Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 3

message: Why is the sentence "During his first year as a U.S. Senator, Obama said he would not run for the presidency in 2008, but in a recent television interview he said that he has "thought about the possibility" of becoming a presidential candidate.[2]" in the lede? Is it really that important, and does it significantly add to the intro? Seems to me a small tidbit of his life. Thoughts? Thanks. --198.185.18.207 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  When a major-party politician admits that he or she is considering running for the top executive position of a democratic country, it's almost always appropriate for an article lede.  It's even more relevant when the politician already holds high office and an election for the executive office is approaching.  Actually, I'm somewhat confused as to how it is only a "small tidbit of his life".  Care to elaborate? · j e r s y k o talk · 20:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Him being elected Seantor... big part. His saying he was thinking maybe, possibly about running for President... not so big. What people may or may not be thinking about just isn't that big. Now, if he had announced that he was actually running... then by all means, it deserves a spot, but if he simply says that it has crossed his mind, I'm not sure it does. I would rather it be replaced by something about his books. You know, "Obama is also the author of two books. His authobiography, Dreams from my Father and ..." you get the point. --198.185.18.207 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in a bookstore the other day and someone pointed to his book and said, "He will be the next president."  He didn't say, "That's a good book."  :-)  Steve Dufour 15:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I understand your point a little better now.  He's certainly waffling at the moment.  But consider that it's possible, perhaps even likely, that he would be the Democratic front-runner if he did make his intentions certain.  So, at least in my mind, the fact that he's talked about "possibly" running is of great interest.  Perhaps we should see what others have to say. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in lede? 

message: Just throwing this out there, but it looks as if the one paragraph lead does not follow WP:LEAD for an article of its size. Gzkn 08:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand the lead? 

