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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
"After Super Tuesday, Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses.[85] Obama and Clinton split delegates and states nearly equally in Vermont, Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island.[86]"
I know it says he had an 11 state straight win before hillary stopped it with Ohio. But isnt it 12 wins? Vermont was called in Obamas favour just before she got Ohio. Can this be checked please. Also I like all the trimming down, its much better. I has concerns about that second line though, its nothing major, but that was perceieved as a good night for Hillary, more so than Obama. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The delegates from F and M have been counted, with a few mathematical adjustments to ensure Obama keeps the delegate lead. Clinton gets quite a lot more delegates than obama but it wont be enough. That means however she now takes the lead in the popular vote. We can get the sources together and decide how to word it all. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As I write, User:Andyvphil and User:Kossack4Truth are adding their POV material to the article, violating several policies and ignoring a number of guidelines and essays. There has been no attempt by Andy to discuss the matter on this talk page, despite the fact he is just emerged from a week-long block for this kind of tendentious editing. The discussion on the Admin board includes a comment from an administrator that argues how inappropriate this stuff is, yet this has been ignored. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikifaith is a faith in the wiki model of web development -- itself simply a technology based on a faith and trust in the positive balance of human nature. Those who tend to be exclusionist demand hard controls and limits to wiki do so because their wikifaith is weak, or they are in fact unbelievers in wiki -- a paradoxical contradiction considering that many such people are active Wikipedians.----WIKIMEDIA: META WIKI — Justmeherenow ( ) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[exdent]In the game of basketball, what Brothejr and Scjessey are doing is called a full court press. They are monitoring the article on a full-time basis, relying on the idea that during any 24-hour period, the two of them have more reverts available under WP:3RR than any people like us who may happen to show up and believe in WP:NPOV. They make false accusations, they never ever apologize, they take it to WP:ANI and WP:3RR whenever they are able, and they have generally made this article into a full-time job for themselves, hoping the rest of us don't have the time or the will to resist. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Obama's association with Ayers has only been negative from a campaign standpoint, and only because right-wing apologists who are desperate for their party to cling to power have tried to make it so. There you go again, Scjessey, trying to dismiss George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, former press secretary for Democratic president Bill Clinton, as a "right-wing apologist who is desperate for his party [the Republicans] to cling to power." Stephanopoulos is, without a doubt, a Democrat.
This is just the latest example of the distortion and spin-doctoring coming from Obama fanboys on this article. I repeat, it isn't just right-wing partisans and crazy sites like Newsmax that focus on Wright, Ayers and Rezko. It's Stephanopoulos and the rest of the mainstream media as well. It's Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who support her. It's also Michael Barone of National Review and other highly respected, credible conservatives. Scjessey pretends that it's only "Republican tools" who are interested in this story. He pretends that any WP editor who wants this article to be NPOV is also an "Obama hater," even "racist."
I want WP:NPOV in this article, including all significant points of view, including Obama's many critics.
And I want Scjessey and Brothejr to refactor their lies and apologize to me. End your edit warring, end your personal attacks and lies, and accept this consensus. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Plan and simple, POV is seeing any stuff non-apologetic as venom. While I am (possibly other contributors are) Chomskyist, according to what distortions of reality are produced by the lenses of folks whose coverage tends toward hagiography, apparently any coverage given to the Dohrn/Ayers affair (...even by Michael Kinsley!) is only Buckleyism. — Justmeherenow ( ) 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well any cut will bring us closer to a consensus so it is an improvement. I advise all parties to discuss before we make edits, not just me and you, we still need the pro obama people here too. We should build something on the talk page or another page and bring it over here, please dont break 3RR. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please explain how Obama's campaign staff took control of his Wikipedia biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorkerBee74 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I added that 5 losses to the article. I will also be adding the popular vote thing if she takes him in that at the end. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle has published a six-part series on the intimate, intricate, intertwined relationship between Obama and Rezko. Lest anyone claim that she is a paid Republican Party operative employed by the evil Karl Rove, she also has some very harsh words for George Ryan, former Republican governor of Illinois. Among other gems from Pringle: "Obama was Rezko's inside man in the Illinois Senate" and "Rezko was Obama's political Godfather."
Pringle points out that in the Illinois Senate in the spring of 2003, Obama pushed through legislation that would enable Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich to pack a state hospital planning board with his political allies. This planning board controls hundreds of millions of dollars intended for the construction of hospitals and nursing homes and now Blago's political allies control all that cash. Within weeks after Obama ramrodded that new law through the Illinois legislature, the very same political allies Blago appointed to that planning board (and their wives) were pouring thousands and thousands of dollars into Obama's US Senate campaign. The mastermind of the entire scheme was Tony Rezko. All of this is exquisitely documented in the Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune, the Illinois legislative record and OpenSecrets.org, the public record of political donations to presidential, Senate and House campaigns.
Evelyn Pringle's Introduction: [1]
Part 1: [2]
Part 2: [3]
Part 3: [4]
Part 4: [5]
Part 5: [6]
Part 6: [7]
This series of articles is being syndicated across the Internet on such websites as Scoop.co.nz and Countercurrents.org. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Lulu 3R'd on the page within the last 24 hour period going OTT via her removal of the article's "Controversies" section. — Justmeherenow ( ) 00:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
All those supporting the current version, which has forbidden all quotations from Obama spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright that were included by previous consensus, any mention of William Ayers' unrepentant bomb-tossing past, any mention of the felony charges against Tony Rezko related to political fund raising, any mention of $250,000 in fund raising that Rezko has done for Obama, any mention of the $20,000 from straw donors that was steered to Obama by Rezko, any word of criticism against Obama from any conservative or moderate no matter how notable, and any word of criticism directed at Obama that comes from a progressive except "Senate clubbiness," please indicate your support below.
[exdent]I don't see any consensus yet. And because you and your allies here have reverted every word of criticism except "Senate clubbiness" from a progressive, you are the one creating this choice, not me. I fully understand basic human nature. Basic human nature led me to this article before I cast my vote in the primary, and I didn't see one word about Wright's "God damn America" sermon, Bill Ayers and his bomb-tossing past, or Tony Rezko and his 24 felony charges for fund raising violations. So I voted for Obama. I'm sure millions of other voters, because they were unaware of all these unsavory characters in Obama's inner circle, made a similar choice.
Now that I've found out about them, basic human nature makes me feel deeply disappointed, and even betrayed.
By Wikipedia.
Now that the rest of the country has found out about them, Obama is no longer the unstoppable juggernaut that he appeared to be in February. Readers of Wikipedia deserve to know both halves of the truth in one article. It needs to be summarized, to be sure. But it all needs to be here, both the bad and the good. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 12:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[exdent]I have presented your version for statements of support and opposition here. I still don't see any consensus in your favor. If nobody agrees with my point of view and everyone agrees with yours, then they will express their support for yours here, won't they?
All those who support Scjessey's version of this article, with zero quotations from Obama's spiritual mentor, zero criticisms from anyone except "Senate clubbiness" from a fellow progressive, and zero details about any of his unsavory associates (but plenty of unsavory details about his political opponents such as Blair Hull and Jack Ryan), please state your support below. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Equals more boring. — Justmeherenow ( ) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Bryan's participation in the highly publicized 1925 Scopes Trial served as a capstone to his career. He was asked by William Bell Riley to represent the World Christian Fundamentals Association as counsel at the trial. During the trial Bryan took the stand and was questioned by defense lawyer Clarence Darrow about his views on the Bible.
Biologist Stephen Jay Gould has speculated that Bryan's antievolution views were a result of his Populist idealism and suggests that Bryan's fight was really against Social Darwinism. Others, such as biographer Michael Kazin, reject that conclusion based on Bryan's failure during the trial to attack the eugenics in the textbook, Civic Biology.(hummh?) The national media reported the trial in great detail,with H. L. Mencken using Bryan as a symbol of Southern ignorance and anti-intellectualism.(What does this muckraker Mencken know?) The trial concluded with a directed verdict of guilty, which the defense encouraged, as their aim was to take the law itself to a higher court in order to challenge its constitutionality.
[exdent]Regarding the Wright paragraph, I only claim that there was a consensus for the longer version that includes quotes from Wright, and that there has been no demonstration of any consensus for the new, abbreviated version that Lulu and Scjessey keep trying to resurrect. It is dead until a new consensus has been clearly demonstrated on this page. Lulu and Scjessey, please show that you have a new consensus or stop reverting. Thank you.
