Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 65

read: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/26/dinner.whitehouse.crashers/index.html

Add: "It's not clear if the pins on the man's tuxedo actually are official, but his presence at President Obama's first state dinner wasn't, and neither was his wife's." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.150.120 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a curious event. I think the most logical place to mention that would be as an aside in an article about the state dinner itself (if one exists) or an article about the couple should it come to pass that they are in fact on the "real housewives" show and thereby become "notable" per Wikipedia standards. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

read: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/world/asia/26troops.html?_r=1

Possibly add: The Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama seeks 10,000 additional troops for Afghan war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.208 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems not notable to Obama the person, and a bit too recent (as well as a subtle attempt to justify criticism). Less subtlety makes for better articles - rather than looking for news articles that can be used to justify criticism (criticism is good!), why not try to develop well-written additions that provide proper weight to the proper article? I do agree that the situation in Afghanistan is a béka segge alatt, but I don't think it is yet perceived by reliable sources as being Obama's "Vietnam War". --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I think it's impact is important. How many Nobel Peace Prize winner asked more troops for a war, which is yield more deaths? "criticism is good" the number of occurences of the word "criticism" is only 2 in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.41.16 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAPBOX --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, consider signing up for an account. You post here regularly using a variety of IPs - why not become an established editor (its not like you're not easily identifiable)? Could you also please sign your posts? You've received a number of notices (both manual and automated) asking you to do so. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I know the anon is soapboxing, but the question "How many Nobel Peace Prize winner asked more troops for a war?" seemed minorly interesting. Off the top of my head, I can think of: Al Gore; Shimon Peres; Yitzhak Rabin; Frederik Willem de Klerk; Menachem Begin; Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat; Lê Ðức Thọ; Henry Kissinger; Cordell Hull. There might be others who fit the affirmative answer though. LotLE×talk 22:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Regarding soapboxing, how does one tell the difference between that and trolling? On another high-traffic article on probation, one similar post by an IP led to weeks of discussion pro and con. It was then noticed that the edit was the IPs first and only edit to WP. Sometimes I think contentious articles are too great a source of Lulz to the easily amused. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

read: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122627/Obama-Job-Approval-Down-49.aspx "The latest Gallup Daily tracking results show 49% of Americans approving of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, putting him below the majority approval level for the first time in his presidency."

Quite remarkable to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.244.34 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a good article for this information, and it is --> over there. LotLE×talk 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This has already been included in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, where it is relevant. BLPs are about someone's life, not necessarily what happens during their presidency. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The steep nose dive in Obama's job approval ratings is notable. It has declined from 70% to 48% in Obama's first 10 months according to Gallup, a very reliable polling group, and has been confirmed in several other polls. This is faster than any other president in recent history. I believe it is notable enough to mention in his biography. Judging from the number of Google News hits, it's very notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You must remember this is an encyclopedia biography of the man, not a day to day news report of the ups and down of his popularity. (Also note what we believe, speculate, want to believe in our gut, etc, does not play into what goes into this article or Wikipedia as a whole.) Also, we must remember to take a historical approach which means what might look big now might not be that really big later on and what we might over look now could be really be big in his life, but we don't know it yet. While the numbers look bad, and they are, for all we know they could quickly change direction and skyrocket. We don't know that and thus we should and can not speculate on anything. Also, finally while the talking heads, blogs, and editorials may be speculating on something, we do not. Brothejr (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't "day to day," Bro. (I've always wanted to call somebody that, now I have an excuse.) ;-) This is a cumulative result over the course of his first 10 months in office. It's remarkable considering his enormous early popularity, and when compared to other recent presidents. I repeat, no other recent president has experienced a slide in popularity this steep. If the 2012 election were being held today, he might lose. And if he's a one-term president, this 10-month period is about 20% of his presidency. It's significant enough. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems fine to note a general declining arc in the President's popularity, because after ten months in office and such a significant swing, in my opinion this (barely) cracks the surface of being biographically significant enough to mention. I'm okay leaving it off as well (but if we leave the decline off we should also remove the initial popularity because that's no longer the case). Who knows where it goes from here? We definitely shouldn't include every peak, valley, and twitch in the numbers, but a sentence or two describing the popularity overall of the presidency is okay IMO. I won't get into speculating what this bodes. Prognostication is for other people, other articles, and other websites. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I call it day to day (and it is) is because how the wording was and how quick certain editors were to introduce the new numbers, especially if they are negative. (It seems certain editors are always quick to cite negative info but slow to cite positive info or take a historical approach due to the politics of the moment.) While there may be historical implications that the drop is the largest seen in many years, what about the next couple months? Will it go down lower? Will it rise? Who knows and we cannot and will not speculate what things means until well after the event has come and gone per WP:CRYSTAL. This is the main biography, not his presidency article. These type of daily numbers (and yes they are) should be better reported in the presidency article and if they become something big enough, with enough historical look at them, then they could be included in main bio. Brothejr (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They're already big enough, Bro. Like I said: it's the steepest decline in job approval of any recent president. This is already notable, just like his election, his inauguration, and his Nobel Peace Prize. Certain editors were very quick to introduce those positive facts, but I'm not questioning their motives. I don't see any encyclopedic point in delaying this entry. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedic point would be that the approvals will change again tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after... It's no more notable that Obama's Gallup rating has taken a dip than it is that his WaPo rating has gone relatively high (56%). His inauguration is history - nothing can change that he was inaugurated. His Peace Prize is also history. Today's approval ratings? News, not history. --GoodDamon 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Approval ratings from 20 January to 24 November are also history. Nothing can change them either. The fact that a different job approval rating is recorded by the Gallup Organization for 25 November does not alter the Gallup rating for 24 November, or any previous day. More to the point, Obama's slide in the ratings from 20 January to 24 November is history. It is the steepest decline of any president in recent history; this is a notable and well-sourced fact. If such facts are not to be included, why have a section on "Cultural and political image" at all? This is undeniably a dimension of his political image. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) A couple of things... First, you appear to be suggesting that we should track Obama's daily approval ratings. That's not what an encyclopedia is for, and this is certainly not the right article for anything like that. Just because Gallup has recorded approval ratings for Obama doesn't mean 1) that they particularly impact his life (remember, this is a BLP) or 2), that they're particularly notable, when they're still in high territory, above his disapproval ratings. So Gallup (and, like I pointed out, Washington Post) have had blips. So what? They've been holding steady (with statistically insignificant variation) for three months now - see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html. If there was a serious dip that affected him directly, such as the one into the 20s George W. Bush suffered near the end of his presidency, that might arguably be worth mentioning in his BLP. As is, his approvals remain higher than his disapprovals, and remain steady. They don't appear to have affected him personally or politically. --GoodDamon 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And now I see today Gallup has Obama's favorable rating up again. Yet somehow, no one's suggesting that this absolutely, positively must go into the article. I'm gonna go ahead and close this as resolved. --GoodDamon 23:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be more protection on it to help provent vadlism! [[User:wikigoogleplex|="brown"|wikigoogleplex —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

Why? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Truth is Vandalism at Barack Obama. Don't you know that there cant be anything negative at that article. Read the FAQ's. Other people who are smarter than us have already decided what can be in the article and what is (Ahem), left out.--Palin12 (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Attacking Wikipedia when it doesn't support your view point, but citing Wikipedia policy when it does is an excellent rhetorical tactic. I'll leave out any comment about the ethical connotations because that would be assuming bad faith. Manticore55 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It says [3] next to "christian" for his religon which should not be mentioned... if it should be mentioned I doubt that's accurate and I don't see anything about how he got to be Senator of Ilinois. he was not native to that state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.o.isdevil (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow the sources in the article, the information is accurate. He is a Christian, and being native born of Illinois is not a requirement to serve as a senator. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts and had previously run against Ted Kennedy for his senate seat, despite being born and growing up in Michigan. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.47.238 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in the criteria of being a Nobel Peace Prize winner does it say you cannot be in charge of a nation at war. I'd remind you that Yasser Arafat was given the Nobel Prize while the PLO and its descendants still had armed conflict with Israel as one of the central stated policies. It is not notable to the award in actuality, therefore it is not notable to add it here for the sake of POV pushing and activism. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Henry Kissinger. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(<-) WP:DNFTT - WP:SOAPBOXing editor previously blocked for WP:3RR, misuse of multiple IPs for block evasion, as documented here --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't his former anti americain pastor mentioned in his page. He called this man his mentor and a mentor is one who helps create a man.

Also why isn't his alias mentioned in the page. Barry Sotto or however it was spelled.

These are signs of the liberal bias that is always be thrown at wikipedia. If you wish to be taken serious then include the bad with the good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, both points are covered in separate articles because they are just simply to trivial to be covered here. Jeremiah Wright controversy & Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories cover these two points you have raised.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that they are covered else where. But saying they are to trivial to be covered here is your OPINION and not based in any facts, a direct contrast with wikipedias rules.

Often in wikipedia, a persons mentor is mentioned in their bio. By hiding his, we are covering up Barracks influences in his life.

Also my mention of Barry Sotto has nothing to do with his citizenship. I just think its important to name a persons AKA's in their bio.

Example my name is Daniel but I have been known as Danny. Therefore if I had a wiki bio I would want that included.

Barrack Bio should include his also known as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple points:

• Reverend Wright and his controversial comments are mentioned in this article, with a link to the larger article dedicated to the controversy. So you are simply incorrect about that, as was the individual who replied to you before. I imagine that reply was a little knee-jerk, since this article sees more-or-less continuous efforts by conspiracy theorists to insert birtherism into it. Reverend Wright is definitely a major figure in Obama's life, so your original question regarding his importance in this article would be valid, were he not already mentioned in it. But since he is, it's moot.
• Obama's previous nickname is also mentioned in the article already. It's by no means prominent, but that's perfectly reasonable for a nickname he doesn't publicly use anymore.

Please try to assume good faith. While the reply you received wasn't completely correct, the fact is, there's no need to have a further discussion about these topics, as they are already duly covered in the article. --GoodDamon 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would prefer here. Grsz¹¹ 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentence in the wikipedia article where it mentions that he is the first african american president is somewhat false. Barack Obama is multiracial, his mother was white^[1] and his father was african american. He should be listed as the first multiracial president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial. Wikipedia has many other notable multiracial people listed as multiracial why not Barack Obama? Sammy8912 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Name one (just one will suffice) individual who is "100% African American ". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_american. There is a whole list of African Americans there without one white parent. Barack Obama is considered multiracial since his mother was white. If both of his parents were of african heritage then I would agree that he is 100% african american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy8912 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That is some real racialist junk. no-one is 100%-something. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Obama's father was not African American - he was African. And his mother is not white, she is varying shades of pinkish brown, and also of African descent (albeit removed from her African roots by maybe 10³ generations or so). African American is a social construct, not a genetic one. But as other have said, what is important is the presentation in reliable sources, and they agree that he is African American. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In the 'Proposed Changes' section I mentioned that I found this in the Wikipedia rules for the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence."

