Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 7

message: where is the section on criticism and controversy. not everyone loves him. Manic Hispanic 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a controversy section because he hasn't been in any notable contraversies. I'm not sure why there isn't a criticism section but I would guess that he doesn't have one because his opinions/statements are rarely polarized, such that what little criticism he does get, is for petty stuff that has little to do with things he's actually done. --Ubiq 11:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time magazine had an article this week about his lack of support in the black community, who (Time says) prefer Senator Clinton.  This might be worth mentioning. Steve Dufour 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: People simply not liking or loving Obama does not warrant a controversy or criticism section or sub-article. There must be sufficent credible, verifiable and neutral sources that cover such controversies or criticisms before they can be included. This is an encyclopedia and not a "political website." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Edwardlalone on this matter.  Italiavivi 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the Tony Rezko real estate deal. What about the racist remarks towerds whites in his first book. There are many other things. This guy is a politician so for sure he is a crook. The media loves him so its hard to get the dirt on him but it is there. Some of his views like social security, abortion, and affirmative action are very controversial. Manic Hispanic 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real estate deal may be notable enough to be worked into the text; I'd rather defer to those who know more about it than I do, and apparently it has been discussed and excluded.  The rest of your comments are absolute bunk.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless you can come forward with some non-trivial and  verifiable sources that show any notable controversies or personal criticisms, there doesn't need to be a "criticisms" section.  We have what his stances are on many of the issues - those link to sites where there is a discussion of the arguments for and against them.  We don't need to duplicate content because you feel he gets a "free ride" or something in the media.  --Haemo 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He's not given a "free ride" anywhere. He's been slandered by Insight Magazine and Fox News. CNN and MSNBC have done little Obama-Osama hit jobs on him. All this for a guy who's not been in one notable controversy. Obama did not commit any wrongdoing in the Rezko matter, and the event is simply not relevant to his notability. We're not going to create a criticisms section just because other people have one, or just because one editor thinks the absence of one is "unfair". Something actually has to happen that warrants us making an entire criticisms section. --Ubiq 09:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: Hi all.  I'm a lazy browswer who wants his platform handed to me in a nice easy to read table. I think a platform is a list of issues and his stance on them. From broad things like the budget to foreign affairs, down to specific things like the removal of 10-commandment statues and tax-breaks for gay couples. I know this is kinda hard, but I have faith in you guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.238.49.65 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My god, its not that hard to look for these things. I already answered you on the Hillary Clinton page, here is Obama's: Political views of Barack Obama. Seriously its not that hard to find these. Gdo01 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plateform? 

message: I requested another semi-protect for this page. It's undergone way too much vandalism by anon IPs ever since it was unprotected. --Ubiq 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Foxnews used the Kennedy comparison today. He reminds me of JFK in some ways, he is handsome, youthful (JFK was one of our youngest Presidents) and something about his personality reminds me of JFK. A similar charisma leavened with sensitivity.
67.42.243.184 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard him called that, but I can see how a parallel might be drawn. Steve Dufour 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris Matthews made that comparison this morning, though I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion in the article (at least not at the moment).  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope the expression doesn't catch on. :-)  Steve Dufour 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I just read the Rolling Stone's article on Barack Obama. It does relate him to Robert F. Kennedy, but only in comparing his charisma and compassion with that of the latter. 
 "But Obama is not Kennedy." 
"Bobby Kennedy grew up studying how to use America's power,
and in his forties he began to venture out and notice its imperfections.
Barack Obama came up in a study of those flaws, 
and now, thrust into a position of power in his forties, 
is trying to figure out what to do with it."
It was a very good article, and I can understand their comparisons and contrasts.
68.66.168.91 18:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The black Kennedy? 

message: What is everyone's thoughts of using Werdnabot to archive this page?  This page is getting a lot of activity and it will only get "worse" the farther into the campaign we get. --Bobblehead 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is probably a good idea. Chris M. 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werdnabot? 

message: Here's a good video clip of Obama denying interest in 2004 in running for President.  Should a note be made of this, just a sentence, in the Presidential section? --Zz414 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. I saw on CNN that he was asked numerous times from the start of his senate career and each time, as time went on, he loosened his answer more and more until now, when he decided to run. └Jared┘┌talk┐  16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, wow, that's just a very subtle way of putting it.  I didn't even pick up on that.  Any chance it could be reworded to indicate that he "denied interest in running for president in 2004"?  If not, I'll see what can be done at the Obama Presidential Campaign page. --Zz414 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, over at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, there is a quote from Obama after his 2004 Senate victory, in which he says "I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years." - PoliticalJunkie 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally denied interest in 2004 

