This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
why "not appropriate?" the aids conspiracy page exists and has numerous sources. wright was talking about AIDS conspiracy theories. where is the disconnect here? 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the creation of a new section focussing on Sen. Obama's recent controversial comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians. [3] A new section for this material does not seem appropriate. Obama is being accused of "elitism" in response to those comments of his, and this seems like the kind of thing that would be better to put in the existing section on his image (or the section on his 2008 campaign). So, I'd like to propose that we include something like this....
"Senator Obama came in for heavy criticism during April of 2008 for alleged elitism, after he made the following remarks:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them....And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. [4]
"He made these remarks at a private fundraiser in San Francisco.
"[1]Bacon, Perry and Murray, Shailagh. "Opponents Paint Obama as an Elitist", Washington Post ( 2008-04-12)."
Does that seem okay? I would put it right before the sentence that begins, "Writing about Obama's political image in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion...." Alternatively, it could go at the end of the section on his presidential campaign. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Speaking in general: If such a remark is part of a pattern that the political figure makes, one that's closely associated with his or her image, putting it in "Cultural and political image" can be appropriate. If such a remark is just a one-off blunder, no matter how stupid, offensive, or politically damaging, then the campaign section is likely more appropriate. In any case, creating a "controversial comments" or "controversies" section is not the way to go. A bunch of editors went through a lot of effort to get rid of such sections for all the candidates' articles in the 2008 presidential election (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages); let's not go backwards now. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well regardless of how much attention it gets, it doesn't belong in a biography about his whole life. Grsz 11 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This belongs in the Obama presidential campaign section, not here. And the media describing it as a "blunder" shows media bias, imo. Obama said he stands by what he said although he could have phrased it better. He probably should not even gone that far, nothing wrong with what he said, it wasn't a blunder and wasn't elitist. JonErber ( talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh sure, maybe if it ends his campaign it can be included. But the whole elitist bit is a crock. This is a guy who was raised in Indonesia right? Compared to the other one, who's already been in the White House. And surely Yale is less-"elitist" than Harvard? Andy would be strongly against the comments Obama later made on the subject. Grsz 11 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy would be strongly against the comments Obama later made on the subject. If by "strongly against" you mean I would be opposed to mentioning Obama's POV, you haven't been paying attention. Well, I knew that already. Actually, my take on this is not that Obama's elitist, but that the MSM's ingrained left-wing elitism is been such that it hasn't been much noticed when Obama's been condescending. He got all sorts of credit for allowing in his "More Perfect Union" speech that working class white folks might not feel they owed it to black folks to let the latter cut in line ahead of them, and it went unnoticed that he ended up being dismissive of their idea that they had a real grievance. [11] This latest quote is of a piece with that. And the question on the table is how and to what extent we work this negative of view of Obama into the otherwise worshipful "Cultural and political image" section, as required by NPOV policy. Andyvphil ( talk) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking back at the earliest, representative (ie more than just one or two editors had input) versions of this article, which would be about the time he addressed the 2004 Convention, about all it says in a short article about Obama's political stance is "staunch liberal". Today, "liberal" occurs only once in a very lengthy article, and even then it has the words "not a" in front of it. "staunch liberal" persisted in this article for AT LEAST 1500 edits and more than two years (I stopped checking after that). A rather interesting evolution! Bdell555 ( talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I entered this edit:
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's South Side.<ref>Jackson, David ( April 3 2007). "Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)</ref> In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush.<ref>Scott, Janny ( September 9 2007). "A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002.<ref> "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. August 24 2000. Archived from the original (archive) on 2000-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-03.{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. October 9 2004. Archived from the original (archive) on 2004-08-02. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.<ref>Calmes, Jackie ( February 23 2007). "Statehouse Yields Clues to Obama". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.<ref>Coffee, Melanie ( November 6 2004). "Attorney Chosen to Fill Obama's State Senate Seat". Associated Press. HPKCC. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref>As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.<ref>Slevin, Peter ( February 9 2007). "Obama Forged Political Mettle in Illinois Capitol". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) Helman, Scott ( September 23 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Dealt with Lobbyists". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) See also: "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine for Critics". Associated Press. CBS News. January 17 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) "In-Depth Look at Obama's Political Career" (video). CLTV. Chicago Tribune. February 9, 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.<ref name=Scott20070730>Scott, Janny ( July 30 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) See also: Pearson, Rick ( May 3 2007). "Careful Steps, Looking Ahead". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)</ref> Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.<ref name=Scott20070730 /> During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.<ref>Youngman, Sam ( March 14 2007). "Obama's Crime Votes Are Fodder for Rivals". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help) See also: "US Presidential Candidate Obama Cites Work on State Death Penalty Reforms". Associated Press. International Herald Tribune. November 12 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> 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.<ref>Zorn, Eric ( March 9 2004). "Disparagement of Obama Votes Doesn't Hold Up". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2007-12-04. Retrieved 2008-04-03.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) "Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views". Associated Press. MSNBC. August 9 2004. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) See also: Youngman, Sam ( February 15 2007). "Abortion Foes Target Obama Because of His Vote Record on Illinois Legislation". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref>
Andy reverted most of it. Let's discuss. -- HailFire ( talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems there is a developing discussion here (and in the related talk page of the campaign article) about the use of the term " soundbites" when referring to comments by Jeremiah Wright. Let us be clear about this: a "soundbite" is defined as an accessible and short piece of speech lifted from a longer speech (or an interview). ABC News trawled through hours and hours of Wright sermon footage and lifted the most controversial soundbites they could find, edited them together and presented them for public consumption. There should be no question that "soundbite" is an appropriate term. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Before saying this, let me make it clear that I am an Obama supporter and have every intention of voting for him in my upcoming state primary.
I strongly disagree with the decision to not include a consolidated criticisms/controversy section in the article. In response to a past comment of mine in similar vane, it was stated that criticisms and controversy are not encyclopedic. That strikes me as the opposite of the truth. As a candidate for the U.S. presidency, prevalent critical points of view concerning Senator Obama are among the MOST relevant pieces of information to his notability that there are, and they are what many users will come to the article seeking an unbiased presentation of.
In the FAQ above, the following statement is given for why there is no criticisms/controversy section in the article:
"Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article."
There is, however, a section dedicated solely to praises. It is called "Recognition and honors."
I find it interesting that authors decided that recognitions and honors for Senator Obama should not be "worked in" to the rest of the text but that criticisms and controversies should. In any case, the existence of such a section without a corresponding section for criticisms/controversies demonstrates a clear pro-Obama bias in the article.
In my own view, I strongly disagree with the "working in" notion of how the article should be written, both in the case of recognition/honors and criticisms/controversy. Many if not most users will come to the article looking for specific information without time or intention for reading it in its entirety. For these, organizing information into clearly marked sections is extremely useful. Burying specific information within over-homogenized text serves no purpose (other than one's political agenda, of course, which I assume no one here has).
-- Floorsheim ( talk) 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All edits to this article must be in keeping with that policy. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
User:Joelr31 decided to close the FA review of this article. Gimmetrow 06:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The following currently appears in the "Early life and private career" section:
Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., [1] owned by Tony Rezko and Daniel Mahru. Rezko, who has raised up to $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns, [2] is currently on trial in federal court on felony charges for money laundering, extortion, and fraud. [3] [4] Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.
I believe there is far too much detail about Rezko in these sentences. The only significant pieces of information worthy of inclusion in the article are:
The fact that Rezko is currently on trial should not be included because (a) he has not been convicted of anything yet and (b) it violates WP:BLP and WP:RECENT - the word "currently" should never appear in a BLP, should it? Details about what Rezko is on trial for certainly seem unrelated to Obama's BLP. And why is Daniel Mahru mentioned at all? And why is the amount of money raised significant (other fundraisers have raised equal or greater amounts, yet they are not mentioned)? I think these sentences need to be examined with a critical eye and completely rewritten with these extraneous details removed. I am not disputing the facts of what has been written, only that these facts shouldn't really be in a BLP. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The claque is already out in force (Looneymonkey accuses me of turning the article into my blog, and Wordbuilder's revert deletes the additional information in the name of "balance") - the usual nonsense arguments for censorship. But I stand behind this text (except that I need to clarify why some sources say one and some say two $10,000 contribs were made to Obama; I think one was out of a $250K kickback, and the other was illegal only because Rezko reimbursed the giver, and the latter may not be at issue in this trial). Andyvphil ( talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)As an associate attorney with Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 2002, Obama represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. While Obama never took part in a trial, he worked on teams drawing up briefs, contracts, and other legal documents. This included being part of teams that represented Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a successful lawsuit that forced the state of Illinois to implement a federal law that was designed to make it easier for people to register to vote, an appeals brief on behalf of a whistleblower that was suing Cook County Hospital and the Hektoen Institute for Medical Research for wrongful termination, and on another team forced the city of Chicago to redraw ward boundaries that the city council drew up following the 1990 census. In 1997, following his election to the Illinois Senate, Obama's work for the firm diminished sharply and he let his license became inactive in 2002. [5] The firm represented, and senior partner Allison S. Davis became a business partner with, Tony Rezko's Rezmar Corporation. Obama did some work representing Davis in his negotiations with Rezmar and also a small amount of work directly for Rezmar, and Rezko subsequently became the first substantial financial contributor to his political career and raised in the vicinity of $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns before becoming notorious for abusing minority set-asides, milking taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation programs, and other financial frauds. He is currently on trial in federal court for extorting kickbacks and political contributions (mostly for Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, but also for others including redirecting a kickback to $10,000 in contributions to Obama) as well as private financial frauds. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
In a clean-up of the Barack Obama#Early life and career of Barack Obama section, I removed the Rezko text for reasons of WP:SS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:RECENT. It is not clear why this text belongs either in this summary section or in the associated subarticle. Consider this quote from Obama's interview with the Chicago Tribune:
I first met Tony Rezko when I was still at law school, or at least I had just graduated from law school. He had two partners, a guy named Dan Mahru and David Brint. They had started a real estate company called Rezmar. They contacted me while I was the president of the Harvard Law Review and asked if I was coming back to Chicago and was thinking about future employment, would I be interested in potentially getting involved in development.
