Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

If there's consensus to go ahead with this, I'm thinking the individual would .....what? simply designate a motion as coming from the podium/chair, with its then being subject to being finessed or overturned via Talk page consensus? While the contributor we'd designate no doubt would have expressed past positions on content, whenever hi/r moderator's hat would be on, the only focus would be procedural. Maybe the position could be filled by any contributor at all, carefully acting with hi/r knowledge of procedure? Alternately it could be filled by any member of a select, um, gang acclaimed for procedural knowledge -- if one or another of them happens to be around at the moment. A third option would be to have a single designated Moderator, or whatever the position's to be called, with some kind of provisions for how it's to be rotated. Any suggestions or comments?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess they'd essentially serve as administrators pro temporare. (Maybe we could call them demiadmins? :^))  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Any self-nomination/self-nominations? I nominate User:Clubjuggle.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If it is a single person, the person should be widely trusted by all factions involved. If it is multiple persons (which is possible), they should each be well-trusted by at least one faction and broadly trusted to be able to fairly and civilly negotiate with other factions. So the idea is to create a person or small committee able to make ad-hoc decisions on behalf of the editorial community here, pending review or appeal. There are electoral ways of doing this, if people are interested, i.e., of choosing the most-broadly-trusted editors. And there really should be more than one, now that I think of it, because the Wikipedia model must tolerate the absence of any individual. There would be no special powers, as such, except that we might expect that the community here would generally support the decisions of this chair or moderators, or of the group of them. So decisions -- which are always impermanent here -- could be made more efficiently and still generally represent consensus. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would favor a group effort, and would nominate any/all of these folks (in no particular order) as exemplars of neutral "Wikipedianess" when it comes to this article:

1. Clubjuggle
2. Rick Block
3. Josiah Rowe
4. Bigtimepeace
5. Gamaliel
6. Bobblehead
7. HailFire

I would have to recuse myself on the basis that can be easily bribed with a cheeseburger, especially if it has bacon and grilled onions. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I nominate also

8. Scjessey despite his grilled-onions bacon cheeseburger recusal

9. Ferrylodge

10. Wikidemo

11. Noroton

12. And User:Abd as a go-to full admin.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I'm not an administrator. I carry no stick, have no button-holster. I could assist as a kind of mediator or moderator, but only for process, not content, attempting to facilitate the formation and "measurement" of consensus, not at all by deciding which of various texts are better. That is up to the involved editors.--Abd (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

13. Floridianed (Maybe as any agreed-upon council's initial chair by acclamation?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is done, that person would always have to have that hat on. In other words they would be unable to express any opinion on any matter other than those dealing with procedural issues. Unless you take this route the chair will not appear to be impartial, but what I think you are really looking for is a general mediator, since a chair by definition has more power than you would really want. Arzel (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Arzel and nominated or not; I would offer myself for that job If I would've the proper "WP-degree"! Sadly I don't since I could easily decline and pass on editing this article while still being able to help making it better. Bummer... --Floridianed (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Floridianed, I hereby present to the Talkpage community my nomination of you for a "council's" initial member and chair. See #13 above.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow. I'm flattered by the nomination but keep in mind what I said above:"I would offer myself for that job If I would've the proper "WP-degree". As I pointed out, "I could easily decline and pass on editing this article while still being able to help making it better", and that I can promise. As for being on a council the only thing I can promise and obey is NPOV regarding editors and edits, here on the talk page and of course at article itself (especially to keep all edits on the merits). Still, I defiantly can't do this alone (see above) so I accept gladly if there will be other council members with more experienced with WP-rules since I just know and apply most of them just as "common sense" on the basics. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Anyway, Thanks a lot for your trust, --Floridianed (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot to ask of somebody interested to hang out and not work on content. Which is the purpose of my brainstorming about what mechanism would provide for somebody's always occupying the chairpersonship if even on an ad hoc basis with offending contributors risking being held in hi/r contempt (see below. And part #2 is that in cases of truly intractible content disputes s/he'd not only moderate discussion but also render a considered opinion as to what consensus is; after that, only new information or a new argument would be allowed to be brought up also with any offending party's risking being held in contempt.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not that I don't think this is an idea with some merit, but if understand the reasoning for such a person, then that person is going to have to stay completely above the fray to be effective. If their content work appears to promote one particular view, then their ability to effective will be compromised. Which is why I suggested what you are really after is a mediator. Additionally, along this line of thought you probably would want to look outside those which have already been a part of this article. Arzel (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm perplexed. What would this chair or chairs do? Simple, simple, very plain language, please. Give some thought to what the abuses might be and tell me what their limits would be. And how would this be enforced? My mind is open to anything. Noroton (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My thought is they'd do two things.

1. Moderate debate and contributing behavior. Anybody disregarding the mediator/moderator/chair's word would risk essentially being held in contempt -- I guess "of the page" -- meaning the administrator pro temporare would notify some admin aware of our setup who'd then be likely to rubberstamp the offending contributor's being blocked.
2. Within cases where discussions on content have truly reached an impasse, the [name of position yet to be determined] would be empowered to give hi/r considered opinion. (I haven't really worked part #2 out yet.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wish I could help, but am stretched too thin. Less than 90 days to the election, but this Wikipedian must spend a good chunk of that time not working on Wikipedia. Wishing it were otherwise, Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Count me out. You need an admin. I think the admin would need to stay away from #2 and act more like a judge. Wikipedians tend to be reluctant to set up innovative arrangements like this (when it's done, it tends to be done by the ArbCom, and from what I see elsewhere, User:Elonka is an admin having a difficult time with one of those arrangements (I don't have time to figure out what that's all about). I get the impression that setting this up would be difficult because the person in the new position would be under frequent challenges and need to ask for consensus support again and again, so I'm skeptical. If we editors at large try to support best practices, tell other editors to stay on subject and not concentrate on the behavior of other editors and only make comments with the purpose of eventually coming to consensus, I think we're more likely to work better together. That's where I'd concentrate efforts. Each of us can start by policing our own conduct and exert some peer pressure on others. But my mind is still open. Noroton (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Coming in late here — I'm flattered by the suggestion/ "nomination", but unfortunately I don't have time to monitor this article closely these days. My father just had a hip replacement and I'm his primary caretaker, so my Wikipedia work will be somewhat curtailed for the next few weeks. (The fact of my late reply is evidence of my unsuitability at the moment!) I hope that the situation can be resolved equitably by the editors who do have the time for close monitoring. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

aka "Create an article bureaucracy"?

This page will have an advisory council, whose membership would be decided upon by consensus of contributors on this page and whose members (as well as the council as a whole) would ultimately serve at the discretion of the entire community. Non-members of the council would be able to forward a motion through one of its members, providing they find one willing to give it voice. The council itself would agree to its operational guidelines (setting a certain number -- say, half the council membership, should the council come to have more than a few members -- as its official "quorum," etc.); while any one of its members would be allowed to offer spur-of-the-moment moderation of general contributors' activities, accompanying by that member's being empowered to threaten sanction -- however the member would limit the excercise of hi/r discretionary powers to a standard s/he believes to be "snowballs" of the committee at large.

The number of council members must always be odd (so to speak <wink>). The entire page's community will arrive at a consensus as to who will be among the committee's initial, say, three members, after which either the community as a whole or else the council can decide to expand its membership, if need be, two members at a time. The council will also have a chair, whose ad hoc motions can be overturned by any other of its members. All members only address this chair. And any member may recuse hi/rself from a decision so as not to have to appear to transcend some overriding conflict of interest. To be continued!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Three members; Not more and not less. Three to have a majority when needed, as you pointed out. More than three would make it only more and/or maybe just as difficult as it is know. Man, I might come back here with or w/o "nomination" if that works out. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) I'm myself sort of looking for a structure where there'd pretty much always be somebody dedicated to neutrality that would be available. (Note: if there's a lot of members, though, we'd have to figure out instances where certain objections would require "seconding" to disallow a lone, empowered voice from excercising too much sway.) (2) Hmm -- well, a chair's level of Wiki knowledge wouldn't necessarily so much have to trump that of other members of the Trio or Gang, in my opinion, but s/he would have to consistenly show enough earnest common sense to merit respect, while the main thing would be for hi/r to -- pay -- attention.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

'always be somebody dedicated to neutrality that would be available". I agree. but also consider, that you cannot expect anyone to be here 24/7. Looking over what was done on a daily bases I consider possible (besides on holydays and other personal occasions of course). Still, with three members there would be at least one around most of the time.

"a chair's level of Wiki knowledge wouldn't necessarily so much have to trump that other members of the Trio or Gang, in my opinion, but s/he would have to consistently show enough earnest common sense to merit respect, while the main thing would be for hi/r to -- pay -- attention."

Referring mostly to your first part of your sentence ["trump" sentence]: Now it seems your referring to me or some other similar member so I address it in the way I understood it (and please just let me know if I'm mistaken in part or in whole). Of course whoever is on that"board" needs to pay attention and if in doubt, do some research on it's own. It would be in a way, taking some of the discussion temporally away from the talk page till S/he and the council-members come up with something useful and maybe a compromise in a NPOV that every editor could agree on and purge their possible POV. With other words: To make it fit for WP! Isn't that the main point we all should obey and work for? By the way: Common sense is what I'm missing here a lot.

Its late here, really late so I don't know how much longer I'll be able to comment. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are getting ahead of yourself here. Such a group would violate some wp policies like WP:AGF because by defintion a non-member of the group would have to get permision to really do much, and the party of three would have complete control (actually just a party of two, since it is a majority rule thing.) Furthermore, your nomination method of chair members needs to be tweaked. Anyone under consideration would have to be nominated, and seconded before they could qualify. After which you would have to have an open voting period so that everyone interested could vote. If you don't follow these steps any editor which is being blocked from doing anything because of the board would have a valid reason to go to the ANI and complain (you may run into this anyway). Like I said before, noble idea, but you have to be very careful in how you set up something like this. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How it works 1. Moderator oversees article. A single member of the Trio of moderators (/Gang of 7...of 11, whatever) "procedurally moderates" the article/Talkpage: "Don't do that."

1. Others oversee moderator. A non-member disagrees: "I think what I did is OK," s/he says; but s/he is unable to enlist another member of the Trio or Gang who agrees. Result: the procedural motion stays: S/he isn't allowed to do that. Alternatively, the non-member is able to enlist another member to agree. Result: the procedural motion is overturned: S/he IS allowed to do that.
2. Appeal to full body of moderators. Once the first Trio member or Gangster's action would have been overturned, another member may contact the chair and bring the question before the whole Trio or Gang; after which the chair would notify all members of the Trio or Gang. If they quickly agree with the initial member, that member's action stands: The non- council member's not allowed to do that. Otherwise, it's overturned: The non- council member IS allowed to do that.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add a "clause" that enables the (main)-contributors on this page to dismiss or replace the council in part or in whole if one ore more don't live up to their duty. Please feel free to delete or move my comment if it interferes with your proposal here --Floridianed (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

^Y Thanks, Floridianed.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] What exactly are you talking about here? A council to do what? Is this about behavior or edits? Tvoz/talk 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz. (1) Would you consider volunteering? (2) As I envision it, in any action involving article-moderatorship, the guys of this clique would really mind the pees and kews of general procedures so as to continue to serve at the communities' pleasure; at the same time they'd probably want to run a tight ship and not suffer their judiciously crafted admonitions to be blatantly diregarded. And if one is: a quick note to a friendly admin and pwoof, somebody's sanctioned. This oversight would cover Talk page conduct and main space contributions, its purview as extensive as whatever the consensus of the chamber would allows (and as would remain authorized in turn through consensus of the greater community).  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 08:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I see it it's about behavior that prevents consensus for edits. So, mainly it's not about edits itself but rather a proposal that could help and lead to future edits w/o to much senseless interruption. Regards --Floridianed (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed for the clarification - that's a worthy goal, but I'm not convinced that another layer of bureaucracy will accomplish it. I've long thought that enforcing current community standards on this talk page would go a long way to eliminating some of the problems we've encountered, but we seem to have trouble getting consistent enforcement. I'd like to see what others think about this proposal - I have to say I am somewhat skeptical. Tvoz/talk 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.Sure we have to wait and see how others react to this. I'm skeptical for a long time now (that's why I made myself rare here) but you shoud never ever give up hope ;) . We'll see what'll happen with this proposal and till then, cheers. --Floridianed (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've been requested to drop by, just wanted to say that I'm not in a position to perform moderator/etc. tasks on this or any other article, assuming that that is even possible and consistent with Wikipedia process and policy. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply! What I'd meant, actually, is if you might provide expertise concerning how we might structure our proposed procedures?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really very remarkable. I don't think I've seen anything like this before, but I wonder: how is the article served by picking faction chiefs? Cool Hand Luke 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

JMHN, I'm impressed by the amount of work you've put into this but it seems too complicated. What we need is a previously uninvolved admin who will check the article and this Talk page once a day, like a cop walking a beat, and be prepared to respond to notes left on his User Talk page for the most acute problems. He is the moderator. He must be previously uninvolved and 100% above reproach. He must be an admin, so that he can dispense sanctions quickly and deliver warnings that will be heeded. One warning on the user's Talk page followed by a block for any continued misconduct. Simple and effective, and I have a candidate in mind. What do you say? WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Yes, remarkable. And it is easy to spin out with an idea like this, making it much more complicated than it needs to be. The basic idea of mine -- I haven't got time at the moment to read all the above, I'll do it when I come back from travelling -- is to identify editors who are broadly trusted as being fair and able to understand and recognize POV and NPOV. Ideally, this group of editors would include one or more from the "factions." It is not necessary to identify and organize factions in order to do this, but an editor who improperly edits here is more likely to accept criticism, without disruption, if it comes from someone perceived as being "on the editor's side." The idea came up in contemplation of the article being fully-protected, which could happen. I do know how the "election" could be handled, there are methods for doing something like this that are simple; for starters, look at Asset voting, which is a form of Single transferable vote invented in 1884 by Lewis Carroll. It would involve each editor who cares to participate -- there is no obligation and no editorial rights lost by not participating -- naming another editor whom they most trust to represent their views if they cannot represent themselves. The process then identifies a smaller group of editors who, collectively, represent all -- or at least most of -- those who chose to participate. That "representation" is simply for making deliberation and decision-making more efficient, because modifying an article that is fully protected can get much more cumbersome. These aren't "chiefs," though, in fact, they might function a little like them; they are "chiefs," though, who have no authority over their "Indians" except the power of personal persuasion.

The way that it would be done would be to create a list as a subpage of this Talk page. In that list, any editor who wishes to be represented would list the username of the editor they consider the most trustworthy of those who might serve, i.e., reasonably monitor and participate in this article -- though it could be someone else, there is little or no harm in this and these assignments can always be changed at any time. The editor then signs it with the standard 4-tildes. I recommend that the editor named add "Accepted" and a signature, it makes it clear that this editor is accepting the trust.

Sock puppets will appear and name their reps. It doesn't matter. This isn't about voting, it's about negotiating, and, frankly, I'd rather have one puppet master at the table than a puppet master and a few socks!

There are proposals to use Asset voting, in political applications, for hybrid direct/representative democracy where everyone represented and can vote directly if they so choose. You won't see this in the article because it is really one of the latest proposals to be made in the field, and it's only been discussed in voting systems mailing lists. Here, because there are no special powers granted, but there would be, simply, a way of more easily understanding and identifying the level of consensus found on some proposal, it is really simple and there is no need for complicated systems and rules. The list described above can then be analyzed, using Delegable proxy concepts, where a rep of a rep is considered to represent all sub-"clients", to identify represented "caucuses" -- which could be thought of as faction, but which don't necessarily represent factional opinion, they represent editors group by whom they most trust, directly or indirectly.

This may be a lot to consider at once, but, notice: it gets done simply by creating that table of assignments and then by individual, trying to understand what is going on, looking at it, seeing who has participated in a discussion, and then analyzing this with respect to how many editors were ultimately represented. To see a proposed table format -- which was way too complicated, in my view -- see WP:Delegable proxy, a currently-rejected proposal. --Abd (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've only glanced at what is above, but some common "errors" are made, in trying to set up a bureaucracy. While this would be an excellent way to set up a bureaucracy, if it is decided to do that -- it would work for the proposed Wikipedia Council, quite simply -- we shouldn't leave the basic Wikipedia principles of decision-making. Rather, really, this has no chance unless it is kept very, very simple. Set up a "proxy table", suggest that editors name a "proxy," -- which does not mean that the editor named votes for the one naming -- and see what happens. The act of "election" is very simple and easy, the hardest part is figuring out whom one most trusts. And if you can't think of anyone, fine, you won't lose any editorial rights, as such. "Then" if some sort of official structure is to be created, let the virtual "assembly" that is created figure it out negotiate it, find a preliminary consensus on it, and then propose it. But I dislike any sort of "elected" council which deprives minority factions of representation. Most people will think of election methods that do just this, it's what we do in the real world in many places. (But not in some countries where they do have forms of Proportional representation.) --Abd (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All this seems absurdly complicated to me. Wikipedia already has procedures in place to handle issues like this, but these are not being properly enforced. Disruptive, agenda-driven SPAs need to be blocked. The problem is that whenever anyone files an incident report to get administrators to act, supporters of these agendas hijack the process by spraying chaff. The AN/I reports quickly become an extension of whatever content dispute is currently raging, administrators lose interest, and nothing gets done. The only way I can think of solving this would be to ban all involved editors from participating in an AN/I report discussion once it has been initiated, unless involved commentary is specifically requested by an administrator. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's my take on this. I agree that there should be at least one person who keeps an eye on all thing related to Barack Obama. However, looking at everything above, all I can say is that it is way to complicated. All those rules, regs, etc still leave many things open to interpretation, gaming, and continual confusion. My belief is in the acronym: K.I.S.S. or Keep It Simple Stupid!. The simpler things are, the easier they are to understand, leaving less to interpretation/gaming/etc.

So here is my proposal: Instead of having chairs, councils, etc, we just have Moderators. We have at least three moderators. Each acts on their own unless one steps over the line and then it is either the other moderators or admins who will deal with the moderator. The moderator's job will be:

1. To make sure the the discussions on the talk pages are on the content of the article and nothing more.
2. To make sure there is no personal attacks, sockpupptery, obvious POV pushing, or other breaking of wiki policies/rules/etc.
3. To remain neutral and not to participate other then to settle disputes.
4. To enforce all rules agreed upon and also to take sanctions out on people violating the agreed upon rules that include warnings and temp bans.

We would elect these moderators and they would stay here throughout the election period. After the election period, we can decide upon where to keep it going after that.

There is probably more to this, but I can't think of it right now. Any thoughts, etc? Brothejr (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In "Proposal 1" I was trying to figure out the working of Abd's original suggestion, but Brothejr's "Proposal 2" is much better at distilling its essentials without anything superfluous. (Also, Proposal 2 lacks any formalities and doesn't include an "Appeal to the full body of moderators.") Marvelous! Is it possible we'd be pioneering something? Something that doesn't "break Wikipedia's rules" or disregard its traditions so much as it works toward their adherence/exemplifies them?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Splendid, Brothejr. But your initial impression was correct: I agree that there should be at least one person who keeps an eye on all things related to Barack Obama. Let's start with one rather than three. If he needs more help, he can get more help. I have a candidate in mind and I sent him an email. Let's see if he responds. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why so secretive? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If he turns me down, he won't take any heat for it. If he accepts the nomination, the community here would still have to approve. But there's a participant here who's fairly familiar with him already ... and I believe the nomination would be seconded. My nominee is an admin, he's been a Wikipedian for years, he's got thousands of edits on other topics but not this one, and he is 100% above reproach. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No one else who has been suggested took heat if they turned down the suggestion, and I doubt anyone here would fault anyone who turned down would be faulted for that decision. Everyone else who has suggested someone has been open about it, so there's no need or benefit to being secretive. Openness is the heart of Wikipedia. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this one in general. Some observation - moderation should be an activity or role we ask of the administrators generally, not a specific position to fill. Rather than assigning or electing a specific person or three to the task - which is a huge commitment, and leaves the possibility open that they will resign or be drummed out, any experienced, uninvolved administrator should feel free to take action consistent with article probation. If we do get a volunteer, great! But we should allow for a succession plan, and for others to step in when he/she is unavailable, without having to get consensus for each new person. We don't have to set up rules for administrators. They can just do it as they always do - there are already prohibitions against using administrative powers to further content disputes, wheel warring, and civility and communication expectations on the part of administrators. That keeps it simple. Non-administrators can't be effective here because their impartiality is more likely to be challenged, and any sanction they impose would have to be ratified by an administrator who may or may not be willing to act as a rubber stamp. Similarly, we should not appoint people who have strong content positions or involvement in article editing. The list at the top of this section is reasonable. We may also need the person to take a role in jump-starting process when it breaks down, e.g. dealing with closing discussions and perennial proposals, assessing whether claims of consensus are reasonable, and so on. 22:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

• Any editor may participate in editing this article or talk page, but each is constrained to obey Wikipedia policy and guidelines (including WP:CIVIL). In case of failure to follow policy, existing procedures like 3RR, SSP and ANI can be filed to raise concerns. Edits should follow a pattern of WP:BRD and consensus should be reached for any major changes. How's that sound?