message: Hello folks, Im one of the regular mediators.
I anticipate much more discussion on this article, and as such I want to try an experiment for a high-traffic controversial topic talk page, (this seems to qualify). 
The idea is to organize the talk page according to a topic-based system, archiving the discussion in a topical way, rather than just in a linear way. 
The first thing to do would be to work out a system for doing this. The basic system would be a topical list at the top, which link to subpages titled after the major issues relevant to this article.  There are of course some potential problems with people editing other peoples comments - the important rule must be to be principled and consistent - making linkages to specific archive sections. 
Im curious how this sounds to people. Please offer your feedback at Talk:Barack Obama/Organisation. -Ste|vertigo 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally like the idea.  Is there any precedent for this on an article talk page, though?  I've seen topical archiving on user talk pages, but I don't know that I have on an article talk page.  I ask for two reasons: (1) perhaps talk page guidelines/help pages have something to say on point and (2) if this has been done before, the preexisting organization could possibly be a guide for this page.  I know of nothing that would prevent such organization. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im not sure if there has been any precendent on articles. I was thinking more of WP:VP and how it has topical separation on the intake. That of course wouldnt be the way to go here - all comments should be viewable on the main talk. Nor should the standard archiving method be replaced: We can have some plain redundancy, and that should satisfy those who are afraid their comments would get mangled. We need to of course identify the main threads of conversation for this article. Lets start with a basic list on a subpage: Talk:Barack Obama/topics -Ste|vertigo 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiment 

message: I fully move protected the article after noticing a bit of move vandalism today.  I don't think there's any reason to ever move this article.  I didn't change the article's semi protection. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good call Tvoz | talk 07:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There might be call to move this article someday if Barack loses the election and ends up deciding to change his name for the next time around. ;) -Silence 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protection 

message: We have this box, appropriately, in the section on his Presidential race.   I do not think we need it on top as well - most of the page - his early life, education, his Illinois legislature years, his Senate campaign and service, his books, etc - are not subject to the rapid changes that the Presidential section is, and that the box addresses.  I don't particularly see the need for the box in any case, but I can live with it in the Presidential race section, not on top of the whole article.  Also ok with me if it's in the separate Presidential campaign article.   I removed it from the top and it was instantly reverted - I removed it again and asked for this to be discussed in talk. Anyone else have an opinion on this?  Tvoz | talk 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it in the Presidential section, not at the top of the article. Italiavivi 14:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I agree. - PoliticalJunkie 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Future election candidate" box -  why on top? 

message: The "popular culture" section is mostly political commentary.  Nothing wrong with political commentary on a presidential candidate, but it should be labelled as such.  So you don't all have to go looking, I would consider the Oprah appearance to be pop culture, the Time cover to be borderline.  But NYT (Brooks), Daily News (Crouch), and WSJ (Noonan) columnists, along with his own book, can hardly be considered "pop culture" references.  Can we move those into a different section?  I would consider Obama in pop culture to be his appearance on Monday Night Football, the satire they just did on 30 Rock, and maybe his appearance on The Daily Show or any late night talk shows.  Entertainment versus politics. --Mykll42 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if it was changed to: "Public Image and Popular Culture"? Steve Dufour 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about simply "Public image"? "Popular culture" usually implies stuff like appearing on the Simpsons or getting mentioned in an R&B song. That isn't applicable here. -Silence 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How does "Cultural and political image" have any advantages over simply "Public image"? I don't see anything cultural about his image other than the trivial fact that he's influenced culture, nor do I see anything political about his image other than the trivial fact that he's a politician. -Silence 07:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: No mention of mixed marriage regarding his parents or birth.  Is this irrelevant in 2007?  Surely with some people saying he's "not black enough", this is relevant. ObamaNation 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, how did we miss that.  Have you actually read the article? Tvoz | talk 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, let's stick with WP:CIVILITY. User:ObamaNation, please note the first section's third paragraph: "Of his early childhood, Obama wrote: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me — that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk — barely registered in my mind."[13] As a young adult, he struggled to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage." Italiavivi 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed Marriage 

message: As seen at his site and online store.   Any idea what the copyright status on this campaign logo with regard to Wikipedia use would be?  Have past articles made use of campaign yard signs/bumper stickers or logos? Italiavivi 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under US law a creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is made.  If other people start using it a work can lose its copyright. This happened with the "smiley face". I am not a lawyer however. Steve Dufour 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not public domain as works of the federal government are because a political campaign is not a federal government entity. It's almost certainly protected by copyright (possibly even trademark). We would have to claim fair use to use it here.  And I am an attorney, though this is not legal advice, yada yada yada. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put a bumper sticker on your car and photograph it.  Obama will not sue you. :-)  Steve Dufour 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is, indeed, copyrighted, so a fair use claim would have to be made. However, if you look closely at Obama's new website, you'll see a Creative Commons licensing symbol along the bottom. It does not link to any legal pages yet, but it's entirely possible that Obama is licensing all content on the website under a CC license, which, depending on its iteration, may be compatible with Wikipedia. Someone would need to contact their legal team for clarification. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is highly unusual for them to display the "CC" logo without clarifying the license.  Reading their terms page one finds copying restricted to "personal use" only, and "bulk uses" are verboten.  This is more restrictive than the strictest CC license, which only bans commercial use.  It's pretty clear they don't understand what the Creative Commons is, and just thought it would look cool on the webpage.  Too bad.--Pharos 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not very clear at all.  The site launched at 12 AM this morning, and discrepancies in text (that very likely was copied from prior websites) isn't at all out of the question.  I'm going to shoot them an e-mail to ask to clarify their licensing. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  And please point them to this page.  And remind them that if they want their photos on Wikipedia, they'll have to be cc-by or cc-by-sa.  Thanks.--Pharos 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll update when I have a response.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We're still awaiting the board's official declaration, but based on Kat's letter summarizing policy, a fair use claim for a campaign logo would not be permissible unless there is scholastic value in including the logo (in other words, using it merely for decoration is not permitted).  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with who/what you're referring to.  Kat's letter? Italiavivi 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Italiavivi 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama's new stylized "O" logo. 

