Talk:Obama (disambiguation)/Archive 2

message: This is a non-binding straw poll. Feel free to vote. Certainly, polls are not a substitute for discussion. This is why this is a non-binding poll. Further discussion to work toward consensus is encouraged to continue above (in the various discussion sections, to avoid cluttering up this straw poll). Since I know some people will request it, I have also included a third choice, public abstention from the poll. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * A caution to avoid interpreting these polling results by simple head counts. Barack Obama has been heavily visited by sockpuppetry, and there is no reason to assume that this talk page is immune. When in doubt, check the user contribution histories. Also, kindly include brief rationales with your polling answers so we can also use this exercise as a summary of views.--HailFire 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see where I need to comment anymore, until there is a request to move the article.  The current majority prefers a DAB page; multiple admins have warned against moving away from a DAB; etc.  The course seems clear to me. Neier 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to interupt, but I call bullshit. Turtlescrubber 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Multiple admins have warned against moving away from a DAB":  Beg your pardon?  Do respond with links, please. Italiavivi 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Nihonjoe and Nil Einne above.  I wish you would realize that we were having a reasonable discussion here in the past couple of days while you were away.  Maybe it is a coincidence?  But, the level of whining and rhetoric has seemed to grow in the last couple of hours, to say the least. Neier 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nil Einne is not an administrator, as far as I can see.  And how exactly do you count a majority? Tvoz |talk 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I had assumed that from his/her response at AN/I.  As for majority, please see the section above, where Lowellian claims to have a majority; although the opposite is/was true.  Two more people not on that list have since added comments to the DAB straw poll since then. Neier 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So it's not "multiple admins" warning against anything, right?  Lowellian is an admin too, by the way, and is trying here to  move this discussion along with a clearer request for people to state their opinionsthan what was posted earlier.  I do not think you should be counting support from people who have not weighed in on this latest attempt at reaching consensus. The now-closed discussion above was poorly framed, and unclear what people were commenting on or supporting or not - as several users said.  We pretty much agreed to  start fresh on this, and I think HailFire's caveat about sockpuppetry is also worth keeping in mind.  And, of course, "majority" is irrelevant - this is not a vote, it is merely an expression of where people stand on this and why. I'm also somewhat curious about the interest shown in this obscure discussion by people who haven't been parties to any of it before, or editors of relevant pages, but of course any legitimate editor is free to do so. Tvoz |talk 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to guess, some of the new-to-the-discussion editors probably saw the note on my talk page left by Italiavivi and decided to come here to see what the fuss was about.  As for the previous poll, I think at one point or another, everyone made their individual opinions known even though the poll was confusing.  For example, Chris!'s oppose vote actually made it clear that he supported the Obama-as-DAB.  Regarding sock puppetry, I don't think that's a problem here, as most contributors (with an exception tagged below) have been around for quite some time.  Neier 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I object to the characterization of either preference as the "neutral" approach.  I could just as quickly accuse Nihonjoe and Neier of Japanese bias (one has his signature in Japanese for Christssakes), as those of us who support Obama piping to Barack with an arrow are accused of American bias. Neither side is the "neutral" side, and we are debating the merits of the redirects based upon policy and precedent. Italiavivi 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not just that his is the most popular, it's that half the other articles on this DAB are red-links, stubs, or rips from other web pages.  There were countless domains in Japanese history, and the one person used in this argument turned out to not go by "Obama" at all. Italiavivi 19:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that User:Endroit was the one who first started canvassing this survey.  This non-binding poll has been rendered completely moot by your canvassing at WikiProject Japan, Endroit. Italiavivi 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Italiavivi, you're in violation of WP:NPA here, as well as WP:POINT throughout this talk page and through your revert-warring.  I'm not guilty of canvassing, but if you believe otherwise, ask for a third opinion, and formally follow through with WP:DR.--Endroit 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your false invocation of policy is positively laughable.  If you feel "personally attacked" that someone would point out your recruitment at WikiProject Japan and the bloc voting of those who came here as a result, so be it.  The only violation of WP:POINT here has been certain WikiProject Japan members' revert-warring and harassment of those who disagree with them. Italiavivi 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All our edit histories speak for themselves.--Endroit 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours  , in addition to Neier's edit history and Nihonjoe's protection log, certainly do.  Time for you to go read WP:POT, Endroit. Italiavivi 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you.  