Click to manually purge the article's cache

Template:Community article probation

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 Top-importance). Template:USP-Article 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. Barack Obama FA‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 High‑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. High This article has been rated as High-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. Kansas FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas 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.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas 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. 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 Indonesia FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia 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. Africa: Kenya FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). African diaspora FA‑class Mid‑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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics FA‑class Mid‑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. 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 Template:WPCD-People

	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 November 4, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 18, 2004 Today's featured article Main Page January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept September 16, 2008 Featured article review Kept November 4, 2008 Today's featured article Main Page December 2, 2008 Featured article review Kept March 10, 2009 Featured article review Kept A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008. Current status: Featured article

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83

Special discussion pages Article probation, Incidents Historical diffs, Weight, Race

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

I have started this RFC to avoid the back and forth editing over the use of the phrase "Rising star" in the article. The issue, as I see it, depends on two conflicting ideas, and I am not sure what the appropriate way to handle this is. Here, from my take, are the two ideas that are the source of the conflict:

• Wikipedia:Featured article criteria mandates that a featured article is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
• It is also important that Wikipedia article faithfully represent the information in the source material they cite.

So here is the crux of the problem. The source article, which is from a reliable source, uses the phrase "rising star". The idea that is trying to be expressed here is not under dispute. He was clearly a "rising star" in the sense of having a meteoric rise in popularity and importance due to his democratic senate primary win in 2004. The fact that such a rise in popularity and importance occured is not under dispute at all. Such an occurance is well documented in reliable source, and as such, it should most certainly have a prominent place in the article. The fact is a very important one, and should not be minimized or marginalized in any way. The problem is that the term "rising star" is slang, it does not represent writing which is "brilliant, and of a professional standard" as should be expected of an encylopedia article. The source material uses the phrase, but there must be some way that we can capture the concept while using language which is appropriate to the encyclopedic nature of this article. This RFC is intentionally being narrowly defined as how to deal with the phrase "rising star" from linguistic point of view. This is not an open debate over Obama's politics or importance or anything else. I just want to know how should we faithfully represent the source material without resorting to using the same slang that the source material uses. --Jayron32 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in quotes "rising star" to indicate it is the wording of the source, and not a product of the article prose/style? Tarc (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a novel idea, but rather self-evident once you put it like that. What about taking it a step further. Why not do something like this:

"His landslide win in the Democratic Party primary during the 2004 Illinois Senate race, caused USA Today to call him a "rising star" in the Democratic Party."[4]

Such phrasing would maintain the integrity of the source material, but also make it clear that Wikipedia is repeating the use of slang in another source; such direct quoting would seem to be a reasonable solution to the problem, since it attributes the informal tone to the source material, rather than leaving it as part of the article. That seems a very reasonable solution. I think as long as we both directly quote the phrase, and directly name the source in the article, it solves the problem. What does anyone else think? --Jayron32 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes to much sense and would end this matter. Where is the drama in that :) j/k. Nice logical suggestion :) --Tom (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Well done. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sounds good. Grsz¹¹ 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, looks good and keeps to the source. Brothejr (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the informal phrase "rising star" is used, it should be used as a direct quote to a source. However, I would prefer to avoid the informality of that term altogether, and provide a more encyclopedic wording of the same concept. There are occasionally catch phrases that become closely identified with a biographical subject, and are used by many sources. For example, Reagan as "the Teflon president" might ascend to this, or "Friend of Bill [Clinton]" might. Both of those are informal, but have become almost tropes, and might be mentioned as such. The term "rising star" is used much more generically, with little specific affinity to Obama; he has been described that way in many sources, but many other politicians have also been so described. Hence there is no special reason to insist on the informality for this article. LotLE×talk 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC—based on Jayron32's unsubstantiated personal opinion that "rising star" is "slang"—is unfounded. The proposal to use scare quotes and attribute the description "rising star" to only a March 18, 2004 USA Today article—one of multiple, authoritative, cited sources for the description—is unneeded, inappropriate and unacceptable. Newross (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rising star

1. Jayron32's October 21, 2009 edit removing this sentence added to the lede six months ago by QueenofBattle:

   His prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party.

   is an improvement in accuracy—his U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory in March 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party; being a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party led to his selection to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
2. Unitanode's October 21, 2009 edit removing "as a star" from this 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection sentence revised eight months ago by Happyme22:

   a combined 9.1 million viewers saw Obama's speech, which was a highlight of the convention and elevated his status as a star in the Democratic Party.

   left it three words shorter.
3. Unitanode's October 21, 2009 edit removing "rising star" from this 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection sentence revised seven months ago by me (Newross):

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

   and rewriting it to say:

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which raised his prominence within in the national Democratic Party almost overnight, and started speculation about a presidential future.

   left it awkward, inaccurate and unfaithful to the cited sources.

The noun "rising star" is:

• not a WP:Peacock term, as claimed by Jayron32 and Unitanode
• not Way too biased, as claimed by 67.60.50.5
• not slang, as claimed with no substantiation by Jayron32 using silly comparisons to actual slang phrases like "cool dude" and "the bitchinest cat on the block"
• not a colloquialism or "informal English", as claimed with no substantiation by Jayron32
• not found in reference works like:

  Cassell's dictionary of slang
  Informal English : puncture ladies, egg harbors, Mississippi marbles, and other curious words and phrases
  McGraw-Hill's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions
  NTC's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions
  The Oxford dictionary of modern slang
  The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English
  Slang! : the topical dictionary of Americanisms
  Stone the crows : Oxford dictionary of modern slang
  etc.

• according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 242 years old and defined as:

  a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a rising star in politics>

• used in professionally written newspaper news articles over the last quarter century about the selection of these Democratic and Republican National Convention keynote speakers:

  Mario Cuomo (1984), Ann Richards (1988), Thomas Kean (1988), Bill Bradley (1992), Phil Gramm (1992), Evan Bayh (1996), Susan Molinari (1996), Harold Ford, Jr. (2000), Barack Obama (2004), Mark Warner (2008).

• used in professionally written Encyclopædia Britannica articles about:

  politicians Eric Cantor, Brian Joseph Lenihan, Peter Mandelson, George Osborne, Najib Abdul Razak
  physicist Enrico Fermi
  History of Central Asia - The Middle Ages - The Mongol epoch - Mongol rule (Timur)
  Japan - Domestic Affairs (Book of the Year 2001)
  The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections (Book of the Year 2002)
  Germany - Government and Politics (Book of the Year 2003)
  The U.S. Election of 2004 (Book of the Year 2004)
  etc.

The noun "star" is:

• according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, over eight centuries old and defined as:

  5a : the principal member of a theatrical or operatic company who usually plays the chief roles
  5b : a highly publicized theatrical or motion-picture performer
  5c : an outstandingly talented performer <a track star>
  5d : a person who is preeminent in a particular field

• used once in the professionally written Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama

  (which is one-fourth the length of this amateurishly written Wikipedia article about Barack Obama)

These U.S. and international newspaper, newsmagazine, news service, and television and radio news networks reported that Barack Obama was a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party after his March 17, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory and before his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address:

1. The Boston Globe
2. Chicago Sun-Times
3. Chicago Tribune
4. Christian Science Monitor
5. Daily Herald (Arlington Heights)
6. International Herald Tribune
7. The New York Times
8. Newsweek
9. Peoria Journal Star
10. The Philadelphia Inquirer
11. South Florida Sun-Sentinel
12. St. Petersburg Times
13. USA Today
14. The Wall Street Journal
15. The Washington Post
16. The Washington Times
17. Daily Nation
18. The Globe and Mail
19. The Independent
20. Associated Press
21. Newhouse News Service
22. ABC News
23. CBS News
24. NBC News
25. CNN
26. MSNBC
27. PBS
28. NPR
    etc.

in professionally written news articles such as:

1. Tilove, Jonathan (Newhouse News Service) (March 18, 2004). "Barack Obama: black Senate candidate a rising star." Mobile Register, p. A6.
2. Howlett, Debbie (March 18, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate". USA Today.
3. Harwood, John. (March 31, 2004). "Presidential politics overshadows rise of state-level stars." The Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
4. Romano, Lois (April 10, 2004). "Kerry sprinkles jobs message with attacks on Iraq policy." The Washington Post, p. A4.
5. Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7.
6. Kelley, Kevin (April 13, 2004). "Obama ahead in US Senate race." Daily Nation.
7. Kuhnhenn, James (May 24, 2004). "With seven retirements, control of Senate is at stake in election." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A02.
8. Kinzer, Stephen (June 26, 2004). "Candidate, under pressure, quits Senate race in Illinois." 'The New York Times, p. A8.
9. Schoenburg, Bernard (June 26, 2004). "Ryan quits Senate race; state GOP braces for a tough fight against popular Democrat." Peoria Journal Star, p. A1.
10. Mendell, David (July 7, 2004). "Fundraising has set record, Obama says; $4 million raked in in the last quarter." Chicago Tribune, p. 1 (Metro).
11. Healy, Patrick (July 13, 2004). "Kerry hones campaign themes; with the big event two weeks away, picks up pace, cash." The Boston Globe, p. A3.
12. Sweet, Lynn (July 14, 2004). "Dems plan to showcase Obama, Reagan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 26.
13. Zuckerman, Jill; Mendell, David (July 15, 2004). "Obama to give keynote address." Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
14. Krol, Eric (July 15, 2004). "Convention spotlight to shine on Obama." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights), p. 15
15. Gibson, William E. (July 18, 2004). "Parties prep for prime time, but networks cut coverage of conventions." South Florida Sun-Sentinel, p. 1A.
16. Miller, Steve (July 21, 2004). "Ryan hangs on to Illinois ballot; delay in withdrawal worries GOP, blocks new candidates." The Washington Times, p. A04.
17. Lannan, Maura Kelley (Associated Press) (July 22, 2004). "Times get tougher for Ill. GOP; in the land of Lincoln, one Senate candidate dropped out, and replacements aren't jumping in." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A03.
18. Wills, Christopher (Associated Press) (July 25, 2004). "Ready to take his place on national stage; Democrats' rising star will give speech at convention." The Herald-Sun (Durham, North Carolina), p. A5.
19. Zeller Jr., Tom; Truslow, Hugh K. (July 25, 2004). "Democrats, lend me your ears." The New York Times, p. 12 (Week in Review).
20. Smith, Adam C. (July 25, 2004). "The true Kerry may emerge in Boston." 'St. Petersburg Times, p. 1A.
21. Brackett, Ron (July 25, 2004). "The Parties' big parties." St. Petersburg Times, p. 10A.
22. Knowlton, Brian (July 26, 2004). "Convention themes aim for the center; Democrats in Boston." International Herald Tribune, p. 1.
23. . (August 2, 2004). "Star Power. Showtime: some are on the rise; others have long been fixtures in the firmament. A galaxy of bright Democratic lights." Newsweek, pp. 48–51.
24. Milligan, Susan (July 27, 2004). "In Obama, Democrats see their future". The Boston Globe, p. B8.
25. Paulson, Amanda (July 27, 2004). "Showcasing a coterie of new Democratic stars." Christian Science Monitor, p. 10.
26. McCarthy, Shawn (July 27, 2004). "Minorities looking for gains in battle for the presidency; support seen as critical in key states." The Globe and Mail, p. A3.
27. Cornwell, Rupert (July 27, 2004). "Democratic Convention: an unknown rookie, but can Obama be first black president?" The Independent (London), p. 5.
28. Merzer, Martin; McCaffrey, Shannon (July 27, 2004). "Looking ahead with eye on past." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A01.
29. Chancellor, Carl (July 27, 2004). "A rising star gets a key role tonight; Barack Obama, the keynote speaker, already has proven he can reach across societal divides and win support." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A10.
30. Wertheimer, Linda (July 27, 2004). "Obama to rise to stage in Boston." Morning Edition, NPR
31. Brackett, Elizabeth (July 27, 2004). "Rising star." The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS
    etc.

The cited March 18, 2004 New York Times and USA Today news articles and the two chapters (pages 235–259)—about the period between Obama's March 17, 2004 landslide U.S. Senate primary election and his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address—in the David Mendell (author of the Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama) book Obama: From Promise to Power should be sufficient WP:Reliable sources to support this amateurishly written Wikipedia article's sentence:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't think you are going to win any arguements here by continuing to refer to Wikipedia in such derogatory terms as an "amateurishly" written article. You seem to be missing the very basics of Wikipedia, namely that it is an encyclopedia written not by professionals, but rather by everyday folk. Also, there seems to be little need for the chronology of the sentence's edits, including identifying specific editors, as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. No one owns their individual contibutions. Lastly, haven't we already reached consensus on this?? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole discussion to be incredibly shallow and unnecessary. For Christ’s sake, It’s just wording. It’s laughable.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. By amateurishly-written vs. professionally-written, I meant written-by-everyday-folk vs. written-by-professional-writers.
   I did not mean to disparage the hard work of editors who have made positive contributions to this article—many of whom have been driven away by its pervasively hostile and unpleasant editing environment.
   This article meets many featured article criteria and is not poorly written, but its strength has never been criteria 1(a): that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
   My point was that an accurate, reliably sourced term that is not slang, not a colloquialism , not informal language, and is used in professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles, should not be excluded from use in this written-by-everyday-folk encyclopedia article.
2. I noted when the changed sentences were last revised—6 months, 8 months, and 7 months ago—to show that the sentences had been stable.
   I noted who had last revised the changed sentences to show why they might be concerned about the changes.
   I agree that editors do not own their Wikipedia contributions, but it is not unreasonable for an editor who has endeavored to find the best available references and carefully word a sentence to accurately reflect those references, would take issue with casual changes to it made for bogus reasons (e.g. claiming—based on unsubstantiated personal opinion—that "rising star" is "way to biased", or a peacock term, or slang, or a colloquialism , or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles).
3. No, we haven't already reached consensus on this.

Newross (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very brief reply

You appeal to authority, citing David Mendell, author of the EB article on Pres. Obama, as someone who used that phrase. Yet, you fail to mention that the article he wrote doesn't actually use the phrase. Do you care to comment a to why you think that might be? We are not a news outlet, a radio talk program, or any of the other sources you cite. That these sources call him that allows us to quote them calling him that, but to call him that in an encyclopedia article seems PEACOCK-y, and not just to me. There are others here who agree that if we use the term, it needs to be in quoting a source, and even Mullen himself didn't put that in the EB article, at all. UA 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was appealing to evidence that ten Encyclopædia Britannica articles using the term "rising star" to describe politicians demonstrates that it is used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles and is not informal English.
2. I did not say David Mendell used the term "rising star" in his Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama; I said he used the word "star" once in his Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama.
3. I cited chapters 17, 18, and 19 (pages 235–271) from David Mendell's book Obama: From Promise to Power as one of four sources for the sentence:

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

   because it is good source and refers to "his rising star" (on page 247) and being "a rising star" (on page 268).

Newross (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be necessary to say, I concur completely with Newross on the linguistic and encyclopedic appropriateness issues. The very section we are currently writing/reading was titled "RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article". On that basis several editors weighed in with support of removing the term, and in doing so repeated or expounded on the misnomers "slang" and "informal language". Yet the term in question, rising star, is neither slang nor informal language, and this fact presumably comes as a surprise to those editors who have thus far weighed in. (Making it more surprising when someone claims a consensus has already been reached—on the basis of a collective misunderstanding that has already come to light?!) It seems to me that, at a certain point in time, the fact that Barack Obama was a "rising star" was the argument against him as much as it was the argument for him, so peacockery is an odd complaint now.

Jimmy Carter was anything but a rising star in the party in the years prior to his presidential run, with the popular response being "Jimmy who?" Richard Nixon, on the other hand, was so far from being a rising star as to be thought of as yesterday's news—"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore". That some people are and others are not rising stars is neither an irrelevant nor a superficial aspect of their path to the White House. I don't see what the problem is with noting that here, given the plethora of reliable sources Newross points out for the term's application to Obama dating to that period of several months alone, that Obama was in fact a rising star.

Where I differ from Newross, however, is the time period for which the term is most appropriately used. Election to the state senate doesn't make you a rising star, it makes you a state senator—one of more than a thousand otherwise anonymous state senators in the country—unless you distinguish yourself otherwise and/or fate or a recognition of your potential results in other doors opening for you. Obama's true rising star period—and the one worth acknowledging in the lead—revolves around his address to the convention, beginning with the second two-thirds of the refs Newross gives, which are about him being picked to give that convention address and not actually about his state senate win—and reverberating across the country with the national press coverage and increased name recognition afterward. It was his fame (and comportment, eloquence and compelling story, etc.) in this period, and not in the pre- and post-state senate win period—that allowed for his swift progression to U.S. senator two years later and president two years after that, a rather swift and biographically quite remarkable ascendancy. (Is a singer, for example, a rising star the moment a local showcase draws the attention of a big-time agent and manager and record company, or at the moment they make their national debut?) Did dozens of local and national media and Dem party people see Obama's potential earlier? Certainly. Is that the part of Obama's rising star status that bears being singled out in the lead? I would argue that it is not. Had Obama not been picked to give the convention speech—or had he fumbled it miserably—his star might well have been limited to that of big fish in the Illinois pond, at least for a few more years. Had Obama won the primary but merely came in a strong second in the general for the state senate, I'm guessing he would've been encouraged from inside and outside the party to run for U.S. Senate anyway, allowing for continued ascendancy. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and setting a course or breaking a stasis may be the most significant point from the standpoint of the individual, but from the standpoint of the journey—the bio—the "rising" part within the party comes in the shift from a local to a national stage. To give more emphasis on star status in the national party to the state senate win specifically than we do on the convention speech, from pick to delivery to reaction, is I hope an obvious mistake, and I reiterate that Newross' own refs seem to support that.

To the initiator of the RfC, Jayron32, then, from "the linguistic point of view", there is no basis to object to the use of the term, free from quotes or textual attribution, in the manner that QueenofBattle added it (as the result of discussion at the time, if I recall correctly), and the way to deal with it is to restore it as it has stood these past six months (or in some improved way), linked to the period surrounding his convention speech, and not to his state senate win. Abrazame (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to RFC Restricting my commentary to the nature of the language of "rising star," I think Newross' research on this point is conclusive, and it can be used without scare quotes in the narrative voice of the article. Ray^Talk 16:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to RFC The term "rising star" is widely used in several fields, it clearly applies here, it has and can be used in professional writing, it is engaging. Thus, it is fine for use in this article without quotes or in-text attribution. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Belated reply to RFC I have to agree with Newross, Ray, Wasted Time R and any others I might have missed - the term "rising star" is completely appropriate for this article. Tvoz/talk 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses.
I don't quite understand Abrazame's references to Obama's election to the state Senate.
No one said his elections to the state Senate (in 1996, 1998, and 2002) made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party in 2004.

