Jump to content

Talk:Frank Marshall Davis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Barack Obama

Do baseless allegations and suppositions of bloggers merit inclusion in Wikipedia? If so, I need to post to legitimize my goofiest theories. Austinmayor (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you the So-Called Austin Mayor on Eric Zorn's blog? (just curious) I'll accept that "Frank" is Frank Marshall Davis. I don't think we should leave it at that, but I don't want a separate article similar to Bill Ayers election controversy. The problem with these things is that one part is true, and if we don't address the second part it might be assumed both parts are true. I figured one sentence would do the job. Flatterworld (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes I am. Thank you for asking. Austinmayor (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem solved. :-) Thanks to an anonymous contributor (from Minnesota?), we now know this started with Gerald Horne. Flatterworld (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel refuses to discuss his/her continual reverts on the Talk page, so this is really just to document the current situation. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia attracts people unwilling to discuss differences, but that's life. There seems to be a lot of this 'lack of good faith' editing going on in articles connected in any way to the presidential election, and I expect it will continue to go downhill until November. Flatterworld (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we assert that Frank Marshal Davis' mentoring of Barack Obama is DOCUMENTED(!) by Corsi's book? Mr. Corsi makes a lot of errors....Kuhniebird (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "documented" is literally correct, since Corsi cites in line note reference form more than five independent references in analyzing the Davis matter. Cdcdoc (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
For my part, I find it interesting that the language "anti-Obama book" is apparently passing muster. If that's not an editorial judgment I'm not sure what one would sound like. This appears to be the only place in all of the Wikipedia where "anti-Obama book" appears in anything other than a direct quote. I think just "book" would be better.rasqual (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is moot since it is now confirmed, by the posting of Unfit for Publication on Obama's campaign website, that the "Frank" mentioned in Dreams of my Father is Frank Marshall Davis. I downloaded that and checked: the confirmation is on pages 9 and 10. Vegasprof (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the Obama campaign material you mentioned. I too am amazed that there is no mention of "Frank" in this article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a reference in the article to "Frank Marshall Davis, alleged Communist, was early influence on Barack Obama", but nothing about Obama in the article body? It would seem to me that the article should be augmented or the reference dropped. And if you augment the article, I suggest trying to find a less lurid reference.Kevin (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I added the infobox, but am unsure about the contents of various entries. Please check and change as necessary. I just thought he rated an infobox, so I started it. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography

  • If someone can summarize the autobiography overall, that would be fine. Providing only a salacious clip from it is not fine, because that doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. See Wikipedia:Article development and related articles. Flatterworld (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have requested this article be semi-protected to stop the repeated vandalism by one anonymous person. The IP has been an ongoing problem, but cannot be blocked because it's a college IP and used by many. Flatterworld (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • What is your issue regarding the autobiography? Is it unsourced? Do you deny the facts of the autobiography? You don't think that an autobiography titled "Sex Rebel: Black" is going to be pornographic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.20.65 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a red-top tabloid. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines about how to write an article. If you don't wish to do that, then please don't edit. Flatterworld (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is a repository of sourced and true information. I have read the guidelines and nowhere do they say that an autobiography is off-limits (whatever information it may contain). If you are so thin-skinned maybe you should stop accessing wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.20.65 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for locking this article. Frank Marshall Davis has been the target of a malicious disinformation campaign designed to smear Barack Obama. "Sex Rebel: Black" is SEMI-autobiographical, with names and IDENTITIES changed.70.180.128.47 (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to information about the autobiography "Sex Rebel: Black": [1] Keraunos (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Horne did NOT claim Davis was a "decisive influence" on Obama. That is a half-truth. This was Gerald Horne's statement:

"In his best selling memoir 'Dreams of my Father', the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation - though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion."

Note that Gerald Horne does NOT claim that Frank was a "decisive influence" on Obama. Horne actually claims that OBAMA "speaks" of Frank being a decisive influence only "in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American." This differs from the Wikipedia entry in two ways:

- Obama apparently made the "decisive influence" judgment, not Horne

- Horne claimed that Obama cited Frank's "decisive influence" only in identity issues, whereas Wikipedia's "decisive influence" was unlimited in scope

Thus, in their disinformation shell game, they have not only cited Frank as an unlimited "decisive influence" on Obama, but they have falsely attributed this judgment to the Communist Party's Gerald Horne.70.180.128.47 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the book, and I couldn't find any "decisive influence" statement (or a sense of "warmly", for that matter - I found it pretty matter-of-fact, the way most people will view friends of their grandparents). If you can supply a page reference, I can check it out. imo, Gerald Horne simply misremembered what he had read. What I got out of the book was that Frank shared his experiences of years ago, and tried to sell Obama a version of America that Frank thought hadn't changed, but Obama knew it had. Flatterworld (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased article

The references to Davis being accused of being a Communist are from the McCarthy era, when anybody who said anything against the establishment was automatically branded "Communist" for political gain. Davis' writings do say that he sympathized with the plight of those members of the Democratic Party who were involved in trying to unionize the work force in Hawaii at the time and had been labeled as Communists, but did not identify himself as one of them. His own writings state "Not too long before my arrival, all Democrats were tarred with this same brush by the ruling Republican clique" "The local establishment, which evidently had been given a file on me by the FBI, flipped," Davis recalls, "I was a Communist and a subversive and a threat to Hawaii." (Frank Marshall Davis, Livin’ the Blues: Memoirs of a Black Journalist and Poet, ed. John Edgar Tidwell, 1992) That quote has been misconstrued by the Republican party during this election cycle as an admission that he was, indeed, a Communist. The fact that Presidential candidate Obama knew Mr. Davis is currently being used against Mr. Obama to insinuate, by using an argument of guilt by association, that not only were the accusations true, but that Mr. Obama is also a Communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemarvin2001 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

McCarthy was a democrat how the hell was he a member of a republican clique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.107.143 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Joe McCarthy, to whom the term "McCarthyism" (and this section) refers, was a Republican; perhaps you may be thinking of Eugene McCarthy? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) People who talk about Senator Joe McCarthy without having read the late M. Stanton Evans "Blacklisted by History" do not know what they are talking about. As for Frank Marshall Davis - he was a Communist activist active in the Chicago area. He later became a drug dealer and pornographer - the article is a standard Wikipedia cover up. The students and other leftist types who produce this "reference source" never tell the truth about your "Progressive" hero figures.90.212.43.137 (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

POV Yahoos

Hey, amigos, when I wrote this article in April 2008, I did so because I thought Davis was a much neglected poet and essayist. I did a lot of leg work on the article and almost all of it is still intact and unchallegened. I added a paragraph on Davis's 1968 porno autobiography, which is clearly by him and he admitted it later in life. It is sad to see this article taken over by Obama supporters and intimidators who have no facts to dispute what I wrote here about Davis' porn book. He wrote it; so what. It has nothing to do with Obama, but is clearly relevant to Davis. Please go find something useful to do. Go on a lit drop for your candidate; hit the phone lines; talk to your friends about why they should vote for your candidate; but stop making POV edits and obstructing the truth about Davis. It has no relevance to Obama. Find something useful to do with your life; but please stay the h--- off this article unless you have something solid and non POV to add. Rosspz (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Rosspz

You have not provided an overall summary of the autobiography (which is not actually an autobiography in the first place), but only a couple of ooh!ooh! clips from it. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. I see you're also very active on the Sarah Palin article, so you may want to reassess your glass house when you're throwing stones. Flatterworld (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, amigo, I don't really understand your illogical and veiled-POV response. Davis wrote a pen name porn book. Fact. We don't really need to go over the book and discuss it. It stands apart from his other work because it's of a different genre than his journalism, essays and poems. It's just different. For the time of 1968, it was still quite radical for a mainstream writer to write something like this. It's part of undertanding who Davis is. You seem to want to make this an Obama issue. I ask again: what does Davis' porn book have to do with Obama. You can't seem to explain this. And, what does Sarah Palin have to do with this. I work on all kinds of articles. I've work on lots of black authors and legislators. Much of my work is done because I'm lazy and don't often sign in. Check out my IP address. Until you can defend in a non-POV way why Davis's bio shouldn't have a section on his porn book, it should stay in. Check your own reasons on this and I think you'll see you've got some kind of unstated and maybe self-unadmitted vested interest in this misguided position. 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)rosspz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosspz (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read up on what Wikipedia is and isn't. Flatterworld (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the "Sex Rebel: Black" issue has a LOT to do with Obama. The right-wing disinformation campaign, which seeks to smear Obama by exaggerating Davis's influence, has made it an issue. "Accuracy In Media" (AIM) devotes two columns to this story (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-red-mentor-was-a-pervert/ and http://www.aim.org/aim-column/was-a-communist-obamas-sex-teacher/. Based on this novel, AIM's Cliff Kincaid is now calling Frank Marshall Davis "an admitted child molester" and is insinuating that he may have been Obama's "sex teacher."

Scandalous memoirs such as "Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet)" have been a literary genre for centuries. Such fictional novels are allegedly factual, but are largely invented. The title, alone, qualifies it as a "scandalous memoir." In "Sex Rebel," Davis's Bob Greene (not unlike Nabokov's Humbert Humbert) hesitates at a pubescent girl's sexual invitation, but foolishly relents. Like "Lolita," Davis's faux foreword is written by a Ph.D impersonator who details the psychological significance of the memoir. Like Nabokov, Davis wanted to write under a pseudonym to shield his reputation, but felt compelled to reveal his authorship.

As the son of Frank Marshall Davis, I have been fighting a right-wing disinformation campaign, spearheaded by Cliff Kincaid's "Accuracy In Media" (AIM), that misrepresents the Davis-Obama relationship in an apparent attempt to exaggerate Obama's radical background. The AIM website is the source of the falsehoods regarding my father. The campaign consists of a series of small lies fabricated to support the big lie that "His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin" (see http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-excuse-obamas-false-advertising/).

If AIM had actual proof of my father's radical influence, there would be no reason to fabricate evidence. Frank Marshall Davis was almost lynched as a young boy. I cannot allow Cliff Kincaid to repeat history.

Fortunately, Uncle Sam trained me to recognize and refute such lies. I am a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer, with specific CIA training in Deception Analysis at "The Farm" in 1989. Their "specific misrepresentation" is documented at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX, and I invite your readers of integrity to review my proof of AIM's deliberate misrepresentation. Please refute my analysis, if possible. I believe you will find that the case for AIM disinformation is ironclad.70.180.242.185 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are Frank Marshall Davis' son, and I will assume here that you are, let me introduce myself as the author of this article. Two questions, are there any factual inaccuracies that you see in the article as it stands. If so, please state what they are and we can talk about sources for changing them. Second, if Frank Marshall Davis wrote the book and wrote it under a pen name, why shouldn't that fact be mentioned in the brief format I put it in. (I still don't see the Obama angle here.) I'll hold off reverting my edit for three days to let you answer. Tahnks. Rosspz (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)rosspz (PS, I'm suprised that you didn't write an article on Frank Marshall Davis, but let it to others, like me. Your insight would have been very helpful.)

FYI re anon at 70.180.242.185--

From: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha Mark Davis's Blog About The Author: Kaleokualoha (LAS VEGAS, NV)

Son of "Frank" (Frank Marshall Davis), mentioned in "Dreams From My Father," defending against right-wing disinformation (red-baiting) campaign. I was born at 5:31 PM on November 9, 1950, at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. Frank Marshall Davis is listed as my father, and Helen Canfield Davis is listed as my mother, on my birth certificate. I graduated from Honolulu’s Farrington High School in 1968. I enlisted in the Air Force in December 1968, and have a Letter of Appreciation signed by President Gerald R. Ford on 6 May 1976. I earned a Bachelor of Science (Magna Cum Laude) from the University of Maryland University College through off-duty study in January 1982, and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Air Force on 15 February 1983. I was an Honor Graduate of Course G30BR8051 000 Air Intelligence Officer, Lowry Technical Training Center, on 14 June 1983. I earned my Master of Business Administration through National University through off-duty study in August, 1987. I completed the CIA Deception Analysis Course on 25 August 1989, while assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency, and have a course certificate from the CIA Office of Training and Education. I retired from the United States Air Force on 1 February 1993, with a Certificate of Retirement signed by Lieutenant General Edward P. Barry Jr., Commander, Space and Missile Systems Center. I also received a Certificate of Appreciation signed by George Bush, Commander In Chief, upon my retirement.