message: Fair use images are required to contribute substantially to the article. Can anyone justify the substantial contribution of :Image:Obama 08.JPG and :Image:Barack Obama campaign logo.JPG. Perhaps those of you with connections to the campaign could have them release the images under an acceptable licence if they want them included. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a discussion on this topic here on the Talk page.  This additional section is unnecessary.  I would also refer you back to the discussion at the Wesley Clark FAC, which you apparently arrived here from.  You do not believe campaign logos contribute significantly to the article, others do, and Sen. Obama's site also has a CCommons tag on it. Italiavivi 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this revert, you replace free-use content with fair-use content. Why would you do this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored deleted content.  Again, there is already a Talk page discussion here concerning Obama's campaign signs.  Do you intend to actually participate in Talk discussion, or will you dodge and wikilawyer all day?  Did you bother reading the Talk page before editing the main article, or making this new Talk section, even?  You do not believe that campaign logos contribute significantly to an article, others do.  You do not appear to have consensus in your corner. Italiavivi 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You restored the fair-use image that I replaced with an equally good (better, some might say) free-use image. I've asked for a fair use review. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  A review which you have now disrupted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disrupted?  Uh...  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just wrote them today (unrelated to this recent discussion) re: the unexplained CC logo, as bbatsell's earlier correspondence apparently hasn't been answered.  I checked it on the comment form as a "technical problem" in the hope they would be more likely to read those carefully.--Pharos 08:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See also: Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Barack Obama on cover of TIME magazine --HailFire 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: Here is a story which says that a majority of blacks now support Obama:   I'm  not sure how to put in into the article however. Steve Dufour 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Opinion polling would be a good place to put it.  - PoliticalJunkie 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The information about the poll has already been added there. I understand that we can not have daily poll updates in this article. :-) Steve Dufour 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black support update 

message: Editors of this article may be interested in this Flickr photo set, which has a lot of decent pictures of Obama and is compatibly licensed.--ragesoss 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His US Congress headshot is in the public domain and is probably the best photo for the main picture in this article. The sub sections are fairly well pictured, though we could maybe use a picture added to the "2004 DNC" section, the "State legislature", or the "Political advocacy". Other than those sections, I like the pictures that already exist. --Mattarata 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: Because his father is Barack H. Obama, Sr, is his official birth certificate name "Barack Hussein Obama, Junior"? Steveprutz 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the "Jr" been confirmed?  I see it's been added ti the article.Mykll42 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior? 

message: When was the semiprotection status removed?  I signed on after a few hours and saw a tennis match of racial epithets and gorilla pictures on a Senator's page. Mykll42 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree, semi protection should be re-instated for anonymous/new users...I counted like 12 revisions of vandalism by anon users over a 10 hour stretch today. Bjewiki 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to head over to WP:RFP and make a request for semi-protection. --Bobblehead 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely with sprot - this is a chronic problem  on this article, and it's time that this page get long-term semi-protection, like many others have. This is an embarrassment and only goes to further make Wikipedia look amateuristic and unreliable. I would hope that the regular editors here who have objected in the past will get the message that this is not going to stop in the foreseeable future, despite everyone's hope that it will, and that far greater damage is done by allowing this vicious vandalism than by restricting edits to people who take the 2 minutes it takes to register (as anonymously as they like).  I have said this repeatedly - see the archives - and others have agreed.  To those who are against sprot: we tried it your way, over and over and over,  each time with the hope that this time would be different, but it isn't. Enough is enough. Tvoz | talk 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a request. Mykll42 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about?  sprot2 is exactly the same as sprot.  It is IP/new blocking.  Just a different tag. Tvoz | talk 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I prefer the sprot2 tag is that it is less obtrusive - it doesn't deface the article.  It's used all over wikipedia, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, JOhn Kerry, george W. Bush, Tony Blair, and many others. It doesn't indicate the length of term of the sprot, it just doesn't deface the article. Anyone who goes to edit the page is told "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.".  Tvoz | talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I didn't realize y'all were talking about the templates.  I selected the link to the article and saw the template at the top and assumed the sprot was long term so changed it to sprot2 (for the same reasons as Tvoz, apparently).  Sorry about that. I can self-revert if you'd like. --Bobblehead 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this latest  semi protection has a time limit, short or long -  but in any case I don't think sprot2 means anything different from sprot - it's just a less in-your-face tag, which I for one prefer.  I'm happy to discuss it though.Tvoz | talk 07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, are you talking about the gorilla picture, the "Iraq Saddam Hussein Osama", the Muslim conversion - or what?  I don't know of any editors here who have deleted anything constructive from an IP address just because it was from an IP address, if that is what you're suggesting. That is an absurd assertion, and I don't appreciate your impugning the hard work people put in here. There are no dictators, there are people who work together to reach consensus. GUess what, we don't all agree about everything - far from it.  But most of us try to be respectful and listen to the next guy's idea, and come up with reasonable  compromises.  You win some, you lose some.  We have a damn good article, in my opinion - and guess what else: I don't work for Obama, paid, unpaid, volunteer or any other way. I find the man interesting, and I want his article to be fair.  I work on Hillary's article too - and lots of others.   If you'd like to contribute constructively, great.   If not, why are you hanging around here? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way.  I'm not going to have a debate with you.) Tvoz | talk 07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't let him get to you. All he's done so far is call editors of this article names (fascists, dictators etc.) and has done absolutely nothing to contribute to it. Best to just ignore him (or perhaps get admin intervention maybe?). --Ubiq 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remind User:Ubiq that "calling for bans or blocks" is considered a serious violation of WP:Civil. Please remember these important community standards.Ogeez 02:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says the guy calling other editors "fascists" and "dictators." Italiavivi 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I find your use of the word "civil" amusing. I said "admin intervention" which sometimes simply means the admin will warn an editor. I think a warning is definitely warranted in this case. I didn't "call for a ban or block" so your point falls flat. --Ubiq 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protection? 