Read WP:DR carefully, and follow it, if you believe you have a case.  It's obvious your commenting here is not helping resolve any disputes.  Use the proper forum for it.--Endroit 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My commenting here has helped keep things legit.  The previous RFM was bogus, and the current non-binding survey has been flooded by WikiProject Japan members voting as a bloc.  Then there's you, the loudly partisan Republican Party supporter and Wikiproject Japan member; clearly a neutral observer.  I am pointing out the obvious, like it or not.  I will continue our work here, thank you though. Italiavivi 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it or not, I believe you're just trying to throw out votes and opinions of others by accusing them, rather than build any consensus here.  You should really learn to work with others.--Endroit 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between "consensus" and democracy, which Wikipedia is not. Flooding a survey with a bloc of voters recruited from WikiProject Japan is not an indicator of any consensus. Italiavivi 23:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are trying to do is to exclude editors from WP:JA by citing WP:IAR, which you most definitely cannot because of its relevance to Obama (disambiguation).  If you disagree, ask for a third opinion.--Endroit 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never cited WP:IAR, ever, in any discussion on Wikipedia.  If you can't address my actual arguments due to the weakness of yours, don't address them at all.  Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy; your constant fixation on "votes" and tallies from those you recruited from your message at WikiProject Japan makes your confusion about Wikipedia and democracy clear. Italiavivi 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have suggested invalidating this WP:RM request due to your belief that it has been "flooded" by WP:JA editors.  In other words, you are requesting this WP:RM process to be ignored, am I not right?--Endroit 23:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You again show your confusion.  This particular survey was disclaimed as non-binding from its start, and I am simply affirming its non-binding nature in light of your canvassing at WikiProject Japan (and the subsequent bloc voting).  There is no invalidating a survey which was identified as non-binding from the beginning, and voting-fixated/vote-canvassing persons like yourself are precisely why Wikipedia is not a democracy. Italiavivi 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other rule you appear to be ignoring is WP:CON.  You must work with the editors from WP:JA who believe Obama, Fukui and other "Obamas" to be significant.  You must work with non-affiliated editors who believe Barack Obama's Google hits are still due to WP:RECENTISM.  You must reconcile with all those editors rather than ignore them.  WP:RM has been successful in attaining comments from 18 individuals as tallied above.  Now we need to work out a reasonable consensus based on those comments.--Endroit 00:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: "Obama" should redirect to "Barack Obama", with a redirect template ("'Obama' redirects here. For other uses, see 'Obama (disambiguation)'.") to "Obama (disambiguation)" at the top of the "Barack Obama" page.
# —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice A

message: "Obama" should be a disambiguation page.
# — The current arrangement seems to work just fine.  DAJF 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice B

message: Abstain on basis of dislike of polls.
# Nil Einne I'm leaning to B but I'm fairly new to this discussion so would like to see the arguments from those who support choice A as to what evidence they have that Barack Obama is significantly more likely to be what someone is looking for when looking for Obama before saying for sure Nil Einne 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice C

message: ====Questions from Italiavivi====
*I ask in sincerity:  How has the town in Japan ever been notable on even a Japanese national, no less international, scale?  Its entire article seems to be ripped from one website. Italiavivi 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where I need to comment anymore, until there is a request to move the article.  The current majority prefers a DAB page; multiple admins have warned against moving away from a DAB; etc.  The course seems clear to me. Neier 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to interupt, but I call bullshit. Turtlescrubber 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Multiple admins have warned against moving away from a DAB":  Beg your pardon?  Do respond with links, please. Italiavivi 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Nihonjoe and Nil Einne above.  I wish you would realize that we were having a reasonable discussion here in the past couple of days while you were away.  Maybe it is a coincidence?  But, the level of whining and rhetoric has seemed to grow in the last couple of hours, to say the least. Neier 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nil Einne is not an administrator, as far as I can see.  And how exactly do you count a majority? Tvoz |talk 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I had assumed that from his/her response at AN/I.  As for majority, please see the section above, where Lowellian claims to have a majority; although the opposite is/was true.  Two more people not on that list have since added comments to the DAB straw poll since then. Neier 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So it's not "multiple admins" warning against anything, right?  Lowellian is an admin too, by the way, and is trying here to  move this discussion along with a clearer request for people to state their opinionsthan what was posted earlier.  I do not think you should be counting support from people who have not weighed in on this latest attempt at reaching consensus. The now-closed discussion above was poorly framed, and unclear what people were commenting on or supporting or not - as several users said.  