Edgar Tidwell Confirms Kaleokualoha Identity By Kaleokualoha - Jul 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm EDT

I am John Edgar Tidwell, University of Kansas (tidwelje@ku.edu), and editor of the oft-mentioned books by Frank Marshall Davis. Although prior commitments prevent me from actively participating in this debate, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm the identity of Mark Kaleokualoha Davis, who posts comments as "Kaleokualoha" and who has a blog at my obama. He is indeed the son of Frank Marshall Davis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosspz (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As Davis's son, I actually would be most comfortable if we could persuade Edgar Tidwell to rewrite the entry. He would likely provide "Sex Rebel: Black" with the attention it deserves in relation to Davis's other writing. He is accepted by both the right-wing disinformation campaign manager (Cliff Kincaid of "Accuracy In Media"), and by the Davis family, as an expert on the life and writing of Davis.

I am very displeased with the current entry, both because it exaggerates the importance of "Sex Rebel: Black" in comparison to his other writing, and especially because it cites the Telegram's misrepresentation of the book. It fails to note the character of scandalous memoirs as allegedly factual but largely invented.

Davis does NOT describe a sexual encounter between himself and anyone, nor does it describe his sexual gratification. The book directly attributes these to the protagonist Bob Greene, yet the Telegraph deceptively attributes these to Davis.

Once again, scandalous memoirs are largely invented. To factually attribute them to Davis, despite TWO levels of disclaimer (generic "scandalous memoir" disclaimer of reality, and Davis's statement that names and identities were changed), is deceptive.

"The "Obama angle" should be self-evident. Cliff Kincaid's AIM columns (see above) directly link the book to Obama as part of the overall smear campaign. Please READ the columns!70.180.242.185 (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither Davis' son nor his editor should necessarily be doing anything further in the article, based on our rules about conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have included the facts about the book in question (which I believe everyone agrees are true) within the Literary career section where it belongs. I've removed the allegations sourced only to the Telegraph. Herndon mischaracterized what he pulled from 'Dreams' in that piece he wrote for the Telegraph, so to rely totally on his piece as a reliable characterization of 'Rebel' would be a mistake and certainly unencyclopedic. Unfortunately, I can't find any peer-reviewed, scholarly information online. As for Davis's son and editor participating, I have no problem with that, particularly if they are aware of material they can refer us to. The biggest problem with this article is the lack of sources which can be corroborated and which are (preferably) online so we can all read them in context. Flatterworld (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Flatterworld! Here is Edgar Tidwell's brief view of Davis: http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/davis-frank-marshall-1905-1987 70.180.242.185 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we use the photo of Frank Marshall Davis from Edgar Tidwell's biography on the page for this article? It says the photo is "Courtesy of Edgar Tidwell." Rosspz (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)rosspz

Tidwell would have to upload the photo and license it for all uses (not just "non-commercial" or "Wikipedia-only") by all parties, under the GFDL license. This means the haters would be able to use it too, as long as they respect the license. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I added that link to the External links section. I also reverted an anonymous vandalism edit. I doubt it will be the last. Flatterworld (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't the last and now OrangeMike has protected the article for a couple oif weeks. Well done, Mike! It appears someone is pushing a new birth certificate conspiracy theory that Davis was Obama's father. How this theory is supposed to tie in with the theory Obama was born in Kenya (or the 'secret Muslim' thing) is beyond me, but I expect someone will come up with something. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This is part of the broader fake birth certificate rumors; perhaps the nastiest version holds that the real reason Obama rushed to his dying grandmother's bedside was to prevent her revealing The Truth™ about his paternity. Snopes.com has a whole page of articles about the nasty lies (and a few embarassing truths) being spread right now sub rosa. Like most such whisper campaigns, the various lies don't agree with each other; but the hope presumably is that some clot of mud or other will stick.--Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a case to be made for including the alternative Obama birth theory here, I think (NOT the conventional "birther" theory). Or rather, conception theory. If "Claims that Davis was a political influence on Obama were made by Jerome Corsi," is worth including in the article, it's simple to see how something even more substantive -- "Claims that Davis was Obama's actual father were made by Joel Gilbert" -- might be even more reasonably included. It's certainly more sensational, but it's also more significant. And it's interesting because as a theory, it absolutely repudiates any notion that Obama was born in Kenya, or that he is not a "natural born" citizen. Some of the facts documented in advancing the theory are interesting and may be interpreted variously. The record on Obama's first years on the planet is, indeed, sketchy, but it appears that Obama's own autobiography does indeed get many of his own facts wrong. And that IS a bit weird. Anyway, facts concerning this claim are certainly relevant to the extent that they demonstrate what relevance Davis may have to Obama. Obviously any sound rebuttals should be cited as well. Eh? rasqual (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh what tangled webs we weave, When first we practice to deceive. It seems a lot of these rumors are to 'corroborate' the supposed facts in the fake 'Revelations 13' email going around (thank you today's Guardian). Hawaii is hardly The East, hence the dogged determination to claim Obama was born in Kenya instead. Maybe after next week the rabid attacks will cease. Flatterworld (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the description of his novel, "Sex Rebel: Black," from "hard-core" to "soft-core," based on a literary analysis conducted by University of Kansas English Professor Edgar Tidwell. As the acknowledged expert on the life and writing of Frank Marshall Davis, Professor Tidwell is uniquely qualified to make this assessment.

Because it is an allegedly factual yet largely invented "scandalous memoir," written under the pseudonym of Bob Greene, "Sex Rebel: Black" is NOT the autobiography of Frank Marshall Davis. (It would not even qualify as the "autobiography" of fictional character Bob Greene.) "Livin' the Blues: Memoirs of a Black Journalist and Poet" IS the autobiography of Frank Marshall Davis. - Mark Kaleokualoha Davis 70.180.242.185 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the recent attempt to include text from Hamden's telegraph.uk travesty of journalism, I have posted this analysis of the technique by which Hamden and others skillfully built a slanderous house of cards in framing Davis as a pedophile based solely on his novel. To wit:

1. FALSE ATTRIBUTION: According to Hamden, "Mr. Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences."

a. Please note that the fictional character Bob Greene, not author Davis, alleges that incidents were taken from actual experiences. Even Hamden's travesty of journalism only stated that Mr. Davis confirmed that he was the author, not that Davis said the events actually occurred in his own life.

b. Casual readers of Hamden's story may not have noticed this sleight of hand (fallacy of equivocation) when substituting author Davis for fictional character Bob Greene as the subject of experiences in the book. In this one maneuver, Hamden cleverly shifted the identity of subject "he" from Greene to Davis, thereby indicating that Greene's fictional story actually happened to Davis in real life. This deception, however, reveals Hamden's intent to directly smear Davis and thereby indirectly smear Obama through guilt-by-association.

2. ESCALATION #1: On the same day (August 24) Hamden’s report was published, so-called "Accuracy In Media" (AIM) published a new report citing Hamden’s story. (AIM had already published numerous reports defaming Frank Marshall Davis starting in February 2008.) AIM now reported that Edgar Tidwell, an "expert in the life and writing of Davis," confirmed that Frank Marshall Davis wrote "Sex Rebel: Black" as a semi-autobiographical novel. Despite Tidwell's expert opinion that the novel was SEMI-autobiographical, AIM escalated accusations against Davis by claiming he was a sex pervert (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-red-mentor-was-a-pervert/) based on Hamden’s same-day report. Kincaid falsely attributed the "pervert" claim to Hamden’s report.

3. ESCALATION #2: On 14 October, AIM again escalated the charges by falsely claiming Davis was an "admitted child molester" (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/was-a-communist-obamas-sex-teacher/).

4. SUMMARY: Evidence strongly suggests that Hamden and AIM worked together on this story before either post was published on August 24: AIM’s post referenced Hamden’s story although both were published the same day. Further, AIM’s false attribution of the “pervert” claim to Hamden’s story suggests AIM referenced Hamden’s draft rather than a final version. 70.180.242.185 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous accusation of bias, moved down from top of page

Very clear that nearly all of the commenters and writers in this effort are extremely biased. There really is no effort to wholly investigate actual history save a quick trip to snopes.com (lol snopes, the authority) and a full dismissal of any ill deed. So it appears Wikipedia is now a full blown effort to re-write history in the politically correct tongue, diluting crimes and treasonous acts, by calling the perpetrators political activists. Our grandfathers are rolling in their graves. Disappointment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.243.11 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Snopes folks, while conservative in private life, are very ethical and go to a great trouble to keep a non-biased website. They have access to some of the greatest reference experts around the globe, and put an incredible amount of work into their research. What are your sources, O Anonymous Attacker: YouTube videos and e-mailed rumors? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
... You just said the "Snopes folks" are conservatives. Last I checked, they're officially "mum" about their politics. Unofficially? Well, they've endorsed several lefty things, so... make your own judgment, if you're capable. -- Glynth (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This word "endorse": I do not think it means what you think it means. As it happens, I'm an acquaintance of theirs; they lean more to the conservative than the "lefty" side of the spectrum (unless you consider G.Bush the elder "lefty"). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I have as much reason to believe you're an acquaintance of the Pope. In any case, I did a significant amount of research on the topic before I posted that comment, so I'll stick to it until proven otherwise. There's no way I'm going to trust the word of someone who'd imply that conservatism is inherently unethical. Maybe you didn't intend to do so, but you did: "... while conservative in private life, are very ethical...". Freudian slip? -- Glynth (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Added Tidwell's comments

I added Edgar Tidwell's comments regarding Davis's legacy, and outlined his "radical" position on various issues. You may note that most of his positions have even been adopted by Conservatives today.70.180.242.185 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And I reluctantly removed them because they took up so much of the article as to constitute undue emphasis on Tidwell and his opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The list is an important addition, but it needs to be footnoted and reformatted so it's not a long list. Perhaps it belongs in 'political activism' rather than 'political legacy'. Is there a realed Wikipedia article about these things you could wikilink to? If this article is going to discuss the investigation of Davis for 'communism', it's important to explain just what constituted 'communist' at the time by the committee. Flatterworld (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points! However, since Tidwell is considered by Davis's family and Davis's harshest critics to be the expert on the life and writings of Davis, is this emphasis actually "undue" -- especially since Tidwell's assessment forms only a small portion of this Wikipedia entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.242.185 (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sez who, other than Tidwell? And I don't think the assessment, in the form deleted especially, is that small a portion of the entry. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sez who, other than Tidwell"? If you are questioning my statement that Tidwell is "considered by Davis's family and Davis's harshest critics to be the expert on the life and writings of Davis," then the answer is simple:

1. Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media (AIM) posted "Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis" at http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor (see paragraph 11). This was the opening shot in AIM's extensive disinformation campaign concerning the Davis-Obama relationship. Kincaid has been Davis's harshest critic, as reflected in the series of AIM posts on this topic.

2. I, as the SON of Frank Marshall Davis and the leader of the Davis family defense against AIM's disinformation campaign, also recognize Tidwell as an expert on the life and writings of Davis. See http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha for more information.

Any other questions?70.180.242.185 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "I" to a post by an anonymous IP address. We allow edits by people who don't have accounts here, but we don't take it for granted that their claims of identity are valid. You could be Rush Limbaugh's gardener, or Michelle Malkin's pedicurist. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
You still need footnotes (preferably from some online articles by Tidwell, but phttp://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20Edgar%20Tidwell&page=1 these books] would also be acceptable if you have page numbers). Flatterworld (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. 70.180.242.185 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know why vandals (such as 71.255.162.163) continue to attack this page?70.180.242.185 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. :-) It happens whenever some blogger posts one of the usual lies about Davis in connection with Obama, which inspires someone who hasn't heard it before (or the debunking of it, obviously) to 'help' us. All we can do is keep the article on our watch list. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Same goes for the price of truth and actual facts. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought I'd run this by the "editors" before I directly attempt to edit the article. As you may be aware, Davis has been the target of significant disinformation since 2008. According to "Accuracy In Media" (AIM), "His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin" (see http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-excuse-obamas-false-advertising. His 1949-1950 Honolulu Record "Frank-ly Speaking" column "Free Enterprise or Socialism," however, proves that he was misrepresented (http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/frankblog1950.html).