And so when I was back in Chicago, and I don't recall whether it was during the summer between, you know, my second and third year [in law school], or whether it was after I had graduated, or whether it was just visiting Michelle, I met with them.
They were, didn't talk to me about a specific job but explained what they were doing in terms of development. Because I had been a community organizer, I think that's what part of what prompted their interest because they were doing a lot of affordable housing work and work with community development corporations.
I had a relatively brief conversation, maybe 45 minutes, and ultimately declined to go into development, but that was the first time I met Tony Rezko.
Fast-forward a little bit, I did not have a lot of interactions with Tony at that point. I was working as an associate at a law firm. There may have been interactions with my law firm and some of the development partners of Rezmar because they would often partner with not-for-profits and we had a small transactional practice in the law firm that specialized in representing not-for-profits—you know, church-based organizations that were doing community development.
I don't recall exactly how many times at that point I had met Tony Rezko, but I don't think at that point I would have considered him a friend. He was an acquaintance. [15]
There is nothing here to suggest that Rezko was notable to Obama's life before his first run for public office, which is where this section ends. -- HailFire ( talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that something extra needs to be added to the "early life and career" section about Rezko, but I'm not quite sure of the best way to phrase it. At the moment, positions between editors like Kossack4Truth and myself are obviously poles apart on this matter, but I would like to try and reach a compromise and build a consensus. Here's what I have come up with so far:
Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., [1] half-owned by Tony Rezko, who has raised approximately $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns. [2] In October 2006, Rezko was indicted for political corruption charges and the case was brought to trial in March 2008. [3] Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing. [4]
How does that sound? I think the indictment and trial are important enough to be mentioned, but I have used the umbrella term of "political corruption charges" (also used in the source) instead of the list of charges that have appeared previously. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to enter so late, it seems to meet the information about Rezco's indictment has nothing to do with Obama, and therefor should not be mentioned. The only reason I see mentioning the item is if people believed Obama was linked and there needed to be comments that a formal link of Obama to Rezco's indictment is false. But it appears to me that if someone linked to Obama (Rezco) has been indicted, that is most appropriate on Rezco's page unless Obama is directly linked (did Obama even testify at the trial?) and even if Obama testified at the trial, I am not sure it is noteworthy enough to mentioned here, unless Obama was in the business of being a professional witness at trials (which is not the case here, because he is a sitting US Senator). Now if Obama, had ever been (in a previous life), a professional witness at trials, that would be quiet interested and could be added under his biography. It is me i think ( talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this for inclusion at the end of the first Barack Obama#Senate career paragraph, just above the Barack Obama#109th Congress subsection:
Nonpartisan analyses of bill sponsorship and voting records have placed him as a "rank-and-file Democrat" and "Democratic Party loyalist."<ref>
"Members of Congress: Barack Obama". GovTrack. Retrieved 2008-03-31. Curry, Tom (
February 21
2008).
"What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-03-31. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)</ref> The
U.S. Senate Historical Office lists him as the fifth
African American Senator in
U.S. history, the third to have been popularly elected, and the only African American currently serving in the Senate.<ref>
"Breaking New Ground: African American Senators". U.S. Senate Historical Office. Retrieved 2008-02-11.</ref>
-- HailFire ( talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
As one positive step toward possibly lifting full protection before it expires naturally, I suggest we tag the above proposed text with template:editprotected and request its inclusion as an uncontroversial edit supported by (hopefully, more than temporary) consensus. Is it OK? -- HailFire ( talk) 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
How's this?
The nonpartisan publication
CQ Weekly characterized Obama as a "loyal Democrat", based on Senate votes cast in 2005 through 2007.<ref>Nather, David (
January 14
2008).
"The Space Between Clinton and Obama". CQ Weekly. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) See also: Curry, Tom (
February 21
2008).
"What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)</ref>
-- HailFire ( talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] Yes, CQ is non-partisan, so it's a better source to use. Tvoz | talk 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"rank and file Democrat" is not informative. So he generally votes with his party. For non-Americans like myself that is especially uninformative since in my country, for example, Members of Parliament generally get expelled from their respective parties if they vote in defiance of their party leader's directions even once. At a minimum this description of Obama's voting record should therefore be accompanied with a note indicating that moderate or centrist US Congressmen will often vote with the majority of the opposing party. This article said "staunch liberal" for YEARS and thousands of edits until it was taken out, presumably because either (A) a "staunch liberal" is unlikely to ever become President in the USA and a sizable group of editors want to assist this candidate's bid for that office, (B) Obama changed his political philosophy or (C) the initial characterization was wrong. If the answer is (C) a corollary is that Wikipedia is fundamentally unreliable since we are talking about an article about a sitting US Senator that was edited at least 1500 times and over at least two years if not more with that designation remaining. "Staunch liberal" apparently disappears about when he decides to run outside a blue state. Coincidence? If the answer is (B) there should be more evidence of such a transformation. The NJ had him more "liberal" than 99% of the Senate in 2007 and Mark Penn, a Democrat, has no problem with the National Journal as a source (page 4 of http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/17/080317fa_fact_lizza). The New York Times doesn't have a problem with it either, see the NYT article titled "Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25obama.html). Does the Wiki community seriously believe the NYT routinely refers to unreliable sources? Apparently so, because whereas the NYT says "Mr. Obama insists ... his proposals are solidly in the mainstream of Democratic thought", Wiki essentially drops the "Mr. Obama insists" part! Even the study by political science professors Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole at http://voteview.com/sen110.htm that I've seen offered up as a counter to the National Journal study has Obama to the left of 90% of the Senate. Bdell555 ( talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why have all the links been removed to Wikipedia articles from the lead paragraphs? There appears to be a mini-edit war involving User:Andyvphil at present, so it is difficult to see when these edits to remove links took place. Harr o 5 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to respond to Sandy's " sea of unnecessary blue" comment at FAR. I've also done more moderate delinking in other sections. I welcome suggestions on what should stay and what should go that are consistent with Sandy's guidance. Here's a list of all of the links (the currently restored ones are in bold) that were in the lead before I took them out:
It's mostly the issue and occupational links that have not been put back. Note also that most of the sources were also removed. My reading of WP:LEAD is that statements already fully sourced in the article don't need to be sourced in the lead section. An expert FA reviewer could help us out here. -- HailFire ( talk) 06:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"23-year" was recently added to the Wright paragraph to specify the length of Obama's relationship, but I restored it back to "longterm". I figure that specifying the length of the relationship either (a) dates the article, or (b) indicates the relationship is at an end. Although Wright is no longer Obama's pastor, I don't believe there are any sources to indicate their relationship has actually ended. That leaves us in a position where using "longterm" prevents us from having to come back and add a year to the length of the relationship. Besides, I think specifying the actual length of the relationship is an unnecessary detail (rather than being "informative" as was suggested). I entreat Andy and his fellow warriors to stop edit warring over this. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel like going into the details of exactly when Obama met Wright, when he joined Trinity, and so forth is heading a bit towards undue weight. This sort of detail, along with Wright performing Obama's wedding and baptizing his children, belongs in Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy. I see that article doesn't actually have any detail about Wright's relationship with Obama, which is important context for why the comments got as much play as they did — someone should add a section there summarizing the history of the relationship, including Obama's more recent distancing from Wright.
Speaking of that distancing, at the Compassion Forum last Sunday, Obama said, "Now, I have to say that, you know, in reports subsequently, there's been this notion that he was, by various terms, my spiritual adviser or my spiritual mentor. You know, he's been my pastor." Given Obama's apparent disputing of the term "mentor", we should either find a RS which describes Wright in those terms or find another phrasing to describe the relationship.
As for "longterm" versus "23-year" — I agree that "longterm" is better encyclopedic style, for the reasons mentioned by Scjessey, but I also agree that it's not worth edit warring over.— Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of dead links and some problems with other external links which i'll try and get round to fixing asap. In the meantime here's a tool for updating external links and - after waiting about half a minute to load for all the Obama article's external links - this link enables you to fix the problems with the Obama article external links. You need to go through each suggested solution to make sure it works. cheers Tom ( talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
is he a millionaire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.102.112 ( talk • contribs) 20:05, April 18, 2008
Thanks for the info guys, i keep hearing them all referred to as millionaires and was just interested, but i couldn't find it in the article, you should probably pop his net worth there, and thanks again!
Despite the fact that other editors have agreed with my position and despite the fact that the very issues which I have raised were raised by George Stephanopolis and Charlie Gibson in the most recent debate, the Wiki-Gestapo have threatened to haul me away for disruptive edits. If my account is shut down it will stand as a testament to the bias problems with Wikipedia, rather than just the bias problems with this article. The big issue that this article currently ignores is the "clings to religion and guns" speech by Obama. Clearly, some people think this is a big issue because it was front and center in the most recent debate. And yet this article makes no mention of words which came directly from the candidate's own mouth.
Fine.