We pretty much agreed to  start fresh on this, and I think HailFire's caveat about sockpuppetry is also worth keeping in mind.  And, of course, "majority" is irrelevant - this is not a vote, it is merely an expression of where people stand on this and why. I'm also somewhat curious about the interest shown in this obscure discussion by people who haven't been parties to any of it before, or editors of relevant pages, but of course any legitimate editor is free to do so. Tvoz |talk 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to guess, some of the new-to-the-discussion editors probably saw the note on my talk page left by Italiavivi and decided to come here to see what the fuss was about.  As for the previous poll, I think at one point or another, everyone made their individual opinions known even though the poll was confusing.  For example, Chris!'s oppose vote actually made it clear that he supported the Obama-as-DAB.  Regarding sock puppetry, I don't think that's a problem here, as most contributors (with an exception tagged below) have been around for quite some time.  Neier 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I object to the characterization of either preference as the "neutral" approach.  I could just as quickly accuse Nihonjoe and Neier of Japanese bias (one has his signature in Japanese for Christssakes), as those of us who support Obama piping to Barack with an arrow are accused of American bias. Neither side is the "neutral" side, and we are debating the merits of the redirects based upon policy and precedent. Italiavivi 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not just that his is the most popular, it's that half the other articles on this DAB are red-links, stubs, or rips from other web pages.  There were countless domains in Japanese history, and the one person used in this argument turned out to not go by "Obama" at all. Italiavivi 19:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that User:Endroit was the one who first started canvassing this survey.  This non-binding poll has been rendered completely moot by your canvassing at WikiProject Japan, Endroit. Italiavivi 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Italiavivi, you're in violation of WP:NPA here, as well as WP:POINT throughout this talk page and through your revert-warring.  I'm not guilty of canvassing, but if you believe otherwise, ask for a third opinion, and formally follow through with WP:DR.--Endroit 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your false invocation of policy is positively laughable.  If you feel "personally attacked" that someone would point out your recruitment at WikiProject Japan and the bloc voting of those who came here as a result, so be it.  The only violation of WP:POINT here has been certain WikiProject Japan members' revert-warring and harassment of those who disagree with them. Italiavivi 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All our edit histories speak for themselves.--Endroit 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours  , in addition to Neier's edit history and Nihonjoe's protection log, certainly do.  Time for you to go read WP:POT, Endroit. Italiavivi 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you.  Read WP:DR carefully, and follow it, if you believe you have a case.  It's obvious your commenting here is not helping resolve any disputes.  Use the proper forum for it.--Endroit 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My commenting here has helped keep things legit.  The previous RFM was bogus, and the current non-binding survey has been flooded by WikiProject Japan members voting as a bloc.  Then there's you, the loudly partisan Republican Party supporter and Wikiproject Japan member; clearly a neutral observer.  I am pointing out the obvious, like it or not.  I will continue our work here, thank you though. Italiavivi 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it or not, I believe you're just trying to throw out votes and opinions of others by accusing them, rather than build any consensus here.  You should really learn to work with others.--Endroit 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between "consensus" and democracy, which Wikipedia is not. Flooding a survey with a bloc of voters recruited from WikiProject Japan is not an indicator of any consensus. Italiavivi 23:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are trying to do is to exclude editors from WP:JA by citing WP:IAR, which you most definitely cannot because of its relevance to Obama (disambiguation).  If you disagree, ask for a third opinion.--Endroit 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never cited WP:IAR, ever, in any discussion on Wikipedia.  If you can't address my actual arguments due to the weakness of yours, don't address them at all.  Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy; your constant fixation on "votes" and tallies from those you recruited from your message at WikiProject Japan makes your confusion about Wikipedia and democracy clear. Italiavivi 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have suggested invalidating this WP:RM request due to your belief that it has been "flooded" by WP:JA editors.  In other words, you are requesting this WP:RM process to be ignored, am I not right?--Endroit 23:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You again show your confusion.  This particular survey was disclaimed as non-binding from its start, and I am simply affirming its non-binding nature in light of your canvassing at WikiProject Japan (and the subsequent bloc voting).  There is no invalidating a survey which was identified as non-binding from the beginning, and voting-fixated/vote-canvassing persons like yourself are precisely why Wikipedia is not a democracy. Italiavivi 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other rule you appear to be ignoring is WP:CON.  You must work with the editors from WP:JA who believe Obama, Fukui and other "Obamas" to be significant.  