• I am not recommending using "rising star" in the lede, which per WP:LEADCITE is a summary of the article and does not cite any references.
• I am saying that in the 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection of this article, "rising star" is the best and most historically accurate description of Obama's status in the national Democratic Party the morning after his March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory—as reported in the cited references: David Mendell's 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power and in contemporaneous news articles "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born" in The New York Times and "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate" in USA Today.
• Obama's status as a rising star in the national Democratic Party and the favorite to win an important Republican-held U.S. Senate seat (the U.S. Senate was then narrowly divided with a 51-49 Republican majority), landed him on the Kerry campaign's short list of potential Democratic National Convention keynote speakers along with several Democratic governors from swing states: first-term Governors Jennifer Granholm, 45, of Michigan; Janet Napolitano, 46, of Arizona; Mark Warner, 49, of Virginia; Bill Richardson, 56, of New Mexico; and second-term Governor Tom Vilsack, 53, of Iowa.
• Kerry selected Obama as keynote speaker after being impressed by Obama while campaigning with him in Chicago on April 8–9, 2004[5] and again on June 29, 2004,[6][7]—four days after E. J. Dionne's Washington Post column "In Illinois, a star prepares" and the withdrawal of Obama's Republican opponent Jack Ryan,[8][9]—and one day after the July 5, 2004 issue of Time magazine hit the newsstands with a large color picture of Obama accompanying the two-page article "Dreaming about the Senate" on pages 34–35, followed on page 36 by the article "Leaving blacks cold" about the Kerry campaign's tepid support by blacks. On July 2, 2004, the Kerry campaign informed Obama that they had chosen him to be the DNC keynote speaker.
• After the Illinois Senate adjourned at 8:13 pm CDT on Saturday, July 24, 2004, Obama flew from Springfield, Illinois to Boston to appear on three of the five television network news Sunday morning talk shows.
  • As the lead guest on Tim Russert's Meet the Press on NBC, Russert's second question to Obama was about Ryan Lizza's Atlantic Monthly article "The Natural. Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?"[10]
  • As the lead guest on Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation on CBS, the show began with:[11]

    SCHIEFFER: So we'll ask our guests, Senator Obama, and we must say Senator Obama is now being talked about as being kind of a rock star of Democratic politics. He's run a sensational race for the Democratic nomination for the Senate out here. And he has been chosen to give the keynote address. Do you feel any pressure?

Newross (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The last I'll say about this is, I thought we were writing an encyclopedia article, not a magazine article. If one person in this discussion can cite even one example of an encyclopedia article using such a term without it being a direct quote from a source, I'll completely cede the point. I don't think you'll find such an article, because that doesn't sound like encyclopedic language. UA 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO using a metaphor such as "landslide victory" doesn't seem encyclopedic either. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newross, I acknowledge that the rising of Obama's star notably includes his primary and electoral wins. But as I pointed out, 2/3 of your usage references in your main post here are actually from the time after he was chosen in July to give the DNC keynote speech. Even in your response most recently above, your quoting of questions dated to July 25 and reference of then-yet-unpublished articles support my assertion, not your own, as of course the velocity of the rise in his "rock star" status had just been given the turbo boost of its first national evidence: the gathering decision and ultimate choice in July as the convention's keynote speaker. That trajectory would not have been spoken of so frequently in that period if Kerry had chosen Bill Richardson or Tom Vilsack, as you note having been on his short list, to give the keynote instead of Obama, and Obama had not had that opportunity to take the national stage.

I do have that timeline straight. My apologies for condensing the broader election cycle timeline in my statement—his progression to U.S. senator was a few months later, not two years later. Indeed, there are only 100 actively serving U.S. senators at a given moment, unlike the thousand-plus state senators; there are two major party nominees for each seat that is up, so that particular point of mine is diluted though not nullified. I also take your point that you are speaking about the article, not the lead, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand corrected on both points.

Obviously he was everything he was in either timeframe, and obviously the leap in going from state senator to U.S. senator is automatically a hugely significant one in notability, national relevancy and "stardom", so it's not that I'm disagreeing with you or your refs, nor would I object to the usage of the term where you suggest, I simply think it's more appropriate (and, again, supported by the refs) for the period a few months later, represented by the following paragraph in the bio, where it originally had been.

To Unitanode and Gordon Ecker (and Newross), and most relevant to the question posed in this RfC, am I also mistaken that Newross has correctly cited the Encyclopædia Brittanica as using the term "rising star"? After the two supportive replies following my post, the most recent two posts here completely ignore the bulk of Newross' statements above. Do the Encyclopædia Britannica articles of which Newross speaks cite quotes by others rather than using the language themselves? Could we get quotes featuring a couple of those usages to help us clarify the encyclopedic issue and make/revise our decisions here? Abrazame (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obama's March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party—as reported by news articles from March 17, 2004 to July 14, 2004.
• Obama being a rising star in the national Democratic Party led to his selection as Democratic National Convention keynote speaker—as reported by news articles from July 15, 2004 to July 27, 2004.
• If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, the Atlantic Monthly would still have published Ryan Lizza's article "The Natural. Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?" (which does not mention the Democratic National Convention nor Obama's selection as its keynote speaker) on the first day of the Democratic National Convention on July 26, 2004.
• If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, then like the other rising stars on the short list to be keynote speaker but who were not selected, he would have had another prime-time speaking role at the convention.
• If Jennifer Granholm had been selected as DNC keynote speaker over Obama instead of vice versa, Obama may have only appeared on one of five television network news Sunday morning talk shows (e.g. Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation on CBS).[12]
• Being selected as the keynote speaker of a national political party convention is an honor, but it doesn't make someone a political "rock star" if they are not already at least "rock star-esque":
  • Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7:

    Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."

Some professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles using the term "rising star":

• "Abu Abbas." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Abbas grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and, under the nom de guerre Abu Abbas, became a rising star in Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command, which was known for its daring, ruthless, and frequently disastrous attacks on Israel.

• "Jerry Bailey." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Bailey enjoyed considerable success around the country prior to establishing his presence as a rising star on the New York state circuit in 1982.

• "Anne Bracegirdle." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Bracegirdle retired at the height of her career, about 1707, when she began to be eclipsed by the rising star of Anne Oldfield.

• "Eric Cantor." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  After his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Cantor was considered a rising star among House Republicans; he became chief deputy whip of the Republican caucus after only two years.

• "history of Central Asia." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Furthermore, instead of seeking the assistance of petty eastern European princes, Tokhtamysh hitched his wagon to the rising star of Timur, with whose support he reasserted Mongol supremacy in Russia.

• "John Zachary DeLorean." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  A rising star in the automotive industry, DeLorean helped to revitalize Packard before leaving in 1956 to join General Motors.

• "Enrico Fermi." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  In 1929 Fermi, as Italy's first professor of theoretical physics and a rising star in European science, was named by Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini to his new Accademia d'Italia, a position that included a substantial salary (much larger than that for any ordinary university position), a uniform, and a title (“Excellency”).

• "Cathy Freeman." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Cathy Freeman's silver medal in the 400-metre run at the 1996 Games in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., introduced this rising star from Australia to the Olympic world.

• "Neil Gaiman." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  The work established them as rising stars in the comic world, and soon the two were noticed by publishers on both sides of the Atlantic.

• "Jan Lechoń." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Lechon was considered a rising star of new Polish poetry.

• "Brian Joseph Lenihan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Well regarded for his affable manner, he was seen as one of the rising stars of the Fianna Fail party, along with his ally Charles Haughey--later prime minister--whom he succeeded as minister of justice in 1964.

• "Peter Mandelson." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  He promoted Kinnock’s modernization agenda and ensured high media profiles for some of Labour’s rising stars, then in their 30s, such as Blair and Brown.

• "George Osborne." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Osborne entered Parliament in 2001, and he was quickly seen as a rising star.

  * "Najib Abdul Razak." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Early in his parliamentary career, Najib Razak smoothed relations between the government and the hereditary ruling class in the Pahang region, and he was seen as one of the rising stars within the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).

• "Rick Rubin." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  After hearing “It’s Yours,” Russell Simmons, who was already a rising star in the hip-hop scene, joined Rubin at Def Jam.

• "The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  At one point Republicans appeared poised to replace a rising Democratic star, Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who was admonished by his Senate colleagues following an ethics investigation into his campaign contributions and acceptance of personal gifts.

Re: landslide victory

• Multiple contemporaneous news articles described Obama's March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election win as a "landslide victory":
  • Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (March 17, 2004). "Obama defeats Hull's millions, Hynes' name; Consistent effort results in landslide for Hyde Parker." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

    Maybe it wasn't such a bad ballot name after all. Barack Obama, who went from Hawaii to Harvard to Hyde Park, won a landslide victory in the Democratic primary Tuesday, bringing him one step closer to becoming the only African American in the U.S. Senate.

  • Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state." Chicago Tribune, p. 1:

    Barack Obama, an African-American state senator and former civil-rights lawyer from Hyde Park, won a landslide victory over six competitors Tuesday to assume the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, setting the stage for a crucial contest in November that could tip the balance of power in Congress. Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. He won over not only urban black voters, but also many suburban whites. With 89 percent of precincts reporting around the state, Obama led his next closest rival, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, by 54 percent of the vote to 23 percent, as expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize.

  • Moe, Doug (March 18, 2004). "Tommy and Co. disliked paper." The Capital Times, p. 2A:

    Barack Obama, who won a landslide victory in Tuesday's Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, is "of counsel" with the law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, which has offices in Chicago and Madison. Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and a highly-sought-after attorney upon graduating. He picked the Miner, Barnhill and Galland firm because of its strong reputation as a civil rights firm. "A spectacular guy," Chuck Barnhill said Wednesday of Obama, who, if elected, would be the third black ever to serve in the U.S. Senate. One of the others, Carol Moseley Braun, also was an attorney with the Miner, Barnhill firm.

  • Fornek, Scott (March 18, 2004). "Obama's appeal spans racial lines; Dem Senate candidate built diverse coalition on universal issues." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 9:

    He ran television commercials featuring images of white and black Democratic icons—from the late Sen. Paul Simon to the late Mayor Harold Washington. He built a coalition that spanned racial, ethnic and religious lines. He talked about issues with universal appeal to Democrats—from his opposition to the war in Iraq to his call to repeal President Bush's tax cuts. And he embraced his African-American heritage while reaching out to all voters. Those were the building blocks of Barack Obama s landslide victory in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. But the foundation was the candidate himself. The product of a racially mixed marriage, he had a stellar resume that includes a Harvard education, years of community activism and experience as a state senator from Hyde Park, factors that contributed to his ability to win votes across racial lines.

  • Polansek, Tom (March 18, 2004). "No rest for the winners; Obama, Ryan hit campaign trail after primary wins." The State Journal-Register, p. 7:

    In Tuesday's Democratic primary, Obama won a landslide victory with 53 percent of the vote in a field of seven candidates. On the Republican side, Ryan won 36 percent of the vote in an eight-way race.

  • Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. 4A:

    Three weeks ago, state Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be an also-ran among the eight Democrats running in Illinois for the nomination to an open U.S. Senate seat. Today, three days after his landslide victory in that crowded field, the self-described "skinny guy with the funny name" is the odds-on favorite to win in November and become the only African-American in the Senate and only the third black senator since Reconstruction. Partisans in Washington consider him a shooting star in the November elections. A few whisper about a presidential future.

  • Polansek, Tom (May 3, 2004). "Winning strategies differ among black politicians." The State Journal-Register, p. 1:

    Days after Barack Obama won a landslide victory in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, former Gov. Jim Edgar said skin color had ceased to be an issue in Illinois politics. Obama, an African-American state senator from Chicago, ran strong in white areas and beat opponent Dan Hynes in Hynes' own Chicago ward.

• The noun "landslide" is:
  • according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 171 years old and defined as:

    2a : a great majority of votes for one side
    2b : an overwhelming victory

• The term "landslide victory" is used in many professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles, including:
  • "Calvin Coolidge." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Running on the slogan “Keep Cool with Coolidge,” he won a landslide victory over conservative Democrat John W. Davis and Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette, gaining about 54 percent of the popular vote to Davis's 29 percent and La Follette's nearly 17 percent; in the electoral college Coolidge received 382 votes to Davis's 136 and La Follette's 13.

  • "Dwight D. Eisenhower." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Democrats again selected Adlai E. Stevenson and named Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee as his running mate, but Eisenhower's great personal popularity turned the election into a landslide victory, the most one-sided race since 1936, as the Republican ticket garnered more than 57 percent of the popular vote and won the electoral vote 457 to 73.

  • "Indian National Congress." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Nevertheless, her New Congress Party scored a landslide victory in the 1971 elections, and for a period it was unclear which party was the true rightful heir of the Indian National Congress label.
    
    In the parliamentary elections held in March 1977, the opposition Janata Party scored a landslide victory over the Congress Party, winning 295 seats in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's Parliament) against 153 for the Congress; Gandhi herself lost to her Janata opponent.

  • "Labour Party." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    This “New Labour” agenda, combined with highly professionalized political marketing, produced a landslide victory in the general election of 1997, returning Labour to power after 18 years of Conservative Party rule and securing Tony Blair's appointment as prime minister.
    
    In 2001 the party won a second consecutive landslide victory, capturing a 167-seat majority—the largest-ever second-term majority for any party in the House of Commons.

  • "Richard M. Nixon." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Renominated with Agnew in 1972, Nixon defeated his Democratic challenger, liberal Sen. George S. McGovern, in one of the largest landslide victories in the history of American presidential elections: 46.7 million to 28.9 million in the popular vote and 520 to 17 in the electoral vote.

  • "Scotland." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    After Labour won a landslide victory in the general elections of May 1997—in which the Conservatives lost all their Scottish seats and the SNP took 6 seats in Parliament—the Labour government of Tony Blair called a referendum for establishing a Scottish Parliament with a broad range of powers, including control over the country's education and health systems.

  • "Margaret Thatcher." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Thatcher won election to a second term in a landslide—the biggest victory since Labour's great success in 1945—gaining a parliamentary majority of 144 with just over 42 percent of the vote.

Newross (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored longstanding sentence with historically accurate description from multiple cited authoritative contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, I have undone it. You surely have the most words here about this subject, but you are the only one who feels the wording "rising start" is appropriate. The clear consensus is to leave the wording as it is, which is what my reversion has restored. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no clear consensus or justification whatsover for YOUR revert. Newross (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than all the discussion above?! I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about this; it's plain to see that you are the only one toting this wagon. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, several editors responded to the RFC in support of the wording "rising star". Tvoz/talk 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold, both QueenofBattle and Newross are incorrect. Newross has clearly (and amply) presented the basis for "rising star" as encyclopedically appropriate wording, whether anybody wishes to acknowledge it or not. However, the longstanding use of the term in the article, as I indicated and defended as most appropriate, was in reference to his keynote address, and not where Newross has added it at the primary win. I realize there has been a lot of verbiage involved in this discussion but editors are quick to dismiss one or two points, as QueenofBattle's post of 25 October shows. I'm quite disappointed that nobody has weighed in on this since the most recent (1 November) spate of Newross' thorough research. When an editor so fully throws himself into tracking down watertight evidence supporting usage, etc., it should not simply go ignored for weeks. I would request that my own points also be adequately responded to. Abrazame (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should try to use more formal, less poetic language when it is practical. I'll bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I would go with "landslide" but try to find more formal and precise ways to say "rising star" and "overnight". Though a metaphor, landslide is specialized and widely used term with respect to election results, and there is no better way to say it as far as I know. "Rising star" is almost always used imprecisely, and begs the question of what they are a star of. I'm surprised that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it outside of the entertainment field (music, films, and perhaps sports) where it does serve as a specialized term. It can probably be said more precisely, e.g. that Obama was perceived within the Democratic Party as a viable / attractive future candidate for high office. "Overnight" is usually hyperbole should only be used if literally true; otherwise we should be more specific, e.g. "in the next several days" or "by the end of the week", etc. But even if true it sounds like hyperbole and we should use a term that makes it clear we mean it, e.g. "by the next morning". We source facts to reliable sources, not necessarily word choice and tone. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rising star which I have never considered to be slang. Newross's evidence clearly shows that this is true. The current version (using prominence) is incredibly awkward, and, as mentioned above, doesn't keep the integrity of the sourced material. Deserted Cities (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it's informal speech that uses a metaphor that doesn't describe the situation completely or squarely - not that it's slang as such. A star is a stellar object in the night sky; a "rising star" by extension is a metaphor for something that, having appeared faintly on the horizon thereafter rises and thereby become more visible. In common speech a star is a person who has gained fame and adoration, not necessarily respect or power, among a wide part of the populace - without respect to their reputation among experts or insiders. The term is most commonly used to describe entertainment personalities so using it to describe politicians is a metaphor about a metaphor. To say that Obama became a star doesn't mean he became a real contender, or entered the corridors of power. It is to say that a large number of political non-insiders became fans. Is that specifically what we want to say about him, or could we describe it more precisely? Perhaps he did capture the popular imagination then. But he also showed himself to be an up-and-coming political candidate then, which is a somewhat different thing. Taking this back to entertainment, you might say that Sean Penn became a "rising star" after Fast Times at Ridgemont High. But you could not say that Mickey Rourke became a rising star after Diner (film) or Rumble Fish, even though among critics and film lovers that was a much more auspicious beginning. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The noun rising star may have arisen centuries ago as a metaphor, but according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, since 1767 it has been defined as:

a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a rising star in politics>

and used this way in professionally-written encyclopedia articles.