Now let's talk about that quotation from Fred Siegel in the National Review. He's notable and the publication is notable and reliable. There are abundant quotations and trivial facts galore about Obama, all of which make him seem absolutely wonderful and completely perfect. They come from fellow progressives. But there is another significant body of opinion out there. Let's not pretend that conservatives don't exist. Let's not pretend that critics of Obama do not exist. Let's include at least one quotation from one fairly representative conservative critic. That's what WP:NPOV means to me in this context.
It seems to me that Andyvphil, Fovean Author, Justmeherenow, and Kossack4Truth have formed consensus supporting the version that includes Wright quotations, includes a Siegel quotation, and clearly states the negative information about Ayers and Rezko, just as the negative information about Obama's political rivals Blair Hull and Jack Ryan has stayed undisturbed in this article for so many months. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. [1] ABC News found and excerpted racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright, including his assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "state terrorism" and his assertion that, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." [1] [2] Some of Wright's statements were widely criticized as anti-American. [3] [4] Following negative media coverage and a drop in the polls, [5] Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, ending his relationship with the campaign, [6] and delivering a speech entitled " A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [7] In the speech, Obama rejected some of Wright's comments, but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine. [8] The speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was well-received by many liberals and some conservatives, [8] [9] [10] but others, including various supporters of Hillary Clinton, continued to question the implications of Obama's long relationship with Wright. [9] [11]
— Justmeherenow ( ) 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)The worst ignorance is to think to know what one does not....if I should say that I am wiser than another, it would be that in not having competent knowledge of all things, I also think that I have not such knowledge.----SOCRATES
[exdent]Wright-related information is given in exhaustive detail in related (and linked) articles You mean banished to related (and linked) articles, don't you Scjessey? There are hundreds of links in this article. No one has the time to click on all of them. Finding any negative information at all about Obama's close friends is therefore a hit-or-miss proposition. I have said this repeatedly and it bears repeating again: readers of this one article deserve to know the whole truth about the whole man, including the unsavory characters he has closely associated with for so many years. It should be in summary form of course, but all of it should be here, both the good and the bad. This version is carefully sanitized and leaves the impression that Obama has never made an error in judgment. Negative details about Barack Obama's political rivals, Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, have stayed in this article unmolested for months. Therefore the argument against including negative details about Obama's dear friends and political allies collapses.
The so called "inflammatory and unnecessary sub-headings" are "Early primary victories" (again pointing to the greatness and glory that is Barack Obama) and "Wright, Ayers and later primaries." Hardly inflammatory. Not inflammatory at all, in fact rather bland, and necessary to break up the long swath of gray text. Opponents of this version can't show consensus for their version. They have stooped to misrepresenting this version and every detail about it. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - This is an article, not a pro-Obama ad. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before, the choice you are opposing is not the choice of anybody. It is a figment of Kossack's imagination. Also, "consensus" has nothing to do with voting. You cannot build consensus with black and white arguments, because that creates division. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the digression is clearly not relevant to this article, the insertions of rants against Ayers by User:Fovean Author would be a gross violation of WP:BLP even if put into Ayer's own article. The nonsense s/he inserted was:
In point of fact, there was never any "murderous armored car robbery" (neither with nor without Ayer's participation). Instead, from Weatherman (organization):
Libel is not WP's policy! (and neither is this biography a place to transclude the article that already exists on the Weather Underground). LotLE× talk 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)The Brink's robbery of 1981 ( October 20, 1981) was an armed robbery carried out by Black Liberation Army members Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon), Samuel Smith and Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), Cecilio "Chui" Ferguson, Samuel Brown (aka Solomon Bouines), several members of the Weather Underground ( David Gilbert, Samuel Brown, Judith Alice Clark, Kathy Boudin, and Marilyn Buck), and an unknown number of accomplices. [12] They stole $1.6 million from a Brink's armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York, killing two police officers, Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and a Brinks guard, Peter Paige.
In an effort to better demonstrate the importance of William Ayers in Obama's life, I've included the well-founded Politico.com story of Obama being vetted by Alice Palmer to Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn in 1995. Note that Obama has NEVER denied that this happened, and fellow liberal Quentin Young testifies to it. So, you can see, Ayers was right there fo the beginning of Obama's political history. Fovean Author ( talk) 05:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
— Justmeherenow ( ) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up "a gentleman named William Ayers," who "was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that." Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama's answer: "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George." Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers' Weathermen tried to murder me. In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. [...] The same [Greenwich Village Weatherman] cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings.... ----JOHN M. MURTAGH (from a few weeks ago in The New York Daily News)
So let me try to understand this: Obama has met a couple people who were once charged with felonies, but had all charges against them dismissed before trial (i.e. Ayers and Dohrn) Moreover, those same people of Obama's acquaintance have both said unpopular things, and even had past friendships with people who were convicted of acts of violence.... and all of this has the slightest thread of a connection to a WP bio on Obama, how?! LotLE× talk 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out to you guys that there never has been any consensus to your edits and even if there is one person who speaks up against them, then there is no consensus. Plus also your edits are breaking all sorts of wiki rules too numerous to name. Lastly, this is an article about Obama, not Write, Rezco, or Ayers.
I feel it is about time that an admin(s) step in to resolve this dispute. Brothejr ( talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Obama campaign volunteers who have taken control of this article are being unreasonable. There should be some mention of the "unrepentant terrorist" past of Bill Ayers and the felony trial of Tony Rezko, particularly since the trial is about political fundraising, and Rezko's link to Obama is his political fundraising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorkerBee74 ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the repeated attempts to add a controversies section to the article. Granted, different controversies have been and are going to be in the media. But highlighting any of them, yet alone sectioning them together, is undue weight; a synthesis of highlighting, defining, characterizing and framing the 2008 campaign; a partisan tactic that should not be mimicked in the structure of this article's mainspace. Modocc ( talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OPPOSE. Re Scjessey (in next section): Not gonna argue wid the esteemed Mr. Wales. — Justmeherenow ( ) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
SUPPORT. According to Jimmy Wales, as a general rule editors should spread any criticism through the article, not delete it. But WP:CRIT also includes examples of why criticism, in some cases, could be included in a single section. Here, we were dealing with events of the presidential campaign in chronological order. And conveniently enough, in the long hiatus in the primaries before Pennsylvania, all of these controversies boiled up. Since the rest of the section is in chronological order, the controversies about Wright, Rezko and Ayers should be briefly described in chronological order in that section. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
... regarding Wright, Ayers and Rezko. Per Jimmy Wales' admonition in WP:CRIT. It isn't Jimbo's position that all criticism and controversy should be deleted on sight by Scjessey and his friends. Jimbo's position is that the criticism should stay in the article, but be spread throughout the article rather than being concentrated in one "troll magnet" section. Jimbo says that any criticism and controversy should be woven into the entire fabric of the article, not deleted. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served with William Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. [13] media attention has been drawn to Obama's association with university professors Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were co-founders of the Weather Underground, a radical anti-war group that bombed several locations in the United States in the early 1970s. Ayers has admitted deploying explosives. Ayers and Dohrn hosted the announcement of Obama's first run for office in 1996. [14] Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician, remembered being present at this introductory meeting, and described Ayers and Obama's relationship as "casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation." [15] Obama's association with Bill Ayers was also questioned in an ABC debate. Former radical activist Bill Ayers had joined Obama on the Woods Foundation board in 1999 [13] and had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. [16]
[... ...]
Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp. [17] which is co-owned by his long-time political supporter Tony Rezko. Obama has also faced media scrutiny concerning his relationship with Tony Rezko, a land developer on trial for 24 felony charges, most related to political fundraising. On the first day of fundraising for Obama's first political campaign, more than half the money came from companies controlled by Rezko. [18] [19] [20] Rezko raised over $250,000 for Obama's political campaigns; recently, Obama donated about $160,000 of this money to charity. [21] [22] Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.
I invite comment both here and here. — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Endless edit warring is getting us nowhere. What we need is a reasonable, civil discussion about each of the specific details that the self-styled "inclusionists" want to include. Once we have achieved a reasonable consensus on an item, we can integrate it into an appropriate place in the the article and move on to the next item. There are three specific associations that are being warred over at the moment. These are:
There is no doubt in my mind that some mention of all three of these associations should be made. What needs to be agreed upon is the weight of each inclusion.
See liberal comments above and these comments. I believe that the article should focus mainly on Obama. But relevant links from past to present, as he is an elected offical and running for President of the US should strongly be considered.