I am genuinely not trying to sound snarky, but y'know WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The procedures that exist are fine, and there's no way editors can or should be compelled to obey some page-specific formal procedure to engage in editing or discussion. Moreover, new editors coming to this page will have no idea about some special procedure, nor should they have to if they engage in constructive and collaborative editing. LotLE×talk 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this approach wholeheartedly, especially if those existing rules are actually enforced. That being said, I would welcome an increased presence of the individuals I nominated earlier, because just having them around seems to help. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be the status quo, no? I think the reason we're discussing article probation is because that has not worked, either for enforcement or the behavior standards that are to be enforced. Mild long-term incivility, low level POV pushing and edit warring, and occasional sockpuppeeting and wikigaming, things that don't cause too much trouble on other articles, are magnified here. With 3-4 editors on each side of an edit war, for example, each person's going to 2RR generates quite a lot of disruption - and is a disservice not to the usual ten or fifty daily readers, but tens of thousands. Minor incivilities like accusing other editors of repeatedly misrepresenting sources, or of being single-purpose accounts, are not sanctionable in isolation but drag the level of discourse down. Without article probation, these tend to slide by and the mood here stays bad. The blocks and bans that have been imposed were after many, many episodes and warnings, generally either on softer, harder to quantify things like tendentiousness and wikigaming, or else on people finally slipping over the line to 3RR. Rather than relying on community bans, and broad policies against disruption, it would be better to have a simple firm rule that we not talk about other editors' failings, or fight process battles, on this page, and someone at the ready to enforce that. Wikidemo (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Wikidemo, but the admins need to step up here. I fear that that added bureaucracy will only be... added bureaucracy. Tvoz/talk 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think things have calmed down nowadays. Yeah, we had a painful month of all the stuff Wikidemo mentions, but the last week or two has been pretty calm. Let's just let the current status be, and not assume the worst for the future. As much bluster as there was, this isn't the first or only article subject to contention (albeit, it's quite likely the most high-profile one). More admins with an occasional scolding (but hopefully nothing that needs to come to actual blocking or banning, other than passing vandals perhaps) should really be fine to keep things sane. LotLE×talk 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The calm may be deceptive or temporary. I see no obvious change of attitude or approach, and in the period of supposed calm, no loss of vigor, just a shift to other pages. In the past few days we've had a number of things come up and promises of more of the same. I don't see this ending unless those doing it lose interest. Are we any more ready for the next disruption than the last one? Wikidemo (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other suggestions, to address the issues at hand? (Any of the above proposals that violate WP:BUREAUCRACY aside...) How do we seek consensus among adversaries without resorting to partisan obstructionism?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As Lulu said above - things have quieted down. I see no reason to be stirring it up now - this meta-discussion is really not helping the article. I think we should let things be for now. Tvoz/talk 04:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is on probation we need to come to grips with these meta matters anyway (not to mention that a handful of administrators have chimed in to say that they are encouraged that we're addressing such issues. ←Of course, my interpretion of their sentiments)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems pretty inconclusive to me - so I conclude that people don't know what probation means, don't care, or don't want to get involved. I think this response to the maybe-probation is kind of out of proportion to where we are right now. But that's just my opinion. Tvoz/talk 06:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurry and get in your oppose probation vote in, then! (Tho' if you were to do so, it'd be the only one.);^)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC) More seriously, What threshhold of responses must be reached before support probabation can be thought to reach consensus?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I disagreed or agreed with it - I was saying that the AN/I thread was inconclusive and did not attract much response from the admin community, so it was not at all clear to me that the article is on probation as you said it was. Nor is it a common action around here, so I'm guessing most editors don't know what is even meant by probation. Tvoz/talk 08:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation#Community discussion says "A community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has placed Barack Obama-related pages on article probation - effective as of 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC). Please direct all discussions of this remedy to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I take that to mean the article is under probation. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I might"chim in" tomorrow since it's getting late here for a detailed comment on this. One thing I can say right now: I thought about the whole thing as a simple approach and not binding to any editor as long as s/he wouldn't bind h/im h/im-self by choice with the option to retract their commitment anytime they wish. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues here.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And, should its expanded content become acceptable to a consensus here, add it or a perhaps its summary as a section/subsection to this article?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum): Or to the Obama Springfield subarticle -- viz. the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh?! LotLE×talk 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad it wasn't just me! I didn't understand what Justmeherenow was saying either. Without wishing to be disrespectful, JMHN, your comments often need a few readings to fully decrypt their meaning. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of folks endlessly debating whether B's public service in (for folks who only know "Springfield" from the Simpsons) Illinois's capital is covered extensively enough in the article, work on this important subject (eg, see Lizza's excellent The New Yorker aricle) in a sandbox.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Also, I do not believe that ClubJuggle's comment was meant as a personal attack. In fact, I do not think ClubJuggle is even capable of such a thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Point taken. Then don't comment on it, and I'll just consider it a no go as far as you're concerned I guess, Scjessey. (2) Just trying to keep the focus on my proposal and not on me -- or even on the fine editor Mr/Ms ClubJuggle -- that's all folks. Thx. :^)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to translate from the original Justmeherenowese. I previously proposed an expansion of the section dealing with Obama's eight years in Springfield and corresponding reduction of the extremely bloated section covering his three years in the Senate. JMHN suggests starting with a proposed Springfield section in a sandbox, so that we can work on it without disrupting mainspace. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There are already two sub articles covering these sections. I see no reason for another. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a subarticle. It's a proposed expansion of the section in this article. You don't have to participate, or even look at it, if you don't want to. Eight years in the Illinois Senate is a pretty huge chunk of a 46-year-old politician's life to be limited to two or three paragraphs. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you both mean now. Bear in mind that this article is written in summary style, and there is already a pair of dedicated sub articles to cover this period of Obama's life. If you think that the amount of text given to the US Senate section is proportionately too much, submit a proposal on this talk page for it to be reduced. I'd probably support such a move, actually. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, lol, an hour or so before my non sequitur, the Bee wrote: "It says, "A political candidate's biography article may become bloated with specific details related to a particular election season despite that politician having a career outside that election." I don't believe that adding one or two sentences about Ayers would transform this bio frorm "not bloated" to "bloated." There is way too much material about his three years in the Senate, and not enough about his eight years in Springfield."

So I thought to myself, "I've mentioned a couple times that contributors that complain ad infinitum about stuff missing from the article really ought to start sandboxes and address possible weight concerns before bringing their proposed additions back to the talk page!" And, so, I dashed off another stab at it; yet, remembering how the other two times I'd suggested the proposal noone had responded and believing this partially could be because I'd interupted heated conversations with my interjections, this time I typed it in at the bottom of the page. (It worked: I got a response!) Sorry for not giving context or much breadth of explanation though.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the mystery is endearing. From what I recall sandboxes are okay if open to contributions from everyone, but Wikipedia discourages private sandboxing of large blocks of text because it's hard to digest a large proposal all at once. Regarding the goal, I would go the other direction and try to trim some of the other sections treated in other articles, rather than duplicating too many things from them. I wonder if our readers tune out from too much detail midway through our first long section, on his early life, somewhere around the part where we report that DCP's budget increased from $70,000 to $400,000. Wikidemo (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still having a bit of difficulty deciphering what JMHN is proposing, but it seems to be about expanding this article with more material already included in child articles. I definitely oppose that. I would not mind, as Wikidemo and Scjessey seem to concur, with trimming the US Senate section a bit since it is also covered in a child article. Remember, this article is WP:SUMMARY style, and should cover only the basics, with pointers to children for greater details.... actually, the campaign section of this article really needs a trim as well. LotLE×talk 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"actually, the campaign section of this article really needs a trim as well."

I agree. Let's chop all that Jeremiah Wright nonsense out! </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, let's start by trimming some noncontroversial filler. I've boldly edited down the first paragraph of the campaign section here by condensing the verbiage and removing stuff that's not terribly relevant or important.[1] I could do more but I'll stop here for now to see whether it sticks. Wikidemo (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot from the Senate section that could go, but as I've said several times, it's this campaign that makes him more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator, so a reduction of the campaign section shouldn't be our goal. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to LotLE, I propose reducing one section and enlarging another. The net increase in length would be close to zero (hopefully) and might even decrease overall length. I am thinking of adding material that isn't even in the child article yet, and would probably be working to expand that too. It's a stub. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not do this. If material is missing from a child article, add it to the child first. The goal here is to get this article shorter, not by negotiating "trade-offs" and "pacts", but by removing material that is unnecessary in whatever section. LotLE×talk 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I will probably be working on expanding the child article too. Eight of the man's 11 years in public office are represented by two or three paragraphs, both here and in the child article. Change that "probably" to "definitely." WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to make constructive improvements to the article. Incremental improvements are easier to discuss than bigger blocks of text but beyond that it's hard to say anything without seeing a proposal. The Illinois Senate section looks about right in length to me, which means there's room for some adjustment. This wouldn't by chance have anything to do with "Operation Board Games"[2], would it? Wikidemo (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Obama's role as committee chairman can be discussed without making any accusations, express or implied. It was his most significant achievement before he beat Blair Hull for the Senate nomination and it was mentioned prominently in his Senate campaign literature in 2004. If the mainstream media pick up on Evelyn Pringle's allegations, or if Patrick Fitzgerald announces that Obama has been indicted, I look forward to your complete and immediate cooperation. And before you say "No way in hell will that ever happen," SCJ was saying exactly the same thing to K4T in May, when K4T said that Rezko was going to be convicted. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What? I said that Obama would never be convicted (or even indicted) for anything Rezko was involved in. And why do you always have to drag me into everything you say? Kindly focus on the article, rather than the editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I'll be reducing the size of the U.S. Senate section now. Curious bystander (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thx, Curious bystander.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I compliment Curious bystander on doing a good job of trimming material from the Senate career section that is contained in the child article, while still retaining a good general sense of his legislative positions. Thanks.

Next thing, I'd like to reduce the excess from the Presidential primary campaign. I'm not even thinking of the Wright/Pfleger stuff (which probably should be shorter), but rather mostly of the state-by-state results. At this distance, and especially once the formal nomination happens in a couple weeks, exactly which primaries were won and lost in what order really becomes an historical footnote for child articles. The basic summary should be something like "There were a bunch of candidates; most dropped out fairly early; Obama and Clinton ran a close race through the rest of the primary season; Obama got a majority of delegates." LotLE×talk 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into the specifics of what's in the section now, I have to say I disagree with this capsule summary of the campaign. Winning the Democratic nomination is the greatest feat of Obama's career, and should not be given short shrift in the main article. Beating Alan Keyes is one thing, beating a Clinton is another. Obama started as an underdog; he captured the imagination of a large segment of the Democratic electorate; he smashed fundraising records, especially via the Internet and small contributors; and his campaign significantly out-strategized the Clinton campaign. In particular, some analysis of state-by-state results is relevant, because it would show how Obama dominated the caucus states, and it would show which demographics he was stronger in and which he was weaker in. That he won Iowa showed key elements of his appeal, his performance in South Carolina and in the D.C.-area primaries showed that he captured the vast share of the African American vote (something that was not at all a given when he started in 2007), and his weakness in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania showed some of his limitations in traditional Democratic segments. Each of these is relevant in terms of some of his biographical threads. The Obama 2007-2008 nomination campaign will still be important and talked about 30 years from now; its notability doesn't disappear with the convention or the general election. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The descriptions Wasted Time R gives are much better than the current state-by-state arrangement. Change the tone a little to be article-style rather than comment, and I think it would be great to mention "During the nomination process, Obama showed especially strong support in caucus state, and among African Americans and young people, while maintaining significant support in the White, blue-color states where Clinton was strongest". Something along those lines that gives an overview of demographics, but doesn't bother with specifici states. LotLE×talk 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious bystander (talk · contribs) has made wholesale changes (which I assume are still ongoing) to the article without any sort of prior discussion. For months now, we have adopted a policy of introducing changes (excepting minor changes, such as formatting and grammar corrections) to this talk page for open discussion before altering the article. This has been necessary in order to (a) prevent edit warring, and (b) ensure that the article remains at the high standard required for Featured status. Needless to say, I am alarmed to see these recent changes that have cut out quality content and broken references. I support some "gentle pruning" of the article (as previously discussed), but not this wholesale evisceration.

Firstly, I propose that these edits be reverted immediately in order to repair the broken page. Secondly, I propose that Curious bystander introduces his desired changes in appropriate "chunks" to this talk page, in order to begin a consensus-building process. Because of the scope of these changes, I would recommend the use of a temporary sandbox for dealing with the larger segments. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the page problems - it was a couple <nowkiki>^[1]</nowiki> tags. The changes were bold and I had a similar initial reaction, but after reviewing the changes from start to finish I don't see the harm. They considerably shortened the section by removing a laundry list of senate staffers and legislation supported, two things that were overly detailed, presumably covered in a separate article, and not hugely relevant to Obama's biography. I'm inclined to think we should let the edit stay and work on that as a starting point. If there's any important material that got eliminated it probably should be integrated into the child article rather than expanding this one again. It might pay to add back a summary sentence or two giving an overview of Obama's staffing and some of these legislative issues, but maybe not. Or maybe it can be further trimmed. I didn't see any non-neutral bias or sourcing problems either. Wikidemo (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Wikidemo, as indicated in the prior section. I think we have been talking about trimming sections to meet WP:SUMMARY better. So while CB's edits were WP:BOLD, and while I too read them with initial suspicion, I believe the article is improved by reduction of incidental details like specific staffers (that really did have a slightly hagiographic tone in praising the staff, but that in any case are not central to this biography). LotLE×talk 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not complaining about the type of edits, but rather about the scope of edits without prior discussion. This is a featured article, and wholesale changes without bringing them to the talk page first is risky at best. I would prefer to see a more measured approach. The only discussion we have had previously is a general agreement that some things needed to be cut down, but there was no discussion on the specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be adopting a mentality of "discussing changes first is mandatory." Whilst it is certainly helpful in the general co-ordination and maintenance-of-quality in articles, particularly those that are controversial, Wikipedia has a long history of growing mostly on the boldness of its editors. Registering a complaint over an edit that improves the quality of our encyclopedia's prose for process' sake seems a little misguided, to my eyes at least. Anthøny 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really a bit more complicated that that. This article has a long history of edit warring and contentious/tendentious editing. That is why it is currently under administrative probation. To ensure stability, a process has evolved whereby major edits are first discussed here. This round of editing broke from that convention in quite a spectacular manner, and while I am not disagreeing with the result I am still voicing a note of caution. Big changes are harder to assess in a short space of time, and there's really no reason to rush anything. I don't want to make a big deal about this, but I do want to make sure my concerns are noted. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, Scjessey: I am well aware of the current state of the article, having been involved in the placing of the article probation myself. Your concerns are totally understandable, and I do agree that scrutiny of most edits (especially those that are considered "major") on this article is warranted. However, when scrutinizing editors' changes, it's important to do so with respect and quietly: if a change is good, leave it be; if it needs improvement, tweak away (and perhaps make some suggestions on the user's talk page); if the change really has some problems with it, take the discussion to the talk page (undoing the change if absolutely necessary). Big changes need to be reviewed, but at the same time, I don't think they should require to be "approved" by the talk page first. If it's a total disaster, it can easily be rolled-back and discussed. But let's not forget we're a wiki here. ;) Anthøny 03:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to SCJ's claim that these edits were made "without any sort of prior discussion," I'd like to point out that there has been substantial prior discussion of going forward with a trim of the U.S. Senate section: "There is way too much material about his three years in the Senate." [3][4] "I'd probably support such a move, actually." [5] "I would go the other direction and try to trim some of the other sections treated in other articles." [6] "I would not mind, as Wikidemo and Scjessey seem to concur, with trimming the US Senate section a bit since it is also covered in a child article." [7] "There's a lot from the Senate section that could go ..." [8] "I propose reducing one section and enlarging another. The net increase in length would be close to zero (hopefully) and might even decrease overall length." [9] "You're welcome to make constructive improvements to the article." [10] Please stop misrepresenting the history of this discussion. The bot has been very diligent about sweeping away threads if they're inactive for a couple of days, but that doesn't mean the discussion didn't occur. When I left, it was an active discussion. I had a rare opportunity to get away for a romantic weekend (first time I've had more than one day off since before Christmas — no rest for the wicked, it seems) and when I returned, rested and ready, I made the edits I had promised to make. I thank Anthony for taking up my defense. I did my very best to retain the essence of the section and all the previously existing reference links. I did not add any material, positive or negative. All of the material I removed was and continues to be present in the child article which was already linked and, in fact, it appeared that at one point, the child article had simply been cut and pasted here in its entirety. That's not what WP:SS is all about, colleagues. Regards — Curious bystander (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation on my part. While it is true that trimming was discussed, there was absolutely no discussion on the specifics of that trimming, so the misrepresentation potato is thrown back to you. I was simply pointing out the normal procedure, as far as this particular article is concerned, has been to propose changes on this talk page (usually on a paragraph by paragraph basis) so that a consensus for the changes can be sought. Your departure from this normal process was what concerned me, particularly with this article being placed on probation. Anyway, no need to prolong this pointless meta-discussion any further. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just boldly eviscerated an entire paragraph and slightly trimmed the next. The facts that Obama trailed in early polls and in criticized Clinton for not articulating her positions early in the campaign do not seem terribly significant to Obama's life so as a weight concern I think we should leave those for the child article on the primary campaign. I stopped at the Jeremiah Wright paragraph and will likely skip over that one and condense the remainder of the campaign section in another day or two. Hope everyone's okay with that. Wikidemo (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, nice work. Arkon (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just finished up the section. There wasn't much unnecessary stuff in the last paragraph so I could only condense a little by avoiding redundant phrasings within the paragraph. I did eliminate two things that looked like harmless but unnecessary pieces of ephemera. First was the fact that Obama praised Clinton in his victory speech - unremarkable and only to be expected. The degree of reconciliation between them, if it is going to be long-term notable, will probably show up in her support for him at the convention so once that happens we can assess how best to describe it. Second, a duplication from the lede on the statement that he is the first major party African American presumptive nominee. Normally we would want anything in the lede to be a summary of information from the body, with no citation necessary. But this is an exact duplicate, and more importantly, soon to be obsolete. Assuming all goes to plan and he is the nominee, it is more important to state that he is the first African-American major party nominee. We'll need a new cite for that, and it can go in the section yet to be written on the general election. So I guess I'm jumping the gun on moving that info. Wikidemo (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

yes i know EVERYONE calls him afican but the fact is HE ISN'T end of story he might like to think he's hes all black and hates been white buy sayings he's afican-amercian is like saying Mariah Carey is, the only reason ever that people say he's black is because its ""EASIER"" it saves them time cause there are naive why should we support people ignorance in false info to say hes "the first afican amercian person the become a nomite" as that isn't a fact that an oppion its peoples Person oppion that hes black itS what people like think of him as not a fact the TRUE FACT IS HE'S HALF BLACK HALF WHITE just cause he's darker doesn't mean anything no one would say mariah was white just cause she is lighter skined like obama is darker skinned, people and obama himself like to say he's not mixed but afican cause its easier on his campaign and on the afican amercian cultre them liken to think he's one them. i am starting another disscusion cause that what it saids we do before adding it i'm going to keep fighting for this because i'm piss off having to keep this going just cause so many people are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo Navie Veggiegirl (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Q2 of the frequently asked questions. This has been debated many times, and the result of every discussion was the same - we refer to him as an African-American. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

i have read ALL QUESTIONS many many times abotu i'm not the only one its flase info to say he the first afican amercian cause he's not i'm clearly not the only one thats want to talk about it why should we just accept it just cause of millions of others ignorance STOP BEEN IGNORANT come one at lease say some thing like he is considered by many to be the first afican amercian to run for president,(however obama is half black, half white) or something but saying obama is black is false and i'm going to keep talking about untill we make it right

its bad enough that there is LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of bad thinks about other people in there acticles and not much here is sounds like people on here are favouring obama which isn't right (i like obama better than Mccain though) what about the famous Yes We Can speech thats everywhere people are alway going to use that people think of that as his most famous speech and will alway use that everywhere trust me i've read it everwhere, BUT that speech was given by someone esle (many medias talked about it at the time), YES that person said he can use it but still it is what someone esle said he took the "Yes We Can" scentence and used it in his speech and now he getting credit for it atlease say something about it in here. about how he delivered a speech using parts of a speech given by (the persons name here) and add something like "why'll some medias though it was Plagiarism obama and (the persons name here) both said that they talked about it before obama gave the speech and that (the persons name here) was fine with obama using it" Veggiegirl (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Veggiegirl, you are raising many different issues at the same time. You aren't going to get much of a response to any of the issues, I suspect, as a result. I'm going to respond to your initial comment and question: why is Obama called "Afican American," as you wrote. (It's African, i.e., referring to a regional origin, Africa.) I understand and sympathize with the objection, in that it does seem unfair that someone who is half-"White" (what's that? European ancestry? What part of Europe?) and half-African (I could ask the same question -- what part of Africa?) is called "African," and, in fact, this term is used for people who are less than one-half African ancestry, particularly if they have dark skin or other easily identifiable markers of "race."