Newross (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much informal speech has old origins. "Rising star" is clearly colorful as opposed to precise language. That particular dicdef is not quite right, although "particular field" hints at the issue; there is a connotation of fandom and popular support with respect to a certain group, not importance as such. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break to aid navigation

How about if everyone takes a look at the current text, which avoids the controversial and POV-ish term "rising star"? It seems to present the operative point in an encyclopedic manner. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rising star" isn't controversial or POV-ish. Its a common term. So common, in fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it, as do many newspapers, including one that specifically mention BHO. Deserted Cities (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common? Perhaps given its use in EB. POV-ish? I think so given that one doesn't refer to another they may dislike as a "star". Controversial? Clearly so given the many, many paragraphs of text discussing it on this very talk page... QueenofBattle (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure, assuming you mean the following, I believe it is accurate, neutral, and well written:

... In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which quickly raised his prominence within the national Democratic Party, and started speculation about a presidential future. ...

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QueenofBattle’s dislike of Obama is not a valid reason to remove a neutral, well-sourced, historically accurate description of Obama as a rising star in the national Democratic Party, which led to his selection to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

This narrowly framed RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article was initiated on October 22, 2009 by Jayron32
based on their unsubstantiated claim that "rising star" was slang or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles.
Both of these claims have been thoroughly refuted with extensive references to many dictionaries and many professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica article.

For seven months—from March 24, 2009 to October 21, 2009—this featured article said:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

fully supported by a citation to these contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

• Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
• Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born." The New York Times, p. A20.
• Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. A04.
• Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign." The New Republic, pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
  
• Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). "The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?" The New Yorker, pp. 32–38.
• Dionne Jr., E. J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares." The Washington Post, p. A29.
• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0060858206, pp. 235–259.
  • p. 247: "Word of Obama's rising star was now extending beyond Illinois, spreading especially fast through influential Washington political circles like blue-chip law firms, party insiders, lobbying houses."
  • p. 268: "His campaign fund-raising was now moving at a furious pace and the buzz around him as a rising star was increasing by the hour."

This historically accurate, reliably sourced sentence should not have been revised, as it was, by Unitanode on October 21, 2009,
in response to 67.60.50.5's comment just 55 minutes earlier on October 21, 2009 that this article was Way too biased,
changing:

• "overnight" → "almost overnight" (changed by QueenofBattle on November 15, 2009 → "quickly")
  • this article should be historically accurate and follow the cited reliable sources and say "overnight".
    • Why be inaccurate and say "almost overnight" or vague and say "quickly"?
• "made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party" → "raised his prominence within the national Democratic Party"
  • this article should be historically accurate and follow the cited reliable sources and say "made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party".
    • What prominence in the national Democratic Party did Obama previously have that was raised?
    • Are "rising stars in the national Democratic Party" often selected to give the keynote address at Democratic National Conventions?
    • Or are "raised prominences within the national Democratic Party" often selected to give the keynote address at Democratic National Conventions?

Obama's rapid rise to national prominence in 2004:

• from February 2004 when he was in second place—and the least-known—of the five top Democratic U.S. Senate primary candidates in Illinois
• to December 2004 when he was on the cover of the year-end double issue of Newsweek as "Who's Next"—on the newsstand next to the year-end double issue of Time magazine with George W. Bush on the cover as Man of the Year

is one of the most important parts of his biography, and this article should be historically accurate and follow the best, contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources available.

Newross (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?! "QueenofBattle’s dislike of Obama is not a valid reason to remove a neutral, well-sourced, historically accurate description..." Who in the hell said I disliked Obama? How about we stick to the article and shy away from trying to assess other editors' motivations? Hell, I wasn't even the latest to remove the term "rising star"! It's uncivil and just plain uncalled for. My opposition to the use of the term "rising star" is largely because it is unencylopedic opinion, despite the many, many (and many, many) paragraphs Newross has devoted to defending or somehow attempting to justify it. Clear evidence that there is controversy surrounding the use of such a term. We don't win any arguments around here by dumping our homework on the table and giving an A to the heaviest pile. Pursuasion, compromise and consensus is the trick; yes, I'm sure I've read that somewhere... QueenofBattle (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the rising star. I don't see how this term is POV or incorrect in anyway. For someone to go from a single parent home to being the first African-American President, if that isn't someone who could be described as a "rising star" than it would be incorrect to call Einstein a genius, the Pope Holy, or to say Google's a search giant. His opposition can label him a 'celebrity', but 'rising-star' is far-fetched? Oh yeah, I forgot, 'celebrity' is, apparently, derogatory. 174.0.198.29 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "genius" is a definitional term reserved for one with a very high IQ, while "holy" is a term for one who has been vested with certain religious trappings. "Rising star" and "giant" used as has been suggested are NPOV opinion, no matter how many times they are used in the press. QueenofBattle (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of offering any evidence whatsoever, QueenofBattle's arguments are:

• POV-ish? I think so given that one doesn't refer to another they may dislike as a "star".
• Who in the hell said I disliked Obama? How about we stick to the article and shy away from trying to assess other editors' motivations? It's uncivil and just plain uncalled for.
• My opposition to the use of the term "rising star" is largely because it is unencyclopedic opinion.
• We don't win any arguments around here by dumping our homework on the table and giving an A to the heaviest pile.

Newross (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, recall this article is on probation, so we should all try extra hard to WP:AGF, be WP:CIVIL, not turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and, of course, WP:LSMFT. The latter being a humor injection attempt --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, Newross, exactly what is your point? I've been subjected to an ad hominem attack from you for which civility demands an apology, and your response is to repeat my comments as though one cannot easily read them no more than an inch of computer screen above. Am I the only one who's trying to figure our what kind of goofy parallel universe we have fallen into here? The term rising star is of an unencyclopedic tone and it is opinion, hence its use is not appropriate here. How many different ways do I need to say that?! QueenofBattle (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Gosh, am I the only editor old and dumb enough to actually have smoked unfiltered Luckies?

• I completely agree that the accusation of QoB's political bias is unconstructive and unwarranted. Speculation of editors' motives is fruitless and generally "fighting words"; I'll also add that while I've not agreed with every edit QoB has made, I don't question that editor's scrupulous good faith.

• I also don't believe this (to me) minor issue of wording is worth the Sturm und drang. We've had more than one version of the text. The current text seems fine to me.

• I recognize that others haven't weighed in on this issue lately, but perhaps like me they thought it was already resolved? Or perhaps the issue isn't imprtant enough to bother?

Respectfully, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of a difference between the two edits that seem to be causing so much back and forth. Perhaps if someone quoted a Democratic official proclaiming Obama a 'rising star' that could be inserted, but otherwise, what does it matter? Honestly, both entries seem relevant. Isn't there some sort of compromise that can be worked out? I don't see any real WP:POV pushing here, just wording differences. DD2K (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternate version

I don't really care if we go with rising star, but I think the current phrasing (as cited by 4wajzkd02 above) is too wordy and somewhat awkward. Is the following better:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide, finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points. The win drew the attention of Democrats nationwide, prompting speculation about a possible Presidential campaign.

I dropped victory after landslide because its redundant (you wouldn't say he won in an unexpected victory). I also think the part about finishing 29 points ahead is currently too long. And most relevant to the issue at hand, changed out the last phrase to a more conversational form. Deserted Cities (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fine with this proposed wording (or something substantially similar to it). QueenofBattle (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even better than the current version. I hope this issue can close soon. -4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objection to my version, I've switched it. This doesn't close the issue on using "rising star," etc. Deserted Cities (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing:

• "landslide victory" → "victory"
• "29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival" → "beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points"

is not a big deal; and hinges on whether you think "beating the runner-up" is more encyclopedic than "ahead of his nearest Democratic rival"; and whether you think reinforcing that the win was against Democratic primary opponents is helpful.

The purpose of the last half of the sentence (which Deserted Cities broke off into a second sentence) was to highlight that Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election
made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party overnight and
started speculation about a presidential future overnight,
as supported by the cited best available contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources.

• Being a rising star in the national Democratic Party guaranteed him a speaking role at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and put him on the shortlist to be considered—along with other rising stars—as a possible keynote speaker.
• Speculation in the news media about a possible presidential future, begat more speculation in the news media about a possible presidential future:
  • in news profiles before his July 3, 2004 selection as convention keynote speaker
  • in news profiles after the July 15, 2004 announcement of him as convention keynote speaker
  • in news interviews at the convention before his July 27, 2004 keynote address
  • in news commentary after his July 27, 2004 keynote address

But Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election did not:

• directly "draw the attention of Democrats nationwide"
• directly "prompt speculation about a possible Presidential campaign”

The sources for this sentence report (and emphasize the suddenness with which)
Obama's unexpected March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary landslide victory made him
overnight (i.e. on March 17, 2004) a rising star in the national Democratic Party
(which is responsible for planning the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating conventions) and
overnight (i.e. on March 17, 2004) started speculation about a presidential future:

• Brown, Mark (March 17, 2004). Voters warmed to Obama, the next hot politician. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

  Obama has the potential to be the most significant political figure Illinois has sent to Washington since Abraham Lincoln.
  
  If he is elected in November, Obama will immediately replace Colin Powell as the person most talked about to be the first African-American elected president of the United States. That's a heavy load to put on any 42-year-old. Everybody who goes to the U.S. Senate thinks he's going to be president someday. Obama is one of the handful who really could be.

The sources for this sentence report Obama becoming a rising star "in the national Democratic Party"—
not "among Democrats nationwide":

• Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7:

  To some degree, the numbers mirror the primary results. Obama, 42, a state senator from Hyde Park, won a majority of 53 percent against six Democrats, while Ryan, 44, a Wilmette investment banker-turned-schoolteacher, won his eight-way nominating contest with a plurality of 36 percent.
  
  Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."

I propose restoring the historically accurate, fully sourced sentence that was stable in this featured article for seven months—
from March 24, 2009 to October 21, 2009—prior to changes by:
Unitanode on October 21, 2009, QueenofBattle on November 15, 2009, and Deserted Cities on November 16, 2009
but making "national Democratic Party" wikilink to: Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Current_structure_and_composition
to make it crystal clear that Obama:

• was only a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party
• was not a "rising star" among Democrats nationwide
• was not a "rising star" to the public at large
• was not a "rising star" to those who dislike Obama:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal rejected. As you note, several editors have made edits to bring us to this point. Edits that have generally been met by acceptance in the spirit of collaboration by almost everyone except you, who seems to be failing to get the point. The current text is fine and reflects much consensus on this point. Enough is enough. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or:

• retain the opening of Deserted Cities' November 16, 2009 revision:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide, finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points. The win drew the attention of Democrats nationwide, prompting speculation about a possible Presidential campaign.

• make the election results parenthetical with em dashes,
• change "and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points" → "29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up"
• restore the closing of Newross' March 24, 2009 revision that accurately reflects the cited sources
  and was stable in this featured article for seven months until October 21, 2009:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

• change "in the national Democratic Party" → "within the national Democratic Party
  (the national attention mentioned in the cited sources was from leaders of the national Democratic Party, specifically: presumptive U.S. Presidential nominee John Kerry, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Terry McAuliffe, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) chairman Jon Corzine):

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still rejected. You haven't addressed the concerns of any of the other editors, you have merely restated your arguments. You have offered no collaboration, no compromise, no nothing. Until you do, we are going to have a real tough time moving forward on this. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have very patiently addressed, at length, concerns of other editors. Newross (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New version

The entire basis for this RfC:
an unsubstantiated claim that the term rising star was slang and/or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles,
has in the assessment of most editors who have commented here, been thoroughly refuted by evidence to the contrary.

Seeing no discussion of the legitimate issue that I have raised: that the latest revision no longer accurately reflected the cited sources,
I have implemented a version which does accurately reflect the cited sources:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

• Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
• Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born." The New York Times, p. A20.
• Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. A04.
• Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign." The New Republic, pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
  
• Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). "The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?" The New Yorker, pp. 32–38.
• Dionne Jr., E. J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares." The Washington Post, p. A29.
• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0060858206, pp. 235–259.
  • p. 247: "Word of Obama's rising star was now extending beyond Illinois, spreading especially fast through influential Washington political circles like blue-chip law firms, party insiders, lobbying houses."
  • p. 268: "His campaign fund-raising was now moving at a furious pace and the buzz around him as a rising star was increasing by the hour."

Newross (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Seeing no discussion ... have implemented a version...". Pardon, but no discussion should not by itself give leave to make a change, nor do I see that their has been consensus on your issue. Additionally, RFCs expire in a month. This was opened 1 month and 9 days ago, but discussion was still being held 17 days ago (a quick review indicates). So, as I understand it:

• if still open, I believe a change is procedurally incorrect,
• if closed, then the RFC can't be used to justify a change not documented as agreed to in the RFC.

Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before anybody reverts this, I'd like to advise we check ourselves and make sure our actions are not determined by dudgeon or prejudice, by which I mean perception of the "slanginess" of the Encyclopedia Britannica term "rising star". I do wish Newross would have considered the point I raised with him that the preponderance of his sources were dated to the time surrounding the convention speech and that this actually represents the notable period of ascent, but he is correct in everything he states, including the fact that the opposition to his suggestion had nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of his claims and sources. 4's points are presumably valid, but protocol shouldn't take preference to the digestion of salient facts in determining the editorial value of so thoroughly researched and reliably sourced a suggestion. While this particular word is not a huge issue with me, the broader issue at play here—editors at this page trying to arrive at balance between facts and ideologies, especially when they are (or they imagined readers would be) put off by terms they wouldn't use, regardless of the preponderance of reliable sources who objectively have. Newross is clearly not of the delinquent ilk that previously marred these pages and it's the flat refusals to revisit initial reactions to consider his (yegads) ample sourcing that seem to be the break with editorial protocol that beg comment here. Abrazame (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make very good points.

• "Before anybody reverts","protocol shouldn't take preference " - I did not feel strongly enough about either version, nor about the process (What's that saying - there are no rules?) to revert.
• "not a huge issue with me" - nor with me. I suspect this may be why there's been little discussion - others may feel the same way.
• "Newross is clearly not of the delinquent ilk" - agree.
• "ample sourcing" - also agree, but...
• "slanginess" of the Encyclopedia Britannica term "rising star" and "balance between facts and ideologies" - my concern is regarding both issues.

I believe that the term, as used (not in a quote) gives the perception that the article is not-neutral in that section. I thought there was a proposal to provide a quote from a notable source (e.g., "...such that the AP referred to him as a "...rising star in the Democratic party..."). This would address my concerns, and hopefully those of other editors. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Respectfully, I didn't say "slanginess", I said "prejudice, by which I mean perception of the 'slanginess'..." It was an allusion to Stephen Colbert's illusory "truthiness". My point is that, given the usage by the Encyclopedia Britannica, the most highly regarded print encyclopedia, I don't think the previously expressed hunches about the term by a handful of editors at this page are valid. I mean no offense; I have had to admit I was wrong in my understanding of something a time or two at this page.

As to "balance between facts and ideologies", that's something we must not strive for. Facts are facts and belong in an encyclopedia. Ideology is something that exists in a realm irrespective of facts that may or may not support that ideology; ideology causes prejudiced reactions against concepts it vomits back before digesting, rather than absorption of the facts. When current facts fly in the face of ideology, or of once-popular predictions, these editors decide to remove them, regardless of the veracity of the facts. Elsewhere on this page are mysteriously stalled discussions about article edits wherein reliably sourced facts were removed in favor of a neutered POV that ignores the facts. This is not the same as neutral POV, which accepts facts whether or not we like them or wish they had occurred due to some different policy or at some different point in time.

To your suggestion that we use the term in a quote, that misses the whole point of Newross' sourcing. The whole point of all those refs (a thousand points of leitmotif?) is that this isn't a couple of people using the term, it's a good many, enough to warrant the usage outside of quotes. We did this elsewhere when, if I recall correctly, someone here was catering to pessimism about the economy's recovery thus far and so wanted to cite an actuarial fact as the opinion of a single economist. That's not a good editor's default position. We need to do our best to understand what is being discussed in an article and discern facts and figures (that can be simply declared) from feelings and ideologies (which, if relevant at all, would need to be quoted).

Obama's celebrity was universally accepted in 2008, so much so that it was used against him by his detractors. As these many, m-a-n-y references prove, the potential of his celebrity was injected into the bloodstream of and felt throughout his party in the middle and latter part of 2004. This is Wikipedia. The whole point is that we are reporting what others have said. We don't need to put it all in quotes in order to make that point, it's a given as it is backed up by the refs. The objection that someone here raised, that someone reading might not use the phrase about Obama, misses the point (and is itself POV by proxy), as the whole point is that we are stating that Obama became this within his own party. This isn't about the presumed ideological prejudices of "someone reading the article", it's about Barack Obama. Dozens of sources acknowledge this as a fact. So clearly we can authoritatively acknowledge this as a fact without singling out one of these many sources. Such a thing would mislead the reader, as it suggests this was a characterization promoted by a single media outlet. The purpose of this article is not to represent the opinions of the AP, and not to cower from the specter of the hypothetical unpersuaded detractor of the president, but to represent facts.

As I said, my persistence in this issue isn't simply to make this point in the service of this one word, but to extrapolate this throughout the discussions of reliably sourced facts that start only to stop short of digestion here. Salient and relevant facts shouldn't be removed, or mitigated, or relegated to quotes pinned on individuals or groups when they are in fact sourced to reliably sourced data and understood and represented in their proper context. Abrazame (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make more excellent points (and sorry for missing the allusion - I am slow, sometimes). Your key points, I believe, are (a) "enough to warrant the usage outside of quotes" and (b) "Facts are facts" (with the thought provoking note about "stalled discussions about article edits wherein reliably sourced facts were removed in favor of a neutered POV that ignores the facts"). No one should dispute point b. in any way (although I think that the editing process sometimes yields compromises as a counterbalance to long arguments - my recommendation regarding the use of quotes was such a compromise). As for point a., to what extent does WP:CONSENSUS come into play? On this topic, we've had lots of discussion, and even an RFC (which I think is still open), with clear consensus. It may be that other editors don't care enough about the fine point of using the phrase "rising star" or not to care to comment. Then what? You've certainly made me think hard about this issue.