As a first example, I would like to initiate a meaningful discussion on how much Ayers-related text there should be. Consider these options (and these are bare-bones examples that do not necessarily reflect how I think they should be written):
And so on....
You can see we have a sliding scale of increasing detail and negativity. What we need to do is to come to some sort of agreement about how far along that scale we want to go, and then duplicate the process with the other "controversies". The second example above was the original text agreed upon by an earlier consensus (see talk page archive), but now we have a push to include more details that are not part of Obama's biography. My personal preference would be for option 1 on the scale above, because I think this is a campaign only issue and should be in the campaign article; however, I have already agreed to the text of option 2. I'd like to get civil opinions on what the best option would be (bearing in mind these are only example texts, and could be rewritten). -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Nothing that doesn't matter in a biography of Nicholas II of Russia matters any more in this biography..."
I've taken a closer look at the arguments of those who feel so strongly that the details of the Rezko, Ayers, and Wright stuff be left out. I think I understand this debate a little bit better now. Fundamentally, this is not a debate between pro-Obamist and anti-Obamist POV pushers. This is a debate between those who feel the article should present politically relevant information about Senator Obama and those who feel it should be limited to a biographical account of Obama's life.
One one hand, folks don't want the article to exit the bounds of what belongs in a BLP. They know a lot of thought and hard work has been put into defining the standards for what goes into the different types of Wikipedia articles, and they want to make sure those standards are followed.
Other folks know people will be coming to this article to inform themselves about Senator Obama and to aid in their decision about whether or not to vote for him. They know Wikipedia is one of the only places in this world where people expect to find unbiased and non-exclusive facts without spin or sensationalized accounts. Thus, they want to make sure all the facts relevant to Obama's electability get in so that no one walks away with a distorted view when they were counting on getting something else.
I'd like to offer a reconciliation of these perspectives on the grounds that the facts relevant to Obama's electability are within the bounds set up by Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.
While I'm no expert on Wikipedia policy, from what I understand the fundamental criterion for what belongs in an article is notability. Wikipedicity of facts is by definition their level of relevance to the subject of an article's notability.
To contrast with Nicholas II of Russia, Senator Obama's primary notability is by far his status as a presidential candidate, participant in one of the tightest and most dynamic democratic primaries in history, and person who a vast number of people are deciding whether or not they would vote for as president. Any facts that reflect in a significant way on Obama's status as electable (for a significant number of people) are thus relevant to his notability and belong in the article. This would include the nominal details (enough to get a picture of what the issue is and why people care about it) of the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues.
Floorsheim ( talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
) — Justmeherenow ( ) 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, best known recently as friends of Barack Obama, disappeared in 1969 after two of their colleagues in the Weather Underground died while building a bomb. Ayers and Dohrn spent 11 years setting off bombs and putting out statements threatening violent revolution. They promised to kill innocent Americans and praised the lunatic murderer Charles Manson....----TIME
Controversy is completely relevant in any election. Someone please add the fact that Obama, only one month before distancing himself from Rev. Wright, sayd that he could not dump Wright any more than his gandmother, or something like that. I don't have the quote handy, but I remember hearing it on the news. However, it shows how he is able to flip on a moments notice when political pressure demands it. This behavior suggests that either he has no moral convictions, or will say anything to please whoever is listening. Very relevant observations of character. 68.177.12.38 ( talk) 12:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ted.
Michelle Obama does not warrant a mention in the very first paragraph. Unlike Bill Clinton, who is crucially important in Hillary Clinton's article and therefore needs such a prominent mention, Michelle Obama is of secondary importance. It should either be moved to a later point in the lead section where his personal life is specifically being discussed (presumably the second paragraph), or removed from the lead section altogether. My personal recommendation is currently to simply remove it: there is no particularly smooth point in the current lead section where it could be placed, and Michelle Obama is about as important to Barack Obama as Laura Bush is to George W. Bush. Thus, for the same reason Laura Bush is nowhere mentioned in Bush's lead section, Michelle Obama need not be mentioned anywhere in Obama's lead section. - Silence ( talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a bit of WP:BRD and reverted the lead back to referencing Obama as just "a candidate" for the Democratic presidential candidate. Neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough pledged delegates to cross the 2,108 delegate threshold after all the primaries/caucuses have been held and, as of now, Obama doesn't have enough superdelegates to push him over that threshold. Until one of the candidates drops out, or the other crosses that threshold, it is probably best to not say that Obama is the "presumptive nominee". Of course, if anyone wants to disagree with me, you're more than welcome to include your explanation of such here. -- Bobblehead (rants) 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the latest story that is unleashing the "presumptive nominee" and "Clinton has dropped out" edits. Problem is if you go over to CNN, there's Clinton's advisors saying she's in for the long haul. Heh. All in all, still need to wait until Clinton makes it official. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."-- Bobblehead (rants) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The official "clinch" number is now 2,118, according to the source we are using for delegate numbers (CNN), and Obama has 2,1022,106 delegates. Until he reaches 2,118, or he is widely reported as the presumptive nominee, we should hold off.
johnpseudo 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In comparison to some of the above debate, I think I have an uncontroversial issue. In the horizontal box at the bottom of the page entitled "United States Senate", the words "Served alongside: Richard Durbin" appear. But since Obama and Durbin are both senators at the moment, shouldn't this text be in the present tense? I don't know how to modify it. DO56 ( talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The United States has had many influential/major political parties over the last two-hundred and some odd years, so why are we restricting it to just Democratic and Republican? I'd suggest rephrasing it to "the first African American candidate of any major American political party," or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arexkun ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
May be a little early to say, but should Obama be elected, or even during his run for the presidency itself (he seems highly likely to be the democratic candidate) this article is going to see huge (near mammoth) attention, and issues that currently affect almost all major political leader articles will affect this one. As this is currently a FA, I worry that this may place it's star in danger, with the likelihood of FAR cropping up more as changes come and go with such great frequency.
Do the users who normally regulate this article have any thoughts/plans to help maintain the FA quality of this article during this time? SGGH speak! 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Since we're mentioning his family ties to Jefferson Davis, it's probably worth noting that Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins. 205.167.180.130 ( talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Obama probably inherited a minute fraction — one divided by two to the 11th power — of Mareen Duvall's genome, which would amount to less than one gene, assuming the Y chromosome was not inherited. Much the same would be true of Mr. Cheney."--NYT — Justmeherenow ( ) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony Rezko was covered with fair weight in Obama's "personal life" section. I have removed the second Rezko plug in the "early life" section. Shem (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Obama is the first African American to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party, [23] and the first to be born in Hawaii. [24]
In his victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, Obama said: "After 54 hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end. Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Because of you tonight I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America." Paying tribute to his rival Hillary Clinton, he said she had made him a "better candidate". He congratulated her on the race she had run "throughout this contest" and also praised former president Bill Clinton's economic policies. In her own speech in New York, Clinton showed no sign of suspending her presidential campaign. She told cheering supporters: "Now the question is, 'Where do we go from here?' And given how far we've come, and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight." Earlier, she had signaled her interest in joining Obama's ticket as a potential vice-president. [25]
Why does the spoken version of the article include statements about drug abuse when the actual article contains no such thing? Rallefar ( talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Kossack4Truth has been, rightly, blocked for repeated 3RR. That's a relief. When that 48 hours ends, let's report the next violation promptly, which will hopefully result in a longer block than 48 hours. Admins tend to escalate these periods in a sensible way (it's a mixed bag, but mostly).
FWIW, I'd really appreciate it, Justmeherenow, if you don't rant about some false equivalence between Kossack4Truth's edit-warring, and the efforts of some responsible editors (like myself) to remove vandalistic POV additions... and still more, don't put in the unencyclopedic stuff yourself either. LotLE× talk 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey I agree, Kossack4Truth should have his chance too when hes returned, we should give him a chance, we dont want any decision to be accused of bias, all sides must speak. Is his talk page locked? He could express his wish from his talk page if that doesnt breach any policy regarding blocks. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"He is the first African American to win the nomination of any major American political party. "
Technically, he hasn't won it yet (as even stated in the prior sentence). Perhaps rephrase this to "He will be... "
We're calling him African-American. Except, he's half African-American and half white. I see this as erroneous reporting both here and in the press. It's like calling Tiger Woods African American (which he strongly protests). Maybe it might be proper to say "the first multiracial candidate to win..." It's certainly more correct. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The last section is rather glowing. Where's all the negative baggage associated with him? The article shouldn't dwell on the inane criticisms that others have lobbed Obama's way, but neither should it kick back and parrot the praise of his supporters. The section currently consists of unqualified praise, without pointing out that there are many, many people who don't like Obama precisely because of his "cultural image." Fishal ( talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
isnt not liking him because of his "cultural image" just a posh term for racism? 92.21.85.57 ( talk) 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Fishal. The Cultural and Political Perception section does not at all portray a realistic picture. Possibly for the simple reason that it's outdated. Everything referenced in there comes from 2007 or earlier. Much has changed since then. To me, facts pertaining to the Wright, etc. controversies and reactions thereto by the public should, logically, be presented in that section. There should also be information concerning Obama's apparent lack of appeal to white working class males along with notably-sourced opinions concerning what might be the reason for that. Furthermore, there should be mention of and an expansion on the reactions to his "A More Perfect Union" speech. Perhaps by including these in this section, we could aid the consensus building process concerning how the Campaign and Personal/Early Life sections should be written.
