![]() | 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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
Missing info: Please add the presumed ending date/year of the presidency term... was it 4 yrs or 6 yrs that presidents are elected for? Hmm... Very relevant e.g. for the engagements on Climate Change... the second period of the "Kyoto Protocol" starts post 2012... will Barack them still be president? Aha ! -- SvenAERTS ( talk) 10:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason the Obama template can't be amended with a controversies line, on which we would mention Wright, Ayres, and birthplace?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama Wiki fiddler caught red-handed "A right-wing pundit has been caught red-handed manufacturing controversy after claiming US President Barack Obama's Wikipedia page was being whitewashed, in a scandal that fooled big news outlets including Fox News." cojoco ( talk) 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Really, is it too much to ask to keep a cool head here, are did you miss the notice at the top of the page: "Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." and "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette." Use your own site to rant, but leave your contributions here to constructive article building. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 03:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Another story on this with an e-mail from Klein explaining he oversaw all of the "event" he reported on.
rootology (
C)(
T) 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Per
WP:LEDE#Elements of the lead, disambiguation links (templates which use {{
dablink}}
) are supposed to precede maintenance boxes (templates which use {{
ambox}}
). Currently, {{
pp-dispute}}
precedes {{
redirect4}}
, which is the exact opposite of what
WP:LEDE calls for. Whether this is generally to be applied to protection templates, I'm not sure, but I thought I'd mention it. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/ 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that the brouhaha is dying down, suggest we revert to semiprotection of the article.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Tend to agree. It's going to be a pain in the neck the first few days. Still, it shouldn't be too difficult, we can always go back to full protection, and people will get the message we mean business.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama did go to a public school in indonesia. However the school is not an extremist school as some reports claimed nor is it secular as wikipedia talk section asserts, Abcnews reports for the public school "A class in Islam was matched by one in Christianity, complete with teachings from the New Testament, a sign featuring the Lord's Prayer and a painting of Jesus". The school served multiple faiths. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2822061&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophytesoftware ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Like Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and so on? 203.211.75.108 ( talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I cannot find sources, but the answer is simply the stylings in cycles. Notice that Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur all served in the same historical clustering as post Civil War presidents, and that the other five you mentioned succeeded each other in a similar cluster of time. GW was to differentiate between his father, much as we do John Quincy Adams. Keegan talk 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Because he doesn't call himself that. The reason people are referred to in one way or another is based on their own choices of what to call themselves in semiformal usage. Some people use their own full middle name(s), some their own middle initial(s), and some omit any mention of their own middle name(s). No other factor is relevant except in those cases where it was relevant to the individual in question. We call someone James Earl Jones not because we decide it's helpful or necessary to distinguish him from any other James or Jim Jones but because he (or the actors union) did. We don't call the 38th president "Leslie Lynch King, Jr." not because it's unpleasant to any of us to call our president "King," "Lynch" or "Leslie" but because at the age of 22 the man himself chose to use a variant of his stepfather's name. (Though I would point out to a previous editor here that Gerald R. Ford was his own semi-formal usage. I also disagree with the editor who said most people who use "George Bush" mean the elder Bush, but that's a moot digression.) Similarly, we don't call his successor "James Carter", with or without a middle name or initial, because in semi-formal situations he preferred the less formal " Jimmy Carter". "Hussein" is a bloody ironic middle name for the first president elected after 9/11 and the demise of Saddam Hussein, but nobody's sense of irony (much less conspiracy theorists' imagining) is relevant to Barack Obama's own usage of his name. In each president's main article, his full, exact birth name is given in the lead, whether it was ever commonly used or not, but in all other instances of a "full" name (succession boxes, for example) it is the man's own common usage which editors are to use. To do anything else is a subjective choice to wrestle a man's identity away from him. This is sometimes done by the writers of blogs and other yellow rags, but not by encyclopedia editors. Abrazame ( talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr ( talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There isn't one mention of Ayers or Wright on this page, which is patently absurd. There are people more capable of fixing this than me, so anyone with the stones feel free to give it a whirl. Skydiver99 ( talk) Frankly, this whole page reads like a member of Obama's staff wrote it. There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever regarding criticism or negative campaign coverage, and it is capped with a section extolling his virtues as a public speaker. Seriously? This is bad even by biased standards. Skydiver99 ( talk)
I'm aware of what happens to users who dare to modify Obama's page in any way that isn't visibly positive to him: they get banned. Honestly, does dishonesty on a forum such as Wikipedia ultimately serve the pro-Obama cause? All that does is establish certain supporters of his as unscrupulous. One way or another, dishonesty ultimately sabotages all that employ it, because the truth gets out. Now, am I saying that it is an objective fact that Obama is bad? No. I'm saying that this entry is squeaky clean and actually reads like an ADVERTISEMENT for him. His press people couldn't improve on it as it. That's just wrong and violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Skydiver99 ( talk)
And BTW, there are ZERO mentions of Wright and Ayers on his presidential campaign pages, even though both received serious media attention. Skydiver99 ( talk)
|
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr ( talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First of all I want to say that I don't think there's any question of President Obama's American citizenship. Also, in light of a recent and unfortunately controversial return to the discussion tonight, that my suggestion not be grouped with other since-archived proposals on the basis of redundancy. I am suggesting that either a brief mention or section be included on Barack Obama's main entry, or similar references be removed from articles that serve as paralleling examples. It was suggested elsewhere that the conspiracies compare to long-since refuted fringe theories regarding such things as the JFK assassination and the September 11 attacks and that their validity would share a similar fate. Yet, both conspiracies are documented -- albeit briefly -- on the main Wikipedia entries of these subjects. The September 11 attacks article has a small section referencing the theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination has a section referencing conspiracy theories. Even John F. Kennedy's main article mentions conspiracy theories in brief. These are much more publicized 'fringe theories' that have also been scrutinized to a much greater extent than this controversy, but which are given their place amongst the modern historical compilation on Wikipedia. In those terms, the question of Obama's citizenship is relevant enough to merit a mention on his main page, if only to redirect, as the other examples do, a reader to a more critical discussion -- and most likely refutation. To treat this case differently is indeed hypocritical, and only supports the claim that it's an example of politically biased censorship. That is what I have an issue with, because I would rather Wikipedia not fall under such negative perceptions. These are our Wikipedia Commons, and our knowledge-base, and while they should be dedicated first and foremost to the truth, an omission of historical elucidations serves only to deprive it. --Dan Lowe 06:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr ( talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article on George W. Bush seems to mention, albeit briefly, at least one controversy that arose only in the context of Bush's campaign for the presidency:
It doesn't seem consistent to insist that all negative/controversial items that arose during Obama's campaign can ONLY be mentioned in articles about his campaign. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b ( talk) 09:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
|
This is shameful even for wikipedia standards, not even talking about the fact that he sat and listened 20 years to borderline racist statements and the only thing wikipedia users show fit to say is that he left the church, Reverend Wright is Obama's personal friend, what would it take to put more about their relationship on his page? Oh wait I know, it would be perfect if it were a white Reverend and he was George W. Bush's friend, this is cowardly bullshit and blatant favoritism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husk3rfan9287 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
While the policy in A5 (not mentioning "fairly minor issues [that had] no significant legal or mainstream political impact) would seem to keep any mention of Obama's citizenship controversy out of his article, I don't think the same can be said for his association with Reverend Wright and the church where he preached. Those had both significant and mainstream impact. Does someone disagree? Lawyer2b ( talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be fair if they were fringe and unreliable. But Obama himself has stated that rather Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.