Can some please explain this sentence to me:
Just exactly who generally well received this speech? Clearly it was not well received by Lanny Davis or conservative commentators? Who is left? The article references the NY Times, one of the most liberal papers in the country. I suppose that implies that it was generally well received by the liberal media, but poorly received by the conservative media and by some liberals such as Lanny Davis. If the speech was generally well received by Air America, Chris Matthews and the NY Times that does mean it was "generally well received". Here's a more fair statement:
I've suggested another possible wording, with better sourcing, above at #"Critics continue to question". — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just reverted Andy's addition of the Obamas' tax return information on the basis that (a) it is not noteworthy enough for a BLP, and (b) even if it were noteworthy, it would be a campaign-related issue and would, therefore, need to be in the campaign article. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that some participants on both sides of this debate are trying to reach NPOV in a way that's unproductive. If the overall tone or wording of a summary seems biased in one direction or another, you're trying to balance the text by adding a positive or negative statement as a sort of counterweight. Scjessey and 72 want mention of Jeremiah Wright's military service and the Frederick Douglass comparison as a counterbalance to the accusations of anti-Americanism. Kossack wants details of how Obama's support has softened in some quarters as a counterbalance to the article being in his view "too fluffy and sweet". Both are using the same horse-trading approach, which is not how NPOV is supposed to work. If we approach this like we're haggling in the marketplace, adding a negative for a positive and a positive for a negative, we're going to end up with excessive detail that violates WP:WEIGHT.
Instead, let's try to work together to find a succinct wording which acknowledges all the important elements of the controversy, describing it accurately without indicating who's right or wrong. (Or Wright.) I know that's not easy, but that's why I think that mediation would be helpful. I'm rather disappointed that Andy and Kossack haven't addressed the call for mediation above — if you really want to reach a neutrally worded version of the article, mediation is the way to go. But if you're just going to push for your version of the article, we're not going to get anywhere. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tweaked the Wright paragraph yet again, trying to bring in elements from contributors with different perspectives. I don't know how successful I've been, and on reflection I probably should have worked this out here on the talk page rather than in the live article, but I'd like opinions on this version from the editors who've been most vocal and active. Does this cover the important angles neutrally and fairly, and with appropriate weight?
I've moved the bit about Wright's military service to the sentence about "A More Perfect Union", because that's where it was first mentioned in the mainstream coverage; I also added mention of his service to the poor, which Obama also mentioned in the speech. By the way, it's cited to commentary by conservative commentator and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who's not exactly an Obamabot.
I'd like to hear from as many regular contributors as possible about this version of the paragraph. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls,[126] Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign," - All the rest of the current paragraph on Wright seems to be very well-balanced, neutral, and accurate, but this one section is potentially misleading, as it suggests that Obama condemned Wright's remarks, which he'd previously been fine with, solely because of the poll drop and negative exposure: according to Obama himself, he was simply unaware of most of the remarks in question beforehand, and he had already condemned the remarks he admitted to knowing of back when they first received media attention (in 2007, I think). However, it is accurate to note that Wright retained his position in Obama's campaign until recently, despite Obama's earlier attempts to distance himself from the comments he admits he did know about. - Silence ( talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, an improvement. But I don't think the "U.S. policies" bit quite captures Wright's "rhetorically forceful flair". [28] Wright taled about U.S. "terrorism" dating back to expulsion of the Indians and forward to suppoert of Israeli "state terrorism", and "U.S. policies were partially responsible" is unduly bloodless. And the unnecessary insertion of "temporary" in the "drop in the polls" sentence is misleading -- Obama lost at least some support permanently. No time to comment further now. Andyvphil ( talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It reads very well and summarizes the controversy about as accurately and neutrally as possible. Great work Josiah. -- Ubiq ( talk) 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[out/ec with Ubiq] Overall, I think this is a very big improvement. I may have a couple of other comments, but one quick thought is that his refusal to disown the man himself was not only because of Wright's other good works and that he was a marine (I like that you worked this in where you did, by the way), but also that he has a personal connection to him - the "old uncle" or invocation of his grandmother. Might try something like but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine as well as their close, almost familial connection. or something like that. NOt sure, but I stumbled on that sentence a little bit as it didn't feel like it was telling the whole story about the refusal to disown. But again, overall I think this revised paragraph is very well balanced and a big improvement. Tvoz | talk 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that "sought to" is necessary, since I think that saying "placed in context" doesn't necessarily imply that the context was exculpatory. But I'll yield to the apparent consensus on this. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel like I wasn't as clear as I could have been about this point. When we say that "critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright." and source that directly to the critics who are questioning the implications, that's original research. We don't have a source that says that critics continued to question the implications. It's similar to saying "YouTube users continued to post material about Ron Paul even after he had dropped out of the race" and linking that directly to the youtube videos. In this case, we can't link directly to the critics, we need a RS that talks about the critics. Or else we can simply say "Kristol continues to criticize..." or something like that. Generalizing a few articles into saying that "critics" are doing something is synthesis. johnpseudo 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found a column from last month by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz which summarizes media responses to the speech and the Wright issue. It could be used to support a more general "critics continued to question" wording, but it also indicates a more general liberal/conservative split over the reactions to the speech than our wording might seem to indicate. Specifically, Kurtz says, "Not surprisingly, most liberals loved the speech and many conservatives -- though not all -- lambasted it." Perhaps we should change the wording to something like this:
Although the speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was well-received by liberal sources and some conservatives, [12] [18] [19] other conservative commentators and some Clinton supporters continued to question the implications of Obama's long relationship with Wright. [19] [20]
- ^ "Obama and his Rezko ties". Associated Press. Chicago Sun-Times. April 23 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ Staff writer (2008-03-14). "Obama: Rezko Raised Up to $250K". Associated Press. Google News. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
- ^ "Courtroom Wire: Notes From Tony Rezko's Corruption Trial". FOXNews. April 10, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-15.
{{ cite news}}
:|first=
missing|last=
( help); Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|lasr=
ignored ( help)- ^ "Witness: Obama attended Rezko party". Associated Press. MSNBC.com. April 15, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-15.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ Brian Ross ( March 13 2008). "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ Andrew Sullivan. For The Record The Atlantic: The Daily Dish, March 16 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-18
- ^ Jeff Goldblatt ( March 14 2008). "Obama's Pastor's Sermon: 'God Damn America'". FOXNews. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ Dilanian, Ken (2008-03-18). "Defenders say Wright has love, righteous anger for USA". USA Today. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
- ^ Adubato, Steve (March 21, 2008). "Obama's reaction to Wright too little, too late". MSNBC.
- ^ Reid, Tim (March 21, 2008). "Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright". Times Newspapers, Ltd. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
- ^ Barack Obama ( March 18 2008). "Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ a b c Nedra Pickler, Matt Apuzzo ( March 18, 2008). "Obama confronts racial division". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-04-06.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ Noonan, Peggy (2008-03-21). "A Thinking Man's Speech". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
- ^ "Mr. Obama's Profile in Courage". The New York Times. 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-03-19.
- ^ "Obama's minister's remarks won't fade". The Associated Press. March 21, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-26.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ "Obama's racial problems transcend Wright". The Politico. March 18 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
- ^ "Mr. Obama's Profile in Courage". The New York Times. 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-03-19.
- ^ a b Kurtz, Howard (2008-03-20). "Obama's Speech, Sliced and Diced". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-19.
- ^ Kristol, Bill ( 2008-03-24). "Let's Not, and Say We Did". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-25.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) See also: Davis, Lanny J. ( April 9, 2008). "Obama's Minister Problem". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)
(Sorry about the massive reflist — just wanted to show the sources as they would appear in the article.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It is sad that biased POV is preventing proper desciptions and understanding of Candidate Obama's religious beliefs, in regard to his association to Rev. Wright, and his ethno-centric theology. Candidate Obama's church emphasis on Black liberation theology, and the themes of Social justice, "Praxis" (see Praxis school), and Precarity are significant. Also, the obvious links and historical roots of Marxism, Liberation theology, and Black liberation theology should be included. This is significant even without mentioning the current importance of Jeremiah Wright as mentor, Pastor, and friend to the large church congregation which includes Presidential Candidate Obama's family. The historical record should be clearly spelled out regarding these concepts and relationships. It would be best for all of us, for educational purposes if nothing else, to attempt NPOV and objectivity regarding these subjects. Dr. B. R. Lang ( talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama addresses this issue in his autobiography "Dreams of my Father" on book Page 293 (paperback edition):
'[T]he pastor (Jeremiah Wright) described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope.
'The painting depicts a harpist,' Reverend Wright explained, 'a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.
It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world! On which hope sits.'
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House.' ... [E.A.] It is me i think ( talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama has said his faith is very important to hims (I can get sources if you need them), he went to the church for twenty years and he named a book after one of Wrights sermons. Obama's faith according to him, is an important part of who he is and therefore should be included. It is me i think ( talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
When you search for Barack Obama, you only reach the presidential candidate and current US Senator, however, on wikipedia, there are actually two Barak Obamas: 1. Barack Obama, Jr. (the US Senator and Presidential Candiate), and 2. Barack Obama, Sr. (father of Barack Obama, Jr.).
My question is: when you search for Barack Obama should you get to a page which list links to both? People who are search for the father, are going to have to go out of their way to find the father's profile. If you search for George Brett, you find four listings: A baseball player, a WWII American General, and 2 publishers (father and son).
