Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was closed 06:08, 15 April 2008.

Barack Obama

[edit]
Stifle notified a number of people active in the current edit war, but I notified HailFire[1], User:Jersyko[2], and Steve Dufour[3] as well.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users notified by Stifle: Davidp[4], Tvoz[5], Ronaldomundo[6], Belfunk[7], Scjessey[8], Kossack4Truth[9], Andyvphil[10], Grsz11[11]. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Featured Article Review #1: January 2007.
Featured Article Review #2: July 2007.

The stability criterion is:

1 (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.

I do not support FAR of an otherwise fine article only because it has had to be protected due to normal and natural fallout from the election cycle. FAR is not dispute resolution. Unless the article has other significant issues, I suggest closure or withdrawal of this FAR.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, POV issues have subsequently been raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is obviously going to be some dispute on a controversial topic such as a major election candidate, and it is likely to be protected many times by nature of the topic. I agree with SandyGeorgia on this one. I would support keeping this as a FA at the moment. Yahel Guhan 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the Barack Obama page as a featured article given the dispute surrounding N/POV. A group of editors is vigorously protecting this article from information that is noteworthy but that is deemed negative by those editors. A great deal of discussion has taken place on the Talk page regarding these issues. While some biased edits are certainly coming from editors who seem to insist on forcefully discrediting Obama, the pendulum has swung entirely in the direction of fan-like protectionism, which is undermining Wikipedia principles. --Davidp (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mention of POV issues (1d) in the FAR submission, and they haven't been documented here; the submission mentioned only 1e, stability. Pls clarify with specific POV issues warranting review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently an edit war going on over whether or not a classification of Barack Obama as a liberal in the Senate career section is appropriate and whether or not there should be a long description of Jeremiah Wright's controversial comments and their impact upon his presidential campaign is required in the presidential campaign section, or if a summary of the controversy in line with WP:SS is appropriate. Here's a diff that shows fairly well the content that some feel is missing, while some feel is WP:UNDUE.[12] --Bobblehead (rants) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a problem... As Sandy noted, FAR is not dispute resolution. Removing this one from the list over some edit warring seems to be pushing it. This nomination seems clearly to be a proxy for other more reasonable means of dispute resolution, which it should NOT be. Work it out at RFC or on the talk page, but not here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, Stifle is not involved in the current edit war and only came to the article because I requested full protection to force a ceasefire.[13] --Bobblehead (rants) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has an RFC or any other dispute resolution method been tried? This situation is going to be ongoing during the election cycle; we don't defeature an article over expected minor differences, and FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC is currently in progress on the labeling but has only generated two serious responses since it was started. Which I believe was missed in all the other activity on the talk page. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additions that are reverted are POV, as well as go against the policy on article size, as this article is well over the desired size limit. Detailed additions that are added are inappropriate when they are throughly covered elsewhere (in other articles). A FAR is way out of line here. Grsz 11 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, WP:SIZE isn't policy; it's a guideline. Second, the article is very well within WP:SIZE (even with the additions linked above, it was still at only 40KB readable prose, well under the 50 KB readable prose max suggested guideline, which is often passed in featured articles). Arguing to keep that text out based on size isn't gonna fly. At any rate, that discussion belongs in an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is in excellent condition at the moment, and easily worthy of FA status; however, the ongoing edit war caused by a small group of biased editors who wish to specifically highlight or fabricate criticism of Obama has made the article somewhat unstable. Consensus building has failed, because this group of editors simply ignore the outcome of any meaningful discussions and do their own thing anyway. Sadly, I don't feel I can recommend FA status on this basis. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nomination - This isn't cleanup or dispute resolution. And instability is when the definition of a planet is changed and the definition of a planet articles needs a massive rewrite. Day to day additions and copyediting for the political season doesn't need rewriting of the whole article but the paragraph in question. There doesn't seem to be massive instability, and so it shouldn't be brought here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if this is a request or otherwise, but I decline to withdraw the nomination. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renomination There is indeed a content dispute going on about this article. The idea that this means it is inappropriate to immediately reconsider this article's FA status is simply bizarre. Many of the criteria for FA status are about content, not form. Wikipedia's "core" content policies include WP:NPOV, which this article currently largely ignores, and if its content fails NPOV it cannot be an FA.
Just because Stifle chose to specify criterion 1(e) in his nom is no reason to ignore the fact that this article fails, miserably, criteria 1(b) and 1(d), as follows:

1. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.

  • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
  • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
Background information: Obama, after three years working to coordinate the politics of black churches in Chicago, made an unforced choice to put aside his religious skepticism and join a church whose linked Black Liberation theology and active politics, exemplified by its pastor, then of 16 years in that post, was very familar to him. And he's remained a faithful congregant for 20 years while that politics has been preached from the pulpet and reflected in encomiums from the pastor and the church's publications for such as Louis Farrakan, etc.
This content is missing from the article. For that reason, among others, we have a content dispute. Yes, the POV that this is a significant part of Obama's bio is a POV. But NPOV policy does not require that we eschew content that is POV. It requires exactly the opposite. It requires that all significant POV be represented. And given the severe hit Obama has taken in the polls it's pretty clear that the POV that Wright's politics is significant is not a WP:FRINGE POV. So... if it's not there Barack Obama fails NPOV. And if it fails NPOV we must either fix that or withdraw the FA designation. QED.
As if that weren't enough, there is a refusal to attempt to reflect the attempts of reliable sources to place Obama's politics on the political spectrum. Now, Obama has said that such political labeling is "old politics"[14], but there is another POV, namely that he is intentionally obscuring his politics because those politics, correctly perceived, will not be palatable to sections of the electorate. Again, NPOV requires that both POV be represented. The latter is not in the article. If it's not there Barack Obama fails NPOV. And if it fails NPOV we must either fix that or withdraw the FA designation. Again, QED. Andyvphil (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's a legitimate POV dipute that wasn't spelled out originally, and if it remains unaddressed and remains an issue, than a FAR makes sense. But, before coming to FAR, have you all allowed enough time for other dispute resolution measures, for example, RFC? FAR is not dispute resolution. (It's hard to imagine why such text isn't just incorporated considering its importance, but has that been addressed through other means, before coming to FAR?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's all well and good, but unfortunately it is also complete nonsense. Andy says, "and given the severe hit Obama has taken in the polls it's pretty clear that the POV that Wright's politics is significant..." Except that isn't true at all. Today's poll indicates that Obama is still leading in the polls. Although neck and neck with Clinton, he is polling as beating McCain when Clinton is not. This poll was conducted specifically to see what impact the Jeremiah Wright affair had, and it turns out that he has lost a tiny bit of ground with Republicans, and lost almost nothing with Democrats. In otherwords, the Jeremiah Wright issue was not significant at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't argue politics on the FAR; the question here is whether the FAR is necessary or other means of dispute resolution have been pursued. Clearly there is a POV dispute, now that more complete info has been posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that assessment. True we should not argue politics on the FAR, but we should not dismiss statistical polling analysis, as simple politics. If you really think the Wright issue rises to the level of POV dispute, and isn't just basic misleading and tendentious editing, then you need to look at those polls and the others and see for yourself whether it has has any affect on the public (as opposed to the media which WP is biased towards because thats where our sources generally come from) the polls show no effect, and yet our text DOES have a mention of this controversy, just not a LONG one which is what some people want. You could argue that the polling data supports TOTAL EXCLUSION of the Wright issue. However no one is arguing for that because it violates undue weight, specifically that the issue is due some weight. And consensus has supported that version, the hue and cry of certain notorious editors aside. It has mention, and I think the issue is closed in the minds of most. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another long answer about political differences and views, with no discussion of dispute resolution steps tried. We're a long ways from November, and FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
after being the initiator of two dispute resolution processi on Obama Campaign 08; I can tell you that they are not as helpful as you would hope. Neither me nor the other disagreeing party ended up using the suggestions from a 3-o request, and my plea for help on the BLP noticeboard has been entirely vacant of admin comments since it was posted. So I think many admins are simply waiting until 2008 is over before touching these articles. That being said- any help would be nice because as I can verify when I got mis-reported for 3rr, blocked for 31 hours, and then unblocked on a BLP exception- even the Dispute Resolution process is yielding a pretty scattershot consensus right now. I support dispute resolution and agree that maybe FAR is not the best venue for these concerns, but at the same time perhaps Dispute Resolution needs more teeth to handle what is happening on some pages lately. I would also look at who is accepting policy and who is abusing it.72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral "Featured Article" has no meaning to me. I don't care if this label is applied to Senator Obama's article or not. The editors who are editing the article hoping to influence the election one way or the other would do much better to spend their time volunteering for one campaign or the other. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to add another perspective, I'm sharing this quality assessment that I recently discovered on the web. I'm still hopeful for renewed progess toward consensus through the current RfC, and I encourage editors concerned about this BLP's placement or non-placement of Sen. Obama on a "political spectrum" to return their focus to that still open discussion. That said, I would agree with 72's perception that the apparent hands-off approach of at least some of Wikipedia's more experienced editors has made progress slow going. It's the main reason that I too recently proposed nominating this article for a third featured article review. --HailFire (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I believe this is one of the finest political figure articles on Wikipedia. One or two unresolved content disputes do not make an article instable. I agree with Sandy Georgia's statement that FAR is not dispute resolution. · jersyko talk 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this off my watchlist, as it's quite clearly merely a content dispute (one that I don't have the time or inclination to participate in at the moment). I suggest closure of this FAR and use of dispute resolution. · jersyko talk 03:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Jersyko and others that although there have been a few content disputes, this high-profile article overall has remained quite stable and has been so for a long time which is a feat, given the attraction the article has to politically-motivated attacks. It continues to be deserving of its FA status. Tvoz |talk 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination was wrongheaded, so much so that I'm not entirely convinced that its intent was not to fail, poisoning the well for a later attempt and providing another argument for retaining the article's current status as an annex of the Obama campaign site. The "stability" of the article is the problem, rather than the opposite. The fact that the article has FA status (which is a scandal, but understandable since the pro-Obama claque active in controlling the article can be expected to, and has, weighed in en masse on any nomination and FAR) has been used repeatedly as an argument for the proposition that it cannot possibly have NPOV problems, and most recently as an argument for repeatedly deleting the POV template from the article head despite the many allegations of POV on the discussion page (and here) and in contravention of the instruction in the template that it should not be removed while the discussion is taking place.
SandyGeorgia's naive observation that "It's hard to imagine why such text isn't just incorporated considering its importance..." has been met by denials that the issue is of any importance at all. Never mind the assertions that any mention of ratings in the "Senate Career" section is some kind of a smear. The claque is entrenched and prepared to be unreasonable and I see nothing in the "dispute resolution" process that is going to result in NPOV making a beachhead in the article. But there is no reason to wait interminably for some other process to complete before proceeding here. The article doesn't deserve FA but has it. The duty of a neutral editor in this process is to try to improve it and if (when) that proves impossible remove the designation. So, let's do it, if we can. Andyvphil (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet your idea of making this article neutral consists of your own POV, like here and here. Several perfectly acceptable alternatives have been proposed, which offer absolutely no comments either way on the "controversy", yet you still insist that you are right. Grsz 11 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nb: Grsz11's idea of NPOV is this edit, removing from the section of the article on Obama's Senate career info on the National Journal and ADA ratings of Barack Obama's Senate career, as well as Obama's comment in response to the former that ideological labels are “old politics". Grsz11's comment explaining this act of censorship is "rmv POV edit. source didnt work. is this mentioned on Clinton's article?". In fact both the NJ rating and the ADA ratings are mentioned in Clinton's article, all five citations in the deleted material work, and what is POV about mentioning a rating significant enough to prompt a reply from Obama, including that reply, is beyond my comprehension. If he thought the ratings I added (ADA) or restored (NJ) were unrepresentative, he could add more. Instead it is demanded that a treatment of ratings acceptable to the pro-Obama claque be produced and agreed upon before the subject be mentioned at all,. which agreement is indefinately withheld, keeping the article free of any mention of the subject indefinately, which is clearly the desired result.
Also, WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

It's not my idea that adding POV different than Obama's is what is necessary for NPOV. It's in policy. Non-negotiable policy, in fact. Andyvphil (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If an article is the subject of an ongoing edit war, it fails FA criteria, regardless of who's in the right. If some users or parties are clearly in the wrong (or are disruptively editing), then admins should consider blocking. I don't see what's so hard about that. - Chardish (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I suggest that this FAR remain open for at least one week after the expiration of full protection so that our current problems with FACR 1(e) can be addressed under the watchful eye of editors with broader experience in managing the FAR process and assessing FA status across all of Wikipedia. --HailFire (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not hard, tell us: Are they? Am I? And if it fails FA criteria, in your opinion, when can we move on to the next stage? Andyvphil (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the article talk page a while ago, FAR is intended to be a deliberative process, and we don't just "move on to the next stage". FAR is not dispute resolution, and by the time this comes up for "keep" or "remove" voting, your content dispute will likely be yesterday's stale headlines, and FAR reviewers are not likely to engage in that dispute. Dispute resolution is a better means of addressing the issue. Further, whether or not the article carries a little featured star won't solve your differences, so FAR isn't the best place to bring them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Barack Obama is not a content dispute about whether or not to give the Wright connection the attention it deserves, or whether to mention the National Journal's characterization of his voting record as the most liberal in the Senate and his near-perfect (54 of 55) 3-year ADA record. These are merely symptoms of the control over content excercised by the resident pro-Obama claque, and that shows no sign of becoming yesterday's headline. This article fails FA criteria 1(b) and 1(d) and that shows no sign of changing. The time to remove FA status was when it failed the criteria. I repeat: can we get on with it? If not, why not? What are we waiting for? Andyvphil (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get on with what? Have you read the instructions at WP:FAR? All reviews last a month, many last two. Dispute resolution is that-a-way. After ya'll stop arguing politics on the FAR, and if deficiencies wrt WP:WIAFA are demonstrated here, and if the article moves to FARC in a few weeks, editors may then declare Keep or Remove and the article may or may not be delisted. In the meantime, FAR will not solve the dispute nor is it intended to, and removing the star (or not) will not either. But I've said this a few times already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the instructions read:

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria.