Also, sorry for being MIA for the past few days. Am in the middle of moving. Should be on again Sunday. -- Floorsheim ( talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The fifth paragraph of this article's "Presidential campaign" section does a good & fair job of summarizing the evolution of Obama's relationship with Trinity United Church of Christ, but the Ayers plug in the middle of it was a ham-fisted insertion of a one-night debate mini-controversy the likes of which are far better suited for the campaign's sub-article. No one can argue that Stephanopoulos' Ayers question has come even remotely close to the coverage of Wright, Pflager, TUCC, etc -- one is a twenty-year card-carrying-member association which has had pervasive effects upon Obama and his campaign (certainly worthy of inclusion in Obama's biography), while the other barely lasted one news cycle. This is a POV weighting problem, and needs to be treated as such. Shem (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a tally of votes. This is not accurate. Look at Ron Paul. 90% support him on the internet, 5% in reality. So we should use judgement, not voting. Tack69 ( talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This section is not complete. Many images are not listed.
Positive: change, very good speaker, very smart in political strategy, very good when speaking from a podium, that he's wrongly called a Muslim.
Negative: elitest, limited foreign policy experience, relies on a teleprompter or gets flustered, not as good in a town hall format.
All these have reliable sources. Administrators wrote elsewhere that political commentary is ok if reliable sources are used.
So include all of these and more or consider not having any of it. Is there a concensus for including all images or just to include positive images. Tack69 ( talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The article should state, "He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote, opposed by a relatively weak candidate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2004)." 68.40.88.242 ( talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be in the intro. His diversity is one of his defining characteristics. What does everyone think? JackWilliams ( talk) 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Because, he's labeled African-American in the very onset of this travesty of an article. A myriad of people read just the first paragraph of this article and get misinformation. 71.195.153.149 ( talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because he self-identifies as it doesn't make it correct. If he called himself Asian, there would be some asterisk explaining it away. This has been worn throughout the discussion pages and you people still don't get it. 71.195.153.149 ( talk) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Project for Excellence in Journalism has named Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ the most dominant issue of this primary season's media coverage (worth taking the time to read). I'd say we can safely retire most of the Wright/TUCC debate to pasture. Shem (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me the X-SAMPA, or more accurately CXS, but I can't type IPA easily on this keyboard. Anyway, his first name is transcribed as [b@'ra:k], which looks outright wrong, as no major stabdard dialect of English afaik has [a:] (some British accents do, but they're not standard). From [16], assuming that the author has the father-bother merger, his first name should probably be transcribed [b@'rA:k] (which, incidentally, isn't now British newsreaders, and thus most British people, pronounce it; they always say [b@'rak]). His middle name seems to also have a rather different one than I'm used to ([h@sein]), but this could just be the subcontinental pronunciation. But the transcription of the last name definitely seems wrong too: it uses [a:], but also has final [a], which is impossible because /a/ is a lax consonant and can't be in an open syllable. From the linked reference, I can guess it should be [oU'bA:m@], but it's less clear. I use this transcription because that's also how all the newsreaders say it, so it has some currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.35.238 ( talk) 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Obama is noted in the media for his liberal leaning viewpoints. Other editors seem to have a problem with the use of "liberal" or "left" in noting Obama's political views. I believe that relevant adjectives that can be backed up or are common knowledge are fair game when describing a politician's views. Ronald Reagan was labled "right wing". I see no reason why the same would not apply to Obama as "left wing".
I removed Obama from the category "converts to Christianity" and it should not be replaced, unless someone can add a fully cited reference to this so-called conversion. I believe he is being included in that category specifically to try to categorize him as growing up something other than Christian, or as a non-christian. He has made many statements about his beliefs, but it's not fair to try to lump him into anyone's religious corner. A lot of non-supporters would likely want to paint Obama as a "former muslim"; in the same vein, a lot of Christian supporters might want to call him a "convert to their own faith". Then there's also the possibility of those who, for different motivation, want to categorize him as "not a true Christian, because he is from a Muslim background." Hence, I removed him - I don't think he fits into the category, and I think the category itself is extremely faulty. Dmodlin71 ( talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the Category:United Church of Christ members may need to be removed as per Obama's recent resignation from that congregation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Michael Kinsley ironically relates that Dohrn and Ayers "write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as 'activists' who have never abandoned their noble ideals." An encyclopedia can do better. I've
boldly edited Ayers' mainspace description to read former radical activists Ayers.
— Justmeherenow
( ) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Obama did not belong to another religion prior to his becoming a Christian doesn't change the fact that he was not raised a Christian, but subsequently became one. And that seems to be the only requirement Wikipedia is using to determine who is a "convert": you needn't have "switched" from a different religion.
Obama was baptized in 1988, at age 27; he first began attending Church at around the same time. There is no indication that he ever had even an inkling of faith in the divinity of Jesus beforehand; we don't even know if he believed in God. His own writings and public statements prove beyond reasonable doubt that he became a Christian in his late 20s, which makes him a convert to Christianity.
Despite the fact that I am both a non-Christian and an Obama-supporter, it seems clear to me that if not just people like Pocahontas and Cyprian, but also people like Gabriel Marcel and William J. Murray, are included in Category:Converts to Christianity and its subsategories, then Obama unambiguously belongs in the category as well. Besides, he's already listed on List of people who converted to Christianity. We should not be inconsistent in what we report, nor should we allow our political agendas (which seem to have motivated some of us to obscure Obama's nonreligious background in order to defend against ridiculous accusations of an Islamic upbringing) to cause us to hide the facts. - Silence ( talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be three objections to including the category:
If you think the category is inherently unusable, then nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, it belongs on Obama's page as much as anyone's. - Silence ( talk) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually a bit convinced by Wnt's observation above about becoming Xtian after being more-or-less indifferent as a child/young-adult, and becoming one after being stridently atheist before that. I'm still not impressed by the offhand coffee shop comment (not even in Iowa before the primary). However, there's definitely a big difference between William J. Murray and Obama in this regard. In any case, I've never inserted the category on the article, and don't plan to myself (even while still leaning slightly towards its appropriateness).
As to B's comment about the evangelical stuff: that's pretty specific to a certain collection of denominations, Catholics and many non-evangelical Protestant groups pretty much just being born in the faith, and remaining there unless something specific is done to leave it. A Catholic, for example, is supposed to do various things (attend mass, confess, lay off the sins, etc), but someone who doesn't do that is still generally considered a Catholic if they don't get excommunicated or become Muslim (or become vocally athiest, etc). LotLE× talk 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
His immediate resumption of edit warring aside, Kossak4Truth's recent alteration of the article's section titles pretty clearly constitutes an attempt at creating a dedicated "Controversy" section; this article's FA status rests partly upon its avoidance of such poorly written features, nor should we depart from that standard with a section titled "Wright, Ayers and later primaries." Shem (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[out] Strongly adding my voice against adding a controversy section - that battle has been fought and won many times over on many articles. It is poor writing and a POV playground. Tvoz/ talk 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) See also: Sullivan, Andrew (
March 16
2008).
"For The Record". The Daily Dish. The Atlantic. Retrieved 2008-03-18. {{
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) See also:
Noonan, Peggy (2008-03-21).
