Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Controversy or Criticism sections and subarticles

Obama may be the most rational, articulate, and intelligent president in living memory, and I for one think he is doing and will do exceedingly well. With that out of the way, it must be said that anyone who deals in controversial issues generates controversy and even criticism. There may be honest arguments against the creation of criticism sections, and IMHO "controversy sections" are less vulnerable to such arguments. But there nevertheless are controversy and criticism sections for the simple reason that they are necessary and not to mention useful; they contain difficult elements within a particular framework wherin they can be "neutralized" and treated encyclopedically.

As proof of their usefulness, we can look at the number of "criticism of" articles (criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Wal-Mart, Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of Christianity, the list goes on), and a searchlist of controversy articles will show the same thing. This is also true of Bush, another U.S. President, who's article has a number of critical subordinates: Criticism of George W. Bush, Public perception of George W. Bush, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush. None of which should be particularly controversial.

This is also true of Obama, who has at this time at least one controversial section: Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#Campaign_controversies, which only leads to another article, the speciously named "Bill Ayers presidential election controversy" article. When in fact Bill Ayers does actually run for president (of UIC maybe), this article title would be quite accurate, althought the body text would have to go somewhere more appropriate.

So, here's the point. I like the guy. And I'm sure he wont "fail," as some here may "hope." But I also like controversy and even criticism sections. They can't not exist: even ESPN and recycling and The Lion King have "criticism of" articles; each of which grew from sections in the main article. Its just a fact of Wikilife that we have to deal with controversial topics, and one of the primary ways of dealing with such things is containment first, and then development if necessary. I think Obamaites here are obviously violating the spirit of Wikipedia in deleting, censoring, erasing, whatever you want to call it, any controversial concepts, regardless of how inane. In fact, its more inane not to deal with them: if there is no substance in such charges, dealing with them only shows how little substance the beings who promote them have. Indeed, it would be cosmically ironic if someone of Obama's substance were "defended" by people of such little substance that they didn't understand this basic concept. -Stevertigo 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your well-thought question (and well-made point) is that there is an active corps of editors who are deft with POV edits that cast the president in a positive light, while wrapping themselves in the warm blanket of unilateral "neutrality." Newguy34 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But to be fair, there is also an active corps of editors who are deft with POV edits that cast the President in a negative light, while wrapping themselves in the warm blanket of unilateral "neutrality." Both have either not read, not understood, or else simply choose not to adhere to WP:DBAD. -Stevertigo 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that what is listed above for examples have had years, some even decades, to garner such criticisms. Wal-Mart, Bush, recycling, etc...have been subjected to numerous, in-depth critical analysis from reliable, mainstream, widely-recognized sources. The current president has barely gotten the seat warm yet, and what criticism exists so far is little more than a Two Minutes Hate litany, rattled off by ideological, fringe foes. As reliable sources have time and material on which to offer critical commentary and analysis, I have no doubt that some day a Criticisms of Barack Obama will appear here. We aren't at that point now, though. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): Tarc wrote: "I have no doubt that some day a Criticisms of Barack Obama[sic] will appear here. We aren't at that point now, though." How long will it be? Please format your answer in minutes. IYHO, can we stub the "criticism of" article now, and populate it as we go? It can be basically empty, like the 2016 Summer Olympics article, or movies that haven't come out yet, and have a "this article contains future [criticism]..." for a headerbox. I understand that we don't like all the player-haters coming in and basically vandalizing the page. If they had their way, we'd be, well, Conservapedia. Which is just a sad thing to read. But anyway, I eagerly await your answer. -Stevertigo 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally do not dignify strawman constructions with answers, so you may be waiting a long time, fyi. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including controversies and criticisms in this article, so please stop acting like the only way to do this is by creating a criticism/controversy section. The existence of criticism/controversies sections in other articles is not a valid reason for including such a section in this article and the constant bring up of "But WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS!" by those that want to add one to this article is about as tired and worn out intellectually that it is just laughable on its face and makes one wonder if people that constantly bring it up are, to quote Stevertigo, "of such little substance that they didn't understand this basic concept." (Thanks for the personal attack, btw) The only reason why criticism/controversy sections exist is because editors can sometimes be too lazy to actually work them into the existing sections of the article. If there is a criticism/controversy in regards to Obama's presidential campaign, is it really that hard to work it into the campaign section of the article if it is a "major" controversy/criticism, or, if it is a "minor" controversy/criticism, into the campaign sub-article? Stevertigo, before you go hitting others with cluesticks, give yourself a good beating. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that there is another way of doing it, but if I was ambiguous in my first message, let me make it clear to you: Controversy and criticism sections are good. Controversial articles without them tend to suck. And FYI its not "lazy" (thanks for the personal attack btw) to be confused and hampered by bad writing that tries to dance between positive and negative concepts: "Obama promoted embryonic stem cell research, but some were opposed to it. Obama promoted fair housing, but some were opposed to it... "

Treating controversy this way is fine if you want to be POV and treat any controversial concepts in only one-dimensional form. Again, I tend to find most such criticism of Obama to be one-dimensional in its own right. It would be foolhardy not to let such criticism be self-explanatory.

By the way, after that long list and search links above (demonstrating at least the ubiquity and 'widespread universality' of controversy and criticism sections and articles) this: "The only reason why criticism/controversy sections exist is because editors can sometimes be too lazy to actually work them into the existing sections of the article" has to be one of the stupidest concepts ever expressed on the subject. But I know you were only joking, and yes it was funny. -Stevertigo 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

-

(edit conflict) Then take it to WT:NPOV as WP:STRUCTURE seems to strongly disagree with you on thinking that criticisms sections are good. WP:NPOV is not negotiable.--Cerejota (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that a controversy/criticism section would very quickly become a honey pot for whoever has some gripe against Obama and would degenerate into a whining session of things that people don't like about him. Instead, if it is a real controversy with some merit behind it, then there would be no issue or problem incorporating it into the body of the article. Brothejr (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not enough of a reason to avoid controversial topics. I don't like criticism sections. I think it breaks up the narative of the page, but I do not believe we should avoid presenting something that is factual, verifiable and noteworthy because we are afraid someone might add something that isn't. Bytebear (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep on saying it is factual, verifiable, and note worthy. The thing is there is very few facts involved, the majority of the reliable sources that mention it, says there is nothing there, and it is not noteworthy outside the conservative blogs. Brothejr (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. I gave several well documented referrences, the most comprehensive by CNN. Someone (I believe it was you, but don't quote me on that) retorted with a CNN blog calling it popppycock. The CNN article specifically said (and I am quoting this for the third time) "the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show" [1] Bytebear (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you are incorrect. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

Your own source (cnn) disagrees with your assessment and agrees with the status quo that including Ayers in anything gives undue weight to the idea he was anything more than the other people Obama knows but are not mentioned. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you just say that blogs were not verifiable sources? Bzzz!!! Try again. Bytebear (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I need to point it out: the source happens to be CNN, the material happens to contradict your tired quote-mining and makes the entire debate with you an exercise in inanity. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The souce was a CNN blog (not a reliable source) and it also was commenting specifically on Palin using the phrase "palling around with terrorists." I agree that that particular phrase is incorrect, but the facts about Obama and Ayers having a polticial relationship are clearly factual. Palin's conclusions are not. Bytebear (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) No. Blogs owned by Steve the Mechanic are not reliable sources. Blogs used by mainstream media organizations, when not clearly marked as editorials or opinion pieces, are as relevant as any other source but not preferred over other sources if they are available. The piece refuting your steaming pile of bunk is not an editorial or an opinion piece, so you can stop trying hold them as equivalent right now. The conclusions about their relationship are true actually: but only those conclusions that say "there was no relationship, this is all just a pointless waste of time!"*

• They also need to come from reliable sources, like CNN and not WorldNetDaily. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest an alternative?

There is a lot of arguments here about the inclusion of certain information. As someone who has not worked on the article, I would like to offer an objective viewpoint. We could possibly add information to the Public image of Barack Obama article about Ayers, to make it accessible. We could also add short, blurbs about Ayers and Wright to the Cultural and political image section of the article. This would solve a lot of problems. First, it would add what many editors argue is relevant information with significant news coverage. In contrast, it would also not give undue weight to these topics, and would pass no POV judgements on whether they are valid. It is indisputable that both Ayers and Wright affected Obama's image for many groups, so it would not be unreasonable to add them to this section while also maintaining neutrality. Just a simple opinion from a detached editor. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How is this helpful? How does it address the comment above? -Stevertigo 21:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayers is elaborated upon in the appropriate article. If you had observed objectively; first the arguments for the inclusion vs. the standing arguments against, you would know that Ayers and all of his 'ties' to Obama have been written about, in appropriate detail, within the relevant articles. The only way to add it here is to produce evidence that it was more substantial than anything else currently contained within the article now. Since you want to add it to his public image article, you must now demonstrate the same thing: that Ayers - William Ayers himself, and his views - was a substantial moment in defining his image. The view that it indeed effected Obama is one held only by the fringe and the right (had you objectively observed this talk page you would have realized this also), so as per wikipedia policy regarding fringe material, it will not be added and the suggestion is without merit. Have a nice day. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): In some contexts (I'm using tedious language here now), overlap and even a little redundancy is good. Sometimes its OK to define a concept using other concepts, and liking to those other concepts without explaining what they are. On the other hand, if it only takes a sentence or even two, its often useful to explain what a compositional concept means, even if that concept has its own article.

Its also possible (more tedious language here) that some people, who are sometimes called "partisans" or "POV editors", are under the impression that they should remove negative information (deletionism). If they can't for whatever reason delete it outright, they have no problem marginalizing it away from the core and toward the extremities, where it can be sanitized and de-referenced from the core. That's just the way POV editors tend to operate, and like certain sci-fi character archetypes, find it nearly impossible to accept what they really are.

Rather than identifying particular people as partisans, or even to focus on particular controversies, we Wikipedians have traditionally preferred to simply isolate the troublesome matter and treat it effectively. Criticism and controversy sections are not controversial nor POV, nor "lazy," nor "fringe." I appreciate your dictatorial style though, and you too "have a nice day". -Stevertigo 22:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If this is such a context you must demonstrate this - being only possible if similar arguments have not already in the past been raised. Since this article did not just pop out of thin air you can assume that many editors have spent a lot of time on this article, and in doing so probably came to a consensus on the current formatting. Are you saying they did not take into account the possibility for criticism / controversy during his term? Do you think the linked subsections that detail every thing Obama did during the campaign are full of glorious praise for our Dear Messiah?

When you start with the supposition that the current problem is due to phantasmic partisan forces then you must ask yourself this: why are you here in this festering pit of liberal dogmatism?

My point: If your aim is to productively collaborate, assuming your other editors are closed minded ideologues will not achieve that end.

Now do I personally believe that YOU are a partisan POV pusher underneath an (apparently) thin veil of trying to "help?" No. I think that you're assuming too much bad faith, and not doing the necessary ground work before you begin to type your responses in this thread. I could be wrong; I'm not God nor am I the arbiter of the truth, but I see what I see.