Now, my question is, what should be the 'notable controversies' surrounding Barack Obama to be included in his introduction/lede?

Prominence/notability, as well as available reliable sources will play into this. I am interested in seeing what people think should be mentioned as 'notable controversies' in the lede. Again, what controversies are mentioned should then be compared by their prominence and sourcing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any controversy that would be considered notable, let alone notable enough for the article lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a bit of a misstatement, as notability is a test of article suitability, not whether something is of due weight, relevance, and encyclopedic quality to be in the lede. It's not saying that we must include controversies in the lede, only that we include them if they're noteworthy enough, and don't avoid them. A better statement would be that controversies that are significant enough to be a major part of the article are not excluded from the lede simply because they are controversies. I'll probably propose a minor change to WP:LEDE to avoid confusion (in case you notice the obvious, over there). - Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines a lot lately and can find nothing saying that controversial content may not be included, which I think fits your statement of "A better statement would be that controversies that are significant enough to be a major part of the article are not excluded from the lede simply because they are controversies." I agree that it needs to fit the test of notability.

However, looking at the Notability guidelines showed me something else - the earlier controversial subject that started all of this, Obama's controversy with live birth abortion, may not only meet the standards of notability, but since notability is defined as "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" and the sourcing on this issue is so unusually strong for an Obama-related topic, the topic may even merit its own page.

As the notability page states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." And, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."

Now, take this commentary on Obama's history on live birth abortion:

• Background: Barack Obama beginning from his time in the Illinois Senate opposed numerous bills that would have stopped a practice where children surviving late-term abortions could be left to die. He considered them, though completely outside the womb and breathing, 'fetuses'.[[3]] (pp. 85-86) Bills included the 2001 Born Alive Infants Protection Act[[4]][[5]](pp. 85-88), the 2001 SB 1661 Induced Birth Infant Liability Act[[6]][[7]](pp. 88-89), the 2001 SB 1095 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[[8]][[9]][[10]] (pp. 50-66), and the 1997 SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[[11]][[12]]
• Notability: Alan Keyes, Obama's general election opponent for the 2004 U.S. Senate, made the issue his primary talking point.[[13]][[14]] At the time, activists such as Jill Stanek[[15]] and Phyllis Schlafly[[16]] also opposed Obama on such grounds. Keyes to this day continues opposing Obama on what he calls 'infanticide'.[[17]][[18]] During the 2008 elections, both Sarah Palin[[19]] and John McCain[[20]][[21]] criticized Obama over the 'Born Alive' controversy as well.
• Prominence: There has been no shortage of mainstream media coverage on this issue. During the 2008 Primary Election, Hillary Clinton and the National Organization of Women[[22]][[23]], as well as other Congressmen[[24]][[25]], accused Obama of voting 'Present' instead of 'No' on abortion bills. The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" also addressed the issue, noting his very lengthy voting history on the subject, but also pointing out that it was an agreed-upon strategy between pro-choice politicians and Planned Parenthood as a way to avoid public attention on controversial abortion bills.[[26]][[27]] Obama defended himself by saying it was an agreed-upon strategy with Planned Parenthood.[[28]] In 2007 ABC News[[29]] and the NY Times addressed this Planned Parenthood-Obama-present votes connection [[30]][[31]] and both FactCheck[[32]] and PolitiFact[[33]][[34]], as well as Time Magazine[[35]], Fox News[[36]], the Boston Globe[[37]], MediaMatters.org[[38]], the Huffington Post[[39]][[[[40]]]], and NPR[[41]], all chimed in referencing the connection as well. In August 2008 there was also a lengthy back and forth between Obama, David Brody of CBN[[42]], and the National Right to Life Committee[[43]][[44]] concerning his record on live birth abortion. Another exchange occurred between Obama's campaign, Jill Stanek, and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune.[[45]] As covered by the NY Sun, Obama was facing attacks from all sides, and had first erroneously claimed he would have voted for the federal bill, but then upon confrontation with senate records dug up by the NRLC, his campaign admitted he'd voted against an Illinois bill with similar language.[[46]] FactCheck shortly thereafter supported this claim, and upon examination of the claims by both Obama's campaign and the NRLC wrote a widely covered[[47]] article called "Obama and 'Infanticide'" stating that Obama was misrepresenting his record on the issue, though it thought the term 'infanticide' open to interpretation.[[48]] David Freddoso, who also covered the born alive issue in his best-selling book, 'The Case Against Barack Obama' in August 2008, wrote in an article for the National Review that Stanek and O'Malley (primary sponsor of the born alive legislation previously mentioned) had teamed up on legislation such as the 1095 bill, and notes that Obama was the only legislator to speak against it on the senate floor.[[49]]
• Other Notable Coverage: The Huffington Post in April of 2008 attacked Deal Hudson for criticizing Obama on the issue of infanticide.[[50]]

I would posit that few other controversies are going to be as comparably notable as this. Or that few could rival the depth of sourcing (I deliberately included a few liberal and conservative secondary sources, though most were meant to be neutral ones). At any rate, as I read the guidelines more and more, the more I am convinced that the subject of controversy surrounding Obama's history on live birth abortion can meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that this is the last time you use this talk page as a dumping ground for this perversion of the facts. Frankly, this claptrap about infanticide that you keep peddling absolutely disgusts me. This BLP-violating abomination should be eradicated from this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It only violates the BLP, as I've said before, if the sources are wrong. Which is why I went out of my way to provide numerous accredited sources. And as has been pointed out, it is not biased to simply report that the accusation has been made. Everything I stated was sourced. If you think it violates the BLP, please state how. I see nothing wrong with the sourcing, the prominence, notability, relevance, etc. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua - your attempts to find any consensus for these items have not met any success so far. That's an indication that they cannot meet guidlines for notability, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. You continue to plaster "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" statements but few proposed changes to the article itself. The "infanticide" issue is a total non-starter. Keyes is unimportant in a biographical article about Obama. The list goes on. I suggest you put individual proposed changes in separate sections and attempt to gain consensus on each one separately. You can see from this page that there is little or no support for what you've tried thus far.  Frank  |  talk  02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

But the problem is, those who are disagreeing are not disagreeing with whether the material meets the guidelines or not. They are disagreeing because it is opposed to their worldviews and opinions, which is why they refuse to consider consensus. As I've showed, many of the major newspapers and neutral fact-checking organizations on the web, as well as even TV news agencies, have covered this issue. That suggests the objections raised here are ideological, not substantial, in nature. After all, the sourcing, relevance, and prominence are all undeniable. The issue is whether people on here like it or not, and they don't, because many of those here are liberal. I expected that. Again, consensus is not reached solely because nobody likes the views. Otherwise, I would expect to see more statements about why my sourcing fails to measure up or does not meet the guidelines. There is difference between lack of consensus because of bias and lack of consensus because of objective reasoning.

P.S. I have challenged perhaps half a dozen times now those suggesting I violated guidelines to state how and give specific examples. Only Wikidemon has provided tangible constructive criticism and examples. The fact is that those guidelines do not prevent controversy or negative statements being reported on (so long as it's done objectively). They only require exceptional sourcing for exceptional remarks. The controversies surrounding conservative politicians are reported on their pages and there is far less opposition to doing so than is seen here. What is more, I am sure many of them have less sourcing or even available sourcing than what is used here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, I already quoted verbatim from the NPOV guidelines, the WP:BLP guidelines, and the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. At some point I expect those criticizing me of violating the guidelines to actually use this as more than just an attack, and actually give examples of what parts of the guidelines are being violated, and give examples of what parts of my works are violating them. I mean, I've been doing all the work citing this stuff. I can't be expected to be hypersensitively defending myself against every little accusation of violating a guideline with lengthy essays quoting from said guidelines if the accuser is too lazy to even give examples and cite what part of the guidelines and my writing is at issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: can you show where there is WP:CONSENSUS for the change(s) you are thinking about? I say there is not, for two reasons: 1) I don't see it on this talk page, and 2) I don't even see a specific change request. This is not just any article on Wikipedia - it's one of the most watched, with over 1800 watchers. I understand that consensus is generally not a reason to revert a change, but for such a highly-visited (and watched) page which is on probation, things are different. Nobody's saying you can't edit the article. What's being said is that changes of a controversial nature on a WP:BLP article that is highly-visited and highly-watched and is on probation should be discussed first. I still don't see any specific proposals for changes to the article. What I see is a bunch of accusations and references and original research - but no specific changes being requested.  Frank  |  talk  14:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please. If you don't have consensus - I don't care how many policies you cite - you cannot make these types of additions to the article. It can't get much simpler than that. Since you clearly do not have consensus, drop it. There have been a dozen or more of us who have given you quite clear-cut reasons why we cannot include multiple insignificant controversies, fringe theories, or the comparatively insignificant views of others about Obama. By the way, you are not helping your case by accusing us of being liberal, or accusing us of not providing tangible evidence against. WHSL ^(Talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia Don't revert due to "no consensus" page, "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe settled Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.

Next to that, the behaviour discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it. Finally, there may in fact exist silent consensus to keep the change. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection."

Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold in editing articles. Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit. Keep in mind that no one can own an article. Moreover, if one editor favors a new addition (i.e. its contributor), and another opposes it (i.e. the potential reverter), consensus is no closer to being against it than for it until more editors comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can move toward a compromise, preferably through editing.

It is best to first consider whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question. If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, try to find said information yourself, or failing that, note that in the revert summary. If it made the presentation of material awkward, edit to make the presentation less awkward. If it added a biased statement, try to find a way to recast it into a neutral mode. If it added instructions on how to do something, explain that Wikipedia is not a manual. If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, continue on the talk page).

But if you feel that an edit should not stand yet can't point to any specific reason, for heavens sake, stop and think before you act. (never make any edit without a reason!)

In general:

  :1. Stop. Think.
  :2. Try to edit the page to better incorporate the edit in question
  :3. If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it
  :4. Explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work. 
  :Even if the reason seems obvious to you, it will not always be obvious to someone else."