message: The article refers to Obama raising money for a 2010 campaign - surely this should be 2008? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.102.19 (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what section you're talking about and am too tired to hunt, but if he is not nominated in some fashion, then he will in all likelihood re-run for his Senate post in 2010, which is likely what it is referring to.  Until he set up his exploratory committee, any monies contributed would have gone towards that campaign and could not have applied to his Presidential campaign.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Website of that campaign.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 not 2010 campaign fund 

message: The Democratic presidential debate in Nevada was cancelled because the chairman of Fox News made a joke about the words "Obama" and "Osama" sounding similar. This is notable. Together with the CNN "Where's Obama?" headline, this merits a section about people confusing the two names. Ogeez 08:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It merits its own section in the Fox News article. It doesn't merit its own section in this article. Discuss this on Talk:Fox News. Same thing with CNN's "mistake". --Ubiq 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't need to tell people that "Osama" and "Obama" sound similar, nor does a typo on CNN's part justify an entire section in Obama's article.  Attack jokes on Roger Ailes' part belong at Fox News, nor does Ailes win himself a sentence on his target's article every time he makes a joke.  Ailes didn't "confuse the two names" as you assert -- he swapped them deliberately. Italiavivi 14:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added a section about the Fox News controversy to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.  Should it stay? - PoliticalJunkie 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama 

message: The article could be improved by adding links to non-American articles and media coverage.172.146.15.93 06:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any of those readily available? Mykll42 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-U.S. views 

message: This was debunked rather well at snopes.com, at the link below. The opening paragraph of the Wiki page on Obama states that he is the only practicing muslim in the Senate. No where else in the article is it mentioned. 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
::Yeah.. It's called vandalism. --Bobblehead 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama is not muslim 

message: For example, "In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border." under the legislation section.  He simply voted on the bill.  This is not newsworthy.  80 senators voted for the bill.  The bill was not Obama's idea.  If he wrote a bill with McCain, that's worthy of wikipedia.  If he has a pet issue, such as not fighting in Iraq, that's worthy of mention.  If you mention a bill that he voted yes or no, then you should list all the hundreds of bills that he voted on.  If one includes the Secure Fence Act trying to fool the reader to thinking that it's Obama's idea, this is fraud.  For a neutral viewpoint, I think the sentence should be deleted.  If not deleted, there should be a note that Obama was simply voted on the measure, one of hundreds of votes, and that it wasn't his idea.Dereks1x 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider deleting fluff 

message:  The caption for 20060926 p092606kh-0093-515h.jpg should read "only Tom Coburn's hair is visible behind Rep. Henry Waxman of California." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bradywahl (talk • contribs).
: John Reaves (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  20060926 p092606kh-0093-515h.jpg 

message: Dereks1x - I am sure you mean well in your editing of Barack Obama, but there is a problem with the way you are doing it. Some of your edits are not careful, and introduce errors in language and wording; some of them are taking an article that many editors have worked hard to keep NPOV and making it less so. Also the article has been given featured status, and we have recently undergone a review of that featured status, and one of the criteria is stability - that means, once wording has been established for sections that are not current events, for example, editors are supposed to try to keep that wording as it is without making lots of changes. His early life, for example, has been gone over and over and the wording is fair, accurate, and not changing, so there's no need to edit it further beyond an occasional tweak. Also the reference style has been under scrutiny and editors have worked hard to keep it consistent and in compliance with standards. PLease believe me when I tell you that the regular editors on this article are diligent and non-partisan. We're not pushing any agenda, pro or anti the Senator regarding his Presidential ambition. What we want is for there to be a fair article, with a reasonable level of detail but not too much - that's another issue in Featured status - with reliable references, and a consistent style. If anyone has ideas for additions or major changes, we try to discuss them on the Talk page before implementing them. I'm asking you, then, to do that. I'm speaking for myself here - as one editor of the page - and one of the ones who has reverted some of your multiple edits yesterday and today. It's very time consuming to do this over and over - you are today reinstating things that were removed yesterday. Please stop doing that and come over to talk instead and say why you think your changes are needed, and I assure you that fair changes will get a fair hearing. I'm posting this on your user talk page and on Talk:Barack Obama where it can be discussed more. I hope you don't take offense, and I hope you will be a cooperative editor on this highly-visible featured article. Thank you. Tvoz | talk 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dereks1x, I removed your addition to the legislation section because it was an uninformative list of non-notable bills that Obama has filed in 2007.  The point of this article is not to act as a legislative record for Obama, but to record only the notable legislation that he's a sponsor on. None of those were particularly notable and none of them have even made it out of committee yet.  Also, links to Thomas do not work once you close your browser session. They are unique to your browser session and will not work for anyone else that tries to follow those links.  Additionally, including the full bill title is not informative as they don't say what the bill actually does.  If you want to include Obama's legislative record for this year, find a secondary source that explains what the bills actually mean. --Bobblehead 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Comparing editors to being from a foreign country is the best WP:CIVIL edit summary. Ronbo76 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  to dereks1x regarding major edits 