(Outdent) For other editors who don't want to wade through all these millions of words yet would answer our call for them to join or revisit, I would distill and distinguish the elements that need to be addressed as follows:

• The most highly respected Encyclopedia Britannica freely uses the term "rising star" in the context of politicians. In light of this fact about the Encyclopedia Britannica, it's hard to see how consensus at Wikipedia would maintain that the term is "unencyclopedic".
• Seeing as how this preeminent usage wasn't represented in this discussion until after several editors weighed in with their prior conceptions that the phrase was unencyclopedic, it would help if they would revisit this particular element of the discussion and, after considering this fact and perhaps reviewing the examples, would declare whether their conception is steadfast in the face of this fact, or if this fact changes their perception.
• At the very beginning of this thread and prior to any referencing or supportive materials by Newross, three editors posited the solution of using quotes as a way of including the term. Reams of references later, all four official respondents to the RfC—three editors familiar to this page including myself and one invited by the RfC—voted unequivocally to support the statement without the use of quotes. This makes five clear-voiced votes to the RfC, subsequent to the references that support the term as encyclopedic and as widespread, in favor of the declarative usage, including Newross. The only clear-voiced vote against, though not officially cast, has been QueenofBattle. In fact, it is nearly only QueenofBattle who has been arguing against, and reverting, this point. For him to argue, in this context, that there is no consensus, simply because he doesn't agree, seems to fly in the face of the concept of RfCs, consensus, indeed the very idea of facts. Gordon Ecker came out in opposition of landslide and didn't weigh in on the shooting star term; however, after announcing that he would raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid, he didn't return to announce that there was absolutely no enthusiasm for denouncing the use of metaphor—in fact, our own Wikidemon having articulated the most thorough response against the broad suggestion, given the fact that common, plain language is so full of metaphor that we barely even notice it.

So while QueenofBattle sees no consensus, I see one person refusing to address the facts (QueenofBattle), one person sincerely considering the deeper issues but not yet having arrived at a position (4wajzkd02), a handful of people who weighed in at the outset with suggestions but no clear position before any references were presented and who have not returned to the discussion in almost a month and a half, indicating no intention to do so, and five people who have officially voted in favor of using the term, sans quotes, in the article. This is our consensus. Three proffering a suggestion but avoiding the discussion like the plague, five for, one against, one on the fence. Sounds like consensus to me. Abrazame (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed at least a million of the words in this discussion. But as I have stated before, I continue to dislike the informal metaphor "rising star", and see no reason to use it in this article. There are plenty of other formal and non-metaphorical ways to say the same thing, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone is arguing for the informal metaphor. If it is used, it will not wreck the article, but it will make it every so slightly less well written. LotLE×talk 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not refusing to address anything, so let's just lay off that tired attempt, shall we? What I have asked for, and what has yet to be provided, is a pursuasive arguement for making the change. All I see is the same discussion posted over and over, with no response to my questions. No effort to engage in a dialogue. No anything other than, once again, trying to pick a fight with me. If there are several editors "on the fence" (and there are), their views should not be disregarded simply because there are five "for". And, I agree with LotLE's point, immediately preceeding. What I can support is something to the effect of "...which according to [insert RS here] made him a rising star over night...," which I believe is in the spirit of NPOV and will help address the concerns of me, 4wajzkd02, (maybe LotLE, too?) and others. So, Abrazame and Newross, please tell the rest of us here, why this may not be acceptable to you, if it is not. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here. I haven't commented because my opinion hasn't changed significantly. I could live with either version but prefer the one without "overnight" and "rising star" because those terms give an appearance of informality of tone and perhaps non-neutral bias. I believe they are used properly here and sourced, and that there is no actual bias, but they don't add significantly to the article and may cause slight loss of confidence because of the way they read. A more specific term, e.g. "by the next day" or "within several days" or the like, would do the trick. As an aside, I don't think anyone is disagreeing much on substance, only on wording, so if revert warring is a bad thing it's especially silly here. I don't think consensus is clear enough either way, or that failing consensus it's clear enough what the status quo version was, to really opine on how it should read pending a resolution to the discussion. Why not just draw straws, or let the most recent revert stand, whichever way that happens to be? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing (or seeing) no objection to my proposal from last week, I will make the change. Other than Newross, who seems hell-bent on having his/her way through a continual edit war, are there any other objections to this? QueenofBattle (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I tried to place in this absurdly long discussion about almost nothing, or very little difference, either version reads fine to me. Perhaps if someone finds a quote from a Democratic official proclaiming Barack Obama a 'rising star' they could quote and cite that official. That would read better than citing a media outlet. In any case, either version looks good. Perhaps we can discuss it in a non-aggressive fashion and come up with a consensus. I really don't think anyone is that far away from the other person, and this whole section is way too long and needs to be decided and archived. DD2K (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A note of clarification to 4wajzkd02 regarding "a change is procedurally incorrect" if this RfC is still open, and to Wikidemon regarding "it's clear enough what the status quo version was." The status quo version for the seven months before this RfC—and for three days after this RfC was opened—was: "...which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party..."
• Why remove "overnight" which was literally true and was emphasized in multiple sources cited for the sentence?
• Why attribute "which made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party" to only one ("according to The New York Times") of the multiple sources cited for the sentence??

Newross (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't sound right. Or it sounds less right than citing a source. Who is proclaiming Barack Obama a 'rising star'? Wikipedia? While it is sourced, it should be attributed to that source when writing the article. As for why the change, Wikipedia editors often changes the wording in articles in order to improve upon the project. I've been ambivalent for the most part on the wording, but I thought the last version was the best so far. Seeing as that seems to be the consensus, I am changing it back. Except for leaving 'overnight'. That is also cited. DD2K (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really and truly, if you can write something like "seeing as that seems to be the consensus," I think it's safe to say you haven't actually read this thread, right? Can we get some people up in here who have actually read what Newross has cited, if not my suggestion that there is consensus for Newross' edits or QueenofBattle's suggestion that his lone refusal to accept this and a lot of ambivalence in the face of the support I note means there is no consensus? Abrazame (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to attribute the term "rising star" solely to The New York Times when it was used ubiquitously—including the multiple sources (The New York Times, USA Today, Obama: From Promise to Power) cited for it.

There has been no consensus to change the accurate, fully sourced, pre-RfC wording: "...which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party..." Newross (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Me, 4wajzkd02, LotLE, Wikidemon, DD2K all seem to be OK with the change. Newross and Abrazame seem to be the only two that believe in their version of consensus. The NYT is one of the RS that termed him a rising star, although not the only RS. Attributing it to the NYT is in no way inaccurate or inapproriate. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But concensus isn't a vote and a great deal of the issues raised by yourself and various other editors have been answered ad naseum. Just using one of a half dozen sources reduces the WP:Weight of the rising star term to irrelevance. Because many major newspapers articles, news organizations, and books about the president use the term rising star, so should we because we have to use what the WP:RS say, unless you have found some sources that indicate that there is a dispute somewhere? I've heard the mighty Rush Limbaugh calling Obama a rising star, sarcastially mind you but rising star isn't a pov term unless you want it to be. I for one have issues with the reasons for its omission more so than its ommission itself. There is far too much wiki-lawyering over the point, which is itself very well supported by reliable sources. I doubt that the same standard is applied to many other articles for such a widely used term. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I am OK with the change, and agree that the attribution seems fine. Regarding the latter, it seems that the concern is that attributing this to the NYT somehow diminishes the statement (i.e., implies that only the times provided this appellation). I don't read it that way. Regardless, ould adding something like "numerous sources, including the NYT," help? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The discussion seems to carry much acrimony, not wrapped anymore around the use of the term, but rather about the attribution. I do not believe it is appropriate to present the term as an established fact. There are many RS using the term (as we have learned), but the question is no longer about RSourcing. It is about attribution of the term. Attribute it to the NYT or to any of the other RS (I don't give a flip), but we must attribute it to someone or someones. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4wajzkd02, I agree. I was going to add something like that myself. 'Numerous sources, including the NYT' seems like it would fit well within the article. DD2K (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we must 'attribute' the use of common english to a source, I'd recommend the AP given that they repersent like what, 1700 newspapers (including the NYT, and hundreds of other newspapers)and 5000 other news sources(radio and television mainly). Saying "the AP classified Barack Obama as a rising star" is equivilent to saying "Barack Obama is (or rather was in 2004) a rising star." considering that virtually every US newspaper uses the AP as a primary source and most international papers would default to the AP as well concerning issues such as this. I'm amazed at the level of wrangling over this. Are there any sources that disagree with Barack's rising star status? I can see the desire not to use 'is' statements, however in this case I doubt that level of caution is justified. A person going from an unknown to President of the United States in a perior of 4 years seems to need a term, and the term that has always been used in politics is rising star(of which Obama is one of the greatest examples in terms of his rise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.88.102 (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama has been President of the United States for 10 months only. For those of you who don't know, that's less than one year. As to why this is a featured article, while President George Bush's isn't, I have no clue. He hasn't done enough noteworthy things in his life to make this one of "Wikipedia's best articles". The man isn't even a year into his presidency yet! His life before his presidency is uneventful. In addition to all of that, much of this page demonstrates Wikipedia's major flaw of bias opinions in articles. Within the "Economic Management" section, it says "Various economists have credited the stimulus package with helping to create economic growth", and while it mentions the opinions of possibly only a few individuals, it mentions nothing about any opposing arguments made from any credible sources. This article is about a less-than-noteworthy individual to be a featured article and also fails to completely Wikipedia standards. i do not feel it should be a featured article and think that the star in the upper right hand corner should be removed. --Stevedietrich (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a featured article since well before he ran for president. "Featured Article" status is not a way of conferring an honor upon the subject of an article. Rather, it is a way of recognizing articles that are well-written and meet certain criteria for quality on Wikipedia. I'm really not sure I would call the President of the United States "less than noteworthy" but it doesn't really matter. Far less well-known subjects also have featured articles written about them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Featured Articles are those that have appeared on the front page of Wikipedia, and have if necessary survived a review process to ensure that they are still of sufficient quality. The assessment is based on the quality of the article and, sometimes, interest to a general audience. They are not rewards to the article subject nor are they based in the case of people on their amount of experience or whether they deserve it. We can't go back in time to change history - the article was on the front page so it is a featured article. Why would you think that having Obama as a featured article would mean we should have Bush as opposed to, say, the Prime Minister of England or premier of some other country? They definitely are not tit-for-tat matters where featuring a thing of one persuasion necessitates featuring another for balance - although I'll note that on election day 2008 Obama's and John McCain's articles were both featured, a huge effort in terms of editing time and as far as I know a first for Wikipedia. If you want to know the process by which this became a featured article - twice - you can follow the links relating to the featured article nominations and reviews. If you have a specific suggestion for the economics section feel free to propose it but, again, "balance" is not really a goal here. It is to present the prevailing viewpoints and any significant minorities. Most, perhaps nearly all, economists would say that an economic stimulus of federal deficit spending does exactly that - it creates a short term stimulus to the economy. One of the cites I believe describes a "consensus" among economists, although if you read the sections immediately above this one there was a reasonable objection to using the word "consensus" even though the source said so. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article is on Henry Wells (general). I'm not sure whom we need to feature as the tit-for-tat pair to Wells :-) (it indeed looks like a nice article, FWIW, of someone I had not myself heard of before today). LotLE×talk 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you for explaining this to me. However I think in response to the economy, that opposing views should be expressed right next to the supporting views, because balance I believe IS ESSENTIAL to a good, and certainly a featured Wikipedia page, or else the article becomes biased. If it only shows one side of the argument, then readers new to the subject may not even know objection exists, technically speaking. It is our jobs as contributors to Wikipedia to present facts and to give a reader understanding of a topic. I understand now why the article is Featured.--Stevedietrich (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance does not mean that "the good" must be equally weighted by "the bad". Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The man isn't even a year into his presidency yet!" - This statement indicates that only through a significant time period, in office, he can truly succeed. The truth is, this man has already won the nobel peace prize for his incredible efforts, both nationally and internationally. He has also, might i add, lived a very full and debated life before coming to his current position. If you think that people are only noteworthy when they have spent a reasonable time in office, then think again. This man has already a lot more to say for both his life, and presidency, than George bush. The fact is, this brilliant wikipedia article reflects his life fully. Stakingsin (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"this man has already won the nobel peace prize for his incredible efforts" -- Are you serious? "This man" himself said he has not earned this honor. While I agree with you that Barack is certainly noteworthy, I can not see how ANYONE could see the award as anything but a political statement by a small liberal-leaning group. And to say that this article with WP restrictions and limited space "reflects his life fully" is just a ludicrous. Codron (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is said on the attempts on his life of which there were allegedly four. Kind of useful information considering that he is the prez 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the articles 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver and Tennessee.--JayJasper (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP referred to "allegedly four" attempts. Were there more than two documented? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not definitively known who was the first African-American president, and evidence exists that other presidents besides Obama may have had African American ancestry. Evidence is particularly strong for Warren G. Harding, who in some reports is stated as saying he himself had no idea whether or he was of African American ancestry. The Harding case has been studied extensively in academia, and through genealogical reports there is a very strong case to be made that Harding may indeed be the first african american president. As such i believe that the sentence stating that barak obama is the first african american president be changed to either state that he is possibly the first african american president rather than the definitive statement that is currently in the article. I had previously changed this and added a footnote from a reliable academic source from yale. The change would only add one word of prose to the text, and would allow this article to conform with the Warren G. Harding article which states (and has so for quite some time) that President Harding could possibly be the first African American president.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama is credited by the vast majority of sources to be the first African-American president. Obscure, speculative, or technical arguments to the contrary aren't enough for Wikipedia to go against the grain on this. Race is a socially constructed concept, albeit with some roots in ancestory, appearance, genetics, ethnicity, etc. Harding did not self-identify and was not perceived by others as African-American during his lifetime - in fact, he denied it and the only public proponent of the notion was a racist antagonist who dug up old family rumors and scandals that Harding wanted suppressed. The question is not whether there is a traceable tie to an ancestor from Africa. We all have African ancestry. But in this case there is very little dispute that Obama is African-American, and very little acceptance now or during his lifetime that Harding was. The source in the Harding article says that if it had been revealed that Harding had an African ancestor, then the whites of America would have rejected him as black according to the [racist] one-drop rule at the time. Those two qualifications are important. He never was revealed to be black so it's all a contingent argument, and if he had been it would have been according to the standards of the time, not today's standards. By today's evidence and standards, Obama is African-American and Harding was not. All of this could make an interesting footnote to the Obama article, akin to the New York Times piece on the subject, but the article is too long to get into tidbits. Once we get into ancestry and genealogy, Obama is related to Dick Cheney and the British royal family. We could devote entire articles to distant relations. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon is absolutely right. People thought of him as being a White person. Even if there were Blacks/African-Americans in his family tree, that wouldn't make him Black/African-American. Barack Obama is the first Black/African-American President. Harding shouldn't be able to get that honor based on a technicality. SMP0328. (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally with Wikidemon. The only 'evidence' that Harding had African ancestry is from his political opponents that tried to pin the label on his for political reasons and as a derogatory hit piece. According to the theory of evolution, we all came from Africa. Small technicalities that have no basis in fact don't belong in a WP:BLP. There is no concrete proof. In fact, the innuendo is flimsy at best. DD2K (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were allegations that the Harding family had African American ancestry before Warren G. Harding was even born. This is not an issue of race, it is an issue of origin. You have confused race with origin. It is possible to be an African-American and not see oneself as being black. The term African-American does not constru self identified race. The wikipedia definition of African American states "In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." Had the article stated that Barack Obama was the first black president i would not have brought the arguement up, however it states that he is the first African-American president. I do not advocate removing the sentence, only to insert the word possibly as there is still doubt from reliable academia. As for the arguement that Obama should not be denied the honor of being black, i think that would be a unsourcable matter of opinion.XavierGreen (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:BLP the entire sentance would have to be removed, as there is no way to identify whether or not Barak Obama was indeed the first African American president.XavierGreen (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword there is "allegations"; we're talking about a period of history where accusing someone of having "Negro blood" was a serious slur. There is little to substantiates these things about past presidents, none of whom was ever widely described as being anything but Caucasian. We're not about to insert dubious qualifiers like "probably" into this article. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Obama is the first African-American president is verified by the vast majority of reliable sources. There's no mistake about the term - African American, which in American discourse is more or less synonymous with black, refers to race as socially constructed, a blend of self and external identification, not distant or speculative ancestry. At any rate, the job of the encyclopedia is to report what the sources say (that Obama is the first AA president) and then if necessary explain that for the reader, not to decide on our own definitions in advance then try to fit the facts into them. It is an interesting historical footnote, and would make an interesting footnote here, to say something like "Although Obama is the first president known to be of recent black African ancestry, and the first to be acknowledged generally as African-American, there were allegations made during the lifetime of a former president, Warren Harding, that Harding's great-grandmother was black." However, there are very few sources for this historical curiosity, and not enough as a WP:WEIGHT matter for Wikipedia to go against the grain of the sources. That may be useful in a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make up this definition i am espousing, it is present on the African-American page, it is not synonymous with the term black. The term African-American refers to ethnicity similar to German-American or Mexican-American, whilst the term black refers to race such as white or latino do. Not all of the sources state Obama is the first african-american president. There are even books on the subject that state he is not. I do agree that there is a signifigant difference between Obama and Harding, so would adding the word self-identified with a footnote be a more acceptable solution? The statement currenty in the text does not comform toWikipedia:BLP as it cannot be completely verified because there are sources stating to the contrary. As for weight, there are dozens of sources which suggest that Harding is of African-American ancestry. There are sources from Yale University stating this. Now if you don't regard that as a reputable source what do you?XavierGreen (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question of BLP violations, and removing the statement that Obama is the first African American president, are red herrings and don't bear further discussion, at least not from me. We have broad consensus to the point of adding a FAQ (see #2, above), and the overwhelming weight of the sources. As far as I know there are no reliable sources that say Obama is not the first AA president on account of there being an AA before him, and scant few that claim that he isn't AA because of some different version of AA. Regarding whether Harding is worth a footnote or parenthetical comment here, I haven't seen many sources that mention the theories regarding Harding's ancestry in the context of Obama (sources that discuss Harding outside of the context of Obama are impertinent, because describing them in the article would constitute WP:SYNTH). A few sources, even a few thousand, does not establish much weight next to the hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions that describe Obama as the first AA president. I think we've laid out our positions, and my opinion is as I said that it's interesting but not substantial enough to be worth a mention here. You're welcome to try to gain consensus and if the balance of other editors here thought it is worth mentioning I would defer to that. But it seems a long shot. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German Americans are Americans of German descent, not persons born in Germany. I doubt that a discussion that has lasted only 6 hours could be considered to have reached consensus. As for a reliable source, Harding himself stated that he did not know if he was of African-American decent or not, and left the possibility open. See http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/nov08/. Another possible solution that would allievate my concerns, would be to change the word African-American to black and add a footnote about Harding. That change would seem to be acceptable since you believe the two words are one and the same.XavierGreen (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for FAQ#2 it does not address my concerns as i am not putting forth the arguement that Obama is not an African American, which is the scope of that faq.XavierGreen (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming consensus, and reliable sourcing, indicate Barack Obama is the first African American President. There would have to be at least some sort of reliable information to even consider changing the lede. There is not, it's all speculation and innuendos, and there is no possible way that it will be or should be changed. We are not going to change the wording on the fact that Obama is the first AA President because of some accusations made towards Harding or his family. That should be the end of this. No criteria for change.DD2K (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-)As te editor that reverted XavierGreen's addition on this topic, I agree with those that oppose the addition (everyone else who has commented, so far). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Digging even a little further into this, I see that this has been removed numerous times from the Warren G. Harding article, and it doesn't belong even there. Wikipedia editor Stude62 provides a long explanation why this does not belong on Wikipedia, and then again here.