In regards to our implied hand-waving of criticisms and/or controversy, please note that A) nothing controversial has happened, B) nothing controversial enough has happened yet to require expanding those aspects of Obama's presidency outside their necessary articles (policy and etc.). Those items (Ayers, Birth certificate, Wright) that people are lobbying so hard to include are the only things being specifically labeled as fringe or partisan muck, and for a good, already firmly established, reason. If you also have a problem with controversy and criticism sections being labeled as "lazy", you only need such a section if the majority constituent of the subject is so connected to controversy that it cannot be responsibly separated and discussed without including discussion of the relevant controversy, they aren't avoided because of some vague mafia of style nazis that run things from space.216.96.150.33 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the Ayers/Obama relationship is not a fringe theory. It doesn't even come close to qualifying as fringe. Aside from the fact that they both worked closely on the same comittees, that Obama wrote a review of Ayers book, that Obama praised Ayers work in education and the comittee he chaired gave money to Ayers' programs. All of these things are well documneted facts with reliable sources. Bill Ayers is not bigfoot! (Really this needs to go into the FAQ.) The other fact is that the Republicans made a big stink about this relationship. That too is a fact. The implications are somehting Wikipedia doesn't deal with. This is the "fear" that you seem to have. That if given the facts, people might come to the wrong conclusion. Well, you cannot determine anyone's conclusions. And you cannot supress facts just because you are afraid of what people might think. So, drop the "fringe theory" because that dog don't hunt. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a "fringe" theory, but its definitely an "asshat" theory. Yes, the Weather Underground were kind of a bunch of idiots in their own right, and any guilt by association style criticism is no doubt due to the fact that there are no such asshats on the Republican conservative side. No, instead of fighting in a barbaric war, they decided to blow up government property and fuck a lot in a bus. Of course the associations are so incriminating. -Stevertigo 22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

do not believe the issue here should be if it is a fringe theory, otherwise, people like Howard Kurtz, George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, all of which made the alleged connections a campaign issue, must be classified as fringe theorists. Ayers affected Obama's image when McCain used it as a major campaign device. Obama found it public image affecting enough to issue numerous answers to the claims. To say Ayers was not part of Obama's image during the campaign and now, is, frankly, ridiculous. But, as some have pointed out more eloquently than I, Ayers should not be given undue weight and should be dealt with as far as he is notable. I believe the issue is and was notable enough to Obama's image to warrant one sentence at least. Whether or not it was true or misleading has nothing to do with its effect on the President's image. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And that one sentence should go into a controversies/criticism section. -Stevertigo 22:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the fringe theory, I assume is that Obama is a terrorist because he associated with Ayers. But that's not what any of these people were talking about (except Palin, but she was a nut). Ayers had some very radical ideas about public education. He wrote a book all about it. Obama endorsed that book, and the organization he chaired gave money to Ayers' organization. So, the "fringe theory" is really that Obama's ideas about education are as radical as Ayers. Sounds reasonable to me. Too bad the media chose not to investigate it further. Bytebear (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the extent to which we should cover it in the article is one sentence like: "McCain, Clinton, and others criticized Obama for what they perceived as an inappropriate Bill Ayers, using the ensuing controversy in their political campaigns." This would cover who said it, why it was notable, and would not argue for any side. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it better to be covered in the section about his early political career and mention the two boards he was on, then mention that while on these boards he worked with Ayers on education reform, and then mention that this association was criticized by ..." This acomplishes two things. 1) it gives some insight on what he was doing as a community organizer (in a neutral way) and 2) it gives background as to why he was criticized. Bytebear (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Scapler, that edit already exsists in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article. This is where a "See Also" addition would be helpful. Scribner (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Both articles also state that Obama announced his campaign on 2/10/07. The fact that is mentioned in another article is not relevant, because the issue here is whether it should be in this article. If you do not believe it should be, then your opinion is welcome, but I suggest you see WP:SUMMARY: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." (emphasis added). Also, please remain civil and refrain from sarcasm. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to reiterate, I do not think we should mention Bill Ayers in the Obama article, and I do not think this is the appropriate time to try to build a consensus for that. Once the article returns to normal editing I'm all ears, though skeptical. Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts to discuss the issue. Yes, we have had a few drive bys on both sides (but not moreso than usual), and yes, the media attention has drawn in some new faces, but I look at it as an opportunity to have a fresh look at what is clearly of concern to a lot of people. I also want to avoid biting the newbie. Nothing wrong with discussing the issues now. We may even come to a reasonable solution. I certainly feel the discussions have been worthwhile. Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I noticed you haven't addressed the issue of avoiding guilt by associations in the BLP guide. Why the silence on this? Scribner (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(interupting) The policy states "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." No one is suggesting making any claims about Obama's character. No one is suggesting that the claims of the critics are true. Presenting facts is not the same as making claims. Bytebear (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, for those arguing for the see also section, take a second or two and look at the bottom of the page at the templates. Also take a moment or two and look at each section and the main articles at the top of each section and the wikil;inks within each. If you notice, all the links to the majority of the articles, including the controversies, are already included. Also, why is it so important to discuss and push Ayers into the article now? As far as I and others know, no new information has come to light between the two and basically everything that has been brought up already has been brought up in the past and is mainly of a synthesis nature. Brothejr (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. No details about their relationship has changed. No new details have surfaced. Ayers has yet to be so pertinent to Obama's life that he need mention outside the campaign article. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You are basically arguing againt a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia: Consensus can chnage. Bytebear (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)It may change if there is new information, yet there is not. So again, all that is going on here is drudging up an old argument in the hopes that maybe this time it might go into the article. That is what all this boils down to, no matter which way it is said. Brothejr (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Which certainly doesn't count when the new consensus comes from WorldNetDaily.216.96.150.33 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine line between harping on Consensus can change and WP:IFICANOUTLASTTHEMMAYBEICANGETMYWAY, though. That's not how it works, and no amount of consensus can override core policy. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is "them?" Is it you? Is it me? Bytebear (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be those who know that Wiki policy does not allow what you want to appear in this article. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear obviously, a lot of people don't buy your hellbent motive of being purely in the interest of historical fact. I don't, but that aside, the Ayers' mention doesn't warrant mention in Obama's biography. Scribner (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But why? I have not heard one good argument. I have heard it's "fringe" but that's total bullshit. Then the argument shifts to "it's unfactual" and I prove that it is. Then it goes to "it's not noteworthy" and I give several referrences that prove that it is. So why? Let me hear a decent argument, instead of the crap I have been given. To start you off, I will help, "It's not noteworthy because... " Bytebear (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, please read WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Ayers and Obama sat on two totally non-controversial boards together and participated in a couple totally non-controversial academic panels together. That's it.

The so-called "palling around relationship" generated some minor excitement (and smears) from certain VP candidates and conservative blogs in the last week or so of the 2008 campaign. NPOV coverage is given to this campaign event and their relationship in the relevant campaign article. There is also an entire article devoted to discussing this campaign event and their relationship in what appears to be mind numbingly microscopic detail. It's one thing to argue for a brief NPOV mention of the campaign issue in the campaign section of this article as a convenience to the reader, but your proposal above tries to paint Ayers as a significant factor in Obama's life by expanded coverage of someone who was objectively not really significant. Minor campaign blip? Sure. And we already cover it appropriately in campaign and topic articles. Large enough factor for his summary style biography? Nope. And giving it undue weight is unfair to both the reader and the subject. --guyzero | talk 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly this conversation is turning into an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Maybe it is about time to close this as there will be no end to it. Brothejr (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see adding a mention of Ayers, even that he was on boards with Obama as undue. But this argument does negate several others, specifically: fringe, noteworthy and verifiable. You must then agree that the Ayers information passes those tests to move to the "undue weight" argument. The article mentions Alice Palmer several times. Is she more noteworthy tham Ayers? Read the CNN article. It goes well into depth of Obama an Ayers. It wasn't about palling around, but about their similar views on education reform. And it wasn't just republicans who brought it up. Clinton also brought up the issue in the primaries. So, I don't see the issue as undue weight at all. But omiting isn't undue weight (even by your definitions), it is no weight at all which is clearly POV. Bytebear (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more POV to cherry pick one individual from a lifetime of mentors and name him as being so influential in Obama deciding to run for office, particularly when Obama denies that claim. Scribner (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, if that individual were not noteworthy. But Ayers is. Linking Obama to, say, Blagovich would be inappropriate because there is no reliable sources discussing the two. But with Ayers there are. Plenty. Bytebear (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) You must prove that (1) Ayers the person was substantial to Obama's life. You must also prove that (2) Ayers, as a detail of Obama's life, deserves special consideration when deciding what to include and what not to include.

(1) Is refuted by all available evidence: Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are. as per http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/ also http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

(2) Is refuted as a function of the argument: if Ayers is so important he deserves mention, then he deserves more mention than is given in the summary of a biography, and would be given his own article as he related to campaign, which is already the case. Either Ayers isn't substantial enough to deserve mention, or his significance is such that limiting him to a small portion of a summary is inappropriate.

You may go, "BUT WAIT! He still deserves mention within the middle ground of the dilemma you have falsely burdened on me!" But you see there is no middle ground: only if you assume that this article popped out of no where, that it's current format was arbitrarily decided amongst a monocled liberal cohort, and that no one else did any investigation or thinking when constructing this article, can you claim that Ayers deserves mention. you see, because otherwise you realize that Ayers-Obama was an item evaluated against the multiplicity of other items that are elaborated upon in the relevant $_Obama-$_thing article, and that their inclusion or disclusion was the result of careful deliberation amongst many dedicated editors. If Ayers-Obama deserves modification in some way, it is to happen in the relevant article and not anywhere else. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The CNN article was written because Ayers was mentioned in the 2008 campaign. CNN says that the sum total of Obama and Ayers relationship is that they were on two non-controversial boards together, that they spoke at non-controversial panels together, and that Obama endorsed Ayers' book. Insignificant stuff in the context of Obama's entire life, and honestly to argue otherwise is trying to push fringe POV.

Why aren't we talking about all of the other board members or panel members or book endorsements? The CNN article shows that their relationship is insignificant, so writing about extensively (i.e. anything other than a short sentence inside the 08 campaign section) effectively continues the (false) smear by (insignificant) association. Your idea that they have "similar views" on education is just your opinion. --guyzero | talk 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I will use Alice Palmer as an example. Was she more important than Ayers? She is mentioned three times. You also use your blog as "proof" that Ayers and Obama didn't pal around. But that blog (aside from being a blog) is discussing the phrase "palling around with terrorists" which really doesn't play into the issue of verifiablity. Finally, I will repeat the specifics from the CNN article (not a blog) [2]:

• "... the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show."
• "Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project."
• "For seven years, Ayers and Obama -- among many others -- worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers. "
• "While working on the Annenberg project, Obama and Ayers also served together on a second charitable foundation, the Woods Fund. It was that foundation that Obama referenced in the debate -- not the Annenberg Challenge."
• " CNN review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved." -this is important because it isn't the intent of myself to portray this connection as innappropriate.
• "In 1995, months after the little-known Obama became Annenberg chairman, state Sen. Alice Palmer introduced the young lawyer as her political heir apparent. The introduction was made over coffee at the home of Ayers and Dohrn."
• "Dr. Quentin Young, a longtime physician, now retired, referred to the gathering as the political coming-out party for Obama."
• "Obama praised Ayers' book on the subject in a 1997 Chicago Tribune review, calling it 'a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.'"
• "the Obama-Ayers connection exploded into the national news Saturday when McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accused Obama of "palling around" with a domestic terrorist." - I point this out only to show that this particular referrence can be used to show that the issue was "explosive".