If is is proper to list all Barack Obamas in the wiki search, how would we do this, or could a more experience user than me make this change?
thanks It is me i think ( talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, could Jr. be added to Barack Obama name so that this wiki page is distinguished from his father Barack Obama,Sr. It is me i think ( talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not a useful edit. I've removed it. -- HailFire ( talk) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There are four ways: (1+2) follow Barack (disambiguation) or Obama (disambiguation) at the top of the page, (3) click Barack Obama, Sr. in the early life and career section, or (4) use the navigation box at the bottom of the page. -- HailFire ( talk) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
For|the Kenyan economist|Barack Obama, Sr.}}
before or after the current redirect hatnote. See also
William Shakespeare. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] Not the only one - I was otherwise occupied the last 2 days and didn't see this discussion until now. I agree with HailFire that the JFK example is instructive. JFK Jr was far more notable than Barack Obama Sr, and the fact that even so, the JFK article does not have a hatnote regarding JFK Jr, but instead relies on the disambiguation page and wikilinking JFK Jr, is a very strong argument against the hatnote here. Obama Sr was not at all notable as an economist: his sole notability is as the senator's father, so the disambiguation page and the wikilinking within this article are more than enough. I'm removing it again, pending the outcome of this conversation, as is appropriate. Tvoz | talk 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that the guideline doesn't refer to the "Search" button, but the "Go" button. Now, I suppose that the John F. Kennedy example is relevant (please note that HailFire's earlier reference was to John F. Kennedy, Jr., which does have two different hatnotes), but there's still a small chance that someone looking for information on Obama the elder might not realize that they can reach that article by clicking through to Barack (disambiguation) or Obama (disambiguation). Of course, if they read this article they'll find the link to Barack Obama, Sr. in the first line under "Early life and career", so I suppose that's OK. As I said, I don't really care about this all that much, but still, I don't think the decision to include or exclude a hatnote linking to Barack Obama, Sr. is as clear-cut as some editors seem to be suggesting. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes " Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they expect to find information on comedians? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band? When there is risk of confusion, there should be a way to take the reader from an ambiguous page and title/term to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term; either the top of the page should have one or more disambiguation links, or the page itself should be a disambiguation page.
The New York Times has done some good reporting about Obama's 2004 US Senate campaign, and so maybe this stuff should go in this Wikipedia article:
The Obama camp had worked aggressively behind the scenes to push the Chicago Tribune to publish the story about Blair Hull's divorce proceedings, which ended up destroying the Hull campaign.[1] Later, when the Chicago Tribune successfully sued to open child custody files from Jack Ryan's divorce, Obama made this public statement: "Those are issues of personal morality. The issues I'm focused on are public morality."[2]
[1]Wallace-Wells, Ben. "Obama’s Narrator", New York Times ( 2007-04-01).
[2]Kinzer, Stephen; Napolitano, Jo. “Illinois Senate Campaign Thrown Into Prurient Turmoil”, New York Times ( 2004-06-23).
I'll be bold and insert this, and see what happens. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Most campaign strategists were aiming to get their candidate to 30 percent. With so many contenders, this thinking went, the first candidate to reach 30 would be hard to stop. It was increasingly looking as if only three candidates had a shot at getting to this point: Hynes, Hull and Obama.
But Hull's rapid ascent had put Hynes and his staff into a mild panic. The problem for Hynes: Hull was grabbing voters downstate and in other rural corners of Illinois, where life was slower and his television advertising was seeping into the public consciousness. In Chicago, his ads were more likely to get lost amid the urban frenzy. But Hull's name and message were gaining notice in these small towns even though he had never set foot in them. These were voters that Hynes was counting on. Obama would draw blacks in and around Chicago, lakefront liberals and perhaps college students. But if Hynes was to win, he needed rural voters on his side.
Nevertheless, Hull's ads were working. And when Hynes quick hit of television had no effect, the Hynes brain trust began worrying even more about Hull. Hynes's campaign spokesperson, Chris Mather, stepped up her phone calls to me and other reporters in hopes of slowing the Hull momentum. However, the intense lobbying effort actually had the opposite effect with me. Hynes's obvious fear gave Hull even more credibility. At about this time, I met with a Hynes operative for lunch. When I had gone to meet Mather earlier in the campaign season, we convened near Hynes's office. But this operative wanted to come to me, so we gathered at a North Michigan Avenue restaurant just a couple of doors from the Tribune Tower. Before I had taken a bite of my grilled chicken sandwich, I was handed a folder of opposition research on Hull. Among the papers was a copy of the outside sheet of the filing of one of Hull's two divorces in Illinois. Hull, in fact, had been divorced three times. He was married to his first wife for nearly thirty years, raising three children with her. After moving to Chicago, he then twice married and divorced the same woman. The rest of the divorce file had been sealed, and this vague court order was the only document publicly available. The order contained only one salient fact: Hull's second wife, Brenda Sexton, had once been granted an order of protection against him.
As this was occurring behind the scenes, Hull continued ascending in the polls, cruising past Hynes and the rest of the field. Hull was nearing the 30 percent mark when I interviewed him for my Sunday profile of him and his candidacy.
He steadfastly refused to discuss the circumstances of his marriages, divorces or the court order, saying they were private matters. Because he had been reluctant to explain these issues, particularly the court order, I felt compelled to include this in my profile. I placed this nugget fairly deep inside the story, but it served the purpose of the other candidates--the behind-the-scenes gossip had now slipped into the largest circulation newspaper in the state. Other political reporters and pundits jumped at the tasty morsel.
It was not long before the Hulls' divorce story assumed a life of its own, dominating the headlines, leading newscasts and consuming public debates. At a televised candidates' forum on public television, Hull was peppered with questions about the sealed divorce files--and he stammered no-comments when prompted to talk about the issue.
The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had "worked aggressively behind the scenes" to push the story.
In the Democratic primary, Obama found himself the overwhelming beneficiary when the campaign of former securities trader Blair Hull crashed in the aftermath of Hull's release of court files from a messy divorce. Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings.
Joining Pappas in calling for Hull to seek to make the records public were radio personality Nancy Skinner and health care consultant Joyce Washington.
"This brings up an opportunity to talk about something that is so tragic in our society when you're talking about domestic violence," Washington said. "This should be eradicated. And every time there is an opportunity to bring it up over and over again, we need to deal with that straight on."
Skinner said the Republicans will raise the issue in the general election if Hull wins the March 16 primary.
Two other candidates, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and state Sen. Barack Obama, said the decision is up to Hull. Former Chicago School Board president Gery Chico did not take a position but said, "There's a very small range of issues that are off limits."
"My own personal philosophy is that I think you have to answer all the questions put to you," Chico said.
The emotionally charged question of sealed divorce records moved into the Republican primary for U.S. Senate Wednesday as four [John Borling, Jim Oberweis, Steve Rauschenberger, Andy McKenna Jr.] of the GOP hopefuls called on front-runner Jack Ryan to make public all the documents from his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan.
In the game of politics, there is frequently an echo effect. When Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Blair Hull was forced to unseal court records of his divorce, you could bet another candidate in the primaries would be asked to do the same thing. Wednesday, that bet paid off, unfortunately, when Jack Ryan, front-runner in the Republican Senate primary, was pressured to unseal documents from his divorce.
In the case of Hull, there were reasons for demanding that the truth be revealed. The candidate had allegations of spousal abuse and a court order of protection spinning around him. Ultimately, it was revealed that his ex-wife, Brenda Sexton had accused him of calling her vile names and threatening to kill her -- and he acknowledges hitting her in the shin.
But there were no such allegations, no calls to police, arising from Ryan 's 1999 divorce from actress Jeri Ryan. The portions of the divorce papers that remained sealed after Ryan made available the rest of them pertained to custody issues involving the couple's son, now 9. Custody issues can be unpleasant. Ryan says he wants to keep that information private for his son's sake and to protect the boy from the creep sentenced for stalking Jeri Ryan with sexually explicit e-mails and threatening violence to the man she lived with.
Republican Senate candidate John Borling asked for and received the resignation of his campaign chief Thursday, hours after the aide issued a statement detailing embarrassing allegations he said were contained in hidden documents from the divorce file of front-runner Jack Ryan.
Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barack Obama reversed his position on Republican rival Jack Ryan 's divorce file Friday, calling on fellow Democrats to refrain from trying to inject it into the campaign.
"I don't think it's an appropriate topic for debate," Obama said.
Obama has consistently said that his campaign would not focus on Ryan 's 1999 divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan.
But when he first made that pledge, Obama refused to call on other Democrats to follow his lead.
"It's going to be up to other people to determine what's appropriate and what's not," Obama said the day after his March primary victory.
Since then, Mayor Daley called on Democrats and the news media to avoid delving into politicians' divorce records, and Ryan urged Obama to insist all Democrats lay off the matter.
Speaking at a taping of the WBBM-AM radio program "At Issue" on Friday, Obama took that additional step and insisted he was not being inconsistent.
"I'm not the policeman for what the media and everybody else does," Obama said. "What I can take responsibility for is my campaign and those people who are supporting me. And to the extent that people who are supporting me, including the Democratic National Committee or the Democratic [Senatorial Campaign] Committee are engaging in these kinds of things, I would urge them not to do so because I think Illinois voters really want to focus on those issues that are going to help them in their lives."
(undent)I've looked into this matter a bit more. It seems clear that Obama did work behind the scenes to publicize Hull's alleged abuse of his ex-wife. But I agree that this Hull matter is not as notable as the behind-the-scenes Democratic effort to inject Ryan's divorce records into the campaign, in order to boost Obama. Unlike in the Hull matter, there was no physical abuse alleged in the Ryan matter, and both Ryan and his ex-wife wanted the custody files to remain sealed.
Barack Obama eventually changed his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to stop injecting them into the campaign, and to stop emailing reporters about the Ryan divorce files. [34] But that change of policy occurred shortly after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in convincing Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider that some of the Ryans' custody records could be released. [35] Talk about a well-timed policy-shift! Anyway, I'll be curious if anyone else views this Ryan matter as noteworthy enough to mention in this article. It seems much more notable than the similar Hull matter. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
why "not appropriate?" the aids conspiracy page exists and has numerous sources. wright was talking about AIDS conspiracy theories. where is the disconnect here? 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the creation of a new section focussing on Sen. Obama's recent controversial comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians. [3] A new section for this material does not seem appropriate. Obama is being accused of "elitism" in response to those comments of his, and this seems like the kind of thing that would be better to put in the existing section on his image (or the section on his 2008 campaign). So, I'd like to propose that we include something like this....