message: ok, you win.  We'll let the sharp reader click the links and figure out that Punahou School is a very expensive and famous school and we'll let the point slip by the dull reader by not commenting on how great the school is.  Frankly, I think that is being biased, not neutral, but I'll let it slide. Dereks1x 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good wording Tvoz | talk 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punahou School 

message: Is there any good reason we can't link to Luo (Kenya and Tanzania)?  Personally, I think that's one of the most interesting articles that someone reading this page could stumble upon.--Pharos 05:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that; can you go pull out your dusty old copy of Dreams from my Father and find the quotation? Use citebook to cite it. --Hojimachongtalk 05:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this information as a footnote with the wikilink, to avoid the sentence becoming too unwieldy. Tvoz | talk 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why hide the link in a footnote?  His father's culture is at least as interesting as the color of his skin, which is quite fully discussed in the main text.--Pharos 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did so in order to keep the text as succinct and specific to the senator himself as possible - probably the same reason the description of his father's home village was shortened. If we're concerned about the length of the piece, we have to do that - but that was just my take on the best way to both incorporate interesting information and also keep the article lean and readable. Maybe someone else will have a better idea - I personally don't think this is crucial either to include or to exclude. Tvoz | talk 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be good to incorporate it into the article's main text, not in a footnote, somehow.  This is part of what Wikipedia's all about, interlinking relevant articles, and the Luo article is very well done. Italiavivi 01:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not surprised that you came up with a way that works - fine with me Tvoz | talk 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father's ethnic group 

message: It seems to me that this section is irrelevant with the exception of the African trip and the HIV test.  Other senator's wikipedia article do not have a official travel section.  This may be because long time senators have made many trips.  In the interest of neutrality, the trip section should NOT be there IF the purpose is to falsely convince the reader that the Senator is well travelled and therefore qualified in foreign policy (I must add that I am not saying this is the case).  In the interest of fairness to other senator's articles, the official trip section should not be there unless the trip is newsworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the official trips section useful? 

message: How come no mention of how the fact his ancestors OWNED slaves could hurt his campaign image?  Just an interesting thoughhttp://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/03/more_ancestry_n.html.  Jmlk17 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed up here if you'd like to comment.  I think the consensus on the issue is clear there, though.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: Shouldn't wiki be neutral and allow neutrally worded descriptions of controversies about Obama.  If you don't have this, then wiki is not being neutral but hiding information.  North Korea and Iran are countries that hide information from the public and Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of North Korea. Do you favor neutrally worded mention of controversies in a new section or do you favor censorship like in North Korea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section on controversies (neutrally worded) 

message: My side won several of the votes on Obama controversies. What should we do about this now? We need to write about his smoking, blackness, dispute with Australia PM, and Fox News madrassa expose. Ogeez 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you voted right before posting this message. Please stop being a WP:Troll.Ogeez 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hardly equivalent, and there's no censorship.   Tvoz | talk 02:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies follow-up 

message: Hey what happened?  It used to be bigger!  There was a section on occupation, which said "attorney, law instructor" and some other info.
Anyone remember what it said?  If it's good, why not replace it?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.111.238 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His occupation is currently Senator, which is amply covered. Tvoz | talk 02:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  change in the info box at the top right???? 

message: Hi all, first time that i write on a discussion and i'm not so good with english :) The question is: i see that Rudy Giuliani has his  template on the top of the article, why there's no such thing on Obama's? I see that Obama's article is blocked too, why did you choose not to place the template ? Not a criticism at all, just to know!-- bs (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Bella - your English is fine!  We do have the future election template, but it's in the section specifically about the 2008 presidential campaign, because that is the section expected to change rapidly as events unfold.  Most of the rest of the article shouldn't be changing so quickly, so the template on top might be misleading and isn't needed there.  There's no rule about where it goes, but when I see them on top for articles like this, I tend to move them down to the appropriate section.     As for the semi-protection - the lock on the top indicates semi-protection,  and the only users blocked are anonymous IP addresses and brand new user accounts. If you have a named account you';re welcome to edit - the reason is we've had a tremendous amount of vandalism, sometimes vicious, on this article by IP addresses. Not all editors here agree about this, and we've taken it off numerous times, but so far semi-protection has had to be reinstated because the vandalism quickly returns.  Many of the major candidates, and many other articles on wikipedia, have similar semi-protection.   As for the template - some of the editors here felt that the lock in the corner was sufficient and did not deface the article as much as the big template.  It means the same thing, but is less obtrusive. The main purpose of the encyclopedia is to allow readers to get information as easily as possible, so some of us think the less obtrusive lock serves the purpose of protecting the article, but allows readers to read in a less distracted manner.   Hope this answers your questions - just my opinion, of course.  Welcome. Tvoz | talk 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between articles 

