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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
After User:Loremaster added the term mulatto, I looked it up- had never heard it before. On the article it said it could be considered offensive to English-speakers, and as this is en-wiki, I think it might be best to use a different term? Larklight ( talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But he appears to have solved the problem himself :) Larklight ( talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
From Is Obama Black Enough? - TIME: "Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa."
Courtland Milloy - Obama and the Old Racial Bind - washingtonpost.com: "According to a recent survey by Zogby International, a majority of whites, 55 percent, classified Obama as "biracial," and 66 percent of blacks classified him as black."
Obama is biracial, yet he insists on referring to himself as an African-American. Couldn't he do more to stop: "racism by running as just an American instead of choosing to label himself according to one side of his genetics?"
There many reliable sources which identify Barack Obama as "biracial". Describing him in a Wikipedia article as a "biracial African American" is one of the best compromises. -- Loremaster ( talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we just say first biracial and African-American? The guy saying, "until we can get verifiability" is just splitting hairs because it is a well known fact that each of our past presidents has been at the least majority white. 71.195.153.149 ( talk) 13:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Has no other user considered the shadow of Blooming Grove? It's still not absolutely certain that a mixed-race American hasn't already served as president. Firstorm ( talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Almost all African-Americans have some white ancestors, so they're all biracial to one degree or another. So are those with Native American and/or Asian ancestors. So...what you're really asking is to set some exact standard of when someone becomes 'biracial'. What's next - a specific label for his daughters' race? The exercise is pointless, similar to arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Let's move on. Flatterworld ( talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, do you even know what biracial means? It means two. Most African-Americans don't have one white and one black parent. You move on: because you can't even understand the meaning of the prefix "bi." 71.195.153.149 ( talk) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Biracial means literally "two races." There is nothing in that definition concerning having one black parent and one white parent (or parents of two "pure" races). What about people who are born of parents who were both of mixed parentage, like the actor "Terrence Howard"? If you want to truly look at the idea of having "two races" in their DNA, most African-Americans (and even some Caucasian-Americans) have at least two races in their blood to varying degrees. Biracial is often constructed as a clear term, but in reality it is not as clear as some like it to be. Marinabreeze ( talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In this Salon article, Gary Kamiya (who is of mixed race himself) refers to Obama as "both black and biracial" and refers to him as "the first mixed-race nominee". I'll let others determine how best to incorporate this into the article, but now that there's a reliable source I agree that the introduction should acknowledge Obama's mixed racial heritage. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Another simple poll, ladies and gentlemen. WP:NPOV demands the inclusion of all significant POVs, including the POV that is questioning and criticizing Obama about his relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers. This is not a fringe POV. It is shared by mainstream journalists, by Hillary Clinton supporters in the Democratic Party, and by respected, credible conservatives. Do you support the inclusion of this POV, or do you oppose WP:NPOV and prefer to leave the article as it is - expressing only the POV of Obama's campaign manager?
Certain editors find that including the questioning/critical POV is not acceptable from their POV. These proponents have fallen prey to a number of failings, including perceiving their own bias as neutrality, misinterpreting and distorting WP:BLP to justify the deletion of any negative material at all about anyone associated with Obama, ascribing motives, and claiming that opposition to their proposed edits equates to support for the questioning/critical POV. Most editors are able to rise above this, but some are unable to work in a collaborative and collegial manner, and the worst of these may end up being excluded under Wikipedia's banning policy.
There is a tendency for certain editors in particular to seek administrative sanction against those they perceive as opponents. In the case of this article, the definition of "opponent" has in several cases included those who enforce Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and resist their attempts to skew content to be more overtly favorable to Obama. Kossack4Truth ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion topic is very unhelpful, as is the poll that looks like more of a rhetorical WP:POINT than any reasonable attempt to reach consensus Wikidemo ( talk) 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Point of order: One can't claim to support WP:NPOV while totally disregarding WP:NPOV#UNDUE. That aside, such loaded section titles are extremely unhelpful and're a terrible way to make a point. Shem (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense, Kossack, but I am closing this approach because it baits digressions like the one below. Looking forward to your participation in the other discussions. JJB 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, another one since it's so much fun:
Do you like puppies and butterflies, and therefore want encyclopedic articles; or do you kick children and want POV digressions here?
Many still want to know where & when his parents were married. A photocopy of his birth certificate should suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This site, as most of you know, is a wiki, which tries to allow as much freedom as possible in content management. Having an article indefinitely fully protected from editing is generally considered a sin against the spirit of the wiki, and this is doubly so when the article is as high profile as this one is. It's been a long-held view of mine that full protection should only be done in extraordinary cases where blocking will not suffice.
After years of dealing with biographies of living persons, the Wikipedia community has formulated a policy that states, in explicit terms, that unsourced negative information must be removed immediately, with prejudice. From the page history, it is clear that certain editors are not willing to abide by this, but on this site, it is non-negotiable. Anyone who tries to insert contentious, unsourced information will be blocked.
As to the issues of undue weight, it is incredibly important to remember that this article is about the life of Barack Obama, not just any controversies he may or may not have been in, not just his recent bid for the presidency, not just his time as a Senator. Please keep that in mind when adding information.
If you feel one section needs more substance than another, or if you feel that one section has far too much substance currently, discuss on the talk page first. It is what is done for nearly every other contentious article. You discuss any major changes before making them. Else, you risk being reverted and / or blocked.