What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice, He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics.
That sounds like a pretty important person in his life, so instead of just rejecting something that disagrees w/your opinion judging it on merits. As I said, he deserves mention in the personal section. Soxwon ( talk) 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No one yet has questioned the assumption that if Jeremiah Wright is included in the Barack Obama entry, that it will affect it in an inappropriately negative way, or that it should. There was a reason President Obama made the aforementioned dedications in his book, and why he patronized Wright's Church for decades: he respected Reverend Wright, and has no reason not to now. Even as far as Wright's controversial comments go, there isn't a consensus that he was out of line or wrong. He's a preacher and activist, and being zealous and passionate are admired traits of such ventures. In other interviews both preceding and following the publicizing of the sermons, he displayed a reasonable disposition and sound mind. His condemnation of American military engagements and of the country's historically racist values aren't any more radical than what one would hear in the classroom of any major university. Posed in this way, I'd like to imagine that Obama's relationship with Wright is perfectly legitimate, and doesn't have to stand as disproportionately critical. That its only mention involves the campaign controversy is inconsistent with how everyone has been handling these subjects so far, because of how they had been skewed for political reasons during the campaign. - Dan Lowe ( talk)19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
We might mention him too, though only that he was a manufactured controversy during the course of the election. Soxwon ( talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
collapse personal attacks and pointless interruption |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(Unindent)I will appeal to your sense of reason and ask you to reword your edit based on good faith. I say this because I perceive that you lack good faith in dealing with the editors here that are trying to keep stable a very contentious article that has had many hours worth of work sunk into to make as excellent as possible within wikipedia's vision of what an article ought be. This is independent of labels but dependent on fact. Sometimes people with liberal leanings get frustrated and make statements that are rather partisan, but it is up to you to respond with arguments that have merit and rebut their faultily crafted rhetoric as you perceive it. Attacking in kind weakens your position, because contrary to what you believe reactionary liberals are not welcomed anymore than reactionary conservatives are; we look down on marginalizing of republicans and conservatives outside the facts as we do with attempting the like with liberals and democrats. If you assume good faith on behalf of the hard working editors here, I ask you, what conclusion do you come to? 216.96.150.33 ( talk) 07:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
|
(outdent) And also, we need to avoid reading our own interpretation wtih WP:OR. As far as I've seen there hasn't been anything that really ties him in with Obama as a person (at least in a deep enough way to impact the article). Sure Ayers made some mistakes, but that doesn't mean his association with Obama makes it something of importance to Obama. As for the ppl who keep saying it's on Ayers and Wright, well duh, for the most part no one would know about them if it weren't for Obama. However, Obama is certainly well known w/o them. Soxwon ( talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
A common Logical Fallacy: Association Guilt.
(outdent) Uh, that's a blogger's commentary on the article, hardly RS. It takes facts and draws conclusions I.E. WP:OR Soxwon ( talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
From the LA Times: Obama joined the board in 1993 and stepped down in 2002, three years after Ayers was appointed, said Laura Washington chairwoman of Woods Fund. The board met four times a year to discuss policy and new grant proposals, she said. Is that giving him his start? He made his announcement in Bill Ayers home, so? Is that so significant with other people sayings things like: Bill Ayers is very respected and prominent in Chicago as a civic activist," Washington added. "He has a national reputation as an educator. That's why he's on our board. "One more example is the way Sen. Obama's opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers." Mayor Dailey
And last, but certainly not least, was this bit at the end of the article: Hyde Park, on Chicago's South Side, is home to the University of Chicago, an arts center, museums and other cultural institutions. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's home and the headquarters of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH are within a few blocks of Obama's red-brick home. The neighborhood's politics are vibrant and decidedly liberal.
As a result, what is normal in Hyde Park may sound odd elsewhere in America.
Adolph Reed Jr., a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, knows both Ayers and Obama from his days in Chicago. He plans to vote for Clinton in Pennsylvania's primary Tuesday. But he called the Ayers-Obama link a "bogus story."
So there's a problem with mixing with one of the other activists in Chicago? There are hundreds more, this one just had a skeleton. [14] Soxwon ( talk) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Whether he launched his career at that meeting or not still does not answer why this needs to be in the article. As of right now there is no reliable source that says he launched his career there without a large amount of synthesis and original research. The big question still is why should this go into the main article. How was this a major important part of his career? How did this impact his life? As of right now neither question is satisfied as it was not a major part of his career or did it impact his life with the exception of the presidential election. Even then it was just an unfounded criticism thrown at him. While you two might be working this out, you still need to convince the rest of the editors that this was important enough to be included in the main article. As of right now it is nothing more then a political election stunt. Plus, any article used as a ref must be squeaky clean and must say exactly what you are using it as a referencenfor, anything less would be original research and/or synthesis. Brothejr ( talk) 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The CNN article mentions that they were on two boards together. That certainly sounds like Allies to me. So, you think there is a political agenda in including Ayers? What about the political agenda to keep Ayers out of the article? Isn't that just as valid? Wikipedia doesn't care about politics. It cares about verifiable facts. With Ayers and Obama, there are plenty. Related articles will and should certainly go into further depth about Ayers and Obama than this article, and this article should not focus on Ayers to present undue weight to the subject, but to omit Ayers completely is simply POV. and that is unacceptable. Bytebear ( talk) 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon ( talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If I may interject, I think we can all agree that one statement in the article is hardly WP:UNDUE considering the stink that arose (meh, I play Devil's Advocate, sue me). It certainly has affected his public and political image, and could arguably go in one section or another. Soxwon ( talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have until now stayed away from the discussion on this talk page, although I would have liked to comment on the question whether Obama was "multiracial" or "African-American." But just now I've read this article at wired.com. For the record: I am not watching FOX, I am not a member of any Christian religious community and if I was US-citizen I certainly wouldn't vote Republican. The Wired-article explains explains some of the background here, but regardless of that, Fox claim that "Wikipedia Whitewashes Obama's Past" has some substance. (As they say, even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn - if it only continues picking long enough.) I simply couldn't find the link to Bill Ayers presidential election controversy here. And with every piece of news that is written about this, Bill Ayers becomes more relevant to this article. Therefore I propose to include the following sentence in this article, in the "Early life and career" section:
Since we already have a separate article on the issue 1) we don't need to sort out the facts first 2) no one could honestly oppose the inclusion of this issue with one sentence in this article.