*Hardings ancestry is listed here, and there is nothing there about any African American ancestors. This addition is nothing but innuendos and accusations to this portion of Harding's life. This not only doesn't belong in the Barack Obama article, it doesn't belong in the Warren G. Harding article(except for mentioning that it was a racial attack made by Harding's opponents), and surely doesn't belong in the List of African American firsts as this same editor inserted here. Someone should contact an admin and have these removed. Giving a NYT link that discusses the issue but provides no proof means nothing. The same with claiming that Yale is a reliable source. Neither pieces prove anything and there is nothing to the pieces but accusations made by other people. DD2K (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the words spoken by President Harding himself? The source you cited for his ancestry is not complete, nor does Ancestry.com regulary state the ethnicity of anyone. Such a presumtion that it infers anything would be synthesis. I did not edit the Warren Harding article to state what is there currently, someone else did and i would not have used the source they suggested as there are more reputable sources such as the one i presented earlier. I do believe it belongs somewhere, and if i am turned down here that does not mean that it should not be listed on the African American firsts page.XavierGreen (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to erase history here, certainly Obama can stand up for himself BLP-wise. That Harding was accused of being of African descent (by a racist, but not without some basis, and without insinuating that African ancestry is anything to be disparaged) is certainly true. Perhaps he was. That is information of an encyclopedic nature. The issue, I think, is where to put it and how to describe it. I have been advocating that this main article about Obama is not the best place. That doesn't mean we should ignore it though. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His own words? You mean when he said "how do I do" or something like that, when asked if one of his ancestors ever 'jumped the fence'? That's your proof? Listen, 75 years from now if some editor tries to edit the Barack Obama article with notes from the Jerome Corsi book to claim Obama was the first Kenyan born American President, there would be the same reaction. You can't use cited text from a political attack book, with no basis in mainstream reality, to make claims on Wikipedia. Where it should be mentioned is the Warren G Harding article, and only there as a political attack. There is absolutely no basis in fact for these claims. DD2K (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Further commentary

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

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

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

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

1. Keyes assails Obama's abortion views, August 9, 2004, [13], Associated Press.

2. State of Illinois General Assembly 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 30, 2001, [14], pages=85-87 2009.

3. State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 18, 1997, [15], pages=61-63.

4. State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, April 4, 2002, [[16]], pages 30-35.

5. Obama and 'Infanticide', FactCheck.org, August 25, 2008, [17].

6. Barack Obama knows his way around a ballot, Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2007, [18].

7. Barack Obama and Me, Houston News, February 26, 2008, [19].

8. Obama: How He Learned to Win, Time Magazine, May 8, 2008, [20].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for those 'fringe views', the majority of Americans for the first time were pro-life as opposed to pro-choice, according to Gallup. What is more, only 23% say abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and never has that percentage been higher than 34% - meaning the majority of Americans overwhelmingly say abortion should be legal only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or rape/incest has occurred.[[21]]

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

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

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

Even use of the term, though it is being used widely by the pro-life movement including the NRLC, and referred to by FactCheck.org, as well as major publications, can not be used? You are not even allowing the issue to be broached, no matter how major an issue it is. At this point it has reached the same level of liberal bias evident in NBC and reported on by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a study revealing the press provided levels of bias not only in how much extra air time they gave to Obama as opposed to McCain, but also the levels of favorability. It found considerable bias by all major news channels but Fox News in favor of Democrats.[22]

This is also shown by the levels of industry donations for the media. 70% historically of all donations go to Democrats, and just 29% to Republicans. For 2010, it was 76% for Democrats.[[23]]

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many of his other defenses are detailed here by Jill Stanek.[[24]]

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

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

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

-the National Right to Life Committee[[25]]

-CBS/The Associated Press[[26]]

-The Washington Post[[27]]

-Chicago Tribune[[28]][[29]]

-Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics[[30]][[31]]

-FactCheck.org[[32]]

-The New York Times[[33]]

-Newsweek[[34]] (the FactCheck article)

-Newsbusters.org[[35]]

-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum[[36]]

-U.S. Senator Pat Moynihan[[37]]

-Sean Hannity[[38]]

-Rush Limbaugh[[39]]

-Ann Coulter[[40]]

-National Review[[41]]

-TownHall.com[[42]]

-Jill Stanek[[43]]

-HumanEvents.com[[44]]

-World Net Daily[[45]]

Obama even felt enough heat on the issue to address the Chicago Tribune about it directly with his website FightTheSmears.[[46]][[47]]

That is not even including those like John McCain[[48]], Sarah Palin[[49]], and the National Organization of Women (Clinton supporters)[[50]] who accused Obama of it but did not specifically use the word 'infanticide'.

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

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

P.S. It should further be pointed out that there is ALREADY a Wikipedia article addressing Jill Stanek's claims of Obama's infanticide (and yes, it uses that term).[[51]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PolitiFact also labeled as 'True' the statement by the McCain campaign that Obama supported the Bush campaign half the time.[[52]] It was noted in 2005 that Obama supported attacking Iran with missile strikes to stop their nuclear program.[[53]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I already said sometime ago (and put it in bold) that I had no problem with replacing the word infanticide with any of the other synonyms used to refer to the process. I also said multiple times, including in my first post, that I did not want to use the original article I wrote in the page anymore. It should've been very clear from that bolded 'Bottom Line' post that we were not discussing any specific phrasing but the content validity itself and the possibilities for mention of the subject matter itself in the Obama page.

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

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

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

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

But I already said above in my 'Bottom Line' post that I have no problem with another word like 'late-term abortion' or 'partial birth abortion' or 'live birth abortion' if the word 'infanticide' was dissatisfactory. My only reason for using it at all as a prospective headline was that it's a concise term referring to the unique situation with Obama that as I showed was used heavily by the press. I feel I adequately pointed out more than enough proof to pass any standard of Wikipedia for sourcing on Obama's questionable history here. There should be no doubt that not only does he have a questionable voting record and statements before Congress on this issue that can be easily quoted and sourced, but also that it was a major enough issue to draw national criticism. With that said, I think it incredible that Wikipedia editors would deny it could even be referred to in the page. As my 'Bottom Line' post shows, I have not been arguing for inclusion of the specific post I originally wrote. I recognize now that would be unsatisfactory simply because of its structure, and perhaps objection to the titles (which again, were simply references to the media terms used to summarize the situations - both Fox News and the articles reporting on his early election history refer to 'Chicago politics'). It wasn't my intention to put content that was framing or anything else, merely to advocate for the facts alone being included in whatever form we here could determine would be alright. My frustration was with the steady attacks on me and my character by those here while stubbornly refusing to even consider what I was proposing could be included - they'd made their minds up before I even started talking, and that was brought out my frustration (plus, I don't like fallacy tactics against me, and many were using them). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have 2 points I would like to make:

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

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

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

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

Talk page censorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since there seems to be little support besides my own views in regards to adding a footnote stating that harding could possibly be the first african american president, id be willing to comprimise. If no one comments anything further for inclusion of the footnote on this page in the next two days than i would be willing to let the issue go and support including the information on the African American firsts page as there was support from another editor on that page for the footnotes inclusion there. Consensus seems to be that it should be included somewhere, and that seems like it might be an appropriate place to put it.XavierGreen (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot develop consensus here to put something in a specific other place; all that can be done effectively is determine that here is not the appropriate place. If you wish to place something on another page - one that will surely have the same sourcing and consensus requirements as this page does - you'll have to take it up at that page. But claiming here that if you don't hear anything in two days, you'll do something there isn't going to fly very well.  Frank  |  talk  22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All i am saying is that in the previous discussion there was consensus that it should be placed somewhere on wikipedia and that if no one else supports putting it on this page in the next two days im willing to put it somewhere else though i still think that it belongs here.XavierGreen (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to wait. If you see the consensus is to not put it here, you can take up the discussion elsewhere whenever you want. But do be careful of WP:FORUMSHOPping.  Frank  |  talk  23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XavierGreen, I will state what I wrote before. Those accusations do not belong in the Barack Obama article, and the only articles they do belong in are the Warren G Harding article(as a reference to the attack book and accusations) or the article of the person who made those accusations or wrote that book. Innuendos that are not based with any provable sources and accusations made by political opponents are not part of references for footnotes. Except in the person who was being accused or the accuser. You can't go around Wikipedia and insert footnotes into every article that is affected by those accusations, as if they were a proven fact. DD2K (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this isn't the place to discuss changes to the "list of" article. But chiming in here from the peanut gallery, that seems a logical place to put it. Conceptually, the statement "Barack Obama is the first African-American President (*but, footnote, there were rumors / accusations at the time that remain unresolved today that Warren Harding had a black African ancestor)" makes some logical sense at an article that is much more focused on marking milestones than this one is. Although somewhat trivial in nature, so is the statement that Obama is the first president from Hawaii, and lots of other things. That's the nature of firsts. You'd have to convince the editors there, and I can't speak for them, not having participated on that article. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently you write more about his Harvard studies than his role in Iraq's war, what is a blame, shame, and unacceptable, regarding its importance. Róbert Gida (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss blame or shame - we're all volunteers here trying to help improve articles. Please see the notices at the top of this page. I see three main reasons why this article concentrates more on Obama's relatively uncontroversial life events than on current events. First, it is a biographical article, not a chronicle of his political career. If you read any biography from Ben Franklin to George Bush, there will be more chapters on schooling, family, marriage, early career, etc., than their days in the sun. Second, events of the presidency are newer and still unfolding. It will take a long while for history to decide what to make of this, and longer yet for us to sort it out on the encyclopedia. Third, when things are controversial there is sometimes a logjam, with some people wanting to say it one way and others wanting to say it another way. It takes time to work through it, and in the meanwhile the best compromise is to leave the article as-is until people reach agreement. Do you have any specific suggestions for things to add to the article? Maybe you can help unjam the logs a bit. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"to add to the article" I haven't said that to add something to the article, first you should remove those items what shouldn't be in an online encyclopeida, for example remove the "most ..." sentences. Everybody know that he is a great talent politican, but write it only once and don't repeat it many many times, currently in the article:

• ranked him as the "most liberal" senator
• he was ranked sixteenth most liberal
• ranked him as the eleventh most powerful Senator
• politician who was the most popular in the Senate
• Obama was rated as the most popular world leader Róbert Gida (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify exactly what text you want added to the article, along with the source(s) that verify that text? --guyzero | talk 01:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do share that specific concern that ranked assessments of liberalness, power, and popularity aren't all that encyclopedic. The article ought to be about Obama, who he is, what happened, etc., not a ranking of surveys about him. We cannot say he was the 11th most powerful senator because there is no universal standard for that, and even if they were what difference does it make? So why does it matter that one particular survey reached that conclusion? But each one of these statements did achieve some kind of consensus when it was added to the article so it might be best to go through them one-by-one to see if they are significant opinions per WP:WEIGHT, relevant and helpful to the article, reliably sourced, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the first pair. After markup stripping, under "U.S. Senator: 2005–2008", The National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007; in 2005 he was ranked sixteenth most liberal, and in 2006 he was ranked tenth. I'd never heard of this magazine; Wikipedia (not a RS, of course) says of it: "The yearly subscription rate is $1,160" -- thanks, but no thanks. For now, let's assume that it's worth a sizable proportion of its stupendous subscription fee and is worth citing. I don't see any unnecessary repetition here, although the order is odd and it's a bit wordy. I'd instead say ''The National Journal ranked him as the 16th most liberal senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2005, 10th in 2006 and top in 2007.

(Róbert, you appear to assume that "liberal" is a term of praise. But you have to remember that this is the USA, where "liberal" is almost a term of abuse to a large section of the population. It's all rather confusing, but this page isn't my soapbox so I shan't attempt to explain.)

Is there some other repetition within the article involving estimates of the relative liberalism of Obama? -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following are my proposed edits to the Barack Obama page, with the intent being to make it more objective and comprehensive, rather than painting a deceivingly rosy picture of him.

1. Proposed Edit to introduction section.

Original: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.[4]"

Proposed: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate[4], an honor which accompanied widespread criticism about his lack of accomplishment[[54]][[55]] and confessed surprise by Barack Obama.[[56]][[57]],

2. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997–2004' section.

Original: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42]"

Proposed: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42] Obama won the election through use of lawyers to subsequently disqualify the petition signatures of Alice Palmer and 3 other opponents after the filing deadline.[[58]][[59]]"

3. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997-2004' section.

Original: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]"

Proposed: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49] This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[[60]][[61]], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[[62]][[63]], Senator Emil Jones.[[64]][[65]]"

4. Proposed Edit to '2004 U.S. Senate campaign'.

Original: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[58] Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"

Proposed: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[58] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[[66]] 2 months later, and with less than 3 months remaining in the election[[67]], former Ambassador to the United Nations' Social and Economic Council[[68]], Alan Keyes, accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] Following a race in which Keyes was heavily criticized as a 'carpetbagger'[[69]] by the press, and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions[[70]], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"

Ultimately I may add more suggestions later but this I think is a good start and comprises the bulk of the elaborations about his past I would like to see. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". Sceptre ^(talk) 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review them seriously when I have a chance. Whether we agree or not in the end, I appreciate your taking the invitation to start a new section and propose them straight, one at a time. I hope we can all keep up a dignified, collegial, supportive spirit discussing them (kicking several editors, and myself, under the table... ahem!). Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I look forward to talking about this objectively, thanks for the offer! --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken the time to study the other suggestions yet, but the first one, I think, has immediately obvious problems. The introduction should not be longer than is necessary. The mention that he is the laureate merely acknowledges that he did receive the prize. It does not, in any way, project any position on whether he deserved that prize or not. You are proposing a change that changes that statement from being purely NPOV to one that could be called POV. We haven't even had enough time to see how history has judged the 2009 prize, so why are we mentioning this in an article that is supposed to provide an accurate overview of his entire life? WHSL ^(Talk) 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, if George Bush received a Nobel Peace Prize and got criticized for it, and we put that in the intro paragraph, people would be up in arms that it was merely mentioned without the opposition factor being mentioned as well. On Bush's page, for example, it spends many sentences discussing the issues of criticism and popularity loss just in the introduction. When an award receives as much criticism and controversy as Obama's Nobel Prize did, to not mention this even in passing in the prominent introduction is to essentially frame the fact in a positive and deceivingly so light. I do think the criticism/controversy should be mentioned at least in passing, or else not mention the award at all, or it is appearing to only provide positive details in the introduction section, in contrast to other profiles (such as George Bush's).

As for the 16 additional words used in the introduction, I think they are worthwhile for balancing out an introduction section that otherwise fails to mention ANY negative or critical aspect whatsoever. This is in sharp contrast to other political profiles which carry no such qualms about mentioning a critical fact or mention in the introduction to provide a more accurate and two-sided summary.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider when Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early.
Also, your statement regarding "positive details" is not one I would agree with at all. I can't see anywhere statements like "he is rated a very popular president". How can something be overly positive if you cannot find obviously positive statements? Could you point me to the specific places where you think the introduction is apparently POV? WHSL ^(Talk) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree. I see no difference. For one thing, Hurricane Katrina happened pretty recently too and there is criticism of Bush about that on his profile. If the Iraq War was happening right now, criticism of him about that would be warranted as well. There were protests about that and it was clearly controversial just as there are clearly controversial issues surrounding Obama right now as well. Controversy can be assessed at any time. If numerous news outlets are reporting on it or there are mass protests going on, then it makes sense to mention this in passing.

As for examples of the positive details, it is more what it does mention in contrast to what it does not. It mentions he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but does not mention he published only one article while there.[[71]] It mentions he won the Nobel Peace Prize but none of the controversy that surrounded this, and led to criticism of the committee responsible for awarding the prize. It skims over all his accomplishments while never mentioning anything involving controversy or criticism. If one did not know better, you would think he had no controversy at all surrounding him who makes no waves and not the polarizing figure his presidency is showing him to be. It could mention his excessively liberal voting record or the protests against his lack of a birth certificate. Or that the stimulus and health care bills he made primary talking points are facing skepticism by the American people and delays in Congress, and he has taken criticism from his own party for backing off of his earlier promises on withdrawing troops and continuing the Guantanamo military commissions. Maybe his record drop off in public support, which set a record low for any president at that point in their presidency[[72]]. Again though, from Wikipeda, you would never even consider it from reading the intro. As far as the intro makes it look, everything is just peachy. Palin has faced less controversy and her profile makes it a point to mention ethics complaints. All I am saying is it is not an accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people. Just something to show that controversy would be accurate, but there is nothing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Hurricane Katrina and George Bush as an comparative example of controversy is not very good. Hurricane Katrina occurred five years ago, and killed a lot of people, and caused millions of dollars worth of damage. Barack Obama winning the Nobel Prize occurred very recently, and certainly hasn't killed anyone. How can you compare them?