Please remember that when you edit here, you do so as part of a greater community, a community with the goal of creating a free online encyclopedia. Please do not make that trying to achieve that goal unpleasant. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The current text in the article is as follows:
I think this existing text perfectly encapsulates the controversy surrounding Wright, and I cannot see any reason it should be changed. Thoughts, anyone? -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, one: I agree! -- Floridianed ( talk) 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Needs more specificity regarding what Jeremiah Wright said; fewer quotes from Obama trying to distance himself from his close personal friend and spiritual mentor of 23 years; and one quotation from a critic (not necessarily conservative, there are plenty out there who aren't). Kossack4Truth ( talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Good weight to a decidedly notable component of the 2008 primary season. Shem (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
More or less right. Wikidemo ( talk) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Mostly good. I think the description of Wright, and Obama's speech in response, has just the number of words. However, the recent addition on Pfleger seems longer than it should be in the story. Resigning from TUCC should be mentioned, which probably means something about the triggering reason; the longish direct quote from Obama explaining the reasons could be summarized in fewer words (and summary is better than direct quote, where possible). LotLE× talk 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not first or second choice. Would accept if it developed as a consensus, but it won't. It must first make the style correction of changing "Trinity" on first reference to "Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ". However, as it stands, first sentence is fluff (except for linking the controversy article, and yet the controversy article per sitewide consensus should be renamed). Remaining sentences do not quote any Obama critics at all! Their structure is a threefold repetition of "After something controversial happened, Obama spun it thus"-- including the word "after" all three times, and repeating even the accusation made by some of us editors that guilt by association will be used at every opportunity! (It sure helps a POV argument to quote the article subject making the same POV argument!) This raises a WP:REDFLAG because Obama himself is leaning towards bad-faith assumptions of imputation. All of this though is just to say that this structure is very flawed. A proper controversy structure is: 1. This controversial occurrence happened. 2. One side said this. 3. The other side said this. I'm going to make a very rough example just so people understand what NPOV writing is about; this is not an exemplar at all, simply an attempt to build consensus from the proposed text above:
In March 2008, a controversy began when ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright;[1][2] after an associated priest, Michael Pfleger, spoke disparagingly about Hillary Clinton at his church[3] and Wright continued to affirm his own remarks,[4] Obama resigned his church membership on May 31.[citation needed] Critics said Wright's comments, such as " etaoin (10 words)", indicated Obama had poor shrdlu (20 words).[citation needed] Obama repeatedly condemned Wright's remarks, ending Wright's relationship with the campaign,[5] stating his own race position in the speech "A More Perfect Union", and stating his belief that any authorized statements made within the church would be imputed to him.[6] Note that resignation goes in the "what" sentence #1 because it is an event, not a spin. Note that sentences #2 and #3 should be very close to the same length, and they're not because, um, the details have been purged and I'm not bothering to unearth right now. Like I said above, I won't be around to teach this class every day. JJB 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Unacceptable The passage doesn't makes it less clear why Wright's remarks were found to be offensive than it could. This is against WP:ROC: The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Exemplary quotes from the speech should be included. -- Floorsheim ( talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How about this for the last part ( LotLE× talk):
FWIW, despite the immediate belligerent reaction by K4T to my proposed shortened language (and simultaneous insertion of the exact language into the article by K4T?!!), I agree that the form currently in the article that puts in a wikilinked mention of Pfleger is better. Y'know, K4T, you might try a little less insult and outrage... I proposed some language on the talk page for discussion. Once that discussion happened, I realized the name and link were missing. LotLE× talk 05:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(redent) I guess I am too irritated right now. I'll break off. Wikidemo, you know why I'm irritated, but I realize you're still pretty reasonable overall. I should explain what I think this language should look like: Basically the same type of thing I was looking for with Bill Ayers. And let's have none of this rhetoric that we're making some unfair "guilt by association" McCarthyite charge. Association with controversial characters naturally raises suspicion, just as his relationship with the disreputable Rezko does. Let readers make of it what they will and quoting Obama about it is just fine by me, although a quote from him in that Chicago source might be valuable if we can get it. We can describe briefly what the best sources say was his relationship to the two, and Wright was certainly far more importnt than Pflegler. I do think, as I thought with the Ayers info, we should give a good, brief description of just what was controversial about Wright, and the closeness of the relationship makes it more important and worth more space. It seems to me that racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright is an inadequate description. Better would be racially divisive sermons, such as one in which Wright called AIDS a U.S. government conspiracy to kill African Americans, as well as politically charged sermons, including one in which the pastor called on God to condemn America It's worth describing in another sentence or two just what Wright's relationship is to Obama. I'm not sure of the exact language for that. Noroton ( talk) 03:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is an article exclusively for the Presidential campaign.
[4]. That's where all this stuff about Rezko and Ayers belongs. Even the people pushing for it here, are justifying it because it is allegedly a campaign issue. My new opinion is that the entire section should be turned into a stub summary, and any info not in the campaign article should be moved there.
Life.temp (
talk) 05:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing. Life.temp, you have deleted a substantial amount of material in the
Barack Obama article without first establishing consensus on the article's Talk page, despite numerous warnings on the Talk page from administrators.
Kossack4Truth (
talk) 11:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop. Please just stop it. The edit warring must stop. WP:3RR is not a license to do three reversions in a 24-hour period. Life.temp is an experienced editor and familiar with the fact that not just the letter, but the spirit of the rules is enforced. The lower half of this Talk page was covered with warnings from administrators to not do exactly what Life.temp did. All editors must stop the edit war; discuss your proposed edits here and get consensus. WorkerBee74 ( talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The importance of the campaign has already been addressed: by having an entire article about it. This matter is addressed very clearly:
Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).
Note the point is to move and replace the text, not merely copy it to somewhere else, which obviously doesn't address the size & style problems. [5]
From the Wikpedia page on summary style...
- Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place
- Summary sections are linked to the detailed article ...
And...
Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles. What constitutes 'too long' is largely based on the topic, but generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover its topic and that the extra reading time is justified.
This article is well over 30k of readable prose. It is around double that. Are you telling me how he got his mortgage isn't a detail? Life.temp ( talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
1. Barack Obama was not a Professor at the University of Chicago. He did not teach the necessary number of courses to qualify as a professor. He only qualified as a 'lecturer.' Source from Article "Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama" Note 1 http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/867973,CST-NWS-sweet30.article
2. Ann Dunham's ancestry is relevant to her article. It should not be featured in someone else's biography.
3. Note 65 is dead, and the Library of Congress Database does not indicate any compromise bill that bears any resemblance to Senate Bill 2348 (Obama's legislation).
There may be other errors in the article. I will continue to examine it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.239.189 ( talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
(undent)This Wikipedia article currently says in the lead paragraphs: “A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university professor[1][2], political activist, and lawyer before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.”
That sentence in the lead is problematic for a couple reasons. First, it gives the impression he taught undergraduates, when actually he taught law students. Second, it makes it sound as though he was a professor, whereas the University of Chicago Law School says that Obama carried out (or “served”) a function of a professor -- teaching a core curriculum course -- while at the same time not holding down that rank. [17]
I also suggest that the later statement in the article should include the pertinent footnotes that are in the lead, plus a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article. [18] I’ll do this if there are no objections. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[out] How about a simpler statement: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time from 1993 until his election..." We don't need to say he was a professor but he wasn't a professor - we don't need the footnote that answers that question if we don't raise the question in the first place. Tvoz/ talk 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I hope people are okay with (or at least can tolerate) keeping a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article. [19] The entire article is devoted to the issue we've been discussing. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Schools vary greatly in whom they call "Professor," "Distinguished Professor," "Adjunct Professor," "Junior Professor," "Lecturer," "Senior Lecturer," "Instructor" and several other variants along these lines. Even inside the USA, you can't always tell what it "really means" that someone had a certain formal title unless you know that specific school (and frequently even different schools in the same university have differences in how they give titles; U.Chicago Gradual Business School may well not follow the same pattern as the Law School). When you move beyond the USA, the use of these titles goes even farther afield, with lots of different national conventions, but lots of schools that don't quite follow the dominant conventions of their resident country.
Saying "Taught Constitutional Law" is perfectly factual, and a footnote explaining the exact names that particular school uses is extremely helpful. Not all of us did our law degrees in Chicago, after all... or even if in Chicago, it might have been at Layola instead. LotLE× talk 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, since there're clearly editors opposed to the change, could we discuss it more before implementing the change? The length of the discussion in this section tells me the change shouldn't be made lightly. Shem (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This really is an example of making a mountain out of a molehill. UC Law School refers to Obama as a "professor". The term is used both as a title and as a type of honorific. I was called "professor" by some of my students when I taught a few programming classes, but at best I should have been regarded as a "guest lecturer". It really doesn't matter whether the word is used in the article or not - all I know is that when we tried to remove it before, it kept on getting restored by other editors (mostly IP editors) all the time. In the end, it seemed better just to leave it because it wasn't a big deal. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Next, a number of WP editors debate this extensively and conclude that the whole assertion should be "nuanced" in order to inform readers of Obama's biography of this incredibly important fact, followed by mutual pats on the back for neutrally engaging in the issue.
The reason to call him a "professor" can be sourced to Obama and the institution at which he worked. The reason to "nuance" these claims (i.e., either not use the term "professor" or explain the use of term in a number of different contexts) seems to serve the sole purpose of diminishing Obama's role at the University by diminishing his title. I'm betting that the next step is to consider not referring to him anywhere as a "teacher" since all he really did was "lecture." -- Quartermaster ( talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Republicans have an attack site at “Change We Can’t Afford” (from the Republican National Committee). Is this appropriate in the external links of this article?