Racism has been defined as a belief that race is a reality, i.e., a fixed, biological, genetic reality. However, we know that there is no biological reality, no set of genes, that corresponds to a person's "race," that there can be greater genetic difference between two people called "African" than between two other people, one called "white" and the other "African." Race is only a social convention or phenomenon, a social category, created and maintained by social identification and self-identity. Given this, when we now refer to someone's race, we are referring to how they are identified and how they identify themselves. So the "half," as in "half-white and half-black," is not really relevant. The FAQ mentioned, in the second question, specifically addresses this. We use language as we find it in our sources, we don't change it because of our own opinions. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama rickrolled - this one is pretty clever, but it amazes me that people actually make the effort. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This book, The Obama Nation officially came out today. (Front-page New York Times article about it here.) It's a partisan book that has already received a lot of criticism about accuracy from news organizations and groups on the left. I assume the article is going to attract a lot of bad behavior, too. It might be a good idea to put the Obama-probation label on its talk page, since Obama-related articles are covered by it. Noroton (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, it's at the top of the NYT bestseller list, another reason why I expect the article on it to get contentious. Noroton (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just created an article on David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama, which is competing with Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation. -- Noroton (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are three books in this short section: two texts written by Obama and one biography about Obama (by Mendell). What does this section signify? Texts written or endorsed by Obama? If so, the list is incomplete. If the criteria is something else, then maybe the References section needs a cross-check. —Kanodin 05:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason or need to delete this It fits with NPOV very well, source is refered to. --Cretino (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems extremely peripheral for main biography, and not worth including. LotLE×talk 23:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit seems to violate WP:DUE. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This falls several orders of magnitude below the threshold for something that deserves space in a summary style biography. If we wanted to include every criticism everyone ever made of every politician out there, the typical politician's article would be several megabytes long. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 03:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have twice previously been forced to revert this edit by Cretino (July 30, August 14). From a campaign standpoint, it is noteworthy that Republicans have branded Obama as the "teleprompter candidate" as part of their election strategy, and it may warrant a mention in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. A less partisan source than The Weekly Standard (Rupert Murdoch's neoconservative opinion magazine) would need to be found, of course. Equally McCain's complete ineptitude with the device, resulting in repeated calls for joint town hall meetings, may warrant a mention in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and about on the same level of discourse) Paris Hilton is seemingly the most articulate of the bunch, having reportedly done her lone position statement entirely from memory without the aid of a teleprompter.[11] On the other hand, some are insisting that the no-teleprompter story is just a campaign ploy and that she actually did use one.[12] Could this be teleprompter-gate? Wikidemo (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that WP:WEIGHT would not be violated by including a mention of her use/nonuse of a teleprompter in the Paris Hilton article. ;-) As for Obama, he obviously wasn't relying on a teleprompter during his various interviews with the editorial boards of newspapers (many videos are available) and he did fine, so I see no point in including yet another ooh!ooh! Republican campaign talking point in this article. I further see no point in reducing Wikipedia articles into trash-talk, red-top recyclers of lies, rumors and innuendo. Flatterworld (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A new user tried to include this in the German WP and after he was blocked for being insistent (incl. edit-warring) he was blocked the very same day and it took him no time trying to edit it (again with a new account) here, (also the same day). Not saying s/he is the same but it was discussed before (sometimes in mid July I think) and discharged. Nothing changed till then. --Floridianed (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I donno, 1.3 million just seems surprisingly low. I suppose that doesn't take into consideration his wife's money or something? --M4390116

The source is this, and it seems to be joint number. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup. The only thing missing is her retirement plan. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask but what's your point, M4390116? --Floridianed (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the drop in housing prices (and the stock market) since the article was written, it's probably high. Flatterworld (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok well that's interesting. His net worth is a fraction of that of other candidates. Impressive. Just to be sure though, do you have any other proof besides that CNN article that 1.3 is a joint number? Because that article never directly states that the 1.3 includes his wife's money, does it? M4390116 (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't born rich, didn't marry rich, is and wasn't a CEO for a big company and also isn't that much time around as the "others". Makes sense to me and was the reason I wondered and ask about your point regarding your initial question. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great. I just placed my comment and see you changed yours. I'm not going to answer your newly question but as far as I know, there where at least two sources out there for those numbers (which probably came from the same original source anyway). Just believe it or search a bit. I'm sure you'll find your answer ;) . Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for editing my post kinda late. Anyway - are you sure he didn't marry rich? According to that article, his wife made in excess of 300,000 a year. Hm. I guess I can do some more research before declaring and opinion haha. M4390116 (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well.. If you had looked at the article for Michelle Obama, you probably would have gotten the idea that Michelle was not rich at the time her and Obama married. Probably should follow your own advice and do some research before declaring an opinion.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY! And besides that s/he still couldn't answer my simple question about what her/his point is. Just using up space and making this a forum again so let's stop here unless something helpful, related to the article will be posted here. --Floridianed (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My point was to make sure I was getting accurate info from a source I usually trust.M4390116 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In Puerto Rican news, they referred to Obama by his initials BHO, just as in JFK for John F. Kennedy... they also kindly referred to him as the Black bicho or the Black BHO.

Why there is no article titled Criticism of Barack Obama? This article also lacks any information on criticism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Strange section in the faq ==

"Q4: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?

A4: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT."

So we read that Criticism and controversies should be worked into existing prose but where is the criticism and the controversies that were worked into the article? Was there some sort of agreement here that NPOV will be suspended for this article and it will be written exclusively from a positive point of view? NPOV is a core policy and that the article lacks a single truly critical sentence should be a huge red flag. Hobartimus (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A while ago, I counted 8 (and 19 in the McCain article somewhat before its recent FA nomination - not that this actually matters but for some strange reason folks seem be interested in comparing these articles). There's a link to the list (which is in an archive of this page) several sections above. Is there a specific criticism or controversy that is not covered here that you think should be? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding a discussion fork I moved the preceding redundant question from its own section - Wikidemo (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In almost all cases, the creation of a criticism article is considered a POV fork. Criticism of Obama, where appropriate, is woven into the body of this article (and its child articles). Please refer to the 33 pages of archived discussion for specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck getting any criticism in here. CENSEI (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason there is no "Criticism ..." article is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's hardly possible to read WP:CRIT often enough or carefully enough. LotLE×talk 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are so many criticism articles like Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Hugo Chavez etc. Then what is the problem with Criticism of Barack Obama? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The individuals who currently WP:OWN this article, will not allow that to happen. CENSEI (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

@ User:Otolemur crassicaudatus - A good Wikipedian will follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not other articles, for the proper approach. This is a featured article because of a strict adherence to Wikipedia principles and the diligence of editors keeping the article accurate and neutral. Bush and Chavez are individuals that have attracted such a staggering amount of criticism that in the eyes of the editors of those articles, special criticism articles are necessary. Obama, in contrast, has attracted very little criticism - and that has been proportionately and sensibly integrated into the article when appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

@ User:CENSEI - As I explained to you on your talk page, please keep your personal opinions about other editors out of article talk pages and remain civil. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity CENSEI and Otolemur, have either of you lobbied for a Criticism of John McCain article as well or is this just about wanting to criticize Obama? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that criticism forks suck as much as anyone here, but considering that any material of a critical nature, or even material that is perceived as potentially critical is stripped the moment is touches this article doesn’t inspire much faith in me that all editors are looking to write a good article. CENSEI (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism for criticism's sake, for which it looks like you are arguing, is not appropriate per Wikipedia policy. As for the Criticism of X articles, just because one part of the wiki is wrong, it doesn't mean we should drag down other parts. Bush and Chavez, the two examples cited, have a plethora of criticism published in reliable sources, as both rank among the most unpopular leaders in their respective countries. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Chavez is very popular among the lower income group in his country who form the majority. May be he is not popular among wealthy people, but they form a tiny minority. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How about criticism because its notable? How about criticism because its supported by multiple relibale sources? How about criticism because its directly related to the subject of the article? How about criticism because without it the article is NPOV because it excludes other notable opinions? Itneresting though, how you hedged your statement by saying, in effect that criticsm forks are bad in this case, but good in the other because there is so much of it. CENSEI (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above rhetorical questions: 1) no - notability is not enough, it also has to be NPOV, of due weight, relevant to the article, etc. 2) multiple reliable sources - no, same answer as #1. 3) NPOV - that's a judgment call. People have judged this article neutral, and heaping on criticism of the article subject for the sake of "balance" is not a neutral exercise. There is no requirement on Wikipedia or in life that every subject has to have a certain pre-set level of disparagement. Wikidemo (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And thats the problem, in a nutshell. This article is held so tightly by those who have created it, that any edit that has even the appearance of disparagin the subject is reverted. No matter how notable, not matter how relevant, no matter how many RS's agree, the bar can always be raised and enough "concensus" can be whipped up to prevent the inclusion of the material. CENSEI (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the machine, CENSEI. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you bring a cannon to a knife fight and your cannon jams, you don't have a chance. You could bring a knife but better yet, bring some wine and a baked turkey. That will get you further than anything else. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried that approach, Ed. They devoured the turkey, they drank the wine and they made a Molotov cocktail out of the bottle. I was accused of violating every Wikipedia policy under the sun. If even 5% of the stuff that was said about me had been true, I would have been indefinitely blocked months ago. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up here? Please confine discussion to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice theory about there being a cabal, but it just isn't the case. Proceeding as if there is one and accusing people of being part of it only tends to make conversation difficult. I'm not aware of any event of great significance to his biography that has been excluded here, just people wanting to add rather peripheral stuff that mirrors the partisan attacks in the political process relating to the elections. None of this stuff has strong reliable sourcing and none of it is of particular relevance to Obama's biography. You have to remember that there are several hundred thousand news articles and a few hundred million google hits about Obama now. Every aspect of his life is covered somewhere in the mainstream press, and lots of stuff from outer space is getting covered in the blogosphere. This isn't some local restaurant chain in Cincinnati where you're lucky to find two newspaper articles and then declare the subject notable. We could write a long article about event he most trivial thing about Obama - there are thousands of reliable sources, for example, that talk about his basketball playing. Thousands more talk about the way he points and gestures. Amidst all that we have a few hundred that have picked up on this scandal or that, like him being a supposed Muslim, or a terrorist sympathizer, or somebody is going to indict him for fraud. Or people think he uses a teleprompter poorly. The stuff that's most relevant to his life has been included - his connection with Rezko and the church, for instance. The random stuff has not. Random positive stuff gets weeded out too - speeches he makes, visits to our foreign troops, his chili cooking. Every issue, every question of fact stands on its own merits. To accuse editors here of promoting an agenda will only make people defensive and shut down the conversation. Nobody is going to say "aw, gee, I guess you're right. I am part of the cabal. You got me. I'll quit now." So I don't see what one can possibly hope to gain by making that accusation. Wikidemo (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit inflammatory to come to a mature, reasonably well written (featured article still, officially) article and announce that it does not contain enough criticism of the subject matter or that people are supposedly conspiring to slant the content. A while back a few people pursued this claim with great vigor, and the result was a lot of edit warring and a number of bans and blocks for bad behavior, plus page protection, article probation, and so on. In the process someone did a survey and found fifteen or so (I don't remember the exact number) points in the article that are critical of Obama. You are welcome to hunt for them. The thing is, this is a biography of him, and it is not about the campaign or any particular scandals. When you tell the story of someone's life you generally don't add in detail everything his detractors say about him. Some things that are the fodder of politics - say, some wording in a speech somebody found to be less patriotic than it could be, misconceptions about his religion, etc - are utterly not relevant to a person's biography. If you have a specific suggestion or question about improving the article, please feel free to discuss it. But I don't think it's helpful to level a broad criticism about other editors. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction, WD: you said somebody found 15 criticisms. He actually found eight, and seven of them weren't really criticisms. I've repeatedly attempted to compare this bio to other WP BLPs that have achieved GA & FA status. They're well-stocked with criticism. The lifeblood of Tony Blair, on the day it received FA status, was criticism. But always some excuse, some rationalization is found to eliminate or at least drastically reduce anything resembling criticism in this article. Now that Freddoso's book has reached #5 on the NYT bestseller list, and received universal acclaim from all sources I've seen except the Obama campaign, how do you feel about adding an excerpt to this article? I can guess. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we have eight distinct negative points about Obama, and we weathered repeated attempts to push more derogatory content into the article, sometimes with no more justification than that the article ought to cast Obama in a more negative light. I'm pointing out that the premise is faulty - there is criticism of Obama in the article. Any attempt to spin things just for the sake of spinning is a non-starter, and not worth talking about.Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is not to publish original research, but to report what mainstream scholars have written. If one subject is the subject of more criticism than another, it is neither fair nor inline with policy nor Wikipedia's place to provide original criticisms to "compensate". Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to echo what Wikidemo writes--political fodder belongs elsewhere. No one here seems to be trying to protect the Senator from legitimate, principle-based disagreements, and it doesn't help the process to accuse them of such. That said--I think it's inappropriate to provide a running list of criticisms in a biography. I do think it might be relevant to the article to address Senator Obama's response to detractors though; for instance, it seems like he's been working to earn a reputation for being a bit above the fray by responding judiciously to various accusations. I think presenting some of this only expands on the value of the article and it seems like fair biographical content. Perhaps a general program for expanding the article in this way might be to identify two or three reasonably respectable sources of criticism (i.e., not simply hit-pieces, but articles or commentary that takes exception to his political philosophy in some way) and counterpoint them with the Senator's responses. Any thoughts?DRJ (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the list of criticisms I created is at Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 31#Existing criticisms in this article. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote from the article, at the top section.

No citation is given, and no news source I've seen has talked about it.

Is this vandalism?

I'm disinclined to mislead anyone, so please edit it back if it's not cited or confirmed.Final Philosopher (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it probably is vandalism. --GoodDamon 23:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the claims seems to be printed bumperstickers in Kansas City. Bayh's article mentions this. Anyway, Obama camp claims we'll know the running mate today, so we'll update soon anyway. -FlyingToaster (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Joe Biden, guys. Katana Geldar 05:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that Barack has chosen a catholic as a running mate, has there been much commentary on South American Catholic-based liberation theology and its cousin black liberation theology? Because of Jeremia Wright, the black liberation theology must have been heavily discussed in the mainstream. The interesting question is what exactly has been Joseph Biden's views on Catholic liberation theology, if any. Anyway, I'm not seeing any mention or see also of Barack on this liberation theology issue.--Firefly322 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly notable to this article at all. I haven't seen a single mention of "liberation theology" in any of the coverage surrounding Biden's announcement as the presumptive VP (and I read a lot of news). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I heard Obama speaking about black liberation theology. I'll try and find a source to make sure I wasn't just hearing and imagining things. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Biracialism and multitracialism are topics that much of American society has not yet learned how to deal with. "Mulatto" (like "high yellow", "half-breed" and other similar racist terms) is seen as pejorative and reminiscent of old racist classifications that defined anyone with a "single drop" of African ancestry as "black". White ancestry was disregarded. Unfortunately we have not seemed to have moved past this, even in the most progressive elements of our society - anyone with displays visible characteristics of African ancestry is normally classified as "African-American", even if the majority of their ancestors were not from Africa. "African-American" for this article is probably the most agreed-upon and noncontroversial term - American society is not yet to the point where identity politics can be disregarded. Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mulatto IS an insulting term, but it is not insulting to call him "bi-racial", because he is. I have made the change to "bi-racial", because I don't see how anyone with a white parent can call himself strictly an African-American. Nightmareishere (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost everyone I've ever met with any African ancestry prefers to be called either "black" or "African American", regardless of the percentage. It's an interesting point of discussion, but I don't think this is the place for it. --GoodDamon 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See Black people ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has recently added the "future election" tag to the top of the article. It's always been our practice with bio main articles to not put the tag there, but instead only on the particular on-going election campaign section within the article. The rationale being that 95% of the article is bio material that has nothing to do with the election and doesn't change due to campaign events, and thus the whole article should not be tagged. Is there any good reason for this policy to have changed in this case? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It really seems absurd that the same few editors who brought about article probation are flagrantly violating its terms again. Won't some admin please come in and do something about this (some warnings, blocks, etc). Belligerence, bad-faith soapboxing, edits against strong consensus, etc. are really making it impossible to use this talk page.. yet again. A few partisans with outrageous claims about Bill Ayers are turning this talk page into a battleground, in the very same same way the same editors have done numerous times (sometimes the article page itself). Please help! Please! LotLE×talk 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to start, Lulu, by your making such complaints specific and concret and then log them on the Article probation/incidents page. (But, as it is, you may be labeling stuff out of hand as being in bad faith, etc., in some instances where it would be possible that a fair portion of fellow contributors might disagree with the assumption. You see, we just can't know until or unless you made your complaints specific and they were put out there to the community for comment.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that this article currently has no mention of or link to John McCain in the body of the article. The McCain article has links here. I am not familiar with the ongoing discussions here, so I didn't add anything, but it seems worth mentioning in the section summarizing the 2008 election. We could use language from paragraphs at the end of John_McCain#2008_presidential_campaign. Jokestress (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added some material at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the campaign section. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi all! Just wondering if we can't fit in some comment on Senator Obama's recent policy-related comments at the Saddleback debate/forum...He made a couple of comments that seemed important as regards his presidential campaign and policy approach, particularly with regards to poverty, abortion, taxation, faith-based organizations, and adoption legislation. Comments? DRJ (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Saddleback probably isn't big enough to make the main article, but some of his comments could be used to flesh out the applicable positions on Political positions of Barack Obama and a brief mention of the forum and reaction could probably be included on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I know a valuation of the event is subjective, but it was the first time the two presumptive presidential nominees have gone head-to-head in some fashion for this election cycle. Additionally, the forum was unique for it's format, content, and location--I don't know of any similar forums in recent presidential election history. These are the reasons I thought it might merit a brief mention on this page as well as a longer comment on either the campaign or Forum page. I'm thinking something brief for this page, like "On August 16th, 2008, Senators Obama and McCain participated in a "Civil Forum on the Presidency" at Saddleback Church. At this forum, Senator Obama re-stated his support for Roe v. Wade while expressing concern over a purported increase in the number of abortions during the presidency of George W. Bush; he stated that family incomes in excess of $150,000 may be subject to nominal tax increases under his policies, and identified Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice he would not have nominated, citing lack of experience on Thomas' part. Additionally, he identified personal selfishness as his own greatest moral failure, and a failure to care for the disenfranchised as America's greatest moral failure, referencing Matthew 25." I feel like these few sentences are brief, accurate, and relevant to a clear understanding of the Senator and his political philosophy. These also skirt the sort of controversies which are more relevant for the Forum page, in my opinion. If, however, Senator Obama has expressed since the forum a re-statement or clarification of anything mentioned, we'd want to amend it as such. Anyhow, I'm feeling like the above is valuable for this page and I'd like to see something similar on the John McCain page, but as always, these things remain open to discussion. DRJ (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

These suggested additions are phrased in a neutral enough fashion, and well enough cited. However, they are absolutely huge relative to this summary style biography of Obama's entire life. A few statements made during a one hour debate/interview are not of such huge importance... this is more words, for example, than are spent on Obama's legal career, or on his marriage, or on his state senate tenure. WP:WEIGHT suggests this material is far too peripheral for inclusion here. LotLE×talk 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I think I can pare it down even further to make sure it has a good weight for the article. I'm going to insert it as: "On August 16th, 2008, Senators Obama and McCain participated in a "Civil Forum on the Presidency" at Saddleback Church." This will allow for a link within this article to an expanded article on the forum. Thanks! DRJ (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Er...no. This is Obama's BLP. Campaign-related stuff goes in campaign. There's no way that this event was significant enough to warrant inclusion on this BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't take this as an irritated response, but the demeaning tone with which you open your response is out of place on this page. That said, this was a significant event for the above stated reasons--particularly because it was the first time the two presumptive presidential nominees have gone head-to-head in some fashion for this election cycle. You'll find similar content on the other guy's BLP. I'll wait a couple more days to re-enter the content, but I'm not accepting your hasty rejection as sufficient. I'd like to hear other comments. So, we know what Scjessey feels, and we know how I feel (I feel this is important for the in-page campaign portion) but for those who would like to comment, the added material reads as follows: When Obama became the Democrats' presumptive nominee, John McCain proposed joint town hall meetings that would include audience interaction, but Obama instead requested more traditional debates for the fall. On August 16th, 2008, Senators Obama and McCain participated in a "Civil Forum on the Presidency" at Saddleback Church.