You must work with non-affiliated editors who believe Barack Obama's Google hits are still due to WP:RECENTISM.  You must reconcile with all those editors rather than ignore them.  WP:RM has been successful in attaining comments from 18 individuals as tallied above.  Now we need to work out a reasonable consensus based on those comments.--Endroit 00:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: *I ask in sincerity:  How has the town in Japan ever been notable on even a Japanese national, no less international, scale?  Its entire article seems to be ripped from one website. Italiavivi 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where I need to comment anymore, until there is a request to move the article.  The current majority prefers a DAB page; multiple admins have warned against moving away from a DAB; etc.  The course seems clear to me. Neier 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to interupt, but I call bullshit. Turtlescrubber 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Multiple admins have warned against moving away from a DAB":  Beg your pardon?  Do respond with links, please. Italiavivi 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Nihonjoe and Nil Einne above.  I wish you would realize that we were having a reasonable discussion here in the past couple of days while you were away.  Maybe it is a coincidence?  But, the level of whining and rhetoric has seemed to grow in the last couple of hours, to say the least. Neier 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nil Einne is not an administrator, as far as I can see.  And how exactly do you count a majority? Tvoz |talk 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I had assumed that from his/her response at AN/I.  As for majority, please see the section above, where Lowellian claims to have a majority; although the opposite is/was true.  Two more people not on that list have since added comments to the DAB straw poll since then. Neier 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So it's not "multiple admins" warning against anything, right?  Lowellian is an admin too, by the way, and is trying here to  move this discussion along with a clearer request for people to state their opinionsthan what was posted earlier.  I do not think you should be counting support from people who have not weighed in on this latest attempt at reaching consensus. The now-closed discussion above was poorly framed, and unclear what people were commenting on or supporting or not - as several users said.  We pretty much agreed to  start fresh on this, and I think HailFire's caveat about sockpuppetry is also worth keeping in mind.  And, of course, "majority" is irrelevant - this is not a vote, it is merely an expression of where people stand on this and why. I'm also somewhat curious about the interest shown in this obscure discussion by people who haven't been parties to any of it before, or editors of relevant pages, but of course any legitimate editor is free to do so. Tvoz |talk 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to guess, some of the new-to-the-discussion editors probably saw the note on my talk page left by Italiavivi and decided to come here to see what the fuss was about.  As for the previous poll, I think at one point or another, everyone made their individual opinions known even though the poll was confusing.  For example, Chris!'s oppose vote actually made it clear that he supported the Obama-as-DAB.  Regarding sock puppetry, I don't think that's a problem here, as most contributors (with an exception tagged below) have been around for quite some time.  Neier 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I object to the characterization of either preference as the "neutral" approach.  I could just as quickly accuse Nihonjoe and Neier of Japanese bias (one has his signature in Japanese for Christssakes), as those of us who support Obama piping to Barack with an arrow are accused of American bias. Neither side is the "neutral" side, and we are debating the merits of the redirects based upon policy and precedent. Italiavivi 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions from Italiavivi

message: For starters, my absence in the straw poll above is not due to dislike of polls, or anything else.  Much of my original rationale was based on claims regarding the prime minister, who (as it turns out) may or may not ever be referred to as PM Obama.  With a sitting PM Obama, it was an open/shut case in my mind.  Since then, I have been thinking the situation over in more detail.
So far, WP:DAB#Primary topic has been used to justify both styles of disambiguation.  Like most WP policies, the amount of may and should contained within that passage makes any wiki-lawyering easy to do regardless of one's stance; but, we're not here to wiki-lawyer.
With no doubt, Barack Obama is currently the most popular article of any article listed on Obama; just as Hillary Clinton is the most popular article on Hillary, or Britney Spears is the most popular article on Britney, or Dick Cheney is the most popular article on Cheney, or Rush Limbaugh is the most popular article on Limbaugh (and, maybe Rush too – no disrepect to Neil Peart), etc.  Arguing that there is one form of disambiguation or another on one page is just a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the examples above do demonstrate that wikipedia consensus still does not give a slam-dunk to the most popular article in the cases of redirects from partial names.  Sometimes it goes that way (Trudeau, Chirac, and (since yesterday) Beckham), and sometimes it doesn't.  That's why even DABs have talk pages.
:It is not just that his is the most popular, it's that half the other articles on this DAB are red-links, stubs, or rips from other web pages.  There were countless domains in Japanese history, and the one person used in this argument turned out to not go by "Obama" at all. Italiavivi 19:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Neier

message: A clear trend has emerged, at 12 to 6, in favor of disambiguating "Obama".