Also, according to the Wikipedia Consensus page, "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."

As shown here, Consensus is not a reason in and of itself for reverting an edit, or "accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." And furthermore, Consensus must be REASONED Consensus. "Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit." Ultimately the basis of "no consensus" is a straw man that is an unsuitable qualifier - ultimately it comes down to, as the article states, "whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question". Furthermore, those involved with the Consensus argument also have a duty to be attempting to "better incorporate the edit in question" and "explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work."

I do not like calling people out like this, and would prefer to work towards agreement objectively, but the fact remains that over half those commenting right now on my proposed edits are not providing any of the constructive material the previously quoted page says should be involved. They are telling me to achieve Consensus without following the Consensus page guidelines themselves. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to slow down a bit on the rule interpretation but to address the points you raise: lack of consensus should not be the sole reason for opposing an edit, just as lack of a citation should not either in most cases - there has to be a good faith bona fide objection to the material, at which point it becomes the job of the person proposing the change to achieve consensus, or wanting to include the material to find appropriate sources. If people are objecting to your desire to add something to the article under claim of "no consensus" what they really mean is that the objections are stated elsewhere and to their mind you have not (yet) established that there is consensus to overcome those objections. If they feel it is against policy and guidelines you would have to demonstrate a consensus for the interpretation / analysis that the proposal actually is permissible per the policy and guidelines. Policy / guidelines are mostly exclusionary, creating thresholds to meet before things can be added. Relatively few of them demand that something be included, they just permit it. So if it's within the territory of editor discretion you would have to establish consensus not only that the content is permissible, but that it should be added. You can look at WP:BRD for a widely-followed essay on that. You're right that having too many nay-sayers on an article discourages bold edits. This is a mature, featured article so the gradualist approach is probably a good thing. Otherwise good articles start falling apart to the entropy of hasty edits. It's probably gone too far here, and definitely too far on some of the other Obama articles, which are losing ground in their efforts to stay current because it is so hard to make major additions. Cest la vie. We can't solve that problem in a day. Contrary to the language you're quoting (or is that your own analysis?) on high-traffic important articles there is a role for precedent and for deferring to past decisions. The Arbitration Committee weighed in on the issue fairly recently with respect to this particular article, and said roughly that although consensus can change, excessive and contentious rehashing of matters that have been decided can be disruptive to the editing process. The answer is somewhere in between. Proposals should have a realistic chance of success - if something has been discussed and rejected a few times already, and it wasn't long ago, and there is no change in the subject we are covering or new sources about it, and the same editors are still here, it is pointless to repeat the same discussion. It also doesn't work, you can rarely win consensus to edit the article by wearing out people's patience for discussion. I do agree that the people arguing against your proposals are not providing constructive criticism. I'll hazard a guess as to the reasons. I think you started off on the wrong foot with an overly bold edit and some aggressive comments on the talk page. Some people here are very alert to trouble and perhaps see it where none is intended. I think that is unfair to you but given the history of the article it's not surprising. And finally, these discussions have been going on a long time and gotten off track. I think people just don't feel like talking about it anymore. I'm not one to talk about brevity, but I think many of your posts - the last one a case in point - are very long and quote long stretches of policy that you could just link to, plus the extensive use of bold is distracting, people liken that to ALLCAPS or shouting!!!!! I actually think a number of your content proposals are good ones, and people would probably accept them if we could find a more effective way to discuss it. I'm still planning to propose some modest changes along those lines one at a time, so if we can all take a deep breath and try to be patient, we'll work through this. Anyone who's gotten this far, can we all chill out a little bit? Cool? Wikidemon (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

True, that's all I've been saying, that those accusing me of no consensus or violating a policy should state exactly what's wrong with it, and how it violates the policy. I tried numerous times now to get specific users to start a conversation over source validity, prominence of the sources, relevance to a section, neutrality of wording and how to improve it, etc. What statements on this I actually heard I actually compromised on very, very early on. For example, I agreed quickly that if the word 'infanticide' was too offensive to some then it could just not be used and an alternative like live birth abortion specified in its place. I've also tried to avoid framing and asked others how they thought sentences could be reworded to avoid violation of NPOV. I specifically brought up such high quality and high profile sources, as well as examples of mentions by all major campaigns, to combat the 'fringe' theory that keeps making the rounds. Not that it would matter either way.

According to the Wikipedia Fringe theories page it should be abundantly clear that fringe theories which are notable, well-sourced, and covered well by the mainstream media still warrant inclusion. I'll avoid posting this one out unless there continues to be disagreement over that. And also, sorry about the bolding - I've just done that primarily for quoted material to make clear what parts I most wanted read and to ensure they wouldn't get overlooked. I like to quote surrounding material as well to show context but then like the bolding so it shows exactly what I'm concentrating on, and since it's WP guidelines, didn't think it as much an issue as if I was bolding my own words, which I've mostly avoided here (the starting paragraph in the Consensus section is the one exception I can think of).

I would like to try the WP:BRD page's outline of resolving this dispute, as there seems little alternative at this point save arbitration, but since this is a protected page, am not sure I will be able to do so. And yes, all the language being quoted was from the articles except for a few points towards the end. It made it tough to tell since I left the original double quotation marks from the page in instead of changing them to single quote marks.

You're also right it may just be an instance of my using an overly bold edit at the beginning - however, to be fair I was unaware the term infanticide would be so poorly received. Here in Illinois that term has been used quite a bit in the news during the earlier Obama election involving Alan Keyes so I was, I thought, just using a popular media term to refer to the situation that would quickly ring a bell for those who'd seen it in the news. Once I realized how many people were unfamiliar with Obama's elections and the terminology, I quickly backed off from the term and began proposing alternatives. I suppose it is more widely used here in the U.S. than in other countries, and I notice many are surprisingly from the U.K. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I must ask: outside of this one editor's opinion (and yes, by an outsider's look it is an opinion) is this is a huge thing and not some rambling of a pro-lifer who really doesn't like the president. How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc? Is it a big topic in the news papers? (excluding blogs and opinion pieces) Outside the pro-life community, is this topic really being associated with the president (I.E. the common person on the street would spout this when asked about the president?). In all honest opinion, this looks more like a big point to extreme pro-lifers then it does to the country at large. Finally, and more to the point, is this such a large issue, I mean really a glaring issue that everyone in the country recognizes it and believes it or questions it, to be included in this article? Brothejr (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the proposal on the table. Bear with this, I think we can restate the various content proposals in a focused, productive way at some point. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If it involves Keyes and infanticide, it will surely be rejected. This sort of distortion must be discouraged, because it violates WP:BLP quite seriously. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a major issue. That is why I brought up its relevance by major politicians. The fact that Alan Keyes in the 2004 senate election, Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary election, and both McCain and Palin in the 2008 general election made it a talking point against Obama should've been, I thought at least, a major red flag here. When his last 3 major opponents in elections have all brought it up, and when it's been referenced in what at least here in the U.S. are some of the major news publications - it's pretty big. Here in Illinois especially, it has been the major issue involving Obama that people will be familiar with. That is why I quoted so much from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and other Illinois newspapers - to show out of state users just how major an issue this has been here in Illinois particularly. The major newspapers and news channels have addressed it extensively, particularly during the 2004 elections. The NRLC, primary pro-life group here in the U.S., has also been pushing the issue for years, and thus it has been a back and forth between them and Obama's campaign to the extent that major fact-checking groups like the Washington Post's Fact Checker and FactCheck.org have objectively weighed both sides. I already quoted from the Fox News and MSNBC articles where the subject came up. In the Consensus section, I even noted that several Fox News anchors and guests have accused Obama of infanticide:

-Sean Hannity[[51]]

-Glenn Beck[[52]]

-Rush Limbaugh[[53]]

-Newt Gingrich[[54]]

-Ann Coulter[[55]]

-Dr. Jerome Corsi[[56]]

Also, here is another example of Fox News reporting, though in print, of coverage of the infanticide issue.[[57]]

Fox News in particular has allowed this issue to be brought up many times now.

I don't follow CNN as closely but found evidence it has been addressed there as well.[[58]][[59]] The issue has received so much coverage in fact that a CNN reporter even questioned Obama for CNN about the issue.[[60]]

I did some more Googling and didn't find evidence yet of it being addressed by MSNBC on public television yet. However, there is plenty of overall evidence out there. Simply google the name of a major news network and the terms Obama infanticide (possibly video as well) and you will see for yourself. There is plenty of sourcing out there that can be found at any time simply by using Google to search for it. It is why it is so easy for me to find sources on this stuff at will right now.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond a joke. All the sources you have found fall into 3 distinct camps:

1. Obama's political opponents (like Keyes) making wild unsubstantiated claims.
2. Right-wing media pundits (the rogues gallery you list above) taking the wild unsubstantiated claims and trying to make them into a bigger deal than they are.
3. Normal mainstream media (which does not include FOX, by the way) debunking the wild unsubstantiated claims when they are not covering runaway balloons.

If you really believe this stuff is important, you have been duped by the first 2 groups. You are doing exactly what they want you to do, which is to try to push their agenda into Wikipedia articles. In doing so, you are committing multiple violations of WP:BLP, and quite possibly defaming Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, you're going to disagree with any sources I provide. You'll just keep Moving the goalpost no matter what I do. First Brothejr said, "How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc?" Then when I provide evidence from Fox News you say it's not a news network (contrary to the prior comment he made implying it "made news today" and when I provided evidence from CNN you threw in the "runaway balloons" comment alleging that even if it could be proven CNN had covered it, that it would just be mistaken coverage anyway. Ultimately, there's simply nothing I could do to convince users like you, so why bother? I think it better to just accept that you and I won't agree on this, so that focus may be put on areas where Consensus can be achieved. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did not ask those questions. You are attributing statements made by others to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I recognized it and changed it almost instantaneously (same minute) that you made the comment, when I realized it was by brothejr and not you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If the proposal is that we make some overarching comment that there is a controversy over Obama's support for abortion, or any mention that some people accuse him of infanticide, then no - BLP problems, poor sourcing, NPOV, and undue weight. The "rogues gallery" of professional agitators mentioned above just isn't encyclopedically important, except on the rare occasion when through their outrageous prose and antics they manage their way to bootstrap their way into the national stage. Not just because they said it -- they say lots of stuff -- but because it actually creates an impact beyond their own typical audience. Keyes is particularly fringe-y here. He may not have been acknowleged as such at the time but at this point as one of the more vexatiously litigious birthers his relevance and credibility level is nill. If Keyes' primary campaign strategy in the election was to attack Obama on abortion that can be stated neutrally and is arguably worth five or six words in the section devoted to that election, more in the article on the subject. But there's a strong counter-argument that given the election margin, his ineffective election tactics made no difference to Obama or anyone else so they aren't worth covering at all. I think this is the weakest of the content proposals. Best to start with the stronger ones that have more of a chance of passing scrutiny. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Add the following text: Despite of the world financial crisis and double digit unemployment rate the Obama's family take two weeks in Hawaii for Vacation.