Recommend this addition, perhaps in the "Davis and Barack Obama" section:

In his 26 January 1950 Honolulu Record "Frank-ly Speaking" column titled "Free Enterprise or Socialism," Davis REJECTED socialism (i.e., letting “the government own and operate our major industries”). Davis said socialism was a “HORROR”! He said that we didn’t have free enterprise any more. Davis supported small businessmen, which he considered a “casualty” of monopolies. He said they are the BACKBONE of free enterprise.” He said we had to decide to OUST the monopolies, which were driving us down the road to ruin, and restore a competing system of free enterprise. Davis wrote:

“As for free enterprise, it doesn’t live here any more. At the same time we have manufactured a national horror of socialism. Meanwhile, the dictatorship of the monopolies is driving us down the road to ruin. And so, with still rising unemployment and a mounting depression, the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.”

“Backbone of Free Enterprise Broken: In this control by monopoly, the small businessman, the backbone of free enterprise, has been a casualty. He cannot compete against the tremendous financial reserves of the huge monopolies, and thus we find more and more forced into bankruptcy or absorbed by the monopolies. Those small businessmen who supported the Marshall Plan have been unable to get but a pittance of orders, for here it’s the Big Boys Who, through their contacts with official Washington, walk off with the fat contracts.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.242.185 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hawaiian monarchy

Can someone explain what the sentence "Arioyshi ... advocated the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy" in the "1940s" section means? (Also, "Ariyoshi" is misspelled.) Ariyoshi was born in 1914, after the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Maybe he approved of the overthrow, but advocated it? Mateat (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that too... AnonMoos (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012

Mr. Frank Marshall Davis was associated with the Chicago Star in the 1940's. According to Wikipedia's description of the publication itself, The Star "was a Communist Party USA weekly publication." Further, Mr. Davis was a member of the Board of Directors and Executive Editor as well.

I would like to amend the "1940s" section of the Wikipedia page on Frank Marshall Davis to more accurately reflect Mr. Davis' role with the paper, as follows:

Davis used his newspaper platform to call for integration of the sports world, and he began to engage himself with community organizing efforts. Toward the end of World War II, he started a Chicago labor newspaper, The Star, that was a Communist Party USA weekly publication. Mr. Davis served on the Star's Board of Directors and was its Executive Editor as well. In 1945, he taught one of the first jazz history courses in the United States, at the Abraham Lincoln School[10] in Chicago.

Madalyn973 (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and there is no source for "communist" descriptor in the Wikipedia article. The request is declined at this time. If you have a reliable source, please provide it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
the content has been updated since the original posting of the request and reflects the sources. no new request has been indicated. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't fit some editor's political slant, it will be very hard to get it added in Wikipedia

I found this out with the article on John Edwards, when critical information was not allowed because it was sourced to the Washington Times and New York Post, who I was told are not legitimate sources. It was only allowed many weeks later when the story could not be covered up any more nationally. I had the same experience with the article on global warming, where even leading scholars in the field complained that they were not allowed to correct misinformation about their findings because, according to them, it didn't fit with some editor control of his own viewpoint. Yet, all the time people get to add critical, unproven information about conservatives or certain "cults," from single and unproven and even false sources, and if you try to correct those, it gets reverted. So, I do not expect any of the books purporting to show Frank Marshall Davis with a communist leanings and with connections to Barack Obama to make it into Wikipedia, even if it is just a " [name] claims," so that the reader can make up his or her own mind. Some editors have too much power to manipulate how things appear for political reasons.

as if smear by association is not even worse politcal slant? We take content about living people very seriously.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Frank_Marshall_Davis#Davis_and_Barack_Obama - WP:UNDUE

This whole section appears to be a coatrack. Davis knew and influenced a lot of people. There is no indication that Obama was a particularly important mentee in Davis' life or that the fact that he was mentioned in Obama's book is particularly helpful in understanding the subject of this article, Davis. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama campaign and the Communist Party of the USA, and witnesss familiar with Davis have acknowledged that Obama's "Frank" and Frank Marshall Davis did meet each other and had a relationship strong enough to be mentioned in his book. This request appears to be an attempt to erase any mention of a relationship that obama himself thought important enough to write about. If there is controversy is whether or not Davis's political vision had any influence of the beliefs and values of Obama as a mentor, then the controversy should be included in a neutral fashion, not removed as "undue" emphasis. Both the older book Obama Nation and the new Kengor book which was written entirely about this issue have received a lot of press coverage, so this information is notable enough to include in wikipedia. It is not the place of wikipedia to take sides, but offer a neutral point of view on disputes, and not to whitewash referenced facts which are not in dispute. Redhanker (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

some sources:

Frank Marshall Davis: Why Obama’s Mentor Went From … Last Friday, The Blaze provided you with a first look into Paul Kengor’s soon-to-be released, provocative book published by Mercury Ink, entitled, “The ...

Frank Marshall Davis - The Obama File Chat Frank Marshall Davis was Barack Obama's communist mentor from the age of 11 until age 18.

The Communist. Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of …] Front Page He is the author of the new book, The Communist. Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. FP: Paul Kengor, welcome to

[http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/25/fundamental-change-obama-his-mentor-and-the-democratic-party/ ‘Fundamental change’: Obama, his mentor, and the Democratic Party Published:07/25/2012]

None of those even remotely resembles a reliable source. Unlike the "birther" stuff, this is such an obscure piece of prattle as not to merit its own article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

'The Obama Chronicles,' Part 3: Barack Obama's Mentors September 19, 2008 +

Characterizing and discarding a news source as "right wing" is not consistent with the principle of a neutral point of view.Redhanker (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not say being "right wing" makes a source unreliable; but you did not list any reliable sources, just haters and known nutbars, plus now (AFTER I made my comment) one of the most notoriously biased hack jobs ever produced by FAUX News. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are not reliable sources for these types of accusations of a living person, and it's undue weight and fringe for this article. The whole section should be removed. Keep these types of conspiracy theories in the Corsi article. Dave Dial (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Davis did influence a lot of people but he was specifically Obama's mentor. He had some form of direct impact in his life as well. President Obama mentions him as Frank in his book, "Dreams from My Father" which seems to point to a close relationship between them. Also, it may have been Davis' influence that landed Obama in Chicago years down the line. -- dawilson8655 (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2012 (EST)
There is no evidence presented in any reliable source anywhere that he was a mentor for Obama. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The reason Wikipedia is not allowing this edit --- The Wikipedia Editorial Community, particularly RPOD are in the Tank For Obama, like Lame Stream Media sources the New York Times and Washington Post. Doesn't much matter, since by December, another month or two, there is little these supposedly reputable sources are going to be able to do about to hold back the flood of criticism. 10stone5 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

Even Jimmie Wales was quite proud of even a brief association with Nelson Mandela, a known revolutionary. A revolutionary background in the United States, for an African-American or labor activist, is nothing to be ashamed of or suppressed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And i will note that neither Jimmy Wales article mentions his brief association with Mandella; nor does Mandella's article mention Wales' appreciation of him. And anyone suggesting that such content be added would be laughed off the stage.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
While Jimbo was visiting Nelson Mandela he was engaged in a phone call with someone and kept dropping his name. It was very cute, saying things, like, "Excuse me, I need to get a drink of water for Nelson Mandela.: User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Membership ID numbers and Fringe/Coatrack

1) I can think of ZERO circumstances where a persons membership number in an organization would be worthy of inclusion in any part of any article, let alone the lead 2) When the reason for including data is "That one of the President's mentors was a member of the CPUSA is hugely notable." its clear that the content is only being added as a COATRACK to somehow implicate a living person - based on an association the living person had when they were a child and the affiliation to the organization was a gazillion years before the living person was even born. And so yes, a content can be BOTH not leadworthy AND a coatrack/fringe theory.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not the Red Squad, but it is obvious from Obama's book that he knew and respected the subject of the article. As to the number, that is not notable. If there was a scholarly biography by someone who is not associated with the John Birch Society a detailed political history would be notable. As it is, the biography cannot be considered reliable, as Communist Party USA documents are not either. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
but its clear that creating a fuller and accurate article about Davis is not the intention of the edits. The sole purpose is: "Barak Obama's mentor is a COMMIE!!!!!" with a side of "(and his daddy, too!)". -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
In principle, someone's being an influence or inspiration for a very famous person could well be an item of note on both people's articles, for example Andy Warhol's admiration of Truman Capote (interestingly, mentioned only in the Capote article), Liszt and Beethoven, and so on. Much of a person's notability is their legacy, who they influenced and how they're viewed. Having said that, in this case it hasn't been established from the sources that a significant legacy of Davis is his interaction with Obama. Speculation, and use of the connection as a minor political smear, are not particularly relevant to Davis' life, nor is the fact that Davis apparently had some communist leanings. Are communists inherently more influential and their influences more notable than non-communists? I don't think so. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
are you sure that you cannot catch communism as easily as you can catch "the gay"? - sounds like commie talk to me. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
OMG, was one of Obama's early mentors gay??? Highly notable sourced fact, must include in as many articles as possible. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005904.html
He’s no better than those people who pretend they’re hardcore Christians when they’re really preaching Satan Triumphant. I mean the ones who think that after years and years of weekly church services, with hymn-singing and Bible-reading, the least little exposure to some kind of encoded Satanic reference—seeing pictures of rainbows or Ganesha, or taking in the afternoon matinee of the latest Harry Potter movie, or hearing a rock song with muddled lyrics they can’t make out anyway—is tantamount to throwing open the door to Satan.
What they’re saying is that Satan is much more powerful than God, and that nobody who was even glancingly acquainted with Satanism would ever want to stick with Christianity. They might as well don the robes and start sacrificing goats, because they believe in the mighty power of Satan as much as any declared Satanist out there. Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Food for thought. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "As it is, the biography cannot be considered reliable, as Communist Party USA documents are not either. User:Fred Bauder". How can Bauder possibly make the claim that neither a biography relying on CPUSA, nor CPUSA's own Comintern maintained documents are not reliable? There is no basis in either logic, nor in Wikipedia's own domain for that claim. Comintern and CPUSA documentation have been cross-referenced against the FBI, NSA, the Russian State Archives and similar organizational documentation, ad-nauseum for the better part of 60 years. That doesn't mean all CPUSA documentation has been verified to 100% accuracy. But if the implication is they aren't reliable, there must be some basis for that unreliability. What is the reasoning? CPUSA documents were forged? Where's the proof? 10stone5 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a subject for experts such as John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr. The primary materials in American communist and Soviet records are usable but need skilled interpretation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The content must be evaluated based on the accuracy and authenticity of the source documents, the neutrality and expertise of the author and the biography in which they appear, and the appropriateness of the specific content to this article. The specifics matter and this is not the location for generalized discussions. For the content in question, it would probably be best if you were to lay out why the membership number would be relevent content to include in the article, particularly in the lede. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Determining bias in this area is a very difficult, particularly when material derived from biased sources is, arguably, usable. I have read substantial sections of the biography which can be searched on Amazon; I used the search "Obama." There is obvious bias and overreaching. What we know is that the subject had a background in the 40s and early 50s that was in, or close to, the Communist Party USA. We know next to nothing about what he thought about that experience past 1954, or even what he thought about it before that time. All of this is years prior to August 4, 1961, the day Barack Obama was born. The effect is to smear Obama and adds little or nothing to information about the subject. We lack a well-researched, unbiased political biography. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Fighting in Paradise: Labor Unions, Racism, and Communists in the Making of Modern Hawaii ISBN 0824835492 might be useful. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012

Frank Marshall Davis Political Party Membership: Communist Party USA (CPA)

[lengthy copyvio redacted] - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)]

—from The Communist: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.153.205 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not all simply crap, but you need a better source. We can't use that book because it is not a reliable source; I have read a great deal of it, so this is not an arbitrary position; it is based on the obvious bias and exaggeration the book contains. Also, this article is not about Barack Obama; he was not born during the period we have evidence that the subject was an active party member. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/communist-mentor-obama-backers-trying-to-hide/ 67.49.153.205 (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

67.49.153.205 -- "wnd.com" is WorldNetDaily, which is extremely partisan and controversial in nature, and hardly a reliable source for Obama's biography, since it embraces birtherism... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

POV?