Likewise, Democrats have an attack site at McCainpedia. Is this appropriate in the external links of the John McCain article? Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
His religion is listed as United Church of Christ. But he's recently split from his church ( [20] ). So should it be changed to just "Protestant" or "Christian"? Millancad ( talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
He separated from that one church in Chicago but not the entire United Church of Christ which has lots of member churches all over the place. So I would keep it United Church of Christ. -- 8bitJake ( talk) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
United Church of Christ is not a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bop me two times ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a major Christian protestant church. As a member I don’t really appreciate your negative insults of my faith and my Presidential Nominee. -- 8bitJake ( talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well considered the RNC is currently attacking his time teaching constitutional law and his religion there is no doubt that there is attempts to write it into the article. -- 8bitJake ( talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It is my understanding that The United Church of Christ is a denomination. So perhaps "Christian - United Church of Christ" would be better. 64.183.164.250 ( talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
On this website, it showed that Obama and McCain are 22nd cousins twice removed.-- Sli723 ( talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And Obama also is a distant relation of Vice President Cheney. Interesting trivia, but WP:TRIVIA suggests we use trivia only when we can put it into some relevant context. I don't see a relevant context for it. It doesn't tell us anything more about Obama. So let's leave it out. Interesting, though. Also, I'm making this a full section because it has nothing to do with the Wright section. Noroton ( talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
22nd cousins twice removed. That's silly. That's like connecting the entire human race to each other and calling them a cousin. 64.183.164.250 ( talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey and Loonymonkey are now engaging in an astonishing POV push in the article mainspace. With no consensus established on the Talk page, they have gutted the paragraph about Rezko. Here is the POV-pushing excuse offered in the latest edit summary: NPOV means NON point of view, not "all non-fringe" points of view Here's what WP:NPOV has to say. It refutes your argument completely: WP:YESPOV
The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.
The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints.
There is only one POV represented in the article: the POV of Obama's campaign manager. It's been like that, off and on, ever since I started editing it: a hagiography, where never is heard a discouraging word. You've just been shown that NPOV emphatically does not mean "no point of view," which is the rationale given for your edit. Revert your edit, please. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the following are currently being discussed as hot topics on right wing blogs:
I cite as evidence the astonishing amount of text (posted above) devoted to these (and other similar) non-issue topics for a biographical article on Barack Obama. You will often find the same editors who are so assiduously pursuing inclusion of these issues similarly contributing to the hagiography on John Mccain; that is those who post under an account name and not an IP address.
I suggest we start to focus on his use of a "terrorist fist jab" with his wife following a recent speech. That is obviously of similar import.
Agree or Disagree?
- 70.230.180.50 ( talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Edits like this are anathema to consensus-building, Kossack4Truth. You pretended to simply undo Life.temp's deletion back to the compromise text, but actually re-inserted your preferred version of the controversial material. Shem (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I just made a post about this under "Consensus-building..." above. I feel it is so important, it deserves its own section.
In WP:BLP, we find the following
The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues are all notable and well-documented.
In Wikipedia:Relevance of content, we find the following concerning content that belongs in an article:
The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues have influenced Obama's public perception and primary noteworthy trait of person petitioning and being considered for election as president by way of the criticism they have drawn.
Thus policy in fact tells us, in a straightforward way, what many of us intuitively know: the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues need to be represented in this article, and they need to be explained to an extent that their effects on the subject (Obama) are plainly apparent.
-- Floorsheim ( talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
These endlessly repeated pseudo-arguments passed asinine a long time ago. No matter how many thousands of words a few sock-puppets write about how very much they hate Ayers, it has never been remotely relevant to this article... which is, try to remember, about Barack Obama. Yes there are a bunch of article about Ayers and things he in turn has some connection with. None of that even comes within a stone's throw of relevance here. Likewise, Obama probably ate Kellogs corn flakes at some point... and there are articles on the notable Kellogs company, on corn flakes, on corn, on cereal, maybe he even had milk on top of it, and ate it with a spoon and bowl. No matter how many words of digression one might add about he great importance of those various other things, it doesn't even remotely suggest we need to include Obama's corn flake eating in this article.
None of this has ever been anything other than dissimulation by rabidly anti-Obama partisans who want to pollute a WP article with irrelevant crap. Policy remains in effect... they are welcome to all get their own MySpace pages, which would be relevant places for these rants.
I was thinking about whether the bad arguments of the Obama loathers here fit better in Argumentum ad misericordiam or Argumentum ad nauseam (c.f. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html). I suppose they can be both at once. In any case, along the whole irrelevant digression line, it's fun to read about the study of fallacies. LotLE× talk 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Floorsheim has misinterpreted the policies. First of all, WP:BLP trumps WP:ROC because the latter is just an essay. In fact, WP:BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies - something I will expand on later. First, let me yet again remind you of why guilt-by-association content is so inappropriate to biographies by repeating my example from earlier:
Again, this perfectly illustrates why "loads of media coverage" is not a good enough excuse to put facts about other people in a BLP, however thoroughly referenced. Because of the risk of defamation, Wikipedia's BLP policy is the most stringent, overriding all others. It has to be that way to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from potential legal action. There is no question about the relevance of Obama's associations with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, because these were personal relationships that existed for an extended period. Obama's own actions with respect to these men have been questioned. With Ayers, however, we are talking about someone who is little more than a fleeting acquaintance. Any misdeeds that Ayers may have done are not at all associated with Obama (indeed, he was just a kid living in Indonesia at the time), and since that time Ayers has become a respectable civic leader in Chicago. Obama's relationship with Ayers is not at all notable except when Republicans and their would be surrogates tried to make an issue of it during the campaign. The result was little more than a fart in a hurricane, as far as media coverage was concerned. No doubt the GOP machine will try to make more of the relationship than there is as the campaign develops, but that is a matter for the campaign article (if and when it happens). Finally, let me once again remind you of the key WP:BLP rules that apply here:
It is clear from these words that there should be no mention of William Ayers in this biography. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"Also, "ROFL" is a well-known term of condescension in reference to another person's point of view. Scjessey, please leave things like that to yourself from now on."