Video reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxIpYSxLDYY Róbert Gida (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems both irrelevant and NPOV issue. How many days has he been on vacation thus far, and how does that compare to the previous POTUS? --averagejoe (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Try it, type in Google Obama in Hawaii. You will get hits for his previous vacation. I think his number of vacations is approaching to the first year of G.W.Bush's number. But note that after 911 there was much less vacation. 87.97.41.56 (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant, which means I don't even need to point out the original research or point of view in the comment. He's the President of the US, not the Justice League. Dayewalker (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

When was it added? Do we really need it? "Obama is the fourth U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the third to become a Nobel laureate during his term in office, and the first to be recognized in the first year of his presidency."

This leads probably to nowhere. Sometimes I feel that Obama's page is like a collection of Guiness world records. Róbert Gida (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to find when something was added to an article, look at that article's edit history.

No, Nobel prizes aren't Guinness records. -- Hoary (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read a Guiness book? In that you can read such details who is the first(/second/third) in a particular subject. But that is unencyclopedic here. Don't you feel that Obama's page is full of records? Róbert Gida (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What is quite notable and is reliably sourced is not unencyclopedic. A lot of "firsts" listed on Obama's article are quite historic - the "first African American President" one being the most eminent example - and cannot be compared to, for instance, "man with the most tattoos", which is indeed unencyclopedic. Your specific example refers to the Nobel Peace Prize, and you feel that this is useless trivia. The Nobel Peace Prize is not trivia. It is one of the most noted accolades in our world today. WHSL ^(Talk) 23:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice that conservative political profiles have mentioned on them scandals and public criticisms such as Palin's (McCain's this time last year was noticeably critical, unlike Obama's) yet not liberals. I imagine this to be because of the disproportionate impact liberals have on the internet, a fact, by the way, which is statistically provable. According to the 2009 political typology report by the Pew Research Center, there are 9 different profiles of voters, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat, and 3 Moderate. The 17% that are overwhelmingly socially liberal (19% of registered voters), and the only wealthy one of the 3 Democrat groups, are also the group of all 9 to go online most frequently for their news (37%, with no other group but the Moderate Upbeats, at 34%, close - no other group but the Republican Enterprisers is at even 26%).

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945

At any rate, I am proposing the following section, although, I notice that Wikipedia is now changing to avoid sections labeled 'Political Controversies' even though I noticed another politician with just such a section just today, so perhaps it would be best to not label it that, but instead make it merely historical referenced, as part of his senate career:

Now, all of those are mainstream criticisms of Barack Obama. I would like to see the reasoning behind those who would deny the inclusion of them. I would also ask, if there is a consensus to be achieved on whether to put this in, how long will it take, and how will it be decided? After all, if hypothetically, liberals were more obtuse in refusing to allow criticisms of Obama yet conservatives were able to agree to allow valid criticisms of conservative candidates, would that mean that just because one side is hypocritically unjust in disallowing a consensus that variable and discriminatory means should be permitted to coexist? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This isn't a political advertisement website that has a place for one side or the other to post their political adds against political figures. If you want to go around Wikipedia and accuse WP:BLP of killing children, you're not going to last very long. My suggestion for you is to either drastically reduce the size of your last edit here(there is a 500 word limit) and strike the portions that are purposely inflammatory, or just revert the whole thing. DD2K (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey, keep the ad hominems to yourself. If you want to accuse me of using political ads then why don't you say what part of the heavily sourced facts you disagree with? Those are major sources I'm using to back up every little statement, even the inflections and tones of voice, when referring to Obama. The least you can do is state what you disagree with.

I am not sure if those citations I gave are easily clicked on, I was trying to figure out how, so they may not work here in the discussion, but I will post them out.

1. Keyes assails Obama's abortion views, August 9, 2004, [69], Associated Press.

2. State of Illinois General Assembly 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 30, 2001, [70], pages=85-87 2009.

3. State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 18, 1997, [71], pages=61-63.

4. State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, April 4, 2002, [[72]], pages 30-35.

5. Obama and 'Infanticide', FactCheck.org, August 25, 2008, [73].

6. Barack Obama knows his way around a ballot, Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2007, [74].

7. Barack Obama and Me, Houston News, February 26, 2008, [75].

8. Obama: How He Learned to Win, Time Magazine, May 8, 2008, [76].

Look, I could play you and take the other side and say you shouldn't have the negative stuff about the Bridge to Nowhere or her governorship stuff on Sarah Palin's website because this isn't a place for 'political ads'. Just because it's politically controversial does not mean it is untrue, un-historical, factually inaccurate, or defamatory. It's only defamatory if not very clearly true and unsourced. Which is why I challenge you to back up your accusations against me and show even one word I said that is a matter of opinion rather than simply covering the subjects.

It's because I don't think Wikipedia should treat itself like a political campaign website that I am opposing you on this. You're treating Obama's page here like a glorified billboard praising his beautiful attributes while avoiding anything critical of him, and denying the very different manner of approach used elsewhere for politicians on Wikipedia. I am saying that you should do one or the other. Either be willing to show the factual criticisms of him, or remove the criticisms for all other politicians.

And again, if you think I am being opinionated or not backing up any statements in any way - then show how. Say it. Where's the beef? I wrote a well-sourced article and if you're going to throw around attacks like that against it and against me, then at least show the courtesy of saying why you disagree with them. Anyone can accuse an article or article writer. It's a whole other thing to actually provide reasoned arguments and logic-based critiques.

As soon as I wrote this, I had someone come on my page and tell me I had to be [censored] kidding. Another one who wasn't even a moderator came and told me the post was reverted and then laughed when I asked them why it was reverted, told me I needed to get my eyes checked. There is a liberal community on the web that composes less than 20% of the American populace but will exert their influence over the rest of society whenever they can to further their agendas by silencing free speech through whatever means necessary.

We saw that in the large scale with the leaking of the climate change emails, which showed the liberal members of the scientific community were willing to go so far as bias in peer review and discrimination to remove or disallow all alternate points of view - and any evidence that did not fit their beliefs.

Bottom line - I quoted from Obama's own words off the senate floor and major news articles from the Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, and the Associated Press. FactCheck.org was referenced as well. Whether you like the POV or not is irrelevant here. If it is a major issue than it should be covered, and the fact that you are trying to silence it without being able to provide any reasonable basis shows something here. I noticed a recent user tried to remove this part of the discussion and all my comments. The attempts by the Wikipedia community to prevent this from even being discussed are shameful and disgusting.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideological disagreement is not encyclopedic material. None of this has the slightest chance of appearing in a biographical article on the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But what part of my post resorted to 'ideological disagreement'? I merely reported the facts and points of view of major news outlets in covering this, and stuck entirely to the facts. If I did otherwise, then show it. And if I did so, and this is still inappropriate, then state WHY.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are any number of articles on Wikipedia that provide critical facts and reporting references on the pages of politicians or organizations that are less well-sourced than mine. All I see is a hypocritical double standard.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you're doing yourself a disservice in not becoming familiar with the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to you. Here's another: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody here is saying keep criticism in other articles, and you claiming that is false. Grsz¹¹

So then, you are saying Wikipedia would support my removing anything negative about a person, regardless of its factual basis? So the fact that George Bush started a false war over WOMD, I could remove all reference to that on his page? Because it is the same scenario here. There is factual, well-sourced basis for historical criticism of Barack Obama that can be stated objectively in a reasonable manner. Just because the Republicans use mudslinging all the time against him, doesn't mean there are no criticisms of Obama. It's just that so much of their junk is flying around that their stuff gets discredited and when they actually find something that is valid, it's like the boy that cries wolf, and nobody listens. Anyway, I just don't like it that Obama's being treated specially here and anything negative of him can't be written. I hardly think Wikipedia intends to allow a policy where anything written negative about anyone can be deleted for no other reason than making everything positive about everyone. And no, I'm not saying I want to remove all negative stuff about everyone, just pointing out that it seems ridiculous such a standard is being applied here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to "what part", I would respond "all of it". The Obama article isn't a soapbox for your anti-abortionist propaganda, nor is it for delving into minutiae about Chicago politics. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Tarc (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Way to be specific. If it's "all of it" then surely you can provide even ONE example, right? Because I've been challenging anyone to provide one the last several hours and still have yet to see anything tangible.

As for 'minutiae' about Chicago politics, we're talking minutiae being reported on by the Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, Washington Post, New York Times, and FactCheck.org. Among others. That's some pretty substantial minutiae.

You have needed far less excuse to report negative stories about politicians or organizations elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Microsoft needs very few or no sources to accuse the global corporate giant of different things. The article on Alan Keyes, the 2004 Senate opponent of Obama, mentions the media attacks on him at the time of carpet-bagging and 'selfish hedonism'. I don't see you standing up to say that is too negative of him. You want to be able to put the negative stuff about him but balk at anything critical of his opponent being put on Wikipedia.

As I have said, double standard. If you are going to make claims, back them up from now on. I am getting tired of the mudslinging done here with no accountability for attacks on others and their posts.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You only have 2 sections, one is "Support for 'Infanticide'", the other "Chicago politics". Let's not play coy about what we're talking here; your material, while wordy, is not terribly complicated. There is absolutely nothing worthwhile, encyclopedic, or relevant in the "Infanticide" section. Alan Keyes is a marginal politician who holds a decidedly fringe view regarding abortion the details of his infanticide charges have no bearing on a biographical article on the president. The other is a simplistic treatise on the rough and tumble style of politics that Chicagoans are infamous for. Nothing really special about Obama being another in a long line of them. No offennse, but all of this text is just a big pile of "meh", more suited to the freerepublic or the Conservopedia. Tarc (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of which deal with 2 major parts of his entire history. To deny them is to deny all of the facts about his past. People don't know much about Obama or his past in general. I live in Illinois. I followed the events of these elections. I went to one of his town hall meetings back in 2004. These are not being reported by Wikipedia because they are attacks on Obama. They are not being reported because, despite being major historical aspects of the real Barack Obama, the only Obama Wikipedia wants presented is a rosy picture with major pieces of that picture missing.