"A Thinking Man's Speech". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
{{
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Author=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
"After Super Tuesday, Obama won the eleven remaining February primaries and caucuses.[85] Obama and Clinton split delegates and states nearly equally in Vermont, Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island.[86]"
I know it says he had an 11 state straight win before hillary stopped it with Ohio. But isnt it 12 wins? Vermont was called in Obamas favour just before she got Ohio. Can this be checked please. Also I like all the trimming down, its much better. I has concerns about that second line though, its nothing major, but that was perceieved as a good night for Hillary, more so than Obama. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The delegates from F and M have been counted, with a few mathematical adjustments to ensure Obama keeps the delegate lead. Clinton gets quite a lot more delegates than obama but it wont be enough. That means however she now takes the lead in the popular vote. We can get the sources together and decide how to word it all. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As I write, User:Andyvphil and User:Kossack4Truth are adding their POV material to the article, violating several policies and ignoring a number of guidelines and essays. There has been no attempt by Andy to discuss the matter on this talk page, despite the fact he is just emerged from a week-long block for this kind of tendentious editing. The discussion on the Admin board includes a comment from an administrator that argues how inappropriate this stuff is, yet this has been ignored. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikifaith is a faith in the wiki model of web development -- itself simply a technology based on a faith and trust in the positive balance of human nature. Those who tend to be exclusionist demand hard controls and limits to wiki do so because their wikifaith is weak, or they are in fact unbelievers in wiki -- a paradoxical contradiction considering that many such people are active Wikipedians.----WIKIMEDIA: META WIKI — Justmeherenow ( ) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[exdent]In the game of basketball, what Brothejr and Scjessey are doing is called a full court press. They are monitoring the article on a full-time basis, relying on the idea that during any 24-hour period, the two of them have more reverts available under WP:3RR than any people like us who may happen to show up and believe in WP:NPOV. They make false accusations, they never ever apologize, they take it to WP:ANI and WP:3RR whenever they are able, and they have generally made this article into a full-time job for themselves, hoping the rest of us don't have the time or the will to resist. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Obama's association with Ayers has only been negative from a campaign standpoint, and only because right-wing apologists who are desperate for their party to cling to power have tried to make it so. There you go again, Scjessey, trying to dismiss George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, former press secretary for Democratic president Bill Clinton, as a "right-wing apologist who is desperate for his party [the Republicans] to cling to power." Stephanopoulos is, without a doubt, a Democrat.
This is just the latest example of the distortion and spin-doctoring coming from Obama fanboys on this article. I repeat, it isn't just right-wing partisans and crazy sites like Newsmax that focus on Wright, Ayers and Rezko. It's Stephanopoulos and the rest of the mainstream media as well. It's Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who support her. It's also Michael Barone of National Review and other highly respected, credible conservatives. Scjessey pretends that it's only "Republican tools" who are interested in this story. He pretends that any WP editor who wants this article to be NPOV is also an "Obama hater," even "racist."
I want WP:NPOV in this article, including all significant points of view, including Obama's many critics.
And I want Scjessey and Brothejr to refactor their lies and apologize to me. End your edit warring, end your personal attacks and lies, and accept this consensus. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Plan and simple, POV is seeing any stuff non-apologetic as venom. While I am (possibly other contributors are) Chomskyist, according to what distortions of reality are produced by the lenses of folks whose coverage tends toward hagiography, apparently any coverage given to the Dohrn/Ayers affair (...even by Michael Kinsley!) is only Buckleyism. — Justmeherenow ( ) 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well any cut will bring us closer to a consensus so it is an improvement. I advise all parties to discuss before we make edits, not just me and you, we still need the pro obama people here too. We should build something on the talk page or another page and bring it over here, please dont break 3RR. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please explain how Obama's campaign staff took control of his Wikipedia biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorkerBee74 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I added that 5 losses to the article. I will also be adding the popular vote thing if she takes him in that at the end. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle has published a six-part series on the intimate, intricate, intertwined relationship between Obama and Rezko. Lest anyone claim that she is a paid Republican Party operative employed by the evil Karl Rove, she also has some very harsh words for George Ryan, former Republican governor of Illinois. Among other gems from Pringle: "Obama was Rezko's inside man in the Illinois Senate" and "Rezko was Obama's political Godfather."
Pringle points out that in the Illinois Senate in the spring of 2003, Obama pushed through legislation that would enable Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich to pack a state hospital planning board with his political allies. This planning board controls hundreds of millions of dollars intended for the construction of hospitals and nursing homes and now Blago's political allies control all that cash. Within weeks after Obama ramrodded that new law through the Illinois legislature, the very same political allies Blago appointed to that planning board (and their wives) were pouring thousands and thousands of dollars into Obama's US Senate campaign. The mastermind of the entire scheme was Tony Rezko. All of this is exquisitely documented in the Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune, the Illinois legislative record and OpenSecrets.org, the public record of political donations to presidential, Senate and House campaigns.
Evelyn Pringle's Introduction: [1]
Part 1: [2]
Part 2: [3]
Part 3: [4]
Part 4: [5]
Part 5: [6]
Part 6: [7]
This series of articles is being syndicated across the Internet on such websites as Scoop.co.nz and Countercurrents.org. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Lulu 3R'd on the page within the last 24 hour period going OTT via her removal of the article's "Controversies" section. — Justmeherenow ( ) 00:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
All those supporting the current version, which has forbidden all quotations from Obama spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright that were included by previous consensus, any mention of William Ayers' unrepentant bomb-tossing past, any mention of the felony charges against Tony Rezko related to political fund raising, any mention of $250,000 in fund raising that Rezko has done for Obama, any mention of the $20,000 from straw donors that was steered to Obama by Rezko, any word of criticism against Obama from any conservative or moderate no matter how notable, and any word of criticism directed at Obama that comes from a progressive except "Senate clubbiness," please indicate your support below.
[exdent]I don't see any consensus yet. And because you and your allies here have reverted every word of criticism except "Senate clubbiness" from a progressive, you are the one creating this choice, not me. I fully understand basic human nature. Basic human nature led me to this article before I cast my vote in the primary, and I didn't see one word about Wright's "God damn America" sermon, Bill Ayers and his bomb-tossing past, or Tony Rezko and his 24 felony charges for fund raising violations. So I voted for Obama. I'm sure millions of other voters, because they were unaware of all these unsavory characters in Obama's inner circle, made a similar choice.
Now that I've found out about them, basic human nature makes me feel deeply disappointed, and even betrayed.
By Wikipedia.
Now that the rest of the country has found out about them, Obama is no longer the unstoppable juggernaut that he appeared to be in February. Readers of Wikipedia deserve to know both halves of the truth in one article. It needs to be summarized, to be sure. But it all needs to be here, both the bad and the good. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 12:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[exdent]I have presented your version for statements of support and opposition here. I still don't see any consensus in your favor. If nobody agrees with my point of view and everyone agrees with yours, then they will express their support for yours here, won't they?
All those who support Scjessey's version of this article, with zero quotations from Obama's spiritual mentor, zero criticisms from anyone except "Senate clubbiness" from a fellow progressive, and zero details about any of his unsavory associates (but plenty of unsavory details about his political opponents such as Blair Hull and Jack Ryan), please state your support below. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Equals more boring. — Justmeherenow ( ) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Bryan's participation in the highly publicized 1925 Scopes Trial served as a capstone to his career. He was asked by William Bell Riley to represent the World Christian Fundamentals Association as counsel at the trial. During the trial Bryan took the stand and was questioned by defense lawyer Clarence Darrow about his views on the Bible.
Biologist Stephen Jay Gould has speculated that Bryan's antievolution views were a result of his Populist idealism and suggests that Bryan's fight was really against Social Darwinism. Others, such as biographer Michael Kazin, reject that conclusion based on Bryan's failure during the trial to attack the eugenics in the textbook, Civic Biology.(hummh?) The national media reported the trial in great detail,with H. L. Mencken using Bryan as a symbol of Southern ignorance and anti-intellectualism.(What does this muckraker Mencken know?) The trial concluded with a directed verdict of guilty, which the defense encouraged, as their aim was to take the law itself to a higher court in order to challenge its constitutionality.
[exdent]Regarding the Wright paragraph, I only claim that there was a consensus for the longer version that includes quotes from Wright, and that there has been no demonstration of any consensus for the new, abbreviated version that Lulu and Scjessey keep trying to resurrect. It is dead until a new consensus has been clearly demonstrated on this page. Lulu and Scjessey, please show that you have a new consensus or stop reverting. Thank you.