It was not meant to be demeaning. You must build consensus for edits on this BLP, particularly those that don't follow established convention or policy. This proposal was only made a few hours ago, and almost nobody has had an opportunity to weigh in on it, but you jumped right in and added it. There is nothing inherently wrong with the text you have proposed - it is simply in the wrong article. Campaign-related stuff goes in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (this was explained by another editor above). John McCain's proposal for town hall meetings was a campaign ploy to address his problem with giving speeches to large crowds, so that is a matter for the McCain campaign article. Furthermore, the bit about Saddleback Church was original research, which we certainly cannot accept. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need to build consensus. I'm not sure if I agree with the assumption that McCain's proposal was due to his (do you mean McCain?) problem w/ large crowds. I'm also not sure how if McCain's proposal's assumed motivation is relevant to his page, Obama's refusal's assumed motivation is not. I know that's a confusing sentence, but the gist of the matter is I'm a "consistency-freak." But anyhow, I'll drop it and put it on the campaign page. Also, what do you mean by original research w/ regards to Saddleback Church? That was simply mentioning the location of a televised and recorded event. These questions aren't meant in a combative sense, but with the intention of becoming a better Wiki-tributor. Thanks again! DRJ (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to sound like a broken record, the campaign-related stuff goes in the campaign article. We can only afford to briefly summarize the campaign here, and that means there isn't room for extremely insignificant Church Forums or McCain's town hall goading effort. Regarding the original research question, your Saddleback edit did not cite any references (which makes it original research by default). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm done. I didn't come here to get in a fight with anyone. I thought I could make a contribution is all. Scjess, I'm not sure I understand why you can't word things in a NPOV manner ("extremely insignificant" "goading") but I don't have the time to fight with you about it. Have a nice time, all. Sorry for the bother. DRJ (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(out) Without going in to who has what tone, Scjessey is absolutely right about the non-relevance of this event to an overall biography. Even a single sentence describing the event would be WP:UNDUE weight for the general biography. In the campaign article or the political positions one, I think it could fit fine though. LotLE×talk 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No. This is his biography, the story of his entire life. No way does the Saddleback conversation warrant a mention on his life story. Yes, on the campaign article. But a mention here would be undue weight. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it again. What happens on the campaign trail happens to be a part of Senator Obama's life. It would be like removing all comment on where he went to school or whether he did well there because it "belongs in an Education of Barack Obama" article. BLP is BLP. DRJ (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You can say it as many times as you like, but the fact is that the day-to-day campaign events are of minuscule notability when taken into the context of Obama's entire life. Bear in mind that this is a summary style article (out of necessity), which is why we have several child articles to explore details beyond the salient points we can mention here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Important negative image omitted from both Obama and McCain article. Added, good sources found, phrased in a neutral way. McCain: not conservative enough, too conservative. Obama: inexperienced in foreign policy per Associated Press, CNN, and Hillary Clinton.

Please help Wikipedia by keeping these and making Wikipedia complete. Reverting away all but positive information hurts Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a campaign tool. All of additions that I made have impeccable sources and are very widely held political images of both men. Oprahwasontv (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor who seems to edit very positive information for Obama has removed this. My edit was how Obama had the image of being inexperienced from a foreign policy standpoint and that Biden's choice is an attempt to counteract this...all reliably sourced by the Associated Press, CNN, Time, etc. Oprahwasontv (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The information added is just opinion, of little relevance to the biographies of the candidates, summarized to the point that they are of very little meaning (McCain is too conservative / liberal; Obama is inexperienced). For an editor new to the subject to add this material to two very important articles, while making such an odd announcement about campaign tools and hurting Wikipedia, is confrontational and does not engender cooperation here. Your singling out a specific editor for criticism does not either - please review the article probation notice at the top of this talk page. I concur with the other editor that this information does not belong in either article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor recently added this:

On August 26, Hillary Clinton formally announced her endorsement of Obama for president at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, saying "Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our President." ^[2]

I removed it, but then self-reverted. My opinion is that this is strictly campaign article stuff, and suffers a bit from WP:CURRENT. However, I can see it's good faith enough that I'd like someone else's opinion. Anyone who concurs, feel free to remove it again... but maybe it's supportable.

It does really feel that with the convention going on, we're creeping back into strictly campaign stuff by many editors inexperienced with this article (or perhaps with biographies of prominent people generally). It's easy to confuse a big headline in today's news with something of lifelong significance to the bio subject, but these articles should be written as if for our grandchildren, not for today's watercooler. LotLE×talk 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the reversion for several reasons. First of all, Clinton already endorsed Obama back in New Hampshire. Secondly, in the grand scheme of things it isn't really a huge event with respect to Obama (although certainly it was a big deal for Clinton herself). Thirdly, it is really a campaign-related matter and it is too recent to consider for the campaign section of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine for the article. It is relevant to Senator Obama's BLP. (As if something that happens during the campaign doesn't have anything to do with who he is...) DRJ (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant at all, really. I'm sure pro-Obama folks would like it in to help win support from disgruntled Hilary fans, but it has WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind its removal, and would probably prefer it still. However, I've trimmed the addition a bit to only include what I think flows better in the narrative of "Clinton and Obama contested the nomination". I think my version avoids the obvious Obama boosterism of the original phrasing. LotLE×talk 21:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, it's probably not much more important than any material about Ayers is, for the same reasons: WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Case Aganst Barack Obama by Freddoso, #5 on the NYT bestseller list. A few questions by Stephanopoulos at the start of a certain televised debate. Let's start with that. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We're done with that. Now if you have any specific suggestions for improving the article, that's what this page is for, not complaining about other editors.Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done with what? I wasn't sure if you were responding to the proposed program of improvements, or to WorkerBee74's not-helpful suggestions. DRJ (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We're done with considering whether or not to add to the article allegations that Obama is close to William Ayers - what Stephanopoulos' "few questions" seems to refer to. We decided not to add it. Otolemur crassicaudatus asks a well-meaning but somewhat off-the-subject question, why don't we have any criticism about Obama in his biography. The answer is threefold - first, we do; second, the article as it now exists reflects the participation over a long period of a lot of editors, who have collectively edited the article in incremental fashion; and third, when editing, we have engaged in the encyclopedic practice of considering each fact on its own merits for whether it is verifiable, on topic, neutrally presented, of appropriate weight, and so on - we don't decide on a particular level of positive or negative bias to show the article subject then adjust the prose to match. An editor asking a good-faith question like that is entitled to a straight answer, not to be told that there is some "machine" that is supposedly running Wikipedia.Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama-Bill Ayers issue keeps being called dead by editors here and yet it keeps coming up. Actually, it never goes away. The New York Times bestseller list has three two books that mention it: the first two at No. 1 and No. 5. McCain criticized Obama on it yesterday or today. And this is not enough? We shouldn't need billboards in Times Square and banner headlines on the front page of the New York Times to get a mention on this page. Witness:

• Here's DRJ's "legitimate, principle-based disagreements" that editors would protect Obama from -- David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, No. 5 NYT bestseller, Chapter 7: "The Radical Influences", pp 121-127: Would you be "friendly" with this man or anyone like him? Would any of your friends? [...] Obama is not a Marxist for his associations and alliances with Marxists, or a radical for his association with radicals. But his ideological influences are decidedly radical, which is an important consideration for voters. I provide the following material on Bill Ayers and on the other radical connections and influences in Obama's life not as a way of suggesting Obama endorses their actions or their far-out beliefs, but as a way of raising some worthwhile questions: (*) Why does Obama associate with such people? (*) What influence have they had on him? (*) What do these relationships tell us about his judgment and the type of people with whom he will entrust executive power if elected? [p. 122-123] [...] [I]t remains both relevant and interesting that Obama is 'friendly' with an unrepentant terrorist who was involved in a movement that killed innocent people, and that he even accepted donations from him to his campaign. How many unrepentant Communist terrorists do you have as friends? [p. 126]
• CBS News, Aug. 21 -- "Conservative Group Links Obama To Ayers In New Ad": A new group called The American Issues Project is spending $2.8 million to run a television ad in Michigan and Ohio linking Barack Obama to Weather Underground figure William Ayers.
• Associated Press, Aug. 20 -- "Barack Obama records sealed at Illinois"
• Chicago Tribune news blog, Aug 20 "Daley won't say whether UIC should release Obama-Ayers records"
• John McCain for President, Aug. 20 -- "William Ayers, Friend of Barack": if Barack Obama wants to have a discussion about truly questionable associations, let’s start with his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, at whose home Obama’s political career was reportedly launched. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.’ “The question now is, will Barack Obama immediately call on the University of Illinois to release all of the records they are currently withholding to shed further light on Senator Obama’s relationship with this unrepentant terrorist?” --McCain spokesman Brian Rogers
• Washington Post, "The Trail" news blog, Aug. 20 -- "McCain Blasts Obama Over William Ayers"

Time to cover it in this article. Noroton (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayers is mentioned in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008, and given continued attempts by the McCain campaign and their proxies to make this into an issue will probably belong in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, but what exactly are the proponents of adding something here suggesting should be added? The last time we went down this path (see Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 31#Twenty words) the suggestion was In April the Bill Ayers election controversy arose when George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his friendship with bomber William Ayers. (to be added in the 2008 campaign section following the paragraph about Wright). This was rejected as essentially not being noteworthy enough for a general biography written in summary style and, as well, for introducing a guilt by association claim which is prohibited by WP:BLP. As far as I can tell, the same arguments still apply although a concrete proposal for specific words to be added (and where) would probably be much easier to discuss than the general concept. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the Freddoso reasoning won't make it go away. Simply continued publicity over Ayers, even if you continue to fail to recognize how fair it is to look into the personal associations of a candidate for president of the United States, is reason enough to add a line on Ayers. It would summarize what we already have in both the campaign and Obama-Ayers controversy articles. From there, of course, readers can move on to the article about the unrepentant former terrorist and his former-terrorist wife, terrorist organization and its multiple terroristic activities. You know, at some point the idea that this is a "summary style" article should be an argument in favor of actually summarizing this matter that lends insight into Barack Obama. Please respond to new information, not old information. -- Noroton (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What line, and where? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because this issue has proven its prominence in the election campaign over many months, I propose adding this language to the campaign section:

In both the primary and general election campaigns, Obama was criticized for poor judgment in associating with William Ayers, a former leader of the violent, radical Weatherman organization of the 1960s and 1970s. Repeatedly criticized as an "unrepentant terrorist", Ayers had become a widely accepted part of Chicago academic and political circles when Obama met him.

I think it's worth mentioning that Obama was not alone in associating with Ayers. The "unrepentant terrorist" line could be cited to about a thousand different sources by now and it's now a phrase associated with Ayers (and it succinctly gets at what critics find shocking). Noroton (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No (in case my position on this isn't clear from the last 20+ times we discussed it). Wikidemo (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some perennial proposals are good ideas that have not gained acceptance. Others are just bad ideas. This is the latter. Moreover, the people who bring up proposals to add Ayers to the Obama article are mostly either people new to the page who have not yet reviewed the reasoning and process by which we decided the material was unsuitable to the article, or else people who participated in other attempts and won't take no for an answer. I see nothing new in this proposal, nor any new facts or information. The only thing that is recent is a continuation of the same Republican attack politics. This matter has already been decided, and there is no reason to re-open it at this time. Wikidemo (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh darnit. I really hoped that the Ayers issue would come to an end, and the POV-pushers would be satisfied with the neutral wording at the actual campaign article. But I guess some people never grow tired of attempting to bypass Wikipedia's policies. The proposal is as inappropriate as it was a couple of weeks ago. Come on. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Noroton - thanks for making this a concrete suggestion. It omits the clearly partisan nature of this "criticism" - which I think argues for including it (or something like it) in the campaign article, but not here since adding more (e.g. Obama's political opponents attempted to make an issue out of ...) gives it even more weight. The problem is whatever point there is can't be made outside the context of the campaign without a whole paragraph. I know you think this gets to Obama's basic character (although "widely accepted part of Chicago academic and political circles" basically contradicts this), but I don't think anyone outside of the right-wing smear machine is seriously pursuing this (there's certainly reporting on the smear machine, but this has effectively nothing to do with Obama). As far as I can tell, including it here simply validates the guilt by association smear. WP:BLP says we don't do that. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rick, try harder to be tolerant of the points of view of other people. When people disagree with your conclusions about what's relevant in considering a candidate's judgment, that does not automatically make them part of a "smear machine" and your saying it doesn't make it so. It's a legitimate part of considering a candidate for higher office and always has been. It's also a legitimate part of understanding the subject of a Wikipedia article. It isn't as if Wikipedia ignores all sorts of other associations Obama and others have had. And mainstream sources are certainly not ignoring this one. Only this article is. Noroton (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You know, I actually put some effort into providing new information, and it's being ignored by both of you (Wikidemo and Erik the Red 2). Please do your part and show us you're considering this with an open mind. Freddoso did his part to show you the continued notability of this as a campaign issue about the life of Barack Obama. John McCain and his campaign have done their part. The 527 did its part (as I had predicted). The Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, CBS News have done their part, some of them reporting on Stanley Kurtz doing his part. Heck, even Mayor Daley did his part. We're all doing our part here just to build this encyclopedia (and coincidentally examine the judgment of a potential U.S. president). Please follow our good example. It really doesn't matter whether or not you think it should be an issue in this campaign or something that a lot of people are concerned about regarding Obama's life. It matters that it is an issue. Even Obama thinks associations are important, which is why his campaign attacked McCain for his treatment of Ralph Reed. -- Noroton (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming I am ignoring your proposal before saying "no." I am not. I reviewed all the citations, and your argument, and find that they shed no new light on the matter that was not contemplated two weeks ago when it was last considered. The only thing to happen in two weeks is two more weeks of Republican attempts to use the issue to disparage Obama as a way to hurt his election chances. That is already covered in the election articles, and the underlying controversy fully addressed in its own article. The status of this story as a tiny part of the overall election has not changed, nor have any of the weight, relevance, POV, or other issues that make the matter unworthy of including in a biographical article about Obama. You are a solid writer, a thoughtful contributor, and quite often the voice of reason here - in no way am I questioning the sincerity and good faith with which you bring this up again for our consideration. I simply don't think this is important. It would have to be several times bigger of a deal than it is now in order to be worth a phrase or sentence here, so adding 5% more history and sourcing to this isn't going to make much difference. I suspect there's a wide perceptual reference frame issue going on here. Information that seems obviously important to you seems obviously pointless to some others, and attempts to use Wikipedia's policies, reason, etc., are only confirming our respective positions. So to the people on either side of this, the other's position looks quite unreasonable. Wikidemo (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly ignoring the information from the No. 5 book on the New York Times Bestseller list. When David Freddoso quotes the testimony of FBI undercover agent Larry Grathwohl before a U.S. Senate subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on October 18, 1974, stating that Ayers directed that bombs be placed at Detroit's 13th precinct stationhouse and at the Detroit Police Officers' Association building "which he said Ayers had planned for a time when the maximum number of people would be present" (page 124), that new information (long on the public record but not much publicized in the controversy until now and new to Wikipedia discussions) should make it crystal clear that Obama's judgment in associating with such a terrorist is an issue about an important element of his notability. His judgment is something he's touted in his campaign. Was Grathwohl's information so obscure that Obama could not be expected to know it? Well, Obama had access to a university library, and Grathwohl published an account similar to his testimony in a 1976 book, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen (I've got my copy next to my keyboard as I type this. It's on pp 143 and 151.) Even if Obama never heard of Grathwohl or his book, it wasn't hard to find out that the only reason Ayers never went to trial after two federal indictments was that the charges were dropped for government misconduct having nothing to do with Ayers' actions. [13] Ayers' lack of repentance for setting bombs is quite well known (although I've never seen Ayers comment on Grathwohl's longstanding, well-known allegations). Setting bombs in order to terrorize is a definition of terrorism, by the way, and he doesn't deny setting bombs. There's the reprehensibility and the questionable judgment. Obama's supposed to use his judgment about people in picking judges and officials in the executive branch. Why wouldn't Obama's controversial decisions in judging people be relevant to an article about him? Noroton (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) - I'd like to make two observations here:

1. The "relationship" that Obama had with Ayers has not suddenly changed because the Republican attack machine has been mentioning it more often. Obama did not travel back to the '60s in a time machine and join the Weathermen.
2. Editors are using poor judgment by repeatedly calling Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist" or a "former terrorist", and calling Dohrn a "former-terrorist wife". These are BLP violations:

   Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

   Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc).

Use of these terms is potentially libelous, as has previously been discussed.

In summary, there is nothing new about the Ayers relationship (as Rick Block has said), so there is no reason to bring it up. And we need to be more careful about avoiding libelous commentary. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1. the "relationship" -- now see, I didn't use that word, I said, in associating with.
2. "Editors are using poor judgment by repeatedly calling ..." Actually, I sourced it. Please scroll up to my post at 23:11, 21 August. For Ayer's wife, it's on the Wikipedia article that's devoted just to her because she was, well, a terrorist. And an unrepentant one, to boot. She signed her name to Weather Underground statements announcing attacks would be taking place or taking credit for bombings because, well, she was head of the Weather Underground. That may have something to do with the interesting category listing at the bottom of her Wikipedia article. Do I need to provide another 30 sources at AN/I for that? If I did, would you read them this time? Please tell me if more sourcing is needed and I'll be happy to add a ton of it. Verified facts aren't BLP violations. Please don't ask for sourcing before you've looked at the sourcing already given. Guess who's WP:WELLKNOWN. Hint: Everybody I mentioned.
3. When the libel action is filed, I think Wikipedia will be way back in line. They'll have to go through the McCain campaign, the author and publisher of the No. 5 book on the New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction, the author and publisher of the No. 1 book on the New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction, numerous academic books going back 30 years and ... well, you get the idea.
4. Oh, and there's another person they'll have to file a libel charge against: One Tommy Vietor who said that Bill Ayers committed "detestable crimes" -- strong language, isn't it? [14] Vietor said his boss had "denounced" those detestable crimes. Which makes one wonder why Vietor's boss was visiting the home of the person who committed "detestable crimes", appearing on panel discussions with him that were organized by that boss's wife, sitting for years on a small foundation board with Ayers and accepting a $200 contribution from Ayers. But you have the word of Barack Obama's spokesman, Tommy Vietor that Bill Ayers committed "detestable crimes." Now why isn't Obama's associating with a guy famous for committing "detestable crimes" a part of this article? -- Noroton (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama did not travel back to the '60s in a time machine and join the Weathermen. No, but I traveled back in time to answer your point before you made it. Scjessey, please scroll up to that pesky post of mine at 23:11, 21 August. Please read the part where I quote Freddoso. I'd be happy to expand on that if you find anything about it confusing. Thank you. -- Noroton (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not libel, but a BLP violation nonetheless - against Ayers. Ayers indeed has a checkered past. I won't bother characterizing it. He did what he did, and you can read about it in other articles. However, to portray him as someone so reprehensible that to associate with him is to exhibit questionable judgment to, is a violation of the "do no harm" and other aspects of BLP. Calling him an "unrepentant terrorist" or anything of the sort, at once an accusation of current moral corruption and of serious unproven felonies, both of which he denies, strays pretty far out of what is permissible under BLP. Wikidemo (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

to portray him as someone so reprehensible that to associate with him is to exhibit questionable judgment to, is a violation of the "do no harm" and other aspects of BLP. We've been through this, and apparently not. [15] Now you're trying to make the essential point of a public controversy into a BLP violation and you're still not reading my Freddoso quote up at 23:11, 21 Aug. When I provide reliable sourcing for WP:WELLKNOWN BLPs and correctly follow the sourcing, there is no BLP violation whatever: That's what's called an important public controversy. When someone is unrepentant about "detestable crimes" that the person is famous for, associating with that person is indeed questionable judgment, and when you become a major-party nominee for president, you have created a public controvesy (which is why we have the Obama-Ayers controversy article). -- Noroton (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, please stop the resumption of bickering and baiting for an obviously unencyclopedic agenda, and against the overwhelming consensus of editors. It was exactly this kind of behavior that led to the last million administrative complaints and that put this article on probation. No matter how much you want to push this smear, it simply does not have, and never had, any proper place in this article. LotLE×talk 04:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) When I present new information and I'm met with old arguments that don't address that new information, despite the fact that consensus can change, then who's doing the bickering and which agenda is "obviously unencylopedic"? How did Freddoso smear Obama? Or is he smearing Ayers? Was the following also a smear:

"Faced with the embarrassing prospect of holding a fundraiser with one of Jack Abramoff’s closest associates, the McCain campaign scrambled today to scratch Ralph Reed from tonight’s program, but voters deserve to know the answers to the real questions raised by Reed’s involvement," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

"Will Senator McCain keep the money Reed has raised for him, and is Reed is a member of the McCain Victory 2008 team? If the McCain campaign won’t return the money Reed has raised for them, then voters should rightly ask why it matters that Reed didn’t show up at tonight’s event. The real question isn’t why Reed isn’t showing up, but why a so-called reformer would invite him at all," Vietor said.