Is this line..."While in Hawaii, Davis broadened from a Black Power philosophy to include what Dinesh D'Sousa calls "a wider currents of oppression and subjugation." out of place or POV? D'Souza is a partisan political activist. are we going to be quoting Orly Taitz next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.143.112 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The D'Souza analysis seems to be in line with the content from the Richard Wright encyclopedia which follows it. Do you specifically question the analysis or is a general doubt of D'Souza as a partisan? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
D'Souza is a low quality fringe source. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong on a particular point. I have removed the sentences that rely upon his work. Find an alternate reference. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
"D'Souza is a low quality fringe source"? Ha! This is what's wrong with Wikipedia. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
How so? The guy's a radical-right extremist, a hardcore partisan and hater of everything Davis stood for. Conservapedia might consider him a reliable source, but we are not obliged to do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
He's partisan, he's a right-winger, yes, yes. But low-quality and fringe? No, no. It's amazing how the works of left-wing politicos and journalists are cited regularly in articles on conservatives; but the works of right-wing politicos and journalists are denounced as WP:FRINGE and the like. That, is what I meant when I said "what's wrong with Wikipedia." Be careful, your own partisan biases are showing by your many comments on this talk page. Motes and beams, my friend. Otherwise, I cleaned-up the article a bit, though it needs a general re-write to make it flow. I think one or two more sources on the links to Obama and the Obama denial would be helpful (you know, give both sides). I agree, looking at this talk page, however, that things like Davis being Obama's father is fringe bunk that does not even deserve a mention. Happy editing. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Section regarding mention of Mr Davis in Obama's book

The section was entirely removed with this edit summary: "Ridiculous, some bizzare claim is not worthy of inclusion here or any article. It's undue and violates BLP)". I don't think the person who left that summary understands the content he/she removed, or WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. There were no "bizzare claims" made whatsoever in what was removed. What was removed was quoted (and cited) from Obama's own book. There was nothing derogatory or offensive or controversial or unsourced about either Mr. Davis or Mr. Obama to trigger BLP issues. I understand that there are some crazies who read more into this relationship than there probably was, but there was no hint of that in the content that was removed. I won't revert because I don't really care one way or the other. I just don't understand why it was removed. Being mentioned in a US president's book to the extent that Mr. Davis was is notable and should be in the article (not necessarily in its own section).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

see Talk:Frank_Marshall_Davis#Frank_Marshall_Davis.23Davis_and_Barack_Obama_-_WP:UNDUE -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not much of a discussion and it definitely doesn't answer my question.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Believe me, I understand. I also understand there are a bunch of conspiracy theorists that are making claims about Davis(re: Obama and his parentage/protege) that are unfounded and bizarre. Just because the Telegraph parroted some of Corsi's claims doesn't give the conspiracy weight to be included. Especially considering the BLP ramifications. This has been pointed out several times on this Talk page, and there was never any consensus to include. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
yeah, yeah, yeah, we know. the whole world is biased except for FOX. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
And that is why The Regime invited all the networks to be fed their talking points, except FoxNews. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The reason Wikipedia is not allowing this edit --- The Wikipedia Editorial Community, particularly RPOD are in the Tank For Obama, like Lame Stream Media sources the New York Times and Washington Post. Doesn't much matter, since by December, another month or two, there is little these supposedly reputable sources are going to be able to do about to hold back the flood of criticism. 10stone5 (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2012


Is it true that Frank was a mentor to the young Barrack Obama? 205.143.205.150 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an edit request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 October 2012

Smkahoo (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the link below to get a fuller picture of Mr. Davis. The largest part of his life was political and this entry has almost nothing about his politics, which is dishonest.

He was a staunch Stalinist, a communist and spent most of his energy promoting this belief. It should be part of his entry.

Steve McKee


http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/12/dreams-from-frank-marshall-dav/3

No action taken at this time. Please present your request as "Change X to Y" or "Include this content 'Blah blah blah (source)' in section Y". Also please read WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is about Frank Marshall Davis, not about Barack Obama's mentor. The article you suggest we use attempts to smear Barack Obama, who seems quite innocent of Marxist theory and practice, with a person he met who had a party background. The underlying political biography is relevant but not the polemic campaign. I have today purchased both The Communist by Paul Kengor and Fighting in Paradise: Labor Unions, Racism, and Communists in the Making of Modern Hawaii by Gerald Horne. I think, using both books, some more detailed biographical material can be added. However, the article will still not be about Barack Obama. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on October 18, 2012

At the very least, shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy surrounding the publishing of Kengor's book? The absence of any such mention is strange, to say the least, given the book will possibly generate interest in the man. And why no mention of [Chicago Star]? The fact that Davis' entry is subject to such tight control looks very political, in light of his possible ties--even in passing--to the sitting president. All that said, I suggest an addition of a "controversy" section that mentions the book and whether historians think any of the accusations in it have any basis in reality.Darrylx (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The controversy is about Krengor and his book, not about Davis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
AND the article does talk about Davis's work with the Star. "Davis used his newspaper platform to call for integration of the sports world, and he began to engage himself with community organizing efforts, starting a Chicago labor newspaper, The Star, toward the end of World War II. In 1947, the Spokane Daily Chronicle called the paper "a red weekly" saying that it "has most of the markings of a Communist front publication."(11) The Chicago Star had a goal to "promote a policy of cooperation and unity between Russia and the United States"(12) seeking to "(avoid) the red-baiting tendencies of the mainstream press."(13)"
AND "controversy" sections are a sign of a poorly designed article that is attempting to do something other than present an encyclopedic view of the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But doesn't it stand to reason that the reason so many people will be looking Mr. Davis up and ending up on Wikipedia--Kengor's book, which I saw on the new book shelf of the public library--warrants at least some mention? I think it does Wikipedia, the possible reader and intellectual honesty a disservice to so carefully redact and disallow mention of the key reason so many people will be coming here.Darrylx (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No it doesnt. Either you are here to find out about Davis, which is this article. Or you are here to find out about Kengor and his book, which is thataway or you are here for something like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories or Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Public perception of Barack Obama, but none of that is appropriate for THIS article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything significant about Davis being called to testify before the Senate in 1956? Why is there no section on "The 1950s"? It jumps from "The 1940s" to "later years." That seems a glaring omission and smacks of intellectual dishonesty, especially since the man died in the 1980s. This sort of bizarre stonewalling seems, ironically, very Stalinist in itself.Darrylx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you have reliable sources, ie sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and NOT a political hatchet job or love fest then content can be added. But really the jump from the 40's to the later years is a representation of Davis life: very active and influential journalist/activist/poet in the early part of the century, not very active or influential or interesting while out on an island in the middle of the pacific, and then "rediscovered" with a new interest in his previous impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommend the following "References" be added:

See the WP:EL guidelines and note that Wikipedia is not just a wall of links. Why specifically does each link meet the basis for inclusion? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
They all seem somewhat useful, although a few are short and repetative. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/frank-marshall-davis is particularly good with respect to literary criticism. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
That is already in the article. As is a link to blackpast. Some of the current links should probably come under review as well.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If Obama...

If Obama, in his own autobiography, mentions Mr. Davis as having played a significant role in the development of his world view then it seems to me that this is worth a mention in Mr. Davis's Wikipedia entry. Obviously, the reference to this entry would be Obama's book.Rland01 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that nowhere in Obama's writings does he describe Davis "as having played a significant role in the development of his world view"! Constant attempts to pretend that he does, do not make it true. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Guys, the Obama stuff is hilarious. Let's be frank: Davis's inclusion in this bizarre nonsense is a noteworthy bookend to his life. I for one think that the information should be included, so long as proper emphasis is placed on the fringe nature of the claims. Jander80 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

the proper perspective for WP:FRINGE claims is zero unless proven otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The content you deleted is noteworthy not because of its claims, but because of its relationship to the author. It's an amusing and interesting fact about this man's life that someone made a crazy conspiracy film about him. I don't understand your hostility regarding including this fact about Davis in his article. Jander80 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says its an important fact to know about Davis that after his life has ended he has become the subject of conspiracy theorists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that request doesn't seem all that reasonable to me. I also have some concerns about the general theme of your edits. Your removal of the reference from a blog on Obama's campaign website was fair, but the manner in which you reintroduced the Gilbert film into the text is somewhat shrill. I hope you don't mind if I edit that a bit. Finally, while I'm sensitive to the fact that people would like to use Davis's relation with Obama for partisan ends, I think this relationship is noteworthy enough in the man's life to merit more than the bare observation that "[Obama's] grandparents introduced him to Davis." Jander80 (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

whether or not it seems reasonable to you, our policies WP:V WP:OR WP:NPOV REQUIRE it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of those policies. Your demand could be used to arbitrarily remove the majority of cited material: "it's not enough that it's cited, you must also find a citation declaring that the material is important!" Again, I'm just not sure your demands are reasonable at this point. The article is really bulky and ponderous. I think I'll just rewrite it from the ground up. Jander80 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

we must present the content in proportion to the value that reliable sources consider it important. POLICY. You WILL need extraordinary sourcing to show that a 10 year old boy that he meets a handful of times has any lick of importance to a man in his 60's who has accomplished things like founded newspapers, been active in dangerous civil rights movements, written and critiqued poetry and fiction with the likes of Richard Wright and Margaret Walker, led the newspaper coverage that brought Joe Louis to the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm just not persuaded by your interpretation of these policies. Do you mean to suggest that it's not a very noteworthy fact about Davis that he --- as a man whose life's work involved breaking down racial barriers --- had a fond relationship with a man who would go on to become the first African-American president? I don't think it needs its own section or even more than a sentence or two, but I do think the article would be improved by some elaboration from what is currently included in the article. Also, your demand for "extraordinary sourcing" seems to me like an out-of-place invocation of the policy. We've made some progress, but we still seem to be bumping heads. I've taken an interest in this article, and would like to see if it's possible to work through to a fair consensus. At this point, Red, I'm really having a hard time understanding your point of view, and moreover your applications of policy don't seem correct to me. Perhaps some other editors could comment on this? I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something. Jander80 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I have not seen any evidence that Davis knew that he was talking to the future president of the United States. I have not seen any evidence that Davis had any more impact than hundreds of other people on the president. So yes, I am saying that without greater evidence, the focus of THIS article must stay on the subject of the article DAVIS and the connection between the two as expressed in this article will need to be minimal to reflect what reliable sources say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
TRPoD is correct, and this has been discussed several times before(read above sections). The only real links making these claims are fringe conspiracy theories. So yea, extraordinary sourcing would be needed to include something like this, especially when referring to a BLP. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the focus of the article should be on Davis's career as a leading poet, journalist, and civil rights activist of his age. In fact, I think the article is a bit heavy on biography, and light on discussions of his literary work. This is a disservice to a man widely considered to be one of the most important American poets. But still, the fact that President Obama sometimes came to him for advice is surely noteworthy, isn't it? Why does it matter whether he knew "that he was talking to the future president of the United States"? I'm having a very hard time following your reasoning. The telegraph article includes an anecdote about Davis giving advice to Obama before the latter went off to college. Including something like that might add some interest and life to the article. I also disagree that Davis's relationship with Obama is a "fringe" theory. It's true that fringe conspiracy theories have been put forward about that relationship, but this is distinct from the fact that they did have a relationship. Similarly, the fact that fringe conspiracy theories exist regarding the murder of JFK is logically distinct from the truth that JFK was in fact murdered. I worry that the existence of fringe conspiracy theories regarding the relationship between Obama and Davis is being used to prevent the inclusion of confirmed facts about their relationship from legitimate sources (such as the Telegraph article). Jander80 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
It's been established that the Telegraph "exposé" has a high bullshit content (such as the non-existent "hard-core pornographic autobiography", which was in reality just another dirty book such as desperate writers like Robert Silverberg and Andrew J. Offutt used to churn out to make spending cash). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah. It is a conservative paper, so some slant is probably expected. I also agree that this slant should not be presented in this article on Davis, as it would violate NPOV. Still, the Telegraph is a major newspaper; are we saying that it can't be trusted on basic facts, such as relating directly quoted anecdotes from Obama's book? I believe that the Telegraph piece is a reliable and useful source in two ways. First, for the fact that Davis had a relationship with the young future president, and that he is the "Frank" mentioned in Dreams From My Father. It seems that we are already at consensus on this point. Second, it's a useful source for third party quotes from the primary source of Obama's autobiography. A person above suggested that Obama's book be quoted directly, but this seems as if it potentially violated the policy against personal research. As a medium, the Telegraph article can be used to cite one of the anecdotes from Obama about Davis in the book. For instance:

Mr Obama quoted him as saying: “Leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind. Understand something, boy. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained.”