Now let's talk about that quotation from Fred Siegel in the National Review. He's notable and the publication is notable and reliable. There are abundant quotations and trivial facts galore about Obama, all of which make him seem absolutely wonderful and completely perfect. They come from fellow progressives. But there is another significant body of opinion out there. Let's not pretend that conservatives don't exist. Let's not pretend that critics of Obama do not exist. Let's include at least one quotation from one fairly representative conservative critic. That's what WP:NPOV means to me in this context.
It seems to me that Andyvphil, Fovean Author, Justmeherenow, and Kossack4Truth have formed consensus supporting the version that includes Wright quotations, includes a Siegel quotation, and clearly states the negative information about Ayers and Rezko, just as the negative information about Obama's political rivals Blair Hull and Jack Ryan has stayed undisturbed in this article for so many months. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's 23-year relationship to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. [1] ABC News found and excerpted racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright, including his assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "state terrorism" and his assertion that, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." [1] [2] Some of Wright's statements were widely criticized as anti-American. [3] [4] Following negative media coverage and a drop in the polls, [5] Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks, ending his relationship with the campaign, [6] and delivering a speech entitled " A More Perfect Union" at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [7] In the speech, Obama rejected some of Wright's comments, but refused to disown the man himself, noting his lifelong ministry to the poor and past service as a US Marine. [8] The speech, which sought to place Wright's anger in a larger historical context, was well-received by many liberals and some conservatives, [8] [9] [10] but others, including various supporters of Hillary Clinton, continued to question the implications of Obama's long relationship with Wright. [9] [11]
— Justmeherenow ( ) 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)The worst ignorance is to think to know what one does not....if I should say that I am wiser than another, it would be that in not having competent knowledge of all things, I also think that I have not such knowledge.----SOCRATES
[exdent]Wright-related information is given in exhaustive detail in related (and linked) articles You mean banished to related (and linked) articles, don't you Scjessey? There are hundreds of links in this article. No one has the time to click on all of them. Finding any negative information at all about Obama's close friends is therefore a hit-or-miss proposition. I have said this repeatedly and it bears repeating again: readers of this one article deserve to know the whole truth about the whole man, including the unsavory characters he has closely associated with for so many years. It should be in summary form of course, but all of it should be here, both the good and the bad. This version is carefully sanitized and leaves the impression that Obama has never made an error in judgment. Negative details about Barack Obama's political rivals, Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, have stayed in this article unmolested for months. Therefore the argument against including negative details about Obama's dear friends and political allies collapses.
The so called "inflammatory and unnecessary sub-headings" are "Early primary victories" (again pointing to the greatness and glory that is Barack Obama) and "Wright, Ayers and later primaries." Hardly inflammatory. Not inflammatory at all, in fact rather bland, and necessary to break up the long swath of gray text. Opponents of this version can't show consensus for their version. They have stooped to misrepresenting this version and every detail about it. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - This is an article, not a pro-Obama ad. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before, the choice you are opposing is not the choice of anybody. It is a figment of Kossack's imagination. Also, "consensus" has nothing to do with voting. You cannot build consensus with black and white arguments, because that creates division. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the digression is clearly not relevant to this article, the insertions of rants against Ayers by User:Fovean Author would be a gross violation of WP:BLP even if put into Ayer's own article. The nonsense s/he inserted was:
In point of fact, there was never any "murderous armored car robbery" (neither with nor without Ayer's participation). Instead, from Weatherman (organization):
Libel is not WP's policy! (and neither is this biography a place to transclude the article that already exists on the Weather Underground). LotLE× talk 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)The Brink's robbery of 1981 ( October 20, 1981) was an armed robbery carried out by Black Liberation Army members Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon), Samuel Smith and Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), Cecilio "Chui" Ferguson, Samuel Brown (aka Solomon Bouines), several members of the Weather Underground ( David Gilbert, Samuel Brown, Judith Alice Clark, Kathy Boudin, and Marilyn Buck), and an unknown number of accomplices. [12] They stole $1.6 million from a Brink's armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York, killing two police officers, Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and a Brinks guard, Peter Paige.
In an effort to better demonstrate the importance of William Ayers in Obama's life, I've included the well-founded Politico.com story of Obama being vetted by Alice Palmer to Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn in 1995. Note that Obama has NEVER denied that this happened, and fellow liberal Quentin Young testifies to it. So, you can see, Ayers was right there fo the beginning of Obama's political history. Fovean Author ( talk) 05:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
— Justmeherenow ( ) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up "a gentleman named William Ayers," who "was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that." Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama's answer: "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George." Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers' Weathermen tried to murder me. In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. [...] The same [Greenwich Village Weatherman] cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings.... ----JOHN M. MURTAGH (from a few weeks ago in The New York Daily News)
So let me try to understand this: Obama has met a couple people who were once charged with felonies, but had all charges against them dismissed before trial (i.e. Ayers and Dohrn) Moreover, those same people of Obama's acquaintance have both said unpopular things, and even had past friendships with people who were convicted of acts of violence.... and all of this has the slightest thread of a connection to a WP bio on Obama, how?! LotLE× talk 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out to you guys that there never has been any consensus to your edits and even if there is one person who speaks up against them, then there is no consensus. Plus also your edits are breaking all sorts of wiki rules too numerous to name. Lastly, this is an article about Obama, not Write, Rezco, or Ayers.
I feel it is about time that an admin(s) step in to resolve this dispute. Brothejr ( talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Obama campaign volunteers who have taken control of this article are being unreasonable. There should be some mention of the "unrepentant terrorist" past of Bill Ayers and the felony trial of Tony Rezko, particularly since the trial is about political fundraising, and Rezko's link to Obama is his political fundraising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorkerBee74 ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the repeated attempts to add a controversies section to the article. Granted, different controversies have been and are going to be in the media. But highlighting any of them, yet alone sectioning them together, is undue weight; a synthesis of highlighting, defining, characterizing and framing the 2008 campaign; a partisan tactic that should not be mimicked in the structure of this article's mainspace. Modocc ( talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OPPOSE. Re Scjessey (in next section): Not gonna argue wid the esteemed Mr. Wales. — Justmeherenow ( ) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
SUPPORT. According to Jimmy Wales, as a general rule editors should spread any criticism through the article, not delete it. But WP:CRIT also includes examples of why criticism, in some cases, could be included in a single section. Here, we were dealing with events of the presidential campaign in chronological order. And conveniently enough, in the long hiatus in the primaries before Pennsylvania, all of these controversies boiled up. Since the rest of the section is in chronological order, the controversies about Wright, Rezko and Ayers should be briefly described in chronological order in that section. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
... regarding Wright, Ayers and Rezko. Per Jimmy Wales' admonition in WP:CRIT. It isn't Jimbo's position that all criticism and controversy should be deleted on sight by Scjessey and his friends. Jimbo's position is that the criticism should stay in the article, but be spread throughout the article rather than being concentrated in one "troll magnet" section. Jimbo says that any criticism and controversy should be woven into the entire fabric of the article, not deleted. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Between 1993 and 2002, Obama served with William Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization providing grants to Chicago's disadvantaged people and communities. [13] media attention has been drawn to Obama's association with university professors Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were co-founders of the Weather Underground, a radical anti-war group that bombed several locations in the United States in the early 1970s. Ayers has admitted deploying explosives. Ayers and Dohrn hosted the announcement of Obama's first run for office in 1996. [14] Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician, remembered being present at this introductory meeting, and described Ayers and Obama's relationship as "casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation." [15] Obama's association with Bill Ayers was also questioned in an ABC debate. Former radical activist Bill Ayers had joined Obama on the Woods Foundation board in 1999 [13] and had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 1996. [16]
[... ...]
Obama also did some work on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Rezmar Corp. [17] which is co-owned by his long-time political supporter Tony Rezko. Obama has also faced media scrutiny concerning his relationship with Tony Rezko, a land developer on trial for 24 felony charges, most related to political fundraising. On the first day of fundraising for Obama's first political campaign, more than half the money came from companies controlled by Rezko. [18] [19] [20] Rezko raised over $250,000 for Obama's political campaigns; recently, Obama donated about $160,000 of this money to charity. [21] [22] Obama has not been implicated in any wrongdoing.
I invite comment both here and here. — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Endless edit warring is getting us nowhere. What we need is a reasonable, civil discussion about each of the specific details that the self-styled "inclusionists" want to include. Once we have achieved a reasonable consensus on an item, we can integrate it into an appropriate place in the the article and move on to the next item. There are three specific associations that are being warred over at the moment. These are:
There is no doubt in my mind that some mention of all three of these associations should be made. What needs to be agreed upon is the weight of each inclusion.