* Those who prefer Obama to be a Disambiguation page or leaning towards it:  12
*:(Neier, DAJF, Endroit, John Smith's, LordAmeth, Nihonjoe, Kyaa the Catlord, AjaxSmack, Rtrev, Vegaswikian, Nil Einne, PalestineRemembered)
* Those who prefer to redirect Obama to Barack Obama:  6<BR>
*:(Lowellian, Turtlescrubber, Tvoz, HailFire, Italiavivi, R. Baley)
--Endroit 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that User:Endroit was the one who first started canvassing this survey.  This non-binding poll has been rendered completely moot by your canvassing at WikiProject Japan, Endroit. Italiavivi 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Italiavivi, you're in violation of WP:NPA here, as well as WP:POINT throughout this talk page and through your revert-warring.  I'm not guilty of canvassing, but if you believe otherwise, ask for a third opinion, and formally follow through with WP:DR.--Endroit 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your false invocation of policy is positively laughable.  If you feel "personally attacked" that someone would point out your recruitment at WikiProject Japan and the bloc voting of those who came here as a result, so be it.  The only violation of WP:POINT here has been certain WikiProject Japan members' revert-warring and harassment of those who disagree with them. Italiavivi 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All our edit histories speak for themselves.--Endroit 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours  , in addition to Neier's edit history and Nihonjoe's protection log, certainly do.  Time for you to go read WP:POT, Endroit. Italiavivi 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you.  Read WP:DR carefully, and follow it, if you believe you have a case.  It's obvious your commenting here is not helping resolve any disputes.  Use the proper forum for it.--Endroit 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My commenting here has helped keep things legit.  The previous RFM was bogus, and the current non-binding survey has been flooded by WikiProject Japan members voting as a bloc.  Then there's you, the loudly partisan Republican Party supporter and Wikiproject Japan member; clearly a neutral observer.  I am pointing out the obvious, like it or not.  I will continue our work here, thank you though. Italiavivi 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it or not, I believe you're just trying to throw out votes and opinions of others by accusing them, rather than build any consensus here.  You should really learn to work with others.--Endroit 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between "consensus" and democracy, which Wikipedia is not. Flooding a survey with a bloc of voters recruited from WikiProject Japan is not an indicator of any consensus. Italiavivi 23:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are trying to do is to exclude editors from WP:JA by citing WP:IAR, which you most definitely cannot because of its relevance to Obama (disambiguation).  If you disagree, ask for a third opinion.--Endroit 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never cited WP:IAR, ever, in any discussion on Wikipedia.  If you can't address my actual arguments due to the weakness of yours, don't address them at all.  Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy; your constant fixation on "votes" and tallies from those you recruited from your message at WikiProject Japan makes your confusion about Wikipedia and democracy clear. Italiavivi 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have suggested invalidating this WP:RM request due to your belief that it has been "flooded" by WP:JA editors.  In other words, you are requesting this WP:RM process to be ignored, am I not right?--Endroit 23:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You again show your confusion.  This particular survey was disclaimed as non-binding from its start, and I am simply affirming its non-binding nature in light of your canvassing at WikiProject Japan (and the subsequent bloc voting).  There is no invalidating a survey which was identified as non-binding from the beginning, and voting-fixated/vote-canvassing persons like yourself are precisely why Wikipedia is not a democracy. Italiavivi 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other rule you appear to be ignoring is WP:CON.  You must work with the editors from WP:JA who believe Obama, Fukui and other "Obamas" to be significant.  You must work with non-affiliated editors who believe Barack Obama's Google hits are still due to WP:RECENTISM.  You must reconcile with all those editors rather than ignore them.  WP:RM has been successful in attaining comments from 18 individuals as tallied above.  Now we need to work out a reasonable consensus based on those comments.--Endroit 00:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interim tally

message: I've reverted the most recent edits to Obama by Italiavivi again.  The discussion is difficult enough to follow when the pages are stable, let alone if they are being moved all the time.  Wait for the discussion to end before deciding whether Obama should contain the DAB page, or if it should redirect to Barack. Neier 00:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change was the recent one, it can stay how it was since December 2006 and change if the discussion decides that.  You will not get your preference through edit warring.  This is all part of an attempt by editors who want to change the DAB format to frame their version as the "current" version and the old format as a "requested move," and I completely reject that disingenuous framing. Italiavivi 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even read any of the comments above in response to your claims that the article was stable since December 2006?  You are the only one who keeps trying to move this against the discussion, and against the wikipedia principles; and I am about resigned to the fact that you don't want to discuss this rationally, and are looking for a ban of some sort. Neier 02:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Move this against discussion" my ass, Neier.  