Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 2

message: Recent edits by an anon (seen here) added the following to the article: 
In May 2006, Obama campaigned to maintain a $.54 per gallon tax on imported ethanol, during a period when automotive fuel prices hovered around $3.00 per gallon. Obama justified the tax by joining Senator Durbin in stating that "ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices".
In June 2006, Obama campaigned to increase estate tax to their 2000 levels, claiming that this would eliminate the "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses."
My position is that, as written, the blurbs violate WP:NPOV as they provide merely soundbytes without any context that are slanted toward a conservative view of both issues.  
Regarding the estate tax, the use of the word "increase" is misleading and POV, considering that the estate tax is in the middle of a steady, drawn-out cut that will culminate in its elimination for one year in 2010.  As the law stands now, the estate tax will automatically roll back to its 2000 level one year later in 2011.  Regardless of what one thinks of the estate tax, one can hardly say, and remain neutral, that Obama supports an "increase" of the estate tax if he merely opposes extending a cut that is ALREADY set to expire in five years.  My edit, which is only a slight change, to the blurb is here.
Second, regarding the gas tax, the sentence soundbyte purporting to explain how Obama justifies the tax is nothing more than an attempt to (1) make Obama appear to have no justification for the tax, and (2) avoid explaining how Obama actually justifies tax.  It's POV and does not deserve to be in the article without elaboration. - Jersyko·talk 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about assuming good faith and not being a dick?  Cut the BS rhetoric when you respond to my points.  I've explained how "increase" is a mischaracterization and oversimplification of Obama's position on estate taxes.  I've explained how the gas tax blurb is an attempt to (1) make Obama appear to have no justification for the tax, and (2) avoid explaining how Obama actually justifies tax.  You're justifying them by pointing out that they are cited, but you fail to realize that verifiability is only one qualification for text in an aritcle: it must also be written neutrally.  Oversimplification is a logical fallacy, one that causes the text you've added to be POV. - Jersyko·talk 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read Obama's statement on the estate tax again.  Point out where in that short statement Obama says we should increase the estate tax.  It's not there.  Your source defeats your argument. - Jersyko·talk 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh ok, so this encyclopedia article about Barack Obama in a section about his career in the Senate is not "an appropriate area to explain Obama's support for higher gas prices or higher estate taxes."  Your continued use of inflated rhetoric instead of reference to Wikipedia policy is impressive but unpersuasive. - Jersyko·talk 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the removal of the link to the list of billionaires.  Where are you getting this seemingly-arbitrary "52%" estate tax rate number that you claim Obama likes?  I don't see it anywhere in the source. - Jersyko·talk 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  Now please connect that 46% rate (or 52% or any othe rate) with anything Obama has said in the citation in the article. - Jersyko·talk 01:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you're right, but the source does not say this.  The source merely indicates that Obama opposes a Republican-backed tax break.  Until a source says differently, I think the article should not presume that Obama voted this way or that. - Jersyko·talk 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: First, the burden to provide sources is on those wishing to include the information, NOT on editors who remove unsourced information, per Wikipedia:Verifiability.  Second, your wording, "Obama voted to allow estate taxes to return to a 50% level" is an inference based on what actually happened, which is that Obama voted against a Republican tax break.  The source says "The 57-41 roll call by which the Senate rejected advancing a Republican bill to eliminate or shrink taxes on inherited estates."  It does not say "The senators voted to retun taxes to a 50% level."  That might well be the effect of the vote (though it might not end up that way!), but it was NOT the purpose of the vote. - Jersyko·talk 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll just refer back to WP:V again.  It's a good read, give it a try. - Jersyko·talk 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:V is a policy all wikipedians must follow.  Doublespeak isn't, but I'm glad to see it gave you another opportunity to break out the unnecessary Orwellian language.  Consulting factual records is a great idea.  It helped me fix the POV you inserted here, here, and here, among others.  Things often look different when you don't selectively choose facts that fit your POV, don't they?  