See liberal comments above and these comments. I believe that the article should focus mainly on Obama. But relevant links from past to present, as he is an elected offical and running for President of the US should strongly be considered.
As a first example, I would like to initiate a meaningful discussion on how much Ayers-related text there should be. Consider these options (and these are bare-bones examples that do not necessarily reflect how I think they should be written):
And so on....
You can see we have a sliding scale of increasing detail and negativity. What we need to do is to come to some sort of agreement about how far along that scale we want to go, and then duplicate the process with the other "controversies". The second example above was the original text agreed upon by an earlier consensus (see talk page archive), but now we have a push to include more details that are not part of Obama's biography. My personal preference would be for option 1 on the scale above, because I think this is a campaign only issue and should be in the campaign article; however, I have already agreed to the text of option 2. I'd like to get civil opinions on what the best option would be (bearing in mind these are only example texts, and could be rewritten). -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Nothing that doesn't matter in a biography of Nicholas II of Russia matters any more in this biography..."
I've taken a closer look at the arguments of those who feel so strongly that the details of the Rezko, Ayers, and Wright stuff be left out. I think I understand this debate a little bit better now. Fundamentally, this is not a debate between pro-Obamist and anti-Obamist POV pushers. This is a debate between those who feel the article should present politically relevant information about Senator Obama and those who feel it should be limited to a biographical account of Obama's life.
One one hand, folks don't want the article to exit the bounds of what belongs in a BLP. They know a lot of thought and hard work has been put into defining the standards for what goes into the different types of Wikipedia articles, and they want to make sure those standards are followed.
Other folks know people will be coming to this article to inform themselves about Senator Obama and to aid in their decision about whether or not to vote for him. They know Wikipedia is one of the only places in this world where people expect to find unbiased and non-exclusive facts without spin or sensationalized accounts. Thus, they want to make sure all the facts relevant to Obama's electability get in so that no one walks away with a distorted view when they were counting on getting something else.
I'd like to offer a reconciliation of these perspectives on the grounds that the facts relevant to Obama's electability are within the bounds set up by Wikipedia's standards of inclusion.
While I'm no expert on Wikipedia policy, from what I understand the fundamental criterion for what belongs in an article is notability. Wikipedicity of facts is by definition their level of relevance to the subject of an article's notability.
To contrast with Nicholas II of Russia, Senator Obama's primary notability is by far his status as a presidential candidate, participant in one of the tightest and most dynamic democratic primaries in history, and person who a vast number of people are deciding whether or not they would vote for as president. Any facts that reflect in a significant way on Obama's status as electable (for a significant number of people) are thus relevant to his notability and belong in the article. This would include the nominal details (enough to get a picture of what the issue is and why people care about it) of the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues.
Floorsheim ( talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
) — Justmeherenow ( ) 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, best known recently as friends of Barack Obama, disappeared in 1969 after two of their colleagues in the Weather Underground died while building a bomb. Ayers and Dohrn spent 11 years setting off bombs and putting out statements threatening violent revolution. They promised to kill innocent Americans and praised the lunatic murderer Charles Manson....----TIME
Controversy is completely relevant in any election. Someone please add the fact that Obama, only one month before distancing himself from Rev. Wright, sayd that he could not dump Wright any more than his gandmother, or something like that. I don't have the quote handy, but I remember hearing it on the news. However, it shows how he is able to flip on a moments notice when political pressure demands it. This behavior suggests that either he has no moral convictions, or will say anything to please whoever is listening. Very relevant observations of character. 68.177.12.38 ( talk) 12:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ted.
Michelle Obama does not warrant a mention in the very first paragraph. Unlike Bill Clinton, who is crucially important in Hillary Clinton's article and therefore needs such a prominent mention, Michelle Obama is of secondary importance. It should either be moved to a later point in the lead section where his personal life is specifically being discussed (presumably the second paragraph), or removed from the lead section altogether. My personal recommendation is currently to simply remove it: there is no particularly smooth point in the current lead section where it could be placed, and Michelle Obama is about as important to Barack Obama as Laura Bush is to George W. Bush. Thus, for the same reason Laura Bush is nowhere mentioned in Bush's lead section, Michelle Obama need not be mentioned anywhere in Obama's lead section. - Silence ( talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a bit of WP:BRD and reverted the lead back to referencing Obama as just "a candidate" for the Democratic presidential candidate. Neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough pledged delegates to cross the 2,108 delegate threshold after all the primaries/caucuses have been held and, as of now, Obama doesn't have enough superdelegates to push him over that threshold. Until one of the candidates drops out, or the other crosses that threshold, it is probably best to not say that Obama is the "presumptive nominee". Of course, if anyone wants to disagree with me, you're more than welcome to include your explanation of such here. -- Bobblehead (rants) 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the latest story that is unleashing the "presumptive nominee" and "Clinton has dropped out" edits. Problem is if you go over to CNN, there's Clinton's advisors saying she's in for the long haul. Heh. All in all, still need to wait until Clinton makes it official. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."-- Bobblehead (rants) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The official "clinch" number is now 2,118, according to the source we are using for delegate numbers (CNN), and Obama has 2,1022,106 delegates. Until he reaches 2,118, or he is widely reported as the presumptive nominee, we should hold off.
johnpseudo 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In comparison to some of the above debate, I think I have an uncontroversial issue. In the horizontal box at the bottom of the page entitled "United States Senate", the words "Served alongside: Richard Durbin" appear. But since Obama and Durbin are both senators at the moment, shouldn't this text be in the present tense? I don't know how to modify it. DO56 ( talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The United States has had many influential/major political parties over the last two-hundred and some odd years, so why are we restricting it to just Democratic and Republican? I'd suggest rephrasing it to "the first African American candidate of any major American political party," or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arexkun ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
May be a little early to say, but should Obama be elected, or even during his run for the presidency itself (he seems highly likely to be the democratic candidate) this article is going to see huge (near mammoth) attention, and issues that currently affect almost all major political leader articles will affect this one. As this is currently a FA, I worry that this may place it's star in danger, with the likelihood of FAR cropping up more as changes come and go with such great frequency.
Do the users who normally regulate this article have any thoughts/plans to help maintain the FA quality of this article during this time? SGGH speak! 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Since we're mentioning his family ties to Jefferson Davis, it's probably worth noting that Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins. 205.167.180.130 ( talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Obama probably inherited a minute fraction — one divided by two to the 11th power — of Mareen Duvall's genome, which would amount to less than one gene, assuming the Y chromosome was not inherited. Much the same would be true of Mr. Cheney."--NYT — Justmeherenow ( ) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony Rezko was covered with fair weight in Obama's "personal life" section. I have removed the second Rezko plug in the "early life" section. Shem (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Obama is the first African American to be the presumptive nominee of a major political party, [23] and the first to be born in Hawaii. [24]
In his victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, Obama said: "After 54 hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end. Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Because of you tonight I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America." Paying tribute to his rival Hillary Clinton, he said she had made him a "better candidate". He congratulated her on the race she had run "throughout this contest" and also praised former president Bill Clinton's economic policies. In her own speech in New York, Clinton showed no sign of suspending her presidential campaign. She told cheering supporters: "Now the question is, 'Where do we go from here?' And given how far we've come, and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight." Earlier, she had signaled her interest in joining Obama's ticket as a potential vice-president. [25]
Why does the spoken version of the article include statements about drug abuse when the actual article contains no such thing? Rallefar ( talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Kossack4Truth has been, rightly, blocked for repeated 3RR. That's a relief. When that 48 hours ends, let's report the next violation promptly, which will hopefully result in a longer block than 48 hours. Admins tend to escalate these periods in a sensible way (it's a mixed bag, but mostly).