Of his early political career in 2004 nothing is mentioned negatively. Not that he used these tactics to defeat Palmer. Not that the racial profiling bill he sponsored was originally the work of a guy who is still so sore about it (Hendon) that they had a physical confrontation in the last 2 years. Any other politician and this stuff would be put in right away. You are deliberately keeping out all critical aspects of his career in a way that no other politician on Wikipedia is treated.

As for the infanticide, that has been pointed out by almost every major news publication you could name at one point or another. It's been picked up on heavily across the web. FactCheck.org, who has a better reputation for fact-checking than Wikipedia, admitted it had merit. That is a part of his career that Alan Keyes, Jill Stanek, and others have criticized him publicly over for years. You just want it covered up so that nobody can even consider that it might be an issue - though it is, clearly.

I made only 2 sections because I only wanted to deal with the content I was most familiar with and knew was indisputable. I wanted to avoid controversial facts when posting to Wikipedia so everyone could agree they were facts, since there is still no denying any of the things I said.

As I said before, I don't support the exact wording being put in. But it should be mentioned at points in the article that Palmer was treated as she was, and that Alan Keyes prominently opposed him for the reasons he did. And concerning Keyes, he ran a campaign against Obama primarily on that one issue alone with less than 3 months in the election and no built-up campaign structure whatsoever, yet still managed almost 30% of the vote. When he came in, Obama had been campaigning for months and the press attacked Keyes from the beginning, and did not give him equivalent time in debates or in the newspapers, and many took time to even learn Keyes was running at all.

As for those 'fringe views', the majority of Americans for the first time were pro-life as opposed to pro-choice, according to Gallup. What is more, only 23% say abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and never has that percentage been higher than 34% - meaning the majority of Americans overwhelmingly say abortion should be legal only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or rape/incest has occurred.[[77]]

As for your excuse that this is just another part of Chicago politics and thus not worth reporting on, that does not prevent Wikipedia from having a big long 'Controversies' section for Mayor Richard M. Daley and ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich. But of course I'm sure you'd say those are different, right? -.^

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Jzyehoshua seems to be having serious difficulty understanding this, it seems we have to point it out in very simple terms. There are absolutely no circumstances whatsoever under which any biography will assert that a view on abortion equates to support for infanticide. None. If you want to write crap like that, go to Conservapedia or Free Republic. Any editor who tries to do this in an article will almost certainly be blocked if not banned, and any editor who edit wars to include such ridiculously loaded terms on a talk page will also very likely end up blocked. I hope this is sufficiently clear that the fools edit warring over this idiocy will now understand. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Even use of the term, though it is being used widely by the pro-life movement including the NRLC, and referred to by FactCheck.org, as well as major publications, can not be used? You are not even allowing the issue to be broached, no matter how major an issue it is. At this point it has reached the same level of liberal bias evident in NBC and reported on by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a study revealing the press provided levels of bias not only in how much extra air time they gave to Obama as opposed to McCain, but also the levels of favorability. It found considerable bias by all major news channels but Fox News in favor of Democrats.[78]

This is also shown by the levels of industry donations for the media. 70% historically of all donations go to Democrats, and just 29% to Republicans. For 2010, it was 76% for Democrats.[[79]]

Therefore, you can call names all you want, using the ad hominem tactics all you want, and I'd imagine you'll have a few straw men to throw into the mix as well, but that doesn't negate the fact that you are wrong, you know you're wrong, I know you're wrong, and whatever the decision reached here becomes, that does not make the record of your evil any less.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat this, since you have difficulty comprehending it. There are absolutely no circumstances whatsoever under which any biography will assert that a view on abortion equates to support for infanticide. This is not a grey area, and if you continue to agitate for it then you will almost certainly be out of here. Nobody cares what the political support is for the pro-life or pro-choice movements, it is 100% unequivocally unacceptable to describe a pro-choice position in terms of infanticide, that is a characterisation that is so far from WP:NPOV that it is simply never going to be appropriate. If you think the article fails because of that then you are in the wrong place, go to Conservapedia. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My original article never used the term infanticide except in mentioning that FactCheck.org had written an article called "Obama and 'Infanticide'", and in the title - where I still put infanticide in parentheses just to make clear it was just referring to the assertions of others, not trying to push the accusation itself. As I've said repeatedly now, had I known people would get so offended at simply quoting the use of the term by others I would have just used a different term for it like live-birth abortion. The article was simply citing FactCheck.org who had used the term and referring to senate opponent Keyes, who did call Obama's voting record infanticide. In retrospect, I'd meant to provide a quote of Keyes using the term infanticide, but just forgot while writing. I never said Wikipedia should assert a view on abortion is similar to infanticide, the article when I wrote it was just pointing out it was a major criticism of Obama's and then quoting the exact statements by Obama that led to the controversy, as well as mentioning the objective examination of this by independent research evaluator, FactCheck.org. If you read what I wrote, you'd see I was trying to avoid framing it, and simply to state the facts, only mentioning that it was the primary criticism of Obama's 2004 senate opponent and thus addressed by FactCheck.org. I did not render an opinion about it myself. Nevertheless, I have proposed edits different from that original article now, that I likewise feel avoid presenting an opinion but rather simply report the facts. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

BOTTOM LINE: As I said before, I recognize now that Wikipedia is trying to get away from such 'controversies' sections, even though I think it odd that such sections still exist for the other aforementioned Illinois politicians like Rod Blagojevich and Mayor Richard M. Daley. However, while I would NO LONGER support the inclusion of my original section with its lengthy discourse on infanticide, I still state that it should be mentioned that certain points in Obama's past had negative aspects, to avoid liberal bias. These should include:

• • Early political tactics. When mentioning Alison Palmer, it should be noted that she and the other 3 early opponents of Obama were knocked off by ballots rather than beaten in political races as a result of him challenging their petition signatures. If there is going to a 1996-2004 section mentioning Palmer, it might as well mention this valid historical aspect of what happened.
  • Details about the Keyes race. If it is going to be mentioned like that, it might as well be mentioned that Keyes had just 3 months left before the elections when entering, and was challenging Obama primarily on the issue of late-term abortions. If people don't want to see the term 'infanticide' used I am fine with that, although it was one used heavily by Keyes and others. It could also be mentioned that the media played a part in deciding the race's outcome, first by attacking Keyes as a carpetbagger and later for his daughter Maya Keyes being gay (both of which were major aspects of the race).
  • It could also be mentioned what Obama's role was with Senator Emil Jones in gaining his U.S. Senate seat, and how he is recorded as asking for that seat, an unusual step. However, I know this will take talking about as it will need to be heavily sourced. Nevertheless, I am confident the sources can be brought forth. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You want the article to have three additions. One of these you say needs better sourcing, and another in part concerns reasons why another candidate failed (reasons that you haven't linked above to Obama at all). Perhaps you should concentrate on whatever you think is your strongest point. Phrase it persuasively, and it might persuade. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the article itself, it states about the 2004 Senate Campaign, "Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan. A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history." For so major an event in Obama's life, the election to the U.S. Senate, this race is effectively covered in about 3 sentences, and glosses over the reasons why Keyes came to Illinois and the fact that the election was virtually over, seemingly to portray Keyes as negatively as possible. In essence, it is bringing up the carpetbagging stuff again and the concept that Obama won in a landslide, without mentioning anything about why Keyes came or why Obama won that way. There are no details given, it is vague, and again that's a major election in his history being glossed over with a few sentences. I don't see why adding a few more paragraphs about the election circumstances would be a bad thing.

As for the sourcing, I think I provided adequate sourcing (earlier articles by the Chicago Tribune and Houston News both provide evidence) but expect one or 2 more major sources might be ideal given that this was a less-reported-on issue. I still think all 3 should make it into the article.

Also, I notice that the information about the 2008 Presidential Campaign on John McCain's page is more detailed and mentions lobbyist criticisms, but here avoids mentions of the much more prominent fiscal issue in Obama's campaign, public financing. Again, reading different pages for candidates on both sides one can see very different treatment, whether comparing Bush:Obama, McCain:Obama, Palin:Obama, Keyes:Obama, etc. Noticeable negatives are stated on the other pages, but never on Obama's, quite noticeably. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to the earlier "Both of which deal with 2 major parts of his entire history", I will say that, no, they really don't. "Abortion as infanticide" is a fringe opinion, and will not be given equal weight alongside mainstream POV. The other part is, astill, just a criticism of being a Chicago politician. Nothing special. As to comparisons with other articles, perhaps you could head on out there and improve those if you feel they are flawed, rather than making this article worse so they will all match. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm... what are you talking about? I never said abortion was infanticide. We're not talking about babies INSIDE the mother's body here. The reason it's controversial with Obama is he supported the killing of children who survive abortions and are OUTSIDE the mother's body. Didn't you read what I wrote? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did, but that is what we call a distinction without a difference. This is not the proper venue to discuss anti-abortionist rhetoric though, this is to discuss the article of Barack Obama. This sort of material is certain;y of pressing significance to Alan Keyes, Operation Rescue and the like. But it has no bearing here. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You may not consider it immoral that Obama supported leaving newborn children to die on hospital beds. But it resulted, as he said on the Illinois senate floor, in a situation where even normally pro-choice members of the Illinois legislature supporting the bill to stop such a heinous practices. It is why the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed, not even normally pro-choice Congressmen could conscientiously support such a form of 'rights' where newborn babies are considered fetuses. It is why Obama has had to hide this aspect of his voting record from people many, many times. He has tried various defenses, including:

A) I would have voted for the Federal version of the bill but the Illinois version lacked the same language. FactCheck.org addressed this distortion by agreeing that the NRLC was right - Bart Stupak introduced an amendment to make the Illinois version word for word identical with the federal one, but Obama never let it get in. He brought it up in the Health and Human Services Committee, that he chaired, and voted against it. Thus Obama was lying about that.

B) The current Illinois laws already prevented such a practice. However, nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker both worked in an Illinois hospital, and were the key witnesses for the federal case - meaning this dealt with Illinois law first and foremost. This was pointed out in one of the earlier senate transcripts I provided, either the 2001 or 1997 one.