Obviously, the Obama camp thinks associating with people like Reed is important because associating with someone tells you something about the person doing the associating (in this case it's the McCain campaign associating with Reed), but somehow it's "guilt by association" to bring up Obama's associating with Ayers. Do you see how associations are commonly thought to be important? Tommy Vietor again makes my case. Useful guy. The point I made to Rick Block at 03:24, 22 Aug applies to your post as well. Noroton (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no irony or contradiction there. How does the fact that the Obama campaign is "going negative" with guilt by association on an issue that doesn't really matter relate to our rules for editing the encyclopedia? There's no rule that campaigns honor NPOV or write their attack ads in encyclopedic fashion. Quite the opposite. Wikidemo (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a violation of WP:NPOV to include information in an article that the most reliable sources, even if in a minority, find important. It's actually a violation of WP:NPOV not to include that information, as that one-of-the-five-pillars policy baldly states. It is also in keeping with the WP:BLP section WP:WELLKNOWN, which you don't seem to have taken into consideration, to mention criticism of a well-known person. Policy is against you. The facts are against you. Irony is against you. Everything but the kitchen sink is against you -- and it's moving to my side, too. Everybody but a few people on this page thinks that the controversial associations of a candidate for high office are a relevant part of that person's life story. Even the Obama campaign thinks that. I think you need to review policy, review the facts and re-evaluate your position. Please think about it. -- Noroton (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] I continue to oppose this addition, for all of the reasons that have been previously stated, several times. Nothing has changed, no new information has emerged, nothing has been said to change my position on this, and I don't care to repeat the arguments. I was unsurprised, however, to find this raging here again as soon as I heard the same phrases ("unrepentant terrorist" for one) ringing out of Sean Hannity's mouth last night, as this old non-story was resurrected by the right yet again. Tvoz/talk 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You've completely ignored everything I've said. That's not the way to participate on a talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's one view. Another view would be that you have been completely taken in by the Republican smear campaign and have done everything in your power, for months, to shoehorn policy-violating BS into the article on their behalf. This has become tiresome and disruptive, and it has to stop. Why don't you create a blog or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to "comment on the edits not the editor"? Why can't you respond to new facts that have come up? If the basis of your opposition is the facts as you see them, then new facts call for reconsideration. Yet where is the evidence you, Tvoz, Rick Block, Wikidemo or any other editor has even looked at the new evidence? All I've seen is all of you rejecting it out of hand. Am I really the one taken in or are you taken in by the Obama campaign's "guilt-by-association" canard? The Obama-Ayers controversy continues to be prominent, now with the Republican nominee talking about it, commercials going on television about it, the press again talking about it, the situation with Stanley Kurtz trying to get information from the University of Illinois at Chicago being covered in the press. New, new, new, new. -- Noroton (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy. There is nothing new. There are no new facts. It is just the same fringe stuff regurgitated by different people in a different way. The throw-it-all-in-and-maybe-something-will-stick approach. The non-story is only "prominent" because it continues to reverberate among the clueless. Again, repeatedly bringing this up is disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

SCJ, here's a new TV ad being broadcast in Virginia by a 527 group called American Issues Project, that spends 30 seconds talking about nothing but Obama/Ayers: [16] They've spent $2.7 million on advertising time. Here is the Obama campaign's furious reaction: [17] This is brand new information, barely one day old. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

How many THOUSAND mainstream news media articles do I have to find using Nexis, that link Obama and Ayers, for you to accept one sentence about the Ayers connection in this biography? How many thousand articles, SCJ? In the gold standard of reliable sources, NYT/WaPo? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that Noroton's renewed attempts to shoehorn in irrelevant material are disruptive, and a violation of the spirit of article probation. All of his "new" (but really months old in every detail except specific ISBN) evidence is completely and wholly irrelevant to the argument he's making for inclusion of non-biographical material.

The fallacious claim being advanced is that "if a (false) claim is widely reported about Obama, it becomes a biographically important fact of Obama's life." The flaw in this is easy to see with other examples. For example, a far more widespread false belief is that Obama is or was a Muslim. Given that he simply is not such, there's really nothing that could be said of biographical significant of his "non-Muslim-ness". Similarly, there's really not much that can be said about Obama's lack of significant connection to Ayers. I'm sure, per the analogy, Noroton could dig up thousands of citations for "really bad things Muslims have done"... and if so, they would have just as little relevance to this biography as do his thousands of citations (maybe dozens that meet WP:RS) for "really bad things Ayers has done".

Being a Muslim is not, of course, a per se derogatory fact, it's just not one that is true of Obama. I suppose we're likely to see Noroton soon arguing for inclusion of such outright libels, once right-wing blogs start touting them. There's surely someone out there in the blogosphere who is willing to invent a claim that Obama is a plagiarist, or pedophile, or takes bribes for legislation, or some other terrible thing that completely lacks a shred of evidence. And it will be easy for Fox News and National Review to report the "widespread reports" of the newest libel. And hence for Noroton to "argue" the biographical significance of the non-fact.

Enough is enough! LotLE×talk 18:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, Noroton's views (and others') are decidedly to the right of center, just as yours (and others') are decidedly to the left of center. I strongly suggest that all involved editors would do well to beware of the tigers. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Falacious?? Uh, what factually false claim was that that I was arguing for? When was I arguing for a political position as opposed to a proposal for the betterment of Wikipedia? If so, please explain. I think I haven't argued for anything that a fairminded person of any political persuasion couldn't agree with. If, LotLE, you disagree that Obama associating with an unrepentant former terrorist is unimportant, that's a disagreement over the importance of facts we essentially agree on (except for the u. f. t. description of Ayers, which I'm not proposing to put in the article anyway), isn't it? No one's ever argued the actual facts here, as far as I recall. Was it disruptive when I created the image of Obama's "certification of birth" and stuck it in the "Early life" article? That was one way of countering a rumor while contributing to the encyclopedia. I have no problem providing information on Obama's early childhood that shows he wasn't raised a Muslim, something that may also be worthwhile if these kinds of rumors continue, and justified by WP:WEIGHT. Since one of the arguments previously about including the Ayers matter was that it was a passing news item that didn't get much play, I've pointed out that the matter has still not passed and is a continuing feature of the election campaign, all these months later. That's a constructive, legitimate way of countering that argument based on WP:WEIGHT. I find it interesting that when I argue this based on more and more and more sources, the response is (1) to ignore the major points I make, and (2) to call me "disruptive" as if I'm not bringing forward new information and new arguments (such as Freddoso's argument). Passing strange. Feel free to complain to an admin that I'm "disruptive" because I'm ... what, disagreeing with you? Feel free. Alternately, since we disagree over how important the association is, why not try discussing the actual disagreement? -- Noroton (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the disagreement boils down to whether this a non-noteworthy, politics as usual smear campaign attempting to link Obama to the actions of William Ayers or a legitimate character issue raised and discussed in reliable sources. No one disputes the simple facts that Obama knew and worked with Ayers and that Ayers was (20 years earlier) a leader of the Weatherman. The question is why is this in the news, and is it anywhere other than Fox News and conservative talk radio? It came up in the primary debate with Clinton in a clearly political context. It's come up again, but also clearly in political contexts. Is there anything to suggest this is any more or less significant than any other attack launched by the McCain campaign or its proxies? Are the reliable sources discussing this as a character issue or are they instead reporting on the attack like they report on essentially any campaign ad? I'm not suggesting we add this, but a different way to summarize it would be:

In both the primary and general election campaigns, Obama's political opponents mounted a classic smear campaign, attempting to link Obama to the actions of William Ayers, a University of Illinois at Chicago professor and widely accepted part of Chicago academic and political circles. In his 20s Ayers was a leader of the violent, radical Weatherman organization of the 1960s and 1970s, more than twenty years before Obama met him in 1995.

Ironically, with their ad on this issue the American Issues Project apparently may be violating the 2003 federal election reform act co-authored by John McCain [18]. And, despite Fox News apparently officially (at least initially) declining to broadcast it they "accidentally" showed it [19]. It seems to kind of look like a duck, and swim like a duck, and quack like a duck. Even spending $2.8M on it doesn't make it anything other than a duck. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rick, Nexis has found over 1,000 mainstream news media articles linking Obama to Ayers. Even after filtering out Fox News and the Washington Times. Here's a partial list of the sources:

• New York Times
• Washington Post
• Los Angeles Times
• USA Today
• The New Yorker
• Chicago Tribune
• Chicago Sun Times
• Miami Herald
• San Francisco Chronicle
• Houston Chronicle
• St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• Boston Globe
• CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS
• Time and Newsweek

None of these are "the McCain campaign or its proxies." I am also finding these articles in media that are without any doubt friendly to the Obama campaign:

• Mother Jones
• Village Voice
• The Nation
• The New Republic
• Daily Kos
• Talking Points Memo
• Huffington Post

Do you need links? How many thousand do you need, Rick? WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

All of that is academic. They report the Republican smear campaign, but none of them say that there is anything inherently wrong (or even notable) about Obama's association with Bill Ayers (who has also associated with uh Republicans, I might add). You might as well have compiled a list of reliable sources that describe how to bake cookies. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

SCJ, your argument claiming that "they're just reporting on the Republican smear campaign" has already been shot down in flames. Allow me to refresh your recollection. I can use Nexis to filter the words "Republican" and "McCain." I still get over 300 mainstream news media sources that mention both "Obama" and "Ayers" but never say a word about "Republicans" or "McCain."

I can also set the filter to screen out all articles that use the word "Republican" or "McCain" within 20 words of the word "Ayers." This shows articles that happen to mention the Republicans, but in a way that is not relevant to the "friendly relationship" (words chosen by the Obama partisan spin machine, not me). When I do that, the count shoots up to over 700 articles. Since you also use Nexis, you know exactly how to do this. You can duplicate my results and see that I'm telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Of course, all of these searches are automatically filtering out partisan right-wing sources such as the Washington Times, Fox News, Newsmax, CNS, WND etc. That should go without saying. What is being shown here with absolute crystal clarity is that the neutral news media find Obama's "friendly relationship" with Ayers to be noteworthy, and it is irrelevant whether the Republican spin machine picked it up and ran with it. It also includes partisan sources that are openly biased in Obama's favor such as Mother Jones and the Village Voice. Please don't try to resurrect that argument again. It's dead. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

All publicity makes the issue more notable whether you call it a "smear" or not. And the Obama-Ayers controversy being noticed by the media. It's getting quite a lot of notice. I mean, besides the ad campaign centering on Ayers and the McCain campaign comments about Ayers and the conservative magazines and columnists and blogs commenting on Ayers. If it were so unimportant, it's strange that professional journalists would be noting it, noting new developments about it and commenting on it so very, very much:

• August 22 -- Chicago Tribune website, blog by Steve Chapman (editorial writer and columnist): But this indictment is not a smear; it's the simple truth. And it's something Obama has an obligation to address. Some questions he needs to answer: Did he know about Ayers' violent past when they become friends and associates? Is he willing to release all available records about their connection? How does he justify their warm relations? And would he do anything differently on reconsideration? It's not enough to shrug Ayers off as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know."
• August 22 -- U.S. News magazine, column by Michael Barone: [...] the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers and his connections to Barack Obama. They were closer than Obama implied when George Stephanopoulos asked him about Ayers in the April 16 debate—the last debate Obama allowed during the primary season. [...] He was willing to use Ayers and ally with him despite his terrorist past and lack of repentance. An unrepentant terrorist, who bragged of bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon, was a fit associate. Ayers evidently helped Obama gain insider status in Chicago civic life and politics—how much, we can't be sure unless the Richard J. Daley Library opens the CAC archive. But most American politicians would not have chosen to associate with a man with Ayers's past or of Ayers's beliefs. It's something voters might reasonably want to take into account.
• August 23 -- Chicago Sun-Times article: UIC to release Obama-Ayers records: The University of Illinois at Chicago did an about-face Friday, agreeing to release records on Barack Obama's service to a nonprofit education reform group linked to 1960s radical William Ayers. [...] Obama was the first chairman of the group Ayers helped start.
• August -- no date but in the past few days -- Los Angeles Times "Top of the Ticket" news blog: University of Illinois reverses decision, unseals Obama-Ayres documents
• August 22 -- Chicago Tribune "The Swamp" news blog: Illinois releasing Barack Obama's records
• August 22 -- Associated Press news article: University to release Obama records
• August 21 -- Wall Street Journal news blog: Obama's ties to Ayers come up again -- "William Ayers—and his ties to Barack Obama—have re-emerged as an issue this week"
• August 21 -- Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass: "Kurtz believes the documents may show Obama and Ayers were close—far closer than Obama has acknowledged—over oodles of foundation gifts on education projects the two worked on together. [...] The relationship between the ambitious Obama and the unrepentant Ayers is a subject that excites Republicans, who haven't really thwacked that pinata as hard as they might. [...] Welcome to Chicago, Mr. Kurtz."

Gosh, all these journalists really should stop reporting on this because it's so disruptive to editors here at the Obama talk page. On the other hand, the fact that this controversy continues to make news for month after month after month might, just might, indicate that it's a prominent enough subject about the life of Barack Obama. Just a thought. -- Noroton (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, almost forgot, Time magazine cover story this week about the "five faces" of Barack Obama. One is "radical" and you'll just never guess who they mention first in that segment of the story: Obama has worked on education issues in Chicago with William Ayers and has visited the home of Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dohrn. Both were leaders of the violent, leftist Weather Underground. Not that this could possibly be notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in our article on Obama's life. No, no, not that. -- Noroton (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, nothing in there is new or significant. Much of the material is partisan or premised on anti-Obama sound bites, eg "unrepentant terrorist", so would be useful for nothing other than primary sourcing to show that smears are being made, a point that belongs if anywhere in the article on the controversy. And yes I read it all, though at this point I am inclined to reject out of hand any further argumentation on the matter as a case of prolonging or reviving an already decided point. We should probably declare the matter closed and add it to the FAQ, namely that we have decided to not cover ayers in this article, that opponents will likely continue it as a campaign issue until election day, and that no amount of sourcing to establish that Obama detractors are pushing their claims will change this decision.

- Wikidemo (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, what part of "Nexis has found over 1,000 mainstream news media articles linking Obama to Ayers" DON'T you understand? Please review my response above to SCJ. Over 300 of them don't even mention the Republicans. Another 400 mention the Republicans but in a thoroughly irrelevant way. These neutral news media find the "friendly relationship" between Obama and Ayers to be noteworthy, entirely independent from whether the right wing smear machine has picked up on it. Please don't try to resurrect this argument again. It's dead. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama's speech to the 2004 DNC guaranteed his notability, so there is no comparison. But you already know this. Please don't resurrect the "Tester" argument again. It's dead. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And what policy are you premising your rejection of this reality on, Wikidemo? And how do you distinguish this from simply protecting the candidate you like from criticism and facts that you find embarrassing for him? Because it looks like partisanship on your part: you aligning yourself with the Obama campaign vs. the journalists who think this is important as well as the McCain partisans. And if the reliable sources find this important enough to report on, comment on, examine, aren't we obligated to mention it as well? -- Noroton (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"And if the reliable sources find this important enough to report on, comment on, examine, aren't we obligated to mention it as well?"

No. They are not reporting anything new, but simply noting that this particular smear campaign has floated back to the top of the Republican agenda. This "additional coverage" is only notable from a campaign perspective, and so might warrant a mention in the campaign article. Once again, I beg you to stop this disruptive, agenda-based discourse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Factually wrong again, Scjessey. Anyone who follows the links or even reads the quotes I gave can see it. And you, Scjessey, argued previously that there wasn't enough coverage. Well, now we see the coverage continuing from Spring till late August in the most prominent, reliable sources. It's provable that journalists and commentators who are not out to smear Obama are reporting and commenting on this (and be careful about calling people part of a smear campaign, Wikidemo and Scjessey -- you don't want to violate WP:BLP and WP:NPA -- careful, careful now!). You can't even make the case that someone's associations aren't a legitimate subject for evaluating candidates (after all, Obama's own campaign agrees with that). Your case is increasingly threadbare and wearing thinner all the time. Scjessey, please feel free to redact the last sentence in your previous post, and I'll redact this sentence to avoid further embarrassment to you. -- Noroton (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're all missing something in this argument. Yes, the smear itself, and the media's notice of that smear, is notable. It's notable enough for an article. Just not this one. Stay with me, now... Let's say I started smearing Obama as -- just for something ridiculous -- a time-traveling space alien from Planet Glorphon 6. Now, let's say, for some bizarre reason, this got a lot of media play. Fox News ran my Glorphon 6 claims in a 24/7 loop. The New York Times did three front-page spreads on it. The Wall Street Journal did an essay on the theoretical impact of Obama's alien nature on the economy, and a dozen other media outlets ran with the story, too. This would be notable. Perhaps we could have an article called GoodDamon's alien claims about Barack Obama. But would my claims have any reason to be in this article? No. Of course not. Each news story would be about me and my claims, not about Obama's alien heritage. And those bizarre claims would have no bearing on how we, as editors, should edit Obama's biography. --GoodDamon 22:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, the problem with your analogy is that it's ridiculously unlikely for Obama to be "a time-traveling space alien from Planet Glorphon 6." But it is entirely plausible for Obama to be close friends with William Ayers. The New York Times and all the other notable, reliable news media have done stories about this because they find it noteworthy. Not because the Republicans and right-wing fringe media are shouting about it, but because it is noteworthy in its own right for a major party's presidential nominee to be associated so closely and for so long with an unrepentant terrorist. Bernardine Dohrn is a law professor at Northwestern; would a President Obama nominate her for a lifetime position on the federal bench? Given their respective histories, this is a reasonable question. Curious bystander (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is not Wikipedia's place to ask that question, for any response would constitute speculation and therefore original research, which is against policy. Wikipedia must only write what has been published by reliable sources, with weight as they are due. Note that opinion pieces, blogs, and columns are reliable only to source the opinion of the writer, not to source any claims or fact. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Yes, it's plausible that Obama and Ayers were "close friends." I find that very plausible, even. But it's pure speculation. All we -- all anyone knows -- is that Ayers and Obama knew each other. The Times has reported on that, and on Republican attempts to extrapolate their familiarity with one another into a lasting friendship, but the Times, and other reliable sources, have not authenticated that extrapolation. To speculate is to synthesize facts into original research, and that's not our job. When the reliable sources come to the same conclusion, then it becomes a perfectly acceptable entry for a biography. Until then, it's most suited to the article devoted to the topic, Obama-Ayers controversy, and the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 page. And it's already in both places. --GoodDamon 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Norton and WB74's arguments are based on a flawed understanding of the purpose of this article: rather than illustrating every single smear against Obama, smears that will be notable only until November of this year, the purpose of this biography is to illustrate the life story of Obama, things that will be notable for years to come, not just the audience of right here, right now. If Ayers is important enough to warrant one sentence on the campaign article, and the campaign in given six paragraphs here, then if the campaign article has 600 sentences, a hundred sentences on the campaign article would correspond to about a paragraph here. If each paragraph has about 5 sentences, then 20 sentences on the campaign article would correspond to a sentence here. So one sentence eg the Ayers sentence, is worth a twentieth of a sentence here. Do the math. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Erik, when you say "this is a biography about his entire life," you conveniently forget that Obama is a career politician. If he hadn't gone into politics, he'd probably get one or two paragraphs if he had a WP biography at all. It is his political career that makes him notable. Since graduating from law school he has spent 14 of his 19 years either serving in office or running for office.