I don't know what internet you're on, but that's not what that abbreviation means. Nar Matteru ( talk) 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please consider my comments as a WP:08 "cofounder" and a veteran of the same battle at Ron Paul's article. Five months ago Paul was attacked (again) for newsletters he'd overseen that had his name on them, and which often implied that he'd written them: the newsletters had many viewpoints described as racist and by other epithets, and his associations with the actual writers (and whether he was an actual writer) were hotly debated. The article was locked down for a week, tempers flew, and I opted out for awhile because so messy. Well guess what. We sprinkled the newsletter controversy throughout the article with strict chronological methodology; we included one to two paragraphs on its late flareup in the campaign section; and we directed all editors to rant (seven or eight paragraphs) at the campaign article instead due to the main article being a Former Featured Article Candidate. And the edit war DIED COLD. That has not happened here. There is still a faction that believes any mention of a controversy is somehow verboten as if such mention could never be NPOV; and there is still a faction that believes that controversies should be played up as much as possible because there is no way to properly contextualize without loads of gory paragraphs. Under good faith, both these POVs are understandable, but guys, you must take the time to recognize them as careless, unsophisticated ruts of mismanaging this possibly most controversial article of all (I don't say that lightly). Only then will the Wikipedian goal of article stabilization be successful. (And if you don't believe in stabilizing this article, you need to reread some of the Wikipedia core documents.) My point is that wars over Ron Paul (who faced an exceedingly similar attack), George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and even Hillary Clinton have not had anywhere near the inability to agree on policy applications that this article has seen. This article rivals (and I think surpasses due to subtlety) the Eastern Europe turf wars (where is Macedonia?). Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. The third Featured Article Review here even was closed with an anomalous result unique in the annals, because there seemed no way for the debate closer to proceed normally; and the debate has continued indefinitely. My POV (digression): It is my firm belief that Clinton (no love lost) will use the very allegations we're discussing, among others, to cannibalize Obama completely about two weeks before the convention, pulling superdelegate rank and winning a dirty vote, prior to her coasting neck-and-neck past McCain (no love lost) in a no-holds-barred, full-attention-diverting "race". The more attention wasted the better for her real plans. See if this prophecy is wrong. That means that this may all be academic soon because it'll be suddenly and painfully obvious that much more attention will have become appropriate to Obama scandals; (end digression:) all the same, wouldn't it be better to have these issues settled long before the flurry of news that anyone can reasonably expect to arise at the convention? JJB 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A fine point, but John McCain does have controversies. Also, your observations demonstrate my language precisely: it is a careless, unsophisticated rut either to insert "unrepentant terrorist" by citing sources (which is a coatrack here), or to delete an informative link to Weathermen by citing BLP. The approach indicated by WP and yourself is to determine what middle ground is due weight in each case, and to avoid every gameable invocation of other processes. This can hardly be the first ANI case on this page, and with recent news it's going to get worse before better. Anyway, hoping to catch up with you on cooler pages. JJB 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest we not use "sliding scales" or averages for the next two discussions? Also, which should we tackle first? Shem (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We have already tackled Rezko, we used a much shorter sliding scale (which has eliminated much of the problem caused by the longer sliding scale for Ayers) and the consensus supports No. 4. 70.9.18.59 ( talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If we must start a new discussion, then it's clear that about a week was wasted in the old discussion. I suggest that a firm commitment to prompt resolution, and avoiding any repetition of old arguments that have already been refuted, should be assumed. Giving up personal attacks, suspicions of sockpuppetry and aspersions against the motives of others should also be assumed. Can we agree on these ground rules? 70.9.18.59 ( talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 already has 79k of readable text to cover the primary, so discussion of how best to split up the Primary and General election portions of the campaign is under way here. Since at least one of the proposals so far involves linking the future primary and general election article from here directly rather than creating a main campaign article and then a primary sub-article and general sub-article from that article, I figured I'd invite the editors from this article to join in on the discussion. -- Bobblehead (rants) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but there is an ongoing discussion on AN/I about placing article probation/topic banning for several of the editors on this article. I've seen comments from many of the people involved, but not everyone, so not sure if everyone is aware of it. -- Bobblehead (rants) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sample infoboxes in sandbox: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes
Sign for archiving purposes. Avruch T * ER 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged the "Cultural image" section for Neutrality. It gives various reasons why people love Obama, while giving the impression that there is not a soul around who has a negative "cultural perception" of him. Fishal ( talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Something about the section seems not-right, although I wouldn't call it an NPOV problem. Maybe a matter of focus and unencyclopedic tone. An extended section on "image" seems like spin, and a bit like pop culture digression. We could probably research, and find enough sources, for an "image" section on every politician but is that how we want to organize the article? I don't see it all as praise though. Saying that people think of Obama what they want to think of him, without knowing who he really is, is not entirely a compliment. The answer is not to pile on every criticism that can be sourced - BLP is clearly not about that. It might be to shorten the section by about half, change and demote the heading to be more specific, and make it sound less like an essay or exposition. Wikidemo ( talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic toward those who view the "cultural perception" section as a puff piece, though I disagree that it lacks critical analysis (debate over Obama's "blackness [23]," for example). For the sake of getting rid of the POV dispute template, how about this: A paragraph on Obama's struggle with viral emails. He's addressed the emails several times in debates and interviews, and hasn't shied from confronting their content (there's an entire section of his website dedicated to addressing them [24], and his campaign just added a new "internet war room" staff to deal with them [25]). I'm not saying this should be added to balance "positive" information with "negative" information, but to satisfy those who feel there're notable less-than-flattering cultural perceptions/images of Obama which aren't being duly addressed. This seems like something those who are "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" could participate in shaping, and there're wheelbarrow-loads of sources we could draw from.
I'm an Obama supporter, and can assure other Obama supporting editors that I'd be diligent in working with User:Fishal and others to prevent it from becoming simply an extension of the viral emails themselves. Thoughts? Shem (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Another useful source for international opinions about Obama is this recent survey from Pew, which found:
“ | People around the world who have been paying attention to the American election express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama's, as well as in Jordan and Pakistan where few people have confidence in either candidate. Obama's advantage over McCain is overwhelming in the Western European countries surveyed: Fully 84% of the French who have been following the election say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 33% who say that about McCain. The differences in ratings for Obama and McCain are about as large in Spain and Germany, and are only somewhat narrower in Great Britain. |
” |
I'll let someone else figure out how to integrate this info into the article, or the election article if it's more appropriate there. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw something amusing when I got to my hotel (too long day of flying, so it cheered me up): Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Apparently I should welcome Life.temp to my evil plans... glad to have you doing my wicked deeds while I have to muck with flights.... FWIW, I haven't looked yet at whatever it was Life.temp apparently deleted, and the usual K4T/FA/IP brigade denounced as "Obama campaign workers". I have to go eat, then I'll see if I think his/her edits are meritorious. LotLE× talk 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is the talk page to discuss an article about Barack Obama! Please move your conversation to a personal talk page. Thank you. -- Floridianed ( talk) 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In his/her edit summary reverting me, Bobblehead denied that Rezko was convicted of bribery. He was convicted on two counts of aiding and abetting bribery, two counts of money laundering, and 12 counts of fraud -- a total of 16 felony counts. Here are the Daily Telegraph and the Associated Press. [26] [27] AFP specifies "12 counts of fraud, two of aiding and abetting bribery and two of money laundering[.]" [28] If you'd like, I'll add the AFP link to the article mainspace. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm not Life.temp. I got a chuckle out of the report by FA, since it was such a transparently stupid attempt to "get even" for me filing a sock puppet request (which I think is entirely accurate, other than someone's addition of Andyvphil, who I think is an entirely different person than K4T/et alia).
I have now had a chance to look at what s/he trimmed from the Prez Campaign section. I like the overall goal of reducing it substantially, and leaving most details to the child article. However, the actual edit was a little bit off... for example, it left in the mention of S.Dakota and Montana, while leaving out the (excessive) details on the other primaries. I don't think we need to trim quite that much. A few words summarizing the primary campaign would be good, but not state-by-state details anymore. Maybe a little bit of before/after Super Tuesday though... like 3-4 sentences in total. Probably a slight mention of the Wright stuff even makes sense... less than we had, but some way of finding maybe three sentences that wrap up the whole: "Wrights remarks were publicized; Obama made a speech; more controversy around TUCC and Obama resigned the congregation". Better written and cited than that, but a quick overview with pointers. LotLE× talk 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not "minor campaign material." The polls say it's a close race. The combined effect of all these controversies could make thedifference between winning and losing for Obama in November. WorkerBee74 ( talk) 23:13, 10 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 web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
After User:Loremaster added the term mulatto, I looked it up- had never heard it before. On the article it said it could be considered offensive to English-speakers, and as this is en-wiki, I think it might be best to use a different term? Larklight ( talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But he appears to have solved the problem himself :) Larklight ( talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
From Is Obama Black Enough? - TIME: "Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa."