This is not a problem of this article anyway, it is a general problem of Wikipedia. The article on George H. W. Bush doesn't include a link to Robert I. Sherman neither. Articles on Democratic Presidents are written by Democrats, articles on Republican Presidents are written by Republicans. Articles on Persecution of Christians are written by Christians, articles on Discrimination against atheists are written by Atheists. This is why in such cases you simply shouldn't rely on Wikipedia articles. Zara1709 ( talk) 06:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
←I am not going to get engaged in this endless debate again - we have been over this many times and no one here has brought up anything that has not been considered over and over again. I am only coming in now to repeat, for the hundredth time, my agreement with Wikidemon, Tarc, and many other editors with whom consensus has been repeatedly reached, that Ayers does not belong in this biography of Barack Obama's life. All of the reasons have been laid out here and in the archives, many times over, and I do not wish to go over it again. But it should be understood that not getting into it again doesn't mean that there aren't still numerous editors still supporting the consensus. Tvoz/ talk 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am going to make the edit that wikilinks
Jeremiah Wright in the article. If anyone feels that this is an abuse of admin privileges instead of a janitorial correction, I will not contest a reversion. I will question their judgment, however
--
Avi (
talk) 17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia I have read all the rules and regulations.My purpose of coming here was to read about American Presidents .I first read about the 43rd President George Walker Bush and then the 44th President Barack Obama ,[no middle name ?,] Anyone reading about Obama and not knowing his history would think he is a Saint,as opposed to Bush where every rumor and innuendo against his character is included.Shouldn't Obama admitting to alchohol and drug abuse and his association with anti American zealots and convicted criminals be included .You have not published a fair and balanced portayal of both men.You have contravened a host of your own rules and regulations and make me wonder about your objectivity and veracity of your entire web site. Jock311 ( talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)]
That is a load and you all know it. There is a ton of stuff on Obama that you are excluding because of bias. IF you feel that the negative stuff should be removed from his article, you need to remove it from Bush's also. Link it to another page concerning controversies with both men, but claiming that the reason you have so much stuff on Bush is because of his "eight very controversial years" shows your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 ( talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the editors who are censoring this article need to decide whether protecting Obama's reputation is worth destroying Wikipedia's. So far, the answer is clearly yes. The practice of banning and denigrating anybody who provides unpleasant facts is not a good omen for the future, however much one might think one is serving a higher purpose. Billollib ( talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious to the most casual of observers that the Obama gang has Wiki in their back pocket and nothing negative is going to be allowed about the messiah. So much for the 1st Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimes39 ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
How about Tony Rezko for a start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.138.106 ( talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The point should not be that an initial or middle name is or isn't included, it ought to be that this is the first U.S. president with a Mulsim background. As such, it is a very relevant point and his middle name should be included. The alternative is to leave it out out of some sort of manufactured shame. It is either his actual name or not, so how could one argue over such a minor point? Splitting hairs is no way to build credibility and the entire world is aware of the mishandling of this Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpentershop ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr ( talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Facts be damned. Mob rule. 'Nuff said. Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr ( talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Screw You & Your Website Wikipedia!! You are a Liberal backed site, therefore do not show any negative information regarding this person's background. I am Boycotting your site since I know now that your site is bias, and will not show how dishonest and repulsive that the current President of the USA actually is!! World Net Daily has dedicated this report; http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 in your honor. Good Luck with your Liberal-Left Wing site you Bums!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.111.82 ( talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
As a computer medium that advocates accuracy, it is a concern to me that Obama has no critical views in his bio. I think it is a far strecth to make us believe their are none.From this day forward, I will no longer be using Wikipedia. If you fail to be accurate with something like this, I can only imagine what else you neglect. Information should be UNBIASED and because you cannot do this, I cannot use you.
Please feel free to read this and block it as I know you will.
Stewart
I also agree with Stewart. Wikipedia has lost a significant amount of credibility over its embarrassing handling of this situation. By wantonly flouting its own clearly defined rules, Wikipedia has left itself vulnerable to well-deserved criticism of having a biased political slant. The problem, as I saw someone allude to earlier, is that the administrators do not have enough accountability. They possess opinions just like the rest of us, and they can use their responsibilities as a bludgeon to advance a political agenda, as we've seen demonstrated in the revisions of this article on President Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.55.116 ( talk) 01:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said at greater length below, when there are two sides to a position held by a significant number of Wikipedians, repeatedly removing one of them isnecessarily imposing a POV. — Charlie (Colorado) ( talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Stewart, what took you so long? Hopefully Wiki will follow in footsteps of NY Times and other dying media, unless Obama can see what an opportunity it is for him to use them to create the "newsspeak" necessary to push his agenda through...Orwell was a prophet... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lokietek (
talk •
contribs) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe a fair assessment of Obama will be permitted on the liberally moderated Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.78.119 ( talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is the height of hypocrisy for Wikipedia admins to claim fair and unbiased editing when the controversies include din the GW Bush article are there for everyone to see, while the Ayers, Rev. Wright, birthplace controversies are not even mentioned. Wikipedia has lost considerable credibility. Politics don't matter here, what matters is presenting a fair article, not one that appears to have been written by President Obama's press office. Anyone who argues otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. 129.188.33.25 ( talk)budmancjm —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
Just a note that a World News Daily story on what they refer to preferential editing is now linked on the Drudge Report site. So expect a lot of traffic to this page. [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 Article ] Hardnfast ( talk) 12:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You could most likely save all of mankind with what you can not fine in the "mainstream media". "Mainstream media", or anyother media for that matter, is there for the money not to make sure anyone really knows what is or is not going on. And history is full of things that never showed up in the "Mainstream media" Gama1961 ( talk) 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Either Obama's article can have negative things about him in it IF THEY ARE CITED, or Bush's cannot. This allowing of Bush controversies to be discussed yet leaving a perfect article about Obama is absolutely ludicrous. I'm not even talking party politics here - this needs to be considered from a neutral standpoint. Wiki editors *MUST* stop banning users who add PROPERLY CITED notations about Obama or they MUST ban every user who has done such things in the Bush article - it's one or the other, no more playing sides.