message: This section violates NPOV by just throwing in minor criticisms from various columnists.  If there are any significant controversies for which Obama has drawn criticism, that should certainly be included.  But this is just a bunch of cherry-picked quotes dissing Obama.  I'm not aware of any other political article that has such a section.  It's just not encyclopedic.  Can you imagine what the article for President Bush would look like if we included every criticism from a newspaper columnist?  It's got to be a notable criticism or controversy, not just something said by one person.   Maximusveritas 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Jasper23 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jbpo, I think their point was that, to an outsider who is not familiar with Illinois politics, the section seems like a random collection of quotes from columnists criticizing him. It's stubby. Consider beefing up and explaining this real estate deal. Make it a paragraph summarizing what the deal was. From reading the article, all I can deduce is that Obama had an "adjoining property relationship with indicted political fundraiser Antoin Rezko". What does that mean? Gzkn 04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like HailFire might be working on that section, so I think I'll let him work through it first. I did a little Google search, and this link is a good summary of that land deal controversy so far. Gzkn 13:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll be rewriting this section today, and will post a preview of it in this talk page for discussion (hopefully it's not too contentious). Gzkn 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure to check the Chicago Tribune coverage as well as the Sun Times.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611090010nov09,1,6819020.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611050397nov05,1,750738.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0611030337nov03,1,7736524.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0611010273nov01,1,2852476.story
Rezko's motive was that anything he built on the side lot would be worth a whole lot more when Obama ran for President in (fill in the year). That also explains why he paid the full asking price, as he wouldn't be the only real estate speculator in Chicago who could figure that out. Barack's motive (or more likely that of his wife) was that the nominal sideyards needed to be equal in order to give a symmetrical effect. That meant they had to buy a 10-foot strip of land. Why didn't the original owner do that in the first place? I haven't seen a plat, photo or anything similar, but I expect that had something to do with the official survey which would have included the (probably) 10-foot parkway on the other side. Parkways may have public sidewalks, so any hedge or fence would be on the owner's lot beyond that line. As general information, these sorts of buybacks are common when a large piece of property with a house is subdivided by the original owner. The only problem that I can see is that Rezko is the speculator who happened to buy the land. The Obamas would have been better off to buy both pieces of land, resurvey and sell off the smaller piece. However, because of the parkway issue, I doubt they realized they had a problem at the time they bought the house. If this is the biggest 'scandal' Obama gets involved in, I think the world will remain safe for democracy. :-) Flatterworld 23:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Reading between the lines a little I picked up the idea that his wife is probably African American.  If so this would be a major piece of information concerning his own identity as an African American, or his identification with the African American community if you want to say it that way.
Is there a way that this, if true that is, could be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his wife is actually mixed race;) Jasper23 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe there is no need to mention it, until she becomes the First Lady and notable in her own right.  :-)  Steve Dufour 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was totally just kidding. I have no idea what she identifies as. Jasper23 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a picture of his family?  Steve Dufour 08:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no picture of his family on his Senate website. Steve Dufour 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Many people who are considered African American are not "black" by your definition.  For instance check out basketball player Scottie Pippen. He doesn't look very "black" to me.  Steve Dufour 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize the typical person who self-identies as African-American has 83% of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa.  People who are only 50% black often self-identify as mixed, so much so that the census has a mixed category and historically had a "mulattoe" category.  Timelist 15:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You define "African American" by race.  I define it by historical and cultural identity.  I don't think there is anything wrong with your definition.  On the other hand I think that mine is more in line with how most Americans think about the question.  I have never heard of someone being kicked out of the African American community for being less than 50% black.  Steve Dufour 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve's right - it all depends on self-identification.  Harold Ford Jr probably has less African ancestry than Obama, but he self-identifies as African American.  People in the US are more likely to identify as biracial if they have parents who are of different races, but as only one if the ancestry is further back.  The 83% figure for African Americans is only an average - there are people with a lot more and a lot less African blood who self-identify thus.  Of course, as for "black", that term has even less meaning - I always heard growing up (in Trinidad and Tobago) that black merely means non-white (granted, that's largely a relic of the Black Power movement).  When it comes down to it, even race is a function of self identification, not genetics (even if you believe that race exists, it's impossible to draw boundaries between one race and another).  Guettarda 15:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are people, especially in the hispanic community, that have far MORE African ancestry than Obama, who DO NOT self-identify as African-American, and certainly not as black.  In fact in Brazil, if you any white ancestors at all, you self-identify as white. So clearly self-identification is all a bunch of hooey.  True, there are no clear boundaries between races, because all races blend into one another. However most people fit biologically into one race or another because most people have most of their ancestors from one region of the world or another and those regions historically did have geographic boundaries or races wouldn't have developed in the first place. People like Obama are the exception to the rule, so any attempt to pigeon hole him into one race or another is going to be quite subjective, and should be presented as such. Timelist 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I argree with most of what you say.  However Senator Obama is certainly an American and in the eyes of most Americans he is black.  So it doesn't seem unreasonable to call him an "African American". Steve Dufour 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can argue it from both sides. I think if you did a poll of Americans and asked "Given that Senator Obama has a White mother and an African father, is he black, white, or mixed race?"  I think "mixed race" would win by a small amount though I haven't done the poll so I could be wrong. It would certainly win in many countries outside the United States and in Brazil "White" would win.  I do think though that the term African-American is more inclusive than black.  I see black as more of a racial term, and African-American as more of a cultural term, so you could argue that he's African-American but not black, if you define African-American as "percieved as black within the U.S.".  The problem is African-American is a poorly defined term, which is why we needed to qualify it. Timelist 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the place to qualify it would be the WP article on African-Americans, not in a one page biography of a senator.  Steve Dufour 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not either/or. We can do BOTH! Timelist 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the senator's African-American-ness or lack of it can be shown to be a real life issue then we can't mention it in the article.  Did he say anything in his books about it?  Do the people in Illinois have an opinion about it?  Steve Dufour 03:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see someone has taken this out.  Please explain your reason.  Thanks.  Steve Dufour 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Identifying her race (the relevance of which I cannot see) seems absurd.Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 02:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please at least admit that you don't like it because it is impolite to say it like that, not because you can't see the relevance.  Thanks.  Steve Dufour 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree 100% that what I did was in bad taste, putting "an African American" after Mrs. Obama's name. (I don't say things like that in everyday life.)  However I do think it is important considering that Senator Obama is a person of mixed race who has chosen to indentify with the African American community.  The fact that he chose an African American as a wife seems to me to be important information concerning that.   Besides that the article says that he is an African American; so why not say the same about Mrs. Obama?  Steve Dufour 02:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Does she take the same stance; that is, to foster her claim to fame as "African American"? I would say he chose Michelle Obama as a spouse, not an African American, but none of us can begin to explain why he picked this particular person. If we follow the argument, then the article should say he is married to an African American, Michelle Obama... if the important part is her race. Basically, there have been African American/Black wives before her, so she's not the first. Is it truly notable? (And I second your contention that some of the rhetoric applied to the subject doesn't belong either. Is it notable that he's the fifth black senator? When do we stop counting?) CMacMillan 02:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read the article I was curious about his wife's race/ethnicity.  I kind of expected that other people might be interested too.  Steve Dufour 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted 7 times where Senator Obama's race/ethnicity was mentioned in the article.  I would like to mention Mrs. Obama's one time.  In my opinion history will consider her race a point worth mentioning.  Can someone give me an honest reason why not?  Steve Dufour 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  At least people who are interested can check out her article.  Steve Dufour 12:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I assume his wife is African American?