Courtland Milloy - Obama and the Old Racial Bind - washingtonpost.com: "According to a recent survey by Zogby International, a majority of whites, 55 percent, classified Obama as "biracial," and 66 percent of blacks classified him as black."
Obama is biracial, yet he insists on referring to himself as an African-American. Couldn't he do more to stop: "racism by running as just an American instead of choosing to label himself according to one side of his genetics?"
There many reliable sources which identify Barack Obama as "biracial". Describing him in a Wikipedia article as a "biracial African American" is one of the best compromises. -- Loremaster ( talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we just say first biracial and African-American? The guy saying, "until we can get verifiability" is just splitting hairs because it is a well known fact that each of our past presidents has been at the least majority white. 71.195.153.149 ( talk) 13:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Has no other user considered the shadow of Blooming Grove? It's still not absolutely certain that a mixed-race American hasn't already served as president. Firstorm ( talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Almost all African-Americans have some white ancestors, so they're all biracial to one degree or another. So are those with Native American and/or Asian ancestors. So...what you're really asking is to set some exact standard of when someone becomes 'biracial'. What's next - a specific label for his daughters' race? The exercise is pointless, similar to arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Let's move on. Flatterworld ( talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, do you even know what biracial means? It means two. Most African-Americans don't have one white and one black parent. You move on: because you can't even understand the meaning of the prefix "bi." 71.195.153.149 ( talk) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Biracial means literally "two races." There is nothing in that definition concerning having one black parent and one white parent (or parents of two "pure" races). What about people who are born of parents who were both of mixed parentage, like the actor "Terrence Howard"? If you want to truly look at the idea of having "two races" in their DNA, most African-Americans (and even some Caucasian-Americans) have at least two races in their blood to varying degrees. Biracial is often constructed as a clear term, but in reality it is not as clear as some like it to be. Marinabreeze ( talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In this Salon article, Gary Kamiya (who is of mixed race himself) refers to Obama as "both black and biracial" and refers to him as "the first mixed-race nominee". I'll let others determine how best to incorporate this into the article, but now that there's a reliable source I agree that the introduction should acknowledge Obama's mixed racial heritage. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Another simple poll, ladies and gentlemen. WP:NPOV demands the inclusion of all significant POVs, including the POV that is questioning and criticizing Obama about his relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers. This is not a fringe POV. It is shared by mainstream journalists, by Hillary Clinton supporters in the Democratic Party, and by respected, credible conservatives. Do you support the inclusion of this POV, or do you oppose WP:NPOV and prefer to leave the article as it is - expressing only the POV of Obama's campaign manager?
Certain editors find that including the questioning/critical POV is not acceptable from their POV. These proponents have fallen prey to a number of failings, including perceiving their own bias as neutrality, misinterpreting and distorting WP:BLP to justify the deletion of any negative material at all about anyone associated with Obama, ascribing motives, and claiming that opposition to their proposed edits equates to support for the questioning/critical POV. Most editors are able to rise above this, but some are unable to work in a collaborative and collegial manner, and the worst of these may end up being excluded under Wikipedia's banning policy.
There is a tendency for certain editors in particular to seek administrative sanction against those they perceive as opponents. In the case of this article, the definition of "opponent" has in several cases included those who enforce Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and resist their attempts to skew content to be more overtly favorable to Obama. Kossack4Truth ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion topic is very unhelpful, as is the poll that looks like more of a rhetorical WP:POINT than any reasonable attempt to reach consensus Wikidemo ( talk) 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Point of order: One can't claim to support WP:NPOV while totally disregarding WP:NPOV#UNDUE. That aside, such loaded section titles are extremely unhelpful and're a terrible way to make a point. Shem (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense, Kossack, but I am closing this approach because it baits digressions like the one below. Looking forward to your participation in the other discussions. JJB 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, another one since it's so much fun:
Do you like puppies and butterflies, and therefore want encyclopedic articles; or do you kick children and want POV digressions here?
Many still want to know where & when his parents were married. A photocopy of his birth certificate should suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This site, as most of you know, is a wiki, which tries to allow as much freedom as possible in content management. Having an article indefinitely fully protected from editing is generally considered a sin against the spirit of the wiki, and this is doubly so when the article is as high profile as this one is. It's been a long-held view of mine that full protection should only be done in extraordinary cases where blocking will not suffice.
After years of dealing with biographies of living persons, the Wikipedia community has formulated a policy that states, in explicit terms, that unsourced negative information must be removed immediately, with prejudice. From the page history, it is clear that certain editors are not willing to abide by this, but on this site, it is non-negotiable. Anyone who tries to insert contentious, unsourced information will be blocked.
As to the issues of undue weight, it is incredibly important to remember that this article is about the life of Barack Obama, not just any controversies he may or may not have been in, not just his recent bid for the presidency, not just his time as a Senator. Please keep that in mind when adding information.
If you feel one section needs more substance than another, or if you feel that one section has far too much substance currently, discuss on the talk page first. It is what is done for nearly every other contentious article. You discuss any major changes before making them. Else, you risk being reverted and / or blocked.