I'm reminded of a section of the neutral point of view policy . . . "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through selection of which facts to present" - Jersyko·talk 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If implying that Dick Durbin caused 10,000 people to lose their jobs and that he "was failing the citizens of Illinois" by supporting sugar protectionism is not POV, please, explain what is.  I'd recommend reading the neutral point of view policy.  Notice that neutrality not balance is what is required.  I've got no objection to, as you say, publicizing Obama's votes on major issues.  I do object to doing so from any perspective other than a neutral one.  I've explained how your selection of facts, such as failing to truthfully explain why Obama supports the ethanol tariff, violates the NPOV policy, then edited the text you added to the article.  The article now discusses both the estate tax and ethanol tariffs, yet you accuse me of removing accurate representations of Obama's stance on issues, which I take to mean that since the article doesn't radiate your POV on the issue, I must have removed the discussion of the issue entirely.  Good luck convincing me and the community on that point. - Jersyko·talk 21:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tailoring your neutral posts to fit my pov?  Well, for one thing, I completely disagree with Obama and Durbin on economic protectionism, including sugar and ethanol tariffs.  So that's a non-starter, I'm afraid.  Second, I haven't removed any facts.  Your edit about ethanol made it appear that Obama/Durbin had no explanation for their support of the tariff, as it said "___ justified the tariff by stating 'Ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices'" without actually explaining how they justified the tariff, which is because they think domestic ethanol production is sufficient and even expanding (straight from the source).  You selectively left off the crucial final fact, which is where the POV problem is.  So what I've done, instead of removing facts, is merely told the whole story.  The bit about ethanol tariffs, for instance, is still in the article, and is substantially the same as it was when you added it, but now it doesn't selectively leave out a crucial fact.  Finally, you say "I see no reason why I should be composing an explanation for Sen. Obama's voting record", but didn't you add the "justified the tariff" sentence in the first place?  So are you (1) not composing explanations for Obama's voting record or (2) cherry-picking facts from sources that happen to fit your pov while omitting others? - Jersyko·talk 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's purpose is to present information neutrally, without any eye towards whether the information is being reported in the mainstream media or not, excepting that it must also be verifiable in reliable sources.  You do hit on one point that I think we agree on: the article should discuss Obama's stances on major issues (though in an NPOV manner), which it hasn't necessarily done up till now.  Of course, Obama didn't necessarily have the voting record/public statements on issues until now, either. - Jersyko·talk 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, well, I'm glad we agree on that point.  In (what I hope is the) conclusion, I don't want to discourage you from posting Obama's stances on major issues (I hope I've never come across as such), I just want to discourage you from posting what you believe are Obama's stances on major issues.  Anyway, let's work to improve the article, I think TheronJ made a good suggestion below . . . - Jersyko·talk 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree that if the current law runs its course the estate tax rate will be 55% in 2011, the vote in the Senate was not over whether to allow the tax to return to that level.  Rather, the vote was essentially a cloture vote on a Republican tax break (i.e., elimination or shrinkage of the estate tax in 2011 and beyond).  We have no idea what will happen between now and 2011, and whether Obama supports the 55% rate or a different one, as the sources do not say.  Since the vote was not over the 55% rate, we should not presume it was in this article. - Jersyko·talk 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's verifiable, but verifiability isn't the only relevant policy, NPOV is just as important!  Since the text is not neutral, it should not be in the article unless it is made neutral.  I would be fine with including an expanded blurb about it provided that it was neutral, but, with all due respect,  your admonition for me to expand the text does not justify re-inserting a biased passage back into the article. - Jersyko·talk 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Good point.  I'll change the date for now, and see what I can find this evening regarding your further comments. - Jersyko·talk 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: **I've reworded the blurb to comport with the source and with what little else I can find about Obama's stance on the estate tax.  It now reads, "In June 2006, Obama campaigned against making recent temporary estate tax cuts permanent, calling the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses."  If anyone can find a more comprehensive statement by Obama on what exactly he wants to do with the estate tax, please post the link here. - Jersyko·talk 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas tax, estate tax 