C) We shouldn't be talking about divisive subjects and focusing on what unifies us, the issue is unimportant. This despite the fact that he consistently speaks much differently about it on the senate floor, addresses it before Planned Parenthood unabashedly, and is just unwilling to show himself about it to the general public.

Many of his other defenses are detailed here by Jill Stanek.[[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=45553]]

It is dishonest of you to try mentioning a lesser known group in conjunction with former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes in an attempt to continue your campaign to paint him as a fringe unknown, while avoiding the fact that the National Right to Life Committee, the primary pro-life group in the United States, has been tirelessly criticizing Barack Obama for years on this issue. You should be more forthright and forthcoming about this issue, rather than trying to deny the clear facts about this case. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All of which bears the stamp of a singular point of view and, as noted before, a decidedly fringe one at that. Anyone that approaches any wikipedia article on a living person with the intent to insert charges of "infanticide" into it in reference to the abortion debate is already starting off with two strikes against them, IMO. By the way, worldnetdaily is a sterling exmaple of an unreliable source. Anything "detailed" by WND cannot be used as a citation in a Wikipedia article, apart for basic factual statements about themselves. I think this is at a dead-end. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the term infanticide has now been used in reference to Obama by:

-the National Right to Life Committee[[80]]

-CBS/The Associated Press[[81]]

-The Washington Post[[82]]

-Chicago Tribune[[83]][[84]]

-Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics[[85]][[86]]

-FactCheck.org[[87]]

-The New York Times[[88]]

-Newsweek[[89]] (the FactCheck article)

-Newsbusters.org[[90]]

-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum[[91]]

-U.S. Senator Pat Moynihan[[92]]

-Sean Hannity[[93]]

-Rush Limbaugh[[94]]

-Ann Coulter[[95]]

-National Review[[96]]

-TownHall.com[[97]]

-Jill Stanek[[98]]

-HumanEvents.com[[99]]

-World Net Daily[[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73040]]

Obama even felt enough heat on the issue to address the Chicago Tribune about it directly with his website FightTheSmears.[[100]][[101]]

That is not even including those like John McCain[[102]], Sarah Palin[[103]], and the National Organization of Women (Clinton supporters)[[104]] who accused Obama of it but did not specifically use the word 'infanticide'.

Therefore, if you want to consider me discredited for using the word 'infanticide' in reference to Obama, I consider myself in good company, and find no problem with having done so, since I was merely following precedent in using a common term to refer to his voting record that has been frequently applied to him in the media and by national figures. As far as I am concerned, it is you who have long since been discredited for suggesting opposition to infanticide does not matter and is a fringe view, while considering discredited many major news organizations in the U.S.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It should further be pointed out that there is ALREADY a Wikipedia article addressing Jill Stanek's claims of Obama's infanticide (and yes, it uses that term).[[105]]

You are intermingling coverage of the charges with advocacy of the charges, which I'm sorry to say is a rather intellectually dishonest approach to the matter. Half of that list consists of unreliable sources, then a pair of opinion pieces by Senators, and the rest a handful of reliable sources. The CBS citation for example notes "Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide". That doesn't give weight or credence to the allegations, it simply reports that political opponents have said it, as does the passage in Stanek's wiki-article. No in-depth analysis or coverage, because it is a trivial and dismissible charge, much as "baby killer" would be in reference to Bush in regards to the Iraq invasion.

Fightthesmears.com was setup for the precise purpose of shooting down conspiracy-tinged idiocy such as this. This is why we have a separate Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article to cover the Birthers and their Certifi-gate campaign; it has no real bearing on the biographical article of Obama, as it is a criticism so far out of the mainstream as to be almost laughable. I'm sorry that a favored cause of yours...induced abortion == murder...isn't gaining the traction that you'd like it to. But you're in the wrong place in attempting to fight that battle. I think that is about my last word on this subject, as it is beginning to get circular. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was never intended to be a good list of links. All it was meant to do was show that the use of the words 'Obama' and 'infanticide' occurred by major news outlets, to disprove your argument that because I did that anything I said was disqualified. Obviously I was not trying to make a good list of links, merely ones showing that such a view is not the fringe view you've said, and has received national media attention. In that regard, my list achieved its goal.

I had 8 links in my original post and already provided those. Those were the original sourcing and I have seen no one try to deny their validity as of yet. Nor am I seeing anyone who dislikes my proposed consensus above as of yet except you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You have misunderstood a fundamental fact about sources. When you say that the term infanticide has now been used in reference to Obama by the sources, you are misrepresenting the facts. The sources all note that the term has been used by some (usually un-named) activists in the pro-life movement, that is a very long way from saying that these sources endorse or subscribe to that view. It is an extremist POV, something the sources make clear. There are not eight sources for the assertion, there's one: the National Right to Life Committee. And they are absolutely not neutral. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The NRLC was not one of my original 8 links. 3 of the 8 original links did not even deal with the infanticide issue. 1 was simply reporting on Keyes' statements about infanticide and 2 were senate transcripts simply recording the Obama conversations. And the FactCheck one simply addressed the NRLC's accusations against Obama. Are you sure you are addressing the 8 links I posted in my 'Further Commentary' 05:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC) post, which were those mentioned in the originally archived post suggestion? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. When the press report what extremists say, that does not validate the extremist view or make it anything other than a view held by extremists. What you are proposing is partly a novel synthesis form published facts and partly giving undue weight to extremist views. Worse, you seem to be having trouble comprehending the patient explanations you've been given. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is blatantly in favor of Obama. There isn't even a criticisms area. In the economic section, not a word is devoted to any of the bailouts made available to Wall Street or foreign banks. Nothing is stated about the trillions the Fed handed over to recipients they refuse to disclose. The AIG scandal is left completely out. There is nothing in this article that lends any opposing voice to Obama's presidency.

I believe I'm done editing Wikipedia articles. Places have turned into travel brochures instead of accurate representations of the areas (Downtown Eastside is an excellent example of this propagandizing) and living persons are often idolized. When an individual steps up to fix the article, it is often removed by rabidly partisan Wiki-ers. Wikipedia is nothing like it was in years past. What began as an honest attempt is now a mouthpiece in a popularity contest.

NoHitHair (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because you are looking in the wrong article. Most of those things would be in the Presidency of Barack Obama, not this, which is a biography of the man, not a play by play of his presidency. Have fun leaving though, it's always great to work with people who shout a lot and then say they hate you. Don't let the Internet ports slam in your ass as you close them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how the second half of that could be imagined to be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As OuroborosCobra correctly states, most information about Obama's presidency is contained in Presidency of Barack Obama. Since this article is supposed to be a biography that is intended to provide a brief look at his entire life, it doesn't make sense to put more about the presidency than is already there. Also, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections. They do not provide for neutral articles, and criticisms (cited of course) should be incoporated into the rest of the article. WHSL ^(Talk) 13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't mentioned in this response if three more editors had already posted here, because the economic literacy in this world is not the greatest, but this is a simple issue of recent memory of timelines: the AIG "scandal" is the result of a "bailout" that began in the late summer of 2008, before the 2008 election and during the Presidency of George W. Bush, and that—and not the Presidency of Barack Obama article—would be where this "scandal" bears mentioning. Whether someone who would suggest it be added here will actually go through with adding it there or not remains to be seen, but as with every subject raised at this page, I would highly recommend actually reading an article on the subject before suggesting its addition here.

Wikipedia, in fact, has an article about AIG to remind readers such as yourself of this timeline, and it notes that AIG disclosed "a list of major recipients of collateral postings and payments under credit default swaps, guaranteed investment plans, and securities lending agreements" including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale, again, something that transpired in 2008, prior to the presidency of Barack Obama.

Finally, the upper amount involved in the AIG "bailout" is $182.5 Billion, some of which actually purchased mortgage-based assets (thereby not technically part of a "bailout", but instead a "buyout", the sort of investment it's not unheard of for the government to make) and some of which is an as-yet unused credit line (and so still actually in the hands of the U.S. government and not AIG). So it is some fraction less than one-twentieth of the "trillions" that you characterize it as being. Again, getting your facts somewhere within the ballpark before making an editorial suggestion would vastly improve your chances of not being considered an uninformed ideologue simply out to smear someone with revisionist history.

To the contrary of your accusation of POV in favor of Obama, I would say is there not a negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the major banks have now all paid back their TARP "bailout" money to the government ("taxpayer") with interest? I would ask is there not a pessimistic or negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the DOW has risen almost 4,000 points since March lows? Is there not a negative POV advanced by simply noting an unemployment number, yet failing to explain that new job losses, which had risen throughout the last couple years of the Bush administration to 700,000 a month by the time Obama took office, have decreased profoundly ever since? It's no surprise that the sort of people suggesting negative POV at this article miss the negative POV already there, but it's a disappointment that those battling the negative POV are so unaware or ambivalent about the imbalanced negativity in the article.

Recently, I substantively responded, with references, to erroneous comments in a conversation about the Stimulus, yet not a single editor here commented and after 14 days it was archived. The true POV is against adding positive facts, not the resistance to the sort of vague, unreferenced hearsay grudges that dominate these pages. Just every once in a while, we need to wrap our minds around an issue and respond with more than the stock "take it to Presidency" answer. I'd point out that nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month. Sometimes a thread can seem to include elements of specific responses to other editors, but when substantive, supported statements salient to a point of contention and relevant for article consideration are made, editors are more than welcome to weigh in with their acknowledgement of their veracity and relevancy to the article. When there was nothing going on but delinquency at both of these pages, it was hard to keep up with more substantive editorial discussions; now that there is so much less heat, let's acknowledge the light every once in awhile. Abrazame (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All of which is true. Nevertheless, it was a Democrat-run Congress those last few years of the Bush presidency. And Obama voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts and TARP. He also voted in favor of ALL Bush's war funding requests.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

In July of 2008 the Wall Street Journal even ran an article pointing out the similarities and suggesting Obama was Bush's third term.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html

CNN meanwhile ran an article pointing out 20 similarities between Bush and Obama on policy issues

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html

Many people do not realize that Obama even copied Bush's state of the union address from 2000, when he said 'Juntos Pudemos' or 'Together We Can'. If you look into their backgrounds and personality types, you might find more similar than you'd think.