Your examples still do not point to me how the article specifically portrays Obama in a positive light. I have no idea how one can say this article is "peachy". The article only talks about what Obama has or has not done, and what he believes or does not believe in. A person reading this article should have no higher or lower opinion of Obama after finishing it. Nowhere does it say that he was immensely popular etc. In turn:

• Only one article as president of Harvard Law Review - how is this notable at all?
• Nobel Peace Prize - controversy is mentioned, last section of article.
• Controversies - one about Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned, rest are irrelevant to his overall biography and belong to the presidency article.
• Polarising figure - source?
• Excessively liberal voting record - "Excessive" is a POV term. Obama has a strong history though of being considered a liberal; this is mentioned.
• Basically can't prove he is born in US - fringe theory at best.
• Stimulus health bills - Don't judge how history will treat this while it is still happening.
• Public support - Drop in popularity is mentioned.
• Palin has less controversy - Once again, you cannot quantify controversy like this. Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate; Obama is the current President.
• Not "accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people" - Wikipedia is worldwide, and suggesting that we all put articles from the American perspective can be quite offensive.

Controversy is not easy to measure, and certainly cannot be assessed "at any time". The reason is that people will generally think and talk about the latest and greatest ones. Therefore, it is difficult - and not a good idea to attempt - to measure the effect of a particular controversy on history just months after it has happened. Just having multiple reputable news outlets reporting on it is nowhere near enough - they release news every day, covering new and old controversies. Just having protests is not enough either - there are protests all the time. One must wait for the weight of history to truly judge whether a controversy really had historical effect. There are controversies every day, but only a few survive in memories and become truly important. WHSL ^(Talk) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... as a side note, would you then say you have no problem at all with my other additions, since all of them have proved controversial over the years concerning Obama and are by no means recent? Furthermore, shouldn't Wikipedia report recent events as well as old ones? If there is a recent scandal, I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles mention this, or other controversies relating to a person or business. It would make no sense to do otherwise. Also, is there any Wikipedia policy stating that controversial events must pass a certain time limit before they can be addressed in an article? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that concerns me though is that there seems a lot of confusion by users on this topic about what the WP:NPOV rules actually say. Here is a reposting of them:

"Neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below.

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.

Bias

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired."

As stated there, it is expected that editors will have points of view. Everybody does. It just requires that the subject matter be written from a neutral standpoint and avoid taking sides. It is not avoiding contentious material, but rather presenting all views so long as they can be sourced and stated neutrally, with this stating then done in proportion to the relevance. Furthermore, it is perfectly alright to provide 'critical evaluations' if based on reliable sources, so long as it's done simply stating the views, rather than providing opinions. For this reason when writing my proposed edits I sought to avoid using adjectives and merely to use a matter of fact tone of voice, merely stating the facts rather than trying to provide opinions or even to frame it in any way. Furthermore, I sought to provide them as concisely and minimally as possible, using as few words as possible, and to not make them more prevalent than necessary, since this is after all an Obama page, not an Obama criticisms page. Therefore, it's meant simply to provide relevant information, not go into depth about the criticism (which I was confused about before since pages did allow controversies sections in the past). At any rate, I'm adjusting to the style requirements and agree with them from what I can see. If anyone has any more to add about how I should approach this let me know. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the WP:BLP rules someone earlier brought up, one of the sections states:

"Well-known public figures

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

This is pretty specific. It is not a matter of whether it is negative. It is not a matter of whether there is a POV attached to the person writing it (though they must write neutrally). If the incident is 'notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article-even if it's negative' - those are Wikipedia's exact words on the subject.

At the top of the page, in the meantime, it states, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Therefore, this is not a question of whether my material is negative (though it must be presented with facts only, not opinions, unless stating opinions of a major source from a publication), but of whether the sources are there to back it up. Are my sources used above reliable enough and thorough enough to completely back up everything I said? Was what they were backing up notable and relevant?

These are the questions I was expecting to end up confronting primarily when I made this section. All this talk about whether or not my POV is negative and what I want to include is negative has absolutely no bearing according to Wikipedia rules. All that matters is that it be notable, well-sourced, neutrally stated, and relevant in regards to its position on the page. And when it comes to that, I am more than happy to discuss with anybody whether my proposed edits measure up, and if not, what can be done so that Wikipedia rules are met.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we covered everything, we'd have a very long article. We need to cover the most important things here, and neutrally, so we don't have time for Republican party-line smears such as the infanticide smear, or even the Nobel Peace Prize "controversy". Funnily enough, Bill O'Reilly put it best regarding the prize: whether it's deserved or not, it's a good thing, so people shouldn't complain about it. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, infanticide is not a Republican smear. The ones pushing it originally were the pro-life crowd, like Alan Keyes, Jill Stanek, and the National Right to Life Committee. I am a pro-life Democrat myself who votes 3rd party in all presidential elections. And Keyes is now part of the Constitution Party. It took the GOP a long time to finally pick up on the infanticide stuff (McCain didn't try mentioning it until the election's last few weeks) and only after people like me sent them numerous complaints telling them to knock off the dumb smears that are easily debunked and stick to factually-based criticisms like Obama's history on late-term abortion. It was not the GOP pushing it. It was a matter of us pro-life people harassing the GOP about using sourced and valid criticisms like it instead of their cherry-picking smear campaigns about ridiculous stuff or stuff difficult to prove. My main reason for wanting the Nobel Peace Prize controversy comment included is that it's disingenuous at best to put in an introduction section merely that someone won an award when over half the world not only doesn't understand why you won it, but actively thinks you shouldn't have won it.

Look, why is the Nobel Peace Prize even being mentioned in the introduction? Because it is viewed as an 'accomplishment'. But when there are major news organizations criticizing it, world leaders ridiculing the process, and even his closest supporters are hard-pressed to explain any reason he could have won it - then maybe that should be mentioned, so it doesn't unfairly portray as an accomplishment something that is very controversial, without at least mentioning the controversy. Would you support a proposed edit even of "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate[4] (an award accompanied by controversy).[5]" with the link simply going to the bottom section of the page detailing the controversy? For using 5 words simply to avoid framing as an accomplishment something very controversial, I don't understand how anyone could objectively disagree with this. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - this addresses Jzyehoshua) Those are all good points, and I'll try to address them in a few hours when I have a chance. The answers to why certain things do belong in the main Obama article, don't belong, or are the subject of reasonable editor discretion, are all in the policy / guideline sections you cite, but you have to be careful interpreting them. The main issue, in short, comes down to whether a particular item is adequately sourced and is faithful to those sources (whether it is a fact to state, an opinion to report, or a disputed claim of fact) noteworthy, pertinent / relevant, and, having passed that filter, where to put it. Deciding which article(s), if any, should mention a given thing is a matter of assessing how notable, relevant, and weighty (a cluster of related ways of saying the same thing that I prefer to call "noteworthy", meaning worth noting) it is with respect to the particular article in question. For example, the fact that quiche consumption dropped for many years in America after publication of the book, Real Men Don't Eat Quiche, if properly sourced, probably belongs in the article about that book. It may or may not belong in the article on quiche, depending on whether it is a truly noteworthy event in the history of that food. That can be approached a number of ways. Do many of the sources on quiche mention it? Did it have a major impact? Does it help the reader gain a better comprehensive knowledge of the subject? Is it an established fact or speculation? I don't think assessing whether that represents a pro- or anti-quiche bias is terribly helpful here. The goal is not for the article as a whole to be properly balanced with both positive and negative facts about quiche. It's to promote an understanding of the subject, ideally free of biases on either side, not balanced biasses. And at the extreme, the fact doesn't belong in the main article about cheese, or publishing, or men, eating, or reality. Sceptre has a point, there is only so much information that can go in one article, which is why we have 200+ and counting articles that are about Obama (see the template). This one, of course, is the most read by an order of magnitude so the key facts go here. Anyway, like I said I'll try to give it a more full answer in a while. Thanks for being patient. Cheers. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That is why I did not try to put any mention of those negative elements about Obama in the introduction. However, I do think them relevant to the sections they are suggested in. The 2004 senate campaign was the big step up for Barack Obama, and a few sentences mentioning the general election and topics in it hardly seems out of line. I think as it is, the general election is far too little mentioned in the current section (probably giving undue weight to other factors), which focuses more on the primary, endorsements, entering the election, and his keynote address. Let me put it in perspective here:

-There are 11 sentences and 286 words in the section.

-The first 2 sentences of 76 words discuss Obama's choosing to enter the race.

-The 3rd sentence of 33 words discusses endorsements of Obama in the primary.

-The 4th sentence of 31 words discusses how Obama won the primary in a landslide.

-The 5th sentence of 26 words discusses Obama's new label as a 'rising star' because of his primary win.

-The 6th sentence of 19 words discusses Obama's keynote address at the DNC.

-The 7th sentence of 33 words discusses how many viewers saw it and how the address elevated his status in the Democrat party.

-The 8th sentence of 19 words discusses how Obama's opponent for the general election withdrew from the race.

-The 9th and 10th sentences of 28 words discuss how Alan Keyes accepted the Republican nomination and established residency in the state.

-The 11th sentence of 26 words discusses Obama's win and how wide a margin it was won by.

Now, you realize that in a section supposedly about the 2004 U.S. Senate Campaign, not 1 of the 11 sentences or even 1 of the 286 words used here ACTUALLY MENTIONS THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION BETWEEN KEYES AND OBAMA. NOT ONE WORD ABOUT HOW THE CAMPAIGN TRANSPIRED, KEY COMPONENTS OF THE CAMPAIGN, WHAT WENT ON BETWEEN BOTH SIDES, WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAMPAIGN WERE - A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.L.Y. N.O.T.H.I.N.G..

This is why I am surprised that there is so much opposition to actually discussing major parts of the general election campaign. As it is, there is zero mention of it in a section where this should be front and center, you would think. Instead, undue weight is given to discussing everything that sounds good about Obama. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Let's stick to the edits to keep things moving... My take on the content proposals:

• 1. Mention controversy surrounding Nobel prize in lede. Although this is an arguable point and within the reasonable bounds of editor discretion, I don't support this, for several reasons:
  • (a) It doesn't belong in the lede - the lede hits all the major points but doesn't try to add context like opinions or controversies. It's already long enough.
  • (b) Criticism is not a salient point about Nobel Peace Prizes. Most or all are controversial, and they are nearly always awarded for political reasons rather than based on merit. As a general point about the prize, that is worth covering in articles about the prize and about this one in particular, but if we are to say things about Obama's winning the prize this is pretty far down the list. The Nobel Committee is an independent body that is not directly affected by public approval - it is not like a politician who needs to be elected, or a film that needs to convince people to watch it. It's kind of like saying that a sports official's ruling is criticized, the design of an airplane, or the name of a private boat. It's not completely unremarkable, just not the most important thing about it.
  • (c) It seems that nearly everyone agrees that Obama has not achieved or acted (yet?) in a way that would deserve the prize, including Obama himself. He, his supporters and detractors, the press, and probably the committee itself, all acknowledge that the prize was given in response to his promises to change American policy in a way welcomed by much of the international community, partly as a way of encouraging him to follow through on it. Perhaps that's not precisely it, but I don't think there's a whole lot of disagreement on the particular politics the Committee was playing, so calling it criticism is unduly opinionated. The only major differences of opinion are whether this is truly a huge honor for Obama under the circumstances, and whether the committee is going too far out on a limb (but see above, opinions of others don't directly affect the committee or the prize recipient).
  • (d) Bias. To mention only that some criticize the award, without mentioning that a large number also praise the award, each sometimes from unexpected sources, is to present only one side of the story. As discussed elsewhere, for encyclopedic reasons criticism and praise are best used judiciously rather than filtering all events in politics through the lens of how much positive and negative political gaming goes on surrounding them.
  • (e) Should be, and is, covered elsewhere. The criticism, support, general consensus, and opinions of Obama and the committee are all covered by at least four consecutive sentences in the body of the article, in the section on the prize. We're not ignoring the issue, but I don't think every four-sentence section justifies a phrase in the lede.
• 2. Mention lawsuit that disqualified opponents in Illinois senate. This is a toss-up for me. I see nothing wrong with mentioning this if we do it in a neutral way. "Through the use of lawyers" is a loaded, derogatory slant on something that is not negative at all, and mentioning that it was after the filing deadline is pure insinuation. Obama sued, and won, which means his position was legally correct. Of course he sued after the filing deadline - that's when challenges to petitions are heard, after the petitions are turned in. What he sued about were fraudulent nominating petitions, which had become the norm in the corrupt, insular world of Chicago politics - he was the only candidate that was legitimately nominate. These days nearly all close elections are litigated. If that fact bothers some people and draws some grandstanding by opponents, America is always free to change its political process. I'm not sure people would like the results, but that's a fact about elections, not about each politician who undertakes a campaign. Would we say that Al Franken won "through the use of lawyers", or George W. Bush? Well, yes, perhaps, but we would not put it that way. Achieving an outcome through litigation was the defining moment in each of these elections. I think a more neutral way to say it would be that Obama won the election after successfully challenging the legitimacy of each of his opponents' nominations in court. That's the facts. Saying it without commentary or innuendo lets the reader decide what to make of them.
• 3. Mention that legislation described, and others, were given to Obama by his mentor Emil Jones. Too much relatively minor detail without presenting a complete picture, in my opinion. If we're going to get into the sausage factory of how different pieces of legislation came about we would have to be more comprehensive. It's also a bit of a random mash-up. There are two issues here, Obama's legislative record and his mentorship by Emil Jones. The latter issue deserves its own mention, probably a sorely lacking paragraph about Obama's rise to power and boost from (and ultimately, rising past) the old power structure in Chicago. It's abundantly clear that Jones was a mentor to Obama, and was often described in those terms - do a google search for something like "Emil Jones" / "Barack Obama" / mentor. A couple good sources here:
  • Christopher Wills (2008-03-31). "Obama's 'godfather' an old-school Chicago politician". Associated Press.
  • Ryan Lizza (2008-07-21). "Making It:How Chicago shaped Obama". New Yorker.

The latter source, a booklet-length narrative in the New Yorker on Obama's early political career, is a great yardstick to hold up to our article in terms of the weight of coverage of various items from Obama's early career. It's twice as long as this article and covers about 1/4 of the biographical territory of Obama's pre-election life, so we could say it's scale is at least eight times bigger than this one. I did an exhaustive analysis of the people and subjects that got covered, at Talk:Barack Obama/weight - the article devotes 27.5 sentences to Jones, describing the relationship in considerable detail, including the "alliance" with Obama by which Jones "shepherded" through Obama's legislation. The article also mentions a cadre of other, often feuding, politicians who sponsored and groomed the young Obama: Toni Preckwinkle (a big omission in the article), Alice Palmer (politician) (ditto), Bobby Rush (an opponent and then reluctant supporter), David Axelrod (we already mention him), and Abner J. Mikva. I think we could build a paragraph or two about all this, and it is very important as a biographical item. Some of these other articles adequately mention the relationship with Obama; others (such as the Emil Jones article, could be filled out in this regard. The New Yorker article also extensively mentions a protege, Will Burns, but mostly as a source rather than the relationship.

• 4. Expanded discussion of Keyes. Also within reasonable bounds of editor discretion, but I don't think this much detail is warranted. It distracts from the focus on Obama himself, and that's the subject of this article. Keyes fell completely flat in the election, and is today a very fringe-y figure, so that is all a ditraction. Plus, the mechanics of the various election victories is better detailed in the sub-articles about each election in my opinion.

Hope that helps. As an editorial aside here, can we all please get past any negative comments about each other, and find some other forum if there is any serious concern? There's some good stuff in these proposals, even if you disagree with 90% or even 100% of it. And it's offered seriously and in good faith, even if the editor proposing it is (or is not) opinionated on the subject. Having an opinion is not a crime and it should not hurt our chances of working together, as long as the content itself that results is neutral. That's how it always is in every mature article, even the completely uncontroversial ones... 90% of the content proposals are ultimately rejected and the article gets improved a bit at a time. If we take the best 10% here, or more or less, there are some things to improve the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I appreciate the time you took to respond. I made sure to thoroughly think through all my replies:

1.

• (a) It is noticeable that the only 2 sentences in the entire Barack Obama article which could even be considered critical of him are the final 2 on the page, which mention the controversy and criticism surrounding the award. Indeed, the entire Barack Obama page is only positive in tone. It goes out of the way, for example, to mention events that increased his approval, but not ones that decreased it. It also states when he had favorable approval ratings, but not when unfavorable. Therefore, this makes it particularly noteworthy that when the award is mentioned, it mentions only the positive, and not the widespread criticism, which is relegated to the very end of the page.
• (b) I can see what you are saying. However, when controversy is as prominent as that surrounding the award, I would think mention of the award in the introduction section should at least mention this controversy, if only as a by-the-by. After all, one of the elements in determining placement of material is prominence, and if the award was prominent, it should be noted that equally so was the criticism and controversy.
• (c) I was reacting not so much to the lack of mention that Obama did not yet merit the award, but the active criticism of it. For example, Obama when accepting the award acknowledged "the considerable controversy" surrounding the award, while the Nobel Prize Committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, felt the criticism deeply enough to provide a lengthy live interview defending the decision.[[73]] Some of his critics included:

-Polish President, Les Walesa, who won the award in 1983 and said, "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far... he is still at an early stage."[[74]]

-Norwegian Progress Party leader Siv Jensen, of the main opposition party in the country the Nobel was given in, said, "It is just too soon... It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results."[[75]]

• (d) I would have no problem with a comment about any prominent or noteworthy praise for the award. However, what praise there was seemed very limited at the time in comparison the criticism. Even those that did praise it had little they could say but suggesting it was because he created a 'climate' globally (Jagland's term) or else was simply being credited for having made speeches and talks that were inspiring. Again, if you can find praise of equal prominence and relevance I would expect it to be included as well, but honestly expect that you will have a very tough time finding it.
• (e) That was my point about the award itself. Does it justify mention in the introduction? If so, why? If because of prominence, how does the controversy surrounding the award compare in terms of prominence to the award itself? Since one of the WP rules involves prominence and noteworthiness, I think it noteworthy that the controversy outweighed the award itself.

