to the above,

his "in a country that prides itself on free speech". *cough*bullshit*cough* is all i have to say.--Jakezing (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

legimate discussion removed twice

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is a legimate discussion on inclusion of Obama's disqualifying opponents from the ballot in order to run unopposed for the Illinois Senate.

The disucssion has been removed twice. Removal of discussion is in bad faith. The original person writing it was a bit unrefined. However, there should be discussion, not removing the edit and removing the disucssion. Midemer (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a gossip discussion involving accusations that violate WP:BLP. Let me be blunt: Keep your campaign talking points to yourself. This is not the place for them. Unless you've a source like the New York Times or the Washington Post stating as a fact in a news article that Obama has anything whatsoever to do with the release of divorce records, this discussion was over before it began. Closing, but I'll leave it here for you to see this. We do NOT include unsubstantiated gossip about living persons in BLP articles. Case closed. Do not try to open this again. Remember, we have zero tolerance for BLP violations, and this article is on probation. --Good Damon 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

- GoodDamon is confused. This has nothing to do with Obama's divorce. The removed material was about Obama's Illinois Senate campaign and his getting everyone else disqualified so that he would run unopposed. This is not BLP. It is well sourced, even by the Wall Street Journal. It is also a reasonable edit as determined by BBBH, Jojhutton, and me. GoodDamon calls it gossip. This is not correct. We are talking about the disqualifying others, NOT divorce. -

-

- Democrats don't like it when you say that Barack Obama won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities. - - By clearing out the incumbent and the others in his first Democratic primary for state Senate, Mr. Obama did something that was neither illegal nor even uncommon. But Mr. Obama claims to represent something different from old-style politics -- especially old-style Chicago politics. -
-

- From the Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008. - - As GoodDemon said "Unless you've a source like the New York Times or the Washington Post stating as a fact in a news article that Obama" - - The Wall Street Journal is best source in the world, on the same level as the New York Times and the BBC. - - I favor trimming the above WSJ quote to a mere sentence or two. - - BBBH and Jojhutton supports the idea. - - This is the new consensus. - Midemer (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Midemer (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the Wall Street Journal is not a "good source". In a normal article, it is hardly worth citing. In a WP:BLP, you can not use it as a source. Unless you have a main stream news source, don't bring this up here again. I understand you are passionate about what you think is true, however, please understand that most of the people that work hard making this article well balanced, and keeping the integrity of the article around all this insanity with the election, find your comments and accusations as disrespectful. Now, please stop, for the last time. Thank you. Digital ^Ninja 03:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As for using an edit summary [56] to tell other editors not to remove because of the consensus of three editors, that's a bit presumptuous on an article with dozens or hundreds of editors. Dayewalker (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That WSJ article is an OPINION piece. Even if you get consensus, it's not a neutral reliable source to show that Obama came up with some new election tactic. It is also not notable for this article, about Obama's life. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal was deemed not a reliable source.

What about CNN and National Public Radio? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95797455

In order to fulfill his own ambitions, Obama would have to kill his friend's political career.
Obama stood his ground and went one step further. Using an aggressive procedural move, he challenged the signatures on Palmer's nominating petitions. And he even went beyond that: He challenged the petitions for all three of the opponents.

Midemer (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please understand something. You can't cherry pick a new editorial and use only the POV you wish. That article really doesn't prove or disprove, support or not support anything. They give two different sides of an argument. It is a perfect example of how not to treat a BLP article. Please re-read the two sources you posted, I think you'll understand what I mean. Now stop, because if you continue to disrupt this probation article's talk page, I'm reporting you on AN/I, and given you single purpose nature, it will not go well for you. Thank you. Digital ^Ninja 03:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm closing this discussion but leaving it visible for maximum transparency. Given that a new consensus for major article changes before the election is highly unlikely, it would be best to not bring this back up, again. After the election, any major changes can be discussed as business as usual. Digital ^Ninja 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Illinois senate career

In the immediate above (hidden) discussion, there is an important part of Obama's senate career missing from the article. It appears in the sub-article. This section in this article has some fluff and positive spin which is less imiportant than the deleted fact (fact about Obama getting all his opponents off the ballot in order to run unopposed).