By the way, if these boards are so innocent, why are neither of them nentioned in the article? Bytebear (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I belive the lack of mention of the Annenberg project is because it will open the door to Ayers, so we lose vital information because of censorship. So even though an important part of Obama's life with no negative conotations is being hidden because of potential implications. How very sad. And none of you seem to be bothered by that. Protecting the innocent reader from learning about Ayers is more important than presenting important facts? Bytebear (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to prove that any of this is significant to Obama's life. Sorry to spoil your conspiracy theory and claim of censorship but, both boards (Annenberg, Woods) are mentioned in this article. --guyzero | talk 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, so they are. I guess my search feature wasn't working. All the more reason to show how such connections led to a major (not a minro blip) controversy in the presidential campaign came to be. Serisously, all you have to say in one sentence is "It was during this time that Obama worked with William Ayers, an association that caused some controversy in his 2008 presidential bid". That's it. Simple.Bytebear (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I don't know how many ways or home many times this needs to be explained to you. Here's another try. Obama, meet Ayers. Ayers, meet Obama. See? They met. There's really not much to it. Where the WP:FRINGE comes in though is that there was something notable and exceptional about an aspiring politician meeting with an aging radical. Conservatism had a field day with it, and the reverb of their blogosphere was deafening. When reliable sources touched on it though was to note the brouhaha over the far right's making a big deal of it, not about the assertions themselves. As I said earlier to another WP:SPA, "I believe that you are confusing coverage of the controversy vs. promotion of the controversy." Tarc (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, we are back onto the fringe theory. Sorry, ayers is not bigfoot! Bytebear (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and pease avoid personal attacks. I have plenty of experience on Wikipedia to warrant my views and my place here. Bytebear (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's safe to say that we are no longer obligated to respond to your queries. Your arguments have been met and refuted multiple times not just in the recent past but back within the ol' dusty archives as well. There is no significance outside of the fringe between Ayers and Obama, it fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, and was thusly omitted. When you provide evidence to the contrary, in a manner and tone suggesting we would not be wasting our time by addressing you, then perhaps we will no longer be at an impasse. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, since you seem to either fundamentally misunderstand core Wikipedia policy, or this is a simple case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it is not an attack at all. It is an assessment of your actions on this page. It doesn't matter how many times the same ground is rehashed by the WND Brigade, or how many basic policies and guidelines they ignore, they are still going to come to the same end; there is no justification for Bill Ayers being in a biography of Barack Obama. I think all that can be said has been said on this particular tangent, so until a new angle crops up, I'll leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No so fast, my friends. Are Obama and Ayers close? That calls for subjectivity. Did Ayers host a fundraiser for Obama? The record is clearly, yes. Does this discussion belong in this article? Well, that depends who you talk to. But the partisan attempts to paint this as a right wing fringe theory and to, in the process, attempt to dismiss the discussion out of hand is embarrassing and transparent. Maybe what Fox News claims is true... Newguy34 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that we are losing sight of the issue, we are not and should not be trying to prove ties between Obama and Ayers. The tie or lack thereof should not be the fact presented in the article. Rather, the fact that others have criticized Obama for there perceptions of the connections between the two is. We are not here to push an agenda, so we should not assert anything about the truthfulness (or truthiness ha) of the claim. The fact remains, Obama has been criticized on the issue by notable political figures, and it has become a part of his public image, at least enough for one sentence. One sentence in the midst of the thousands of sentences in this article would not be undue weight. It is relevant enough for that, the connections are not to be proved here, but the existence of criticism of Obama on the subject is irrefutable. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to poke a hole in your theory, but outside the small conservative blogsphere, no one is talking about this other then to comment how the conservatives won't let this go. The only people who are still bringing this up are those who are still sore over the election. Claims that this is part of his public image is not enough to add a line to the main article. As it has been mentioned many and many and many times, it has to be a significant part of his life for a mention in this main summary style bio. As it has been said over and over again, none of this has been a major or even really a minor part of his life and only those who are pushing an agenda are still saying that we must include something about this in the article. Brothejr (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, I am obviously an evil editor trying to push an agenda. I have remained nothing but cordial here, but you are determined not to be. Unfortunately, it seems that, though you absolutely refuse to accept it, not all editors agree with you. Yours is not the only viewpoint, and, at the moment, the article contains little criticism of the man interspersed throughout, despite the presence of such criticism in reliable sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as you keep trying to ram a minority POV into the article, despite repeated policy guideline citations that tell you that that simply cannot happen, then you are going to keep running into a brick wall. [WP:AGF]] can only go so far, and cannot be used a shield to protect oneself from tendentious editing. Tarc (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am calling it what it is. Yours is not the only viewpoint, and, at the moment, the article contains little criticism of the man interspersed throughout, despite the presence of such criticism in reliable sources. So you are really saying and pushing for exactly the same thing as everyone else. That in itself is not good faith and even in a way not cordial. As has been pointed out, all it is, is a form of disruptive editing. A variety of people have come in here and have told you and others that there is very little chance that Ayers will be mentioned in the article, even one sentence, due to a variety of reasons and policies. It also seems that a good portion of editors pushing for the inclusion didn't even read the articles they are using as references to back their claims up, are not fully aware of Wikipedia's policies, may not have even read the article itself, followed the wikilinks within it, or looked at the templates at the bottom. The majority of this "cordial" discussion has been done in a bad faith attempt to push more criticism, as they see it, into the article. Finally, one line would not do it with most editors arguing for inclusion. Let's end this farce and close this non-productive discussion. Brothejr (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not "disruptively" done anything. I merely saw the heated debates here, and attempted to propose an alternative. You disagree with me, fine, that is what I brought it up for, to have a discussion on the two sides of the issue. But, as with all the previous discussions on this page, this one has turned into finger pointing and insults (from both sides). I am NOT pushing a POV! I only observed something that many editors viewed as a problem, I have not pushed that any relationship between Ayers and Obama is true, only that it has been covered in the press. Please, many have not stated it well, and some have crossed the line in their arguments, but do no blanket people, some are actually trying to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections

Main pages: Wikipedia:Criticism and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Criticism and praise

Again, I dislike most of the "criticism" against Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that such exists. Again, there are controversial topics, and we use controversy and criticism sections to contain such issues, protect the rest of the article, and develop and explain such criticism. Opponents would have us believe that such sections are rare, when in fact, a simple search for "criticism of" site:Wikipedia on Google shows 16,700 hits! [3].

Criticism sections do exist. Why? That's not the real question; the fact is that they do, and if someone doesn't like their usage in one article, they have to challenge their usage in all articles. The real question is why do people think this article should be treated differently than any other controversial article? Are they biased? Did these same people work on George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception and its developed article Criticism of George W. Bush? A certain stereotype might be (or have been) supportive of criticism, criticism sections, and criticism sub-articles, related to the Bush article, but against these things in dealing with Obama. Would that be hypocrisy? It actually would be. The converse is also true; there are those who opposed elaborations on criticism in the Bush article, but support such here. Hypocrisy, also, if true. What this means, if true, is that partisans need to be demoted to other duties, such that encyclopedists can take over and make some improvements. Its not bad as it is, it just has the appearance of being cleansed, by people with that agenda keenly in mind.

Opponents have cited a couple "policy" pages; Wikipedia:Criticism sections is not policy, but an essay that used (until I made some heavy edits) a Jimbo quote out of context to back its own criticism of criticism sections. Jimbo said they can be useful or else can be a problem. I wonder if he still holds that view, and would be willing to clarify or update it. WP:STRUCTURE doesn't really rule criticism sections out either, if one reads it carefully. Wikipedia:Criticism is the core policy page on the subject, and some of this discussion should perhaps migrate there, such that it any ambiguity can be dealt with. WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise, though much touted, makes no mention of criticsm sections perhaps its because there are in fact too many useful examples (16,700 according to a little web page called "Google") to rule out their usage entirely, as some here seem to want to do. -Stevertigo 17:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

False dilemma: As if we are limited to either liking all criticism sections or we're not. What a load of crap. YOU must justify a criticism section for this article - without using the justification that "other articles do it!" Such puerile statements serve no purpose.

You don't even care to seriously contemplate the reasons for the absence of a criticism section here; ignoring previously made arguments pertaining to their omission from the article, suggesting that there is some ulterior motive for the differences found in two different articles about two very different people edited by different groups of people. The only partisan problems we've had have been those originating from WorldNetDaily and the still-weeping losers of November 4th. To suggest otherwise is to suggest bad faith against the multiplicity of editors that have hitherto been working diligently on this article.

Also, FYI - Criticisms (when they exist) are built into the relevant article, which can be easily found within the apt subsections - controversy's surrounding policy are usually located within those articles dedicated to Obama's Presidential policy.