So we can get on with this (move it to the next stage) in a week or two. I'm not expecting this FAR to solve the dispute. I expect the claque to remain in control, in fact, and for the article to remain biased. Nothing is going to change any time soon. Andyvphil (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I could just chime in here.... It would be hypocritical of me to suggest that this article be delisted while I am helping editors get John McCain to FA status, but I do notice some problems with the ongoing dispute. I do not feel that the article should be delisted as of now, but would like to comment on the ongoing situation; call it an outsiders prospective :)

  • First, I only check in on this article every once in a while, and both of the last times I did it has been fully protected. That can be somewhat of a problem when passing the stablity criterion.
  • Secondly, I do feel that Jeremiah Wright's comments (and that's putting it nicely :) ) should be included, or at least more of a mention of them than what is currently being presented. I support this position for four reasons: 1) Although he has sort of begun to bounce back in polls, it hurt his campaign hard; he dropped in the polls sharply after this story broke; 2) his story on knowing about the comments changed, wherein he first said he never heard them, and then said, "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."; 3) he has largely denounced the comments, but has not denounced the pastor; and 4) he made a speech on race solely because of the incident(s).
  • Third, As we have been doing with John McCain, the major detail can go in seperate subarticles (in this case Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008) but there is usually a mention in the main article; that should definitely be done here. This was (and still is) a big part of Barack Obama's campaign, like it or not, and it is only NPOV to include more than what is already written about Wright in the section. Happyme22 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it bothers me that all your reasons for inclusion are examples of Original Research. You say you want more but you can't articulate a reason why. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the hypocrisy? I'm presuming your help includes letting the McCainiacs know they can't have it all their own way. Delisting Obama should be a salutary lesson and is probably a necessary step on getting Obama back to where it deserves FA. If (First, Second and Third) it doesn't meet FA criteria, why don't you think it should be delisted? Andyvphil (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about people thinking that I am or was a hypocrite for voting to delist this one while supporting McCain's *eventual* nom, coupled with the fact that I am a Republican. But I also do not feel that that should stop me from telling the crowd what I feel is wrong with the article.
There are NPOV problems. From reading over the article, I only see two criticisms of Obama: "He was criticized by rival pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues." and "has been criticized by progressive commentator David Sirota for demonstrating too much "Senate clubbiness," and has been praised by conservative commentators, including George Will who encouraged him to run for president. But in a December 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial, former Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan advised Will and other "establishment" commentators to avoid becoming too quickly excited about Obama's still early political career."
The second phrase above is furthermore not entirely correct, because it implies that all conservative commentators love Obama, which is surely not the case. After seeing really only two criticisms in the article, the main editors' objections to adding more about the Wright controversy is, in my humble opinion, only another indication that there is some POV.
I have been working on the Ronald Reagan article for about a year. If you take a look at it, you will see that I, who authored the majority of the piece, am not a POV editor, and my points of POV in this article should be taken seriously. As for my IP friend above, Sir, you must not know what original research is, because I have used citations from reliable, published sources. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's seven more. The wording is more subtle perhaps than the ones you've quoted, but all of them clear challenges to Obama's statements or positions:
  • Through three televised debates, Obama and Keyes expressed opposing views on stem cell research, abortion, gun control, school vouchers, and tax cuts.[43]
  • In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.[66] The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.[67]
  • Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[70]
  • In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning racially and politically charged sermons made by Obama's longtime pastor and religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright.[98][99] Following significant negative media coverage, Obama responded to the controversy by delivering a speech entitled "A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[100] In the speech, Obama rejected Wright's offensive comments, but declined to disown the man himself.[101] Although the speech was generally well-received for its attempt to explain and contextualize Wright's comments,[101][102] some critics continued to press the question of Obama's long-standing relationship with Wright.[103][104]
  • Before the conference, 18 pro-life groups published an open letter stating, in reference to Obama's support for legal abortion: "In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway."[136]
  • Film critic David Ehrenstein, writing in a March 2007 Los Angeles Times article, compared the cultural sources of Obama's favorable polling among whites to those of "magical Negro" roles played by black actors in Hollywood movies.[177]
  • During his Democratic primary campaign for U.S. Congress in 2000, two rival candidates charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns.[175]
Agree with you about the "praised by conservative commentators" bit, a recent addition to that sentence that needs fixing. We also cover his smoking, and could put back the teenage drug use if editors do not consider it undue weight for a WP:SS. But please note that the above bulleted excerpts are drawn from sections spread throughout the article. Each one has its own talk page history too. The article you see today was forged through many POV challenges and sustained, good faith consensus building efforts involving editors of all views. I don't think an election means we have to discount all the collaborative work that has gone before, and I hope you, as a fellow editor who is actively engaged with politician bios and therefore understands the level of effort that goes into getting and maintaining FA status, will hear this plea for assistance. I invite you to have a second read through of the article and reconsider your assessment. We definitely need your perspective and fair assessment here. Good luck with getting McCain to FA. I'll come over and offer some suggestions. --HailFire (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I want to thank you for your work on this article. I personally know how hard it is to get an article to FA status, especially one of a political figure. But I also know that the article has to be FA-fit and free of POV, something that this article seems to be having trouble with. Thank you for presenting these statements above, although I'm not sure that the first and last count as criticisms simply because they contain negative words. So that gets it down to eight, which isn't too bad for a pretty new political figure. But now he is a candidate for the most powerful office in the country, and should be treated as so.
As you requested, I have reread the article. As of now, I do not favor delisting the article, but I do think that attention needs to be brought to certain places that are, in my view, questionably POV. These largely include the sections "Political advocacy", and yes "Books". I can give you a list of what I feel needs to be changed to make the article more NPOV, but I don't want to clog up this space in doing so. I will begin compliling a list in my sandbox and present it upon request or upon the closer of this FAR. I'm looking forward to working with all the Barack Obama editors. Respectfully, Happyme22 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Remove. This article fails both the WP:NPOV test and the stability test. Compare it with the articles about George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain and other recent presidents and presidential candidates. Each has entire sections devoted to criticism and controversy, even though they are no longer titled, "Criticism and Controversy." Hundreds of words are allotted to the substantial criticism from the other side of the the political spectrum that each of them has attracted. Here, there is no criticism. It is not allowed. It is banished to satellite articles, and it's been proven that virtually no one reads these satellite articles. The Obama biography is completely sanitized and shrink-wrapped. Never is heard a discouraging word. It reads as though it was written by Obama's campaign staff despite two major controversies (Wright and Rezko) and thousands of news articles and opinion columns about these controversies. Here are the criteria:

1. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.

  • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
  • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
This article fails. It deserves to fail. Andy and I will continue to insist on NPOV. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, can you provide section links to those sections in the other articles, atleast so they can be compared. I just did a quick search of Clinton and the word "criticized" only comes up in the Lewinsky section, and to say that she was "criticized by some Democrats for spending too much on a one-sided contest" for her 2006 reelection. The McCain Lobbyistgate is given one sentence under the 2008 campaign section, and the only other time "criticized" is used, is a single phrase about his actions in the Senate Commerce Committee. Grsz 11 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am confused about this as well. The only article that has a "criticism section" out of the BLPs listed by Kossack4Truth above is George W. Bush (who warrants his own special criticism page, obviously). This is just more anti-candidate BS, to be frank. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think Kossack4Truth intended to write "Sustain nomination"? The nomination in question being the current featured article review? --HailFire (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict?) Don't play "confused" Scjessey there is a section titled, "Controversy over military service and awards" for John Kerry and very extensive sections titled "Whitewater and other investigations" and "Lewinsky scandal" for Hillary Clinton while Obama has sycophantic praise like, "An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world, the only politician included on the list." TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is slightly misleading. The section in John Kerry is probably mis-titled because the controversy revolved around the BS put out by some 527 liars, rather than anything controversial about the man himself. I don't work on that article. And Barack Obama doesn't have anything in his life that is comparable to Whitewater, or the genuine scandal surrounding Bill Clinton's infidelity. Either way, neither of these articles have a "criticism" section. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For "Whitewater" substitute "Tony Rezko". Of course in Barack Obama he's merely "controversial", with unspecified ties to the purchase of Obama's house, and no mention of his having been a client, important campaign contribution bundler, or being currently on trial for extortion. Of campaign contributions. Andyvphil (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Barack has no titled section about his church so people can find more information on the subject. Even my suggestion to include the fact that his teaching was "part-time" appears to be too POV, and yet somehow a magazine saying he can "change the world" is more relevant than his actual experience. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's religion is covered in the section entitled "personal life". It does not need a special section all of its own. Besides, I thought the State isn't concerned with matters of religion? </sarcasm> Also, the part-time thing isn't "too POV". Since there are no sources, it is original research, and therefore inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing we are told in the "Personal life" section of Barack Obama about his church is its size. Before the Wright sermons hit Youtube I spent about a month trying to insert a couple sentences noting that the church was highly political and Afrocentric, and that Obama had distanced himself a bit from Wright. "Wrong section", "no consensus", "smear" and (this is my favorite) "you have to register to see that source -- strongly discouraged!" (the source was the New York Times). Andyvphil (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been said repeatedly, Andy, this is an article about Barack Obama. It is not supposed to be an article about his church. As for the NYT thing, my answer to that is (in his best Dick Cheney) "so?" I couldn't care less if it was the NYT - I don't read it and I think sources you have to register for (or in some case, pay for) should be discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The church is important enough to have a link to it in the contents, so people can click it, and then if necessary go from there to an appropriate article (I think it does this with Kerry and Clinton). And my part-time assertion is NOT original research, YOU just refuse to read my sources and constantly accuse me of making unverifiable claims. Not only that, if I do provide sources, you simply state it doesn't belong in the article or try to move the bar in some other way. Unacceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now read the Chicago Sun-Times source (I could not view the other one) and it does indeed say he worked part-time. I would be happy to support the inclusion of that term in the article, and I will do so on the article talk page momentarily. As for Trinity, it is currently overlinked in the article. It is linked in the infobox, and it is linked twice in the "personal life" section. The last of these three links should be delinked according to Wikipedia convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question of POV in this article is a very good one, and right now most concerns should be treated with equal weight. I have outlined my concerns above, and have acted upon them. I am going to present a list once the artice is unprotected and the dispute is largely resolved. I would recommend to others who also would like to voice their opinions to do that as well. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jayron32 says "some edit warring", Judgesurreal777 "ongoing edit war", SandyGeorgia "clearly there is a POV dispute". That point is established. It's also clear that some find the RFC's dismal and are opening up FAR as a side process simultaneously on the chance that DR might remain dismal. And that there is no consensus based on the current article. FAR is a warning sign to edit warriors that-- youse guys better cool down, or-- in a couple more weeks, we'll talk about losing your star. As a Ron Paul editor, who faced this exact same form of political attack two months ago (media hand-waving about the "racist" quotes of others) in an article that seems to have survived it, I can affirm there may be stability down the road. But guess what if there isn't! And meanwhile HRC, McCain, and Paul all have their eyes on that star. All we can do is affirm the pillars and improve WP and trust those principles will overcome petty partisanship (albeit expressed in ostensibly neutral processes). John J. Bulten (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know, since you write "That point is established", that the POV tag was editwarred off the article page on the graounds that it was vandalism to apply such a tag to an article with FA status. Andyvphil (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly call that a valid rationale for removing the tag... Happyme22 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The controlling claque doesn't rely on valid arguments. They rely on a numerical superiority in available reverts. Works, too. Andyvphil (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely and it is revolting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove This article is unstable and is undergoing an edit war so it cannot be a featured article. Furthermore, many who support the FA status are familiar names (Jersyko, Bobblehead, Hailfire, etc) Those people are famous for banning a lot of people on the excuse that they are a sock of Dirk Benedict (not exactly the right name, but it's Derk something). Their POV pushing by banning people is not in the ideals of Wikipedia. By the way, I am not for or against Obama and to show that I am not a sock, I am signing on with my IP. I am Indian and do not support or oppose any of the American candidates. I am KVS. 122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally registered as an "oppose" but I have changed it to read "remove" --Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Remove are not declared in the review phase; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should fail FA status because of some misleading areas which hide negative but true information and replace it with inacurate information. See the articles talk page, specificially the part about the police union endorsement. This could be an FA is only it were written by NPOV people without interference from POV pushers. Maybe there could be a temporary ban on all editing except from non-Americans who are neutral. 122.164.124.108 (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. The most obliviously pro-Obama editor ("The reason there is so little criticism of Obama in the article is that there is so little to criticise.") is a Brit who has actually offered the fact that he can't vote for Obama as "proof" of his neutrality. 'Taint so. Andyvphil (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting me again, Andy. If you go back an re-read the thread and my comment in full, I was suggesting that the reason Obama doesn't draw much criticism is because there isn't much to criticize. The fact is that editors like you are reduced to making mountains out of molehills in an attempt to portray Obama in a negative light. And what evidence do you have to say that I am "pro-Obama" exactly? You will find I edit Hillary Clinton-related pages with the same neutral hand. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here in America, we had a campaign by the British newspaper The Guardian to influence the 2004 presidential election in favor of the Democrats. The Guardian matched volunteers from among their readers to registered voters in the battleground state of Ohio, encouraging a one-to-one correspondence to convince the Ohio voter to vote for John Kerry rather than George W. Bush. I'm a Democrat, I voted for Kerry (and Gore four years earlier), and I believe Bush is the worst disaster in the history of the presidency, but I resent such efforts to meddle in our elections. So such efforts have happened before and they come as no surprise to me. And they came from Great Britain, Scjessey. Fancy that. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove There has been a systematic attempt to ban anyone who doesn't favor a pro-Obama POV so this is proof of bias. as further proof, Scjessey is very interested in knowing my username because he wanted to know why he couldn't find "KVS" as a user name. Well, it's because it's just part of the user name (like Newyorkbob or so forth). I would not be surprised that they will try to ban me because I advocate NPOV, which happens to be pro-obama at times, but anti-obama at other times, whichever is the truth. Because of the banning attempts by others, the real voice can't be heard, which is reason to deny FA. That's like banning everyone except Saddam loyalist from Wikipedia and then putting Saddam Hussein article for FA which includes only the version that he is a grate Iraqi patriot. I am sorry for being so blunt but POV pushers are really bad in this article. 122.164.134.73 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, I am KVS.[reply]

This was originally registered as an "oppose" but I have changed it to read "remove" --Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly this article is still right to be featured: it's quality and coverage is as good and better than other FAs, and it's maintaining that on what is an unstable topic. The opposition above confuses the topic's instability with the article's instability. I proposed one easy change on the article talk page: more sub pages, which'll stop some of the trouble. This should remain FA. Wikidea 14:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally registered as a "support" but I have changed it to read "keep" --Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Remove: This article subtly includes a strong bias towards Obama. One way it does this is through overuse of quotations:

"No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice."