This anecdote about Davis, coming from an important historical figure like Obama, seems to me like a welcome addition to the article. Jander80 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
"this seems as if it potentially violated the policy against personal research"? That's backwards! Why should we say what the Tel says Obama wrote, when we can quote him directly? The anecdote can be sourced perfectly well from the book, as long as we make it crystal clear that this is what Obama says Davis said, not what we say Davis said. And WP:UNDUE does still apply, since there are eager hordes of pajamites out there eager to turn this into a portrait of Davis as Obama's sinister commie brainwasher and puppetmaster (to say nothing of the scurrilous claims about Obama being Davis' bastard). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Your point about quoting directly from Dreams From My Father seems reasonable to me. I also agree that we must be careful to avoid the sensationalized claims coming from right-wing sources. Still, wouldn't you agree that Davis's relationship with Obama (and the claims being made about this relationship) are probably a major point of interest for people likely to visit this article? And if so, shouldn't we as editors attempt to present fair, accurate, and reliably sourced information regarding their relationship? I think the same is true of these conspiracy theories, such as Gilbert's film. It seems reasonable to suppose that people coming to this article are likely to be interested about details regarding these hysterical claims being made about Davis. Again, rather than removing this information, the more constructive approach might be to deal with these facts fairly, accurately, and using reliable sources. Jander80 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE if we determine this fringe theory has received enough coverage to be mentioned in this article, we still need to place it in the appropriate context of a fringe theory that only the looneyest of the looney give any credence to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Red, I really feel that my edit does place it in its appropriate fringe context. By pointing out the filmmaker's history of dealing with absurd and well-known conspiracy theories (such as Elvis lives! and the infamous Paul McCartney replacement theory), and the citation that his theories have been "largely ignored" by the mainstream, I believe these claims are placed in the proper context. Granted, my method is a tad more subtle than yours, but quite frankly, presenting as fact that these claims are believed by the "looniest of the right-wing" seems to me shrill and not very constructive. Please reconsider my edits. Jander80 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
"Only the looneyest of the right-wing" is not a very unbiased and scholarly phrase. Can we get that changed to something like fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.190.4 (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
"looneyest of the right wing"may not be very scholarly, but neither is the fringe theory it is describing. And it IS neutral point of view to have reliable sources describing the looney fringe as the looney fringe -it would be completely inapporpriate POV pushing to NOT call out how the mainstream academics and really everyone views the claims. NPOV most certainly does not mean that we present, unchallenge, fringe claims as if they were anything but fringe. The only real question is whether including the looney fringe theory in THIS article at all is giving it WP:UNDUE coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
It would be less of a problem if you included the source, for instance: "According to Jones, an expert on fringe theories, the claims in this movie are believed only by the 'looniest of the right wing'". Even in this case, though, it's still rather shrill. I think we should avoid inflammatory language, given the sensitivity of the subject. I'm still not sure what your problem was with my original edit. Jander80 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
your original edit 1) did not include any of the many many many available reliable sources the specifically debunk the nutjob claim and 2) instead include a list of other fringe content that the distributor of the DVD has created in an WP:SYN sidestep method of showing information which 3) is an inappropriate method of fluffing the background of a very tangential person within an article that is supposed to be about DAVIS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I used two sources for the original edit: articles in Businessweek and one from the NYT. Both articles mention Gilbert's other conspiracy films (e.g. one claiming that Elvis isn't dead, and one dealing with the infamous Paul McCartney replacement theory) for the purpose of demonstrating to the audience that the filmmaker has a history of making "documentary" films about crazy fringe topics. This is why I included that information: it seemed like a tasteful way to deal with the fringe nature of the film. I certainly had no intention of "fluffing the background" of Gilbert, rather, I thought that Gilbert's background helped put his claims in the proper context. Businessweek and the NYT apparently agree with me, given that they both introduced this background for the same purpose. Jander80 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
it doesnt matter how many time other sources mention other stuff that Gilbert did, the other stuff he did will NEVER have any application in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you give a reason why? The application of the references to Gilbert's other zany conspiracy theories in this article was the same as in the New York Times and Businessweek pieces: to emphasize his history of making films about fringe conspiracy theories. As such, the inclusion of these facts was not, as you originally suggested, an instance of WP:SYN: the information was presented in this article in the same fashion as in the NYT and BW articles. Granted, you also accused me of an attempt at "fluffing the background" of Gilbert, which I have denied. Your most recent comment does not present an argument, but rather resorts to the question begging assertion that this material "will NEVER have any application in this article," which is of course the very thing in dispute. How about this: in the spirit of compromise, I will agree to drop that style of presenting the material. Hopefully, this can be the start of a more constructive dialogue and partnership between us in improving this article. Jander80 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The publications are writing news/public interest reports about Gilbert's campaign. We are writing an encyclopedia article about FMD. Their scope and concerns and end product goals are different than ours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012

Please remove "which is believed only by "the looniest of the right-wing." This phrase is unnecessary and is loaded. It is not very scholarly. JosephSpurgeon (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC) JosephSpurgeon (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Another editor fixed this. RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Project: Obama, Davis, and conspiracy theories

For a clean slate, let's try to work out both what the article should include regarding these issues, and how they should be included (if at all). My current position is this: people visiting this article are likely to be interested in Davis's relationship with Obama, and about the sensationalized fringe claims regarding this relationship. Indeed, these issues have been taken up by numerous major news outlets, including the New York Times and MSNBC. Because of this, I propose that we attempt to present these issues fairly, accurately, and with the use of reliable sources. Assuming reliable sources, is anyone against including in this article details about Davis's relationship with Obama or about Gilbert's film? Jander80 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly see mentioning anything as a good idea, at least with the sources being what they were... Gilbert himself may be notable enough to have his own page (or his film may be), but that doesn't necessarily make it worth mentioning here. One could libel any famous popular figure in such a manner-- accusing them of secret relationships in true tabloid fashion-- but they don't seem to have encyclopedic merit, you know?
What good does it do to mention that someone, somewhere invented a silly conspiracy theory about Davis? I could make an equally daft student film claiming that, say, my pet dog has superhuman powers... that doesn't mean that one could go to the page Lhasa apso and mention laser eye beams there. Even if there was tabloid-ish media attention, there's a higher bar. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I also think we need to recognize two distinct issues: (1) Davis's uncontested relationship with Obama (this is well sourced; Davis is mentioned by President Obama in Dreams From My Father). (2) The wacky tabloid claims.
And so, the question is how we ought to deal with these two issues. Because interest in this page is probably coming from Davis's relationship with a famous political figure, it seems a very serious oversight that the article currently does not mention this relationship at all (DD2K swept through yesterday and removed all references to Obama). Do you agree that we ought to deal with this relationship, if it can be done fairly, accurately, and using reliable sources?
Second, what seems notable about the Gilbert film to me is not its claims (which --- let's be honest --- virtually no one takes to be anything but a joke), but the interest it's generating in Davis. While people visiting a Lhasa apso page are unlikely to be concerned about a student film claiming that someone's pet dog has superpowers, Davis's inclusion in hysterical right-wing conspiracy theories regarding President Obama seems more noteworthy, and more likely to be something people coming to this article would like to have information about. Again, it seems like an oversight not to deal with the topic, given the amount of interest its generating in Davis (e.g. articles in the New York Times, Slate, coverage on MSNBC, etc.) Jander80 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The proper place to discuss Barack Obama conspiracy theories is: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories not Frank Marshall Davis. see also WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
What he said. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


I agree, Red. But I'm not arguing that Gilbert's claims are noteworthy. What's noteworthy for this article is that Davis is the target of right-wing conspiracy theories involving his relationship with the president. Because these claims have brought renewed attention to Davis (e.g. articles in the New York Times, Slate, MSNBC), it seems like an oversight that the article lacks even a mention about these matters. Again: what's noteworthy for this article is that Davis has been included in these conspiracy theories. Jander80 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief.,
and while Davis is dead, Obama the subject of the conspiracy theories is alive and content must also be viewed and presented under that lens "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." and "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article ". It seems to me that there is no evidence that the allegation is noteworthy - no one that I have seen has said that the conspiracy theories have had any impact on anything ; there is no evidence that it is relevant TO THIS ARTICLE - all of Davis's actual impact and work far precedes this nonsense; and while there are sources that show that the conspiracy theory itself exists, there is absolutely no documentation to show that the actual claims have any basis at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with the policy quoted above, and that this page shouldn't be used to advance Gilbert's fringe claims. What's relevant to this article on Davis isn't that Gilbert's claims have basis or are to be taken seriously, but that Davis has received attention because of this fringe film (from Businessweek, NYT, MSNBC, Slate, etc.). Given this attention from major news outlets, it seems odd to have no mention of this in the article. While a prominent figure in American literature, Davis has never received attention like this. And it's this that makes the topic noteworthy for an article on Davis: not that the claims have basis, but that they have brought an unprecedented level of attention to Davis. Jander80 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for an edit dealing with Davis and Obama (I suggest placing this edit in the "Later Years and Death" section); sources include the Businessweek article, Dreams From My Father, and from this library archive:

During his time in Hawaii, Davis was friends with Barack Obama's grandfather, a relationship which led to several anecdotes about Davis appearing in the future president's memoir, Dreams From My Father. Obama writes that Davis at the time "must have been pushing eighty," and describes him as having "a big, dewlapped face and an ill-kempt gray Afro that made him look like an old, shaggy-maned lion." Obama also recalls receiving the following lecture from the elderly Davis:

Understand something, boy. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained. They’ll train you to want what you don’t need. They’ll train you to manipulate words so they don’t mean anything anymore. They’ll train you to forget what it is that you already know. They’ll train you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit. They’ll give you a corner office and invite you to fancy dinners, and tell you you’re a credit to your race. Until you want to actually start running things, and then they’ll yank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.