Two great sources are provided in the hidden section above.

I just watched a CNN documentary about Obama. It discusses this ballot disqualification tactic. It also highlights his relationship with the Senate President, his present votes, and 2 bills that he worked on. This is is objective summary of his career. Instead, Wikipedia has chosen some non-pertinent positive stuff to show and omits some important parts.

I supportt inclusion of the ballot disqualfication event that Obama did. So does Midimer and Jojnorton.BBBH (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is a summary style article. Due to the huge amount of biographical information available, much of the detail you are looking for is covered in child articles. In this particular case, the information you are seeking to include can be found in Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama in the section on the state elections. I have removed your comment that addressed the conduct of editors, rather than content of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

well done, you have chased away an editor so you can monopolize the article. i quit from wikipedia, at least for the forseable future. those that chase people away are disruptive. BBBH (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You hardly had a consensus. There are many editors here, and because you happened to have two editors agree does not make the opinions of all other editors moot. Claiming a consensus of three on an article watched by admins, dozens of editors, and a huge swath of the general net population is, to say the least, premature. And there are policy and guideline reasons other editors have rejected content similar to what you've proposed, one of the foremost being that the article is in summary style, a style used to create families of articles when a topic would otherwise be too large for a single article. When an article is in summary style, the sub-articles are considered part of the main article, and can contain the little details that the overview article should avoid. The overview article should only contain the most pertinent points. So with all that said, the content you want to include is redundant, because it's already in the applicable sub-article. There's no great conspiracy to keep this information out of Wikipedia. If people are interested in his early Illinois Senate career, they can go to the sub-article and get all the details. --Good Damon 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also POV. To report that Obama won the election by disqualifying all the other candidates tells one side of the story, and seems to be yet another proposal to portray him in a negative light. The other side is that he won by default because none of the other candidates qualified - you could just as easily say that he exposed corruption in Chicago politics. Presenting the story neutrally would indeed require more room than it is worth in a bio. Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please add what part of wikipedia policy the state senate information violates

As a matter of curiosity, I reread the policy of WP:BLP as well as NPOV. I could find nothing in the wording that would disallow the information that needs to be added. Could some one actually state the reason with an actual sentence from the policy, rather than just say it violates it. Because NPOV does not disqualify the information. NPOV says:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.

WP:BLP says:

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.

So the argument that it is ok to be in the article on Obama's senate career, but it is not ok here is not a good one. If it can survive one article it can survive both. They way it is written on the senate career page is perfect. It is not written in a disparaging way and is written using facts, not opinions. Also, exclusion of said information is not NPOV as each article can and should look at each viewpoint equally and fairly.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, specifically. There is no need to add it - one can tell Obama's life story just fine without describing this particular incident, and the information is adequately covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. To add it in proposed form would be derogatory to Obama in a misleading way by suggesting that his winning the election was some kind of bad faith trick, when it was in fact a matter of upholding the election laws. As an event in his life very minor, both in substance and as reflected by the relatively small amount coverage by mainstream sources in proportion to his overall life story, so to describe it in depth even neutrally would be giving it undue attention. I believe all of these arguments have already been made at length, and there does not seem to be consensus to add this material.Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts... In my opinion, NPOV is the single most abused policy in Wikipedia. Look... You're absolutely right that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV don't automatically disqualify the specific sentence you're proposing. But you apparently didn't read about summary style as I suggested. You are talking about duplicating text, and there's no good reason to do that. Again, this article is a summary, with the specifics in the sub-articles, because this article would be too long if it wasn't. Try to wrap your mind around this: The sub-article, where the text you want already exists is considered part of this article. But it's in a part where it carries due weight, which it wouldn't in the main summar article, as Wikidemon points out. That last link, by the way? It's part of WP:NPOV. --Good Damon 18:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

His middle name

resolved - question answered. It really is "Hussein"

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hussein isn't Barack Obama's middle name.

Yes it is. Read the RFQ. Search the history of both the article and it's talk page. Use Google. Call the candidate. View the birth certificate. Ask his mother. If it were anymore his middle name, it would be tatooed on his forehead. Digital ^Ninja 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask his mother? GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)