Please remember that when you edit here, you do so as part of a greater community, a community with the goal of creating a free online encyclopedia. Please do not make that trying to achieve that goal unpleasant. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The current text in the article is as follows:
I think this existing text perfectly encapsulates the controversy surrounding Wright, and I cannot see any reason it should be changed. Thoughts, anyone? -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, one: I agree! -- Floridianed ( talk) 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Needs more specificity regarding what Jeremiah Wright said; fewer quotes from Obama trying to distance himself from his close personal friend and spiritual mentor of 23 years; and one quotation from a critic (not necessarily conservative, there are plenty out there who aren't). Kossack4Truth ( talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Good weight to a decidedly notable component of the 2008 primary season. Shem (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
More or less right. Wikidemo ( talk) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Mostly good. I think the description of Wright, and Obama's speech in response, has just the number of words. However, the recent addition on Pfleger seems longer than it should be in the story. Resigning from TUCC should be mentioned, which probably means something about the triggering reason; the longish direct quote from Obama explaining the reasons could be summarized in fewer words (and summary is better than direct quote, where possible). LotLE× talk 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not first or second choice. Would accept if it developed as a consensus, but it won't. It must first make the style correction of changing "Trinity" on first reference to "Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ". However, as it stands, first sentence is fluff (except for linking the controversy article, and yet the controversy article per sitewide consensus should be renamed). Remaining sentences do not quote any Obama critics at all! Their structure is a threefold repetition of "After something controversial happened, Obama spun it thus"-- including the word "after" all three times, and repeating even the accusation made by some of us editors that guilt by association will be used at every opportunity! (It sure helps a POV argument to quote the article subject making the same POV argument!) This raises a WP:REDFLAG because Obama himself is leaning towards bad-faith assumptions of imputation. All of this though is just to say that this structure is very flawed. A proper controversy structure is: 1. This controversial occurrence happened. 2. One side said this. 3. The other side said this. I'm going to make a very rough example just so people understand what NPOV writing is about; this is not an exemplar at all, simply an attempt to build consensus from the proposed text above:
In March 2008, a controversy began when ABC News broadcast racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright;[1][2] after an associated priest, Michael Pfleger, spoke disparagingly about Hillary Clinton at his church[3] and Wright continued to affirm his own remarks,[4] Obama resigned his church membership on May 31.[citation needed] Critics said Wright's comments, such as " etaoin (10 words)", indicated Obama had poor shrdlu (20 words).[citation needed] Obama repeatedly condemned Wright's remarks, ending Wright's relationship with the campaign,[5] stating his own race position in the speech "A More Perfect Union", and stating his belief that any authorized statements made within the church would be imputed to him.[6] Note that resignation goes in the "what" sentence #1 because it is an event, not a spin. Note that sentences #2 and #3 should be very close to the same length, and they're not because, um, the details have been purged and I'm not bothering to unearth right now. Like I said above, I won't be around to teach this class every day. JJB 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Unacceptable The passage doesn't makes it less clear why Wright's remarks were found to be offensive than it could. This is against WP:ROC: The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Exemplary quotes from the speech should be included. -- Floorsheim ( talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How about this for the last part ( LotLE× talk):
FWIW, despite the immediate belligerent reaction by K4T to my proposed shortened language (and simultaneous insertion of the exact language into the article by K4T?!!), I agree that the form currently in the article that puts in a wikilinked mention of Pfleger is better. Y'know, K4T, you might try a little less insult and outrage... I proposed some language on the talk page for discussion. Once that discussion happened, I realized the name and link were missing. LotLE× talk 05:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(redent) I guess I am too irritated right now. I'll break off. Wikidemo, you know why I'm irritated, but I realize you're still pretty reasonable overall. I should explain what I think this language should look like: Basically the same type of thing I was looking for with Bill Ayers. And let's have none of this rhetoric that we're making some unfair "guilt by association" McCarthyite charge. Association with controversial characters naturally raises suspicion, just as his relationship with the disreputable Rezko does. Let readers make of it what they will and quoting Obama about it is just fine by me, although a quote from him in that Chicago source might be valuable if we can get it. We can describe briefly what the best sources say was his relationship to the two, and Wright was certainly far more importnt than Pflegler. I do think, as I thought with the Ayers info, we should give a good, brief description of just what was controversial about Wright, and the closeness of the relationship makes it more important and worth more space. It seems to me that racially and politically charged clips from sermons by Rev. Wright is an inadequate description. Better would be racially divisive sermons, such as one in which Wright called AIDS a U.S. government conspiracy to kill African Americans, as well as politically charged sermons, including one in which the pastor called on God to condemn America It's worth describing in another sentence or two just what Wright's relationship is to Obama. I'm not sure of the exact language for that. Noroton ( talk) 03:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is an article exclusively for the Presidential campaign.
[4]. That's where all this stuff about Rezko and Ayers belongs. Even the people pushing for it here, are justifying it because it is allegedly a campaign issue. My new opinion is that the entire section should be turned into a stub summary, and any info not in the campaign article should be moved there.
Life.temp (
talk) 05:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing. Life.temp, you have deleted a substantial amount of material in the
Barack Obama article without first establishing consensus on the article's Talk page, despite numerous warnings on the Talk page from administrators.
Kossack4Truth (
talk) 11:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop. Please just stop it. The edit warring must stop. WP:3RR is not a license to do three reversions in a 24-hour period. Life.temp is an experienced editor and familiar with the fact that not just the letter, but the spirit of the rules is enforced. The lower half of this Talk page was covered with warnings from administrators to not do exactly what Life.temp did. All editors must stop the edit war; discuss your proposed edits here and get consensus. WorkerBee74 ( talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The importance of the campaign has already been addressed: by having an entire article about it. This matter is addressed very clearly:
Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).
Note the point is to move and replace the text, not merely copy it to somewhere else, which obviously doesn't address the size & style problems. [5]
From the Wikpedia page on summary style...
- Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place
- Summary sections are linked to the detailed article ...
And...
Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles. What constitutes 'too long' is largely based on the topic, but generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover its topic and that the extra reading time is justified.
This article is well over 30k of readable prose. It is around double that. Are you telling me how he got his mortgage isn't a detail? Life.temp ( talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
1. Barack Obama was not a Professor at the University of Chicago. He did not teach the necessary number of courses to qualify as a professor. He only qualified as a 'lecturer.' Source from Article "Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama" Note 1 http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/867973,CST-NWS-sweet30.article
2. Ann Dunham's ancestry is relevant to her article. It should not be featured in someone else's biography.
3. Note 65 is dead, and the Library of Congress Database does not indicate any compromise bill that bears any resemblance to Senate Bill 2348 (Obama's legislation).
There may be other errors in the article. I will continue to examine it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.239.189 ( talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
(undent)This Wikipedia article currently says in the lead paragraphs: “A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university professor[1][2], political activist, and lawyer before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.”
That sentence in the lead is problematic for a couple reasons. First, it gives the impression he taught undergraduates, when actually he taught law students. Second, it makes it sound as though he was a professor, whereas the University of Chicago Law School says that Obama carried out (or “served”) a function of a professor -- teaching a core curriculum course -- while at the same time not holding down that rank. [17]
I also suggest that the later statement in the article should include the pertinent footnotes that are in the lead, plus a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article. [18] I’ll do this if there are no objections. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[out] How about a simpler statement: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time from 1993 until his election..." We don't need to say he was a professor but he wasn't a professor - we don't need the footnote that answers that question if we don't raise the question in the first place. Tvoz/ talk 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I hope people are okay with (or at least can tolerate) keeping a footnote to the Chicago Sun Times article. [19] The entire article is devoted to the issue we've been discussing. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Schools vary greatly in whom they call "Professor," "Distinguished Professor," "Adjunct Professor," "Junior Professor," "Lecturer," "Senior Lecturer," "Instructor" and several other variants along these lines. Even inside the USA, you can't always tell what it "really means" that someone had a certain formal title unless you know that specific school (and frequently even different schools in the same university have differences in how they give titles; U.Chicago Gradual Business School may well not follow the same pattern as the Law School). When you move beyond the USA, the use of these titles goes even farther afield, with lots of different national conventions, but lots of schools that don't quite follow the dominant conventions of their resident country.
Saying "Taught Constitutional Law" is perfectly factual, and a footnote explaining the exact names that particular school uses is extremely helpful. Not all of us did our law degrees in Chicago, after all... or even if in Chicago, it might have been at Layola instead. LotLE× talk 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, since there're clearly editors opposed to the change, could we discuss it more before implementing the change? The length of the discussion in this section tells me the change shouldn't be made lightly. Shem (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This really is an example of making a mountain out of a molehill. UC Law School refers to Obama as a "professor". The term is used both as a title and as a type of honorific. I was called "professor" by some of my students when I taught a few programming classes, but at best I should have been regarded as a "guest lecturer". It really doesn't matter whether the word is used in the article or not - all I know is that when we tried to remove it before, it kept on getting restored by other editors (mostly IP editors) all the time. In the end, it seemed better just to leave it because it wasn't a big deal. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Next, a number of WP editors debate this extensively and conclude that the whole assertion should be "nuanced" in order to inform readers of Obama's biography of this incredibly important fact, followed by mutual pats on the back for neutrally engaging in the issue.
The reason to call him a "professor" can be sourced to Obama and the institution at which he worked. The reason to "nuance" these claims (i.e., either not use the term "professor" or explain the use of term in a number of different contexts) seems to serve the sole purpose of diminishing Obama's role at the University by diminishing his title. I'm betting that the next step is to consider not referring to him anywhere as a "teacher" since all he really did was "lecture." -- Quartermaster ( talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Republicans have an attack site at “Change We Can’t Afford” (from the Republican National Committee). Is this appropriate in the external links of this article?