Questioning the Bush administration's management of the Iraq War, Obama spoke of an enlisted Marine, Corporal Seamus Ahern from East Moline, Illinois, asking, "Are we serving Seamus as well as he is serving us?"

"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

"That is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America."

"We should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility [...] we should be guided by what works."

Reaffirming his commitment to net neutrality legislation, Obama said "once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose."

"We are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," Obama said. "We've lost the balance between work and wealth."

"Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution."

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

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

"I've never been a heavy smoker," Obama told the Chicago Tribune. "I've quit periodically over the last several years. I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I do not succumb. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously."

"I'm a pretty good poker player."

In his preface to the 2004 revised edition, Obama explains that he had hoped the story of his family "might speak in some way to the fissures of race that have characterized the American experience, as well as the fluid state of identity—the leaps through time, the collision of cultures—that mark our modern life."

"Michelle will tell you that when we get together for Christmas or Thanksgiving, it's like a little mini-United Nations," he said. "I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher. We've got it all." "What it really lays bare," Obama offered, is that "we're still locked in this notion that if you appeal to white folks then there must be something wrong."

"I wouldn't be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation."


Keep in mind I did not include all of the quotes in the article. If you look at the other candidates, then the quotes I did NOT include vastly outnumber what is shown in those articles. Not only that, providing quotes, from a politician, as proof of policy is lazy writing and inaccurate. Seriously, we have wikiquote for a reason - an encyclopedia isn't supposed to read like a fluffy interview from Time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this article includes things like his left-handedness, his love of chili, his desire to be an "architect" if he had to choose alternative career. These are defended as being relevant because it was from a "human interest" story, but all of this fluff crowds out, and excuses valid additions to the article, with excuses of "oh the article is too big already."TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh,here's another gem that has no business being in an encyclopedia article, "An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world,"[185] the only politician included on the list."

Sorry but some British political rag saying he can change the world is hardly relevant. We might as well include something about him being voted the "sexiest Senator" by People. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was featured in 2004 and maybe it deserved it back then, but he was an unknown then, and lots of new information, not fluff, has been kept out of this article and minimized. The fact that it was featured 4 years ago has been an excuse to remove the NPOV tag despite its obvious bias.TheGoodLocust (talk)