If you want to complain about Bush, then go to his article and complain.216.96.150.33 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing, the controversies that have merit have already been worked into the article (I.E. read the personal and family section.) and there already are links within the article for people to follow if they want to learn more about any controversy (Take a look in the Public image template at the bottom of the page.). The only two things that a controversy section would do would to give criticisms and controversies more weight then they really have and also to become a honey pot for any person who has a gripe against Obama. If there is any new controversy (His presidency has only just begun give it time something big will come along), then we can incorporate it into the article. Right now, everything that is being complained about are election stunts by those still pissed off over the election. Currently they are covered in the correct articles and have no merit to belong here. Brothejr (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, your search criteria is faulty. You are performing a search for the word "Criticism" (google doesn't do searches for the word "of" if another word is in the search field) in all wikipedia articles, not just the ones that have "Criticism of" in the title. No one is arguing that the word criticism can not be used in the article. If you do a proper intitle google search, you only get 157 returns intitle:"Criticism of" site:wikipedia.org. Out of the millions of articles in Wikipedia 157 returns on a proper intitle search is very small. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty impressed how low that number is, although even some of those could probably go. Let's forget all the policy and pseudopolicy and essays for the minute. Somebody propose what a "criticism" section in this article would contain that would make the article better-written than if the same information was merged into the rest of the article. Or better find me any reputable source whose biography of Obama is organised in this way. How many criticism sections does Britannica have? Three! "What a puff piece!" Bigbluefish (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the number, if not about the idea of deleting them. But I was also including the concept that the search would indicate which articles have criticism sections (or controversy sections in the other search term). My term may have been far too wide, indeed. But yours appears to be too narrow. Perhaps there is a way to include sections in the search term? -Stevertigo 19:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a way to search section headers, but there is bound to be a way. You might try asking on WP:VPT. Regardless, the existence of Criticism/Controversy sections in other articles does not mean a section should be created in this article. There are going to be a fairly decent number of articles that have them, but a majority of articles will not have them so identifying articles that have a criticism/controversy section is not going to help you any. You need to explain how a section dedicated to criticisms is a superior article format than including the criticisms in the appropriate sections of the article. Above you said that interleaving them into the existing prose sucks because you end up with "Obama has X position, but Y criticized him because Z". I don't see how that would be different than the structure of criticism sections which invariably go "Y was critical of Obama for his position on X because Z." And since we have to be NPOV, that is almost always followed by "However, A was supportive of Obama's position on X, because B." I have yet to see a criticism section/article that has been managed properly, especially if the person is living and in the public eye. Invariably the section turns into a pile of drek (see Criticism of Bill O'Reilly) in which someone finds a minor criticism/controversy about the person and blows it out of proportion. Who cares that O'Reilly got Pepsi to drop Ludacris. I believe the argument for inclusion goes "But Franken mentioned it in his book!! We have to include it!! This article is about criticisms and this is a criticism!!!" --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is pretty simple: Criticism sections allow for the context of criticism to be dealt with in depth not possible in a main article. In the main article, criticism issues are often destroyed or else undeveloped. Of course, this depends of what one considers to be "developed" or "undeveloped", but in general, this issue to me is no different than Falun Gong or astrology, or any other article which adherents attempt to keep sanitized. Criticism issues also hamper the development of a main article, whereas a subarticle can contain all of the controversial editing. Paranoia against hacks and quacks, instead of being contained to the subarticle, means that such criticism need to be purged, and handled in accord with much much more strict BLP standards. 'Strict standards' in this case often just means exclusionism. You aren't arguing for exclusionism are you? BLP articles thus are easy to game, with regard to removing criticism. Critical sections or subarticles contains the "drek", and is an easy way to find both NPOV compromise, and to comply with NPOV itself. Certainly, an argument against criticism articles is the classic accusation of "POV forking" - practically a nonexistent phenomenon, and thus a red herring to raise as an issue.

"Who cares that O'Reilly got Pepsi to drop Ludacris. I believe the argument for inclusion goes "But Franken mentioned it in his book!! We have to include it!! This article is about criticisms and this is a criticism!!!" Take it easy. I don't care either what is on that article at all, never mind the topic itself, and nor should you. That things be where they belong is the point. And certainly you would agree that its good that such is not on the main article, which is the point of making the criticism article. We have subarticles for many different things, and they all do one thing: they show concepts in a different dimension. Not interested in criticism of GWB? Read 'attempts at impeachment?' Don't want that? Read 'public image of'. Etc. Even topics like science - pretty straightforward, need subarticles to deal with different distinct dimensions: History of Science, Philosophy of science, Scientific method, Scientific disciplines, Scientists,Science education, Science events, Fictional science, Scientific folklore,Science occupations, Scientific organizations etc. These are dimensions of science - not just subtopics, but dimensions of the actual topic. Criticism is just another dimension. Consider this: "Criticism of" articles about ridiculous people tend to be quite substantive. "Criticism of" articles about substantive people tend to be quite ridiculous. Don't censor the ridiculous by taking it too seriously. Let the ridiculous speak for itself. BTW this reminds me of how people originally wanted to kill all the 911 conspiracy crap off Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how stupid it is, what matters is that it is. -Stevertigo 22:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but is "criticism of Obama" a notable topic? There is certainly some of it afoot, but unless one can identify it as a distinct phenomenon / issue, it would seem like a random collection of disparate information. One might find some subtopics in there that could stand on their own feet, and of course there is a "public image" article which is a well defined topic. Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Wikidemon and hear the points that Stevertigo makes. My underlying question/concern would be how would we keep such article from devolving into a rant/fringe article where anyone and everyone will post whatever thing they don't like about the man. Also, many of the controversies that might be placed in such article would also involve a lot of syntheses and how would we relate that the the various policies of Wikipedia including find reliable sources for all of these? How would we keep people from posting false controversies in an attempt to make them noticeable and thus something they can sling around during another election? That last part might even become a problem for Wikipedia legally. Brothejr (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I dare you to find a "Criticism of" article that doesn't violate NPOV and UNDUE, especially with regards to BLPs. Even the ones that are reasonably well written (Criticism of Islam/Criticism of Christianity) become honeypots for every minor criticism about the main topic and result in sanitized main articles (again, take a look at Islam and Christianity). If a criticism of a topic is so minor that it doesn't belong in the main article or one of the sub-articles, then that criticism does not have a place on Wikipedia. The example I gave above is a perfect example of what happens to all "Criticism of" articles. Every criticism, no matter how minor, gets placed in the article, regardless of how poorly sourced that minor criticism is. All the while, the main article and sub-articles are having the criticisms purged under the banner of "We have a 'Criticism of' article for this, no need to have it here as well." I would also question your comparison of the creation of criticism articles to the inclusion of Truthers. Much of the Truther purging was centered around lack of reliable sources and an over-reaction by certain editors to Truthers trying to give undue weight to their opinions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Barack Obama article

I would like to see the history for this page. In particular, there seems to be no discussion at AFD about it, and likewise the talk page was deleted. According to a particular deletion rule, but apparently improper nonetheless. Was the article just speedy deleted and not voted on? I also would like to see what the content was. A brief restoration period would accomplish this. -Stevertigo 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A summary: 31 edits, speedily deleted four times, twice as attack pages, twice for lack of content. The most developed version was created and edited mostly by 300wackerdrive (talk · contribs), a confirmed sockpuppet of one of our most tendentious banned editors and rightly deleted on that point in itself. I personally won't be restoring, because of that fact alone; other admins might, I dunno. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case I suggest if anyone really wants to see it they can restore it to their user page or have it emailed to them. Wikidemon (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Email is fine. I'll check it when I get back. Thanks in advance. -Stevertigo 22:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Critism of George W. Bush be deleted too?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to exist, if you mean criticism of George W. Bush might I refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Soxwon (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya, nice comeback. Rather typical. Sounds like a broken record.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So do you have anything constructive to post, or just here to troll? Soxwon (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if an article is created which does not otherwise violate Wikipedia policies, it may stick. Since every version has either violated WP:BLP or WP:ATTACK or WP:BAN then I see no reason why any of these should be restored. If you create one that does not violate these policies, or any other, be our guest... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton, the criticism of Obama article was deleted most recently because it had no content. The version before consisted of 5 profound points including #2 "i don't have change can i guve u a candy?" and #4 "He is black". Are you really suggesting that articles like those should be kept? Guettarda (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This inspired me to write an essay. "Criticism of..." articles should be removed from Wikipedia entirely. There are ways to cover criticism in proper weight and tone without making a page devoted to attacks. SDY (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I've followed all the twists and turns of this discussion, but I can say that "Criticism of ... " and "Controversies of ..." articles and sections are bad idea. They violate WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. All controversial material should be included in the normal biographical sections they pertain to, in this article and in the various daughter articles. (That's how biographies in the real world are written, too.) Of special importance is this: During 2007 and 2008, a dedicated effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here — this means McCain, Hillary, Romney, Giuliani, Biden, everyone. That represented a big improvement in those articles, and now is not the time to slide backwards. I haven't studied the Bush articles closely, but Criticism of George W. Bush is a bad idea. Either its contents should be folded into the various Bush biographical and administration articles, or perhaps it should be expanded into something like Assessments of George W. Bush that discusses a range of judgements about his presidency and personality. But whatever the dissatisfactions with the Obama situation, Criticism of Barack Obama is not the answer. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

While I'm glad to see that there's an IPA pronunciation for Obama's name here, I know some people object to the use of IPA in articles, so it might be a good idea to add a respell-based guide (see Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key). For this article it would be: bə-RAAK hoo-SAYN oh-BAA-mə (wikitext: {{respell|bə|RAAK}} {{respell|h'''oo'''|SAYN}} {{respell|oh|BAA|mə}}). Any thoughts? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia IS a forum?

In the past few days some of the discussions here have been on subjects far broader than specific, actionable proposals and questions for improving the Obama article. Setting aside the random stuff, many of these discussions are thoughtful and important - on issues like neutrality, editing process, consensus, the nature of BLPs, etc., as they relate to Barack Obama. Although the trigger (the World Net Daily) article is by all appearances a sham, it has brought people here who have sincere questions. Those questions are sometimes not very germane to actual editing process on this particular article. I am wondering if there is any way to bifurcate this talk page, create a sub-page, or something like that, so that people who really want to discuss questions of bias, neutrality, and so on can do so. Any thoughts? Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just have something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Concerns . Getting people to actually post there rather than here could be a challenge, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything which isn't about this article isn't about Barack Obama, even if it was the trigger. WP:CENT would be a good place to start this kind of debate. I haven't got the patience to tell if there's anything worth debating that has come out of this, since it's all dominated by pages and pages of misunderstandings of the purpose and policy of Wikipedia, but that would be my suggestion if there's something important to debate. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant navigational templates

I noticed that some of the navigational templates at the bottom of the article seem to be redundant, delivering the same information. Specifically, those relating to Obama's cabinet; {{Current U.S. Cabinet}} and {{Obama cabinet}} seem redundant to {{Obama Administration personnel}} (which shows the cabinet). Hope this helps! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's Citizenship Has Not Been Proven and Is Not a Trivial Matter.