"Senator Obama came in for heavy criticism during April of 2008 for alleged elitism, after he made the following remarks:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them....And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. [4]
"He made these remarks at a private fundraiser in San Francisco.
"[1]Bacon, Perry and Murray, Shailagh. "Opponents Paint Obama as an Elitist", Washington Post ( 2008-04-12)."
Does that seem okay? I would put it right before the sentence that begins, "Writing about Obama's political image in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion...." Alternatively, it could go at the end of the section on his presidential campaign. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Speaking in general: If such a remark is part of a pattern that the political figure makes, one that's closely associated with his or her image, putting it in "Cultural and political image" can be appropriate. If such a remark is just a one-off blunder, no matter how stupid, offensive, or politically damaging, then the campaign section is likely more appropriate. In any case, creating a "controversial comments" or "controversies" section is not the way to go. A bunch of editors went through a lot of effort to get rid of such sections for all the candidates' articles in the 2008 presidential election (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages); let's not go backwards now. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well regardless of how much attention it gets, it doesn't belong in a biography about his whole life. Grsz 11 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This belongs in the Obama presidential campaign section, not here. And the media describing it as a "blunder" shows media bias, imo. Obama said he stands by what he said although he could have phrased it better. He probably should not even gone that far, nothing wrong with what he said, it wasn't a blunder and wasn't elitist. JonErber ( talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh sure, maybe if it ends his campaign it can be included. But the whole elitist bit is a crock. This is a guy who was raised in Indonesia right? Compared to the other one, who's already been in the White House. And surely Yale is less-"elitist" than Harvard? Andy would be strongly against the comments Obama later made on the subject. Grsz 11 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy would be strongly against the comments Obama later made on the subject. If by "strongly against" you mean I would be opposed to mentioning Obama's POV, you haven't been paying attention. Well, I knew that already. Actually, my take on this is not that Obama's elitist, but that the MSM's ingrained left-wing elitism is been such that it hasn't been much noticed when Obama's been condescending. He got all sorts of credit for allowing in his "More Perfect Union" speech that working class white folks might not feel they owed it to black folks to let the latter cut in line ahead of them, and it went unnoticed that he ended up being dismissive of their idea that they had a real grievance. [11] This latest quote is of a piece with that. And the question on the table is how and to what extent we work this negative of view of Obama into the otherwise worshipful "Cultural and political image" section, as required by NPOV policy. Andyvphil ( talk) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking back at the earliest, representative (ie more than just one or two editors had input) versions of this article, which would be about the time he addressed the 2004 Convention, about all it says in a short article about Obama's political stance is "staunch liberal". Today, "liberal" occurs only once in a very lengthy article, and even then it has the words "not a" in front of it. "staunch liberal" persisted in this article for AT LEAST 1500 edits and more than two years (I stopped checking after that). A rather interesting evolution! Bdell555 ( talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I entered this edit:
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 from the 13th District, representing areas of Chicago's South Side.<ref>Jackson, David ( April 3 2007). "Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)</ref> In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush.<ref>Scott, Janny ( September 9 2007). "A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002.<ref> "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. August 24 2000. Archived from the original (archive) on 2000-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-03.{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) "13th District: Barack Obama". Illinois State Senate Democrats. October 9 2004. Archived from the original (archive) on 2004-08-02. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.<ref>Calmes, Jackie ( February 23 2007). "Statehouse Yields Clues to Obama". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.<ref>Coffee, Melanie ( November 6 2004). "Attorney Chosen to Fill Obama's State Senate Seat". Associated Press. HPKCC. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref>As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.<ref>Slevin, Peter ( February 9 2007). "Obama Forged Political Mettle in Illinois Capitol". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) Helman, Scott ( September 23 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Dealt with Lobbyists". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) See also: "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine for Critics". Associated Press. CBS News. January 17 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) "In-Depth Look at Obama's Political Career" (video). CLTV. Chicago Tribune. February 9, 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.<ref name=Scott20070730>Scott, Janny ( July 30 2007). "In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) See also: Pearson, Rick ( May 3 2007). "Careful Steps, Looking Ahead". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)</ref> Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.<ref name=Scott20070730 /> During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.<ref>Youngman, Sam ( March 14 2007). "Obama's Crime Votes Are Fodder for Rivals". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help) See also: "US Presidential Candidate Obama Cites Work on State Death Penalty Reforms". Associated Press. International Herald Tribune. November 12 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref> 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.<ref>Zorn, Eric ( March 9 2004). "Disparagement of Obama Votes Doesn't Hold Up". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2007-12-04. Retrieved 2008-04-03.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) "Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views". Associated Press. MSNBC. August 9 2004. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) See also: Youngman, Sam ( February 15 2007). "Abortion Foes Target Obama Because of His Vote Record on Illinois Legislation". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)</ref>
Andy reverted most of it. Let's discuss. -- HailFire ( talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems there is a developing discussion here (and in the related talk page of the campaign article) about the use of the term " soundbites" when referring to comments by Jeremiah Wright. Let us be clear about this: a "soundbite" is defined as an accessible and short piece of speech lifted from a longer speech (or an interview). ABC News trawled through hours and hours of Wright sermon footage and lifted the most controversial soundbites they could find, edited them together and presented them for public consumption. There should be no question that "soundbite" is an appropriate term. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Before saying this, let me make it clear that I am an Obama supporter and have every intention of voting for him in my upcoming state primary.
I strongly disagree with the decision to not include a consolidated criticisms/controversy section in the article. In response to a past comment of mine in similar vane, it was stated that criticisms and controversy are not encyclopedic. That strikes me as the opposite of the truth. As a candidate for the U.S. presidency, prevalent critical points of view concerning Senator Obama are among the MOST relevant pieces of information to his notability that there are, and they are what many users will come to the article seeking an unbiased presentation of.
In the FAQ above, the following statement is given for why there is no criticisms/controversy section in the article:
"Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article."
There is, however, a section dedicated solely to praises. It is called "Recognition and honors."
I find it interesting that authors decided that recognitions and honors for Senator Obama should not be "worked in" to the rest of the text but that criticisms and controversies should. In any case, the existence of such a section without a corresponding section for criticisms/controversies demonstrates a clear pro-Obama bias in the article.
In my own view, I strongly disagree with the "working in" notion of how the article should be written, both in the case of recognition/honors and criticisms/controversy. Many if not most users will come to the article looking for specific information without time or intention for reading it in its entirety. For these, organizing information into clearly marked sections is extremely useful. Burying specific information within over-homogenized text serves no purpose (other than one's political agenda, of course, which I assume no one here has).
-- Floorsheim ( talk) 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All edits to this article must be in keeping with that policy. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
User:Joelr31 decided to close the FA review of this article. Gimmetrow 06:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The following currently appears in the "Early life and private career" section:
Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., [1] owned by Tony Rezko and Daniel Mahru. Rezko, who has raised up to $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns, [2] is currently on trial in federal court on felony charges for money laundering, extortion, and fraud. [3] [4] Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.
I believe there is far too much detail about Rezko in these sentences. The only significant pieces of information worthy of inclusion in the article are:
The fact that Rezko is currently on trial should not be included because (a) he has not been convicted of anything yet and (b) it violates WP:BLP and WP:RECENT - the word "currently" should never appear in a BLP, should it? Details about what Rezko is on trial for certainly seem unrelated to Obama's BLP. And why is Daniel Mahru mentioned at all? And why is the amount of money raised significant (other fundraisers have raised equal or greater amounts, yet they are not mentioned)? I think these sentences need to be examined with a critical eye and completely rewritten with these extraneous details removed. I am not disputing the facts of what has been written, only that these facts shouldn't really be in a BLP. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The claque is already out in force (Looneymonkey accuses me of turning the article into my blog, and Wordbuilder's revert deletes the additional information in the name of "balance") - the usual nonsense arguments for censorship. But I stand behind this text (except that I need to clarify why some sources say one and some say two $10,000 contribs were made to Obama; I think one was out of a $250K kickback, and the other was illegal only because Rezko reimbursed the giver, and the latter may not be at issue in this trial). Andyvphil ( talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)As an associate attorney with Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 2002, Obama represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. While Obama never took part in a trial, he worked on teams drawing up briefs, contracts, and other legal documents. This included being part of teams that represented Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in a successful lawsuit that forced the state of Illinois to implement a federal law that was designed to make it easier for people to register to vote, an appeals brief on behalf of a whistleblower that was suing Cook County Hospital and the Hektoen Institute for Medical Research for wrongful termination, and on another team forced the city of Chicago to redraw ward boundaries that the city council drew up following the 1990 census. In 1997, following his election to the Illinois Senate, Obama's work for the firm diminished sharply and he let his license became inactive in 2002. [5] The firm represented, and senior partner Allison S. Davis became a business partner with, Tony Rezko's Rezmar Corporation. Obama did some work representing Davis in his negotiations with Rezmar and also a small amount of work directly for Rezmar, and Rezko subsequently became the first substantial financial contributor to his political career and raised in the vicinity of $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns before becoming notorious for abusing minority set-asides, milking taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation programs, and other financial frauds. He is currently on trial in federal court for extorting kickbacks and political contributions (mostly for Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, but also for others including redirecting a kickback to $10,000 in contributions to Obama) as well as private financial frauds. Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
In a clean-up of the Barack Obama#Early life and career of Barack Obama section, I removed the Rezko text for reasons of WP:SS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:RECENT. It is not clear why this text belongs either in this summary section or in the associated subarticle. Consider this quote from Obama's interview with the Chicago Tribune:
I first met Tony Rezko when I was still at law school, or at least I had just graduated from law school. He had two partners, a guy named Dan Mahru and David Brint. They had started a real estate company called Rezmar. They contacted me while I was the president of the Harvard Law Review and asked if I was coming back to Chicago and was thinking about future employment, would I be interested in potentially getting involved in development.