message: There appears to be a contradiction in this section. We first say that he is "neither affirming his candidacy nor putting off the possibility altogether".  But then, in the next sentence, we say that he "will not run for the presidency in 2008".  I think the truth is closer to the latter because that is something he himself has said while the former relies on speculation from secondary sources. Maximusveritas 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was contradictory, though I don't think we can really say with certainty what he's going to do at this point.  I edited the section, though my wording is remarkably clumsy, perhaps I should fix that . . . · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fixed my edit.  I really don't think we can say anymore right now without violating Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, even though it still seems a bit contradictory. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that no where in that article does it provide a quote showing that Obama is actually "keeping his options open".  Everytime that's said, it's in the words of the author of the article, but no proof is given.  Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Obama has said he will not run, so I think we should just stick to that. Maximusveritas 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I went ahead and rewrote it in order to reflect the reality of the situation a little better. Maximusveritas 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, good work. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like Obama, but removed the petitions.  Wikipedia's content policies indicate that such petitions should not be described in Wikipedia articles like this one, see, e.g., what Wikipedia is not and no original research.  Also relevant is Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline.  If the petitions are discussed in a reliable source, then perhaps they should be discussed in this article.  For now, however, I don't think we can include them. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential Ambitions

message: Blogs are specifically pointed out to be generally unacceptable sources per WP:RS.  Thus, this edit does not comport with WP:RS.  If blogs were acceptable sources, anyone could post any opinion they want to their blog, then post it in articles here with a cite to their blog.  I'd also like to note that the blog you cite is merely expressing an opinion; it's not purporting to report fact, like a newspaper would, it's expressing it's opinion on a political subject, thus it's even less appropriate per WP:RS.  The only reason Wikipedia can ever consider including information from blogs is when they report factual information; but even then, newspapers or other reliable sources are preferred if they can be found reporting the same information.  This is all in WP:RS, another policy I wish you would familiarize yourself with, Jbpo. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the verifiability policy requires that sources be reliable.  Your dismissal of the reliable sources policy as merely "a guideline" that you seem to want to ignore demonstrates, at the very least, a marked misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.  Finally, if we're going to provide discussion of reaction to Obama's speech, we must not only provide links to reliable sources that discuss reaction to the speech, but also adhere to the undue weight portion of the NPOV policy.  Linking to criticism of the speech alone violates that policy. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Agree that this line about Obama and the Illinois state police needs reworking to mesh better with contemporary reports, including:
*http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0408200105aug20,1,310256.story?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed
For other contemporaneous references to Obama as "coalition builder" see:
*http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_15/c3878065_mz013.htm
*http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/04/opinion/04HERB.html?ex=1401681600&en=93cadc6286f2f8f1&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
*http://www.stateaction.org/legislator/legislator.cfm?month=11&year=03
Also, I could find no references to the NRA in this context. So there's something to be said here, but it needs to be said differently to rely on any of these sources. --HailFire 22:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed , modified text, and added citations in this version.--HailFire 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Coalition builder", Illinois FOP endorsement

message: As a mere Brit, I'm flabbergasted to learn that there are only 3 black US senators. (Have I got this right - what proportion of US citizens are black?)
What about black Congress-persons? Are there more there?
I recall a lot of talk about Kennedy being the first catholic president - this seems equally surprising.
Has terhe been a Jewish president yet? I would exptec so as I believe there is a large Jewish communjity in the USA. (We Brits had a Jew2ish boss in Disraeli in ?1860's - not sure if we've had one since)
:I remember reading some analysis of why this is so (apart from the most obvious reasons); electoral differences between parlimentary goverment and the way things work in the USA are most likely a contributing factor.  Check the paragraphs after the "Populists and Virgins" section header of this article for some insights.  If I come across more material, I'll add it here. --HailFire 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's something about it from The Economist. --HailFire 09:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point out that Kennedy was the only Catholic president, and there has never been a Jewish president.  Joe Liberman would have been the first Jewish vice president, if he and Al Gore had won in 2000.  Liberman is currently a senator, and it doesn't look like he'll win the reelection next month.  If the Democrats win the House of Represenatives, Nancy Pelosi will probably become the first female Speaker of the House.  Mustang6172 20:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic, but Lieberman has been leading against Lamont in nearly every poll so far.  It seems more like that he will win reelection as an independent than not. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to our British cousin, I note: Disraeli was not Jewish; he was Christian. His family had originally been Jews, but they had converted before he was born. No Jew could serve as a Member of Parliament until the 1860s, when the oath was ammended to removed references to Jesus. Baron Lionel de Rothschild was, I believe, the first Jewish member to take the new oath. Or was it Sir Moses Montefiore? I forget. Anyway, Britain has never had a Jewish Prime Minister. Considering that the Jewish Community in Britain is almost 1,000 years old, it is arguably more overdue in Britain than in our young nation. On the other hand, you have had a woman PM, and we have never had a woman President. The Jews are approximately 2 per cent of the US population, and we have at least 2 Jewish Senators (2% of 100). I don't really know where all this talk is headed; just a response to your comments....66.108.4.183 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black/Jewish Senators Catholics etc & UK comparisons