message: "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois. According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history and the only African-American currently serving in the Senate."
It's been a day now since I last posted about this and there have been no comments against this compromise version. I'm assuming the silence means people accept this compromise. If not, please post! I'll let this sit for another day for people to respond to with requests for changes. If there are no objections by then, I will be bold and put this into the article. Gzkn 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  If you feel its too cumbersome, you could always just say "By some estimates, he is the fifth African-American senator" or, "he is considered/described as/dubbed the fifth African-American senator", anything that makes clear that we are citing an opinion, not a fact. But the way you have it is fine. Timelist 14:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that Gzkn, go ahead.  IMO a "true African American" would be a person who traces his or her ancestors to blacks held in slavery in the United States before the Civil War.  Senator Obama is always going to be a border line case, maybe he is and maybe he is not African American.  I would say the same for a Nigerian, for instance, who is 100% black and had become a US citizen, or a child born of Nigerian immigrants:  100% black African ancestors and born a US citizen -- but still not for sure an "African American".  BTW I am a "white" American yet my suntanned skin is as dark than some African Americans'. Steve Dufour 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated before, I like the compromise. IMO it is great to have a real African American politician like Obama, representing us in the Senate. Jasper23 15:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about finding a picture of his family that could be included in the article?  Steve Dufour 16:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the compromise, but I actually think that calling him a mixed race man who self-identies as black will help him more politically (assuming that's your goal).  Why?  Because African-Amican voters will appreciate the fact that despite being mixed he is CHOOSING to identify as African-American, white voters will be comforted by the fact that he's half white,  and African American women will be really impressed that a smart successful mixed race man chose to marry a black woman, when so many successful men who actually are black, choose to marry white women.  I hate to say but racist white voters will also prefer a mixed race man who chose to marry a black woman instead of a white woman.  I think all of these factors, in addition to his intellect, charisma, and support from Oprah, will converge and get him elected the first non-White president in 2008. Timelist 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting points.  You may be right. Steve Dufour 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the compromise, of course.  One thing, though--we shouldn't be basing ANY decisions about article content on what will help Obama politically.  If he runs in '08, I will happily vote for him versus essentially any Republican opponent.  However, my political preference does not and should not, per WP:NPOV, influence my editorial decisions in this or any other article.  I just wanted to emphasize that; it's very important to keep in mind when editing on Wikipedia. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree.  Timelist 16:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply brilliant use of wiki, "I think all of these factors, in addition to his intellect, charisma, and support from Oprah, will converge and get him elected the first non-White president in 2008." Yes I agree as well, this article is generally written to get Obama elected as president rather than providing the facts relevant for a biographical entry.  What a pathetic use of a shared resource--Jbpo 01:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would love nothing better than to see Obama elected, he's the most charismatic politician I've ever seen, BUT, my personal bias is not relevant because I've contributed NOTHING to this article.  All my edits were rapidly reverted so while I'm honest enough to admit my bias, it's left no thumb print in the article. Timelist 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for leaving your thumb print in the article, in the above discussion.--Jbpo 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that he has done any harm.  It seems to me that all the articles here on active politicans are written by their supporters and detractors.  The historians come later....Besides it's been an interesting discussion. Steve Dufour 02:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Editors who are 100% unbiased and neutral are not interested enough to write the article in the first place.  I think all this talk about objectivity is all a bunch of hooey. We're human beings, not robots. We all have agendas, the important thing is to be upfront about them.  But since editors are virtually never neutral, it's better to err on the side of supporters, since at least their bias is in a positive, non-libelous direction. Timelist 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I did before, I wanted to emphasize, again, that we all need to have a better understanding of WP:NPOV.  Statements like "it's better to err on the side of supporters, since at least their bias is in a positive" simply do not comport with the neutral point of view policy, but rather a sympathetic point of view, which is what Wikinfo uses. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I did before, and as I want to emphasize again, we all need to have a better understanding of human nature, and instead of pretending to comform to some impossible ideal of 100% neutrality, we should all just admit our bias, so others can help keep them in check.  People who claim to have no bias are the most biased of all because they have no self-awareness. Timelist 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Outdenting"?  :-)  Steve Dufour 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does the intro not state simply what party he is a member of? I see it is standard in other senators' pages.  193.1.184.254 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Compromise 