Wikipedia is not for fringe theories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Being that Obama has yet to bring forth a 'real' birth certificate and plans to change the constitution (so that he can legally be president) I believe is the biggest lie to the American people. It's a little funny how this is working out since he is a democrat. If it was a republican trying to pull the same stunt, CNN & MSNBC, all of the milllions of democrats would be all over it...just like Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Since it's just Barack Hussein Obama, DEM, then who cares...forge all of the birth certificates you want and no one will care or question...obviously since nothing has been done about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.156.84 (talk • contribs) This long, glowing main article about Obama should at least mention the citizenship controversy even if the article states that such charge is unproven and that the courts have not given any plaintiffs status. Because this important matter interests many people, Wikipedia should not completely fail to mention it, whether or not Wikipedia considers it true. Wikipedia deals with this elsewhere in an obscure, one-sided article. That article does not mention 1)Obama's maternal grandmother having said she was in the delivery room in Kenya when Obama was born, 2)Wayne Madsen locating records of Obama's birth in the Kenya Maternity Hospital in Mombassa, 3) Dr. Ron Polarik's analysis of the bogus certificate of live birth in Hawaii, and 4) Obama not producing a regular birth certificate or hospital records. Similarly, Obama's long, close relationship with unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers isn't mentioned in this long main article. Is Wikipedia controlled by leftists, or is Wikipedia trying to please powerful people in Washington? 76.177.225.181 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Antiayers, 3/12/09 I agree 100%. Barack Hussein Obama has not proven his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States, and until he provides irrefutable, significant evidence otherwise, Wikipedia should remove every area in the article where hs is referred to as "President", as he does not meet the constitutional eligibility. -Axmann8 (Talk) 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Um, no. Brothejr (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Its pretty funny all the points you listed are complete bullshit. Hopefully, one day you can join the majority of people in the realm of reality. Until that time, may you be forced into a 51/50 to provide you with the help you need. Have a nice day! --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC) It isn't in the article because it's unsourced, untrue and unverifiable. The mountain of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, Wikipedia doesn't just throw in every random bit of information into an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to make a political point, or cater to any group's agenda. The Obama article states who Obama is, where he is from, what he is known for and what he has done of note. The points you raise have all been debunked by credible organizations as smears and false rumors, and have no place in an encyclopedic article. Neutrality has nothing to do with right or left. It has to do with stating the facts and the facts of note only. (If Wikipedia was trying to please powerful people in Washington, then half of it's policies wouldn't even begin to forge a relationship there.) —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Now, that is bullshit. There is no evidence whatsoever showing he was born in the United States. His COLB was debunked as a forgery by Dr. Ron Polarik, with significant documentation that it is a fraud. FactCheck is not a credible source. It is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, with whom Obama worked on alongside domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. -Axmann8 (Talk) 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC) UM, still no. Also, Fact Check is considered a reliable sources, while Dr. Ron Polarik is well just a Dr. Brothejr (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I should probably mention my conflict of interest, I actually am trying to please someone in Washington, if only that hunkahunk of burnin love Barney Frank would drop the restraining order... --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC) You too? I have 11 senators that I'm trying to please, and it's time consuming :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC) This controversy has generated less coverage than is really necessary to include it in the article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Also, I would remind 76 and Axmann that Wikipedia is not here to comment on the truth of a matter, we merely publish things backed up by reliable sources, so your opinions on the truth of the claims that he is not eligible to become President does not matter. Since this has not become a significant issue, it should not be included. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories policy inconsistent

We have a section on the conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks in the main article about the attack. This is a fringe theory. It is hypocritical to encourage one there but not allow one on here--Rsjmsb (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. This is a biography of a living person written in summary style, but the 9/11 attacks article is about an event. The rules and guidelines differ. Furthermore, the fringe theories on Obama get their very own article to play in. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] But yeah, what Scjessey said. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict X2 - addressed to original poster) I think you're thinking of it as "inconsistent" - nobody is being hypocritical. Occasionally a fringe theory, joke, hoax, misunderstanding, etc., is so notable and well known, it becomes associated with the event itself. The Elvis Presley article probably has some mention of all the kooky things his fans do, and modern day Elvis sightings, which is pretty fringe. Whether or not that's reasonable with respect to 9/11 conspiracy theories is a matter for the 9/11 article. Sometimes a different group of editors on a different subject makes a different decision. That doesn't necessarily make one right and one wrong. Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith all around

discussion played out and becoming a rant magnet - this page is not the place to complain about other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All over this talk page, the only consensus reached has been that Liberals and Conservatives two competing groups of editors will insult one another. Neither will show even a little bit of respect toward the other. This talk page has become an AGF-free zone. Comments that fail to comply with AGF should be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Does that apply to this comment as well? Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I didn't say all comments were in bad faith, but in general the comments on both sides have been insulting toward one another. SMP0328. (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC) While this may be true, how would this help improve the article, or stop the rampant reoccurring rehashing of old arguments? Brothejr (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Because this argument will never end voluntarily. Each group will continue to claim the other is part of a nefarious conspiracy. Deleting AGF violating comments could be done in conjunction with other actions. My point is that nothing is, or likely ever will be, resolved via commenting on the preceding sections. SMP0328. (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ← This isn't a dispute between liberals and conservatives. Both groups, and the moderates in the middle, have usefully contributed to this article and its various offspring for years. No, the current disagreements are between normal Wikipedians and batshit insane fringetards (and the poor sheep that follow them). The arguments have moved out of the mainstream into the realm of the ridiculous, where it is proposed the article should contain all sorts of fringey, crackpot nonsense that reasonable people just laugh off as wacky. These range from the only slightly ridiculous (article should contain criticisms to be "fair") to the completely ludicrous (Obama is a socialist communist terrorist Muslim from Mombasa). This is way beyond the normal discourse and consensus-building we are used to here, and it is all predicated on this manufactured controversy from Aaron Klein. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Why referring to him as a "communist" and "socialist" is reticules? Isn't he both? See socialism and communism - they are political ideologies which Obama supports; he has a long record supporting radical politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.55.178 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Frankly, your opinion that he is a communist really lends nothing to this discussion or this article. It is OR, please read WP:OR. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Maybe you should reread WP:No personal attacks, where one is cautioned against "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" (emphasis added) and "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. " (emphasis added). I would caution you to avoid these "types of comments [that] are never acceptable" (emphasis in the original. Personal attacks would certainly include painting editors as "batshit insane fringetards". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) What personal attacks? seicer | talk | contribs 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I would say that referring to editors as "batshit insane fringetards" is a personal attack. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Well, that depends now doesn't it? Is he referring to us or them?99.135.173.51 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I stand by my above comment, which I do not consider to be a personal attack. The commenter I was replying to had said that the disagreements were between conservatives and liberals, and I was pointing out that this is not the case (or at least, a gross oversimplification). The recent attempts to shove inappropriate fringe material into the BLP have not been made by Wikipedians, but rather they have been made by transient or new editors with extreme (well outside the mainstream) views. These sorts of people appear to be completely incapable of normal discourse and consensus-building. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't say that. But they like most non editing people have a simplified view on what wikipedia, and didn't understand wikipedia cultural norms. As wikipedia editors, we should be careful what we say about others. Oldag07 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC) YIKES! I've avoided getting into the fray because I feared it would devolve into exactly what happened. Having said that, I need to say this: On a number of places on this page, it states that we must remain neutral. It doesn't say "Remain Neutral except for the one in the corner slurping the ice cream." It says neutral ... all the way around. Poor Wikidemon, whom for the record I do disagree with about a great many things but whom I deeply respect must be ready to blow a fuse. Or two. Perhaps three? A few others are probably in the same boat. I'm going to be blunt: Outside of Wikipedia I do have my own political views. They do not, however, belong in a Wikipedia article ... and neither does anybody elses. I do hold my own opinions on a great number of issues. However, they don't belong here either ... and neither does anybody elses. I'm going to get into trouble for this, but I believe it needs to be said: Wikipedia must remain fair, unbiased, and friendly to use. I think (my opinion here) that a few people on both sides of this debate have forgotten that on the other side of the name is a living breathing person. If you disagree with somebody, that's great! That's free discussion and free discourse and should never be discouraged. The problem comes from when somebody says "I'm right. You're wrong. Shut up." I'd like to suggest that a few people, you know who you are, on both sides of the discussion step away from the table for a few days. Emotions are running high right now and a great many people aren't at their best (or are thinking clearly) when their emotions are this high. Let's take some cooldown time, yes? Happy Trails! --Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC) There truly seems to be Bad faith all around. And I have noticed that Wikipedia, and/or its Administrators are just as guilty. I do believe that we should beware of anyone who would deny us access to information, facts, opinion, or any form of open and free communication, for in his heart he dreams himself our master. I have no political axe to grind one way or another on this one. But I do have issue with the statements "fringe theories, and/or topics", “all sorts of fringey, crackpot nonsense that reasonable people just laugh off as wacky”, “it is all predicated on this manufactured controversy from Aaron Klein”. Looks like one group has decided that everyone is wrong if they do not believe like them. And therefore it is OK to not give them a say. First amendment be dammed. Many of these very ideas, free speech just to name one, that allow Wikipedia to even exist were once, not all that long ago, thought to be fringe theories, ideas, and/or topics as well as treason. Some of Wikipedia researchers should look into what the English said about the 13 colonies before they started sending troops. And if this article on Barack Obama was truly the result of “the collaboration of hundreds of registered users” with “editors from a young age to retirement age, of all political spectrums, and from users in countries spanning every time zone in the world” I really do not think that it would look like he, his wife or grandmother wrote it. And for the record Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were supported by a consensus in the beginning. So consensus does not make it right or good. Consensus is more an issue of who is asked than it is of fact or reason. Gama1961 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Sadly, any point you were trying to make has been automatically rendered useless per Godwin's law. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Working version

{{Criticism of Barack Obama}} Is there any reason to create a skeleton version of a deleted article in article space redirected from template space, and transclude it here? That's kind of weird and it interferes with editing the talk page. I have doubts that anything good will come of this, but if you want to work on it why not do it in a sandbox? Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is "that's kind of weird" kind of like "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?" Your "skeleton version" terminology also does not give due substance to the concept that the term "working version" does. Skeletons symbolize death, while "working" here symbolizes growth and development. I don't understand how at all a transcluded template could "interfere[] with editing the talk page." There are cases where transclusion actually assists talk page discussion; for example see WP:OBT. "If you want [you can] do it in a sandbox" sounds a lot like "go do it somewhere else," or maybe even "go sit in the back of the bus." If by "if you want to work on it" you mean to indicate that what I want is relevant here (it actually is), then I'll respectfully just say that I "want" to do it here. Here is called a "talk page" and here is where people talk about the subject. The relevant "Talk:Criticism of" article was deleted with the article itself, so that leaves here. Thanks for your interest, and again, the working version is open for editing (not whitewashing, which would be sort of ironic). -Stevertigo 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this again from the talk page - you are at 2RR or 3RR here so don't add it again. Please review Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation as it applies to your repeated re-insertion of unsourced content here, and WP:CIVIL regarding the new essay you have created for the occasion to accuse editors you disagree with of unprincipled edits. Discussions, and pages, that start with accusations of "whitewashing" don't seem to be productive. I'm probably going to nominate the sub-page and template for speedy deletion - if you think they should not be please explain why. Complaining about me is not going to convince me otherwise.Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really been paying too much attention to this article, and I've gotten annoyed at this because of the other stuff that exists of this type (i.e. Criticism of foo articles in general), but looking at the skeleton that's been created, it appears that everything that would be included on that page is already covered in Wikipedia and creating one article out of all of the negative comments doesn't appear to meet NPOV expectations. Why are we creating a new page with duplicate information? SDY (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen an answer, so I have nominated the article for (non-speedy) deletion here. Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The new essay by stevevertigo WIKIPEDIA:I just don't like it is MfD'd here [4]

Obama , Sr. article

Barack Obama, Sr. is now being targetted with seriously POV text about Obama's citizenship "controversy" and some inappropriate external links; the stated reason for adding the content there is because it can't be added to this article. --Bonadea (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for semiprotection. Tvoz/talk 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But it was turned down, because there wasn't "enough" recent vandalism. 66 edits in the last month yielding 2 substantive changes and 3 or 4 minor edits that stuck seems like a lot of vandalism and reverting to me, but so be it. More eyes on the page would be appreciated. Tvoz/talk 20:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Party identification called Socialist?