Like I said, this edit warring toward your preferred change is simply meant to frame the debate in your terms, and I reject it.  I am resigned to the fact that you are hoping you can make your move without anyone contesting or reverting your change, and it's not going to happen.  Make empty ban threats all you like, you're just as likely to catch a ban for edit warring as I am, trust me. :)  Sounds like someone needs to read WP:POT to me. Italiavivi 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, I'm not going to get sucked into games of "no I didn't... he did!".  If you have any insightful analysis as to why the redirect was more "current" than the DAB, please feel free to debunk the itemized list of revision histories above.  I am not "framing" unless you equate "framing" to "using facts to support the position".  Also, the discussion has a 7/6 split in the straw poll towards DAB, with others who support the DAB (including me) not in that tally. I'm still considering the opinions; but, the one thing I am not flexible on is the blatant childishness that you show by trying to move the page back to where you think it should be, when the discussion is still going on. Neier 02:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said:  Pot, kettle, black.  Edit warrior, heal thyself.  If you're the bigger man, quit reverting everyone, hm? Italiavivi 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, as for the 7/6 split in the non-binding survey?  Funny how the two votes who put your preference over the line are both fellow members of WikiProject Japan, right?  Not like what is essentially a canvassing notice placed at the Japan project  by advocates of your position is turning out editors with Japanese bias, or anything. Italiavivi 03:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was also subject to a link on ANI, was that canvassing as well? (And it is common for related topics to be listed on wikiprojects such as it was on wp:japan) Kyaa the Catlord 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Kyaa, there is not much point in trying to make any rational or reasonable points on this page today.  When Italiavivi was not around, the discussion stayed relevant and avoided rhetoric, name calling, and reversion wars while focussing on resolving the issues via discussion.  Of course posting a notice to a related project in order to hear more discussion viewpoints from people who may actually care about some of the content would seem strange to such a user, who seems to avoid dialogue like that and actively goes out of the way to disrupt it (as in the first move request above).  I fail to see how it is canvassing when the WP:RM was copied verbatim without any editorial content, nor any messages on the talk page of the project or the users.  The rationale that we are all in the same club is so ridiculous that it doesn't warrant a response.  I applaud Nihonjoe for extracting himself from this mess when he did.  Although I'm a bit late, I am going to do the same thing.  If y'all want to discuss the merits again like adults, give me a ring.  Until then, I have no more interest in dealing with this.  Bye bye (er, ciao, I guess). Neier 04:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This had nothing to do with finding "more discussion viewpoints from people who may actually care about the content" at WikiProject Japan (despite describing seeking input from AN/I as "inappropriate"), and color me shocked that you "applaud" someone who's been giving you Japan-based barnstars on your User page.  Someone sounds unhappy that the "wrong version" was protected to me, and I am quite tired of being accused of "American bias" by an influx of editors who came here en masse from a nationally-based WikiProject.  Addio (which would be more appropriate in this context), Neier! Italiavivi 04:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I am saying is that it is funny (especially being a citizen of Italy myself) to watch myself and others be accused of "systemic American bias" by a gaggle of editors from WikiProject Japan who are all trying to assert the notability of a tiny Japanese town over an internationally prominent figure whose article is among Wikipedia's most viewed. Italiavivi 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You should have assumed that WikiProject Japan would have been notified about this whole dispute given the large number of Japan-related links on the page. It shouldn't come as any surprise. As for any cultural bias, please keep your culturally biased opinions to yourself. You have no idea where I'm from, so you have no standing to be questioning whether or not a cultural bias exists with me or anyone else at WP:JA. For all we know, you have an American-centric cultural bias, but you don't see me accusing you of that, do we? I encourage everyone to drop the "cultural bias" stones and just get back to the discussion at hand. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two editors above from WikiProject Japan already accused disagreeing editors of American bias, with one also accusing us of "recentism."  You act as if WikiProject Japan's members haven't been making accusations of "American bias" this entire time.  Your group of Japan-centric editors, who appear to have been recruited here by Endroit's message at WikiProject Japan, shouldn't throw "nation bias" stones while living in very transparent glass houses. Italiavivi 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So to Neier and Nihonjoe, AN/I is an "inappropriate" place to seek comment but WikiProject Japan was fine and dandy?  All while accusing others of espousing bias?  How funny. Italiavivi 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has everything to do with Japan since half (or more) of the items linked to from this disambig page have to do with Japan. If you read the top of the various admin boards, you'll notice that ALL of them state that content disputes do not belong there. That's basically all this is, so yes, I don't think that the discussion belongs there (though it may now on WP:AIV given the revert war you and Neier seem to be having today). I strongly suggest that no one move this page at all until it's determined exactly what should be done with it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been protected by an uninvolved sysop (a lesson you could stand to learn).  