message: What do you think?
From Obama's Past: An Old Classmate, A Surprising Call, Wall Street Journal, Vol. CCXLIX No. 68, March 23, 2007, p.A1
*1.  Keith Kakugawa, his Punahou classmate, is mentioned in "Dreams From My Father".  The article has Keith's picture. Called "Ray" in the book.
*2.  describes Punahou School as "exclusive, mostly white Honolulu high school."  WSJ article says "The two bonded, Mr. Obama wrote 'due in no small part to the fact that together we made up almost half of Punahou's black high school population' in a student body of about 1,700.
*3.  Kevin called Obama recently and "tensions rose when Mr. Kakugawa asked for some money to be wired via Western Union, according to both him and Ms. Adler.  Ms. Adler brought in senior advisor Robert Gibbs, and together, they phoned Mr. Kakugawa last Saturday...the exchange left Mr. Kakugawa upset."
* I think #1 might be relevant for wikipedia, but just a brief mention that Obama was featured in a front page article of the WSJ regarding an old friend who called him for monetary assistance, which was denied. It's front page news.  That's news. 
I think #2 and #3 are not relevant unless you want to modify the reference to Punahou school being "exclusive".  It really it exclusive.  That's now verified by the Wall St. Journal and about half a million Hawaiians can vouch for that.  It's no surprise because the race to the Prez is tough.  You need help like Punahou or Phillips Academy like the Bushs.  MLK High in the inner city is not good enough.  That's just life. 
*Some wikipedia articles have a "trivia" section, particularly the airline articles.  Is that good for this article????Dereks1x 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's that relevant.  In Dreams From My Father, Obama used different names to shield the identity of many people, not just Mr. Kakugawa.  Also, I'm sure Obama has been asked for favors by many people, an old friend asking for financial assistance is nothing special. - PoliticalJunkie 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides many presidents went to ordinary schools, or less. Lincoln of course is the most famous example.  If if was possible for any kind of school to prepare someone to be president then I think we should invest a lot of money to build more of them, :-)  Steve Dufour 02:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with PoliticalJunkie - this happens all the time as someone moves into prominence and is not notable. As for Punahou, it is accurately described now.  About a trivia section, no it is not good for this article. If something is notable, we'd include it in an appropriate place. Tvoz | talk 17:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info from Wall Street Journal front page 