PolitiFact also labeled as 'True' the statement by the McCain campaign that Obama supported the Bush campaign half the time.[[106]] It was noted in 2005 that Obama supported attacking Iran with missile strikes to stop their nuclear program.[[107]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Title altered from "absurd propaganda" so as to remain neutral - Wikidemon (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone, including the admins here, really believe that the absurd propaganda being pushed by Jzyehoshua should be added to the Barack Obama article? I think it should be deleted from the talk page. As for WP:NPOV, does anyone think that is a user went to the George W. Bush article and tried to insert stuff about him killing babies in Iraq or whatever that it would be added to the article, or if the user went to the talk page and littered it with election propaganda or accusations, that the user would not be reprimanded? Do we allow editors to do that type of vandalism to articles about anyone? Are the 'truthers' given a voice on the GWB talk page? Everyone should know that the fringe is not allowed into the WP:BLP and that even on the talk pages it is against policy. How long are we going to allow this to go on in the guise of being neutral? DD2K (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua has been instructed to achieve WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page before adding the material to the article. The process is running its course. Name-calling and calls for admins to "do something" (previous thread) won't help at this point. Whether or not any of the material can be added will be decided by consensus. Whether or not a user will be blocked will depend on adherence to policy. I don't see a need for any more consideration than that.  Frank  |  talk  15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So the addition of Jzyehoshua asking if Barack Obama supports killing infants is ok? That is allowed, even on the talk page? Don't get me wrong, if members of Code Pink were on the George W Bush article pushing their agenda(accusations of murder and such), I think the same warnings should apply. The user in question is obviously not trying to 'achieve WP:CONSENSUS and is using the talk page as a soapbox to push an agenda. I don't see how anyone can see it differently. How can his edits be described as coming from a WP:NPOV? In any way? DD2K (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

When a relatively new user (under 200 total edits, along with only three this year before edits to Barack Obama) comes in, guns blazing, and is told the right way to do things around here, and then complies, I think the process is working. That's not the same as saying I think any particular edit is OK. And, in fact, the implications (which are WP:OR anyway) are inappropriate. But we cannot expect new users to understand all the vast workings of Wikipedia instantly.  Frank  |  talk  15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and think your suggestions were very appropriate when the user tried to add the text to the article. My problem lays with the wording on the Talk page, not the procedure. The accusations of murder should not have any place here, on articles or talk pages. And that what is being accused here, the definition of the word is clear, 1, 2, 3. Allowing those accusations to stand, even on the talk page, should obviously be against the rules. DD2K (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We must have a place for some amount of discussion, even if the entire thrust of the conversation is to point out that a particular view is unsupportable, at least in a Wikipedia article. At some point - possibly following the list added above which includes the assertion that (late) Senator Moynihan has commented on Obama - editors with views which are considered fringe (whether sources exist or not) will "get it". One way or another. But if we just say "go away, we don't like you", we're not doing the project any good and indeed are supporting the (incorrect) view that only certain points of view are allowed. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV are actually somewhat tricky concepts, I think...and that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Add to that the fact that this is an online-only medium, and it becomes trickier still.  Frank  |  talk  16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank, nobody's expected to read all the links from an ideologue pest hopping from thread to thread pushing the same strident issue like this, but Moynihan—who died in 2001—obviously did not comment on Obama. Moynihan probably never heard of Obama. This editor is simply reaching back into history to note that Moynihan made a general characterization about partial-birth abortion. When a relatively new user dredges up all his favorite comments about abortion even when they're unrelated to the subject of this article, simply to push a point about abortion, he shouldn't be allowed to post his treatise and pursue it all over the page, he should be directed to the abortion article. This is a real and difficult issue, and I respect what I presume is the editor's position on the issue, but it is clear that it is not one with particular relevance to the biography of Barack Obama. Parading issues like this one through BLPs and their talk pages is editorially irresponsible campaigning. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the concept of consensus. Consensus is not about a gang (or a gang of one) to win the exclusion of relevant, salient, properly-weighted, balanced, encyclopedic and contextual facts, in favor of some mistaken POV, nor is it about allowing activists to trot out patently unacceptable, irrelevant propaganda in an effort to draw smeary connections to an individual that aren't really there and create a controversy where there isn't one. Moynihan's non-Obama-related quote is repeated in another of his refs, which he erroneously calls "Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics" but which in fact is an opinion piece by Pat Buchanan; the other ref there is an opinion piece by Rush Limbaugh's little brother. As if somebody even has to click on any of the refs when the final one is World Net Daily. Abrazame (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, because a few articles you can discredit void the ones by the New York Times, Washington Post, et. al. Perhaps you should be reading the Argument from fallacy page, or better yet, the article on Cherry picking. There is a reason they were listed lower, they were simply thrown in as fillers. And with Moynihan, his quote is used not just by the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post but other articles as well dealing with Obama and infanticide, making one wonder if perhaps the quote did address Obama somehow. At any rate, stating a few dislikes with a few of the many sources posted, particularly those farther down the list, shows how desperate you are to debunk anything critical of Obama, and how willing to reach you are indeed. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an inappropriate comment. If you continue, this discussion will soon be closed. Please review and follow the terms of article probation, described by link at the top of this page. The Washington Post and New York Times sources do not check out, and given the loaded language you are proposing and the derogatory comments directed at other editors I and others are not willing to further entertain a discussion on the topic at this time. If you want to propose a specific change in the article, particularly one describing a minority position, please support it with a few concise, apt citations, and do not use the occasion to make accusations about the motives of other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the links themselves, I am just not understanding why all the focus on attacking them. Obviously they were not main article supporting, content-related links like the list I originally posted (1-7), and it should've been clear from the discussion that I was simply doing a quick 20 minutes of research to find links showing that the word 'infanticide' has been used by major publications, in response to someone who said that my use of the word 'infanticide' disqualified anything I could say. Why editors are treating these like my primary source links, when I never said they were, is utterly incomprehensible to me. It seems very dishonest of them to attack the 20 minute research links and avoid the primary links I originally mentioned.

As the discussion should have shown, the goal in posting them was not primary support for the infanticide criticism itself, but simply to show that major news outlets have used the term 'infanticide' in reference to Obama, and that by using the term I had not 'disqualified' myself from being able to make a reasonable argument. The subject was not on standalone links to support my original written piece, but whether infanticide had been used in reference to Obama by major news outlets, and using the term in reference to him was a 'fringe' view.

In that regard, I still believe my links all achieved their purpose, regardless of whether people like who wrote them or not, it remains a fact that major news outlets let the words Obama and infanticide coexist in their publications, and thus I should not be ridiculed like those here wanted me to be simply for following precedent in using the term in reference to Barack Obama. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Juxtaposing "Obama" and "infanticide" will take an enormous weight of bullet proof reliable sourcing in order to comply with WP:BLP, which is policy. The fact that folks out there have made that juxtaposition does not automatically merit inclusion in this article. Folks have made a wide variety of claims of all different fashion, and wikipedia is not here to air them all out, but merely to summarize what the majority of mainstream reliable sources say to comply with WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:UNDUE weight to fringey commentary. Jzyehoshua, there is no consensus to add your text. You can chalk it up to whatever type of bias or guardianship you like, but the truth of the matter is that these claims do not pass WP:BLP --guyzero | talk 18:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of how consensus works, and you may note I referred to Moynihan (d. 2003) above as a thin "reference". I get it (and you already know that). I'm not at all asserting a user (new or otherwise) should have free reign to parade these sorts of issues all over the project. I'm just saying we're not doing ourselves any favors if we start yelling for blocks as soon as someone stumbles in here with 7K of text in an article that pretty much doesn't belong and is unlikely ever to be put in the article in any form. If we don't explain the process, it won't be understood. The question here isn't whether or not I understand consensus...the real point is whether or not a user with under 200 edits who suddenly decides the world needs to know something more about Obama understands it, and shutting down conversation isn't going to achieve that understanding. Having said all that, I suspect there has been enough conversation - in this thread and certainly above - that the process is revealing itself rather quickly and specifically as regards this article, which is all I was suggesting was appropriate. At least - that's what I was trying to suggest.  Frank  |  talk  17:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The "right way to do things" certainly does not involve repeatedly starting and perpetuating this kind of discussion. This is a distraction, with no reasonable likelihood of leading to any changes to the article or anything else productive. In form, yes, reasonable proposals should be discussed civilly and rationally on talk pages. But going through that motion with a proposal so vastly inappropriate is a hollow gesture. Worse, when proposals like this are accompanied with accusations of bad faith and ad hominem attacks on the body of editors here for being part of a supposed liberal cabal, they're dead on arrival - and a clear violation of the article probation terms. We have not had real trouble on the article for months, but at other times when events external to Wikipedia brought people flocking here on a mission, things degenerated. If a new editor needs some training wheels I don't think this is the place. Humoring bad requests sends the wrong message to an editor here with a political agenda inconsistent with the project, that they can soapbox on important articles. A firm but polite "no thanks" should suffice, with a pointer to the rules. If that doesn't sink in I think we should close down the discussion, and let the editor ponder why their approach isn't working rather than pondering how they might shoehorn bad content into the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For what I anticipate to be my last comment on this issue, in response to User:Jzyehoshua's above comment to me, I wasn't cherry-picking; I don't play games with myself or evade salient editorial issues on this page, I went for the two I thought were the least likely to be desperate partisan editorial diatribes—the ones you attributed to Time magazine—and yet in fact that is precisely what they were.

So, just to prove to myself that I was not wrong about your litany of references, I clicked on The Washington Post link to arrive at an Op-Ed piece written by Michael Gershon during the campaign. Gershon was recruited by Karl Rove to serve as George W. Bush's campaign as speechwriter and, erm, did so well at it that he served as Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006, and was a member of the White House Iraq Group, apparently coining the unproductive phrase "Axis of Evil" and suggesting the inclusion of the unfounded phrase "mushroom cloud" in the run-up to war. He was named by Time magazine as the 9th most influential Evangelical in America in 2005. He went on to write for Newsweek and other periodicals. (Further to the issue of media impartiality, I would note that his replacement as Bush's speechwriter was Wall Street Journal chief editor William McGurn.)

As to your NYT ref, the page to which you link points out that the Catholic stance on abortion would be a tough standard for any supporter of abortion rights to meet, and acknowledges that it was a campaign tactic of the Republicans to try to depict Obama as a radical because of his vote on that bill, regardless of his explanation of that bill's unconstitutionality.