Supergeo ( talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It must be reasoning like this, lack of integrity for political reasons, that my college professor will not allow Wikipedia as a reference in any work. I'm beginning to understand those who say you have a credibility problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.234.143 ( talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As a registered independent voter, I find it inexcuseable that only the democratic side is allowed to control the content of this article. Attempts to lock down the talk pages as well merely proves the lack of fair dealing. And name calling by a few of the administrators doesn't help either, in fact, I believe that most realize those tactics for what they are.
No doubt the republicans are out in force, but to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, some concern should be given to the content of the article that raised the controversy.
My suggestion would be to replace those on both sides, allowing someone neutral to consider the arguements. As it is, one man's vandalism is anothers effort to have the article reflect reality. Carpentershop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpentershop ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I join this fray with trepidation. Wow! What a spectacle it is! I am not a right-wing fringer. Sure, I am conservative, but that is still part of the mainstream, isn't it? I am not a newbie. In the past year or so, I have originated one Wikipedia article, improved a few dozen others, corrected a few cases of vandalism, and generally approached this incredible Wikipedia project with optimism, appreciation, awe, and good intent. I have been mostly silent for a few months for my own reasons, making a few edits without logging in. Why I am I saying this? Because some of you Wikipedians defending this article are getting a little scary in your language, and I am trying to protect myself proactively by an honest statement of who I am. Why am I here? Honestly, I got here yesterday from the Drudge Report via WorldNetDaily. Am I going to get attacked just for saying that?? Look, the Drudge Report is sufficiently mainstream that no one should have to apologize for reading it. I've visited WND something like twice, following links, and know little about it. But why should I have to apologize at all for what I read? This is what bothers me about the discourse on this discussion page. There are so many references to the fringe, lunatics, nut-jobs, conspiracy theories, ditto-heads, etc., attacking almost any sort of dissent against the tone and content of this article, and these verbal attacks have the appearance of being carried out by administrators; I hope I am wrong.
I'll cut right to my point now. WND has nothing to do with this, other than they called attention to it. I form my own opinions, thank you! Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with it. I and others like me saw what we saw in the news last year, regarding Obama and Wright and Ayers. What I read and heard them say disturbed me profoundly. It played a large role in shaping my opinions of Obama. That view is not fringe and it is not a conspiracy. You guys can deny this all you want, but it is abundantly clear that there was at least SOME relationship between Obama and each of these men. Wright and especially Ayers are HIGHLY objectionable to me and many others that share my views. Even if we suppose the relationship between Obama and Ayers was limited to what is documented in the public record, many of us view that as very important, very significant, and frankly, shocking and inexcusable in a person who would be--now is--president. It is not just a spurious blip on the campaign radar; it is of fundamental importance to many of Obama's opponents. How can you possibly justify not including some mention of this in an article on the man who is president of the United States? Guys, this DOMINATED a large chunk of the campaign, and the issues did not go away. The media coverage moved on, that is all. Ayers has continued to crop up again and again in the news, and ALWAYS in the context Obama's campaign, history, and presidency.
So I skimmed the article and found it to be just--what did someone call it?--hagiography? How can you take a controversial person like Obama and have an article that says nothing bad? How could any president, regardless of months or years in office, have nothing bad or controversial? The tone of the article is clearly not neutral. The article smacks of censorship, and a perusal of this whole discussion mess should be enough to confirm any objective reader in that opinion. Wait 'til all the crazies go away, eh? Yeah, I'd say there are some neutrality issues here. Serious ones, too. The perception that they are more fundamental than the article itself may be what is disturbing a lot of people.
Taquito1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
(unindent)Taquito1, I appreciate your sincerity and will take to heart what you say about civility. Please recognize that many of us -- the majority of Americans and the consensus here on Wikipedia, apparently -- see things differently. As hard as I try, I simply cannot see where you are coming from, or where anyone who takes a serious look at things could see a hagiography here or any conspiracy to avoid the truth. Part of the problem, I think, may be the tone and rhetoric that Obama's opponents took, all the way from bloggers and paid hacks all the way up to the conservative press and top GOP officials and their candidates. The opposition to Obama relied very much on strained arguments, mud slinging, guilt by association, misrepresenting things, and word games. Here on this page there was a constant effort to cover that, to establish it was true, and failing that, to report all the pieces of mud that were thrown. There was all kinds of mud - closet Muslim, friend of terrorists, in bed with corrupt officials, not born in America, lied about this or that, socialist, vote stealer, went to a Madras, fake academic record, on and on. Every time the Republicans launched an attack it hit here about as fast as it hit the blogs. Determined editors landed on the article daily claiming that to not report on the Republican attacks and innuendo showed bias, as if neutrality meant choosing a midpoint halfway between saying nothing and repeating the smear. The conservative press reinforced that then as they reinforce it now, claiming that not reporting their manufactured scandals showed liberal bias. They were banging that drum all through the election - paranoia, liberal bias, bad for America, communist, traitor, socialism. And of course there was worse - rampant racism, the N word, and all kinds of belligerent, nasty stuff. It turned out that most of the accounts that were trying to slant this article to be more negative were the product of a very small number of people who had each registered multiple accounts to make it look as if they had agreement - sockpuppets. All of that is nonsense, and it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. We are simply telling the story of a man, his life and career trajectory. People who are serious about editing don't like it when people come here to play games, or when people come here to soapbox and make accusations. The article is mostly "positive" (I put that in quotes, because facts are facts, you interpret them as you wish) because most facts of most people's lives are that way. If you look at what Obama has done his whole life, there is not a whole lot of negativity to report on. That is true of most people. Even articles about very controversial people are usually positive in that they just report he did X, and he did Y. And to be a real article, X and Y are usually significant life achievements or events. We don't say he did X (but A would have been better), and he did Y (but a lot of people think that ruined B). We don't have to balance every X with a A, and every Y with a B. Some people seem blind to the fact that we do report on some personal failures too, but we do that only where it is biographically relevant. Anyway, if you see the process here and you are still convinced that it's a liberal cabal I doubt I can convince you. I ask though that you see that we sincerely believe we are keeping the article factual, just as I can accept that you sincerely believe the facts are slanted. Wikidemon ( talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In case you guys didn't know, Wikipedia isn't a worship house; and I encourage you that any love you have for Lord Obama be preserved. As our guidelines suggest, let the facts do the talking, not emotions. I really can't believe that such a POV articles is actually featured. The administrators are doing an ugly job. I feel like adding a POV tag, and I will if I ever get to be an administrator - this articles is written from a certain prospective and kills our neutrality attempts. this is the crap that makes people hate Wikipedia. -- Pgecaj ( talk) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
Missing info: Please add the presumed ending date/year of the presidency term... was it 4 yrs or 6 yrs that presidents are elected for? Hmm... Very relevant e.g. for the engagements on Climate Change... the second period of the "Kyoto Protocol" starts post 2012... will Barack them still be president? Aha ! -- SvenAERTS ( talk) 10:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason the Obama template can't be amended with a controversies line, on which we would mention Wright, Ayres, and birthplace?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama Wiki fiddler caught red-handed "A right-wing pundit has been caught red-handed manufacturing controversy after claiming US President Barack Obama's Wikipedia page was being whitewashed, in a scandal that fooled big news outlets including Fox News." cojoco ( talk) 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Really, is it too much to ask to keep a cool head here, are did you miss the notice at the top of the page: "Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." and "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette." Use your own site to rant, but leave your contributions here to constructive article building. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 03:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Another story on this with an e-mail from Klein explaining he oversaw all of the "event" he reported on.