Neier appears to have withdrawn himself from the discussion shortly after the protection went into effect.  It's completely moot now. Italiavivi 06:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is not endorsement. The page will be unlocked after a while as per usual - in which case the problem will start again. John Smith's 19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Neier and others truly abhor revert wars, they will keep their fingers off the "UNDO" button, plain and simple.  Any other cries and complaints whilst they continue their revert warring is simply WP:POT.  Italiavivi 19:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you would want to claim you don't mind revert wars, the same would apply to you. John Smith's 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the ones claiming a "higher road" and decrying edit wars whilst rapid-fire reverting. I've made no such claims of superiority.  Their hypocrisy here has been blatant. Italiavivi 16:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moves and reversions 

message: I think it would be a good idea if the involved parties submitted to mediation, informal or formal. It's silly for the page to be locked over an issue like this. Talk it over with an uninvolved third-party. John Smith's 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not accept any mediator who is active with WikiProject Japan.  The nation-centric bloc voting of this group has been painfully obvious. Italiavivi 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, there are no mediators who are part of WP:JA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone who is active at both WP:WPJ and WP:DPL, and who has worked with you before, and who remained quite neutral above, I am somewhat offended by this comment. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the exception, not the rule, in this particular case. Were we weighing Barack Obama against a small town in Nebraska or Manitoba named "Obama," this controversy would not have appeared. The bloc of WikiProject Japan voters who came here following Endroit's linking the discussion from WP:JA, combined with Nihonjoe's willingness to use his sysop tools on these articles, have left me generally skeptical of its membership's ability to set aside their nation-centric bias.  Arguments based upon policy, exceptional page view statistics, and notability (or lack thereof) have been completely ignored by these voters, with no counter or reason offered whatsoever and one WP:JA editor now trying to declare "victory" based upon vote-counting.  I hope you can find my skepticism understandable; I did not mean to offend you, and believe you can at least empathize with where I'm coming from. Italiavivi 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:AGF. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF doesn't require one to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Nor am I accusing you all of harmful motives; I've no doubt you have the best of intentions in promoting all things Japanese, but the priorities in this case are skewed to the point of Japan-centric bias.  WikiProject Japan members came blazing in here after Endroit's recruitment, accusing everyone here of "American bias," but I think we have a case of projection here. You're welcome. Italiavivi 14:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What I would suggest, in all honesty, is consultation with editors at WP:DAB or its associated WikiProject. Yes, this is about Japan to a certain extent, and American politics to a certain extent, but the people who don't have a specific interest in these topics and still know what they're doing when it comes to disambiguation pages are at WP:DAB. Whether presenting valid comments or not, it's unhelpful to note majorities in straw polls when more than half of the respondents are from the same WikiProject and the subject concerns multiple projects. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation suggested

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DAB#Given_names_or_surnames
So, if "Obama" is a DAB, Sen. Obama's listing must be at the bottom of the page according to the Manual of Style.  Just one more reason to leave Obama piping to Barack, with a hatnote pointing back to this DAB at the top of Sen. Obama's page.  If anyone is looking for the small town in Japan, they will still be able to find it very easily by following the hatnote. Italiavivi 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a very reasonable solution.  The only two modes that are fair are a hatnote and a redirect to Barack or a redirect to a DAB page.  At least for the time being I feel it is most convenient for Barack to go straight to Obama. --Rtrev 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. I only changed it back because you'd been so particular about so many things here. Since you don't mind your favorite politician being at the bottom, it's fine with me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sen. Obama isn't really my favorite politician, but his article has been one of the most fun to edit on Wikipedia. I certainly handle matters related to my "favorite politician" better than you handle matters related to your favorite country, though. Italiavivi 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, favorite of the moment. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have actually found that the value of working on an article is usually determined by the article's other editors, not its subject. :) Italiavivi 01:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw an article on the web site while browsing Reuters this morning. You are wandering into personal attacks and grasping for straws, Endroit.  Given your User_page is a shrine dedicated to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, I would advise you not to throw stones.  