message: Obama's former law firm was described in the article as "civil rights law firm".  This is biased so it's against wikipedia policy.  It's also false.  The firm does a whole lot of plaintiff stuff.  Originally, I summarized it in one phrase.  However, someone edited it out.  As a compromise, I placed a link and just refered to it as a law firm.  
Before people edited out the description of Punahou School as being well respected.  If you're going to edit that out, then you should agree that "civil rights" law firm should also be edited out.  There's an even stronger case because Punahou is well respected (no dispute) but it's a lie to say that the firm is primarly a civil rights law firm.  Furthermore, wiki editors said people could just click the link to Punahou to see how good it is.  The same now goes for the law firm.
The neutral POV is not to lie and mischaracterize the law firm.  Either describe it in its entiretly (got edited out) or give a link and just describe it as a law firm.
Dereks1x 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Miner, Barnhill, & Galland website... the "About Us" section. .  "The firm has acquired a national reputation in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development work."  Referring to something as a "civil rights law firm" is not giving it a POV.  Calling it the "renowned civil rights firm" would be.  Which is why that isn't what we did.  Referring to the Punahou School as a private school is not POV, referring to it as "the famous and well respected private Punahou School" is.  I hate to not assume good faith, but this appears to be more of a vendetta against us for disagreeing with the Punahou descriptor than a genuine intent to improve the article. Mykll42 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that this sentence was reworked to be more specific: it now indicates the nature of Obama's work in the firm, rather than characterizing the firm itself, so this complaint is now moot. Not necessary, by the way, to suggest that this was a "campaign tactic" or that anyone "wants to paint a false picture".  You might notice that the referenced article refers to the firm as a "civil rights" practice which is likely where the original poster picked that phrase up from.  Try assuming good faith, TL500,  eh? Tvoz | talk 07:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You seriously need to learn how to follow links and use the history function, Dereks1x. Tvoz was the one that completely reverted your change. I attempted to incorporate your changes into the article (albeit with bad grammar).  I'm not sure why you feel the need to delete that Obama was a civil rights attorney though as the sources you provide clearly say he worked on minority employment cases and minority voting rights.  Both of which fall under the big banner of civil rights. --Bobblehead 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Except there isn't a variety of sources saying Bush is an environmental President like there is saying Obama is a civil rights attorney. I added a source saying he was a civil rights attorney, so can we stop deleting it now? Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Bobblehead 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bobblehead said nothing of the kind -  what Bobblehead said is that the threshhold for inclusion is verifiability, in other words, truth alone is not enough, facts must be verifiable.  So stop making accusations.  As far as you r question above, no, I don't think the name of the law firm where Obama spent a summer and met his wife is particularly notable - I don't think it matters one way or the other and as you;ve been told, one of the things we try to do is keep the wordcount manageable. The context  of that section is family - where they met hardly matters. The rest of the article by definition will grow, so there is no need for excess in these minor details.  What we have is accurate, verified, and plenty comprehensive.   Of great concern to me also is that you keep reverting the sentences about Miner.  The wording I reverted to, which a number of editors have worked on and pretty much come to the same essence,  are, again, accurate, verified, and enough detail.  Continuing to re-insert the wording you want is not helpful and is disruptive.   The sentence about working on law briefs is completely unnotable and unnecessary - that's why several editors have deleted it.  So please stop re-inserting your wording unless you find consensus to do so here. Tvoz | talk 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dereks1x, I don't think there is consensus on your preferred wording, especially the removal of "civil rights".  The wording is basically me trying to incorporate your additions in an NPOV manner and attributing the areas where you have concerns. As far as whether or not the wording should be in the article, I don't care. Based on edits, Tvoz and Hailfire appear to favor the removal of your edits. Based on that it seems one in favor of including, two against including, and one neutral. If you'd like, you can create an WP:RFC and present your preferred wording and Tvoz and Hailfire's preferred version and see if a consensus exists for the inclusion of one over the other. --Bobblehead 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (****I think Derek1x put back in the term "civil rights" to compromise with you and make you happy****)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HumanThing (talk • contribs).
*Ok, quit fighting.  I see there is a dialogue and useful interaction between Bobblehead and Derek1x.  That's good.  I must say that I disagree with Tvoz as far as her reverting back to the oldest version.  To have some description appears to be better than blanket "he was a civil rights lawyer".  Without commenting on Tvoz' political beliefs, an ardent supporter of Obama probably likes the blanket "civil rights lawyer" because it portrays a do-gooder but a lawyer who does employment law and some voting issues is less dramatic but more accurate.  Furthermore, I see that compromise language incorporating both the "civil rights" term and a more description phrase has been added (and deleted by...let's not name names).  Peace man...quit fighting, lehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&action=edit§ion=26t's compromise!  Let's use NPOV not a oversimplified version.HumanThing 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not revert to the oldest version or to "he was a civil rights lawyer".  I reverted to HailFire's wording from the 21st which seemed to more accurately and succinctly describe this short part of his career.  Further, I don't see the consensus that Dereks1x is claiming.   I don't know what the point is of the sentence about not participating in any trials and writing law briefs  (by the way, that's what non-trial lawyers do, it's quite far from notable). This is far more detail than is needed in this very minor part of the man's career, it seems to me, and I see no attempt to get consensus here for the additions.  Finally, I don't know who you are,  and you don't know what my political beliefs are, nor do you know who, if anyone, I am an ardent supporter of.  So why don't you keep your characterization of this edit to yourself.  Tvoz | talk 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The editor sniped him and he responded. I don't see how what he said needs to be calmed down. --Ubiq 08:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking over it again, this entire issue is specious.   The firm is described here, a neutral source, as having  "a national reputation in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development work"  and does other legal work as well, but that sentence is the lead.   The AP article printed in the International Herald Tribune  that is cited quite clearly states that Obama "chose Miner's Chicago civil rights firm, where he represented community organizers, discrimination victims and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries."  So characterizing it as a civil rights firm was never incorrect or POV or anything but accurate.  We can go into more detail about what specifically he worked on, but it is excessive considering the short period of time - 3 years in the beginning of his career.  I'm leaving that for now, but I would favor shortening it, as we have had to shorten all over the article.  I've removed the entirely unnotable sentence that describes the common practices of an associate in a law firm: they work on briefs, contracts, and legal documents. There's nothing unusual or notable about this - I don't see it mentioned in other articles about people who were associates at the beginning of their careers, and it is not needed here. I am not saying it is untrue, and I know it is mentioned in the article cited,  but a lot of other material is also true but also not notable for an encyclopedia article. And saying he "never participated in a trial while at the firm" sounds POV to me - as if that somehow diminishes his status.  Perhaps you don't know how law firms work - most associates are not trial lawyers, they write briefs and appeals, and do the day-to-day work that is needed.  So this is simply unnotable.  FInally, I previously changed the incorrect syntax "as an Of counsel" and see it was reverted without explanation.  An attorney does not work as an of counsel. They are of counsel.  It is a legal term, slightly awkward, not all that familiar to the public, but if we're going to use it, we have to use it properly.  His of counsel affiliation is minor - he maintained an association with the firm  as lawyers often do when they move on to other activities or retire, and  the article doesn't say that he worked there parttime for all of those years - being of counsel doesn't mean you necessarily work parttime throughout the time you have the affiliation.  It says he "agreed to work for the firm in summer when the legislature was out of session." but that doesnt even clearly state that he did so throughout that time.  His CV notes that he maintained an of counsel relationship, but without more research we don't really know what the nature of the association was (perhaps others have some other documentation).  But the point is that all of this is extremely minor and unnotable, and I don't see the necessity for including it in the article.  It is not a matter of coming up with compromise wording, it is a matter of accurate  and verified representation of the notable items in his career - given the fact that we want to keep the article to a manageable size.   I'm editing this paragraph again, accordingly.  I see absolutely no consensus here among the editors who generally work on this piece, saying that we need all of that detail. And I think this issue has gotten way more attention than was needed.  Sorry this is so long, but I think it was needed to be clear. Tvoz | talk 09:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To the best of my recollection it never  said he was a "civil rights lawyer", has nothing to do with "civil rights leader" or Martin Luther King  so stop bringing up red herrings or your opinion of Obama - whether you think he is like MLK, a team player, a prima donna or anything else.  No one else is trying to show that the guy is anything - are you?   I continue to say that the phrase about what he did on a day to day basis for 3 years at the beginning of his career is utterly unnotable and even the reason you just gave for including it smacks of POV.   No one but you has said that it should be in, or why.  So, once more, I'm taking it out which brings us  back to wording that reflects what has been on this page for a long time and is consistent with what other editors have included and excluded.  If you want to make some kind of reasonable argument, and achieve consensus here, that's another conversation.  As far as people not knowing what associate attorneys do, the wiki article that has been linked there -attorney - spells it out quite clearly, but I'll change the link to point directly at the section description  if that helps you.   And could you please try to remember to sign your talk page comments? Thank you. Tvoz | talk 19:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  law firm 