message: "The actual Swahili word for "Blessings" is "Baraka". In Kenya, where Obama's birth farther was born, several men go by the name Barrack and it is not a Swahili word at all"
It could very well be true though, so I kept it here in case anyone wants to investigate. Gzkn 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems likely; cf. this discussion. I'm not sure it's worth noting, though. mvc 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed this unsourced statement by [[User talk:Nahabi wandera|Nahabi wandera]] 

message: I could see this to be quite problematic in the future, as more and more random links get thrown in there by passersby. I would rather not see those two just become endless lists. :( Any suggestions as to what might be done to limit the two sections? Or maybe this may not be as a big of a problem as I think it is, in which case, feel free to state so :). Gzkn 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... these kinds of sections always seem problematic and invite non-notable, POV, non verifable, and vanity links all the time.  The usual way I have seen it dealt with is a commented out section like this .  Then it is acceptable to just revert undiscussed links there.  That will prevent a lot of reverts to the article and shift things in favor of caution.  It is very similar to the way Obama's middle name "Hussein" has comments around it to prevent reversion.  Another example off the top of my head is in the "Leet" article in the examples section.  --Rtrev 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah cool, thanks! I added the comment in there. Gzkn 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Further Reading and External links section 

message: There are only 5 or 6 items.  If a person is not interested it's easy to skip over.  If no one objects I will remove the tag, which itself takes up room and is a distraction Steve Dufour 02:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps one can find more things to put in the trivia rather than deleting it.--Mr.Weirdo 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles. I would try to put the items in the biography. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess that works too.--Mr.Weirdo 02:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with the trivia section?

message: I've just added more details about Obama's father's birthplace, on the grounds that a) Nyangoma is unlikely to warrant its own article any time soon, so we can't just make that a link, and b) it's easy to look up Wichita, but people not familiar with Kenyan geography would have trouble finding Nyangoma.  Given that Obama travelled there, and spoke about it in his autobiography, I feel it's relevant.  The town is now in Bondo District, but appears in a map  of Siaya District (linked from both articles) which was made before the boundary was redrawn, and is clearly south of the dividing line (latitude 0° 18’ north). mvc 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father's place of birth 