Likewise, Democrats have an attack site at McCainpedia. Is this appropriate in the external links of the John McCain article? Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
His religion is listed as United Church of Christ. But he's recently split from his church ( [20] ). So should it be changed to just "Protestant" or "Christian"? Millancad ( talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
He separated from that one church in Chicago but not the entire United Church of Christ which has lots of member churches all over the place. So I would keep it United Church of Christ. -- 8bitJake ( talk) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
United Church of Christ is not a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bop me two times ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a major Christian protestant church. As a member I don’t really appreciate your negative insults of my faith and my Presidential Nominee. -- 8bitJake ( talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well considered the RNC is currently attacking his time teaching constitutional law and his religion there is no doubt that there is attempts to write it into the article. -- 8bitJake ( talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It is my understanding that The United Church of Christ is a denomination. So perhaps "Christian - United Church of Christ" would be better. 64.183.164.250 ( talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
On this website, it showed that Obama and McCain are 22nd cousins twice removed.-- Sli723 ( talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And Obama also is a distant relation of Vice President Cheney. Interesting trivia, but WP:TRIVIA suggests we use trivia only when we can put it into some relevant context. I don't see a relevant context for it. It doesn't tell us anything more about Obama. So let's leave it out. Interesting, though. Also, I'm making this a full section because it has nothing to do with the Wright section. Noroton ( talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
22nd cousins twice removed. That's silly. That's like connecting the entire human race to each other and calling them a cousin. 64.183.164.250 ( talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey and Loonymonkey are now engaging in an astonishing POV push in the article mainspace. With no consensus established on the Talk page, they have gutted the paragraph about Rezko. Here is the POV-pushing excuse offered in the latest edit summary: NPOV means NON point of view, not "all non-fringe" points of view Here's what WP:NPOV has to say. It refutes your argument completely: WP:YESPOV
The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.
The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints.
There is only one POV represented in the article: the POV of Obama's campaign manager. It's been like that, off and on, ever since I started editing it: a hagiography, where never is heard a discouraging word. You've just been shown that NPOV emphatically does not mean "no point of view," which is the rationale given for your edit. Revert your edit, please. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the following are currently being discussed as hot topics on right wing blogs:
I cite as evidence the astonishing amount of text (posted above) devoted to these (and other similar) non-issue topics for a biographical article on Barack Obama. You will often find the same editors who are so assiduously pursuing inclusion of these issues similarly contributing to the hagiography on John Mccain; that is those who post under an account name and not an IP address.
I suggest we start to focus on his use of a "terrorist fist jab" with his wife following a recent speech. That is obviously of similar import.
Agree or Disagree?
- 70.230.180.50 ( talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Edits like this are anathema to consensus-building, Kossack4Truth. You pretended to simply undo Life.temp's deletion back to the compromise text, but actually re-inserted your preferred version of the controversial material. Shem (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I just made a post about this under "Consensus-building..." above. I feel it is so important, it deserves its own section.
In WP:BLP, we find the following
The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues are all notable and well-documented.
In Wikipedia:Relevance of content, we find the following concerning content that belongs in an article:
The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues have influenced Obama's public perception and primary noteworthy trait of person petitioning and being considered for election as president by way of the criticism they have drawn.
Thus policy in fact tells us, in a straightforward way, what many of us intuitively know: the Wright, Rezko, and Ayers issues need to be represented in this article, and they need to be explained to an extent that their effects on the subject (Obama) are plainly apparent.
-- Floorsheim ( talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
These endlessly repeated pseudo-arguments passed asinine a long time ago. No matter how many thousands of words a few sock-puppets write about how very much they hate Ayers, it has never been remotely relevant to this article... which is, try to remember, about Barack Obama. Yes there are a bunch of article about Ayers and things he in turn has some connection with. None of that even comes within a stone's throw of relevance here. Likewise, Obama probably ate Kellogs corn flakes at some point... and there are articles on the notable Kellogs company, on corn flakes, on corn, on cereal, maybe he even had milk on top of it, and ate it with a spoon and bowl. No matter how many words of digression one might add about he great importance of those various other things, it doesn't even remotely suggest we need to include Obama's corn flake eating in this article.
None of this has ever been anything other than dissimulation by rabidly anti-Obama partisans who want to pollute a WP article with irrelevant crap. Policy remains in effect... they are welcome to all get their own MySpace pages, which would be relevant places for these rants.
I was thinking about whether the bad arguments of the Obama loathers here fit better in Argumentum ad misericordiam or Argumentum ad nauseam (c.f. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html). I suppose they can be both at once. In any case, along the whole irrelevant digression line, it's fun to read about the study of fallacies. LotLE× talk 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Floorsheim has misinterpreted the policies. First of all, WP:BLP trumps WP:ROC because the latter is just an essay. In fact, WP:BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies - something I will expand on later. First, let me yet again remind you of why guilt-by-association content is so inappropriate to biographies by repeating my example from earlier:
Again, this perfectly illustrates why "loads of media coverage" is not a good enough excuse to put facts about other people in a BLP, however thoroughly referenced. Because of the risk of defamation, Wikipedia's BLP policy is the most stringent, overriding all others. It has to be that way to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from potential legal action. There is no question about the relevance of Obama's associations with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, because these were personal relationships that existed for an extended period. Obama's own actions with respect to these men have been questioned. With Ayers, however, we are talking about someone who is little more than a fleeting acquaintance. Any misdeeds that Ayers may have done are not at all associated with Obama (indeed, he was just a kid living in Indonesia at the time), and since that time Ayers has become a respectable civic leader in Chicago. Obama's relationship with Ayers is not at all notable except when Republicans and their would be surrogates tried to make an issue of it during the campaign. The result was little more than a fart in a hurricane, as far as media coverage was concerned. No doubt the GOP machine will try to make more of the relationship than there is as the campaign develops, but that is a matter for the campaign article (if and when it happens). Finally, let me once again remind you of the key WP:BLP rules that apply here:
It is clear from these words that there should be no mention of William Ayers in this biography. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"Also, "ROFL" is a well-known term of condescension in reference to another person's point of view. Scjessey, please leave things like that to yourself from now on."