message: Should we do a write-up on the "1984" ad produced by the Obama campaign? That must be the awesomest political ad ever. Ogeez 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they definitely didn't produce it.  It should go in the campaign article, not Obama's biography.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Obama campaign didn't produce it, and it's just some guy's YouTube piece, I'd say placing it in his article (even his "campaign article") violates Undue Weight. Italiavivi 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gotten a LOT of coverage in the past 2 weeks.  Barack talked about it last night on Larry King.  Hillary even responded to it personally today.  I think it's notable enough to go in the campaign article.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, does it warrant its own article, then?  Or identical mentions at both Obama's and Hillary's articles? Italiavivi 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to place these things in perspective.  I am a reasonably informed person, and first heard of the youtube ad on this talk page a few days ago.  And I first saw it mentioned in the media today.  At most this probably deserves one line in the campaign article.--Pharos 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1984 

message: I think this article should be moved to Barack Hussein Obama Bluppiblu 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The naming conventions say otherwise. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article to Barack Hussein Obama 

message: Let's get the facts straight about Mr. Obama.  He is a Freshman Senator, not a Junior Senator as you have clearly written, with hyper-text, in the first sentence of your facts paragraph.  Do not make this man out for more than he is, he has next to zero national political experience yet all you people want is to make him President.  Two years and two months, please he hasn't even been in office a full term, nor has he even run a state, let alone the United States. Why is it too, that the media does not talk about his Islamic up-bringing or is that to sensitive.  I'm sure the Obamaites will whip-up some sort of spin to keep selling a poor bill of goods, but I wouldn't expect anything less.Chrispb-72 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually went to a secular school. The Fox News and Insight Magazine reports were debunked and FNC admitted their mistake. Not that it actually matters what his religion is. --Ubiq 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not cite your source? You're the one making the claim. --Ubiq 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it wouldn't matter much what he was registered (and I still dispute this) as an elementary school student. He affiliates with the United Church of Christ as an adult. That's a bit more recent don't you think? --Ubiq 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This statement is the biggest load of POV-pushing spinster crap I've read in ages.  You're off your rocker if you think phrases like "his current affiliation with the Christian religion is suspect" will appear in this article.  There is no "his current affiliation with the Christian religion" (laughable weasel wording) -- he is Christian, the end. Italiavivi 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your representation of that article is disingenuous at best.  Every source I'm reading in that article affirms what's already known, and no one in the article alleges that Obama was "a practicing Muslim."  Quite contrary:  The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends.  I'm reverting your POV-pushing characterization, and would note that anything else mentioned in the LA Times article you link has already been covered in the article. Italiavivi 22:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with these points, also concur with Bbatsell on edit summary - the post  was an interpretation not supported by the source or by this talk page discussion as claimed. Tvoz |talk 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You misrepresented the article as having called Obama a "practicing Muslim," the very antithesis of what Obama's childhood friends describe in the L.A. Times piece.  This has nothing to do with support for/opposition to Sen. Obama, and everything to do with your distortion, not to mention your now-obvious political agenda.  Also, cease your personal attacks (I'm a "fascit"?). Italiavivi 23:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Obama - The Media Spin of "Mis-information" 

message: I've been trying to word this tidbit in a fair manner, but the more I look at its source (a blog post from RealClearPolitics ), the more I have a problem with its reliability.  The author, Nathan Gonzales, paraphrases all of Sen. Obama's responses to his questions.
:When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.
I had mistakenly placed the phrases "uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill" and "attempts by Republicans to score points" within quotation marks, assuming them to have been Sen. Obama's responses, but now realize that Mr. Gonzales has provided no directly quoted responses from Sen. Obama in his blog post.  Due to its origin (a conservative blog), and the fact that it provides none of Sen. Obama's actual responses, I question its reliability as a source for this article.  In previous Talk discussion, there was a fairly solid consensus (including from anti-Obama-POV editors) that Obama's past "present" votes were neither extraordinary nor notable.  Should this become an issue covered by reliable sources, we can re-visit it later. Italiavivi 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, with the full context it sounds reasonably accurate, though I don't think it is super notable, many politicians do this, both the gotcha side and the avoiding the vote side.  Augustz 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure focusing on the abortion bills represents undue weight as both sides were represented in the paragraph. Undue weight doesn't necessarily mean focusing on one topic, but rather focusing unnecessarily on one viewpoint or in excess of what the topic is worth.  This is particularly true when the only "present" votes that are really drawing attention is his votes on the pro-life bills. That being said, I'm not strictly opposed to the "present" issue being removed as the only source that's calling the present votes an issue is Gonzales's op-ed piece.  However, his votes against the partial birth and the "Born alive" bills (either as a "no" or a "present") being an issue has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources. So I don't see a reason why those votes can't be included in a sparsely covered state legislature section. --Bobblehead 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Describing "Present" votes as "votes against" is POV. Italiavivi 15:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "ever-present Obama" article.