Furthermore, I repeat once again that if he hadn't run for president, he would be no more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator. The presidential campaign is what makes him more notable than Tester, who gets 300 words or so. Please don't try to resurrect that argument again. It's dead. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So, WB74, you suggest that because Obama is notable for one main thing, the article shouldn't be about his entire life? The WP:BLP policy does apply to your political opponents, too, and to people who are notable for one main thing. This article is his biography, not the campaign article. (Note that there is indeed a mention of Ayers in the campaign.) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Norton, many of your sources are as biased and partisan as the two new smear books. Opinion pieces and columns, even if published in a reliable newspaper, are only reliable as to source the opinion of the author, not to source and information per this policy. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Especially beware of the Tribune's editorial section. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

GD and EtR2: WP:WEIGHT states: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents -- check. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject -- check. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. -- check. The idea that Obama associating with Ayers is an important campaign issue is shared by a large number of commentators, journalists, the opponent in the general election, the most prominent opponent in the primary election (Clinton), and, although I don't follow polls much, very probably a good thick slice of the electorate. Two books on the New York Times Bestseller list devote pages to it. To leave it out of the article now is to violate WP:NPOV because its importance is recognized by either a majority of the reliable sources or an extremely large minority of them. To call it a smear is unjustified and, frankly, silly, because a candidate's associations are one of the things any electorate looks at in evaluating that candidate. I predicted before that this issue would not die. It hasn't. Even if it were a smear, which it is not, it's too prominent to ignore. Wikipedia articles on WP:WELLKNOWN living people are supposed to note prominent criticism and information that, while negative, is a widely noted feature of that person's life. Omitting it is increasingly looking like whitewashing, since the arguments for exclusion are so glaringly weak. The exclusionists really should drop the "smear" label (or justify it -- because the initial claim that it's a smear has long since been refuted), drop the emotional pleas to stop discussing this, drop talk of "disrutiveness", drop the evasions and give policy-related, fact-related, logical, reasonable reasons why this shouldn't be included, taking into account new arguments and new facts. But I seriously doubt that kind of case can actually be made, so exclusionists would be better advised to simply accept the reality here and become inclusionists on this item. Noroton (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Erik, add the "positions" part to the "campaign" part and you have a very significant section of this article. The Obama-Ayers controversy is about Obama's life, not just some intellectual position on issues. And as we've seen, he can change his position on issues, but he can't change the fact that he was associating with Ayers. Noroton (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it's you who are changing your position. Are you talking about inclusion of the controversy or the relationship. I'm fine with adding one sentence in the campaign section along the lines of, "There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers while Ayers was a professor in Chicago." Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I could definitely endorse that. The friendship is notable for inclusion in the biography article. The smear is notable for inclusion in the campaign article. --GoodDamon 04:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) OK, I've read the arguments pro and con on this one, and decided to read some of the articles themselves. They're all, as has been noted several times, news about the smears, not support for those smears. I had thought Ayers and Obama had some kind of friendship beyond their professional dealings, but there is absolutely zero evidence of that. I'm disappointed... I had assumed WorkerBee74 had read some of those articles he found in Nexis. They fall into two categories: 1) Editorials and opinion pieces claiming -- largely without evidence -- that there was some kind of non-professional connection. 2) News stories about those claims. I couldn't find a single, solitary news article that states as fact that Obama and Ayers shared anything more than positions in the same organization. I assumed good faith when I wrote the statement that I've just struck. It seems I was mistaken to. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia to smear someone through guilt by association, and I apologize to everyone for being taken in by it. This is Wikipedia, people. Not your personal soapbox. --GoodDamon 19:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you , GoodDamon, for taking the time to read the sources and for having the integrity to come back and amend your original post. I think if more people read the sources without an agenda to push they'd also be convinced that there is no there there. Tvoz/talk 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, please remember that Obama's political career was launched at a "meet and greet" in Ayers and Dohrn's living room. Not in Ayers' office at UIC, or anywhere else suggesting that their relationship was limited to a professional one, but in his living room. This is well-documented by numerous reliable sources. It's the sort of thing that someone does for a personal friend, not for a mere business acquaintance. Curious bystander (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That is simply an untrue claim - Obama's career was not launched by Ayers, and there is not a single reliable source claiming it was. The circumstances of this particular "meet and greet" event are not under any serious question. Calling it the beginning of Obama's career is a gross distortion. Repeated attempts to argue here that the two men are close associates are beside the point. Wikidemo (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep your mind open, GoodDamon -- there's more. Let's set the record straight. Ayers hosted a get-to-know-you meeting for Obama at the very start of his very first campaign for elective office. I've posted this quote before, and I'll post it again from The New York Times article from May 11, 2008:

Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.

Now, along with Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations. In 2001, Mr. Ayers said he did not regret the Weatherman bombings. Even so, in Hyde Park, he and his wife were viewed favorably for their work in addressing city problems. Mr. Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Mr. Obama said recently.

The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it “a searing and timely account.”

Worked together on an education project. Hosted meet-and-greet. Obama wrote a glowing review of an Ayers book. Appeared on panel discussions together, including one organized by Obama's wife. That's all in the quote. Add to this that they sat together on the small Woods Foundation board for a few years, and Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's first campaign. (Those last two substantiated by the Washington Post here These are the facts. -- Noroton (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep my mind open. Above almost everything else, that's a primary goal of mine -- not just in Wikipedia, but in life. I'll say this unequivocally: If you provide a concrete source that says what you're synthesizing from these facts, I will support their inclusion in this article. But right now, making something out of those separate facts -- the meet-and-greet, the book review, the panel, the foundation, the $200 contribution -- is improper for Wikipedia, a violation of WP:SYNTH. None of the reliable sources are adding those facts together the way you are... but the conservative bloggers certainly are. Synthesizing research out of facts is the job of the news media, not the job of Wikipedia editors. We don't connect the dots. We leave that up to others. Incidentally, I could probably come up with 100 different people who had the same or similar experiences with Obama as a young politician. And just as you're synthesizing a sinister, ultra-liberal hidden agenda based on the idea that Ayers must have been Obama's political mentor, I could synthesize a scenario in which the two happened to be involved in the same organizations and showed each other professional courtesy, such as giving a book review, much as is common between any two local politicians selected at random.

I don't know which view is accurate. It's not my job as a Wikipedia editor to determine that. All I know is that the only publications espousing your view don't qualify as reliable sources, and even the article you mention and quote explicitly only mentions it in the context of reporting on those who have made the same synthesis you have. It does not make the same synthesis itself.

Let me be perfectly clear: Until a reliable source specifically, explicitly reports that the Ayers relationship was both as close and as meaningful as Obama's critics have been trying to portray it as, it does not belong in this article. --GoodDamon 03:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't how WP:SYNTH works, GoodDamon. If one source (New York Times) says "Facts A, B, and C are facts about Obama associating with Ayers" and another source, (the Washington Post) says "Facts B, C, D, and E are facts about Obama associating with Ayers" then they are both drawing the same conclusion about how certain facts are relevant in discussing Obama associating with Ayers. We include multiple sources for multiple bits of information all the time in Wikipedia without violating WP:SYNTH. The Obama-Ayers controversy article is about what facts there were that are relevant to discussing Obama associating with Ayers and what was said about that. That isn't SYNTH. That's encyclopedia building. SYNTH has to do with what conclusions are drawn -- we leave conclusion-drawing to reliable sources, which can include reliable sources for opinions, since WP is specifically allowed to report on the opinions of others. WP:NPOV explicitly states it at the WP:ASF section (first words: Assert facts, including facts about opinions). It is your job, as a Wikipedia editor, to note that certain sources have provided certain facts. In this article, we should be asserting a short summary of the facts, and we are entitled to assert that there was criticism. That isn't connecting the dots. When you say, None of the reliable sources are adding those facts together the way you are you're not saying anything important because no reliable source adds the facts together the way any Wikipedia article does. You're setting up a special hurdle for this article that no other article ever has to go through. And just as you're synthesizing a sinister, ultra-liberal hidden agenda based on the idea that Ayers must have been Obama's political mentor -- you don't have to put words into my mouth, you just have to read elsewhere in this discussion. I've provided sources that are judged reliable for their own opinions and who state that the Obama-Ayers association is something they're concerned about. There is no WP:RS problem here at all. See [20] and [21] and [22]. -- Noroton (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to this BLP, I disagree. What's being ignored by the spin masters, to an unfortunate effect, is the fact that being friendly in one's business and/or political associations is not at all the same as that of having a "friendship". Nothing I've read to date supports the suggestion that there was a notable friendship. Modocc (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the sentence being added to the article. Hobartimus (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is exactly what the Republicans have been trying to do all this time. By repeatedly stating the same thing over and over again, framing it in as many ways they can think of, they are hoping to shoehorn at non-notable association with Bill Ayers into this "life story" in order to make sure Ayers' alleged misdeeds are associated with Obama - a serious WP:BLP violation. The only notable aspect of this "relationship" is that it has become one of the Republicans' primary strategies in the election. It is not at all notable with respect to Obama's life. Let me restate this one more time: this is news about news about Obama - the "controversial" aspect is the strategy, not the association itself. This is not biographical material. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

SCJ, you are not being helpful by claiming that anyone who disagrees wth you is a Republican. I endorse the one sentence proposal since I made virtually identical proposals weeks ago. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Wikipedians. I am talking about Republicans and the Republican strategy. Now it seems that certain Wikipedians have been taken in by this strategy, and are starting to echo it on this talk page. Fortunately, Wikipedia policies are in place to prevent this partisan, agenda-driven disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also support the single sentence addition proposed by Erik the Red. Now Scjessey is accusing his fellow editors of "partisan, agenda-driven disruption." Is there an admin who will take care of this matter? Curious bystander (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please self-revert the last sentence and do not use this talk page for collateral attacks on other editors - feel free to remove this comment once you do. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since people are extremely likely to come to this article looking for information about the "association," such as it was, between Chicago establishment figure Ayers and young community activist Obama, I propose for the tail end of the community activism section, something like the following.

Obama's then association with Bill Ayers later became controversial in the 2008 United States presidential election, since Obama's times of service on the Woods board overlapped with that of Ayers.[23] Also, early in Obama's campaign for Illinois Senator, Ayers hosted a meet the candidate night at his home. Obama was in attendance and shared dinner with Ayers. Though these men associated due to geographical proximity, there is no provable ideological similiarities.

-- which could be sourced better and tightened, or placed elsewhere. Comments?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BLP violation. No chance of consensus here. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• reject any proposed wording for reasons discussed at great length over past several months, and ask editors to not reopen matters already setted many times through consensus with uniform results. Wikidemo (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Although WP:NOTAGAIN certainly warns not to rehash the same stuff over and over again, what I thought our previous discussions had actually agreed to was -- since, of course, consensus can always change -- that, when and if and the casual friendship and association were to truly become a meme with the MSM, we would reevaluate its inclusion then; well, that time is now.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't normally change in two weeks after dozens of failed attempts to get it in the three months prior. I see nothing at all new or vastly greater in scope, only ongoing partisan efforts to make a campaign issue out of an issue that is trivial to Obama's bio. It should be obvious that others do not either The article you point to is a minor tactical skirmish that is so far not significant enough to matter to the controversy, much less the bio. - Wikidemo (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Referencing the number of previous talkpage discussions and asserting that consensus remains the same fails to argue to the question of whether currently available, reliable sources clear the bar enough to establishing notability here for our purposes.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll answer the question. The answer is no, for the reasons listed in the voluminous referenced discussions which, for the sake of avoiding disruption, I will not repeat or reopen. Wikidemo (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WD, if you're not going to even attempt to speak to the question on the merits, please refrain from pointless postings that distract from the efforts of those of us who are. Thanks.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer on the merits is no. If you want to know my reasoning you are free to review the record but inasmuch as the record spans millions of bytes I would prefer to avoid the disruption of transcluding or repeating it all. Over the past two days other editors and I have already answered the question of why the new citations offered do not change this. I am free to speak of process, and on process this new process fork is pointless and messy, as was the attempt to edit the article against consensus - they ignore discussion that just occurred yesterday. Wikidemo (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

<Soapbox> News flash. Politicos from the same neighborhood come to work together! Just as experienced U.S. Congressman Mo Udall of Arizona, who was to the left of Jimmy Carter, was the mentor of young U.S. Congressman John McCain of Arizona, who was then a self-described foot soldier for the Reagan Revolution. So, when Obama famously said in Philadelphia that he and Ayers don't exchange ideas on a regular basis, I definately believe he doesn't and wouldn't (with concern to issues of political policy and governance etc. Why would they?) Nonetheless, it remains clear they have a professional association: much as the farthest right U.S. Senator has with the farthest left U.S. Senator. Big deal! Still, my position is that Wikipedia should simply relate the relevant fact and respect its readers to draw whatever their own conclusions. And the facts remain that within the primary executive position on Obama's resume -- well, other than Project Vote and a few others -- Obama headed a foundation's board, working alongside Ayers, the foundation's founder, who'd obviously be positioned in this regard as somewhat a mentor to Obama there. Then, Bill and Bernardine had the famous Hyde Park coming out party toward Barack's election for his first Illinois political gig. End of story. BUT...if WE don't cover this notable association/controversy, folks will just get their info from anti-Obama ads and blogs and commentators instead of from a neutral encylopedia such as Wikipedia. </End of soapbox>  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Though the association is not notable enough, the controversy might merit a sentence, at the end of the Wright paragraph perhaps? But not anything like the proposed wording here, which is most definitely undue weight. Maybe something like, "Around the same time, a controversy also broke out regarding Obama's minor relationship with Bill Ayers." Even that though, might be too much. Why is a mention on the campaign article not enough? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is undue weight, among other things, for reasons already discussed. Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Erik the Red: Why is a mention on the campaign article not enough? Because it's about Obama's life. How many people do you know who would find it unproblematic to be associating themselves with someone who engaged in acts of terrorism (bombing buildings; leading an organization in which you advocated violence and which then planned to kill innocents at a dance at Ft. Dix [ see Weatherman (organization) ]; saying you don't regret it [see Bill Ayers)? In brief, Obama's associating with Ayers happened in these ways: (1) Ayers hosted a very early campaign meeting at his home; (2) Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's first political campaign; (3) Obama's wife invited Ayers to sit on a panel discussion with her husband; (4) on another occasion, the two were in a panel discussion; (5) Obama wrote a review in the Chicago Tribune of a book by Ayers on education; (6) the two sat on the small Woods Foundation board together for years; 4X-a-year meetings typically took place over an afternoon and board members would dine together; (7) before all this, Obama was made director of a group angling to get a $50-million major foundation grant for education in Chicago, and Ayers helped lead that effort (we don't know the full extent of this particular situation, it's the one that Univ. of Illinois Chicago library was blocking information on, but will now open the record soon on). For Obama to find associating with Ayers unproblematic is considered by many, and not just smear artists, to be an important fact about his life because it lends insight into how he judges people. Earlier in this discussion, I have quoted three respectable sources who each think the situation is worthy of attention and none of whom can be reasonably accused of publicizing this in order to promote a "smear" (and if you think all opinion commentary is simply smear-mongering, please say so):

• David Freddoso's book (No. 5 on the NYT bestseller list -- not prominent enough?): Would you be "friendly" with this man or anyone like him? Would any of your friends? [...] Obama is not a Marxist for his associations and alliances with Marxists, or a radical for his association with radicals. But his ideological influences are decidedly radical, which is an important consideration for voters. I provide the following material on Bill Ayers and on the other radical connections and influences in Obama's life not as a way of suggesting Obama endorses their actions or their far-out beliefs, but as a way of raising some worthwhile questions: (*) Why does Obama associate with such people? (*) What influence have they had on him? (*) What do these relationships tell us about his judgment and the type of people with whom he will entrust executive power if elected? [p. 122-123] [...] [I]t remains both relevant and interesting that Obama is 'friendly' with an unrepentant terrorist who was involved in a movement that killed innocent people, and that he even accepted donations from him to his campaign. How many unrepentant Communist terrorists do you have as friends? [p. 126]
• Michael Barone on his blog at U.S. News magazine: Obama Needs to Explain His Ties to William Ayers [title of blog post] [...] They were closer than Obama implied when George Stephanopoulos asked him about Ayers in the April 16 debate [...] Ayers was one of the original grantees of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform organization in the 1990s, and was cochairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one the two operational arms of the CAC. Obama, then not yet a state senator, became chairman of the CAC in 1995. [...] He was willing to use Ayers and ally with him despite his terrorist past and lack of repentance. An unrepentant terrorist, who bragged of bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon, was a fit associate. Ayers evidently helped Obama gain insider status in Chicago civic life and politics—how much, we can't be sure unless the Richard J. Daley Library opens the CAC archive. But most American politicians would not have chosen to associate with a man with Ayers's past or of Ayers's beliefs. It's something voters might reasonably want to take into account.
• Steve Chapman (editorial writer and columnist for the Chicago Tribune; quote from his blog): But this indictment is not a smear; it's the simple truth. And it's something Obama has an obligation to address. Some questions he needs to answer: Did he know about Ayers' violent past when they become friends and associates? Is he willing to release all available records about their connection? How does he justify their warm relations? And would he do anything differently on reconsideration? It's not enough to shrug Ayers off as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know."

These are not smears. These are legitimate comments by people who are respected journalists discussing an aspect of Barack Obama's life. That they are not supporters of Obama and seem to indicate they would vote against him is immaterial: Wikipedia articles include criticism about WP:WELLKNOWN individuals and information about them that those individuals would not like, but we do it with facts that are important enough to include in the article. Anyone who wants to continue calling this "just a smear" should take these facts into account to advance the discussion. -- Noroton (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken them into account (you have argued all this before, nothing new here) and per weight, relevance, BLP, and NPOV concerns - as well as accurately representing the sources - this does not belong in the Obama biography. As to whether it is a smear, it is pretty obviously so, but nobody is proposing we add text to this article claiming it is a smear so that is a moot point.Wikidemo (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken them into account No, you haven't. The coverage is new, and these journalists have made new arguments and made them more prominently than we'd seen before. Your charge of "same old, same old" is empty. the difference between justifiable concerns about confirmed facts and "smears" shows your BLP concerns to be baseless. It's extrenmely hard for substantiation of the facts and raising reasonable questions about the facts to be consistent with a smear: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization [24] -- Noroton (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake! I took those three sources into account[25] when you posted them here 23:32, 21 August 2008[ 23:32, 21 August 2008]. I took them into account again[26] when you accused me 03:13 23 August 2008 of ignoring them[27] and when you immediately accused me again of ignoring them.[28] I took them into account yet again[29] when you posted a similar cut-and-paste list of sources and arguments at 19:20, 23 August 2008[30], I took them into account yet again[31] when you cut-and-pasted them for the third time into your argument[32], and when you accused me for the third time of ignoring them[33]. This is becoming tendentious if not outright insulting. How can one possibly claim that an argument is new after making the same argument, with the same sources, three times on the same page, or that an editor has not read sources after saying three times that he has? At this point I do not feel it worth my time or in the interest of the encyclopedia to answer that kind of provocation anymore. I will propose closing this discussion and not re-opening it without any serious new developments. The ansewr is, simply, no. Wikidemo (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) On not one of those occasions that you cite did you do anything more than dismiss the new information by calling it more of the same old information. You have not addressed the fact that the matter is more prominent now, both because it got into the news again as the result of Stanley Kurtz' efforts to overcome the (incredibly obvious) stonewalling of the University of Chicago library and the extended mentions in two bestselling books. The news articles and commentary sparked by Kurtz's attempts to research the connection provide more prominence than we had before. The questions raised by Freddoso and Chapman are very obviously not smear attempts or overly partisan (calling Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist" has nothing to do with partisanship). These journalists, none of whom have a reputation for smearing people, cited solid information, raised questions about it and pointed out why reasonable people would find this matter important. Reasonable people would find this matter important, which is why it should be in the article. What is unreasonable about the following points:'

• Freddoso: "Why does Obama associate with such people? What influence have they had on him? What do these relationships tell us about his judgment and the type of people with whom he will entrust executive power if elected?"
• Barrone: "[M]ost American politicians would not have chosen to associate with a man with Ayers's past or of Ayers's beliefs. It's something voters might reasonably want to take into account."
• Chapman: "How does he justify their warm relations? And would he do anything differently on reconsideration?"