FWIW, I'd really appreciate it, Justmeherenow, if you don't rant about some false equivalence between Kossack4Truth's edit-warring, and the efforts of some responsible editors (like myself) to remove vandalistic POV additions... and still more, don't put in the unencyclopedic stuff yourself either. LotLE× talk 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey I agree, Kossack4Truth should have his chance too when hes returned, we should give him a chance, we dont want any decision to be accused of bias, all sides must speak. Is his talk page locked? He could express his wish from his talk page if that doesnt breach any policy regarding blocks. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"He is the first African American to win the nomination of any major American political party. "
Technically, he hasn't won it yet (as even stated in the prior sentence). Perhaps rephrase this to "He will be... "
We're calling him African-American. Except, he's half African-American and half white. I see this as erroneous reporting both here and in the press. It's like calling Tiger Woods African American (which he strongly protests). Maybe it might be proper to say "the first multiracial candidate to win..." It's certainly more correct. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The last section is rather glowing. Where's all the negative baggage associated with him? The article shouldn't dwell on the inane criticisms that others have lobbed Obama's way, but neither should it kick back and parrot the praise of his supporters. The section currently consists of unqualified praise, without pointing out that there are many, many people who don't like Obama precisely because of his "cultural image." Fishal ( talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
isnt not liking him because of his "cultural image" just a posh term for racism? 92.21.85.57 ( talk) 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Fishal. The Cultural and Political Perception section does not at all portray a realistic picture. Possibly for the simple reason that it's outdated. Everything referenced in there comes from 2007 or earlier. Much has changed since then. To me, facts pertaining to the Wright, etc. controversies and reactions thereto by the public should, logically, be presented in that section. There should also be information concerning Obama's apparent lack of appeal to white working class males along with notably-sourced opinions concerning what might be the reason for that. Furthermore, there should be mention of and an expansion on the reactions to his "A More Perfect Union" speech. Perhaps by including these in this section, we could aid the consensus building process concerning how the Campaign and Personal/Early Life sections should be written.
Also, sorry for being MIA for the past few days. Am in the middle of moving. Should be on again Sunday. -- Floorsheim ( talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The fifth paragraph of this article's "Presidential campaign" section does a good & fair job of summarizing the evolution of Obama's relationship with Trinity United Church of Christ, but the Ayers plug in the middle of it was a ham-fisted insertion of a one-night debate mini-controversy the likes of which are far better suited for the campaign's sub-article. No one can argue that Stephanopoulos' Ayers question has come even remotely close to the coverage of Wright, Pflager, TUCC, etc -- one is a twenty-year card-carrying-member association which has had pervasive effects upon Obama and his campaign (certainly worthy of inclusion in Obama's biography), while the other barely lasted one news cycle. This is a POV weighting problem, and needs to be treated as such. Shem (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a tally of votes. This is not accurate. Look at Ron Paul. 90% support him on the internet, 5% in reality. So we should use judgement, not voting. Tack69 ( talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This section is not complete. Many images are not listed.
Positive: change, very good speaker, very smart in political strategy, very good when speaking from a podium, that he's wrongly called a Muslim.
Negative: elitest, limited foreign policy experience, relies on a teleprompter or gets flustered, not as good in a town hall format.
All these have reliable sources. Administrators wrote elsewhere that political commentary is ok if reliable sources are used.
So include all of these and more or consider not having any of it. Is there a concensus for including all images or just to include positive images. Tack69 ( talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The article should state, "He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote, opposed by a relatively weak candidate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2004)." 68.40.88.242 ( talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be in the intro. His diversity is one of his defining characteristics. What does everyone think? JackWilliams ( talk) 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Because, he's labeled African-American in the very onset of this travesty of an article. A myriad of people read just the first paragraph of this article and get misinformation. 71.195.153.149 ( talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because he self-identifies as it doesn't make it correct. If he called himself Asian, there would be some asterisk explaining it away. This has been worn throughout the discussion pages and you people still don't get it. 71.195.153.149 ( talk) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Project for Excellence in Journalism has named Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ the most dominant issue of this primary season's media coverage (worth taking the time to read). I'd say we can safely retire most of the Wright/TUCC debate to pasture. Shem (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me the X-SAMPA, or more accurately CXS, but I can't type IPA easily on this keyboard. Anyway, his first name is transcribed as [b@'ra:k], which looks outright wrong, as no major stabdard dialect of English afaik has [a:] (some British accents do, but they're not standard). From [16], assuming that the author has the father-bother merger, his first name should probably be transcribed [b@'rA:k] (which, incidentally, isn't now British newsreaders, and thus most British people, pronounce it; they always say [b@'rak]). His middle name seems to also have a rather different one than I'm used to ([h@sein]), but this could just be the subcontinental pronunciation. But the transcription of the last name definitely seems wrong too: it uses [a:], but also has final [a], which is impossible because /a/ is a lax consonant and can't be in an open syllable. From the linked reference, I can guess it should be [oU'bA:m@], but it's less clear. I use this transcription because that's also how all the newsreaders say it, so it has some currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.35.238 ( talk) 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Obama is noted in the media for his liberal leaning viewpoints. Other editors seem to have a problem with the use of "liberal" or "left" in noting Obama's political views. I believe that relevant adjectives that can be backed up or are common knowledge are fair game when describing a politician's views. Ronald Reagan was labled "right wing". I see no reason why the same would not apply to Obama as "left wing".
I removed Obama from the category "converts to Christianity" and it should not be replaced, unless someone can add a fully cited reference to this so-called conversion. I believe he is being included in that category specifically to try to categorize him as growing up something other than Christian, or as a non-christian. He has made many statements about his beliefs, but it's not fair to try to lump him into anyone's religious corner. A lot of non-supporters would likely want to paint Obama as a "former muslim"; in the same vein, a lot of Christian supporters might want to call him a "convert to their own faith". Then there's also the possibility of those who, for different motivation, want to categorize him as "not a true Christian, because he is from a Muslim background." Hence, I removed him - I don't think he fits into the category, and I think the category itself is extremely faulty. Dmodlin71 ( talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the Category:United Church of Christ members may need to be removed as per Obama's recent resignation from that congregation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Michael Kinsley ironically relates that Dohrn and Ayers "write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as 'activists' who have never abandoned their noble ideals." An encyclopedia can do better. I've
boldly edited Ayers' mainspace description to read former radical activists Ayers.
— Justmeherenow
( ) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Obama did not belong to another religion prior to his becoming a Christian doesn't change the fact that he was not raised a Christian, but subsequently became one. And that seems to be the only requirement Wikipedia is using to determine who is a "convert": you needn't have "switched" from a different religion.
Obama was baptized in 1988, at age 27; he first began attending Church at around the same time. There is no indication that he ever had even an inkling of faith in the divinity of Jesus beforehand; we don't even know if he believed in God. His own writings and public statements prove beyond reasonable doubt that he became a Christian in his late 20s, which makes him a convert to Christianity.
Despite the fact that I am both a non-Christian and an Obama-supporter, it seems clear to me that if not just people like Pocahontas and Cyprian, but also people like Gabriel Marcel and William J. Murray, are included in Category:Converts to Christianity and its subsategories, then Obama unambiguously belongs in the category as well. Besides, he's already listed on List of people who converted to Christianity. We should not be inconsistent in what we report, nor should we allow our political agendas (which seem to have motivated some of us to obscure Obama's nonreligious background in order to defend against ridiculous accusations of an Islamic upbringing) to cause us to hide the facts. - Silence ( talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be three objections to including the category:
If you think the category is inherently unusable, then nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, it belongs on Obama's page as much as anyone's. - Silence ( talk) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually a bit convinced by Wnt's observation above about becoming Xtian after being more-or-less indifferent as a child/young-adult, and becoming one after being stridently atheist before that. I'm still not impressed by the offhand coffee shop comment (not even in Iowa before the primary). However, there's definitely a big difference between William J. Murray and Obama in this regard. In any case, I've never inserted the category on the article, and don't plan to myself (even while still leaning slightly towards its appropriateness).
As to B's comment about the evangelical stuff: that's pretty specific to a certain collection of denominations, Catholics and many non-evangelical Protestant groups pretty much just being born in the faith, and remaining there unless something specific is done to leave it. A Catholic, for example, is supposed to do various things (attend mass, confess, lay off the sins, etc), but someone who doesn't do that is still generally considered a Catholic if they don't get excommunicated or become Muslim (or become vocally athiest, etc). LotLE× talk 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
His immediate resumption of edit warring aside, Kossak4Truth's recent alteration of the article's section titles pretty clearly constitutes an attempt at creating a dedicated "Controversy" section; this article's FA status rests partly upon its avoidance of such poorly written features, nor should we depart from that standard with a section titled "Wright, Ayers and later primaries." Shem (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[out] Strongly adding my voice against adding a controversy section - that battle has been fought and won many times over on many articles. It is poor writing and a POV playground. Tvoz/ talk 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) See also: Sullivan, Andrew (
March 16
2008).
"For The Record". The Daily Dish. The Atlantic. Retrieved 2008-03-18. {{
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) See also:
Noonan, Peggy (2008-03-21).
"A Thinking Man's Speech". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
{{
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Author=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)