And so when I was back in Chicago, and I don't recall whether it was during the summer between, you know, my second and third year [in law school], or whether it was after I had graduated, or whether it was just visiting Michelle, I met with them.
They were, didn't talk to me about a specific job but explained what they were doing in terms of development. Because I had been a community organizer, I think that's what part of what prompted their interest because they were doing a lot of affordable housing work and work with community development corporations.
I had a relatively brief conversation, maybe 45 minutes, and ultimately declined to go into development, but that was the first time I met Tony Rezko.
Fast-forward a little bit, I did not have a lot of interactions with Tony at that point. I was working as an associate at a law firm. There may have been interactions with my law firm and some of the development partners of Rezmar because they would often partner with not-for-profits and we had a small transactional practice in the law firm that specialized in representing not-for-profits—you know, church-based organizations that were doing community development.
I don't recall exactly how many times at that point I had met Tony Rezko, but I don't think at that point I would have considered him a friend. He was an acquaintance. [15]
There is nothing here to suggest that Rezko was notable to Obama's life before his first run for public office, which is where this section ends. -- HailFire ( talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that something extra needs to be added to the "early life and career" section about Rezko, but I'm not quite sure of the best way to phrase it. At the moment, positions between editors like Kossack4Truth and myself are obviously poles apart on this matter, but I would like to try and reach a compromise and build a consensus. Here's what I have come up with so far:
Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp., [1] half-owned by Tony Rezko, who has raised approximately $250,000 for Obama's various political campaigns. [2] In October 2006, Rezko was indicted for political corruption charges and the case was brought to trial in March 2008. [3] Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing. [4]
How does that sound? I think the indictment and trial are important enough to be mentioned, but I have used the umbrella term of "political corruption charges" (also used in the source) instead of the list of charges that have appeared previously. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to enter so late, it seems to meet the information about Rezco's indictment has nothing to do with Obama, and therefor should not be mentioned. The only reason I see mentioning the item is if people believed Obama was linked and there needed to be comments that a formal link of Obama to Rezco's indictment is false. But it appears to me that if someone linked to Obama (Rezco) has been indicted, that is most appropriate on Rezco's page unless Obama is directly linked (did Obama even testify at the trial?) and even if Obama testified at the trial, I am not sure it is noteworthy enough to mentioned here, unless Obama was in the business of being a professional witness at trials (which is not the case here, because he is a sitting US Senator). Now if Obama, had ever been (in a previous life), a professional witness at trials, that would be quiet interested and could be added under his biography. It is me i think ( talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this for inclusion at the end of the first Barack Obama#Senate career paragraph, just above the Barack Obama#109th Congress subsection:
Nonpartisan analyses of bill sponsorship and voting records have placed him as a "rank-and-file Democrat" and "Democratic Party loyalist."<ref>
"Members of Congress: Barack Obama". GovTrack. Retrieved 2008-03-31. Curry, Tom (
February 21
2008).
"What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-03-31. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)</ref> The
U.S. Senate Historical Office lists him as the fifth
African American Senator in
U.S. history, the third to have been popularly elected, and the only African American currently serving in the Senate.<ref>
"Breaking New Ground: African American Senators". U.S. Senate Historical Office. Retrieved 2008-02-11.</ref>
-- HailFire ( talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
As one positive step toward possibly lifting full protection before it expires naturally, I suggest we tag the above proposed text with template:editprotected and request its inclusion as an uncontroversial edit supported by (hopefully, more than temporary) consensus. Is it OK? -- HailFire ( talk) 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
How's this?
The nonpartisan publication
CQ Weekly characterized Obama as a "loyal Democrat", based on Senate votes cast in 2005 through 2007.<ref>Nather, David (
January 14
2008).
"The Space Between Clinton and Obama". CQ Weekly. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) See also: Curry, Tom (
February 21
2008).
"What Obama's Senate Votes Reveal". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)</ref>
-- HailFire ( talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] Yes, CQ is non-partisan, so it's a better source to use. Tvoz | talk 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"rank and file Democrat" is not informative. So he generally votes with his party. For non-Americans like myself that is especially uninformative since in my country, for example, Members of Parliament generally get expelled from their respective parties if they vote in defiance of their party leader's directions even once. At a minimum this description of Obama's voting record should therefore be accompanied with a note indicating that moderate or centrist US Congressmen will often vote with the majority of the opposing party. This article said "staunch liberal" for YEARS and thousands of edits until it was taken out, presumably because either (A) a "staunch liberal" is unlikely to ever become President in the USA and a sizable group of editors want to assist this candidate's bid for that office, (B) Obama changed his political philosophy or (C) the initial characterization was wrong. If the answer is (C) a corollary is that Wikipedia is fundamentally unreliable since we are talking about an article about a sitting US Senator that was edited at least 1500 times and over at least two years if not more with that designation remaining. "Staunch liberal" apparently disappears about when he decides to run outside a blue state. Coincidence? If the answer is (B) there should be more evidence of such a transformation. The NJ had him more "liberal" than 99% of the Senate in 2007 and Mark Penn, a Democrat, has no problem with the National Journal as a source (page 4 of http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/17/080317fa_fact_lizza). The New York Times doesn't have a problem with it either, see the NYT article titled "Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25obama.html). Does the Wiki community seriously believe the NYT routinely refers to unreliable sources? Apparently so, because whereas the NYT says "Mr. Obama insists ... his proposals are solidly in the mainstream of Democratic thought", Wiki essentially drops the "Mr. Obama insists" part! Even the study by political science professors Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole at http://voteview.com/sen110.htm that I've seen offered up as a counter to the National Journal study has Obama to the left of 90% of the Senate. Bdell555 ( talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why have all the links been removed to Wikipedia articles from the lead paragraphs? There appears to be a mini-edit war involving User:Andyvphil at present, so it is difficult to see when these edits to remove links took place. Harr o 5 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to respond to Sandy's " sea of unnecessary blue" comment at FAR. I've also done more moderate delinking in other sections. I welcome suggestions on what should stay and what should go that are consistent with Sandy's guidance. Here's a list of all of the links (the currently restored ones are in bold) that were in the lead before I took them out:
It's mostly the issue and occupational links that have not been put back. Note also that most of the sources were also removed. My reading of WP:LEAD is that statements already fully sourced in the article don't need to be sourced in the lead section. An expert FA reviewer could help us out here. -- HailFire ( talk) 06:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"23-year" was recently added to the Wright paragraph to specify the length of Obama's relationship, but I restored it back to "longterm". I figure that specifying the length of the relationship either (a) dates the article, or (b) indicates the relationship is at an end. Although Wright is no longer Obama's pastor, I don't believe there are any sources to indicate their relationship has actually ended. That leaves us in a position where using "longterm" prevents us from having to come back and add a year to the length of the relationship. Besides, I think specifying the actual length of the relationship is an unnecessary detail (rather than being "informative" as was suggested). I entreat Andy and his fellow warriors to stop edit warring over this. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel like going into the details of exactly when Obama met Wright, when he joined Trinity, and so forth is heading a bit towards undue weight. This sort of detail, along with Wright performing Obama's wedding and baptizing his children, belongs in Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy. I see that article doesn't actually have any detail about Wright's relationship with Obama, which is important context for why the comments got as much play as they did — someone should add a section there summarizing the history of the relationship, including Obama's more recent distancing from Wright.
Speaking of that distancing, at the Compassion Forum last Sunday, Obama said, "Now, I have to say that, you know, in reports subsequently, there's been this notion that he was, by various terms, my spiritual adviser or my spiritual mentor. You know, he's been my pastor." Given Obama's apparent disputing of the term "mentor", we should either find a RS which describes Wright in those terms or find another phrasing to describe the relationship.
As for "longterm" versus "23-year" — I agree that "longterm" is better encyclopedic style, for the reasons mentioned by Scjessey, but I also agree that it's not worth edit warring over.— Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of dead links and some problems with other external links which i'll try and get round to fixing asap. In the meantime here's a tool for updating external links and - after waiting about half a minute to load for all the Obama article's external links - this link enables you to fix the problems with the Obama article external links. You need to go through each suggested solution to make sure it works. cheers Tom ( talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
is he a millionaire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.102.112 ( talk • contribs) 20:05, April 18, 2008
Thanks for the info guys, i keep hearing them all referred to as millionaires and was just interested, but i couldn't find it in the article, you should probably pop his net worth there, and thanks again!
Despite the fact that other editors have agreed with my position and despite the fact that the very issues which I have raised were raised by George Stephanopolis and Charlie Gibson in the most recent debate, the Wiki-Gestapo have threatened to haul me away for disruptive edits. If my account is shut down it will stand as a testament to the bias problems with Wikipedia, rather than just the bias problems with this article. The big issue that this article currently ignores is the "clings to religion and guns" speech by Obama. Clearly, some people think this is a big issue because it was front and center in the most recent debate. And yet this article makes no mention of words which came directly from the candidate's own mouth.
Fine.