rootology (
C)(
T) 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Per
WP:LEDE#Elements of the lead, disambiguation links (templates which use {{
dablink}}
) are supposed to precede maintenance boxes (templates which use {{
ambox}}
). Currently, {{
pp-dispute}}
precedes {{
redirect4}}
, which is the exact opposite of what
WP:LEDE calls for. Whether this is generally to be applied to protection templates, I'm not sure, but I thought I'd mention it. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/ 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that the brouhaha is dying down, suggest we revert to semiprotection of the article.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Tend to agree. It's going to be a pain in the neck the first few days. Still, it shouldn't be too difficult, we can always go back to full protection, and people will get the message we mean business.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama did go to a public school in indonesia. However the school is not an extremist school as some reports claimed nor is it secular as wikipedia talk section asserts, Abcnews reports for the public school "A class in Islam was matched by one in Christianity, complete with teachings from the New Testament, a sign featuring the Lord's Prayer and a painting of Jesus". The school served multiple faiths. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2822061&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophytesoftware ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Like Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and so on? 203.211.75.108 ( talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I cannot find sources, but the answer is simply the stylings in cycles. Notice that Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur all served in the same historical clustering as post Civil War presidents, and that the other five you mentioned succeeded each other in a similar cluster of time. GW was to differentiate between his father, much as we do John Quincy Adams. Keegan talk 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Because he doesn't call himself that. The reason people are referred to in one way or another is based on their own choices of what to call themselves in semiformal usage. Some people use their own full middle name(s), some their own middle initial(s), and some omit any mention of their own middle name(s). No other factor is relevant except in those cases where it was relevant to the individual in question. We call someone James Earl Jones not because we decide it's helpful or necessary to distinguish him from any other James or Jim Jones but because he (or the actors union) did. We don't call the 38th president "Leslie Lynch King, Jr." not because it's unpleasant to any of us to call our president "King," "Lynch" or "Leslie" but because at the age of 22 the man himself chose to use a variant of his stepfather's name. (Though I would point out to a previous editor here that Gerald R. Ford was his own semi-formal usage. I also disagree with the editor who said most people who use "George Bush" mean the elder Bush, but that's a moot digression.) Similarly, we don't call his successor "James Carter", with or without a middle name or initial, because in semi-formal situations he preferred the less formal " Jimmy Carter". "Hussein" is a bloody ironic middle name for the first president elected after 9/11 and the demise of Saddam Hussein, but nobody's sense of irony (much less conspiracy theorists' imagining) is relevant to Barack Obama's own usage of his name. In each president's main article, his full, exact birth name is given in the lead, whether it was ever commonly used or not, but in all other instances of a "full" name (succession boxes, for example) it is the man's own common usage which editors are to use. To do anything else is a subjective choice to wrestle a man's identity away from him. This is sometimes done by the writers of blogs and other yellow rags, but not by encyclopedia editors. Abrazame ( talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr ( talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There isn't one mention of Ayers or Wright on this page, which is patently absurd. There are people more capable of fixing this than me, so anyone with the stones feel free to give it a whirl. Skydiver99 ( talk) Frankly, this whole page reads like a member of Obama's staff wrote it. There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever regarding criticism or negative campaign coverage, and it is capped with a section extolling his virtues as a public speaker. Seriously? This is bad even by biased standards. Skydiver99 ( talk)
I'm aware of what happens to users who dare to modify Obama's page in any way that isn't visibly positive to him: they get banned. Honestly, does dishonesty on a forum such as Wikipedia ultimately serve the pro-Obama cause? All that does is establish certain supporters of his as unscrupulous. One way or another, dishonesty ultimately sabotages all that employ it, because the truth gets out. Now, am I saying that it is an objective fact that Obama is bad? No. I'm saying that this entry is squeaky clean and actually reads like an ADVERTISEMENT for him. His press people couldn't improve on it as it. That's just wrong and violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Skydiver99 ( talk)
And BTW, there are ZERO mentions of Wright and Ayers on his presidential campaign pages, even though both received serious media attention. Skydiver99 ( talk)
|
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr ( talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First of all I want to say that I don't think there's any question of President Obama's American citizenship. Also, in light of a recent and unfortunately controversial return to the discussion tonight, that my suggestion not be grouped with other since-archived proposals on the basis of redundancy. I am suggesting that either a brief mention or section be included on Barack Obama's main entry, or similar references be removed from articles that serve as paralleling examples. It was suggested elsewhere that the conspiracies compare to long-since refuted fringe theories regarding such things as the JFK assassination and the September 11 attacks and that their validity would share a similar fate. Yet, both conspiracies are documented -- albeit briefly -- on the main Wikipedia entries of these subjects. The September 11 attacks article has a small section referencing the theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination has a section referencing conspiracy theories. Even John F. Kennedy's main article mentions conspiracy theories in brief. These are much more publicized 'fringe theories' that have also been scrutinized to a much greater extent than this controversy, but which are given their place amongst the modern historical compilation on Wikipedia. In those terms, the question of Obama's citizenship is relevant enough to merit a mention on his main page, if only to redirect, as the other examples do, a reader to a more critical discussion -- and most likely refutation. To treat this case differently is indeed hypocritical, and only supports the claim that it's an example of politically biased censorship. That is what I have an issue with, because I would rather Wikipedia not fall under such negative perceptions. These are our Wikipedia Commons, and our knowledge-base, and while they should be dedicated first and foremost to the truth, an omission of historical elucidations serves only to deprive it. --Dan Lowe 06:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr ( talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article on George W. Bush seems to mention, albeit briefly, at least one controversy that arose only in the context of Bush's campaign for the presidency:
It doesn't seem consistent to insist that all negative/controversial items that arose during Obama's campaign can ONLY be mentioned in articles about his campaign. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b ( talk) 09:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
|
This is shameful even for wikipedia standards, not even talking about the fact that he sat and listened 20 years to borderline racist statements and the only thing wikipedia users show fit to say is that he left the church, Reverend Wright is Obama's personal friend, what would it take to put more about their relationship on his page? Oh wait I know, it would be perfect if it were a white Reverend and he was George W. Bush's friend, this is cowardly bullshit and blatant favoritism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husk3rfan9287 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
While the policy in A5 (not mentioning "fairly minor issues [that had] no significant legal or mainstream political impact) would seem to keep any mention of Obama's citizenship controversy out of his article, I don't think the same can be said for his association with Reverend Wright and the church where he preached. Those had both significant and mainstream impact. Does someone disagree? Lawyer2b ( talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be fair if they were fringe and unreliable. But Obama himself has stated that rather Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.