message: Here it is. I was wondering if we could change the title of the section to Criticism and Controversy to be more comprehensive. Comments/suggestions welcome.
::Criticism and Controversy
::Obama came under fire after the Chicago Tribune published an investigative report on November 1, 2006 detailing the senator's adjoining property relationship with indicted political fundraiser Antoin Rezko.Ray Gibson and David Jackson, Rezko owns vacant lot next to Obama's home, Chicago Tribune, November 1, 2006 According to the article, Obama and Rezko's wife bought the adjoining lots in June 2005, with Obama paying around $300,000 less than the asking price; Rezko's wife bought her property for the full asking price. The article also stated that Obama and Rezko continued to collaborate on improvements to the properties in 2006. An editorial published by the Tribune on November 3 questioned why the Senator was associating himself with a developer under federal scrutiny.Editorial Staff, Obama, Rezko ..., Chicago Tribune, November 3, 2006 The editorial also stated that the two land deals invited speculation as to whether Rezko's wife in effect subsidized Obama's purchase. In a separate Tribune column, editorial columnist John Kass criticized Obama's land deal, writing, "At best, it is a gamy story of a presidential hopeful displaying a lack of judgment by getting involved with Rezko in a real estate arrangement in which the Obamas benefited."John Kass, Obama fuzzy on fence that Tony built, Chicago Tribune, November 2, 2006 Although he had previously described his dealings with the Rezkos as ethical, on November 4, Obama acknowledged that the land deal was a mistake.Ray Gibson and David Jackson, Obama: I regret deals with Rezko, Chicago Tribune, November 5, 2006
Note: you'll probably have to edit the section to see the refs.
Also, after reading both the Economist and David Sirota articles, my view is that they should not be included in the criticism section. First, placing the Economist article under the Criticism section wrongly characterizes it. Two sentences from an Economist article that is more describing who Obama is than criticizing him does not make for notable criticism even if it is the Economist. If the Economist writes an entire editorial criticizing Obama (which a previous version of the criticism section seemed to infer), that'd be another matter. The Sirota criticisms, if you read the article, are actually from blog posts. Once again, the inclusion of this source under the criticisms section gives readers the wrong impression about the actual article. Also, Sirota's position on Obama (he's actually a self-described fan of him) is certainly more nuanced than the current criticism section suggests. 
I realize, of course, that this may not be the consensus. If not, I was hoping that the above could at least replace the current one sentence on the Rezko deal. Looking forward to all of your comments. For the most part, the debates have been civil and enlightening so far, and I hope they stay that way. =) Gzkn 06:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, I like your rewrite and agree with your reasoning on the Sirota/Economist articles.  This would definitely be a major improvement from what's there now. Maximusveritas 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good, Hailfire. Gzkn 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten Criticism Section 

message: The Jr. should be dropped, as both of Barack's parents are deceased. It's only used to differentiate the two Barack Obamas (and their wives, when referred to as Mrs. Barack Obama - although that disappeared when she remarried - and Mrs. Barack Obama, Jr.). Source: any etiquette book. Flatterworld 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Wikipedia's article suffix (name) says "There is no hard-and-fast rule over what happens to suffixes when the most senior of the name dies. Do the men retain their titles, or do they all 'move up' one? Neither tradition nor etiquette provides a definitive answer (columnist Judith Martin, for example, believes they should all move up, but most agree that this is up to the individual families)."  The statement is unreferenced, so I'm certainly skeptical.  Do you have a specific reference for your position?  I'm inclined to agree with you if you can provide one. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My references are hardcopy, not online. However, that Wikipedia article is sufficient anyway. Either they move up (and without a next generation 'Jr.' there is no 'Sr.') or the family's preference rules (Barack doesn't use Jr., so we can assume that's his preference). As for the 'most', that would apply if confusion were likely to continue even after death (if the father were a famous writer, for example). In conversation, one would simply say 'the late Mr. X' to differentiate the two. Flatterworld 15:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Akin to the pronounciation of one's own surname, the use of name suffixes is the choice of the individual (or the individual's parents in the case of minor children).  Some people (example: Sammy Davis, Jr.), use 'Jr.' long after the relevant 'Sr.' is deceased.  Some never use 'Jr.'  Unless evidence is produced that shows Obama ever styled himself 'Jr.' no such suffix should be included. -- House of Scandal 18:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Various sources, including Project Vote Smart's  entry on Barack Obama and Time Magazine's October 23rd cover story on Barack Obama refer to him as "Barack H. Obama" and "Barack Obama", respectively.  Additionally, his official Senate website lists him as "Barack Obama".  No "Jr." from any of these prominent sources, so I'm going to remove the "Jr." from the article.  --Tim4christ17 talk 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Jr.' in name 