Feedback appreciated. Jander80 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if no one objects or offers input, I'll go ahead and add something like the above into the article tonight. Jander80 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is more text in your suggestion about a tangential comment than about any other portion of Davis' life. Appears graphically UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Obviously editors have objected. If you continue to add this fringe silliness to this article, even with obvious Talk page consensus against it, you will be reported to the appropriate board. It does not matter if no editor has responded to any particular proposal you've made, they have objected to several others. And the same objections apply here unless specifically stated by other editors. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
plus what you have written actually goes against any reason for including it. if FMD was such an influence on Obama, why when FMD told Obama "college is for suckers " does Obama then go on to college and law school? if we are including the connection to Obama because FMD is an influence, we should actually show that there is an influence.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, Obama followed up this advice with the question of "then you're saying I shouldn't go?", which was answered by Davis stating "No, you have to go. I just want your eyes to be open." And I'm paraphrasing with that, and the fact Obama went on to write that Davis was still stuck in a 1960's time warp and couldn't see the world for what it was then. In any case, the problem isn't adding that particular phrase to this article, the problem is the other stuff. As far as the fringe objection made. The objection regarding this specific entry is undue weight. That Obama referred to Davis in a small paragraph in his novel doesn't belong in a biography about Davis, in the context that you are using. A small mention using "Dreams" may fit, but surely not the large section Jander80 is trying to add. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Let's try to settle down, guys. I'm making every effort here to be reasonable and work according to consensus. Nothing in my edit implies or speaks to any notion of Davis's alleged "influence" on Obama, one way or another. This has nothing to do with the value of the addition. Let's put this into perspective. One of the purposes of this article is to give readers a sense of who Davis was. My edit contains what I feel to be a rather poignant and moving anecdote about Davis --- a man whose life's work was to break down racial barriers --- by the first African-American president of the United States. This seems to me like a valuable and strong addition to the article. There is nothing "fringe" in my edit that I can see. Seriously guys, what's the problem? I promise you I'm not a right-wing troll or anything. I think my edit would be a powerful addition that will improve the article. Again: the point of the edit is not that Davis was an influence on Obama (my edit makes nothing remotely resembling this claim); the point is to add material that helps us understand Davis, from what I believe to be an extremely interesting and moving source. Put down the phasers and look at my edit calmly: I think this anecdote helps to shed light on the character of this important civil rights activist and poet. Jander80 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Also DD2K, I've already agreed with RPoD, in the spirit of compromise, not to mention Gilbert's film, even though I feel the absence of such a mention is harmful to the integrity of the article. The only thing on the table at the moment is how to deal (if at all) with the passages on Davis in Dreams. Jander80 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Davis has said lots of things about his positions IN HIS OWN WORDS. Davis' own words and positions have been the subject of numerous studies by people with a background of history of social action and lit theory. To use Obama's recitation of Davis' comments to illustrate Davis' position is silly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
But why is it "silly"? While it's true that there are lots of sources for Davis's views, none of those sources are the first African-American president of the United States. Obama's words offer an intimacy and significance that, in my view, would improve the article. Jander80 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1) because we are writing an encyclopedia 2) because Obama went into Law and has not published anything in political/literary analysis 3) because you are taking comments from a MEMOIR 4) because the comments from the memoir come with no analysis commentary to place them into context. In the context of sources to use for an encyclopedia article, there could hardly be anything LESS appropriate to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The objections to my proposed edit run as follows:
  • (1) "we are writing an encyclopedia"
    • This objection is vague, and I'll need some elaboration before I can answer it.
  • (2) "Obama went into Law and has not published anything in political/literary analysis"
    • This seems irrelevant, because the purpose of the edit isn't to engage in political or literary analysis, but to provide an anecdote about Davis's life and personality.
  • (3) "you are taking comments from a MEMOIR"
    • This is also very vague; at any rate, the use of personal anecdotes to describe a subject's personality and life is common on wikipedia; see, for instance, the lengthy use quotes and anecdotes from Norman Malcolm's memoir on the Ludwig Wittgenstein page.
  • (4) "the comments from the memoir come with no analysis commentary to place them into context"
    • It's just an anecdote. I'm really not sure what sort of "analysis commentary" you think we need. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Jander80 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
your response above shows why I specified my point 1) WE ARE WRITING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA - not a human interest puff piece. We have a choice of looking for subject matter experts or someone who is famous, and you are suggesting we use famous. we have a choice of using a memoir or an academic analysis paper, and you are suggesting we go with the memoir. we have a choice of using a source that lays out its analysis, context and commentary about FMD's position or one where we throw a statement out there for the reader to make an assumption based on the context we place it in, and you are suggesting we go with WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Why do we need a "subject matter expert" for something as simple as a personal anecdote about Davis? If you're concerned that Davis's views are misrepresented in the quote, then could you explain what sort of context is needed, and how you feel Davis is being misrepresented by the edit? Jander80 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
We need SME because we 'ARE WRITING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. I think it is now clear that your primary objective is not to write an encyclopedia and for some other purpose. I am done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what to say; I've made a sincere effort to work with you and reach a compromise that would improve the article. I've given ground repeatedly, but your "my way or the high way" attitude is making this difficult. Hopefully some other people will show up to help on this article. I'll see if I can't get some input from other experienced editors. I'm open to the possibility that I'm making a mistake, but your only objections so far have consisted in vague assertions and declarations, followed by belligerence (and now hostile accusations) when I ask for clarification. Hopefully you'll change your mind once you cool down a bit, and we can get back to trying to improve this article. Jander80 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

All this personal back and forth aside, which I couldn't care less of, I still don't see why taking such an article here (which really is lacking in terms of some details of Davis' life) is benefited by adding a large section from Obama's book. It doesn't just seem like undue weight. It also clearly comes across as giving a misleading picture of Davis-- we all know that Obama used composite characters (mixing together things said by many different people into one single described person) and that said conversation there was a personal back and froth. It's like nabbing one single snippet out of context from a telephone call. I wouldn't include that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually had never heard the claim that Davis as presented in Dreams is a "composite character." That said, I did take Obama to be using Davis as a symbol for racial resentment; i.e. the thing Obama ultimately moved beyond. Indeed, that's one of the reasons the "mentor" claims are so patently silly: Obama's position on Davis in the book is critical; Davis represents what Obama is rejecting. Honestly, I didn't think the passage from Dreams was that long, and I felt like it added some life to the article that made it more readable. If there is a real problem with the article right now, in my opinion, it's that it overwhelms with random facts, never creating a narrative. A good article ultimately weaves together the facts into a coherent story, and right now the article is virtually unreadable to me. It never really gives us a portrait of who Davis was; I was hoping the Obama piece would help in this respect, while also providing some information about something visitors to this article are sure to be curious about: the relationship between Obama and Davis. At the least, I think the biography should be rewritten, and that samples of Davis's poetry should play a bigger role in the piece. I started to work on a rewrite, but decided the risk of wasting my time is too great; this article is being held captive atm. Jander80 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I just doubt that there's merit in including the Obama-related thing. Davis was, like you said, used as a plot device-- a symbol of racial resentment for Obama to contrast himself with. That's a fundamentally different thing than Davis the man-- the well-rounded human being that's far more complex than just a mere paragraph that's one snippet of one side of a conversation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a fair and cogent argument. Do you have any ideas on how to deal with the Obama connection in the piece? Jander80 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It might almost fall in a "In popular culture" section, like "media portrayals of Joan of Arc" or "Jeffrey Dahmer in popular culture" sections of their respective articles (don't know that those are the precise titles). This would allow us to clarify that the character "Frank" in the memoirs may to some extent be a composite of Obama's older acquaintances rather than just Frank Marshall Davis himself, if that's what has been said by reliable sources; and that of course we have no idea how that conversation or those conversations actually went, since we weren't there. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I largely agree with Orange, but I should add in as well that I just don't see the kind of justification to create such a subsection in this particular case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think if we have a reliable source that Davis in Dreams is a composite character rather than an actual portrayal, then this should probably be mentioned. After all, Davis is receiving a lot of attention from his connection with Obama (NYT, Businessweek, MSNBC, etc.). It seems to me that an event which brings to a person relatively large amounts of attention (easily more attention than any other event from his life) then it merits some discussion. At the risk of having the hounds released on me again, I really think that giving the relationship its own section wouldn't be out of line, given the circumstances. A good, brisk section on the topic, with solid reliable sources, could be a real improvement, I think. At any rate, the current status of the article as having no mention of this event seems to reflect poorly on its credibility. Jander80 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes there is going to be a blow up at the suggestion of an entire section. WP:UNDUE. you havent even provided ONE reliable source showing the impact of Davis on Obama or Obama on Davis. and when the coverage of the WP:FRINGE-yness of the current bruhaha was placed in the article you decried its "shrillness." Do you know how "shrill" the commentary about the looneyness would be to place a whole section in context? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. As I've told you repeatedly (this makes the seventh time I've had to tell you this), I'm not arguing for including information on the basis that Davis influenced Obama or vice versa. I've never made this claim, nor have my edits ever suggested anything of the sort. The information is noteworthy because Davis's appearance in the book has brought him a lot of coverage and attention from major news outlets. Jander80 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:PROVEIT. You keep making these claims and not providing any sources to back it up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
To what claims are you referring? It's really hard to know what you're on about at any given time, especially since you continually misrepresent my positions, even after repeated corrections. Jander80 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
you havent provided sources to support any of your claims, but we can start with "Davis's appearance in the book has brought him a lot of coverage and attention from major news outlets." since that is what you are currently claiming is important to cover in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
All of my edits were supported with sources. Here are some examples of major news outlet coverage: Telegraph, Businessweek, New York Times, [[ http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/01/dreams_from_my_real_father_will_the_latest_obama_conspiracy_help_him_win_ohio_.html%7CSlate]], Another Slate, The Atlantic, Forbes, Forbes again. Of course, most of this is related to the Gilbert film or to the Kregor book. But those in turn are due to Davis's appearance in Dreams. That Davis is receiving a lot of media attention from these events seems pretty clear. It seems strange to simply ignore this. Plainly, there is quite a bit of interest in the fact that Davis and Obama knew each other, however briefly, and in the fact that Obama refers to Davis in his memoir. This seems noteworthy to me. Jander80 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

[2] is not about Obama and Davis, it is about Kengors book, which is a great book because this article is written by Kengor's close friend who " respect him, myself and our country far too much to pull any punches in reviewing this important book." uhh, yeah. [3] is about Kengor's book, BY KENGOR. so we know there is no reliability issues there. [4] [5] [6] [7] are about the conspiracy theories, which when we placed them with the appropriate commentary about the fringy-ness you described as "too shrill" which leaves [8] which can basically be used to say "when Obama was growing up in Hawaii, his grandparents introduced him to Davis" . Which had also been previously in the article but removed by someone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that mess of links has exhausted my patience with this issue. I thought TRPoD was asking for reliable sources that described Davis in Obama's book, not that lunatic fringe conspiracy theory garbage Jander80 links to. Sorry, but that silliness is unacceptable to include. Try a conspiracy theory article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to provide evidence that Davis is receiving media attention from major news outlets as a result of his appearance in Obama's book. I believe these links provide such evidence. Much of the above two posts just seems like irrelevant and angry ranting, unconnected with anything currently under discussion. Jander80 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
And again, WE ARE WRITING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. You were asked to provide links to support your claim. The ENCYCLOPEDIC VALUE of your links has been discussed and determined to be near zero. If somehow we missed encyclopedic content in those sources, you are now being asked to specify exactly what you think those sources can be used for in AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT DAVIS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
All right. Here's a sample of the sort of entry that I've had in mind after talking with Coffee and OrangeMike:

During his time in Hawaii, Davis struck up a friendship with Barack Obama's grandfather, which led to several anecdotes about Davis appearing in the future president's memoir. In the midst of the 2012 Presidential Election, this connection brought increased attention to Davis, with conservative opponents of Obama attempting to influence the election by making discredited claims about their relationship.

Jander80 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE once you start bringing up the looney fringe claims you MUST place them in context as being believed only by the " looneyest of the right wing." (yes, being "shrill" is required). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The word "discredited" seems fine, but you could also include something like "referred to as 'preposterous' by Obama biographer David Maraniss." link Jander80 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
the mainstream and most widely held view is best described as: believed only by "the looniest of the right-wing."[1] any other sugar coating utter fails NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
"is, according to Elspeth Reeve of the Atlantic, believed only by 'the looniest of the right-wing'." Jander80 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
you yourself have identified them as "the sensationalized fringe" "wacky tabloid claims" "virtually no one takes to be anything but a joke" just in your first 4 posts in this section. Reeve's assessment is not just limited to herself it is pretty representative of anyone except those in the "looniest of the far right fringe" and we need to represent it as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't go along with that representation, sorry. "Discredited" seems better to me; perhaps also working in the "preposterous" comment from the highly respected biographer David Maraniss. Maraniss is also on record as saying that the "mentor" claims are overblown and that Davis didn't have much of an impact on Obama. Jander80 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
"I can't go along with that representation," as I pointed out, YOU HAVE. Right on this page. Multiple times. and it was not "discredited" - it was NEVER given any credit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Right Red, but there's a difference between my opinion on some issue and what I feel is the best way to present that issue in a wiki article. My opinion is that you're right: only loons of the highest order think that Davis was Obama's father. At this point, I've read enough articles to have reviewed the evidence to my satisfaction, and my opinion is that the theory is for crackpots. But as wiki editors, we're trying to make a credible article with an encyclopedic tone, and I feel like that sort of language just isn't necessary or helpful. I really prefer "discredited," with perhaps mixing in something like "referred to as 'preposterous' by Obama biographer David Maraniss." Jander80 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

fringe break 1

All right, so I had decided to wait until after the election to raise this issue again, hoping that consensus would be easier once the political hysteria had died down. Unless anyone has new objections, I'm going to add something similar to that discussed above. Jander80 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I will continually object to anything that attempts to include the conspiracy theories and presents them as anything less than something that is only believed by the looniest fringe. FRINGE theories, if included at all must be clearly and loudly identified as FRINGE theories.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, your position on this matter is severely unconstructive. Attempts have been made to compromise with you on this issue, but you continue to insist on the plainly unacceptable language "believed only by the looniest of the right-wing." You even refused my suggestion that we include this quote in the context of something like "is, according to Elspeth Reeve of the Atlantic, believed only by 'the looniest of the right-wing'." Instead, you continue to insist that this phrase be included as raw fact, which is just silly. Please reconsider your position. Jander80 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Over-mild language like "conservative opponents of Obama" implies that these folks were legitimate conservatives, not the nutbars who actually backed this stuff. An intelligent conservative would argue that this is a smear on conservativism. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good point. Do you have any thoughts on the matter of how to present the information? Jander80 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Waiting until after the election doesn't change the consensus to not include above. You cannot state that unless anyone has any "new" objections that you will add something clearly against consensus. It's clearly fringe and doesn't belong. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Add:Same goes for the section below.Dave Dial (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Davis was the target of right-wing conspiracy theories during the 2012 election is not a fringe theory, it's an uncontroversial fact that received coverage from major news outlets. Hence, your invocation of wp:fringe is an incorrect application of the guideline. Jander80 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of Davis' Communist Party membership