2. Hmm... multiple articles cited mentioned that this was a case of him hiring a troop of lawyers, including at least one who was a fellow classmate from law school, when challenging the signatures. Is there an alternative way you think this could be mentioned? The lawyers were the method for the challenging, and given the number hired, which sounds as though it must have been at least 4, it seems noteworthy enough to merit mention. My question is, if the fact is noteworthy the lawyers were a key part of it, do you have an alternate suggestion for how I should word that? As for it being after the filing deadline, we are told that in one of the articles. It seems his most prominent opponent may have had a delay, and also requested Obama drop out, as she'd formerly given him a nod of approval, stating he would made an adequate successor. She was surprised when he not only continued running against her, but ended up suing to knock off her for whatever reason "hastily gathered signatures" as I believe one article put it. As for the lawsuit, it is an unusual aspect that is noteworthy and relevant to that part of Obama's history, and therefore merits mention. Whether it was right or not is questionable. Earmarks are legal too, and many have been falsely convicted by our justice system, so the legality of it and the decision by the courts does not negate the potential controversy. I know I use extreme examples to prove my points, but as an example seeking to portray the view of this from the other side, but Palin won out in her ethics controversies, as did John McCain (Keating Five I believe it was called), yet this does not mean their events don't get mentioned on their profiles (which they do). For these reasons, denying the mention of this history would be disparate treatment compared to conservative politicians. At any rate, I'd be interested in hearing your recommended edits in comparison to mine so that they can be contrasted and if I am leaving anything out or wording anything improperly it will show up. A side by side comparison would allow strong points from both sides to be combined.

3. Yes, actually I ended up mentioning a Google search of Jones Obama mentor earlier, believe it or not. You're right, there is a lot of evidence supporting that fact. I only provided my sources after the fact, since someone questioned it. (Discussion should be on this page somewhere.) I think you have a good idea though, mentioning more about his other mentors and political associations would be a good addition to the article. With Jones, I think it just particularly noteworthy and controversial though since Jones was responsible for much of the legislation he now points too as evidence of his legislative capability.

4. As I stated before, Keyes was entering an election with less than 3 months left. He did not even have much knowledge of the state, or little time to do much of anything. Indeed, his bombastic rhetoric may be viewed as a desperate attempt to stop a politician he strongly despised by grabbing headlines and controversy as quickly as possible. With so little time and so little campaign structure (he relied heavily on grassroots organizing and a largely unregulated free speech forum called 'RenewAmerica' which still exists today) he could not afford a slower pace. Yes, he lost by an unprecedented margin, but I am not sure any major party candidate has ever attempted a run after entering a race so late, particularly in a foreign state. As composing the key part of the general election, and in a section about said election, it seems odd that he is mentioned in only 2 of the 11 sentences. My edits would add 1 more sentence and 55 more words, but I don't think this is overdoing it, considering they'd provide the only current insight into the general election, the key part of the election, in the section which is supposed to be about that election.

Also, good job on the Obama/weight page. I was impressed.

Also, my apologies for the late reply. You gave the most serious feedback about the edits, and I wanted to make sure I didn't just make a hasty reply.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish there were some way to automate that kind of weight analysis, say by taking the 10-20 most prominent sources on a subject and seeing how they treat different issues...

Regarding 1(a), last time I checked there were 6 or 8 items on the page that could be considered negative, but counting pros and cons is not very fruitful. There's no optimum balance, no standard way to count, and the act of inserting things just to add more negativity is antithetical to a lot of content policies. Saying that a person won an award, or a job title, or an election, would be balanced by... what? Mentioning an award they didn't win? Certainly not an act of criticism over the award, that would balance a statement that they were praised over the award. If you look at most articles (e.g. brussels sprouts, or more pertinent, well written biographies of successful people) it's certainly not 50/50. They lay out the objective facts of the career, most of which (for most people) are accomplishments, meaning they are positive if you want to look at it that way. You have to take things one at a time. On 1(b) I would say that criticism of the award, and of Obama's for winning it, is no more great than praise of the award, and Obama for winning it. Here we get into the same issue of deciding what is postivie versis negative. The praise, as I see it, does not counter the facts of criticism, that Obama had no achievements to merit the award and that America is even under Obama not the most peaceful country on earth, it just says that the Nobel Committee was intentionally rewarding and encouraging his statements of aspiration. If you went down the path of measuring public reception you would have to mention both, and as I said that is not the most pertinent thing about Nobel Peace Prizes. I do think that after the coverage reaches a certain threshold that is one of the things to mention, but I'm not sure that our 3-4 sentences hits that point. If other editors thought so I wouldn't oppose it. The article about the award should and presumably does address this more fully.

Regarding #2, Obama's opponents all failed to gather the necessary legitimate signatures, and got certified anyway. Obama mounted a successful challenge. The neutral way to say it (subject to some wording improvement) is that Obama wone the election by default after a successful legal challenge to the adequacy of each of his opponents' nomination etitions, none of which were found to have enough legitimate signatures. One of those opponents was a political patron, who had asked Obama to wait until the next election, when she would suport him. Is that state election tactic important enough to Obama's life story to mention here? I think yes because it's a significant life event.

We agree on #3... although I'll bet Jones is not the only person in Chicago's political machine who would be controversial.

I guess #4 is a judgment call, but the more neutral way to put it is to summarize more objectively that Jones had made Obama's positions on abortion his major campaign issue. When politicans square off on the subject of abortion they often go for emotionally-charged symbols (live-born fetuses, welfare mothers, victims of rape and incest, etc.) to attack each other, when those aren't the real issue. It gets to that in-world thing I mention, in case anyone read my Bunnytown digression.

Not sure where to go from here. I think everyone is busy talking on their own separate part of this page, with reactions ranging from agreement to alarm. Maybe let things simmer down a bit, then start (yet) another section with a more focused proposal, perhaps one at a time. I'd be willing to offer a first proposal on one of these, if you think that might help get it be better received. I think the coming of age in Chicago politics is the most pressing omission, but that one would also take the longest time to research, write, and smooth out. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well, with the award, I think it is not merely that it was prominent in relation to the award, but as a controversy during Obama's career (though arguably even more prominent were the 'infanticide' charge which was probably the primary controversy surrounding him, and haunted him much of his career).

I found this in the Wikipedia rules for the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines:

"The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

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

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."

This is what I am concerned the Obama article does not do. The introduction according to WP guidelines should be summarizing all 'notable controversies' and not neglecting important facts that will appear later in the article (in the case of the Nobel Prize controversy, the page's last 2 sentences). Indeed, I think it notable that all of this argumentation has to be done to get even the most major of controversies onto the page, when according to WP guidelines, they should be in the introduction section.

On the other hand, if you disagree the Nobel prize was one of Obama's great controversies, then there is another issue - because then we must identify what were the greatest controversies, and ensure they are mentioned in the introduction.

2. Also, I have no problem whatsoever with your proposed alternative for #2, "Obama won the election by default after a successful legal challenge to the adequacy of each of his opponents' nomination petitions, none of which were found to have enough legitimate signatures. One of those opponents was a political patron, who had asked Obama to wait until the next election, when she would suport him." The only thing I would add is that in the sentence it should also be noted Palmer was the patron, but otherwise I think it a well-written alternative that summarizes the subject. It may also be necessary according to the aforementioned guidelines to mention the controversy element of this as well if it is determined this was a 'notable controversy' for Obama, but either way, I am fine with the alternative you proposed, and think it would work very well.

4. And finally, I agree with your statement that the more neutral way to put it is to summarize more objectively that Keyes had made Obama's positions on abortion his major campaign issue. This is what I was going for, and thought I had achieved. It was why I stated it only as "and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions70". I even tried to avoid framing it by using the words 'negative campaign' to avoid positive bias of Keyes, and so those looking into the subject would not be swayed by that sentence. Indeed, given its prominent status as the key controversy surrounding Obama, perhaps it should have more mention in the page according to the WP guidelines. At any rate though, I was simply trying to mention Keyes had made it his key campaign issue, and if that could be reworded as such would have no issue with it.

Finally, thanks for the offer to reword some of these statements. Much of what I am hearing I agree with, and was even trying to achieve the effect (and thought I had) when writing the edits. I see no noticeable difference between the versions and would welcome the alternative versions you suggested. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huge long wall of text

If you read my post above, you'll see I addressed the Hitler issue. I see what you're saying, "is the material relevant and not just reporting on attacks that might be widely believed but with little basis in fact?" The birther conspiracies could be mentioned in the article, I think, just for the sake of the widespread protests it resulted in. This does not mean going into detail about the reasoning behind the birthers and what they believe, but simply mentioning it as a controversial part of his presidency since it achieved prominence. As for the Muslim stuff, that is more difficult to prove, since it involves circumstantial evidence. Yes, he has an Islamic name, attended an Islamic school in an Islamic country, has Islamic family members, and as an Illinois senator sponsored several Islamic bills (like the Islamic Community Day bill and Halal Food Act), but so what? None of it means he was a Muslim, and even if he was, it shouldn't matter (aside from the disturbing idea that he'd hide his religion from Americans). And either way, shouldn't belong in the article without solid sourcing, which as I've said, isn't since it involves circumstantial evidence that is thus open to interpretation.

However, with the live birth abortion issue, his primary opponent during the 2004 election which vaulted him into national prominence and set the stage for his presidential run criticized him solely on this one issue alone. He voted against the Illinois version of the most prominent pro-life bill EVER passed by Congress, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. What is more, key witnesses of the testimony that resulted in passing that bill, Jill Stanek and Gianna Jessen, both are critics of him. Stanek has been unceasingly critical of his voting record and senate statements about why newborn infants that survive late-term abortions should be treated as fetuses and not human beings worthy of rights, while Jessen participated in the ad campaign against him in recent years. He has been criticized on the issue by writers across many major accredited news bodies, both on TV and in newspapers, as well as by fact-checking web sources like FactCheck.

Again, I provided from the beginning of this conversation the verbatim statements by Barack Obama on the senate floor that generated this controversy. It is easy to debate why he stated that in cases where children can be born alive after abortions should be left to die unattended. The reasoning is right there and I provided the government links, the senate transcripts, along with page references, for anyone who wants to read the conversations in full. I provided some major news sources covering the issue. This is not something without solid basis in fact. I am more than happy to discuss what Obama's statements were, word for word, on the matter, and whether the criticisms of him are thus justified.

As for Emil Jones being Obama's political mentor, yes, that is a well-sourced fact. Case in point:

Times Online[[76]]  :::"Obama has often described Jones as a key political mentor whose patronage was crucial to his early success in a state long dominated by near-feudal party political machines. Jones, 71, describes himself as Obama’s “godfather” and once said: “He feels like a son to me.”"

Chicago Tribune[[77]]:

"Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has taken the unusual step of weighing in on a high-profile ethics bill in his home state, legislation that had been held up by his political mentor, Illinois Sen. Emil Jones."[[78]]

"An African-American woman who is an Illinois delegate for Sen. Hillary Clinton maintained today that Senate President Emil Jones, a mentor of Sen. Barack Obama, called her an "Uncle Tom" at the Illinois hotel for the Democratic National Convention."[[79]]

"An alleged slur delivered by a mentor of Barack Obama to a supporter of one-time Democratic rival Hillary Clinton has stirred up the volatile issues of race and gender to an already fracture filled Illinois Democratic Party."[[80]]

Chicago Sun-Times:[[81]]

"Jones -- Barack Obama's political mentor -- denied using the racially loaded slur against Chicago political consultant Delmarie Cobb, but two aldermen who said they witnessed the Saturday night exchange back up Cobb's account."

National Review Online:[[82]]

"Jones would know. He is Barack Obama’s political mentor, and he can now give himself a $578,000 gift."

Daily Herald:[[83]]

"Senate President Emil Jones Jr., Barack Obama's political mentor, denied today calling a Hillary Clinton delegate an 'Uncle Tom.'"

Those are all just first page Google search results too.[[84]] I can find more easily, but think I proved my point. There is plenty of sourcing for calling Jones Obama's political mentor, as it was a key phrase used by Chicago newspapers at the time.

P.S.I should have sourced that as far as Jones being a political mentor though, even though I believe it was mentioned in the articles sourced there anyway. I will edit the proposed edits to include some very clear references to Jones being Obama's mentor. Good point about that, I will make the changes.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be little consensus at putting the possibility that harding might be the first african american president under some definitions in the article at all i suggest adding something in regards to it to the FAQ section of the talk page. I'm quite sure another editor some day or another will attempt to introduce the same thing i have tried to introduce (maybe they will have better luck then i did) but since topics tend to be repeated in the talk page quite often, maybe it would be good material for inclusion as a FAQ.XavierGreen (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is a claim that is frequently made; and as far as I can see, in the replies to your remarks some way above, nobody says that it's frequently made (or a "question" that is frequently "asked"). -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the archives, its come up at least seven seperate times on the first page of search results alone, it appears every couple months or so. id say thats quite frequent would you?XavierGreen (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're more energetic (and perhaps also more memorious) than I am. I knew that related questions had indeed come up often, but not that this one had. Well, perhaps it indeed is worth faqqing. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier, do I understand you to be saying that the spurious claims of Warren G. Harding's racial identity has given rise to seven different threads in the archives of Talk:Barack Obama (not counting the three threads you have created on this particular page alone), or are you conflating the Harding rumor with arguments that Obama is half-white (or ineligible for some crazy reason), and so should not be called the first African American president? Because we already do have FAQs for those, Q2 and Q5. Abrazame (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than seven, those are just the ones that appear on the first page of results. There were arguements about before obama even became president. I could care less about Obama's ancestry, the page states that Obama is the first african american president there is evidence that he might be the second and a chance harding could be the first. It is not a fringe theory or suprious, established proffesors at Yale have written about the issue and Harding himself stated he did not know. The issue is completely different from the FAQ about Obama's ancestry. My concerns do not challenge that at all.XavierGreen (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not true. It is both a fringe theory and spurious. There is no proof whatsoever that Harding had African-American ancestors, and the fact that Harding was quoted as saying "How do I know" when asked if some distant relative 'ever jumped the fence' is ridiculous to cite as something that indicates Harding 'did not know'. I have already pointed you to numerous sources that dispute the allegations about Harding, one from a Warren G Harding scholar. If Harding had a 3rd cousin that 'jumped the fence', it has no relation to Harding's ethnicity. None. There is no provable doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama is the first African-American President. None. Even if someone did prove, without a doubt, that Harding had an African-American ancestor, Harding identified himself as of European decent and as white. You can't cite the musings of some professor about an attack book, or innuendos about a family, and then make the sort of claims you are making. It's just not even remotely allowable. I'm changing my vote to no.DD2K (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter what someone identifies themself as. I could call myself a tree, but does that really make me one? Theres no probable evidence that Harding was not african american either, so your point is moot. The majority of your comments seemed to be fueled by political ideology. I am not attempting to make some wild ideologically driven claims. I am not stating that it is proven that Harding was part African American and im not stating the opposite. What i am trying to do is address the historical fact that Hardings ancestry is not clear. As the topic has been brought up frequently in discussion, it should be included in the FAQ. By including this topic in the faq the frequency of the topic reappearing on the talk page would hopefully decrease.XavierGreen (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideology to want proven facts, and not innuendos, lies and accusations, treated as the source for an encyclopedia. To claim that Hardings ancestry is 'not clear' gives credence to the accusations and innuendos. I think an encyclopedia would be willing to treat the accusations as a tidbit found somewhere inside it's vast articles, but not treated as something proven and definitely NOT something that alters proven facts in other articles. In other words, adding as an accusation in the Harding article is ok, but adding it in the Harding article to cast doubt on Harding's ancestry is NOT. You are trying to take a route that is not in the best interests of the facts. To claim that Harding's ancestry is not clear is not true. All the facts that Harding have given about his ancestry are there, and the Harding scholars have long discredited the claims about his AA ancestry. I gave you some links before, and there are many more.DD2K (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, this Harding trivia is not a FAQ, so there is no need to update the FAQ. thanks, --guyzero | talk 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:I would say we can WP:AGF on XavierGreen about this issue. Sometimes when delving into historical tidbits that are not widely known, editors like to have these available for readers, because they are interesting. I believe that is also why Wikidemon is interested in this little nugget of American history. The problem is, it's not well sourced and it's only real sources tend to prove it's not true. Personally, I would have no problem with it's inclusion in the FAQ, depending on the wording. And addition to state that the rumors has no verifiable proof, and quite the opposite. We can quibble on the exact wording, but if the editor wants to propose an addition to the FAQ, I think that perhaps something can be added if there is enough consensus. DD2K (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This is the epitome of fringe; just because the idle speculation originates from a professor and not some blog doesn't make it any less so. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DD2K, I'm curious why you seemed to change your mind on this?[85] Reading through the sources proposed here, and the Harding article, the sources look strong for the proposition that (a) a political opponent at the time accused Harding of having a black ancestor; (b) Harding denied and did his best to bury the claim, without disproving it; and (c) both then and now there is no strong evidence it is true, nor conclusive evidence it is not. We have two seemingly respectable mainstream biographies, and a New York Times analysis that goes into detail on the subject. On the face of it, it is hardly fringe to say that there were unproven rumors that Harding had a black ancestor, and it seems to be true... that such rumors existed. Vis-a-vis Obama I don't think that statement is fringe, it's just not pertinent. So what if those rumors existed? Harding was not considered AA, and Obama is, end of story. The Harding thing has come up several times in the last year, and if everyone wants we can add somethign to the FAQ to head this off should it come up again, e.g. notwithstanding unproven claims and rumors that other presidents, like many Americans, had distant ancestors of African ancestry, Obama is the first to be generally recognized, and self-acknowledged, as AA. Or not... but it looks like a fair question, unless others are seeing something that I'm not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed its not really pertinent to Obama for exactly the reasons you give, WD. My feel is that the longer the FAQ gets, the less useful it becomes. 7 times in one year isn't really a "FAQ" for this page compared to the "HE'S HALF WHITE" threads that appear here much more frequently. --guyzero | talk 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Wikidemon, I did not change my mind, I changed my stance. Also, I have given links to arguments about why these accusations are not true and should not be taken as anything other than accusations and attacks by political opponents or enemies of the Harding family. There are many more, and if one can talk to a Harding scholar from Ohio, you will see that these accusations have long been proven false. To claim that they have never been 'proven false' is a double negative. I could accuse you of something, write a book about it, and you could deny it, but years later someone could claim you never proved your innocence. That doesn't mean the accusations are true or worthy of citation. And they should never, ever be treated as citations of fact in an encyclopedia. Especially when you alter other articles and try to change the facts of those articles with the accusations. On the other hand, it's definitely not 'fringe' to state that the accusations happened. I have no problem with that. I do, however, very much have a problem with treating the accusations as if they were even remotely proven. You can't use accusations that have no basis in reality and treat them as citations. I changed my stance on this because the editor in question seems to want to use the accusations as citations, instead of preventive edits.DD2K (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand, i dont think the case that Harding is part african american has been proven or disproven. As for the number of times this has been brought up on this talk page, the majority of articles on wikipeda see most issues brought up once or twice in their entire existance, as such i think that something brought up seven times in one year not to mention that it was brought up last year as well is certaintly a question that has been brought up frequently, and to be honest if there was something in the FAQ about it I probably would have never suggested including it in the article in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To DD2K - Understood, with one caveat... the statement that the claims have a basis and have not been disproven is sourced to the New York Times article, not a Wikipedia WP:SYNTHESIS. Although it's irrelevant to Obama's article, the difference between a completely baseless claim made by opponents and an unproven claim that some reputable modern sources believe to have a basis, is significant. Those maintaining the Warren Harding article should think this through and make sure they're comfortable with the way it's treated there. Perhaps they have, but if the claim is that farfetched / fringe-y, I would take the issue up on that page. Here, it's really a non-issue because even if it were true it wouldn't merit changing the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have a sub-FAQ to uncollapse separately. The top 8-10 in the main one, and then a remainder bin for all the others? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is what I don't get. The NYT is not the source of an article about this, an Assistant Professor(Beverly Gage) is, from an essay. And all she does is cite the racist attack book and use 'supposedly' and 'rumors', along with innuendos and speculation. I can't see how anyone could take any of that as even a tiny bit factual. Interesting? Sure, but it is definitely not the NYT citing that Harding could have AA ancestry.DD2K (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an analysis piece, not an op-ed or opinion piece. As such, I believe it does get fact-checked, is subject to editorial control, and a reputable organization puts its reputation on the line by printing it, the main hallmarks of a reliable source. Things that are a matter of academic opinion are fairly clearly laid out in the piece. It's clear where the facts end and the speculation begins. If we were taking this more seriously I would do to her what other people do to Wikipedia, i.e. check her sources and look for corroboration... also see what other sources say to see how mainstream / accepted this all is. One NYT article + 2 non-online sources in the Harding article isn't really enough to decide. That's really for the Harding article, not here, because I don't think it matters either way here. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The faq doesnt have to take a side on the issue one way or another, all it has to say is why the claims are not included in the article, which would appear to be that they are not notable enough/do not have to do with a biographic text on obama. All it has to do is explain why it was not selected for inclusion into the text in a neutralist fashion. XavierGreen (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the issue isn't relevant enough to Obama to warrant inclusion. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been digging around some more and it's very interesting stuff. Prof. Gage, an untenured Yale Professor, has been hitting the talk circuit (NPR, etc) with her interest in this. She herself gives the rumors only faint credibility, mostly interested in their impact and what it says about the history of the time than the truth behind them. Anyway, maybe anyone interested can reconvene at Talk:Warren G. Harding? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well i wouldnt oppose working on that article in respects to this issue, but i still think that something regarding it should be included into the FAQ here, otherwise we might as well delete the whole FAQ.XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the FAQ contains actual FAQs. Having any simple issue like this come up and be answered once every 8 weeks is not a big deal. The FAQ becomes less useful (or worse per WP:BEANS) if we put tons of topics into it. thanks --guyzero | talk 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth noting one of our core principles here, which is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It really doesn't matter what some (several, few, many, whatever) people are saying, whether some of us consider it fringe, almost fringe, serious...what matters is that the vast majority of reliable sources list Obama as the first African American president. That really should be the end of it. If that ever changes - that would be the time to have a discussion about what this article should say. For example, Pluto was a planet for about 76 years. There were many reliable sources to indicate that. It no longer is considered a planet, but rather a dwarf planet, and that's what our article on the matter says. If we eventually find out that someone else was the first African American president, the sources will exist to support it. Until then...this is a non-issue and really not even FAQ material.  Frank  |  talk  16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why not put that in the faq as the answer to the question, that obama is regarded by the majority of sources as the first african american president? It doesnt matter if the information is included in the article or not, what matters is that multiple people have brought up the issue mutiple times. If this does not meet the requirements of going into the FAQ then what does?