message: I think his stance towards Wal-Mart is a very crucial one.  He's a very influential politician, teaming up with another very influential political, against the largest retailer in the world.  Taking a firm stance against the health care and wages being put out by the largest retailer in the world, is noteworthy in my opinion.  Especially if you're being critiqued on economic policy.
Bleu`dove 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wake Up Wal-Mart

message: User:Jbpo added: "Despite his November 3, 2006 campaign statements against voting along color lines in Maryland, when the Republican candidate happened to be African American, on November 5, 2006, Obama campaigned for fellow Democrat and African American Harold Ford in a historically black Church in Tennessee, stating that "I'm feeling lonely in Washington, I need my dear friend to join me."."
Forgetting the fact that it uses the wrong citation form, I fail to see how this is notable controversy. The sources don't cite any controversy that arose from this. The addition smells like original research to me. Gzkn 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already discusses Obama's campaigning for candidates in the '06 election.  Connecting his statement in campaigning for one candidate to his campaigning for a different candidate without citing a source that already does so is certainly original research.  Besides, the connection of his statement in support of Ford doesn't really prove anything regarding what I believe is Jbpo's point--what if Obama is just a good friend of Ford's and merely wanted him to join him in the Senate?  He certainly didn't say anything close to "vote for Ford because he's black."  So even as original research, it's not controversial.  But the most important thing is that it's original research to fabricate a controversy here when a reliable source has not done so. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Great!  If there are numerous sources that discuss this "controversy", then it should be easy to find many reliable sources (other than ultra conservative opinion columns and blogs) that support the assertion that Obama is being hypocritical here, right?  Please.  The comment in Tennessee doesn't even discuss race.  It's simply unpermitted original research to draw the conclusion that he was discussing race in Tennessee on top of the original research that it is therefore controversial to do so even if he was.  And by the way, it's up to the user wanting to include the information to provide sources per WP:V, not the user or users challenging its inclusion.  So do your own Google searches please.  Finally, if the chronic talk page hyperbole, POV pushing, personal attacks, and incivility don't stop, I'll happily start a user conduct request for comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As everyone other than yourself who has commented on this so far has no doubt seen, the AP report you mention does nothing but discuss Obama's campaigning for Ford, including the "I need my dear friend to join me" quote.  No one here (I think) doubts the truthfulness of the quote or the AP story.  The AP report does not, however discuss any kind of "controversy" regarding the quote.  The problem isn't the facts presented, some of which (campaigning for Ford) are already discussed in the article, it's the original research involved in synthesizing the facts contained in the AP report and the other report to fabricate a "controversy".  Finally, do you disagree that the opinion piece you linked to in the second go round was, in fact, written by a very conservative columnist/blogger? · j e r s y k o talk · 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (RfC) I think that "joining dots" between quotes to draw a conclusion stands for original research. WP:NOR must be strictly enforced in this case per WP:BLP.  JRSP 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think making shit up does qualify as Original Research. I think you know that too. Jasper23 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a cite from a reliable source to support the connection as a controversy, then please provide it. That's what people have been asking for from the beginning. --Bobblehead 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Jbpo is referring to this opinion piece written by a very conservative writer and blogger. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said a Chicago newspaper columnist which Michael M. Bates is not, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until he provides a link to the source. --Bobblehead 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that even if Jbpo has a source for the "Chicago newspaper columnist", that still might not make it notable controversy. If the Chicago newspaper columnist, and some blogs, are the only ones who have written about it, and none of the wires have picked up any such controversy, it's probably not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Otherwise, if citing random columnists/bloggers was the only requirement for including something in the controversy section, we'd be looking at piles of random, little "controversies". Gzkn 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:V do not specify quantity just reliability. WP:BLP does preclude the inclusion of "random bloggers", partisan websites, and obscure newspapers as single source references, so your example is a bit of a red herring/straw man argument, but like I said. I'm giving Jbpo the benefit of the doubt for now. If he can provide a reliable source that meets the BLP requirements, then it may be eligible for inclusion. --Bobblehead 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, my argument certainly wasn't about quantity, more about WP:RS/WP:BLP. But that's neither here nor there...anyway, I'll just wait for Jbpo to respond. Gzkn 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course Obama was being a hypocrite, but I'm not sure that amounts to a controversy. In the general scheme of things I don't think its notable. As for the article reading like PR for Obama, I'm not sure how much negative or positive stuff really belongs in there. To the best of my knowledge he really hasnt done much in office yet. Good or bad.Caper13 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd addition of controversy... 