I would point out to Frank that he wasn't clear at all in what he wrote about Moynihan (I acknowledge his correction that Moynihan retired in 2001, and passed away in 2003), as evidenced by this editor's being still here writing "(Moynihan's) quote (being used by the WSJ and Washington Post) mak(es) one wonder if perhaps the quote did address Obama somehow." Perhaps it makes one wonder, but this page isn't for the wonderings of a single Wikipedian, least of all one who doesn't realize that Obama's position on abortion in 1996-'97, when Moynihan's statements were made and Obama would have only just been running for the Illinois State Senate, would not be a blip on Moynihan's radar (some years prior to the night he became a "rising star within the Democratic party"). That so many deeply partisan Republicans were still quoting the esteemed late Catholic senator more than a decade later, in the midst of a presidential election, seems like the desperate cherry-picking reach to me. Though it hardly makes one wonder. Abrazame (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The question of including Jz's proposals is irrelevant, as long as he has no consensus for those additions. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Can I take it you didn't bother reading that big, bolded post I made starting with the words "Bottom Line" which aimed at just that, a consensus, and to state where I stood on this perfectly? I only bothered bolding one post you know, and it seems few here have actually read it. I bulleted it too. Perhaps I should just make it a new section too.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• ehem* putting that last little outburst aside…I think it’s time to move along. What Jzyehoshua tried to add to the article was absurd and continuing to debate about it is a waste of editors time.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have 2 points I would like to make:

• I made a consensus post. I bolded it, bulleted it, and now made it a new section just in case it was still getting overlooked. Nobody but Hoary and Tarc addressed it at all, with Tarc the only one critical of it. And yet there were still people saying I had not suggested a consensus, which made no sense.
• Why this was closed with such a comment attacking Alan Keyes I am not sure. I am not sure what Sceptre is hearing about Keyes over there in England, but I have lived through the 2004 Illinois Senate race, attended an Obama townhall meeting in the area, and supported the Keyes campaign at the time. Keyes has received a lot of bad press, but simply disqualifying any talk about a subject because he was mentioned (and was not even a primary subject in the discussion either), and ending the discussion with use of the Association, 'Appeal to Ridicule', and Hasty Generalization fallacies, not to mention a potential straw man, seems an poor method for a moderator.

Nevertheless, I feel I proposed a consensus that did not sustain much objection and thus suppose the discussion has at any rate run its course. I appreciate those that provided input without resorting to personal attacks.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to know who is responding to what because this discussion has become so long and disorderly, but I count User:DD2K, User:Misortie, User:GoodDay, User:Guyzero, User:Abrazame, User:JzG, User:Grsz11, User:Tarc, myself, and possibly User:Frank objecting at one time or another to various proposals, without a single editor expressing explicit support (although one or two have chimed in with general complaints about the article). There is also discussion currently at WP:AN/I about the length and heat of this section being a problem. If you can propose some specific text that is neutral in tone, with facts reasonably supported by reliable sources both as to their accuracy and their WP:WEIGHT as a relevant and significant part of Obama's biographical history. If you decide to go that route, please propose these things respectfully and without accusing other editors of things or declaring that your arguments are superior or have consensus. That way they can get a fair hearing. Don't be offended if they are rejected or if people's patience for this is running thin - the proposals to date have been biased and weakly sourced. Further, even if described fairly some of them have been considered and rejected before, and are probably better for other articles than this one. Further information about Obama's senate campaigns and career, for example, may be found in other articles. There is another article about his political positions, and one about his presidency. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In this edit, Sceptre rendered a section invisible, with the comment "I'm closing this as a massive clusterfuck. I can't seriously believe we're seriously discussing comments by Alan Keyes here."

For some reason it rendered more than one section invisible, at least as my particular browser (Epiphany) views the page. Perhaps that was because another HAT/HAB pair was nested within it. Merely in view of what it did to the rest of the page, Sceptre's edit, no matter how well-intentioned, was not a helpful one.

That technical matter aside, if any editor takes Keyes seriously, does this really render everything else the editor says thereabouts as unworthy of consideration?

Of course inane or mindlessly repeated objections can and should be rendered invisible or even deleted, and I've done this myself in my time on this very page (particularly for the comments of a vigorous, multinamed person who seemed to be of Hungarian extraction). But I strongly disagree with what I see as an overeagerness here to render objections invisible. I believe that most of the objections are unwarranted and a lot of the rejoinders to them are good. However, many of even what I consider unwarranted objections seem reasonably phrased. They merit refutation (or pointing toward a refutation), not deletion. Yes, editorial policy in this talk page is turning the talk page into the pastiche that its critics say it already is.

And if you must render material invisible, please use the "Show preview" button. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use this page to accuse other editors of censorship. There is an apparent consensus to close. It is not a productive discussion. The format problem probably was caused by nested hat / hab templates. If you believe that editors conduct here is inappropriate you're welcome to take that up at the appropriate place, not here. The proposal to accuse Obama of infanticide, among other things, was pretty much dead on arrival but nevertheless remained open for considerable discussion. There is no actionable content proposal and the discussion was accompanied personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. This is exactly the sort of thing that article probation is supposed to enjoin. I had before an edit conflict refactored the closing comment to be more civil and fixed the formatting problem. Please don't reopen a closed discussion like this that is disrupting normal operation of the page. If there are no reasonable objections I urge that it be re-closed shortly so that we can return to productive discussion here. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading the entries by the user Jzyehoshua on this page? Have you looked at his edits of the Barack Obama article? I find it pretty unacceptable that a user has been allowed to accuse a WP:BLP of murdering infants numerous times, over and over, and to spam this talk page with comments well past Wikipedia limit. Over and over. This(the closing) has nothing to do with Alan Keyes. Does someone have to file a WP:BLP violation report on this, or are we going to fix it and warn the user? This whole diatribe is unacceptable. I am all for teaching new users the rules, but this is DEFINITELY not the way to do so. Allowing the murder allegations, allowing the user to give links that don't say what he claims they do, and to monopolize the page with idealogical diatribes over and over, is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DD2K (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No actionable content proposal? What about the Consensus section above that was bolded and is still not being replied to? If you wanted specific statements about what that would involve, I could write them up very quickly. I was just waiting for more input on that section, which never came. As far as I was concerned, it already achieved consensus. But if editors would like me to provide the exact edits I would now make given the aforementioned Consensus section, I can provide them. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? If you propose something and it's rejected or ignored, it's quite a stretch to declare that you've "already achieved consensus." --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's totally right. And on the point about Alan Keyes: he's just a carpetbagger who blindly follows his party line—which, as a party line normally is, is 99% hot air—, lost by one of the greatest margins in American history, and was so butthurt by that fact that he continues to call Obama a communazislamosocialist fascist who was born in Kenya to this day. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What did you know of Keyes? Do you really think he would come into a race he had zero chance of winning to carpetbag? A former U.N. Ambassador who was already running in his native Maryland for Congress and doing well, as well as for President - why do you think he came to Illinois with less than 3 months in an election against a candidate who'd been campaigning unopposed for months when he had no built up campaign structure or recognition? You really think he thought he'd get an office out of that?

His reason for coming was the voting record of Barack Obama on live birth abortion that I have been telling everyone about. He began criticizing Obama on that one day after entering Illinois, and said that was his reason for being here. He followed his heart to oppose what he saw as the greatest evil, or he surely wouldn't have taken such a political risk.

You are name-calling and using derogatory attacks against someone you've likely heard only second-hand information about. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you have a low opinion of Keyes. (So do I, as it happens.) If you'd like to expand on it, you might consider doing so on a blog. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't reopen a closed discussion like this that is disrupting normal operation of the page. It was precisely the closing of the discussion that disrupted the normal operation of the page.

An accusation on a talk page that Obama committed, encouraged or condoned infanticide is ludicrous. Mention on the talk page that others claimed this is not necessarily ludicrous (after all, the US punditocracy is famous for the number and vigor of its nutballs), and, since Obama is prez and the US prez is about the most public person there is and routinely gets a lot of stick for just about anything (or indeed nothing at all), is hard to square with "BLP" measures designed for very different articles. In a few days, the section above will drift off into an archive, where it will be forgotten. That is the normal operation of this talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. Discussions that mess up the page get closed, and occasionally rejected proposals, overly long things, etc. Please don't undo that unless there's consensus, because it does truly disrupt our ability to discuss productive things around here. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. On most talk pages that's the protocol, but this isn't a normal talk page. This may be the bitter European liberal cynic in me speaking, but America has one of the most ignorant populaces in the developed world. I mean, I can't think of another first-world country where forty percent of its population deny reality (most of them traditional Republican voters, go figure). We need to get rid of the crazies in both of the sources and the talk page, so we don't waste all of our time when we could be discussing ideas with an air of credence instead of this stupid "abortion is infanticide" line of discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checked. It's worse: 43%. For comparison, in Western Europe it ranges from 8% (Iceland) to around 20% (Germany, Italy, Ireland). Sceptre ^(talk) 04:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, the longer you bang on about the iggernance of Americans in general and Republicans in particular, the more partisan appears your enthusiasm for clamping down on discussions. So please put a sock in it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It was to reinforce the point that this talk page is for serious issues regarding Obama. You know, stuff to failure to commit to campaign promises. Not issues almost exclusively thrown around by reality deniers. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

All the same, let's all take a deep breath and try to de-escalate things, particularly the meta-discussion. If that contradicts anything I've said earlier, then maybe I've just taken a deep breath myself. If you're about to hit that "save page" button, maybe edit it once or twice to take out any loaded words? Think how it's going to sound to the person you're addressing? Even if someone has fringe beliefs (in your opinion) they're still a person trying to get along here, so we should treat everyone with the utmost dignity, kindness, and respect. That won't kill anyone, eh? Some of this we can talk about on each other's talk pages. There's an irony, because if the goal here is to steer the discussion back onto reasonable discussion for improving the article, the more we talk about the talk page and what's going on here, the less we're talking about content. I'm inviting Jzyehoshua to make measured, sourced, proposal unadorned with commentary about other editors, and to be fair we can respond in kind. Whether you want to archive the talk page or just start a new discussion, it won't kill us to try fresh. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. As promised, I've provided some sample edits to the page that I think can avoid any loaded words anyone might object to while still stating only clearly sourced and undeniable facts about Barack Obama's past, with the one exception being his Nobel peace prize. As I've kept stating, I gave up from the first post on the idea of trying to make a controversies section once I recognized Wikipeda wants to get away from those, and am trying to make them in the body of the page as 1 and 2 sentence changes here and there just to provide necessary elaboration when it won't go out of the way and is relevant. Anyway, thanks again for the opportunity! --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)