What is the limit? How many times does something have to be brought up before it is eligible to be addressed by the FAQ? XavierGreen (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason why it couldn't be in the FAQs. Anything to stop people asking about it would be a good thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:CONSENSUS is the answer to that. There are any number of things that have appeared on this talk page and been removed or closed summarily, more than once, but which don't appear in the FAQ because they're not credible enough to generate consensus to keep them. I personally don't think this is necessary to include in the FAQ, but more importantly, I don't see any consensus to include it in the FAQ. And maybe I should WP:AGF a bit more on this one, but I doubt people who will come here and post that question are going to read the FAQ first and then not post the question.  Frank  |  talk  16:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the FAQ before i posted about this on the talk page, any veteran wikipedia would. The key is to reducing volume on the talk page and i think that by adding it to the FAQ it would.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should consider the possibility that we need transient FAQs - a few questions and answers that take care of whatever the issue du jour happens to be, but only exist for a few weeks or months as needed? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that would reduce volume on the talk page, Xavier, is if people like yourself would drop the effin' thing after consensus develops against their suggestion, rather than trying every which way to link their issue with this article, fulfilling themselves the misunderstood prophecy of a frequently asked question. Alternately, we could judiciously cut off these cyclical arguments with people who don't get and/or respond to salient editorial points by closing the thread. If editors persist in reopening or restarting threads about arguments where no game-changing references or points are made, they should be officially tag-warned on their talk pages as doing so repeatedly with no good reason is tantamount to vandalism.

Why, you ask? Well, I could slanderously link Obama to fringe theory X, fallacious partisan POV Y, heinous crime Z, what-have-you; then I could pester the page with several threads (occasionally no doubt getting a few anti-Obama fringers to pop in or even start one or two themselves), and then one of us or someone else could come along and say, "Frequent issue: let's handle this non-issue—that shouldn't even be noted, even on the talk page, in some cases, due to BLP and other issues—by placing it for perpetuity in bold text at the very top of this page in a FAQ", much less strewn across the archive.

There are already general Wikipedia guidelines and specific article FAQs that deal with the general issues relevant to fringe rumors with no proof. If I were going to do anything to the FAQ it would be to broaden one of those to more clearly show to would-be troublemakers working or feigning to work within the guidelines that the underlying reason for not including the other fringe rumors is not issue-specific. We will not honor each individual rumor with its own FAQ. Next someone will suggest we put a FAQ explaining the ideological and religious differences of opinion about abortion.

To Scjessey, respectfully, FAQs should not be temporary, because all somebody has to do is arrive and "ask" again in order to "prove" that it's not a temporary issue. Instead, as I say, we should work to ensure that it is clear when the answer to one FAQ is the same as the answer to another question at talk, and indicate in the FAQ Question that this should be extrapolated to other issues as well. (Which should be obvious to editors, like Xavier, who claim to have read them, yet are understandable to editors who have only skimmed the questions without opening the answer.) We then simply note, "See FAQ" and nip a long discussion in the bud. That's the point of FAQs, not to spend time arguing for a new one for every bloody thing, but to save time by hitting the broader points and not getting out into the weeds on every last tactic.

There are times this page has been too trigger-happy to close discussions that may already be dying down, or on the other hand have a responsibly made editorial point that has true potential for an actual article change. Recently we pulled back from that impulse, rightfully so. The pendulum, however, has swung way in the opposite direction right now, and we now need to correct again without overshooting.

I would direct you to FAQ13 for why. The answer there provides the reason why your alleged seven threads begun over the Harding allegation do not themselves justify a FAQ. It reads,

"Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and/or topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics."

It says examples of such common topics are found in the FAQ, not that each common topic gets its own FAQ or even its own mention therein. The concept of extrapolation is implicit. I would advise that editors who are bending over backwards to be amiable on the current page should ponder the concept of disruptive nature, as opposed to sincere efforts to understand policy through a long but focused discussion, and be more vigilant that they don't amenably enable the former as they happily and appropriately do the latter.

My point, obviously, includes the concurrent debate over abortion (and, variously a dozen other issues that IP has yet thought of). Abrazame (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I continue because i dont believe consensus has been reached in favor of not adding to the FAQ. To the contrary there seems to be support here for an addition to the FAQ in this regard in some form or another. I once again ask you, what determines what is in the FAQ and what is not? I still yet to hear a concise answer to the question, FAQ 13 gives no answer to the question so what is the answer?XavierGreen (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, once a few of these fringe theories have been cited as prime examples from which to extrapolate, what determines that we do not add more is the simple principle of redundancy. Why we might seriously consider adding another specific FAQ would be if there was some unexamined territory from a FAQ coverage standpoint (not from the standpoint of some new — or newly exhumed — conspiracy) that responsible editors recognize the existing answers to the FAQs are deficient in addressing. I'm sure now that I have explained this, it strikes you as common sense. The main effect of doing otherwise at this point (to add further examples, or new examples for each wrinkle of answer, instead of simply broadening the question and/or answer of an existing FAQ that is already discussing a smaller part of the relevant concept) would be to give credence to the fringe theory and its connection to this article, rather than to dispense with it. The purpose of a FAQ is not to admit that, gee, this fringe idea is drawing a lot of traffic, so we'll note it here instead of in the article; it's to really address as thoroughly and succinctly as possible an argument of an editorial rationale that has already transpired at great length several times over.

Okay, so I've answered your question, how about you answer mine. I asked you once or twice already if seven threads were begun with Warren G. Harding as the impetus in challenging Obama's being "the first African American president", as opposed to secondary digressions in arguments for Obama's being "half-white", or misunderstandings that mixed heritage prevents one from claiming either, or — the actual crux of the matter — that people don't understand what African American means. Given that you have apparently already distinguished which threads are which, and I have failed in a perfunctory effort to see if I might stumble upon one of the seven, would you link all seven for me and the other editors here? If you are unfamiliar with how the linking works, I would accept your telling us the title and date of each of the seven threads. I want to make sure we're even talking about something that has been raised as a serious question, much less one that has given rise to seven full-fledged discussions. After all, if we were going to construct a FAQ to determine how the question has actually been asked, and what the response has been, it would be prudent to review all seven. To end with another answer to your question, in case my "newly exhumed" comment was too subtle, but to incorporate Scjessy's comment about temporary FAQs, it is no longer actually frequent if the bulk of the questions came at a much earlier date and has, as of late, only been brought up by yourself, this week. Abrazame (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object. If we include the 'fact' that Harding was the first black President, I insist we also include that Taft may have been the first Muslim president, and that FDR may have been the first communist president, and that Nixon, by starting the EPA, was the first liberal treehugger president. Also, I must insist that all FAQ question s be written as double binds of the 'When did president Obama stop beating his wife?' style of question. And I'm sure I can find (or make) some attack blogs to source the first one, the second one can almost certianly be cited to LGF or brietbart, and I think Sarah Palin recently said something about the EPA being a liberal plot. Aren't those references good enough? ThuranX (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again,the reason why it is not being included is because it is not notable enough for inclusion into the article, not because it is fringe. As for the different threads there are around 10, though it is possible i have missed one or two. It is mentioned at least once in each of these threads in one context or another. Simply search each one for Harding within your browser and you will see where it is mentioned.

• [[86]]
• [[87]]
• [[88]]
• [[89]]
• [[90]]
• [[91]]
• [[92]]
• [African_American_first_African_American]
• ["first"_"african american"]
• ["firsts"]

XavierGreen (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your argument for inclusion, many times, and the argument has IMO been pretty much rejected by all involved. Can we wrap this up? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Tarc, and others. This is nothing more than a fringe theory (contrary to what Xavier might believe, theories espoused by a few academics can still be "fringe") and there's no reason to include it in the FAQs or in the article. UA 16:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Obama's career as a professor of law, especially con law, seems woefully abridged to me. Has he said anything about which legal philosophies he adheres to as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence ? For instance,

Natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers. The foundations of law are accessible through human reason and it is from these laws of nature that human created laws gain whatever force they have.

Legal Positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts although positivists differ on what those facts are.

Legal Realism is a third theory of jurisprudence which argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is; ie the law has the force that it does because of what legislators, judges, and executives do with it.

Critical Legal Studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group.

This might not be much of an issue for research or discussion if the president were just some lawyer, but he was a professor of constitutional law, and now he's the chief executive of the US, so his legal philosophies are pretty important. Do we have any information on his leanings? Ikilled007 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The degree to which anything on this topic could be included is directly related to the number and quality of reliable sources that discuss it. It may be interesting, but if nobody has already published thoughts on the matter, it's not something we can research and include.  Frank  |  talk  15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is worth remembering that this is a biography that covers Obama's entire life, so it cannot explore the level of detail being looked for by Ikilled007. That is the biggest reason why this article necessarily has so many child articles - so that some of these deeper issues can be given proper coverage with due weight. Many posters here seem to forget that this particular BLP is written in summary style. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it earlier - we know of exactly one article Obama wrote while president of the Harvard Law review.[[93]] Covered by Politico, the article mentions he approached the idea of whether fetuses who survive abortions should be able to sue their mothers. As noted in the article, he considered the eugenics concept that children should not be born with injuries more important than that they be born. In his words, "On the other hand, the state may also have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born."

Just to make a guess, I would say probably Legal Positivism or Legal Realism, from what I have read of his comments in his senate transcripts. His Illinois Senate transcripts at www.ilga.gov are revealing when you look at the ones on controversial issues such as abortion. That would be one place to look.

However, as Frank said, it needs to have solid sourcing as well as relevance to be included. At this point I don't know that even if his legal philosophy could be determined, it would be a well-enough established fact to merit inclusion on the page. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be suitable for inclusion here, because it would be original research. As background, for clues of where else to look, it may be useful, but poring through Senate transcripts and articles written by the subject are not great places for information to be added to a biographical article on Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  16:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I mentioned it only as a way for him to satisfy his curiosity, not as a primary means of sourcing, which is why I emphasized at the end that it would need the sourcing. I suppose if he could publish research done elsewhere it could then be cited, but without other sources and research would still be questionable. The more reliable sources the better. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, don't you think that an accusations of supporting Eugenics(a concept that is associated with the Nazis) adds to the inflammatory accusations this user continues to make over and over here? I mean, the infanticide accusations and now the eugenics accusations definitely make it seem more likely that the user is also comparing Obama with Hitler above. When is enough going to be enough? Extraordinary accusations require extraordinary sourcing, and in a WP:BLP], it's even more so. Even on the talk pages. It's just ridiculous. I suppose I do not have the experience of some users here, but I would think the same sort of accusations have been made on the other side of the political spectrum, and rejected(hopefully). So I will leave my 2 cents and hope people eventually put a stop to these unacceptable accusations. DD2K (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is either complete intellectual dishonestly, or you are completely mistaken. That article, and the referenced Harvard Law Review paper, never mentioned anything about fetuses surviving abortions. It was written in reference to fetuses suing the woman carrying the fetus(and anyone else) for negligence. Comparing the sentence that you take out of context to 'eugenics' is way out of line and not at all the case. Obama was referring to the State's interests of ensuring that the fetus is not injured during pregnancy and that proper prenatal care is a good incentive for would-be mothers. That's why the sentence starts out with 'on the other hand'. It is a reference to giving the fetus the right to sue the mother, which would mean that anyone could represent the interests of the fetus and prevent, or force the mother, to abandon her own choices. So 'on the other hand', it's in the State's best interest to ensure that proper prenatal care is encouraged and not to focus on any would-be rights of the fetus. I can't count the times you have misrepresented the truth on here. Starting with your initial edit on the Barack Obama article that accuses the President of supporting 'Infanticide', an innuendo that can be seen as comparing Obama to Hitler, accusing him of supporting eugenics, while also giving links and claiming they state something they do not. A whole pile of completely unacceptable behavior. DD2K (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that debating a single source without having a proposed change to the article is very nearly a complete waste of time. If there is a proposed change or addition to the article, let's debate it. If not, what Obama may or may not have meant in a particular paper (which he may or may not have even written) is not useful here.  Frank  |  talk  17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what a legal scholar writes in a paper does not reveal their "philosophy" about the law, nor does a person's legal philosophy bear directly on their performance as a political leader. It's all too tenuous, speculative, and impertinent. Legal papers are written to advance theories and make legal arguments, not to advance an underlying philosophy. They're written in the third person without a direct claim about the author's opinions or motivations. Journals, in turn, select papers that advance novel subjects, theories, and arguments, not restatements of the accepted wisdom. The purpose is to challenge people to think, bring new things to people's attention, not to confirm what people already know. Politicans, in turn, act on all kinds of things - constituencies, influence, legislation, platforms, agendas. The philosophy behind these is far from the most pertinent thing, and even if it were known, the relationship between what's in the politican's heart of hearts and what they do is not direct. Every once in a while a pundit, opponent, advocacy journalist, etc., uncovers a tidbit from a politican's old writings where they seem to say something positive about X, and then say "Politican Y is pro-X". That is more or less hogwash, but as a rule those with political aspirations learn to avoid saying anythign that could be used against them out of context, which in turn makes it even harder to figure out what they truly believe by reading their writings. If anyone has anything specific to propose that would pass the WP:WEIGHT, sourcing, and relevance tests rather than being a curiosity or itself an isolated "gee whiz" news article, let's be more specific. Otherwise, the whole thing is just not fertile ground for reliably sourced content and will just take us into a forum-ish discussion about politics. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is pretty much exactly what I wrote.  Frank  |  talk  19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The bottom line is whether or not the sourcing is there. I probably shouldn't have even mentioned the Politico article, as there's simply going to be too much speculation over the issue unless Obama clearly said he subscribes to a given legal philosophy. If you'd like I can delete the comment, since I made it just as one interested in the subject when the comment, while interesting, can not be applied to furthering this page. I don't think we're getting anywhere here. Without sourcing showing Obama said he subscribes to such a philosophy, or multiple major research sources showing consensus about what philosophy he subscribes to, all of this is just pure speculation.

However, to the original poster, perhaps something less broad and more specific could be achieved. Trying to figure out his legal philosophies is too speculative, but perhaps mentioning articles he wrote, legal associations or organizations involved in, or comments about his legal background by close associates might be something we could put into the article. After all, your point that the section needs more detail might be something that holds true, even if the legal philosophies comment is a dead end. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]