message: * From WP:OR: "Original research excludes editors' personal views; political opinions; and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold." Sorry but this is exactly what you're doing. If you have any sources for your analysis, by all means go ahead and provide the source. Otherwise it's only your analysis and is considered OR. Zarbat 09:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As everyone other than yourself who has commented on this so far has no doubt seen, the AP report you mention does nothing but discuss Obama's campaigning for Ford, including the "I need my dear friend to join me" quote.  No one here (I think) doubts the truthfulness of the quote or the AP story.  The AP report does not, however discuss any kind of "controversy" regarding the quote.  The problem isn't the facts presented, some of which (campaigning for Ford) are already discussed in the article, it's the original research involved in synthesizing the facts contained in the AP report and the other report to fabricate a "controversy".  Finally, do you disagree that the opinion piece you linked to in the second go round was, in fact, written by a very conservative columnist/blogger? · j e r s y k o talk · 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (RfC) I think that "joining dots" between quotes to draw a conclusion stands for original research. WP:NOR must be strictly enforced in this case per WP:BLP.  JRSP 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think making shit up does qualify as Original Research. I think you know that too. Jasper23 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a cite from a reliable source to support the connection as a controversy, then please provide it. That's what people have been asking for from the beginning. --Bobblehead 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Jbpo is referring to this opinion piece written by a very conservative writer and blogger. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said a Chicago newspaper columnist which Michael M. Bates is not, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until he provides a link to the source. --Bobblehead 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that even if Jbpo has a source for the "Chicago newspaper columnist", that still might not make it notable controversy. If the Chicago newspaper columnist, and some blogs, are the only ones who have written about it, and none of the wires have picked up any such controversy, it's probably not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Otherwise, if citing random columnists/bloggers was the only requirement for including something in the controversy section, we'd be looking at piles of random, little "controversies". Gzkn 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:V do not specify quantity just reliability. WP:BLP does preclude the inclusion of "random bloggers", partisan websites, and obscure newspapers as single source references, so your example is a bit of a red herring/straw man argument, but like I said. I'm giving Jbpo the benefit of the doubt for now. If he can provide a reliable source that meets the BLP requirements, then it may be eligible for inclusion. --Bobblehead 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, my argument certainly wasn't about quantity, more about WP:RS/WP:BLP. But that's neither here nor there...anyway, I'll just wait for Jbpo to respond. Gzkn 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course Obama was being a hypocrite, but I'm not sure that amounts to a controversy. In the general scheme of things I don't think its notable. As for the article reading like PR for Obama, I'm not sure how much negative or positive stuff really belongs in there. To the best of my knowledge he really hasnt done much in office yet. Good or bad.Caper13 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: An IP added this, which I removed because it was unsourced: On May 4, 2006, in his weekly Podcast, Obama stated that "we have to recognize that if we are going to uphold the traditions of this country as a nation of immigrants then we have to deal with this issue in a way that reflects common sense and compassion," disagreeing with actions the House of Representatives have taken to cut down on undocumented workers in the United States. He also pushed for creation of a "pathway to earned citizenship for the 11-12 million people that are already here." Obama continued later to say, "It's hard to imagine that we want to live in a country where we have police and immigration officials coming into peoples homes and taking away the father of the family...leaving a mother and child behind." Gzkn 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unsourced para 

message: I was reading his description of his Grandfather Onyango in "Dreams of My Father" and was struct by how his behavior exactly match someone with AS, like myself. For example, he was very particular about how things are arranged, had an intense interest in Western farming techniques, and was physically clumsy. The description certainly seemed to indicate he was considered "quite odd" by Luo standards. 4.225.114.184 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grandfather Onyango- Asperger's Syndrome?