I made edits to this article that Davis was a member of the Communist party. Those edits were removed. That Davis was a card-carrying member of the American Communist Party should be something that can be demonstrated one way or the other. Several alleged Davis's FBI files have been posted at various web sites. They certainly look to be actual copies of US government documents. As a former US military officer, they have all the usual indicators. That can be discussed. Why would some editors consider the book, "THE COMMUNIST: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS: THE UNTOLD STORY OF BARACK OBAMA'S MENTOR" objectionable as a cited source? The author is a PHD and a college professor and the book is heavily documented? The book is also sold on Amazon and not just some "fringe site." As Senator Monnihan used to say, "You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts. I, myself, am NOT anti-Obama as I voted for him. I AM interested in the facts concerning Davis' alleged membership in the American Communist party. Edit wars are pointless. It would seem that some editors have a vested interest in hiding Davis' communist party membership just as the audio edition of Obama's autobiographical book has NO references to Obama's links to Davis as demonstrated in more than 20 references to Davis in the original text book. I have both the text book and the audio edition and, once again, facts are facts. Clearly, people DO have an vested interest in obscuring the facts of Davis' communist party membership. I have also read the hundreds of published words by Davis in which he clearly defends American communists who were uncovered by various US government probes in the 50s. His defenses are on several reputable Hawaii state university web sites. I will cite them, going forward and I want to see how many editors claim POV or "fringe groups" by these tax payer-sponsored sites. Once again, get real! Facts are facts and the truth will come out. SimonATL (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

any time someone starts out with the description "card carrying" its easy to tell that they are after a political POV push, and not historical accuracy.
the book is by someone who does not have a reputation for historical fact checking and accuracy - he has a reputation for political hackery - find a real source and then come back and discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I concur that Davis's political affiliations and the FBI monitoring are of interest to this article. I'm also concerned that RedPen is dismissing Kengor's book unfairly. I see no reason why this book can't be used as a source. Having said that, Kengor's political bias should be taken into consideration when balancing the article content. Jander80 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, RedPen. Let's see. Task list. Open a Freedom of Information request with the FBI. Obtain Davis' FBI file. Upload to a web site. Deal with charges of "political hackery." Facts are facts and I'm sorry if you don't like the information that might be found in Davis' FBI file. This is a stalling tactic. Just WHY are some of these editors SO opposed to finding the facts? Because so-called "Obama Haters" will use the information for "political hackery?" Come ON, hacks have pervaded politics since long before some paid political operative for Roman "republicans" put up insulting graffiti on Julius Caesar destroying the Roman Republic near the Senate House in Rome! SimonATL (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
As a historian, I cannot forbear from pointing out that Caesar did in fact destroy the Roman Republic as a republic. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hacks have been around forever and they have never been reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia and we base our content on sources that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and presenting material in a from a neutral point of view. - Kengor fails. find a source that has done work on Davis from an academic and scholarly perspective and not one that has written to be a political polemic. the closest that I have found are allegations and suspicions, and things like the Star which were acknowledged to be formed to counter "red-baiting" - and there is no question that he was a strong supporter of Leftist causes and positions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not "a stalling tactic": this is insisting on reliable sources with a neutral point of view, not ideological crank websites and partisan swiftboating attackers. (I mean Kengor, not you, Simon.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
True enough about Caesar and the death of the Roman Republic. I've ordered Kengor's book (from Amazon - NOT some "hack site") and withhold comment on the degree of its scholarship. Kengor's book IS being sold via Amazon which is hardly an "ideological crank website." Collectively speaking - (oops a socialist rant) I agree that Wikipedia DOES have to uphold high standards of fact checking an accuracy and I've been thru all of this on totally different topics. The facts will come out, one way or the other. Thanks SimonATL (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't understand how Amazon works. They sell all sorts of useless, incompetent, boring, pornographic and/or psychotic crap: they don't care, as long as they get their money. Having your work available on Amazon is no more an indication of reliability than having your own webpage, or selling your songs at iTunes. The Communist is a hatchet job by an ideologue with a blatant political agenda, and again is not considered a reliable source by any reputable historians. I'm sorry to hear you put money in his pocket (and in Amazon's coffers). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It's sold on Amazon? Well, then, I.....I have a bunch of snarky comments I want to make, but I'll refrain. Partly because Orangemike stole my thunder. But I will say that it being sold on Amazon doesn't mean jack shit. Kengor's bio on Amazon states "Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College. He is the executive director of the College's Center for Vision and Values which works on the presupposition that the God of the Bible is the indispensable starting point for understanding truth." Grove City College......Willy the Wolverine says Obama is a Muslim!. Ok...a couple snarky comments. Dave Dial (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Simon; it seems to me that your recent edits are original research. Can you find a secondary source to summarize these claims? On Kengor: I agree that he is a partisan hack with a clear political axe to grind against Obama, but I don't think that means that his research on points of fact are unreliable. I still maintain that Kengor is a legitimate source for this article, but that any use of his research must be balanced when his claims are controversial. Jander80 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
original research is not allowed in article content - but "no original reasearch" does not apply to us as editors who need to select and weigh and appropriately balance content and determine what to include. It is up to the editor wishing to add content to show that it is appropriately sourced, hence those who want to include Kengor need to show that his views are significantly held within the academic researchers. (good luck with that). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
What I mean is that Simon's recent edits summarize the primary source of Davis's newspaper articles in a way that constitutes original research. For instance, his source for the claim "Davis's editorials took positions that were far to the left and did not only discuss labor-related issues" is simply an article written by Davis. But this summary on his part is original research, and for this reason, I don't think it's an appropriate addition to the article. On Kengor, I don't think it's necessary to find additional sources supporting basic factual claims in his book. Obviously, the "basic" clause excludes controversial claims about Davis being Obama's "mentor" and what not (claims which are disputed by other experts, as we've discussed already). Jander80 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
ahh, you are talking about article content! sorry. regarding Obama's grandparents taking him to meet Davis, there are plenty of other completely reliable sources that can be used for that, there would be no reason to use Kengor.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I have put side-by-side information that clearly lays out the Soviet position in 1949 against the Marshall Plan followed by Davis' parallel take that clearly follows the Soviet line. It looks like we will have to waste a lot of time because RedPen and others would seem to want to hide Davis' clear support for Soviet positions that I have just documented. Please state WHY this edit was removed. Davis statement in his editorial clearly follows the Soviet Communist party. SimonATL (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Simon, for what it's worth, I agree with Glaucon that your edits are rather egregious instances of original research and wp:synth. If you can find a reliable secondary source that summarizes these claims, then I don't think there will be a problem. Jander80 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It would save us a lot of further friction if you would familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policy on reference material, particularly primary sources and synthesis of material. You can include quotes, subject to consensus, but if you want to interpret them for the reader ("this quote shows he was a communist"), that must be done via reliable secondary sources. You can't interpret it yourself. Nor can you include a quote from Davis criticizing the Marshall plan, material showing that communists criticized the Marshall plan and then say (or imply) that this means Davis was a communist. Besides the obvious fallacy, it is the very definition of synthesis. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct research, interpret primary sources etc. The job of Wikipedia is to be an accurate, neutral representation of what reliable, secondary sources say.
As an aside, I am not entirely ignorant of the Marshall Plan, and I find it highly suspect to use opposition of the Marshall Plan to infer that someone was a Communist. Even defending Sovietism is not very good evidence of Communism (and WP:OR to boot). At best, it can be used to infer that someone had common sympathies with certain Communist positions. Glaucus (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion about improving the article content with reliable sources
oh come on, you know that communism is like cooties - if you touch someone who has them, you get em too. thats why Obama is a commie cause he knew Davis who didnt like the Marshall plan and so was a communist who hates amurica. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
OK - Funny RedPen - but the Soviets played a VERY serious game for the decades that they were in power in Russia and millions of dead Russians and other Asians testify to the brutality of their methods. Even the Russians got fed up with Stalinism. My Russian friends say that life in Russia today is a far cry from those years in terms of just basic individual freedom and opportunity. An entire generation of millions of Ruskies and Ukranians, Georgians, Latvians, ect are in their 30s that have NO personal experience under the decades of Soviet repression. They tell me they have a hard time relating even to their own parents and grandparents who lived thru the Stalinist Purges, Great Patriotic War against Hitlerism/Facism and the Cold War. Soviet Stalinist Communism did target the US for penetration. We now know that the so-called 1950s "Red Scare" was actually under-rated even while the Soviet's and their allies were decrying McCarthism. SimonATL (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy on NO Original Research is being abused by the editors. I will change my edit simply to compare one reliable source noting that the Soviet Union put forth a position against the Marshall Plan. I will then point to another contemporary source what Davis's position was at roughly the same time. Here is the policy on OR:
"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement: "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

To this contributor, its clear that editors are trying to block the allegation that Davis WAS a member of the Communist party and that he had political views that sometimes directly mirrored those of the Soviet Communist party. I've already posted those parallel views but they were PULLED as "Original Research. Administrators are using the cover that several online sources that note Davis' Communist party membership are biased or prejudiced or whatever else they might object to. They also don't like the author of the recent book on Davis membership in the Communist party. If he WAS a member, this fact will come out despite attempts to block its revelation. I will review the book, myself and I guess if I conclude that the book is reliable, there's going to be a major debate here. I'm interested in the facts. Let's see where they take us Mr. Davis. SimonATL (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
To this contributor, it appears that you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - and that is not appropriate behavior which will lead to you having a short, but unhappy, editing career. Remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
@TheRedPenofDoom - My Wikipedia editing career has hardly been short, having contributed to Wikipedia for over 6 years and having started new articles from scratch and improving numerous others. I am interested only determining if allegations surrounding Davis association with and membership in the Communist Party can be substantiated and not in righting great wrongs. Numerous online sources and several books discuss Davis' Communist Party membership including ones cited before in this article. Regardless of whether you or other editors don't like the findings, the facts will come out. It is quite obvious that some editors don't want any membership in the Communist party to be accepted despite online and published evidence. Let's get to the facts on this issue of whether or not Davis was a member at any time of the Communist Party. I am also interested in why more than 20 references to "Frank" in Obama's autobiographical work were clearly removed in the audio version of that work. That removal is not a matter of opinion. Read Obama's book and listen to the audio, yourself and draw your own conclusions. I voted for Obama for President in 2012 and am not "anti-Obama." SimonATL (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that the article should mention Davis's appearance in Dreams, but I have no idea what Obama's editorial decisions regarding his memoir has to do with this article on Davis. As best I can tell, Obama's decision to remove these references in certain published versions of his memoir has nothing to do with Davis, and so is of no interest to this article. Jander80 (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you have edited Wikipedia for a significant period of time, along with the edits you've made on this Talk page and the article, only make me question the validity your other contributions. It's unbelievable that you do not seem to understand the basic concepts of Wikipedias main guidelines. Specifically reliable sourcing, original research, synthesis, BLP and NPOV. It's as if you believe it's your "duty" to share your vast knowledge of interesting facts with the world and are using Wikipedia as a forum to do so. You need to take a step back and get familiar with the guidelines I, and other editors, have asked you to adhere to. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
"Why would some editors consider the book, "THE COMMUNIST: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS: THE UNTOLD STORY OF BARACK OBAMA'S MENTOR" objectionable as a cited source?"
That book is not of course the original source of the claim that Davis was a card-carrying party member. The original allegations come from Davis' FBI file.[9] That file does not document anything about Davis. Instead it contains innuendo like this:
“On 10/6/53, [name dedacted], former CP member, advised that in September or October 1950, he was told by [name dedacted] that the CP in Hawaii was going underground and reorganize into “groups of threes.” [Name dedacted] was to contact man for four groups which included group #10 with Marshall Davis as the Chairman.”
So, this article could be edited to say something like, "Davis' FBI file includes statements allegedly made by anonymous former CP members that Davis was himself a member." That's pretty thin stuff, but if it will settle this argument, I think we might include it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Those FBI reports, which are fascinating, are the stuff for historians to read and evaluate. However, under Wikipedia guidelines of WP:RS, they are primary sources, and using them would be original research WP:OR which we cannot do. It might be acceptable under WP guidelines to put them in external links.
If I were a historian writing a paper instead of a Wikipedia article, I would say that, Davis' FBI files contained statements from Communist Party members who became FBI informers, and that the statements said that they worked with Davis in the Party and that he identified himself as a Communist Party member. These are internal FBI reports of agents to their supervisors, and I would expect them to be accurate (but you never can tell). The FBI believed that those informers were truthful (but you never can tell). It's possible that the informers were lying, and telling the FBI what they wanted to hear. I don't know. It's the job of a historian to evaluate these original sources, which is why we don't use original sources as WP:RS in Wikipedia.
The Telegraph is defined by WP as a WP:RS, so we can use their article.
John Edgar Tidwell might be a WP:RS.
The Atlantic is a WP:RS.
I think there's a prima facie case that Davis was a Communist, but he may not have been. I think that Wikipedia rules of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR require us to give both sides. --Nbauman (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what old proposal from 2012 is being revived here, but the general issues of calling Davis a communist and trying to tie that influence to Obama have been discussed extensively already. Any FBI chatter of who was or was not a communist during the J. Edgar Hoover / Red Scare years has to be filtered through more recent historical analysis. The reliability of the Telegraph article has been questioned here. It would be unwise to use this as a sole source. The Atlantic article appears reliable but its scope is covering a bunch of fringe theories, and it does not give them much weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Remember, our assessment of whether the Telegraph or other sources are reliable or credible doesn't count. What counts is whether they meet WP:RS. And if it's been reported by multiple WP:RSs, that gives it WP:WEIGHT and it should go in to the biography. --Nbauman (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is up to us to determine as a matter of editorial discretion whether a source is reliable or not. Who else is there but us editors? You may be conflating the trustworthiness of a news outlet as a whole with the reliability of individual articles they publish. This piece has certainly been challenged here, and has some indicia of less than full reliability. It seems to be an outlier. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