It is interesting: I have been accused of hating and trolling Barack Obama by some of his article's editors for highlighting his cigarette smoking, drug use, and "blackness," but accused of "loving" him by you. Italiavivi 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're no doubt obsessed by the guy, judging from the edit history at My.BarackObama.com, if not "loving" him.  Anyways, it just goes to show you where your bias lies with respect to the WP:DAB issue here.--Endroit 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the one whose userpage is a shrine to one of America's political parties; I suggest you drop this avenue of attack, it will certainly backfire on you.  Cease your personal attacks. Italiavivi 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look who's talking.  You have already "backfired" against every single editor you disagree with in this talk page, Italiavivi, and in a rude way.  And you have never ceased to bring up stuff which are irrelevant to this discussion, such as my past political orientations.--Endroit 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that if you are unable to make any arguments with actual merit, you take a break. While I'm flattered to have a Wikistalker, your posting here has added nothing to the content dispute at hand. Italiavivi 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I speak for a few other editors as well, in saying that I am familiar with both Barack Obama and Obama, Fukui, and have objectively compared the various "Obama's".  And we believe that Barack Obama is not the single most notable "Obama", worthy of having a redirect from Obama.  Furthermore, Italiavivi, your reprisals against us are uncalled for, coming from a biased individual such as you... , biased enough to create an article called My.BarackObama.com.  This shows your obsession towards Barack Obama alone, and making you unduly weigh in favor of redirecting Obama there.  Consider this a response against your numerous reprisals spattered throughout this talk page.--Endroit 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly need a lecture on bias toward Democratic politicians and a small town in Japan from someone who is both a Republican and a member of Wikiproject Japan. I again suggest that if you have nothing to add to the discussion at hand, you take a break. I sincerely doubt any editor here, even the ones with whom I disagree, would claim you as their spokesperson after this display of yours. Italiavivi 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely added by mentioning your bias here with respect to My.BarackObama.com, that's all.  But you just wouldn't let it go without sideswiping against me personally, do you?  Since you have chosen to continue, I felt it necessary to respond to your wild delusions, and point out the obvious here:  If you didn't already know, this is NOT a Democat vs. Republican issue.  This is the Talk:Obama (disambiguation).  Keep to the topic, OK?--Endroit 23:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your disingenuous attempt at sandbagging this discussion with personal attacks and an unrelated article is transparent, Endroit. Again, I do not need lectures on bias from someone whose Userpage is dedicated to the United States Republican Party. Italiavivi 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bogus lie:  I am NOT "dedicated" to the United States Republican Party.  I consider that a personal attack against me.--Endroit 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The MoS is clear, Barack must be at the bottom of the page 

message: Are users purposefully creating new articles to try and dilute other arguments on this page and make Obama seem a lot more common and in use than it actually is. Yes, yes they are. That is called gaming the system and it's not the right thing to do. Turtlescrubber 15:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're complaining that more information is being added to Wikipedia? And that it is a bad thing? Maybe you need to step back from the fray and look at what you are saying. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you need to step back and read what I wrote before you go shooting your mouth off. Turtlescrubber 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down, Turtle. --Ali'i 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: All the articles being created would have been created sooner or later anyway (especially the transportation articles). If no one else, I would have gotten to them eventually as I've already created over a hundred train/rail Japan-related articles. Sure, this whole discussion brought them to the front, but it's not as if people are pulling things out of thin air. All of the articles being created are legitimate articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are articles being created to populate this page?

message: Which is the common spelling?  Are many of these spellings interchangeable? Italiavivi 15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are each as common as the other. It just depends on where in Japan you are, and what you are talking about. All three can (and are) used as surnames. All three are used as place names, in business names, etc. The note on the page is to make sure people know they may need to search under all three if they aren't sure how the word is pronounced (in the instance they only have the Japanese characters, with no hint to the correct pronunciation in that context). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should note that the "spelling" (小浜) is the same for all three in Japanese. It's the reading that is different. This is not an uncommon thing in Japanese (the same kanji having multiple readings). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nihonjoe can correct me, but I believe it would be accurate to say that the spellings are not interchangeable. Some people (and places, etc) are named Obama, some Kohama, some Ohama. Though these are all written the same way in kanji, they remain separate names. LordAmeth 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The readings are not interchangeable (the readings correspond to the English romanizations). The spelling (小浜) is the same for all three. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama, Ohama and Kohama