Simple vandalism, now fixed, closing before it attracts more gadflies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obama is a democrat. However the wikipedia page under his photo says, Political Party: Socialist. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz9902003 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Because someone vandalized it. This has been fixed, but thank you for reporting it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)You probably need to empty your browser's cache. — TKD::{talk} 04:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture not used in article

Featured picture of Barack Obama.

Occasionally it happens that well-meaning editors accidentally remove a featured picture from a relevant article, not realizing that it's among the site's best images. Normally I'd just replace it with an edit summary, but since this is such a high traffic page it seems better to post here. Is there any reason Wikipedia's best portrait of Obama isn't used in the main Obama article? Durova^Charge! 18:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that it is a good image, however, the image currently displayed is the official presidential portrait taken of the president right before taking office. World (talk • contributions) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you can't use the 2006 image somewhere in the article. It doesn't need to be the infobox image. Put it after or maybe replace File:Flickr Obama Springfield 01.jpg (since it's a somewhat low-quality image). I'll also note that while there's probably a preference for using official presidential portraits for US President articles' infoboxes, it's certainly not set in stone (I don't see a style guide for Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents anyway). The 2006 image might be appropriate for the infobox yet, while moving the official portrait down to the "Presidency" section. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The official portrait of a president is by far the most recognisable picture of them that will ever be produced. It would be counterintuitive at best to use a different picture. The trouble is all of the other pictures show Obama doing something. Unless it is added – and I don't really see where – then there's not really a case for the picture. I seem to remember reading once somewhere about featured pictures and how the criteria for things like flowers are really high because so many people take good pictures of them. Well Obama may come under that category too. I think this picture is featured in terms of encyclopedicity because it shows a facet to his oratory style, and that's a detail too fine for his main article to be covered in pictures of it. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your analysis of why the image is an FP, nor how it's only relevant in the context of a discussion of Obama's oratory style. While I agree, an official presidential portrait is likely to be the best-recognized portrait of said person, and thus it's probably not appropriate to replace the infobox image under normal circumstances, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to consider it; both considering the extremely high quality of the 2006 portrait (see its FPC for some good arguments) and the high level of media coverage of this last election. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting replacing the lead image. The question is why, with a featured picture as an informal portrait, this remains unused while several inferior snapshots are on the page. Is there a particular reason a featured picture is not used anywhere on the main biography of the current United States president? Durova^Charge! 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thoughts, the picture of Obama with the presidents at the end doesn't really illustrate anything except a barely notable photocall. Perhaps the featured picture would better describe his cultural and political image here? Bigbluefish (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While this may be a featured picture, I'd rather not have a picture where he looks pissed as the main image. Just because an image is featured does not mean it needs to be used in this article. Plus, besides the main image, where could this image really be used? Pictures have to also augment the article, illustrating a point. How would this image better augment the article? What point would this image illustrate? What can the readers learn from it? Brothejr (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh... did you actually read the post immediately above yours? Bigbluefish (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling down the page, there are many images of lesser photographic quality that are used in supplemental positions. Is there a reason this cannot find a place among them, perhaps to illustrate President Obama's years as a senator. It would seem to be fitting to use the best quality illustrations available at this important featured article, especially since it was taken by one of our own Wikipedia volunteers. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If a featured photograph better illustrates a point in the article, then yes insert it. However, just because a photograph is featured does not mean it has to be inserted. Brothejr (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of the image would be good, agreed. Like the dramatic lighting, the clarity and crispness of detail, and the clear image of the article subject (Obama). I also agree the presidential portrait should lead.ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to insert that photo, then here's the question: what point does that photo illustrate? What significance does it have with this main bio? Brothejr (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's senatorial career has been suggeted; that's the period this comes from. Usually I stay away from these political articles because the discussions get so thorny. But to demonstrate evenhandedness how about this? There's a public domain photograph of John McCain from shortly after his release from being a POW. I restore historic images; find a place for the Obama FP at this article and I'll restore the McCain photo and submit that for featured picture candidacy. The important thing here is quality illustration, not ideology. With respect, Durova^Charge! 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about quality of the photographs. What I am asking is what is this photo illustrating? Just because a photo is a featured photo does not mean it has to be included or it has to replace a lesser photo that had more significance and meaning to the article. Also, while it may have been taking during his senatorial career, it highlights nothing of his senatorial career and makes no distinction between his pre-state career, state career, presidential run, or presidency. So again, what is this photo illustrating? Brothejr (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a question I already answered twice. Rather than explain it a third time, since text descriptions appear not to communicate the idea effectively, you can now see it at the section about his senatorial career. Thank you for your commitment to illustration, Brothejr. The 'picture of the day' on display at your user page was one of my restorations. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, you still have not give a sufficient reason for the addition of the image and the image does not better illustrate the section, so I have reverted your addition. Why, not answer the question straight. I have read your last posts and you have not answered that same question. How does that image better explain Obama's time in the senate? You keep saying its a featured image and was takedn during the time he was in the senate. That says very little about why we should include it. Again (With maybe a little more then a sentence or two), please explain why you think that image would better improve the article and please explain why that image should be in that section. Also, please explain how that image would better illustrate that section to the reader. Brothejr (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't make the article worse, let it flow, man. That's what we should work on; only revert edits that make an article worse, not those that don't make it better. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I've come across many articles, where editors who are only really focused on images, upload an image and add them to the article because they say it looks better, soon the article become festooned with all sorts of cool looking images. When, over all, they add nothing to the article. The same thing is being done here. The original was better for the article as it better illustrated the section. While the only reason for the addition of this image is because it is a featured image. Plain and simple. It does not illustrate his time in the senate. It does not illustrate him better. It's just a featured photograph. Brothejr (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works in the way that you need a reason for deleting content, not for adding content. Be bold exists for a reason. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Be Bold also means stating the reason why you think the image better improves the article. Stating that is a featured image is not a reason. Plus, be bold does not mean do whatever you want to do either. Brothejr (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The way I'm reading it, it doesn't. BB allows editors to make any edit they want for whatever reason, and you don't need to state it. Our guidelines concerning reverting edits, however, do require you to give a good reason to revert a good-faith edit. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And the strange thing is, is that I not only did in the summary, but I also posted a comment here. However, not all things done under Be Bold is constructive. Be Bold has a tendency to be used by editors to do whatever they want and insert whatever they want. Sometimes it is even more bolder to hold back the edit and start a discussion before editing. Brothejr (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

←While you have a point about articles with an enormous number of images and when a particular image is of dubious quality, I think this image's FP status can be considered special circumstances. We don't need to use the FP, but why the heck shouldn't we? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, there are no special circumstances because it is a featured image. It still has to go through the same thing as every other image no matter what the quality of the image is. Brothejr (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we can agree to disagree on that, I suppose. As to the image's relevance, as suggested above, it does somewhat illustrate Obama's oratory style which (correct me if I'm wrong) has played a significant role in his campaign and career. It illustrates a particular stage in Obama's life. It can be used to link to a subarticle which better discusses those things the image describes (e.g., Obama's public image), thus freeing up space taken by summary ("a picture is worth a thousand words", after all). Is there an enormous need to include this picture? No, I suppose not. But I don't see the particular need to exclude it either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if it is being used for his oratory skill, where in the image does it suggest that he is speaking to a crowd? Brothejr (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what the caption is for Brothejr. How about using this one to replace the one down in the Political positions section? The reason why he was giving the speech was to support Proposition 87 which would have taxed oil companies in California to pay for investment in alternative energy. The one that is currently in the section is from a campaign stop. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note the image in question is File:ObamaAbingtonPA.JPG. I think we could use the FP in addition to that image, since the section is relatively devoid of images. Most of the other sections have two images or more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I can easily get behind File:ObamaAbingtonPA.JPG because it really shows his oratory skills much better then the other image. I am not against featured images, but saying it is a featured image does not give it more or less weight then any other image. Brothejr (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to replace the campaign stop image just because the featured picture is actually Obama making a speech specifically for a political position and the other is a general campaign stop. We also already have 4 images of Obama at speeches. Just for variety sake, if we put in another speech image, I'd like to see it replace one rather than add one. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(to Brothejr) I disagree with that; at the very least, from the standpoint that the FP is more representative of Obama's public image. IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong), Obama was very fond of the "open collar" look during his campaign- a look which served to make him less like a stuffy politician and more like someone who would "get things done".

(to Bobblehead) Good point about how many speech images we have here, but I do think the inclusion of the Obama-Biden campaign logo, etc. in an image of him campaigning is at least significant to helping establish the context. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(To Mendaliv) That may be, but looking at the image and remove the caption: is he giving a speech? Is he pissed off? Is he making a face? Is he just posing? While the image may be of high quality, if it needs a caption to explain what the image is about, then it is not the right image for the article. To better an article, the image at the very least must be able to stand alone without a caption and still inform the reader.

You know, I was looking through Wikicommons [5] and saw all sorts of cool images in there that we could either replace some images or add to the article. Plus, looking at the other language Wikipedias there are also some cool images in each of them too. Maybe we can bring some images from those two sources over here if they are not already and add/replace images to the article. I've seen all sorts of images that help better illustrate both the sections and the article, and be of much higher quality. Brothejr (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a fine image, but it isn't very representative of the section it is in. If the image were in the campaign section it would be fine, but a general campaign speech isn't as representative as an image of him doing something related to a political position. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama in Berlin

On a related topic.. Why aren't we using the picture to the right in the campaign section. There's some clutter in the image, but with some cropping the image would be a lot better than the grainy photo we have in the section now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, a featured picture portrait of Barack Obama has been removed from the Barack Obama article despite two prior explanations that it comes from his term as a senator and is therefore encyclopedic at the section about his senatorial career, with the following edit summary:

(Reverted to revision 277442217 by Cenarium; Reverting back to orgional image, as no reason has been given for image replacement. . (TW))[6]