analysis in need of sourcing

I removed the following from the article

During the middle of the 20th century, Davis set forth a radical vision that challenged the status quo. His commentary on race relations, music, literature, and American culture was precise, impassioned, and engaged. At the height of World War II, Davis questioned the nature of America’s potential postwar relations and what they meant for African Americans and the nation. His work challenged the usefulness of race as a social construct, and he eventually disavowed the idea of race altogether. In his reviews on music, he argued that blues and jazz were responses to social conditions and served as weapons of racial integration. His book reviews complemented his radical vision by commenting on how literature reshapes one’s understanding of the world. Even his travel writings on Hawaii called for cultural pluralism and tolerance for racial and economic difference.

There are no sources for these specific claims, and since there is now some sourced analysis in the article, i have removed it to the talk page as a holding pen until someone finds appropriate sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've just removed (reluctantly) content sourced to something called jrank.org, which does not show any signs of being a reliable source, but appears instead to be un-edited, reader-contributed content, which we reject as sourcing, just as we do Wikipedia articles. However: I have hopes that the material linked to might be mined for genuinely reliable sources; and I commend the editor who stumbled on it and added it to the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest re-write

I find this article to be almost unreadable. I believe that this is exacerbated by splitting up the biography by decade rather than by topic of interest. The result is a collection of disparate (and often radically uninteresting) factoids. I suggest taking the FA on Adelaide Anne Procter as a rough guideline, due to its simple minimalism. Proposed format:

1 Life
2 Literary Career
3 List of works

I also suggest that both sections follow the narrative style in the Procter article, as opposed to the current random blurbs and factoids. To those who object to the minimalist aesthetic sensibilities suggested by this format, consider that this format could serve as a solid anchor for an expanded article, and that this "no-nonsense" approach could help to prevent agenda-driven editing. Jander80 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that Davis life was not "three simple aspects". He was involved and doing many different things at the same time most of his life all of which influenced each other.
If you want to create a draft in your user space and show that I am wrong, please feel free. But we are not going to simplify the life of a complex man just so he fits nicely in a three part box.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

censorship of talk page??

I just put in a link to trevor loudon,s blog which has a perfectly reliable and valid criticism which reflects the views of a lot of editors that this article is severely whitewashed when by definition, any source which attempts to link davis to either the communist party usa or obama is unreliable, and it was completely erased, not even allowed to be viewed for disculssion. Is this evenk allowed? What could be so obscene that it can't even be allowed on a talk page when the article clearly is about the content and editing of this article? We have the fbi files, published dvds and books, and they cant even be mentioned on the talk page? Redhanker (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

When you rant on and on and on about big media conspiracies they will be removed from the talk page because talk pages are specifically for discussing what reliable sources say about the subject and how we can use them to improve the article. If you want to continue to rant about big media or about censorship, go someplace else.
If you have specific suggestions for article improvement with reliably published sources to support them, then bring them for discussion.
and you also need to remember that this is the article about FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS not CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT HOW MEETING A COMMUNIST WHEN YOU ARE YOUNG WILL TURN YOU INTO A COMMUNIST WHEN YOU ARE PRESIDENT. Obama's influence on Davis was nil and any specific influence Davis had on Obama is yet to be published by anything other than conspiracy blogs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
and Loudon may be an opinionista, but as anything close to a reliable source, nope. may i suggest that you might be more comfortable over at conservopedia where they also believe that mainstream academia is not a reliable source and your blogger would fit right in.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Frank Marshall Davis was a card-carrying Communist

There is plenty of evidence that Davis was a communist, pro Stalin and pro Mao. This article avoids mentioning this, and is thus a "scrubbed" picture of who was. Also, the article mentions Davis as writing for Afro-American papers in Chicago. But fails to mention writing and editing the Chicago Star, which was a communist-leaving newspaper, And I am sure if more research were done, Dais's work on labor disputes would also be shown to be communist in nature. This article needs to be revised to show this side of Davis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.62.39 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If he was a CPUSA member please document this properly, either here or in the article, and I'm sure it will stay in.
If by "card-carrying Communist" you just mean something like "super double pinko bastard nyah nyah" then go away, nobody cares. 209.197.146.9 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
And by "document this properly'" we do not mean "provide a link to a post on he-man_commie-hating_patriots.net" either. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look for sources as well as you looked for whether or not his involvement with the Star is covered in the article, well then we will never be seeing that source, even if they existed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Was he a Communist?

Much of the evidence that Davis is a Communist is guilt by association, such as attending meetings and writing newspaper columns. I don't know how you can prove that somebody was a "card-carrying" Communist, unless somebody actually saw him carrying a card. I don't even carry my draft card. Please don't clutter the talk pages with such irrelevant claims.

If true and verifiable in WP:RS, though, I think it belongs in the article. Howard Zinn wrote in A People's History of the United States that many in the civil rights movement, black and white, joined the Communist Party. According to Zinn, they didn't have many choices when they sought supporters; the Democratic Party, including John F. Kennedy, wasn't sympathetic. At that time, the Communist Party was one of the few places where black and white people could sit together in a room, treat each other as equals, and plan political strategies together, according to Zinn. Paul Robeson was openly a Communist. Stanley Levison was a Communist. So I think it's notable.

I think we could establish in WP:RS that FBI sources accused him of being a Communist. There are FBI FOIA requests, which are not WP:RSs, in which confidential informants who were ex-Communists say that they reported to Davis when they were in the Communist Party.

The Telegraph, which reported on the woman with three breasts [10] and killed stories that were unfavorable to its advertisers [11] may not be the most reliable source, but it should be possible to find WP:RSs that have examined these claims. The Atlantic would qualify, but The Wire is a blog published by a reliable source (The Atlantic), so you could argue about whether it would qualify.

John Edgar Tidwell might qualify as a WP:RS, but I'm not sure.

Howard University now has a project to work on Wikipedia pages about black history. Maybe we could bring some of them in to work on this issue. A good historian could solve a lot of our problems. --Nbauman (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic blog does not state that Davis was a member of the Communist Party. I do not think that there is any truly reliable source that makes such an assertion. On the other hand, the article in its current version makes it clear that Davis worked closely with Communist allied organizations and publications for many years. There were many people who were generally sympathetic to the Communist cause who never took the final step of joining the party. When the consequences of formally joining a group are severe, some sympathizers will hold back from taking that final step. And some who sympathize strongly but are not prepared to submit to party discipline may hold back as well. Informer reports in FBI files are primary sources proving nothing. We should not say he was a CP member in Wikipedia's voice unless we have a vastly better source than we do now.
We also must keep in mind that nobody would care about this in the slightest unless they were motivated by a desire to make Barack Obama look bad. "Hey, that old black guy in Hawaii that Obama hung out with? That guy was a COMMIE!" That POV should not shape this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's not my motivation. I thought one of the promising things about Obama was his associations with people on the left, like Jeremiah Wright and David Scheiner. From reading Howard Zinn -- and the FBI and HUAC reports -- it seems that avowed Communists, like Stanley Levison and Paul Robeson, made major contributions to the civil rights movement. Even Theodore Sorenson said that Kennedy was pushed to support the civil rights movement because the Communist Party was using it to embarass America internationally. (And it should have been an embarassment.) I'm more interested in Davis than I am in Obama. What was the left-wing community at the time in Hawaii like?
The reports of FBI informers are prima facie evidence that Davis was a Communist. They may be true or they may not be. Informers have lied, and the FBI has lied. That's up to WP:RS to evaluate. Historians know how to evaluate these things. It may be that it's impossible to answer, and there is nothing but arguments on both sides.
If there are many WP:RS that say so, then it goes in. If there are WP:RS that disagree, they go in too. "Reliable" is defined by WP:RS, not our own opinions of their reliability. That's the way Wikipedia works. --Nbauman (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Profiles in October Surprise: Obama's 'Real' Dad Elspeth Reeve The Atlantic Wire Oct 15, 2012

I think this is a reliable source, both in the WP:RS sense and generally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/23/frank-marshall-davis-obamas-communist-mentor/
Fact Checker
Frank Marshall Davis: Obama’s ‘Communist mentor’?
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
March 23, 2015
[Conclusions]
Davis was indeed associated with the Communist Party, and the FBI identified him as a member. He was affiliated with more than a dozen other groups that were open to his views on social and racial inequality. He repeatedly showed his bitterness toward Jim Crow laws and wanted African Americans to have constitutional rights. He was an activist, but there is no evidence that Davis was a hard-core Communist who spied for Soviet leaders. He was critical of American society, but not America as a country.
Davis made an impression on Obama, as shown in his memoir. Obama mentions Davis several times in “Dreams from My Father” as someone who influenced his understanding of his black identity. But there is no evidence Obama was “raised” by Davis, or that Davis remained a close Communist mentor who advised him throughout his life. We carefully considered the facts underlying this assertion, and the evidence is slim.

Also, William J. Maxwell posted Davis' FBI file, which he got from a FOIA request for his book F.B. Eyes. http://omeka.wustl.edu/omeka/exhibits/show/fbeyes/davis I think this is a reliable source for the FBI files, since it's from an academic press. I haven't read Maxwell's book yet. --Nbauman (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Cover up article.

This article is absurd - as so often with Wikipedia it is a cover up job to make a "Progressive" look good. The real Frank Marshall Davis (the mentor of the young Barack Obama) was a Marxist activist - who became a drug dealer and pornographer (without changing his political position). Yet the truth is carefully excluded from the article - the censorship supporting leftist activists (who dominate Wikipedia) carefully exclude the truth from Wikipedia articles on Progressives, insisting that only establishment sources (such as the New York Times) are cited - sources that the collectivist left has controlled for many years. People who actually want to know the truth about Frank Marshall Davis should read Jack Cashill's "Deconstructing Obama" (2011).90.212.43.137 (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Marshall_Davis/Archive_1&oldid=1136277522"