I don't know what internet you're on, but that's not what that abbreviation means. Nar Matteru ( talk) 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please consider my comments as a WP:08 "cofounder" and a veteran of the same battle at Ron Paul's article. Five months ago Paul was attacked (again) for newsletters he'd overseen that had his name on them, and which often implied that he'd written them: the newsletters had many viewpoints described as racist and by other epithets, and his associations with the actual writers (and whether he was an actual writer) were hotly debated. The article was locked down for a week, tempers flew, and I opted out for awhile because so messy. Well guess what. We sprinkled the newsletter controversy throughout the article with strict chronological methodology; we included one to two paragraphs on its late flareup in the campaign section; and we directed all editors to rant (seven or eight paragraphs) at the campaign article instead due to the main article being a Former Featured Article Candidate. And the edit war DIED COLD. That has not happened here. There is still a faction that believes any mention of a controversy is somehow verboten as if such mention could never be NPOV; and there is still a faction that believes that controversies should be played up as much as possible because there is no way to properly contextualize without loads of gory paragraphs. Under good faith, both these POVs are understandable, but guys, you must take the time to recognize them as careless, unsophisticated ruts of mismanaging this possibly most controversial article of all (I don't say that lightly). Only then will the Wikipedian goal of article stabilization be successful. (And if you don't believe in stabilizing this article, you need to reread some of the Wikipedia core documents.) My point is that wars over Ron Paul (who faced an exceedingly similar attack), George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and even Hillary Clinton have not had anywhere near the inability to agree on policy applications that this article has seen. This article rivals (and I think surpasses due to subtlety) the Eastern Europe turf wars (where is Macedonia?). Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. The third Featured Article Review here even was closed with an anomalous result unique in the annals, because there seemed no way for the debate closer to proceed normally; and the debate has continued indefinitely. My POV (digression): It is my firm belief that Clinton (no love lost) will use the very allegations we're discussing, among others, to cannibalize Obama completely about two weeks before the convention, pulling superdelegate rank and winning a dirty vote, prior to her coasting neck-and-neck past McCain (no love lost) in a no-holds-barred, full-attention-diverting "race". The more attention wasted the better for her real plans. See if this prophecy is wrong. That means that this may all be academic soon because it'll be suddenly and painfully obvious that much more attention will have become appropriate to Obama scandals; (end digression:) all the same, wouldn't it be better to have these issues settled long before the flurry of news that anyone can reasonably expect to arise at the convention? JJB 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A fine point, but John McCain does have controversies. Also, your observations demonstrate my language precisely: it is a careless, unsophisticated rut either to insert "unrepentant terrorist" by citing sources (which is a coatrack here), or to delete an informative link to Weathermen by citing BLP. The approach indicated by WP and yourself is to determine what middle ground is due weight in each case, and to avoid every gameable invocation of other processes. This can hardly be the first ANI case on this page, and with recent news it's going to get worse before better. Anyway, hoping to catch up with you on cooler pages. JJB 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest we not use "sliding scales" or averages for the next two discussions? Also, which should we tackle first? Shem (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We have already tackled Rezko, we used a much shorter sliding scale (which has eliminated much of the problem caused by the longer sliding scale for Ayers) and the consensus supports No. 4. 70.9.18.59 ( talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If we must start a new discussion, then it's clear that about a week was wasted in the old discussion. I suggest that a firm commitment to prompt resolution, and avoiding any repetition of old arguments that have already been refuted, should be assumed. Giving up personal attacks, suspicions of sockpuppetry and aspersions against the motives of others should also be assumed. Can we agree on these ground rules? 70.9.18.59 ( talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 already has 79k of readable text to cover the primary, so discussion of how best to split up the Primary and General election portions of the campaign is under way here. Since at least one of the proposals so far involves linking the future primary and general election article from here directly rather than creating a main campaign article and then a primary sub-article and general sub-article from that article, I figured I'd invite the editors from this article to join in on the discussion. -- Bobblehead (rants) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but there is an ongoing discussion on AN/I about placing article probation/topic banning for several of the editors on this article. I've seen comments from many of the people involved, but not everyone, so not sure if everyone is aware of it. -- Bobblehead (rants) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sample infoboxes in sandbox: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes
Sign for archiving purposes. Avruch T * ER 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged the "Cultural image" section for Neutrality. It gives various reasons why people love Obama, while giving the impression that there is not a soul around who has a negative "cultural perception" of him. Fishal ( talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Something about the section seems not-right, although I wouldn't call it an NPOV problem. Maybe a matter of focus and unencyclopedic tone. An extended section on "image" seems like spin, and a bit like pop culture digression. We could probably research, and find enough sources, for an "image" section on every politician but is that how we want to organize the article? I don't see it all as praise though. Saying that people think of Obama what they want to think of him, without knowing who he really is, is not entirely a compliment. The answer is not to pile on every criticism that can be sourced - BLP is clearly not about that. It might be to shorten the section by about half, change and demote the heading to be more specific, and make it sound less like an essay or exposition. Wikidemo ( talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic toward those who view the "cultural perception" section as a puff piece, though I disagree that it lacks critical analysis (debate over Obama's "blackness [23]," for example). For the sake of getting rid of the POV dispute template, how about this: A paragraph on Obama's struggle with viral emails. He's addressed the emails several times in debates and interviews, and hasn't shied from confronting their content (there's an entire section of his website dedicated to addressing them [24], and his campaign just added a new "internet war room" staff to deal with them [25]). I'm not saying this should be added to balance "positive" information with "negative" information, but to satisfy those who feel there're notable less-than-flattering cultural perceptions/images of Obama which aren't being duly addressed. This seems like something those who are "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" could participate in shaping, and there're wheelbarrow-loads of sources we could draw from.
I'm an Obama supporter, and can assure other Obama supporting editors that I'd be diligent in working with User:Fishal and others to prevent it from becoming simply an extension of the viral emails themselves. Thoughts? Shem (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Another useful source for international opinions about Obama is this recent survey from Pew, which found:
“ | People around the world who have been paying attention to the American election express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama's, as well as in Jordan and Pakistan where few people have confidence in either candidate. Obama's advantage over McCain is overwhelming in the Western European countries surveyed: Fully 84% of the French who have been following the election say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 33% who say that about McCain. The differences in ratings for Obama and McCain are about as large in Spain and Germany, and are only somewhat narrower in Great Britain. |
” |
I'll let someone else figure out how to integrate this info into the article, or the election article if it's more appropriate there. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw something amusing when I got to my hotel (too long day of flying, so it cheered me up): Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Apparently I should welcome Life.temp to my evil plans... glad to have you doing my wicked deeds while I have to muck with flights.... FWIW, I haven't looked yet at whatever it was Life.temp apparently deleted, and the usual K4T/FA/IP brigade denounced as "Obama campaign workers". I have to go eat, then I'll see if I think his/her edits are meritorious. LotLE× talk 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is the talk page to discuss an article about Barack Obama! Please move your conversation to a personal talk page. Thank you. -- Floridianed ( talk) 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In his/her edit summary reverting me, Bobblehead denied that Rezko was convicted of bribery. He was convicted on two counts of aiding and abetting bribery, two counts of money laundering, and 12 counts of fraud -- a total of 16 felony counts. Here are the Daily Telegraph and the Associated Press. [26] [27] AFP specifies "12 counts of fraud, two of aiding and abetting bribery and two of money laundering[.]" [28] If you'd like, I'll add the AFP link to the article mainspace. Kossack4Truth ( talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm not Life.temp. I got a chuckle out of the report by FA, since it was such a transparently stupid attempt to "get even" for me filing a sock puppet request (which I think is entirely accurate, other than someone's addition of Andyvphil, who I think is an entirely different person than K4T/et alia).
I have now had a chance to look at what s/he trimmed from the Prez Campaign section. I like the overall goal of reducing it substantially, and leaving most details to the child article. However, the actual edit was a little bit off... for example, it left in the mention of S.Dakota and Montana, while leaving out the (excessive) details on the other primaries. I don't think we need to trim quite that much. A few words summarizing the primary campaign would be good, but not state-by-state details anymore. Maybe a little bit of before/after Super Tuesday though... like 3-4 sentences in total. Probably a slight mention of the Wright stuff even makes sense... less than we had, but some way of finding maybe three sentences that wrap up the whole: "Wrights remarks were publicized; Obama made a speech; more controversy around TUCC and Obama resigned the congregation". Better written and cited than that, but a quick overview with pointers. LotLE× talk 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not "minor campaign material." The polls say it's a close race. The combined effect of all these controversies could make thedifference between winning and losing for Obama in November. WorkerBee74 ( talk) 23:13, 10 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 web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)