Although this is not intended as a boast, it probably is worth mentioning that I have contributed 10.5% of Wikipedia's featured pictures. Normally it would be a thoroughly uncontroversial edit to use a featured picture at the article of its primary relevance. Having already stated its relevance twice, then demonstrated its relevance, it is very odd to get reverted with an automated tool in this way. Durova^Charge! 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While the photo was taken while Obama was a Senator, it's not really related to his duties as a Senator. That's why I'm thinking it's better placed down in the Political positions section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) (To Durova) I got to tell you, I don't care whether an editor has contributed all the featured images or just one. I don't care if they do or don't like automatic tools. (Though I've always wanted to become a lumberjack!) I don't care if they like spam or not. However, every editor has to edit the same way. Every image needs to better explain the article on it's own without a caption and while that image is a sweet looking image, it does not stand on it's own. There are a variety of images that better augment the article. Heck, there might even be a few in there that might be worthy as a featured image. (On an aside, Wikipedia is not just about images. Everything in the article has to come together to better inform the reader and images are tools to better achieve that. Too many images or images that do not better augment an article only serve to distract the reader and hinder the article.) Brothejr (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The reversion rationale is inaccurate. It claimed no explanation for the relevance had been made, not that you disagreed with the one which had in fact been provided repeatedly. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is that there are too many pictures of him as a senator, how about using it to illustrate his cultural and political image in place of the one with the presidents? I don't see much to do with his cultural and political image in standing in lines with former presidents. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the image does not add anything to the article. If you remove all the captions and secondary information and just look at the photo, can you tell if he is giving a speech? Is he pissed? Is he making faces? Is he even a senator in that photo. Plus, we have already a bunch of photos of him giving speeches. The main reason for the editor adding that photo is that it is a feature image. Nothing else. Brothejr (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, pull the pole out of your ass and stop edit warring. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the picture and there is no harm in including the picture in this article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is that there are too many images in an article, the usual solution is to retain the relevant featured picture and remove some other image. We don't need to question whether Barack Obama was a senator in 2006. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Aside from the time relationship, there isn't anything tying the image to Obama's duties as a Senator. He was at the rally as a "famous" supporter of the proposition who just happened to be a Senator. That's why I moved it to the PP section.[7] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can this please be fully discussed here FIRST and then applied after consensus is reached - right now what is happening with moving the image around, in and out etc. is an edit war and has gone past 3RR. Mfield (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; very good suggestion. Durova^Charge! 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the image is A) that this is a featured picture and thus "must" be in the article. Yet, if it was not a featured image, it would not have been included in the article. B) The picture does not really stand on its own. There are many and many other pictures which can stand on their own and are of featured image quality, and honestly portray him a little bit better (I.E. not looking pissed off!). I'm not too happy that someone can walk in here say, this is a feature image and has to be in the article and then just add the image in. I've seen it done way too much and articles quickly turn into an image fests. Brothejr (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And what is wrong with including an image that appears to show Obama pissed off? This article is not supposed to be a propaganda piece for Obama and there is no requirement that the images only "portray him a little better". I also don't see anywhere that anyone is saying the picture has to be included in the article, just that your reasons for excluding them are pretty flimsy. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is asserting quite what Brothejr claims. What I asked was why, with a featured picture available, it was not in use. It is standard practice at Wikipedia to use a featured picture at the article where it is most relevant. Normally featured pictures do get preferential treatment because featured pictures have been recognized by consensus for their superior technical and esthetic quality and encyclopedic value. Is there some specific reason for deviating from that normal practice at one of the site's highest traffic pages? Durova^Charge! 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to just throw a random shot to an essay and some humor. That's all. SDY (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much; that's delightful. :) Durova^Charge! 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yea it is so delightful! I see that image experts and photo geeks will always get their way over editors worried about the over all article. Basically what I have been saying is that while the image may be featured, it really does not add anything to the article. Finally, and I am done with this issue: an image should add and augment the article, it should be able to stand on it's own without any captions or help, and lastly I'd rather have a low res image that actually shows someone doing something, then a high res photoshopped and cropped, photo that of a person that could be of anything. Just so you know, if a better picture is found, then that image is getting replaced. 08:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —The preceding comment was added by Brothejr (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Since every attempt to engage with you on your comments has just resulted in a restatement of your initial premise, your belligerent attitude does nothing for your case against the issue. I'm glad that you are at least moving on from the issue, and of course you're absolutely right about the future of the image. I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, criterion 7 of Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria and criterion 3 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria deal specifically with image captioning. Good captions are a requirement at both processes. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please purge when reverting vandalism

Resolved

 – Based on how MediaWiki works this is done with every edit. Not needed. rootology (C)(T) 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

This is a response to the above section, but it's important enough to be broken out on its own.

To put it as bluntly as possible, this is currently one of our most visible articles, and one of our most contentious articles, and is likely to be both through late January 2013 at the least. It isn't acceptable for vandalism to stick around any longer than it has to, but unfortunately it can stick around for a long while indeed. Even if the article is reverted immediately, it's possible that casual readers (that's most of them, and they number in the millions) can be served a cached version of the article with the vandalism intact. Even worse, it's possible for search engines to index the bad version (it has already happened, on this article); now tens of millions of people can see the vandalism if they happen to do a web search on the string "Barack Obama".

If you watch the article and revert vandalism on it, please also purge the article afterward. That makes it much less likely that the vandalized article will be seen by anyone. While TKD's advice above is fine, we should not have to tell anyone to clear their browser cache, because we should be taking steps to keep the bad version out of browser caches in the first place.

Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A reader's browser cache isn't going to be affected by our purging our cache, so what good would that do?ThuranX (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not yours, the page's; WP:PURGE. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, if the vandalized page is purged quickly enough, it will never make it into people's browser caches. If it's not purged quickly enough, then it might get cached by ordinary viewers. Moreover, they aren't going to think about the technical details of why the page looks vandalized - if they do, great; most won't - but just remember that it was. Purging our cached version means not having to worry about caches elsewhere, whether that's browser caches, search engine caches, mirrors, etc. It's preventive maintenance, basically. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

When you edit the page, the server cache is invalidated for everyone - no purge required. If everything works properly.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We could add a convenient "purge main article" link to this talk page, or something like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Added one using {{purge}}. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:56, 16 March 2009 (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.

Implement WP:OBT here

I'm proposing the usage of topical organization using the 'presort comments by topic to subpages, with transion to talk page' (here) method. This is to deal with particular topics atomically, and not have to rehash the same old discussions over and over again. See OBT for the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevertigo (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if people would stop bringing up old topics, then there wouldn't be a problem to deal with? Tarc (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. And if only cars ran on sunshine, and everyone lived on love alone, things would be wonderful too, wouldn't they? -Stevertigo 01:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't support it without thoroughly understanding and approving the proposal beforehand. We just reorganized the archives. I'm concerned that other attempts by the proposing editor to mess with the meta-pages has been a disaster, an edit war, and either an AN/I report or an AfD / DRv. Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am against this proposal - I am concerned that it will be too easy to miss something important, as there would be too many talk pages to follow. Also, as annoying as it is to see the same things again and again, there's no guarantee at all that people will follow the scheme, and I am afraid we'll end up with even more of a mess. We have enough eyes watching this talk page that we manage to keep it in check, so I think we should leave well enough alone. Tvoz/talk 01:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I, too, would have to say it probably wouldn't help. Most of the repetitive topics are made by new or anon users who don't really read the opening spiel to begin with. I don't think many would catch that there's a subsection for each topic. (By the way, I would love to treat repetitive topics "atomically". ) —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this measure. It's hard enough to police all the vandalism and inane comments on here without having to do it across multiple pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No way, it's too hard to track this page already, and besides, my functioning search tool is still in place for people to review consensus based on previous discussions. rootology (C)(T) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edit

Resolved

 – Trivial change. rootology (C)(T) 14:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

I know it's a minor edit, but what's wrong with "recalled"? I think it flows better then "wrote". —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it back. "Recalled" sounds much better, particularly because this is a memoir. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2009 (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.

Iraq "Withdrawal"

Considering Obama wishes to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq, should this not be included in the article? As it reads now, it sounds like the US is leaving altogether. Perhaps it should also be included the 30,000 plus troops are being sent to Afghanistan. Thanks. Gangreneday (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Included on the Barack Obama presidency article. --slakr^\ talk / 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

"Many have argued that Obama is an adept orator on par with other renowned speakers in the past such as Martin Luther King, Jr.[205] and Ronald Reagan."

This is inaccurate. A great public speaker can speak without reading the words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.179.114 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You have no evidence for that statement. If you want to edit around here, I recommend that you don't throw bombs like this.Jarhed (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems that WND ppl have finally given up, so are there any major changes or any new additions being considered? Personally, I advocate adding a couple of lines about Wright's influence in personal life (see above: [8]: What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics.") While Wright is a controversial figure, that doesn't necessarily reflect him as a person, and I'm hoping someone can summarize it in a way that shows the real story of a man who had the moral support and guidance of his pastor on his way to bigger and better things. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Obama give Wright that big a role in his autobiographies though? My impression was that most of the comment about Wright's influence was in response to the scandal that embroiled around him. Consider that his grandmother and mother are much better known for their role in his development, but this doesn't make it into this article either. If Wright is to be mentioned in this article, it's surely got to be to do with the scandal. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, like you said, that was then and not now. How would we resolve that against the fact that he later publicly rejected wright? The article currently reflects the rejection and shift away from Wright. Though, I wouldn't put anymore info on Wright past the line that is in the article now. This is mainly due to the fact that the article is written in Sumary Style which means we don't go in depth into each portion, but summarize the highlights and then leave the details to the daughter articles. If you read the portion on Wright in the personal section, you will see a link to not only the man himself, but also the controversy too. That is enough for the main article, no need to expand into a discourse into Obama's interactions with Wright. Brothejr (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wright had a rather large impact upon Obama's life. Attending Wright's sermons is what convinced Obama to become a Christian instead of just being "spiritual" and Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC and his Audacity of Hope book were inspired by a sermon from Wright. So one could argue that without Wright, Obama may not have had the meteoric rise he had following his primary victory in 2004. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Does Obama give Wright that big a role in his autobiographies though?" Considering, Obama chose the title of his book from the title of one of Wright's sermons, the answer seems clear. Bytebear (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with how Wright was handled back before the whole controversy exploded.[9] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely worth mention is his reason for leaving his church of 20 years, the one in which he was baptized and married. Scribner (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's already in the article. Granted, it wasn't before the WND article, but it is mentioned now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bobblehead, I was responding to your mention of not seeing a problem with the way Wright was handled before the controversy. Scribner (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant how Wright was handled in the article before the whole Wright controversy exploded in addition to why Obama left the church and cut Wright off. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our confusion arose from the fact that there are now two controversies, one in which cast Wiki in a very negative light. This blatant omission in such a major article, deliberate or not, severely mars the integrity of Wiki. Anyway, I'm moving on. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Someone please move the sentence about Obama saying he wouldn't smoke in the White House...hardly a way to end the section about the POTUS. Scribner (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wright seems to be mentioned well in the article, he shouldn't be given too much weight. Good to see that things have cooled down around here. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of the controversy around Wright seems to be appropriately covered, but the overall coverage of Wright is a bit lacking, IMHO. As I mentioned above, Wright was what drew Obama into being Christian vs. just "spiritual" and Wright's sermon was the inspiration for the theme of Obama's 2004 DNC speech and the Audacity of Hope book. Both the conversion to Christianity and the speech/book are pivotal points in Obama's biography and to leave out Wright's role in those pivots leaves this article with holes. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm kinda torn. I think that if we can mention Obama's non-smoking efforts, we can mention his former pastor, who was a significant part of his life and of whom Obama always spoke well, until all Hades broke loose. However, I'd personally hate to be judged by my former rabbi, who shall we just say had a very inventive view of the Internal Revenue Code. Also, I hate to see WP give in under fire, makes the point if you raise a big enough stink, you can force WP to do stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are judging Obama by Wright's actions by mentioning how important Wright was to him, especially since we don't say what Wright said, just that Obama left the church because of some controversial statements by Wright. Wright is an important part of Obama's bio and ignoring him probably isn't the best approach to take. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Wright is biographically important to Obama's personal/religious development and deserves mention accordingly. Wright and the A More Perfect Union (speech) should also be briefly mentioned in the campaign section. All the campaign post-mortems have stated that the Wright controversy in spring 2008 was likely the campaign's greatest moment of peril; see this Politico story for example or page 68 ff. of the Evan Thomas "A Long Time Coming" book ("His advisors saw Jeremiah Wright as a true threat to Obama's candidacy."). Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Then suggest a line or two and where it would go, then we can either work on it, or approve it, then throw it in. Brothejr (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"In March 2009, a number of news outlets began reporting on incindiary comments which Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, had made during sermons at his church. Public reaction to the revelation was mixed, and Evan Thomas described this time as "a true threat to Obama's candidacy". Obama responded by resigning from the church and by delivering a speech, A More Perfect Union, during which he distanced himself from Wright, and the controversy died down." Of course with appropriate refs, I've concentrated on language here--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although the last phrase "and the controversy died down" sounds a bit subjective to me. Perhaps it could be worded differently or simply omitted. Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I would try. The campaign section on the primaries is a bit off mark already; the Michigan/Florida decision really didn't make a difference, and the while the race was even on the popular vote metric, it wasn't on delegates, where Obama maintained a steady and crucial edge. I would rewrite the middle of that paragraph like this:

... The field narrowed to a contest between Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton after initial contests, with the race remaining close throughout the primary process but with Obama gaining a steady lead in pledged delegates due to better long-range planning, superior fundraising, dominant organizing in caucus states, and better exploitation of delegate allocation rules. The Jeremiah Wright controversy became the greatest threat to Obama's campaign during the primaries, to which Obama responded with his well-received "A More Perfect Union" speech. ...

This gives a brief but good strategic analysis of why Obama beat Hillary, in addition to mentioning the Wright controversy. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the reader should be forced to click to learn what that was. I think it is OK to say what it was in the Obama article, either through my language or some other language. Otherwise the uninformed reader (recently returned from the Moon) is interruped by having to go look at what the controversy was.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, reading both entries, I think they would go good together. Basically, keep everything Wasted Time R wrote right up the end of the primary and then replace the portion about Wright with Wehwalt' entry, while keeping the ref's. That would make a nice addition. Brothejr (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just like peanut butter and jelly. Sounds good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right and I agree, things have to be explained at least at some basic level without clicking through. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good and we don't look like we're giving into the WND crazies valued contributers. Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IF we are in agreement, could someone insert it? While I am an admin, with the article on lockdown, I don't want to insert my own (in part) text for appearances' sake.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Before we go shoving new, and potentially controversial, stuff into the article, let's give people some time to think about and comment on this. For a long time, we have had a gentleman's agreement here that we build a solid consensus before inserting anything significant. Hurried insertions have historically led to edit wars, and ultimately the article probation. I think we need to spend a lot more time over this. I think the suggested text includes too much election-related detail - certainly more than a summary style article should need. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the last point. Winning the Democratic nomination is one of the great achievements of Obama's career. Going into the race, Hillary was the strong favorite, with more name recognition, more establishment party support, higher poll numbers, and just as compelling a historical "first" associated with her. Yet Obama defeated her. How he did this is biographically relevant and deserves to be described. And as I said above, the existing text on this part of the campaign is misleading. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, how long is a "long time?" A week, a month, a year? Soxwon (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When I said "election-related", I was referring specifically to the election with respect to Jeremiah Wright. In the end, Wright did not influence the result of the primary (or the election that followed it), so any mention of Wright should focus more on the 20-year relationship and not on the final few months of that relationship. Certainly this is not the case for the daughter articles about the primary and election, but definitely for this BLP. When I said "a lot more time", I meant a few days. I'm sure we could have an agreement with broad support before the end of the weekend. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the end, Vic Wertz's shot to center field in the Polo Grounds didn't affect the 1954 World Series, but it and Mays' catch are still worth discussing in that article. The Wright affair is the closest the Obama Express came to getting derailed. I would put it in along the lines outlined above.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The mention of Wright in the campaign section is biographically relevant because it sets up his speech on race. Elections are crucibles; the character of a candidate is illustrated by how they respond to the crises that occur during them. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are fair comments, and I agree that "the Wright affair" was a pivotal moment in the primary campaign - it didn't change the result, but it did galvanize Obama into making an important and memorable speech. We must be careful not to use this as a way of characterizing Wright ("incendiary", etc.) without the highest quality sources, and we must keep it as brief as possible. I think my comments demonstrate the need for more discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Thomas book p. 68 says "For Obama, the fiery and vain reverend was a continuing source of vexation and personal pain." And says that Obama characterized Wright's remarks as "pretty incendiary" to a Newsweek reporter. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that there should be more about Obama's association with Wright, but I also agree with Scjessey that we should wait longer than two days to make a change like this to the article. However, if we put in more about Wright, I think we should also put in more on former terrorist William Ayers. According to his Wikipedia page, "During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama, a matter that had been public knowledge in Chicago for years." Obama's article doesn't even contain the word, "Ayers."

Now even if this controversy may not be significant enough to put in this article, it just being a summary article and all, the lack of information on Ayers in this article has drawn the attention of FOXNews.com; they have an article about this (It also talks about the lack of info on Wright). According to the article, "users of the free online encyclopedia... deleted attempts to add Ayers' name to Obama's main entry."

I don't know if this is true or not; it wouldn't surprise me with all the argumentation above; but if so, this supports my view that we should add info on Ayers to the article, since other Wikipedians have tried to keep the references to him in. On the other hand, it could just be that those who wanted Ayers in this article were just as misguided as I, in which case, ignore this post. --STAR TREK enthusiast Open channel 13:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability isn't an equal, two-way street. That Obama figures as an important event in Ayers biography doesn't necessarily mean that Ayers carries the same weight in Obama's. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ayers is a whole different story from Wright, being much more minor in biographical significance and in effect on the 2008 campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read up on it, here or in the responsible press, the original claims were a hoax. When Wikipedia editors gang up to remove objectionable material from the encyclopedia we call that "consensus". At any rate, Ayers has been re-politicized again.[10] People are still fighting the Obama/McCain election, and using Ayers as a smear on Obama. Elsewhere, the material has been added (and I removed it) from four other articles. The material is politically motivated, and I don't think we should play to that.Wikidemon (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Q6 in FAQ is not accurate

WP:CRIT is an essay, not policy. Second, it is appearing that all of the criticism articles that are nominated for deletion will probably be kept.

I don't agree with including all of this particular answer (just the first part), but here was a proposed change from WP:ANI:

There may yet be one, and that section may in fact simply link to criticism/controversy article. Note that such sections are both conventional (common on Wikipedia) and controversial (often flagged for deletion). The debate, both site-wide and here, is ongoing. The arguments against and for such a section here are as follows:

Against: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT. For: It is Wikipedian convention to create such sections on controversial articles, to serve as a portal into criticism of the topic. The argument against such "criticism of" sections (and articles) is a site-wide one, which defies the site-wide convention, and is in fact a WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST argument that has yet to find the support of site-wide consensus. Creating a "criticism of" article likewise helps the other Obama articles, by sandboxing POV editors seeking to disparage the President, yet allowing the dimension of "criticism" to be handled at all; some nominal work is required to keep such articles NPOV.

At any rate, the current answer is incorrect and does not represent Wikipedia consensus on the topic of criticism articles. JustGettingItRight (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish people would actually discuss the answer here rather than editing the FAQ on this without discussion. I'm not going to get into an edit war, but the current revision is still inaccurate. NPOV makes no claim for or against a criticism section. JustGettingItRight (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let's stop edit warring on it; it can be changed when there is consensus here. I like the format that was in place prior. rootology (C)(T) 14:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer before does not reflect consensus. Perhaps, some sort of article RfC is in order? JustGettingItRight (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that a talkpage consensus could overrule NPOV. Oh wait. It can't. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I understand you're only 18, but your sarcastic remarks are getting quite annoying. We all are volunteering with the common goal to make the project better. As to your initial point, NPOV does not preclude criticism sections. You should know this, you speedily kept several criticism articles today. JustGettingItRight (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does. NPOV discourages segregation of opinions, which is exactly what criticism articles do. And the speedy keeps were on process grounds, not on content grounds. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the keeps appeared to be based upon content, justifying your speedy keeps. But if that's the way you feel, why won't you renominate these articles following the "proper process", whatever that may be? Your reasoning seems a bit disingenuous. JustGettingItRight (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. The AfDs were closed because it was a series of disruptive nominations made solely to make a point about the Obama article. The speedy keeps have nothing to do with the content. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing using the appeal to motive logical fallacy. Most of the editors based did not base their vote on an appeal to motive. You're contradicting yourself on this. JustGettingItRight (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First, it was not a vote; second, a significant number took issue either with the manner of the disruptive nomination or the differences between the circumstances of Bush and Obama. You should take that as a most kind gesture considering an AfD is not supposed to be about either of these subjects. Yet another justified their keep on the grounds of WP:SPLITTING. Try applying that one to Obama. Even more food for thought: as you say, the decision should be based on content. The criticism in the Bush article comes entirely under the heading of criticism of his administration. What criticism of Obama's administration do you think has a whole article to write about it? Bigbluefish (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They took issue (I took issue), but most editors outlined a valid reson for keep, loosely going along the lines of WP:SPLITTING as you bring up. I would guess any Criticism of Barack Obama would be focused upon the presidential decisions he has made, including criticism of the stimulus bill and 2009 budget. I don't believe there would or should be a lot of focus on prepresidential actions aside from those issues that were prominent in the 2008 campaign. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)FAQ#6, in its pre edit war version, correctly reflects long term consensus not to include a criticism section, and the reasoning behind it. Like all of the other FAQs, it is based on a perennial proposal that has been rejected each time, so putting it in the FAQ section streamlines discussion and makes it more orderly, particularly for editors new to the article. The status of criticism sections and articles elsewhere in the encyclopedia may be pertinent to the forming of consensus on the subject, but it is not pertinent to the decision to reflect that consensus in a FAQ. Wikidemon (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not correctly reflect long term consensus. If it did, we wouldn't be having this (sitewide) discussion, which seems to be trending towards keeping criticism articles. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on this article has long been against separating out criticisms, as Wikidemon says. And the tactic of just changing it and edit warring over it is unacceptable. Tvoz/talk 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is currently edit-warring over this that I know of (and I don't think there ever was a real edit war, just the potential for one to be created at certain points in time) so it seems as if you're just stating the obvious. I'm inclined to not debate the (incorrect) FAQ until a Criticism of Barack Obama article is created in the couple weeks to come. JustGettingItRight (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, but when a (non-spam) Criticism of Barack Obama is created and some partisan nominates it for deletion, you know what the outcome is going to be? ... Keep. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Default answer maintained with note that discussion is ongoing on the talk page.

I'm going to give a preemptive apology if one is needed. I feel my blood pressure starting to rise a little with some of the back and forth abuse. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)