Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

"An Obama-Rezko primer" - March 10, 2008

Via the Boston Globe from several months ago. The AP does everything they can to soft-sell the Obama/Rezko link. This wiki article is just as bad, even worse. Read it here. We sound like a bunch AP-employed Obama shills here. 7390r0g (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. If you have any concrete suggestions for improving the article please go ahead and propose them. However, you will note that there is already a discussion of the Rezko matter, and if you look at the discussion history you will see that the wording was reached by consensus after considerable discussion, and that the source you mention was considered. Wikidemo (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How does 1RR work?

A while back I made a contribution to this page (a quote from an Arab-American organization's president) and it was reverted(→|), then I reverted the revert(→|). Then the same person who had just reverted me then re-reverted me(→||). According to the WP:3RR page, "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time," therefore this editor had passed 1R and I hadn't, right?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should be asking that question at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule? That being said, you are absolutely right - unless one or more of the reversions made by the other editor fell under one of the listed exceptions. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That was me you refer to, Justmeherenow (as you know, but someone else might not realize). And yeah, my understanding is that if 1RR was in effect at the time on this page, I could/should have been warned or sanctioned for that sequence. If I remember though, what you put in was a quote from John Zogby, who while Arabic himself is not the head of any Arab-American organization. Zogby is a respected pollster, but the quote you put in did not seem relevant to the main biography (I confess, I forget the details of what it said, but I remember feeling that it belabored a minor side-point rather than present something important to this article).

While you might get by with Wikilawyering a time or two if this article really is under "double secret probabation", the right procedure really is WP:BRD. That is, introduce something: if no objections, great! If anyone doesn't like it and reverts, the next place to go is the talk page. The next step is not re-reverting to push your own edit without discussing it first! LotLE×talk 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Interjected material): Coincidentally enough, James Zogby, founding president of the Arab American Institute (HuffPo contributors bio here) is the brother of John, the founder of the famously eponymous polling firm. Figures. Zogby is not the most common U.S. name.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I may have been referenced in a now-deleted comment in a thread below as sort of an Archie Bunker type character in a cartoon. Just in case this was due to any impression arising from this thread, please look at the edit I'd proposed that's the topic of this thread, which follows:

(Part I added that's still in the article): Cited the latter poll by CNN's Larry King, Obama responded, "...I wasn't raised in a Muslim home," and said that advancement of the misconception insulted Muslim Americans. [1]. (Part I added that was removed): James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute expressed in a news report (reacting in part to a satirical New Yorker cover) that ethnic caricature involving faulty depiction of Obama's faith harms Muslim Americans, impeding their "opportunity to participate in the political process."[2]

-- and please observe my intentions here were the exact opposite of any bigotry. Thanks.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems like I was remembering the wrong Zogby. In any case, for the same reasons as before, I just don't see the Zogby quote as relevant to this article. It's a comment that only barely touches on Obama, and only indirectly in that Obama was subject of a political cartoon. Zogby's observation is interesting, but the topic is something more like "Muslim participation in US politics", which is a lot of steps away from Obama. LotLE×talk 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - if and when we do have formal article probation or some other kind of moderation, BRD is the best approach. Well-meaning editors ought to have a warning before being blocked, particularly if they're just getting used to the terms of probation... just something a little more calming than to allow a dozen active editors each to go to BRBRBRBR + 3 warnings. Wikidemo (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I apologize for the prior sequence. I confess that I let the gesture to ignore WP:BRD piss me off slightly, and did my own re-revert knowing I would be well short of 3RR (which is all that really applied at the time), though not short of 1RR. The more mature thing for me to do would have been to take it to talk myself, and see if someone else agreed the addition was not relevant. The Zogby quote was definitely not a WP:BLP, vandalism, etc violation, nor anything so obviously wrong as that; I was partially in a bad mood from seeing so many additions that were obvious violations that I let a mere non-relevance/focus concern get the better of me. LotLE×talk 01:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And nobody was talking about 1RR back then. One limitation with strict adherence to BRD is that it doesn't account for stray editors taking potshots at new edits without explaining themselves. On low traffic or uncontentious articles it's not a big deal to re-introduce a change with an explanation, request that the reverter explain themselves, a brief justification or refutation, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your apology, Lulu, is accepted on my part! :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

European visit

why is there no information regarding his recent Europe tour, and speech in Berlin? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't really a biographical detail, it's too recent, and it has a place in the campaign article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Does this article violate WP:NPOV?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It has been alleged that this article violates WP:NPOV by failing to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints ... in proportion to the prominence of each." Specifically, it does not proportionately represent the significant POV that has criticized Obama for his relationships with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, and raised questions about his judgment.

Obama is 46 years old. Wright was his mentor for 23 years. Rezko was his fundraiser and friend for 13 years, and he's had a "friendly relationship" with Ayers for 13 years.