Why on earth are these not reasonable questions to ask about a man who would be president? I'm not arguing for their inclusion as opinions -- they are commentary and have been added to the pro-Obama commentary in the Obama-Ayers controversy article where they belong. But they show that this is not just a "smear" and they show why it is important. You have not addressed this argument seriously. Repeating your dismissals doesn't address the argument seriously either. It is quite obviously not more of the same, and your treating it that way doesn't make it so. -- Noroton (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have pruned the BLP vio portion of that from the other article, and posted on the talk page there that the rest of the coatrack be either eliminated or severely condensed. I believe my argument is serious, and already made many times. Sorry that you do not feel I am being serious, but again, I think that is a bit of an insult so I don't feel I need to respond further. The answer is still no. Wikidemo (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose:

1. We close the latest discussion / proposal to add material about Bill Ayers' supposed connection with Barak Obama as having failed to reach consensus and being unlikely to do so. I would personally add per my above reply to Noroton that the discussion has grown tendentious and that further discussion along these lines will only disrupt the spirit of cooperation we need to edit the article. Be that as it may I think it best that we close it on the simplest and least contentious grounds, that it simply does not have and will not have consensus.
2. We add a statement of the general reasons why we have decided not to mention Bill Ayers to the FAQ about criticism or as a new question, along with an admonition that we do not expect to do so unless there is a fundamental new development on the matter beyond merely its continuation as a campaign topic.

It's time to move past this and onto something productive. - Wikidemo (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reject the proposed points. Hobartimus (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support closing the discussion, and support adding something to the FAQ. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Stongly Reject as well. This is becoming an issue to address, as Obama has actually sought Justice Dept intervention on adds re: the issue. [34] So, definitely reject the proposal to close discussion. DRJ (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Still not a biographical issue. It is a campaign-related detail. Wrong article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Still a biographical issue as by nature the controversy has extended back to before his time on the campaign trail. In fact, he's had his campaign request that criminal charges be filed against those airing the ads. This response speaks to issues of who he is as a person, not just as a candidate. Your claim seems to be that what he does between now and November has nothing to do with his life. That's false intrinsically. DRJ (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support This has gone on far too long and clearly is not motivated by a simple desire to provide more biographical detail on Obama. Going back and forth with the same arguments in perpetuity will never lead to a consensus to include criticisms unrelated to the biography (and only marginally related to the campaign). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support This has lasted long past the point of productive discussion. --GoodDamon 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I would like to lay out for everyone a summary of my reasons, once and for all, for finding this proposed material unacceptable for this biographical article, and then I am bowing out of all further discussion in this entire thread.

• WP:UNDUE - There is one group of people harping on Obama about Ayers in the press: Partisan political opponents. No one else. Granting their conjectures about Obama's relationship with Ayers a voice in Obama's biography on Wikipedia would be granting those conjectures undue weight. That's not to say, that those conjectures don't belong in Wikipedia, just not in a biography. Which leads us to...
• WP:BLP - Why I will delete conjectures about the relationship between Obama and Ayers from article space if they appear there:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (All emphasis in original)

• In counterpoint, I will be the first person to add Ayers material in when reliable sources in significant numbers start reporting, as fact, that Ayers was a significant friend and influence on Obama's life. At that point, it will become biographically suitable material. Until then, that influence and friendship is conjecture and off topic. And that brings us to...
• WP:RS - Opinion blogs and partisan editorials are not reliable sources for statements of fact. Opinion blogs and partisan editorials are not reliable sources for statements of fact. Opinion blogs and partisan editorials are not reliable sources for statements of fact. How many freakin' times do I have to say this? Did everyone hear it this time? You cannot cite Media Matters for America, Arianna Huffington, The Obama Nation, George Will, or any other partisan sources for statements of fact. As this is a biography of a living person, they should all be treated as questionable sources unless and until proven otherwise. They can be used as sources for their own opinions, but how much of that do we need in someone else's biography? Wouldn't that space be better taken up with verifiable, properly-weighted facts about the person's life? Do we need to give voice to every bloviator who's managed to get their conjecture that Obama makes campfires out of American flags and douses them with the tears of children into print? No! Conjecture stays out of biographies. Let's wait until it's not conjecture anymore, which brings us at last to...
• WP:SYNTH - This is the big one. This is the one that has, quite frankly, been driving me nuts. Let me list what is known

• Obama was at a meet-n-greet in Ayers' home.
• Obama worked for an organization Ayers helped found.
• Obama worked for a different organization Ayers was a member of.
• They both live in Hyde Park.

You can really make something of that, huh. I can imagine a scenario in which they became fast friends, with Ayers a sort of father figure to Obama, teaching him the liberal ropes, and grooming him for higher office. I can imagine them secretly discussing Ayers' radical past, and Obama promising to publicly denounce it while privately agreeing with it. I can imagine it quite clearly. I have a good imagination. I could be one of those pundits people cite.

But imagining, conjecturing, and synthesizing original research out of those 4 known facts is not my job. For all we know, Obama met Ayers five times in that entire period, and may not even have recognized his face in the large meetings they both attended. Heck, I spent the better part of two years meeting the same group of people every Tuesday, and I probably couldn't pick half of them out of a lineup, so I can imagine that scenario, too. Fine imagination. Which scenario's right? The first? The second? Some other scenario? Who knows? Actual news articles -- not opinion pieces -- have not reported on that. They've spent plenty of time reporting on the aforementioned partisans and their attempts to tie Ayers to Obama, but they have not tied Ayers to Obama themselves. When they do, let me know... I'll be genuinely interested in what they have to say. --GoodDamon 06:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very well written commentary, GoodDamon; you shudda considered publishing it somewhere other than Wikipedia!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 12:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree. Reason being 'cause I favor alluding here in the article to the 4 facts GD lists above and otherwise just letting folks coming here to research it find out what's known and let them come to their own conclusions. But I've already said that recently elsewhere on this talkpage.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 12:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Reject since WP:NPOV requires providing a voice, here in this article, to the minority who believe that Obama's relationship with Ayers raises questions about his judgment. Curious bystander (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Noroton (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we present the intractable matter disputed in this section to arbitration before empowered, uninvolved parties.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• COMMENT Ayers was mentioned in this bio for quite a while, but this became dropped. (Why? It seems this was mostly due the explanation that the association or controversy was proven not notable since the matter had only received substantial MSM coverage for about a news cycle following the Democratic Philly debate. Is that correct?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Likely because repeating material that comes not from a reliable source but from opinion pieces and blogs violates WP:RS and WP:BLP. I would guess someone went through the references for the Ayers text, realized that the references were bad or improperly used, and removed them. --GoodDamon 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

At least starting June I see no consensus having developed to mention Ayers at all. That was the period of endless polling and article protection, followed by a stable period after that with less frequent attempts to introduce it. It is hard to draw conclusions from February through May given the tendentiousness at the time and all the page protections and sockpuppets. Before February the issue wasn't around. Wikidemo (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• The proposal sounds interesting to find a neutral third party to resolve this issue once and for all, but I have a couple concerns and issues with that. First, I am not sure there is a dispute to resolve. The matter has been resolved and the decision is to not include Bill Ayers material to the article. That a small vocal group repeatedly brings this up does not make it a real dispute. If they continue to oppose a uniform consensus then dispute resolution becomes forum shopping. Second, what process is there for article arbitration? I see none listed at WP:DISPUTE. Maybe I'm missing something but offhand I am not aware of arbitration being an option here. Wikidemo (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Clickin' around I come across Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia:Mediation.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The original mention of Ayers was championed by User:Andyvphil, who edit-warred over it continuously. For most of the time, the BLP simply said that Obama was a member of the Woods Foundation, and so was Bill Ayers. Since these were trivial, irrelevant details that violated WP:WEIGHT, they were eventually removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I see no reason for any kind of mediation/arbitration. There are essentially two choices:

1. Leave the article as it is.
2. Violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT with Ayers-related stuff.

I cannot see why that would require debate in any forum. It's not a hard decision, is it? Furthermore, I repeat my earlier statement that this is a campaign issue that should receive coverage in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 - in fact, I cannot understand why campaign strategies/ads/responses of both parties aren't receiving much coverage in either Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Is there another article doing this that I'm not aware of? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP isn't a concern when a person is WELLKNOWN.

Wikipedia needs to organize a seminar on BLPs so ppl don't keep on keepin on about this. A school marm sez, "February has 28 days except during leapyears when it has 29; it's now a leapyear, class. How many days does February have?" And a kid slouched in a chair in the back sez, "It's 28! 'Teach,' you said yourself, 'Febuary has 28 days -- !'"

Poor "Teach."  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"BLP isn't a concern when a person is WELLKNOWN."

I assume that was meant to be a sarcastic statement? WP:WELLKNOWN is merely a sub-section of the WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy section that covers issues concerning the subject's private life (or in the case of a well-known figure, a lack thereof). The rest of WP:BLP still applies, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No sarcasm. I really do believe BLP isn't a concern with regard to somebody WELLKNOWN. Sarcasm only seems to come into play as I wrap my mind like Dali's watch around the mystery of how ppl can believe an exception to a rule wouldn't trump the rule it's an exception to. (Joe Blow smokes too much. Can't say that. Reams of punditry examine the fact that Churchill smokes too much, harshly disagreeing with each other whether this somehow endangers England's remaining butt of empire. Can say that.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? WP:BLP exists because of the Seigenthaler incident. John Seigenthaler, Sr. is a well known person, yet WP:BLP was created in response to what happened with his biography. WP:WELLKNOWN applies only to a specific portion of WP:BLP, and the rest of the policy most certainly applies to well known people. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the nature of the campaign is that every other day, there's some new issue or alleged offensive statement or something or other that the two candidates bash each other about. Are any of these significant? Will, to take one recent example, McCain not remembering how many houses they own turn out to be a key inflection point in the race, something that subverts his attempt to portray Obama as elitist, something that leads to a measureable and lasting change in the polls? Or will it be a minor two-day blip, something that's nearly completely forgotten a week or a month later after a dozen more of these 'topic of the day' items have come and gone? It's impossible to know as the campaign is happening. We'll know later, when we can write the campaign articles in retrospect. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent point. In the rush to get the "latest thing" into the articles, people forget that they are supposed to be written from a "historical perspective" and tend to ignore useful essays like WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that Scjessey knows that this has been in the news and hashed out in commentary starting in the winter, getting really going in April and again now. Never seems to go away entirely. Scjessey knows this because he's been arguing about it for months. How odd that he would think this is a passing news story. Could you explain this discrepancy, Scjessey? Have you forgotten how long this has been around? -- Noroton (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I WITHDRAW my proposal.

I started to write a case to submit -- but only got this far

Article brought in mention of subject's professional contact with controversial 70s-figure-turned-Chicago-establishment-person some months ago. Which stayed 'til majority faction dropped it altogether for sundry reasons, while minority faction continued in the belief its mention would better hold to editorial policies about inclusion of substantial, minority points of view. Now, due its renewed coverage in the media, Minority has presented evidence and arguments towards this end which have been dismissed out of hand as, quote, disruptive, end of quote, by Majority. To be continued

-- before changing my mind. Even though in my opinion Noroton's understanding of WP policies is the correct one and the majority faction hereabout's understanding of the same is wrong, the fact remains that the majority faction is the majority faction and I don't think they're gonna budge. An analogy would be the U.S. Congress where there's Republicans and Democrats with these opposing parties seeing lots of things fundamentally differently, with these views not likely to budge much. And I just have to come to grips with the fact that I'm in the minority faction as far as the interpretation of certain WP directives goes, that's all.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that the same majority you mention does not have any problem with the material in question going into the campaign article, and has only maintained that it doesn't belong in the WP:BLP. --GoodDamon 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't insert mentions of people who have the kinds of relationships that Obama had with Ayers into their biographies. Ayers was not a pivotal player in Obama's life. If we insert mentions of everyone who had an Ayers-like relationship into the biography, especially in the length proposed here, the biography would grow mind-numbingly long. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have to have been pivotal and no one asserts that he was, so that's a red-herring issue. The reason for inserting it in the biography is because it's a controversial fact about Obama that has continued to be controversial ever since it became known. You and others seem to be under the impression that Americans who are shocked by this are not worthy of having their opinions about the importance of this in the article, whereas WP:WEIGHT tells us that when a fact about a subject is judged important by significant reliable sources, even a minority of them, that fact should be mentioned in the article. The objections on this page are from editors who think it's just so unfair to have negative information about Obama in the Wikipedia article about Obama. But its a fact that WP:WELLKNOWN says such information should go into the article. It's a fact that this is prominent among reliable sources. It's a fact that concern about this is independent of any smearing -- and to say otherwise is a partisan attack eminating from the partisan Obama campaign itself. If this article can have links to the partisan Obama campaign website and have praise of Obama and his works included, then it can include criticism and information that Obama and his partisan campaign does not like. THAT is WP:NPOV and THIS is one of the more prominent criticisms of Obama. -- Noroton (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You have this all wrong. Almost all the coverage of this "controversy" has revolved around the smear campaign, not the "association" itself. That is why this "controversy" has its own article. Ayers has had little influence on Obama's entire life, which is why it isn't featured in this biographical summary. This is a campaign-related issue. Bring this up on the campaign article talk page, and you are more likely to get your desired response. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, you never actually seem to read the links I provide. This is more evidence of that. They were news about Kurtz' attempt to get evidence -- the opposite of a smear -- and commentary on Obama associating with Ayers, which is not automatically a smear either. Your use of the word "smear" for any criticism of Obama at all is matched only by the Obama campaign and its most fervent supporters. Does that bother you? -- Noroton (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in perpetuating this pointless, circular argument. Nor am I interested in taking the bait and answering your unrelated, disruptive question. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we might be verging on WP:TRUTH here. --GoodDamon 01:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the amount of Ayers' mentorship maybe does seem to remain somewhat speculative. (With perhaps some help from Ayers', through the University of Illinois Chicago library, having kept records pertaining to the same on the down low?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculation and synthesis is in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The only mention should be on the campaign article. Neither the association nor the controversy (which is what all of your sources are about) are important enough for inclusion on the biography. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It also is ludicrous to even suggest that this is one of the most prominent criticisms of Obama. It is a current event and thus should not have mention in the overall life story of Obama. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that it is one of the most prominent criticisms of Obama and it's not ludicrous. His appeal isn't based on his political positions (few people can name many of those) but on personality. He's run in large part on his judgment, his character and a vague vision of everybody getting along, not on detailed policy. But we have a huge policy section in this article and a hefty campaign section. You say "it's a current event", but it's been a "current event" from April till now, always a prominent part of the criticism of Obama. We've cited the ongoing criticism and media mentions in the archives of this talk page. Current events aren't supposed to continue being current for month after month after month after month, with new information coming out. -- Noroton (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove the rest of the campaign-related coverage from this article first. You can (and no doubt will) assert that the coverage is only coverage "about the smear" but your argument is circular and irrelevant. You've never been able to answer the fact that there is a lot of coverage and it's constantly growing. When that comes up you have two arguments left: WP:WEIGHT says we can't cover it because there's not enough coverage -- that's been your traditional argument. It's been a convenient one for you because you've been able, in the past, to rely on pro-Obama consensus that there wasn't enough coverage (a judgment call that relied on implicit tendentiousness on the part of pro-Obama editors). As more coverage makes that argument increasingly ludicrous, you have shifted to saying "It's all a smear! It's all a smear!", waving your arms and using emotional words to distract editors. Except that I've already shown that the facts are not in dispute and are reported by reliable sources like The New York Times and Washington Post (at 01:32, 25 August; and others -- 19:09, 23 August; 23:11, 21 August), and when people who are not smear merchants -- Michael Barone, David Freddoso and Steven Chapman (21:52, 24 August; condensed at 02:43, 25 August) -- state reasonable concerns about the issue that don't rely on smears in any way but only on the stated facts that everyone agrees with. Noroton (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the coverage to date is trivial, and I think you're going way over the top there in complaining about other editors, Noroton. I'm also leery of this eager waiting for new disclosures, if the past has been any guide as to the behavior of Republican operatives and their reception by Wikipedia editors. We will see how much real information in fact comes out. No doubt partisans off wiki will mine every word they can find for any shred they can promote, and failing that, distort or simply lie as they have done to date. Any time two people exchange communications for some period of time there are expressions of support, admiration, respect, etc. Suppose someone with $100 million behind him, competing over a different vision for the future of the nation and the world, uncovers the trove of all email communications between you and a friend, colleague, professor, co-worker, etc., and his hoard of loyal apparatchiks combs over every detail for things to use against you. No doubt the Wikipedia editors promoting this non-issue will cite any renewed Republican attacks as further evidence that Ayers is a major force in Obama's life (or that the swiftboating is itself a notable event). It was wrong to view the manufactured scandal over the mere release of these old university records - a question in which Obama played no part at all - as itself an event worthy of re-examining consensus. I would set a high bar to whether any new attacks or tidbits of information would merit reopening the matter, and I think the constant hammering on this by people who have not and cannot gained consensus is indeed quite disruptive. It has shut down article progress yet again, lead people to incivility, and generated hard feelings and a renewed content battle that is clogging up this talk page and the article probation page. Enough is enough. We're all adults (or respectable youths) here - just because the rest of the world is shamefully disrespecting the truth to try to promote their team to power does not mean we must follow suit. Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But all of those people are opinion writers/and/or columnists. Per Wikipedia policy, opinion pieces and columns can only be used to cite the opinion of the writer. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Amen and hallelujah! Can we please put this to bed, at least until we get a real, honest-to-gosh news article that says they were pinky-sworn BFF, not blogs and opinion pieces that say they were, and not news articles about the blogs and opinion pieces that say they were? Pretty-please? --GoodDamon 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Eric, GoodDamon, that's irrelevant. It is controversial that Obama associated with Ayers, and that associating doesn't have to be a close relationship for it to be controversial, as the citations I've already given (especially Freddoso, Barone and Chapman) show. Even when they use the term "friend" loosely, those three are concerned with the facts as we know them from reliable news sources. We only need the New York Times piece I quoted and the Washington Post piece I linked to for sources for the article (01:32, 25 August). If we wanted to say "Obama was criticized for it during the campaign" we could use any of these opinion sources. I mentioned them to show how widespread the comment was on this (to show it meets WP:WEIGHT) and to show that this isn't just about someone smearing someone else. The Barone, Freddoso and Chapman pieces show that. Please comment like an adult, GoodDamon. -- Noroton (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Please comment like an adult"

Says the editor who thinks I should be topic banned for complaining about disruption. You continue to be tendentious, you continue to be disruptive, and now you are being downright rude as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This is a topic subheading reflecting a withdrawn proposal for arbitration / mediation so I see no point resurrecting the debate here. But the Ayers mention doesn't pass the weight test, and there's no new indication that it does. Anti-Obama advocacy on these tangential attack points, and the coverage of the advocacy, do not rise to the level of importance to his life and belong in the campaign articles with whatever weight they deserve there. Wikidemo (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Please comment like an adult"? I try to bring a little levity and I get that? OK, I'm going to assume you didn't mean to insult me, but I do request you strike that. In any event, on to the citations:

• Freddoso's book - Opinion piece. Valid only for his opinion, per WP:RS.
• Barone's column - Ditto.
• Chapman's column - Ditto.