What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice, He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics.
That sounds like a pretty important person in his life, so instead of just rejecting something that disagrees w/your opinion judging it on merits. As I said, he deserves mention in the personal section. Soxwon ( talk) 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No one yet has questioned the assumption that if Jeremiah Wright is included in the Barack Obama entry, that it will affect it in an inappropriately negative way, or that it should. There was a reason President Obama made the aforementioned dedications in his book, and why he patronized Wright's Church for decades: he respected Reverend Wright, and has no reason not to now. Even as far as Wright's controversial comments go, there isn't a consensus that he was out of line or wrong. He's a preacher and activist, and being zealous and passionate are admired traits of such ventures. In other interviews both preceding and following the publicizing of the sermons, he displayed a reasonable disposition and sound mind. His condemnation of American military engagements and of the country's historically racist values aren't any more radical than what one would hear in the classroom of any major university. Posed in this way, I'd like to imagine that Obama's relationship with Wright is perfectly legitimate, and doesn't have to stand as disproportionately critical. That its only mention involves the campaign controversy is inconsistent with how everyone has been handling these subjects so far, because of how they had been skewed for political reasons during the campaign. - Dan Lowe ( talk)19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
We might mention him too, though only that he was a manufactured controversy during the course of the election. Soxwon ( talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
collapse personal attacks and pointless interruption |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(Unindent)I will appeal to your sense of reason and ask you to reword your edit based on good faith. I say this because I perceive that you lack good faith in dealing with the editors here that are trying to keep stable a very contentious article that has had many hours worth of work sunk into to make as excellent as possible within wikipedia's vision of what an article ought be. This is independent of labels but dependent on fact. Sometimes people with liberal leanings get frustrated and make statements that are rather partisan, but it is up to you to respond with arguments that have merit and rebut their faultily crafted rhetoric as you perceive it. Attacking in kind weakens your position, because contrary to what you believe reactionary liberals are not welcomed anymore than reactionary conservatives are; we look down on marginalizing of republicans and conservatives outside the facts as we do with attempting the like with liberals and democrats. If you assume good faith on behalf of the hard working editors here, I ask you, what conclusion do you come to? 216.96.150.33 ( talk) 07:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
|
(outdent) And also, we need to avoid reading our own interpretation wtih WP:OR. As far as I've seen there hasn't been anything that really ties him in with Obama as a person (at least in a deep enough way to impact the article). Sure Ayers made some mistakes, but that doesn't mean his association with Obama makes it something of importance to Obama. As for the ppl who keep saying it's on Ayers and Wright, well duh, for the most part no one would know about them if it weren't for Obama. However, Obama is certainly well known w/o them. Soxwon ( talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
A common Logical Fallacy: Association Guilt.
(outdent) Uh, that's a blogger's commentary on the article, hardly RS. It takes facts and draws conclusions I.E. WP:OR Soxwon ( talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
From the LA Times: Obama joined the board in 1993 and stepped down in 2002, three years after Ayers was appointed, said Laura Washington chairwoman of Woods Fund. The board met four times a year to discuss policy and new grant proposals, she said. Is that giving him his start? He made his announcement in Bill Ayers home, so? Is that so significant with other people sayings things like: Bill Ayers is very respected and prominent in Chicago as a civic activist," Washington added. "He has a national reputation as an educator. That's why he's on our board. "One more example is the way Sen. Obama's opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers." Mayor Dailey
And last, but certainly not least, was this bit at the end of the article: Hyde Park, on Chicago's South Side, is home to the University of Chicago, an arts center, museums and other cultural institutions. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's home and the headquarters of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH are within a few blocks of Obama's red-brick home. The neighborhood's politics are vibrant and decidedly liberal.
As a result, what is normal in Hyde Park may sound odd elsewhere in America.
Adolph Reed Jr., a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, knows both Ayers and Obama from his days in Chicago. He plans to vote for Clinton in Pennsylvania's primary Tuesday. But he called the Ayers-Obama link a "bogus story."
So there's a problem with mixing with one of the other activists in Chicago? There are hundreds more, this one just had a skeleton. [14] Soxwon ( talk) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Whether he launched his career at that meeting or not still does not answer why this needs to be in the article. As of right now there is no reliable source that says he launched his career there without a large amount of synthesis and original research. The big question still is why should this go into the main article. How was this a major important part of his career? How did this impact his life? As of right now neither question is satisfied as it was not a major part of his career or did it impact his life with the exception of the presidential election. Even then it was just an unfounded criticism thrown at him. While you two might be working this out, you still need to convince the rest of the editors that this was important enough to be included in the main article. As of right now it is nothing more then a political election stunt. Plus, any article used as a ref must be squeaky clean and must say exactly what you are using it as a referencenfor, anything less would be original research and/or synthesis. Brothejr ( talk) 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The CNN article mentions that they were on two boards together. That certainly sounds like Allies to me. So, you think there is a political agenda in including Ayers? What about the political agenda to keep Ayers out of the article? Isn't that just as valid? Wikipedia doesn't care about politics. It cares about verifiable facts. With Ayers and Obama, there are plenty. Related articles will and should certainly go into further depth about Ayers and Obama than this article, and this article should not focus on Ayers to present undue weight to the subject, but to omit Ayers completely is simply POV. and that is unacceptable. Bytebear ( talk) 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon ( talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If I may interject, I think we can all agree that one statement in the article is hardly WP:UNDUE considering the stink that arose (meh, I play Devil's Advocate, sue me). It certainly has affected his public and political image, and could arguably go in one section or another. Soxwon ( talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have until now stayed away from the discussion on this talk page, although I would have liked to comment on the question whether Obama was "multiracial" or "African-American." But just now I've read this article at wired.com. For the record: I am not watching FOX, I am not a member of any Christian religious community and if I was US-citizen I certainly wouldn't vote Republican. The Wired-article explains explains some of the background here, but regardless of that, Fox claim that "Wikipedia Whitewashes Obama's Past" has some substance. (As they say, even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn - if it only continues picking long enough.) I simply couldn't find the link to Bill Ayers presidential election controversy here. And with every piece of news that is written about this, Bill Ayers becomes more relevant to this article. Therefore I propose to include the following sentence in this article, in the "Early life and career" section:
Since we already have a separate article on the issue 1) we don't need to sort out the facts first 2) no one could honestly oppose the inclusion of this issue with one sentence in this article.