message: Per stricter requirements since Obama passed FA, Featured articles should now have inline citations:  I've tagged paragraphs and statements in the article which still need inline cites.  The WikiSource speech contains no source, so it should also be added here.  Thanks, Sandy 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags added

message: Barack Obama identifies himself as African-American. The term African-American has been linked to people who do not know their racial heritage in Africa due to the slave trade. Barack's father was born in Kenya. 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK for you with the edits made to the first two paragraphs of this version? --HailFire 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Barack Obama's self-identification 

message: The problem with references to returned campaign contributions from 2004 and earlier, Senator Ted Stevens' threatened walkout over federal earmarks, and a vote to maintain ethanol tariffs is that you really need to find a verifiable source that says these are actual controversies that actually involve Obama in some notable way. 
This is not Wikilawyering, friends, it is just a basic and non-negotiable policy for any serious editor that wants to contribute value to any Wikipedia article: No original research. It takes time to locate good references, and we are, all of us, limited to published sources.
The returned Rezko contribution may merit mention in Wikipedia, but where?  In a summary section about Obama's 2004 Senate campaign? → possibly. In the main article about the 2004 campaign? → likely. Or perhaps in an article about Antoin Rezko? → certainly. If you want to put it here, you have got to reference a verifiable source that actually puts forward the claim that the controversy tells us something notable about Obama. Preferably notable enough to warrant mention in a continuously developing article that is being updated daily and eventually needs to rotate out less notable or stale content to maintain quality.
In any case, Obama is not immune to controversy, he's had his share and references can be found in verifiable sources. Examples:
*David Mendell, Obama's record a plus, a minus, Chicago Tribune, October 8, 2004
*Perry Bacon, Obama Speaks, TIME magazine, February 13, 2006
*Barack Obama U.S. Senate Office, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain Exchange Letters on Ethics Reform, February 6, 2006
*Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, Mail Bonding: McCain and Obama Make Amends, Washington Post, February 9, 2006
*David Sirota, Mr. Obama Goes to Washington, The Nation, June 26, 2006
These sources speak about actual controversies involving Obama, as reported in published sources. Even this week's TIME magazine cover story highlights some popular criticisms.
If you find something that you consider Wiki notable and can verify it, add it to the article, but please, no manufactured or off-topic controversies. Always ask yourself, am I submitting verifiable references and improving the article with this addition? If you can sincerely answer "YES" to that question, then you are surely on the right track. Everyone has a POV, the greatness of Wikipedia is that we are asked to rise above it, and to accept graciously the corrections of our peers when we miss our target. --HailFire 21:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies controversy

message: Intro states:
:at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, delivered while he was still an Illinois State Senator.
But he had not yet been elected?
::What's the problem here?  -Grammaticus Repairo 05:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Incorrect?

message: This article undergoes a lot of anon vandalism and editing drive-by's. I would like to see this page semi-protected for a little while to see how that affects things. What do other people think? Jasper23 07:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pondered the same, but feel that some of the drive-by edits we've seen have been constructive, or at least instructive. Also, we've been lucky to have some top-notch  recent change patrolers like User:Gdo01 on the beat. As for the vandals, I'll be a naive optimist and hope that with unprotected status we might eventually win some of them over to becoming model Wikipedians. So I'd suggest we keep the page unprotected for as long as we can manage it.  --HailFire 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect? 

message: I'm surprised at how well this article is cited. For its size, it is very good. Lots of back up. Sod Aries 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats 

message: I thought that maybe everyone could take a break from the back and forth over whether this artical is too adulatory or partisan and enjoy this tidbit from the New York Times.  It is most certainly not notable enough for the article but it looks like Obama and Bush share at least one thing.  Sorry for the aside, happy editing. --Rtrev 06:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hand Sanitizer Use

message: Is this man's middle name really Hussein? It's just a name, but I wonder from a marketing perspective, how this may adversely affect his presidential campaign. lol. The opponent could really try to use this to their advantage. 
Not that I don't absolutely adore the man, but was just wondering. lol. Relir 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a place for political advertisements.  If his middle name is Hussein, than it should be left in on the page.  If someone can't distinguish between a middle eastern leader and an American politician, they have no business debating politics anyways. Bleu`dove 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Middle Name