Can some please explain this sentence to me:
Just exactly who generally well received this speech? Clearly it was not well received by Lanny Davis or conservative commentators? Who is left? The article references the NY Times, one of the most liberal papers in the country. I suppose that implies that it was generally well received by the liberal media, but poorly received by the conservative media and by some liberals such as Lanny Davis. If the speech was generally well received by Air America, Chris Matthews and the NY Times that does mean it was "generally well received". Here's a more fair statement:
I've suggested another possible wording, with better sourcing, above at #"Critics continue to question". — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just reverted Andy's addition of the Obamas' tax return information on the basis that (a) it is not noteworthy enough for a BLP, and (b) even if it were noteworthy, it would be a campaign-related issue and would, therefore, need to be in the campaign article. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that some participants on both sides of this debate are trying to reach NPOV in a way that's unproductive. If the overall tone or wording of a summary seems biased in one direction or another, you're trying to balance the text by adding a positive or negative statement as a sort of counterweight. Scjessey and 72 want mention of Jeremiah Wright's military service and the Frederick Douglass comparison as a counterbalance to the accusations of anti-Americanism. Kossack wants details of how Obama's support has softened in some quarters as a counterbalance to the article being in his view "too fluffy and sweet". Both are using the same horse-trading approach, which is not how NPOV is supposed to work. If we approach this like we're haggling in the marketplace, adding a negative for a positive and a positive for a negative, we're going to end up with excessive detail that violates WP:WEIGHT.
Instead, let's try to work together to find a succinct wording which acknowledges all the important elements of the controversy, describing it accurately without indicating who's right or wrong. (Or Wright.) I know that's not easy, but that's why I think that mediation would be helpful. I'm rather disappointed that Andy and Kossack haven't addressed the call for mediation above — if you really want to reach a neutrally worded version of the article, mediation is the way to go. But if you're just going to push for your version of the article, we're not going to get anywhere. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tweaked the Wright paragraph yet again, trying to bring in elements from contributors with different perspectives. I don't know how successful I've been, and on reflection I probably should have worked this out here on the talk page rather than in the live article, but I'd like opinions on this version from the editors who've been most vocal and active. Does this cover the important angles neutrally and fairly, and with appropriate weight?
I've moved the bit about Wright's military service to the sentence about "A More Perfect Union", because that's where it was first mentioned in the mainstream coverage; I also added mention of his service to the poor, which Obama also mentioned in the speech. By the way, it's cited to commentary by conservative commentator and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who's not exactly an Obamabot.
I'd like to hear from as many regular contributors as possible about this version of the paragraph. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Following negative media coverage and during a temporary drop in the polls,[126] Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, cutting his relationship to his campaign," - All the rest of the current paragraph on Wright seems to be very well-balanced, neutral, and accurate, but this one section is potentially misleading, as it suggests that Obama condemned Wright's remarks, which he'd previously been fine with, solely because of the poll drop and negative exposure: according to Obama himself, he was simply unaware of most of the remarks in question beforehand, and he had already condemned the remarks he admitted to knowing of back when they first received media attention (in 2007, I think). However, it is accurate to note that Wright retained his position in Obama's campaign until recently, despite Obama's earlier attempts to distance himself from the comments he admits he did know about. - Silence ( talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, an improvement. But I don't think the "U.S. policies" bit quite captures Wright's "rhetorically forceful flair". [28] Wright taled about U.S. "terrorism" dating back to expulsion of the Indians and forward to suppoert of Israeli "state terrorism", and "U.S. policies were partially responsible" is unduly bloodless. And the unnecessary insertion of "temporary" in the "drop in the polls" sentence is misleading -- Obama lost at least some support permanently. No time to comment further now. Andyvphil ( talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It reads very well and summarizes the controversy about as accurately and neutrally as possible. Great work Josiah. -- Ubiq ( talk) 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[out/ec with Ubiq] Overall, I think this is a very big improvement. I may have a couple of other comments, but one quick thought is that his refusal to disown the man himself was not only because of Wright's other good works and that he was a marine (I like that you worked this in where you did, by the way), but also that he has a personal connection to him - the "old uncle" or invocation of his grandmother. Might try something like but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine as well as their close, almost familial connection. or something like that. NOt sure, but I stumbled on that sentence a little bit as it didn't feel like it was telling the whole story about the refusal to disown. But again, overall I think this revised paragraph is very well balanced and a big improvement. Tvoz | talk 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that "sought to" is necessary, since I think that saying "placed in context" doesn't necessarily imply that the context was exculpatory. But I'll yield to the apparent consensus on this. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel like I wasn't as clear as I could have been about this point. When we say that "critics continued to question the implications of Obama's long and close relationship with Wright." and source that directly to the critics who are questioning the implications, that's original research. We don't have a source that says that critics continued to question the implications. It's similar to saying "YouTube users continued to post material about Ron Paul even after he had dropped out of the race" and linking that directly to the youtube videos. In this case, we can't link directly to the critics, we need a RS that talks about the critics. Or else we can simply say "Kristol continues to criticize..." or something like that. Generalizing a few articles into saying that "critics" are doing something is synthesis. johnpseudo 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found a column from last month by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz which summarizes media responses to the speech and the Wright issue. It could be used to support a more general "critics continued to question" wording, but it also indicates a more general liberal/conservative split over the reactions to the speech than our wording might seem to indicate. Specifically, Kurtz says, "Not surprisingly, most liberals loved the speech and many conservatives -- though not all -- lambasted it." Perhaps we should change the wording to something like this:
Although the speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was well-received by liberal sources and some conservatives, [12] [18] [19] other conservative commentators and some Clinton supporters continued to question the implications of Obama's long relationship with Wright. [19] [20]
- ^ "Obama and his Rezko ties". Associated Press. Chicago Sun-Times. April 23 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ Staff writer (2008-03-14). "Obama: Rezko Raised Up to $250K". Associated Press. Google News. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
- ^ "Courtroom Wire: Notes From Tony Rezko's Corruption Trial". FOXNews. April 10, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-15.
{{ cite news}}
:|first=
missing|last=
( help); Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|lasr=
ignored ( help)- ^ "Witness: Obama attended Rezko party". Associated Press. MSNBC.com. April 15, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-15.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ Brian Ross ( March 13 2008). "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
( help)- ^ Andrew Sullivan. For The Record The Atlantic: The Daily Dish, March 16 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-18
- ^ Jeff Goldblatt ( March 14 2008). "Obama's Pastor's Sermon: 'God Damn America'". FOXNews. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ Dilanian, Ken (2008-03-18). "Defenders say Wright has love, righteous anger for USA". USA Today. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
- ^ Adubato, Steve (March 21, 2008). "Obama's reaction to Wright too little, too late". MSNBC.
- ^ Reid, Tim (March 21, 2008). "Polls show Barack Obama damaged by link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright". Times Newspapers, Ltd. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
- ^ Barack Obama ( March 18 2008). "Remarks by Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ a b c Nedra Pickler, Matt Apuzzo ( March 18, 2008). "Obama confronts racial division". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-04-06.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ Noonan, Peggy (2008-03-21). "A Thinking Man's Speech". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
- ^ "Mr. Obama's Profile in Courage". The New York Times. 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-03-19.
- ^ "Obama's minister's remarks won't fade". The Associated Press. March 21, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-26.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ "Obama's racial problems transcend Wright". The Politico. March 18 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
- ^ "Mr. Obama's Profile in Courage". The New York Times. 2008-03-19. Retrieved 2008-03-19.
- ^ a b Kurtz, Howard (2008-03-20). "Obama's Speech, Sliced and Diced". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-19.
- ^ Kristol, Bill ( 2008-03-24). "Let's Not, and Say We Did". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-25.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help) See also: Davis, Lanny J. ( April 9, 2008). "Obama's Minister Problem". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-12.{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)
(Sorry about the massive reflist — just wanted to show the sources as they would appear in the article.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It is sad that biased POV is preventing proper desciptions and understanding of Candidate Obama's religious beliefs, in regard to his association to Rev. Wright, and his ethno-centric theology. Candidate Obama's church emphasis on Black liberation theology, and the themes of Social justice, "Praxis" (see Praxis school), and Precarity are significant. Also, the obvious links and historical roots of Marxism, Liberation theology, and Black liberation theology should be included. This is significant even without mentioning the current importance of Jeremiah Wright as mentor, Pastor, and friend to the large church congregation which includes Presidential Candidate Obama's family. The historical record should be clearly spelled out regarding these concepts and relationships. It would be best for all of us, for educational purposes if nothing else, to attempt NPOV and objectivity regarding these subjects. Dr. B. R. Lang ( talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama addresses this issue in his autobiography "Dreams of my Father" on book Page 293 (paperback edition):
'[T]he pastor (Jeremiah Wright) described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope.
'The painting depicts a harpist,' Reverend Wright explained, 'a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.
It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world! On which hope sits.'
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House.' ... [E.A.] It is me i think ( talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama has said his faith is very important to hims (I can get sources if you need them), he went to the church for twenty years and he named a book after one of Wrights sermons. Obama's faith according to him, is an important part of who he is and therefore should be included. It is me i think ( talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
When you search for Barack Obama, you only reach the presidential candidate and current US Senator, however, on wikipedia, there are actually two Barak Obamas: 1. Barack Obama, Jr. (the US Senator and Presidential Candiate), and 2. Barack Obama, Sr. (father of Barack Obama, Jr.).
My question is: when you search for Barack Obama should you get to a page which list links to both? People who are search for the father, are going to have to go out of their way to find the father's profile. If you search for George Brett, you find four listings: A baseball player, a WWII American General, and 2 publishers (father and son).
