Template:Community article probation

	Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 5, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). U.S. Congress FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Illinois FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Hawaii FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles Chicago FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Columbia University African diaspora FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Template:BannerShell

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[4] On the other hand, some are insisting that the no-teleprompter story is just a campaign ploy and that she actually did use one.[5] Could this be teleprompter-gate? Wikidemo (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

== 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@ 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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [6] 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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? [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [8] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [9] They've spent $2.7 million on advertising time. Here is the Obama campaign's furious reaction: [10] 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)[reply]

An analogy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [11]. And, despite Fox News apparently officially (at least initially) declining to broadcast it they "accidentally" showed it [12]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The response

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Response by Erik the Red

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed wording

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.[13] 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?   Justmeherenow (  ) 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP violation. No chance of consensus here. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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.   Justmeherenow (  ) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.   Justmeherenow (  ) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.   Justmeherenow (  ) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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>   Justmeherenow (  ) 19:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated. http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html user:chasesboys

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just added to the family section the information about George Hussein Onyango Obama, as published yesterday by Vanity Fair Italy. It was removed by User:Speer320. Why? I verified the information and it is correct. --Dejudicibus (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary style article that spins off details like this into child articles (otherwise this would be several megabytes in size). There is currently an article for this individual that is expected to be merged into Family of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so where exactly should I place that information? In any case I think it would be more correct to talk about that here rather than simply delete. If Spear320 had asked me to move the information in a more suitable position, I would have do it. Do you agree?--Dejudicibus (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information has already been added in the appropriate place. No need for you to do anything further. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but again Scjessey, your attitude is demeaning here. Try to be constructive and offer advice so that Dejudicibus is able to be a better editor in the future. DRJ (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the "demeaning" commentary, will you? You have not been part of this particular thread, and you've just stepped in to have a go at me. Clearly you are unaware that Dejudicibus and I had a long conversation about this here, rather than filling up this talk page with tangential meta discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm unaware of that. The idea that a person can't come to a page and make comments w/out having significant history on that page is ridiculous and outside of the spirit of Wikipedia. Your attitude is important, and it's not tangential. Your attitude directly affects the reliability of the wiki-process. As I said above, I'm done. You all have a good time. DRJ (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have misread my comment. My objection was that you had not commented in this particular thread (George Obama) and then you came out of nowhere just to have a go at me about my "attitude" (as opposed to commenting on the subject). Rather than lecturing me, you should be apologizing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apology will be forthcoming as I was not out of line. DRJ (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly chastising longstanding editors for no apparent reason isn't out of line? You've been around long enough to know better. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'll answer the question. We've put all the Obama minor family members in the article Family of Barack Obama. The way they all got there was that some people added them here and they got deleted as being fairly unimportant to Obama's life. They created separate articles for each family member and those got deleted often as being non-notable. Tthe information had to go somewhere (it has lots of sources, and people want to know - it is notable). The best approach, meaning the one that hasn't been deleted, is to put all the family members together in an article. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

<-- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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