I don't know how else to say it. The news articles you've cited are about the attempts to link the two, so they belong in the campaign article. The blogs you link to that actually do link the two aren't WP:RS. I feel like a broken record. Yes, the controversy, however manufactured it might be, is notable. It definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Just not here. And I will happily change my mind if you provide a reliable source that indicates Ayers had a significant, biography-worthy impact on Obama's life. But you haven't yet. Rule of thumb: Avoid blogs. Avoid opinion pieces. Avoid partisan websites. Avoid partisanship. Find a neutral, verifiable news source that establishes as fact Ayer's significance in Obama's life, and I will be the very first person to defend introducing him to this biography.--GoodDamon 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, you don't seem to have read what I actually wrote, and you haven't read WP:RS carefully either, or WP:WEIGHT. Here, let me help: WP:WEIGHT: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. [...] Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Meaning that if we were to use a sentence saying something along the lines of "Obama was criticized for..." these sources would be just fine, and they also help show that there's a significant opinion among the most reliable sources of opinions. Of course, I've told you this repeatedly. They aren't unusable sources because they have opinions. And if we're to judge WP:WEIGHT, they count toward that, because for that purpose they are just fine. Rule of thumb: Read WP:RS: When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, Another rule of thumb: Read WP:BLP#Reliable sources: Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Check out those blogs I mentioned. Think they're independent of reliable news organizations? Note that the last quote was from WP:BLP. Kinda indicates they can be used in articles about living people, doesn't it? I don't claim Ayers had a big impact on Obama's life, and neither do Freddoso, Barone or Chapman. But I've said that. Thanks for the lecture, too. -- Noroton (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is my last response on the topic. If you feel like it, you are welcome to the last word.

• Your awfully selective interpretation of WP:RS would have us believe, despite the very text of the guideline, that opinion pieces really are reliable as sources for something besides their author's opinions. I look forward to the steady stream of Bob Herbert, Arianna Huffington, and Paul Krugman articles you're going to cite as reliable sources for information about Obama's environmental, economic, and social positions.
• Are you aware that this is a biography we are discussing? We should stay on topic, shouldn't we? OK, then... A properly weighted fact for a biography would concern people and/or events of established significance to the subject's life, and no such weight is established in any articles except... well, waddya know... non-RS opinion pieces! Of course, the information is both on-topic and properly weighted for other articles, such as the one devoted to the controversy, and the one devoted to the campaign. Are you editing here by mistake?

Look, I'm sorry to take a bit of a flippant tone, but this really has begun to seem farcical to me. In terms of pure numbers, I can find far more opinion pieces and even actual news articles outlining everything from Obama's foreign policy to his current music preferences, as opposed to references to Ayers, and you don't see me trying to shove them into the biography article, because they simply do not belong there. Try to understand this: Facts that are perfectly suitable for one article may be given undue weight in another, because they are two different articles. Would your preference be to have every single fact that anyone has ever written about Obama be in every single article about him? Sigh... I'm done. You know my answers, and I know yours, so now it's up to consensus. I think this horse might be dead. --GoodDamon 05:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take the last word:

• Are you aware that this is a biography we are discussing? No, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for telling me. Are you aware that opinion articles could be used to help determine WP:WEIGHT even if they're not used to cite facts in articles and even if they're not used in articles at all? Which was my point. Another point was that opinion articles could be used as sources to show that the authors held a certain opinion. This is what I've been saying from the start, although I don't get the impression that you knew this was the case when we first started discussing this. Do you get it now? Do you understand that this is all I was ever trying to say? Do you understand that opinion articles can be used in these two different ways (weight and reporting of opinions)?
• A properly weighted fact for a biography would concern people and/or events of established significance to the subject's life, and no such weight is established in any articles except... well, waddya know... non-RS opinion pieces! Really? Is that why we have this in the article: In January 2007, The End of Blackness author Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise: "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."[174] Film critic David Ehrenstein, writing in a March 2007 Los Angeles Times article, compared the cultural sources of Obama's favorable polling among whites to those of "magical negro" roles played by black actors in Hollywood movies.[175] [...] In a December 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "The Man from Nowhere," Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan advised "establishment" commentators to avoid becoming too quickly excited about Obama's still early political career.[177]
• Would your preference be to have every single fact that anyone has ever written about Obama be in every single article about him? Thanks for making that cogent point. Obviously concerns that people have about Obama associating himself with an unrepentant former terrorist, Bill Ayers, are no more important in trying to understand a candidate for president of the United States than his taste in music or the comments made by Peggy Noonan about Obama in December 2006. Since we can't have everything in the article, there's no room for mention of Ayers. Your logic overpowers me. Of course, I have been quite farcical. There is nothing special at all about associating yourself with an unrepentant former terrorist. It's done all the time by presidential candidates. Please forgive me for taking up your time. -- Noroton (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I share the sentiment, but it would take far more than a single reliable source. When we're in the realm of hyper-notability (Obama now has 260K+ current news stories and 60 million + web pages) it takes more than a single article for something to be weighty enough to make it to his biography. Even so-called reliable sources are sometimes wrong, opinionated, or simply covering an irrelevant or minor subject. Wikidemo (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's partially true; we would need more than one or two. But it's not our jobs to judge the accuracy of reliable sources. Remember, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not accuracy. --GoodDamon 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Norton thinks official policy is irrelevant. Irrelevant or maybe just inconvenient.... It doesn't matter whether you think the opinion pieces are accurate or not, it matters whether they are reliable. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. You would need multiple ie more than 1, 2, 3 sources that are reliable and verifiable to even consider adding this material. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Answered just above at 01:26 26 Aug. Apparently Noroton thinks official policy is worth reading and understanding before telling others to follow it. -- Noroton (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going into the broader underlying reasons why we have a verifiability requirement and why, when there are a multitude of sources, we look for a concurrence of the most reliable ones. Everyone makes mistakes, even the best sources, but if we find that all the top sources agree on a point it's better-supported. It eliminates the outliers. In a space like this there are hundreds or even thousands of sources all agreeing even on seemingly trivial points. There are 4,400+ recent news hits about Obama playing basketball (nearly 4 X the number that mention Ayers). 1,800 (nearly 50% more than the Ayers coverage) mention barbecue. Obviously you have to drill farther down than google news hits but the general point is that you need more than a few reliable sources to establish that a given point is important enough to make. There are several dozen articles lately about Obama's astrological reading (he's a Leo)... obviously several dozen is not enough. Wikidemo (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The facts are not in dispute in the news coverage. Various significant opinions are expressed about it in the reliable sources. Numbers are almost entirely irrelevant. -- Noroton (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The key words are "significant opinions". If you want, we could add, "Steve Chapman believes Obama to be an insane ultra-liberal terrorist because of his association with Bill Ayers," but we could not add, "Obama is an insane ultra-liberal terrorist because of his association with Bill Ayers." Opinion pieces can only source the opinion of the writer. Saying that, "numbers are irrelevant" is just plain ridiculous and in violation of WP:NOTE- numbers are one of the ways we determine notability; if one reliable source says something, it doesn't automatically make it notable just because it is a reliable source. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, when you get around to actually reading WP:NOTE, you'll find These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. It's way down there in paragraph 2. Do you commonly do a count of how many sources there are for something before you add it to the article? Do you then calculate how many sources there are for everything else in the article to make sure you're not adding too much or too little? -- Noroton (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ballpark. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to troll for comment from uninvolved parties. If you don't not hear from me again, it's 'cause I was blocked for CANVASSING.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please! No more of this! This has already been discussed to death, with multiple consensuses against including this campaign-related smear strategy into this biography. We do not need yet another round of comments, discussions, debates, arguments, AN/I reports, blocks and bans! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous quotes re alleged Obama-Ayers connection/non-connection:

1. (Non-Leninist former bigwig with the SDS) Tom Hayden: "I have met and like John McCain, but he bombed, and presumably killed, many people in a war I opposed. If I can set all that aside, I would hope that Americans will accept that Ayers has changed, too."
2. (As described by USA Today): Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who knows both [Ayers and Obama] is "very disturbed by (Ayers') past and by his refusal to disavow what he did.... I think the implications of this for Obama are zero." According to Wikipedia, "Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. He is generally thought to be liberal...."  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
3. The New Republic's Michael Crowley, August 27: "McCain is holding a small lead in [super swing-state -- Justme] Ohio, where the Texas billionaire-funded Bill Ayers ads are apparently in heavy rotation. I have this nagging feeling that this drama unfolding on the airwaves out in the states may be a bigger story than the one 15,000 journalists are covering here in Denver."  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Quote from an August 2008 Obama campaign email: "Just last night on Fox News, Kurtz drastically exaggerated Barack's connection with Ayers by claiming Ayers had recruited Barack to the board of the Annenberg Challenge. That is completely false and has been disproved in numerous press accounts." (A charge National Review editors rebutted through arguing, "Though it is a reasonable inference that Ayers recruited Obama, the careful Kurtz has stopped short of making it — observing only that Obama offers no explanation of how he was recruited if not through Ayers[...].")
5. (Generally Libertarian-to-Conservative netroots commentator) Jim Lindgren, blogged April 18, 2008: "It seems to me that Obama's serving on the board of the Woods Fund for a few years with a former member of the Weather Underground is not fundamentally different from my serving for more than a decade on a law faculty with one." (I.e., with Dohrn.)

 ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, the Obama-Ayers connection makes the news, showing that it's an ongoing matter continuing to receive attention, not just a passing news story:

• Aug 26: News report from reliable source, Fox News: "Newly Released Documents Highlight Obama’s Relationship With Ayers"

• Aug 27: Goes to WP:WEIGHT, a mainstream opinion magazine with an opinion worth noting: Editorial by National Review: "Obama's friend, America's enemy"

• Aug 27: News report from reliable source, Associated Press: "Radical tied to Obama compared US actions to 9/11" -- Chicago Sun-Times picks up the wire report as well [35]

• Aug 27: News report from reliable source, Chicago Tribune: "Files linking Obama to '60s radical a hot commodity: UIC library releases Annenberg records"

See CCC: people may change their minds over time when new things come up. New things have come up. Editors need to re-evaluate again. -- Noroton (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And again, and again, and again, until by gosh, we can get this to stick! That Fox news article you just added? Its big revelation? Here it is:

The massive collection of newly released documents — 140 boxes full of them — includes agendas that clearly put Obama and Ayers in the same room for meetings of Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an educational initiative that Ayers was instrumental in starting and that Obama chaired in the 1990s.

Is anyone else getting truly tired of this? --GoodDamon 16:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed these sources I see nothing that affects the reasoning on the earlier consensus that mentioning the contacts between Ayers and Obama, or the partisan controversy over the same, is unsuitable for this article. I therefore continue to oppose it for the reasons already discussed. Wikidemo (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Did the Obama campaign react at all to this? Hobartimus (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The big revelation was just information everyone already knew: They attended the same meetings and worked for the same organizations. The campaign has been a lot more responsive to the advertisements, something that perhaps ought to go in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. --GoodDamon 17:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the sources provided, and suffice it to say I remain unconvinced that it is appropriate to mention Ayers in this article rather than the campaign article. IMO linking Obama and Ayers in this article, even with a construct like "critics say ...", violates WP:SOAP (Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda). Endlessly repeating a smear (activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by conflation with a stigmatized group) is essentially the definition of propaganda - which is exactly what Fox News and the McCain campaign are doing. I know Noroton doesn't see it this way, but plenty of other people do. It's in the campaign article, where it belongs. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rick, one could just as easily say that not mentioning it is an act of political propaganda, and with equal force. Which is why I linked to three news articles of organizations which are independent and to a longstanding opinion journal which, while it opposes Obama and supports McCain, is not doing it for "propaganda" reasons -- unless you make no distinction whatever between independent commentators who happen to support or reject someone with "propaganda" operations. -- Noroton (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not mentioning it is an act of following Wikipedia policy. There is no comparison. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is new? They have now access to files in which they hope to find the smoking gun (that some desperately want to be of existence). Reminds me of "the search for WMD's"...! No further comment. --Floridianed (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What's new is that when Obama said in the April 2008 debate that he didn't converse much with Ayers and said Ayers is "just a guy in my neighborhood" that statement wasn't true back in 1995 and for years afterward when they interacted in a number of venues. We now know that they interacted quite a bit more than we knew days ago. Please see my addition to Obama-Ayers controversy, a paragraph on this subject (second paragraph) in the section just below the lead section. You say some desperately want to be of existence and it would be equally true to say some desperately want to be OUT of existence, so what some want is pretty irrelevant to what we think is important enough to mention. I accept Wikidemo's comment, above, and Rick Block's on being unconvinced, but nevertheless, this shows Ayers and Obama were associating -- you could call it "collaborating" in this case (as in several other cases). Not addressing just Floridaned here: The National Review editorial shows why many have objected that this was wrong on Obama's part. I will continue to bring this up if I see significant new developments, but not otherwise. I think that's reasonable and calls for reasonable responses like a number of the responses I see so far in this section. -- Noroton (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If they find a "smoking gun" I'm absolutely for inclusion of this "maybe" future material. Till then we have nothing but the attempt of some to fabricate a more serious connections then there is, based on speculation without proof. And NO, I'm not talking about Wikipedians. Don't want this to become another misunderstanding. --Floridianed (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no new developments. The sources you have so diligently found all say the same thing - Obama and Ayers associated from time to time, mostly as part of their work. But during that time, they barely saw each other. Just a few times a year at various board meetings. Not notable in any way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What Obama said in the April debate (partial): This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. If Obama worked on that small Annenberg Challenge Grant board as chairman while Ayers was so influential in starting the organization and working the "operational" side of it, they worked together pretty closely from time to time between 1995 and 2001, so Ayers was certainly "somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis" at some points. So Obama essentially evaded the question. If there was nothing embarassing in this, Obama would not have done so. If there was something embarassing about it, enough to make an evasive answer in a national TV debate, that's an additional argument for inclusion. And you don't have to be participating in a "smear" to think so.

This is the language at Obama-Ayers controversy:

Obama's work for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an effort that Ayers was instrumental in starting. Obama served as president of the Challenge board of directors during the 1990s, when the board disbursed grants to schools and raised private matching funds while Ayers at that time worked with a related group, Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm of the effort which worked with grant recipients. Both attended some board meetings starting in 1995,[9][10] as well as retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program started. They continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 period in which the program was operating.[10]

Sourced to the same sources we have here. I'm not arguing for putting this language in, but some mention of Ayers belongs in this article. -- Noroton (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I say include it in the article. Scjessey is right--these aren't new developments because the information relates to his time prior to campaigning. He and Ayers have had some sort of "relationship" (even Scjessey concedes that) however that term is being defined, and that makes this a BLP issue. DRJ (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to put "relationship" into context. I would describe my "relationship" with Noroton as more involved and elaborate than the brief association Obama had with Ayers. Making a mountain out of a molehill is a typical election strategy, and the Republicans have always been the masters of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, your second sentence is WP:SOAPBOX material, not related in any way to article development. This is something you do very often. Why don't you comply with that policy? Wikipedia is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1] Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. -- Noroton (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase then. You are making a mountain out of a molehill by doing everything you can to portray what is essentially a harmless, work-related association in the worst possible light, echoing the Republican campaign talking points you have so diligently been reporting with all your sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, "work-related"? Eh? Obama wasn't forced to associate with Ayers because they happened to work in the same office. Obama chose to. Scjessey, did you read anything about this before you posted about this? -- Noroton (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

<snark>I would like to hereby propose that we add some speculation as to the relationship between John McCain and Vicki Iseman to the main John McCain biographical article. Sure, it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH to make statements about what their relationship actually was when the press hasn't actually made such speculation, but the press has reported on the speculations of various left-wing bloggers and commentators, and by golly, that's good enough for me. Sure, it's possible they didn't have an affair, and there's no actual evidence that they did, but I'd really like to tarnish McCain's reputation by guilt through association. You can expect me to trot out, month after month, blogs and opinion pieces that support the allegations, as well as links to news stories covering those blogs, and I'll be sure to label them reliable sources. I'll make sure to mention that with the sheer number of blogs and opinion pieces about it, it absolutely must be in McCain's biography, and that WP:WEIGHT demands it.</snark> --GoodDamon 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll veer off topic here for a moment because in the long term this might be worthwhile: I've supported keeping the article about McCain and that lobbyist, although I've strenuously objected to an independent WP:BLP article about her because I don't think she's truly notable except for a one-time situation. I think that matter should be mentioned and linked to in the McCain article. I'm on record with all that. I'm an inclusionist, especially with matters of serious public interest in articles on WP:WELLKNOWN people. If anyone proposes a mention of it (a conservative, fair mention of it) over at the McCain article, please ask me to support including that fact and I'll go over there and support it. Or anything else you think I might consider a matter that would help the public understand the potential problems with a public figure. No matter what the partisan side. And if I find relevant positive information on some public figure I don't personally like, I'm more than willing to add that, as well. And I have a record of doing it. I wonder how many of the rest of you have that record. But I'm off topic, sorry. -- Noroton (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more! The has never been consensus before and there never will be consensus. If a person on the board of a corporation with someone notable, there is not a free pass for the latter into the former's BLP, especially when the connotations the mention would bring up would be potentially libelous. The Obama campaign is actually in the process of suing the organization running the ads associating the two on exactly that charge. Wikipedia cannot include information that is against all of its policies and agaisnt United States law! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"There never will be consensus" sounds like something straight out from a WP:CRYSTAL ball or something that this article's WP:OWNER could rightfully say. Hobartimus (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like frustration about a perennial bad proposal being brought up for the several dozenth time with no chance of attaining consensus. Accusations of article ownership and other editing problems really ought to be directed somewhere else. Here they are inflammatory. Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo please refactor your comment above. There is no accusation of article ownership. What we have is inappropriate talk page commentary "There never will be consensus" which is inappropriate because it can mislead other editors into thinking that ownership is going on. Unless you can provide explanation on how "There never will be consensus" is appropriate wording on ANY Wikipedia page that comment should also be redacted. Also note that past discussion from years when Obama was unknown outside the US doesn't mean that anything is decided, as Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and consensus can change. I see that you started contributing in 2007 while Wikipedia exists since 2001 and even this very article has featured status since 2004 and my guess is that you benefited quite a bit from the ability to participate and change previously established language in the article for example. What I see here is a dangerous effort in rhetoric to try to "lock out" newcomers from even the discussion of certain aspects of the article at a time when the previously unknown Obama rises to unprecedented international fame and intrest in him is at an all time high. That means a potentially large influx of editors new to this particular article who never heard or care about if something was discussed a dozen times or not. Finnaly a few excerpts from official policy "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding"... "Wikipedia's processes remain flexible for several reasons, including that new people may bring fresh ideas". Hobartimus (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So you mean to say that there is no WP:OWN issue, but that saying there will never be consensus might incorrectly make it seem as if there is an OWN issue? Okay, acknowledged. If you say it that way it is not so inflammatory, but it is still reasonable to say that consensus is unlikely to the point of being a practical impossibility. Past years do not count. Although Obama's contacts with Ayers date back to 1995 or so (I think) nobody ever made anything of them and it would have been hard to find a good source on it before this year. Ayers has only been an issue since February 2008 when it came up in the campaign. Thus it is fair to say that there has never been consensus to include the Ayers material. Having failed several dozen attempts to gain consensus it is extremely unlikely that there will be consensus, and efforts by proponents of the material to claim that new write-ups, or ongoing use of the matter as a partisan political strategy, have been rejected. Therefore it is safe to conclude that there will not be consensus in the near future unless there is a fundamental change in the situation. Under the circumstances, the repeated proposals to add the material and refusal to close the discussion for days and sometimes weeks on end once the result is clear can fairly be considered disruptive to article editing, and repeatedly re-introducing the proposal after it is rejected (and in many cases while it is still being considered) can also be considered disruptive. Re-introducing a failed proposal under a "consensus can change" theory becomes wikigaming at some point. Holding out for "fresh people" is certainly gaming, and the notion that fresh editors will want to review this from the start is actually an argument for putting it in the FAQ and resolving this more firmly. Re-starting a failed debate 32 times in hopes that one final time will result in adding the material is a huge waste of time. It will only be removed again the 33rd time anyway. Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand I don't argue here for any Ayers coverage be put into the article at this moment. I recognize that at this stage there is no consensus for it. I only want the ability to discuss this and all other matters in the future. Just today I read something new about this (it was about a radio talk show and the Obama campaign's reaction) and although it wasn't very significant or notable it shows that some in the media and the campaign staffs are dealing with this. Now they are doing it in small ways but it might become a bigger issue worthy of a sentence some time in the future. So my point is that discussion should stay open -not this one now but- in the future so if something significant happens with this topic it could be brought up. Hobartimus (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would argue against that. If new information came to light, it would certainly merit revisiting. For instance, if news came out that Obama and Ayers had a lasting friendship, that would probably merit a note in the biography page. I personally am arguing for closure because there hasn't been any new information since the last time this was brought up, and the time before that, and so on -- and I think that's true of the other editors arguing for closure as well. --GoodDamon 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)