Imagine that. This article actually quotes Barack Obama as a reliable source about... Barack Obama. --HailFire (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the other political articles don't feel the need to bloat themselves up with so many direct quotations. Politicians lie and exagerate about their beliefs while on the campaign trail, which is why his policies and views should be inferred from his ACTIONS rather than his words. This is an encyclopedia - not his campaign website.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, this article clearly fails wikipedia guidelines under WP:NPS since it includes so many direct and lengthy quotations - inclusion of his keynote speech is the clearest example of this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPS discourages "lengthy quotations". Aside from the 2004 DNC keynote speech, which has been dramatically cut back, the remaining quotations are all well within the limits established by WP:NPS, which says, "Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles."
Incidentally, the focus of FAR is generally the determination of whether a featured article needs changes in order to keep its star, not an effort to remove it. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia, and we should all remember that the goal is to have as many top-quality articles as possible. It's a difference in approach: not "This article should be de-featured because...", but "This article needs these improvements to remain featured: ..." The former is antagonistic, while the latter is collaborative. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's discuss what this article needs: fewer buckets of whitewash, fewer editors trying to whitewash it, and fewer whitewash brushes. Let's reduce the number of self-serving Obama quotes and increase the number of quotes from his critics, perhaps even a conservative or two, wouldn't that be fair? Let's devote a minimum of 100 words (and one blockquote from a critic) to the Wright affair and the Rezko affair. Consensus here supports the idea that the article is POV in favor of Obama. The underlying principle of NPOV is to represent all significant POVs fairly. So far, any POV that doesn't serve the Obama campaign well is not represented in this article. There are sound, well-based and very reasonable criticisms of Obama regarding both Rezko and Wright. Rezko, the other slumlords, the association with the Daley political machine and "The Combine" in Springfield, all of these topics should be examined. It doesn't just have an effect on the presidential campaign. It affects the true and complete picture of Obama as a whole man, the man behind his rhetoric. The part that he would like to keep hidden behind the curtain, like the "Wizard" of Oz.
This is all from reliable sources like the Chicago Tribune, and Chicago Sun-Times.
I would like to spend more time and space on Obama's work at the Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland firm. He worked there for nearly ten years. For such a young man who didn't start his professional career until his late 20s, a ten-year term of employment is a very substantial entry on the resume. In fact, Obama worked longer at this law firm than for any other employer. He represented many clients with social-based concerns such as civil rights cases, but he also represented slumlords such as Rezko. It was his early association withe Rezko that brought Obama to Rezko's attention as a possible political candidate. Rezko started raising money for Obama's first political campaign and Obama just grew from that seed. Obama is a gifted public speaker and some have allowed that gift to hypnotize them, but there's much about this man that is worthy of reasonable criticism, and the critics have been very critical. There are many notable critics of Obama. No one can say that the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and National Review are not notable. Show Wikipedia readers a small sample of what they have had to say. Cut Obama quotations to make room for it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the FAQ on the article's talk page:
Q2: This article is over 100kb long, WP:SIZE says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A2: The article size restrictions mentioned in WP:SIZE is for readable prose and, as of March 26 2007, this article had 37kb of readable prose, well within the 100kb of readable prose limit in WP:SIZE and within the size restrictions for Featured Articles.[15] Please consider adding Dr pda's prosesize tool to your monobook.js so you can see the size of the readable prose on an article.
Once again. Per WP:SIZE, the readable prose maximum guideline is not 100KB, it is 50KB. The size of the Obama article is right in line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to hold additions of NPOV material hostage to cuts. Andyvphil (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For once I agree with Andy. Rather than removing encyclopedic material about Obama using his own words, it's more productive to focus on adding encyclopedic material covering the viewpoints of notable critics. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I outlined my problems with article above, and instead of voting to remove it, I compromised because I'm flexible and I wrote a list of POV quotes/issues that need to be tackled to keep this FA. I introduced the list on the talk page, and many discussions have taken place as a result. From them, it is my sense, and certainly that of others, that the main editors of the article are pro-Obama and are blocking any significant requests to remove what is clearly POV.
Here's a quick example: in the "cultural and political image" section, it is written "[Obama] has been praised by conservative commentators, including George Will who encouraged him to run for president." - I brought this up earlier as an example of the POV, because it is lumping all Republican commentators (including conservatives) into this category. Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Neil Boortz, and other Republican commentators deserve their own voice too, and cannot be spoken for by only George Will, one of few conservatives to support Obama. When introduced on the talk page, I was told that it would be a WP:BLP concern to reworded this, and later I was told it would be putting too much undue weight on the subject. None of those are valid claims, because the statement is a flat out lie.
Another example, also from "cultural and political image": "Writing about Obama's political image in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s." - What about the other side's argument? According to WP:NPOV, both sides arguments need to be present, and that is not the case here. There is a phrase attributed to Peggy Noonan below this one, but that phrase is not sufficient because it is not giving an opinion of Obama himself (as this one is), but rather a "warning" to Republicans to not get too caught up in him. My questioning of this was met with more BLP concerns, and I'm not sure why. It was also said that not every praise has to be countered with criticism; I know that to be the case, but just about every praise in the article goes unchallenged.
Yet another example: "Time magazine's Joe Klein wrote that [Obama's] book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." - okay, this is probably the most POV statement that I found throughout the entire article. It gives the opinion of one magazine columnist (just one single one), out of thousands worldwide. It's great that Mr. Klein thinks that, but he does not speak for every magazine columnist and surely not every American. The quote needs to be removed because it is factually and historically innacurate; it is the POV of one single magazine columnist. This was met by saying that it is the standard to include reviews of the book; this may indeed be a review of the book, but it is one review of the book. There is not any way to prove that is is facturally and historically accurate.
Another huge problem: There are too many quotes by Barack Obama, especially in the political advocacy section. I understand that they are his views on current topics/issues, but our job as Wikipedia editors is not to let Obama tell his story (that's something that you would find on his campaign website), but to write about his views in a neutral manner. The quotes need to be paraphrased, so that the info is coming from us, not him directly. This was immediately rejected.
As I hope you can see, there are significant places of POV in this article, which is mainly guarded by pro-Obama people, and I see no sign of them changing anytime soon. I gave the editors' a chance by introducing my NPOV thoughts and pointing out where there are problems, but the bulk of them were simply tossed out and rejected for ludicrous reasons. That's not what I call a featured article. Happyme22 (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhpas the biggest problem is that the article is tagged for POV and conflict of interest; this is not suitable for a featured article. Happyme22 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we need, Andy and Happy, is to stop talking about it and start doing it. The consensus on this page is that in order to keep FA status, the article must be transformed from a hagiography into a true biography, that shows the flaws in Obama that his supporters are trying to hide. Josiah Rowe has agreed that quotes from Obama's critics should be included. So to give just one example, Happyme, please try to find a notable reviewer who had something critical to say about Obama's book, to counter Joe Kliein's glowing praise. Evidently the glowing praise, and the self-serving quotes from Obama, are going to stay. So let's find some critical comments from notable people and add them in appropriate places. I will start by posting an announcement of our consensus on the article's Talk page. Let's all remember that our purpose here is to make this article satisfy Featured Article criteria, and thereby make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm ready and willing to "change", as Mr. Obama says so often (sorry, I couldn't resist!). I'll work with you, Kossack, and others but until the article is more netural, I have to keep my vote of removal. Happyme22 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think some editors need to keep in mind this is a BLP, which needs to be taken in perspective of Barack Obama's life and career, not just things relevant to his presidential campaign (e.g., his church controversy). My personal opinion on the matter, in terms of improving the article, is that there should be both praise and criticism removed from the article to make it have a more NPOV. But I still think it should remain a featured article, despite its perceived flaws. --Ubiq (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally registered as a "support" but I have changed it to read "keep" --Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles are supposed to be flawless, and you have just admitted that there are flaws. The article is currently tagged for POV and for editors' having a conflict of interest, thus violating FA criteria 1d. Why should this remain featured if it clearly violates the criteria? Happyme22 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that I said "perceived flaws". That's an important distinction between what you attributed to me. I consider the word flawless to be equivalent with perfection. I personally don't believe it's possible to make a perfect article...about anything. I've seen countless other featured articles that I consider to be flawed in certain ways. Also, just because it was tagged for POV doesn't mean it was tagged justifiably or that the tag reflects the consensus of the editors. That tag has been added and removed for quite a long time. --Ubiq (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove are not declared during the review phase, and none of the declarations entered during review will be considered if/when the article moves to FARC. Please strike Keep/Remove comments above, and read the directions at the top of the WP:FAR page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then Close and move this to FARC. I have identified the deficiencies under FA criteria, I have proposed and attempted to implement remedies, and I was reverted within two minutes by Scjessey. This FAR has been underway for 11 days and is a waste of time, because certain editors like the article the way it is (biased in Obama's favor) and will revert any attempt to bring it into compliance with NPOV. Move on to FARC, and take away its Featured Article status. It isn't even a Good Article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes were reverted because they were expressing your personal point of view and carried undue weight. FAR is not supposed to be used as a tool to force personal opinion and destroy neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that Kossack's revision dealing with Rev. Wright was too long and giving too much undue weight on the main Obama article. Happyme22 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth request to participants Please read the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. Articles are in the review phase for at least two weeks, often longer, and the point of the review phase is to identify deficiencies and hopefully address them. I've explained several times on this FAR that there is no such thing as speeding up the process, and FAR is not dispute resolution. Please read the instructions at the top of the FAR page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose FA - This article is a start but far too biased. There is heated discusssion even in subjects that shouldn't warrant discussion. The bias is in favor of those supporting Obama even to the point of threatening to ban others, calling them socks, deleting good and neutral information. Negative information is sometimes needed for truth. How about Nixon article with no Watergate or Clinton with no impeachment. There are about 30 areas needed, far too many to list. The simplist way is to turn it into a good article and then work cooperatively to improve it.

Rezko, Pakistan, hiding slightly negative stuff as a phrase are examples.

FA status also is wrong if some people are threatening others saying that they are socks. That's why I refuse to sign in using my user. I will only use my IP. Another guy from India used his IP so there's proof that at least two people are not socks, even if they share similar views. Sharing similar views is not a crime. For example, I disagree with murder. If you disagree with killing any person for enjoyment, then are you my sock? No! I wish I could say it in a nicer way but the situation is bad in this article.