This is not a problem of this article anyway, it is a general problem of Wikipedia. The article on George H. W. Bush doesn't include a link to Robert I. Sherman neither. Articles on Democratic Presidents are written by Democrats, articles on Republican Presidents are written by Republicans. Articles on Persecution of Christians are written by Christians, articles on Discrimination against atheists are written by Atheists. This is why in such cases you simply shouldn't rely on Wikipedia articles. Zara1709 ( talk) 06:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
←I am not going to get engaged in this endless debate again - we have been over this many times and no one here has brought up anything that has not been considered over and over again. I am only coming in now to repeat, for the hundredth time, my agreement with Wikidemon, Tarc, and many other editors with whom consensus has been repeatedly reached, that Ayers does not belong in this biography of Barack Obama's life. All of the reasons have been laid out here and in the archives, many times over, and I do not wish to go over it again. But it should be understood that not getting into it again doesn't mean that there aren't still numerous editors still supporting the consensus. Tvoz/ talk 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am going to make the edit that wikilinks
Jeremiah Wright in the article. If anyone feels that this is an abuse of admin privileges instead of a janitorial correction, I will not contest a reversion. I will question their judgment, however
--
Avi (
talk) 17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia I have read all the rules and regulations.My purpose of coming here was to read about American Presidents .I first read about the 43rd President George Walker Bush and then the 44th President Barack Obama ,[no middle name ?,] Anyone reading about Obama and not knowing his history would think he is a Saint,as opposed to Bush where every rumor and innuendo against his character is included.Shouldn't Obama admitting to alchohol and drug abuse and his association with anti American zealots and convicted criminals be included .You have not published a fair and balanced portayal of both men.You have contravened a host of your own rules and regulations and make me wonder about your objectivity and veracity of your entire web site. Jock311 ( talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)]
That is a load and you all know it. There is a ton of stuff on Obama that you are excluding because of bias. IF you feel that the negative stuff should be removed from his article, you need to remove it from Bush's also. Link it to another page concerning controversies with both men, but claiming that the reason you have so much stuff on Bush is because of his "eight very controversial years" shows your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 ( talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the editors who are censoring this article need to decide whether protecting Obama's reputation is worth destroying Wikipedia's. So far, the answer is clearly yes. The practice of banning and denigrating anybody who provides unpleasant facts is not a good omen for the future, however much one might think one is serving a higher purpose. Billollib ( talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious to the most casual of observers that the Obama gang has Wiki in their back pocket and nothing negative is going to be allowed about the messiah. So much for the 1st Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimes39 ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
How about Tony Rezko for a start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.138.106 ( talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The point should not be that an initial or middle name is or isn't included, it ought to be that this is the first U.S. president with a Mulsim background. As such, it is a very relevant point and his middle name should be included. The alternative is to leave it out out of some sort of manufactured shame. It is either his actual name or not, so how could one argue over such a minor point? Splitting hairs is no way to build credibility and the entire world is aware of the mishandling of this Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpentershop ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr ( talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Facts be damned. Mob rule. 'Nuff said. Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr ( talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Screw You & Your Website Wikipedia!! You are a Liberal backed site, therefore do not show any negative information regarding this person's background. I am Boycotting your site since I know now that your site is bias, and will not show how dishonest and repulsive that the current President of the USA actually is!! World Net Daily has dedicated this report; http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 in your honor. Good Luck with your Liberal-Left Wing site you Bums!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.111.82 ( talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
As a computer medium that advocates accuracy, it is a concern to me that Obama has no critical views in his bio. I think it is a far strecth to make us believe their are none.From this day forward, I will no longer be using Wikipedia. If you fail to be accurate with something like this, I can only imagine what else you neglect. Information should be UNBIASED and because you cannot do this, I cannot use you.
Please feel free to read this and block it as I know you will.
Stewart
I also agree with Stewart. Wikipedia has lost a significant amount of credibility over its embarrassing handling of this situation. By wantonly flouting its own clearly defined rules, Wikipedia has left itself vulnerable to well-deserved criticism of having a biased political slant. The problem, as I saw someone allude to earlier, is that the administrators do not have enough accountability. They possess opinions just like the rest of us, and they can use their responsibilities as a bludgeon to advance a political agenda, as we've seen demonstrated in the revisions of this article on President Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.55.116 ( talk) 01:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said at greater length below, when there are two sides to a position held by a significant number of Wikipedians, repeatedly removing one of them isnecessarily imposing a POV. — Charlie (Colorado) ( talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Stewart, what took you so long? Hopefully Wiki will follow in footsteps of NY Times and other dying media, unless Obama can see what an opportunity it is for him to use them to create the "newsspeak" necessary to push his agenda through...Orwell was a prophet... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lokietek (
talk •
contribs) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe a fair assessment of Obama will be permitted on the liberally moderated Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.78.119 ( talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is the height of hypocrisy for Wikipedia admins to claim fair and unbiased editing when the controversies include din the GW Bush article are there for everyone to see, while the Ayers, Rev. Wright, birthplace controversies are not even mentioned. Wikipedia has lost considerable credibility. Politics don't matter here, what matters is presenting a fair article, not one that appears to have been written by President Obama's press office. Anyone who argues otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. 129.188.33.25 ( talk)budmancjm —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
Just a note that a World News Daily story on what they refer to preferential editing is now linked on the Drudge Report site. So expect a lot of traffic to this page. [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 Article ] Hardnfast ( talk) 12:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You could most likely save all of mankind with what you can not fine in the "mainstream media". "Mainstream media", or anyother media for that matter, is there for the money not to make sure anyone really knows what is or is not going on. And history is full of things that never showed up in the "Mainstream media" Gama1961 ( talk) 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Either Obama's article can have negative things about him in it IF THEY ARE CITED, or Bush's cannot. This allowing of Bush controversies to be discussed yet leaving a perfect article about Obama is absolutely ludicrous. I'm not even talking party politics here - this needs to be considered from a neutral standpoint. Wiki editors *MUST* stop banning users who add PROPERLY CITED notations about Obama or they MUST ban every user who has done such things in the Bush article - it's one or the other, no more playing sides.