If is is proper to list all Barack Obamas in the wiki search, how would we do this, or could a more experience user than me make this change?
thanks It is me i think ( talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, could Jr. be added to Barack Obama name so that this wiki page is distinguished from his father Barack Obama,Sr. It is me i think ( talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not a useful edit. I've removed it. -- HailFire ( talk) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There are four ways: (1+2) follow Barack (disambiguation) or Obama (disambiguation) at the top of the page, (3) click Barack Obama, Sr. in the early life and career section, or (4) use the navigation box at the bottom of the page. -- HailFire ( talk) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
For|the Kenyan economist|Barack Obama, Sr.}}
before or after the current redirect hatnote. See also
William Shakespeare. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[out] Not the only one - I was otherwise occupied the last 2 days and didn't see this discussion until now. I agree with HailFire that the JFK example is instructive. JFK Jr was far more notable than Barack Obama Sr, and the fact that even so, the JFK article does not have a hatnote regarding JFK Jr, but instead relies on the disambiguation page and wikilinking JFK Jr, is a very strong argument against the hatnote here. Obama Sr was not at all notable as an economist: his sole notability is as the senator's father, so the disambiguation page and the wikilinking within this article are more than enough. I'm removing it again, pending the outcome of this conversation, as is appropriate. Tvoz | talk 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that the guideline doesn't refer to the "Search" button, but the "Go" button. Now, I suppose that the John F. Kennedy example is relevant (please note that HailFire's earlier reference was to John F. Kennedy, Jr., which does have two different hatnotes), but there's still a small chance that someone looking for information on Obama the elder might not realize that they can reach that article by clicking through to Barack (disambiguation) or Obama (disambiguation). Of course, if they read this article they'll find the link to Barack Obama, Sr. in the first line under "Early life and career", so I suppose that's OK. As I said, I don't really care about this all that much, but still, I don't think the decision to include or exclude a hatnote linking to Barack Obama, Sr. is as clear-cut as some editors seem to be suggesting. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes " Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they expect to find information on comedians? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band? When there is risk of confusion, there should be a way to take the reader from an ambiguous page and title/term to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term; either the top of the page should have one or more disambiguation links, or the page itself should be a disambiguation page.
The New York Times has done some good reporting about Obama's 2004 US Senate campaign, and so maybe this stuff should go in this Wikipedia article:
The Obama camp had worked aggressively behind the scenes to push the Chicago Tribune to publish the story about Blair Hull's divorce proceedings, which ended up destroying the Hull campaign.[1] Later, when the Chicago Tribune successfully sued to open child custody files from Jack Ryan's divorce, Obama made this public statement: "Those are issues of personal morality. The issues I'm focused on are public morality."[2]
[1]Wallace-Wells, Ben. "Obama’s Narrator", New York Times ( 2007-04-01).
[2]Kinzer, Stephen; Napolitano, Jo. “Illinois Senate Campaign Thrown Into Prurient Turmoil”, New York Times ( 2004-06-23).
I'll be bold and insert this, and see what happens. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Most campaign strategists were aiming to get their candidate to 30 percent. With so many contenders, this thinking went, the first candidate to reach 30 would be hard to stop. It was increasingly looking as if only three candidates had a shot at getting to this point: Hynes, Hull and Obama.
But Hull's rapid ascent had put Hynes and his staff into a mild panic. The problem for Hynes: Hull was grabbing voters downstate and in other rural corners of Illinois, where life was slower and his television advertising was seeping into the public consciousness. In Chicago, his ads were more likely to get lost amid the urban frenzy. But Hull's name and message were gaining notice in these small towns even though he had never set foot in them. These were voters that Hynes was counting on. Obama would draw blacks in and around Chicago, lakefront liberals and perhaps college students. But if Hynes was to win, he needed rural voters on his side.
Nevertheless, Hull's ads were working. And when Hynes quick hit of television had no effect, the Hynes brain trust began worrying even more about Hull. Hynes's campaign spokesperson, Chris Mather, stepped up her phone calls to me and other reporters in hopes of slowing the Hull momentum. However, the intense lobbying effort actually had the opposite effect with me. Hynes's obvious fear gave Hull even more credibility. At about this time, I met with a Hynes operative for lunch. When I had gone to meet Mather earlier in the campaign season, we convened near Hynes's office. But this operative wanted to come to me, so we gathered at a North Michigan Avenue restaurant just a couple of doors from the Tribune Tower. Before I had taken a bite of my grilled chicken sandwich, I was handed a folder of opposition research on Hull. Among the papers was a copy of the outside sheet of the filing of one of Hull's two divorces in Illinois. Hull, in fact, had been divorced three times. He was married to his first wife for nearly thirty years, raising three children with her. After moving to Chicago, he then twice married and divorced the same woman. The rest of the divorce file had been sealed, and this vague court order was the only document publicly available. The order contained only one salient fact: Hull's second wife, Brenda Sexton, had once been granted an order of protection against him.
As this was occurring behind the scenes, Hull continued ascending in the polls, cruising past Hynes and the rest of the field. Hull was nearing the 30 percent mark when I interviewed him for my Sunday profile of him and his candidacy.
He steadfastly refused to discuss the circumstances of his marriages, divorces or the court order, saying they were private matters. Because he had been reluctant to explain these issues, particularly the court order, I felt compelled to include this in my profile. I placed this nugget fairly deep inside the story, but it served the purpose of the other candidates--the behind-the-scenes gossip had now slipped into the largest circulation newspaper in the state. Other political reporters and pundits jumped at the tasty morsel.
It was not long before the Hulls' divorce story assumed a life of its own, dominating the headlines, leading newscasts and consuming public debates. At a televised candidates' forum on public television, Hull was peppered with questions about the sealed divorce files--and he stammered no-comments when prompted to talk about the issue.
The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had "worked aggressively behind the scenes" to push the story.
In the Democratic primary, Obama found himself the overwhelming beneficiary when the campaign of former securities trader Blair Hull crashed in the aftermath of Hull's release of court files from a messy divorce. Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings.
Joining Pappas in calling for Hull to seek to make the records public were radio personality Nancy Skinner and health care consultant Joyce Washington.
"This brings up an opportunity to talk about something that is so tragic in our society when you're talking about domestic violence," Washington said. "This should be eradicated. And every time there is an opportunity to bring it up over and over again, we need to deal with that straight on."
Skinner said the Republicans will raise the issue in the general election if Hull wins the March 16 primary.
Two other candidates, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and state Sen. Barack Obama, said the decision is up to Hull. Former Chicago School Board president Gery Chico did not take a position but said, "There's a very small range of issues that are off limits."
"My own personal philosophy is that I think you have to answer all the questions put to you," Chico said.
The emotionally charged question of sealed divorce records moved into the Republican primary for U.S. Senate Wednesday as four [John Borling, Jim Oberweis, Steve Rauschenberger, Andy McKenna Jr.] of the GOP hopefuls called on front-runner Jack Ryan to make public all the documents from his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan.
In the game of politics, there is frequently an echo effect. When Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Blair Hull was forced to unseal court records of his divorce, you could bet another candidate in the primaries would be asked to do the same thing. Wednesday, that bet paid off, unfortunately, when Jack Ryan, front-runner in the Republican Senate primary, was pressured to unseal documents from his divorce.
In the case of Hull, there were reasons for demanding that the truth be revealed. The candidate had allegations of spousal abuse and a court order of protection spinning around him. Ultimately, it was revealed that his ex-wife, Brenda Sexton had accused him of calling her vile names and threatening to kill her -- and he acknowledges hitting her in the shin.
But there were no such allegations, no calls to police, arising from Ryan 's 1999 divorce from actress Jeri Ryan. The portions of the divorce papers that remained sealed after Ryan made available the rest of them pertained to custody issues involving the couple's son, now 9. Custody issues can be unpleasant. Ryan says he wants to keep that information private for his son's sake and to protect the boy from the creep sentenced for stalking Jeri Ryan with sexually explicit e-mails and threatening violence to the man she lived with.
Republican Senate candidate John Borling asked for and received the resignation of his campaign chief Thursday, hours after the aide issued a statement detailing embarrassing allegations he said were contained in hidden documents from the divorce file of front-runner Jack Ryan.
Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barack Obama reversed his position on Republican rival Jack Ryan 's divorce file Friday, calling on fellow Democrats to refrain from trying to inject it into the campaign.
"I don't think it's an appropriate topic for debate," Obama said.
Obama has consistently said that his campaign would not focus on Ryan 's 1999 divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan.
But when he first made that pledge, Obama refused to call on other Democrats to follow his lead.
"It's going to be up to other people to determine what's appropriate and what's not," Obama said the day after his March primary victory.
Since then, Mayor Daley called on Democrats and the news media to avoid delving into politicians' divorce records, and Ryan urged Obama to insist all Democrats lay off the matter.
Speaking at a taping of the WBBM-AM radio program "At Issue" on Friday, Obama took that additional step and insisted he was not being inconsistent.
"I'm not the policeman for what the media and everybody else does," Obama said. "What I can take responsibility for is my campaign and those people who are supporting me. And to the extent that people who are supporting me, including the Democratic National Committee or the Democratic [Senatorial Campaign] Committee are engaging in these kinds of things, I would urge them not to do so because I think Illinois voters really want to focus on those issues that are going to help them in their lives."
(undent)I've looked into this matter a bit more. It seems clear that Obama did work behind the scenes to publicize Hull's alleged abuse of his ex-wife. But I agree that this Hull matter is not as notable as the behind-the-scenes Democratic effort to inject Ryan's divorce records into the campaign, in order to boost Obama. Unlike in the Hull matter, there was no physical abuse alleged in the Ryan matter, and both Ryan and his ex-wife wanted the custody files to remain sealed.
Barack Obama eventually changed his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to stop injecting them into the campaign, and to stop emailing reporters about the Ryan divorce files. [34] But that change of policy occurred shortly after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in convincing Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider that some of the Ryans' custody records could be released. [35] Talk about a well-timed policy-shift! Anyway, I'll be curious if anyone else views this Ryan matter as noteworthy enough to mention in this article. It seems much more notable than the similar Hull matter. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)