Also note, like that other IP guy, I am not American. I am neutral in the presidential contest in America. 116.12.165.227 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (IP in Southeast Asia)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate for a user who has been involved in the article for less than 15 minutes to make a judgement on the behavior of the users. It's not a personal issue, I just don't think it's possible that you can make such judgements after such a short period of time. Grsz11 04:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the behavior of the users towards another has no relevance to the overall content of the article. User A could call User B a sockpuppet as much as he wants, but User B is still going to edit as he sees fit. Grsz11 04:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move to chase NPOV editors away like me (I'm already fed up with the hostility) and then banning the rest who don't leave. Therefore, FA review is flawed towards approving a bad article.
Another point is that that Wizardman says to ignore IP comments. I sign in by IP because if I don't, someone will think of a flimsy excuse to ban me. It also shows my location so you can't say I'm a sock of 99% of the world, just 1% in this part of the country. I say these comments because this article is unlike 99% of other wikipedia articles. In those, you can edit and people will be reasonable.
Another point to improve is his voting "present". Most political commentators and the press believes he did this to avoid difficult votes. Most politicians don't do this so it is important for his biography. It does not mean Obama is a bad person, just that he can't make up his mind in a public way. There are many, many other examples like this. We should correctly catagorise this article as a good article, not a FA. A FA is like giving a bad student an "A". 116.12.165.227 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned, towards the bottom of the State Legislature section. You must realize that a lot of the IPs come to the article just to say stupid things, like "I think we should note that Obama is a Muslim" or "Why aren't Obama's socialist views mentioned?" You, however, came and offered a relevant opinion. I don't think you were shut down in any way. Grsz11 03:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards keep. I like how all these removers who are IPs are coming in, it obviously shows that they have an axe to grind in some form, they're no big deal. However, my issue is on stability. Because of the edit warring, the fact that he's in a huge active election right now, and the controversies and issues of what to have/not have in the article will only get worse, I'm reluctant saying keep as fa or remove fa. Wizardman 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Along those lines, the instability is inevitable with an individual involved in an extremely high-profile current event. Should every article about a current event be delisted, as none of them can maintain stability. The instability mainly comes from a ton of IPs who keep coming in trying to post some crap about Obama. Grsz11 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion to FARC list (deleting FA star), much room for improvement - My English grammar is bad so please indulge in reading my comments. This article is POV, though less POV than before. It needs a POV tag. There are major areas that need fixing / a whole re-write.

One example is hiding his Pakistan invasion support. I knew this and I see it has been on talk page only to be removed. This is very unique so it qualifies. There are many cases like this.

Another example is the description of his tax policy. The Wall Street Journal Asia (yesterday) says how terrible he is and even JFK knew economic policy better than Obama. It says that Obama owns little stock unlike 48% of Americans, many of them middle class (not fat cat).

All these do not say Obama is bad man just the facts. But some seem to want to hide it. Hiding things from encyclopedia means that FA is not deserving.

I also mention on talk page that I do not sign my user name because of threats to ban people. That kind of intimidation alone is reason to deny FA renewal. For your information, I am a neutral in American politics. I am a Korea editing from Seoul. Here is proof for the people who attack others accusing them of sock. Why is it that some people think my ideas are golden, your ideas are sock? 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you point out where there are "threats to ban people"? Pakistan is mentioned at Political positions of Barack Obama, because it is just that, a political position. This issue on the talk page has not been removed, it's [[16]], where the same thing was explained to that user. Grsz11 06:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a FAR for Barack Obama, not Political Positions of Barack Obama. Threatening to invade a country and being the only senator that is saying this make it noteworthy, not something to be hidden away in a sub-article. Tvoz is the person threatening to ban people who want a fair article. See talk page. When one side threatens another with ban, then it frightens away them so the people who threaten can make the article like they want. So only a few people have guts to speak out the truth. Even I scared so I don't want to use my username. Also to prove that I am no sock. 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Obama also wants to increase soliders in Afghanistan. So he is pacifist sometimes and warmonger sometimes. This is very interesting and worthy of encyclopedia. Hiding it in Political Positions is not right and reason to make this article a non-FA (because it is incomplete). With Bush we don't hide any mention of Iraq and mention it only in political positions. How about Japanese in WW2 - should we hide all war crimes, like they did in Korea, and hide it in a sub-article. No, that is POV. Since Obama article is POV, it needs a tag and needs to lose FA star and hopefully work on it to re-earn it. 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I do not want to argue. I give you my comments. You can do what ever you want with it. 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — 219.240.73.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oh give it up already. Now you're from Korea? The only threat made about blocking anyone is to anyone who uses sock puppets to evade a community ban and you have been told that over and over and over - including when you incorrectly brought it to AN twice and when you complained on talk. So stop bringing my name into your specious argument. Tvoz |talk 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails FA There are so many reasons given by others why there needs to be improvement before the FA is renewed. There is also worldwide support that this article needs too much improvement to reach FA status that it should be re-categorized as not a FA now. This is happening despite threats to ban others, intimidation, and hostile accusations of sock puppetry even though there is clear proof of IP in multiple countries, such as Korea, Singapore, India, and users from UK that there is no sockpuppetry. In fact, a few users are saying that if you disagree, you are a sock even if you are in different continents or countries.Barry O. Bama, III (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)— Barry O. Bama, III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oh please. Tvoz |talk 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you would stop violating the neutral point-of-view, Andy, there wouldn't be any edit warring in the first place. Besides, it is my understanding that the review process can go on for as long as necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andyvphil, this is really becoming exasperating. No matter how many times I have asked you to read the WP:FAR instructions, and explained that we don't rush the process or proceed to FARC "without unnecessary delay", you (and several others here) don't seem to acknowledge the way FAR works. This is beginning to look very disruptive, tendentious and pointy. We don't try to undermine articles here; we try to restore them to status. The purpose of a review is to identify and hopefully solve issues. Please "read the manual"; no one is going to rush this process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You think that's exasperating? Andy just flipped the bird at consensus and multi-reverted the Barack Obama article back to his favored version that violates WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RECENT - for the umpteenth time. He thinks policies and guidelines only apply to other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same. FAR is not the local whining department; that belongs in Dispute resolution, where it should have been taken to begin with. Please keep discussion here on the FAR focused on WP:WIAFA. Perhaps we need to start moving large blocks of off-topic posts here to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to move to FARC. The specific concerns raised by Happyme22 have all been addressed, mostly by HailFire, who's done an admirable job staying out of the partisan fray on the talk page and remaining focused on the article. It should be clear from the tone of this page and the talk page that the instability concerns are inevitable for any article of a politician running for national office. Despite that, I think that this article maintains Wikipedia's highest standards most of the time, and withstands partisan onslaughts quite well, due to the continual work of several dedicated Wikipedians (whose work, incidentally, has been favorably noted in the national media [17], [18], [19]). If this FAR moves to FARC, the voices of editors actually concerned with Wikipedia standards will be drowned out by partisans on both sides who use this article's featured article status as a proxy war for their preferred candidates. That's not what FARC is about, and I think we can avoid it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that they have all been addressed; whether they have been acted upon is another matter entirely. Many have, and I thank User:Ubiq and especially User:HailFire for discussing these with me and implementing changes. But there are some that have simply been dismissed and I believe that they would be greatly beneficial to the page and help improve its standing. I must say that the article has changed quite a bit since myself and others raised multipe concerns, and the change was a step in the right direction. Happyme22 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed. I'm not sure if the article is unprotected yet, but I'll list some deficiencies that need correction in case work can begin, these are samples only of attention likely needed throughout:

  • The lead could use rearrangement; he goes from being a child in Indonesia to being married and having children, and then goes to college and work. It's jarring.
  • There is a lot of WP:OVERLINKing, resulting in a sea of unnecessary blue. In the lead, we find unnecessary links to words like lecturer, public administration, and a number of countries everyone who speaks English has heard of. Please eliminate the overlinking so that the high-value links can be found and appreciated.
  • WP:MOSNUM error and inconsistency (the previous sentence correctly has two years old"): ... where Obama attended local schools in Jakarta from ages 6 to 10.[8]
  • WP:PUNC, logical punctuation needs to be reviewed and corrected throughout, example: ... the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history."
  • Incorrect date linking, see WP:MOSDATE, full dates and month-day combos are linked, solo years and month-year combos are not: Obama launched a campaign committee at the beginning of July 2002 to run for the U.S. Senate in 2004[38] and ...
  • External jumps in the text, example: ... provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed ... External jumps belong in External links or citations.
  • WP:MOS#Captions, problems with punctuation on sentence fragments in most image captions.
  • Another WP:MOSNUM issue, review thoughout: ... Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses ...
  • Incorrect use of WP:DASHes, example: ... In the July-August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, ...
  • WP:HYPHEN here? ... to their current $1.6-million house in neighb ...
  • More WP:MOSNUM, ... In Chapter 6 of Obama's 2006 book ...
  • Missing WP:ITALICS, ... rose to the top of the New York Times Best Seller hardcover list ...
  • The citations consistently refer to New York Times; it's The New York Times. Why is CNN italicized in some citations, not in others? Italics are for book titles, newspapers, magazines, journals, periodicals. Not Cable TV.
  • Malformed date in citation: Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate. New York Times. Retrieved on 04-07-2008.

This is not bad; if the article is unprotected, these kinds of corrections are tedious but shouldn't take long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the lede, the order doesn't appear to be a problem. It says married in 1992, then ran for office an 1997. It doesn't give years for his schools their, so I don't think it's a problem. Grsz11 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, after looking at that part, I couldn't see how to arrange it any better. So far, almost all of these things have been fixed. I looked for any other instances of cable news or network news being italicized and fixed them. I only have a few things I'm uncertain about:
Chapter 6 was changed to Chapter Six but am not sure if it should be Chapter six instead.
The dash in July-August was made into an extended dash, not sure if should be July/August or something else perhaps?
The USAspending.gov was delinked but not sure if that's enough to make it correct.
And if there's anything else you notice, let us know. --Ubiq (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dash in July–August is an en dash, used to denote a range of time. I added a footnote citation to the USAspending.gov which includes a link to the site's FAQ page (supporting the statement that it was established as part of the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act); I assume that if people want to visit the site they can get there either by following the link in the footnote and then navigating within the USAspending.gov website, or by one of the links at Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Actually, come to think of it, we should make sure that references to joint legislation like the aforementioned Coburn–Obama Act have en dashes as well, as recommended at WP:DASH. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright so the dash and the website URL are settled, any thoughts on the Chapter Six? My inclination is that it's fine, but again I'm not sure. --Ubiq (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be Chapter six: I can't think of any reason the Six should be uppercase. With the MoS items addressed, the article is in good shape relative to what usually appears at FAR. It is well-written (1a), comprehensive (1b), well sourced and factual (1c); and complies with MoS (2), images (3) and length (4). Questions remain about 1d, neutral and 1e, stable. If you all can work with a balanced, reasonable experienced editor like Happyme22 to resolve the POV concerns, you should be in good shape and experienced reviewers here will overlook the handwaving and hollering. However, article disruption, POV and edit warring should have been dealt with via dispute resolution, not FAR, so if you can't get the disruptive editing under control, while working with an NPOV editor like Happy to address the POV concerns, instability will likely continue and the FARC phase may not go well. Please heed this advice; I've been saying for many weeks that the regular editors needed to engage dispute resolution, and not rely on FAR to resolve the POV issues; POV concerns cannot be ignored, and FAR can't solve this for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1e, stable, is going to be extremely difficult to satisfy from now until November and possibly onward if he gets elected, and the only way I can see that it would remain stable would be if the article got full protected until then (which I personally wouldn't see a problem with). And while I respect Happyme22 as an editor (he's been nothing but nice, civil, and helpful), my personal experience is that he's not the NPOV expert/guru that you seem to touting him as, or at least not necessarily more so than some editors already currently working on the article. But do consider that a few of his suggestions have been taken up by the editors and that the article is now better for it (at least IMHO). --Ubiq (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"OK, that's a legitimate POV dipute that wasn't spelled out originally, and if it remains unaddressed and remains an issue, than a FAR makes sense...." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Information on Obama's voting record and the nature of the controversy over Wright, not to mention the POV tag which the quoted sentence makes absolutely clear is entirely appropriate, is still being edit warred out of the article.[20] The instructions which SandyGeorgia seems wrongly convinced that I have not read say "Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria." It isn't. It shows no sign that it will ever meet criteria 1(b) and 1(d). Futzing with he hyphens and italics doesn't address this. SandyGeorgia has suffered amnesia about what he/she said and isn't addressing it. Well, is it "very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria"? I think not. So what does "unless" mean to you? Andyvphil (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that voting record stuff is overly-specific, Andy. In a six-paragraph section, the voting record in your version accounted for three of them. That's clearly a case of undue weight, isn't it? Please consider putting them in United States Senate career of Barack Obama, from which they are strangely absent. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the initiative and added the voting record text to United States Senate career of Barack Obama#Voting record. I will mention this on Talk:Barack Obama in a moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ubiq. Dabbydabby (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not bite? Thanks. Grsz11 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only growled and nipped. Andyvphil (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you shouldn't. Besides, I wasn't aware of what was going on at the time, and I just casted a vote. (which I know now that this isn't the place.) Anyways, it would be kind of you to talk with a better attitude. Dabbydabby (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely POV at work in this article, and the page is protected from any NPOV by Grsz and others. It should certainly be reviewed. thezirk (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at your edit, see if it was really needed, and re-examine your accusations. Thanks, Grsz11 13:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following the article for a long time. I made edits hoping my ideas could be improved upon, as I felt they'd improve the article. But I knew you'd revert, as you have a pretty consistent pattern of reverting anything negative, even if it belongs, unless you've given your approval.thezirk (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close FA Review as keep - As I said at the beginning of this discussion, this is not a forum to battle out the difference in opinion on the article, that is for the talk page, this is also not dispute resolution, and it is inappropriate to engage in this discussion here. There is no need to turn FAR into a war zone. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article os a war zone, with the most recent warring to keep out a perfectly NPOV explanation of the origin of Obama's connections to his important financial sponsor and currently fixer-on-trial, Tony Rezko.[21][22] What part of criterion "1(b) 'Comprehensive' means that the article does not neglect major facts and details" is lost on you?Andyvphil (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has been going on for a long time to little avail. Any edits have to go through Grsz and others who guard the page, and as a result this article is POV, unimprovable, and unfit for FA.thezirk (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out an instance where I reverted because I "didn't like it"? You may not understand such policies as WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The article has been improved, by editors who have continuously worked towards consensus and compromise on various issues. It's not very fair for you to say the things you do, when it's clear you haven't been paying much attention. So read up on those, then get back to me. Grsz11 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit irrelevant for you trying to push the use of "23-year" rather than "longtime" relationship. That's the only contribution you made to the article. If you really think there are POV issues, try to fix those, rather than something so trivial, and then go complaining because it was reverting (by someone other than me as well). Grsz11 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Barack_Obama/archive3&oldid=1178422550"