Supergeo ( talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It must be reasoning like this, lack of integrity for political reasons, that my college professor will not allow Wikipedia as a reference in any work. I'm beginning to understand those who say you have a credibility problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.234.143 ( talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As a registered independent voter, I find it inexcuseable that only the democratic side is allowed to control the content of this article. Attempts to lock down the talk pages as well merely proves the lack of fair dealing. And name calling by a few of the administrators doesn't help either, in fact, I believe that most realize those tactics for what they are.
No doubt the republicans are out in force, but to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, some concern should be given to the content of the article that raised the controversy.
My suggestion would be to replace those on both sides, allowing someone neutral to consider the arguements. As it is, one man's vandalism is anothers effort to have the article reflect reality. Carpentershop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpentershop ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I join this fray with trepidation. Wow! What a spectacle it is! I am not a right-wing fringer. Sure, I am conservative, but that is still part of the mainstream, isn't it? I am not a newbie. In the past year or so, I have originated one Wikipedia article, improved a few dozen others, corrected a few cases of vandalism, and generally approached this incredible Wikipedia project with optimism, appreciation, awe, and good intent. I have been mostly silent for a few months for my own reasons, making a few edits without logging in. Why I am I saying this? Because some of you Wikipedians defending this article are getting a little scary in your language, and I am trying to protect myself proactively by an honest statement of who I am. Why am I here? Honestly, I got here yesterday from the Drudge Report via WorldNetDaily. Am I going to get attacked just for saying that?? Look, the Drudge Report is sufficiently mainstream that no one should have to apologize for reading it. I've visited WND something like twice, following links, and know little about it. But why should I have to apologize at all for what I read? This is what bothers me about the discourse on this discussion page. There are so many references to the fringe, lunatics, nut-jobs, conspiracy theories, ditto-heads, etc., attacking almost any sort of dissent against the tone and content of this article, and these verbal attacks have the appearance of being carried out by administrators; I hope I am wrong.
I'll cut right to my point now. WND has nothing to do with this, other than they called attention to it. I form my own opinions, thank you! Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with it. I and others like me saw what we saw in the news last year, regarding Obama and Wright and Ayers. What I read and heard them say disturbed me profoundly. It played a large role in shaping my opinions of Obama. That view is not fringe and it is not a conspiracy. You guys can deny this all you want, but it is abundantly clear that there was at least SOME relationship between Obama and each of these men. Wright and especially Ayers are HIGHLY objectionable to me and many others that share my views. Even if we suppose the relationship between Obama and Ayers was limited to what is documented in the public record, many of us view that as very important, very significant, and frankly, shocking and inexcusable in a person who would be--now is--president. It is not just a spurious blip on the campaign radar; it is of fundamental importance to many of Obama's opponents. How can you possibly justify not including some mention of this in an article on the man who is president of the United States? Guys, this DOMINATED a large chunk of the campaign, and the issues did not go away. The media coverage moved on, that is all. Ayers has continued to crop up again and again in the news, and ALWAYS in the context Obama's campaign, history, and presidency.
So I skimmed the article and found it to be just--what did someone call it?--hagiography? How can you take a controversial person like Obama and have an article that says nothing bad? How could any president, regardless of months or years in office, have nothing bad or controversial? The tone of the article is clearly not neutral. The article smacks of censorship, and a perusal of this whole discussion mess should be enough to confirm any objective reader in that opinion. Wait 'til all the crazies go away, eh? Yeah, I'd say there are some neutrality issues here. Serious ones, too. The perception that they are more fundamental than the article itself may be what is disturbing a lot of people.
Taquito1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
(unindent)Taquito1, I appreciate your sincerity and will take to heart what you say about civility. Please recognize that many of us -- the majority of Americans and the consensus here on Wikipedia, apparently -- see things differently. As hard as I try, I simply cannot see where you are coming from, or where anyone who takes a serious look at things could see a hagiography here or any conspiracy to avoid the truth. Part of the problem, I think, may be the tone and rhetoric that Obama's opponents took, all the way from bloggers and paid hacks all the way up to the conservative press and top GOP officials and their candidates. The opposition to Obama relied very much on strained arguments, mud slinging, guilt by association, misrepresenting things, and word games. Here on this page there was a constant effort to cover that, to establish it was true, and failing that, to report all the pieces of mud that were thrown. There was all kinds of mud - closet Muslim, friend of terrorists, in bed with corrupt officials, not born in America, lied about this or that, socialist, vote stealer, went to a Madras, fake academic record, on and on. Every time the Republicans launched an attack it hit here about as fast as it hit the blogs. Determined editors landed on the article daily claiming that to not report on the Republican attacks and innuendo showed bias, as if neutrality meant choosing a midpoint halfway between saying nothing and repeating the smear. The conservative press reinforced that then as they reinforce it now, claiming that not reporting their manufactured scandals showed liberal bias. They were banging that drum all through the election - paranoia, liberal bias, bad for America, communist, traitor, socialism. And of course there was worse - rampant racism, the N word, and all kinds of belligerent, nasty stuff. It turned out that most of the accounts that were trying to slant this article to be more negative were the product of a very small number of people who had each registered multiple accounts to make it look as if they had agreement - sockpuppets. All of that is nonsense, and it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. We are simply telling the story of a man, his life and career trajectory. People who are serious about editing don't like it when people come here to play games, or when people come here to soapbox and make accusations. The article is mostly "positive" (I put that in quotes, because facts are facts, you interpret them as you wish) because most facts of most people's lives are that way. If you look at what Obama has done his whole life, there is not a whole lot of negativity to report on. That is true of most people. Even articles about very controversial people are usually positive in that they just report he did X, and he did Y. And to be a real article, X and Y are usually significant life achievements or events. We don't say he did X (but A would have been better), and he did Y (but a lot of people think that ruined B). We don't have to balance every X with a A, and every Y with a B. Some people seem blind to the fact that we do report on some personal failures too, but we do that only where it is biographically relevant. Anyway, if you see the process here and you are still convinced that it's a liberal cabal I doubt I can convince you. I ask though that you see that we sincerely believe we are keeping the article factual, just as I can accept that you sincerely believe the facts are slanted. Wikidemon ( talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In case you guys didn't know, Wikipedia isn't a worship house; and I encourage you that any love you have for Lord Obama be preserved. As our guidelines suggest, let the facts do the talking, not emotions. I really can't believe that such a POV articles is actually featured. The administrators are doing an ugly job. I feel like adding a POV tag, and I will if I ever get to be an administrator - this articles is written from a certain prospective and kills our neutrality attempts. this is the crap that makes people hate Wikipedia. -- Pgecaj ( talk) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)