Please do not allow this biography's Featured Article status to influence your analysis. FA status was granted long before these controversies reached public awareness. For example, Rezko hadn't been indicted yet when FA status was granted; he has since been convicted on 16 felonies related to political fundraising, and he was one of Obama's most prolific fundraisers before Obama ran for president. The article, it is alleged, has not kept up with the criticism and controversy.

Other biographies of prominent politicians that have been offered for comparison include George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Stephen Harper, John Howard, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Please compare the amount of criticism in those articles with this one. Does this article proportionately represent the criticism POV?

Editors who have been participating on this page for the past weeks are respectfully asked to refrain from comments here. This RfC is for the purpose of hearing uninvolved commentary. Please keep your comments civil and respectful. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to have broken down here - the request that only uninvolved editors participate is out of process, and has now become the subject of wikigaming and edit warring on this talk page. The RfC itself is problematic, and misstates and omits key facts. Some matters proposed here for discussion have already been decided after a long consensus discussion; others are underway elsewhere. I suggest we close the RfC and instead move, if desired, to some other step of dispute resolution. At a minimum the heading below is misleading because two editors, including the one who brought the RfC, are ignoring the request to limit discussion to uninvolved editors. Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the RFC should be closed, but largely because the overwhelming response to the question has been in the negative. Thus far, the process simply confirms the existing consensus that the article reflects a neutral point of view, and the existing consensus that mention of Ayers would be inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave it open. It's been open less than 24 hours, and the normal process for this is about a week, isn't it? The stated purpose was to bring in uninvolved editors to hear their perspective. I have said on my talk page, and I will repeat here, that I do not care for this bullying by the two of you. You were among the first to ignore WB74's request to not comment here — an action I find genuinely provocative. Now you're trying to edit-war over the deletion of his comments. The "overwhelming response" from uninvolved editors at this early stage is a mere 2-1 in favor of the status quo, which is easily upset to become "overwhelming response" in favor of adding some real criticism. Curious bystander (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"and the normal process for this is about a week, isn't it?"

It is gratifying to know that at least some new users take the trouble to learn about all these obscure processes before taking part in them. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Though, a more in-depth review might reveal that among other terms of the proposed article probation[3] the talk page is not the place to cast aspersions or accuse other editors of things. Though not (yet) sanctionable conduct I suggest that editors refrain from airing opinions about other editors here. Regarding the discussion, yes, an RfC if legitimate would normally stay open for a while. This RfC, however, threatens to stop meaningful progress in its tracks for a week while we re-set the discussion yet again (perhaps the 25th or 30th time the discussion has started from scratch), and to bring the page back down to the incivility from which it so recently escaped. I don't see how this discussion could possibly establish consensus for the general proposition of adding more criticism to the Obama article; a consensus to do so is extremely unlikely, and even a specific change supported by the "uninvolved" editors here would go recent earlier consensus by "involved" editors, and thereby lead only to further differences among the editors. Not to mention the hidden trap by which any "uninvolved" editor who comments here is now "involved" and thereby disqualified from being recognized by all parties as neutral in further discussions (most of the "involved" activity takes place here on this talk page in the form of saying whether various criticisms should or should not be included, not via edits to the main article). Wikidemo (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This RfC has been done incorrectly and should be removed. The opening statement is not at all neutral, WB74's belligerent challenges to those that oppose his POV are inappropriate. This RfC has done nothing, and will continue to do nothing more than provoke more of the soapboxing and endless bickering we have seen for months here. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved users

Comment No, this article is not in violation of NPOV. All articles should be written from a neutral point of view at all times. If 40 percent of people have a certain stance on an issue, then 40 percent of the article on that issue is not automatically written from that POV. The key phrase in the WP:DUE clause is in proportion to the prominence of each. Though the Ayers, Wright, and Rezko controversies might be in the news now, they are not a significant part of Obama's entire life, which is what this article is about. The article also has to represent a worldwide view of the subject. Using an American opinion poll to slant the article against Obama is not representing a worldwide view. Neither is using controversies esoteric to Americans to claim a violation of WP:DUE. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment No, Wright and Rezko are appropriately addressed in the article, a biography and not a campaign document. Ayers was a blip in his campaign and inconsequential to his life story. Looking through the talk pages and archives, it appears that these elements have been carefully crafted. Expansion in his biography (vs. other campaign related articles) would raise POV pushing issues. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment for Noroton I have a problem comparing Ayers to David Duke and, particularly, Charles Manson. Ayers is a respected professor of education; the book you mentioned that Obama recommended was a well known book on education reform. I read the Chicago mag's profile of him and, although he retains very provocative opinions, he is certainly not part of the lunatic left anymore, as J. Edgar described him, more part of the leftist bourgeoisie. I would think possibly more analogous parallels would be Pat Buchanan, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy and other unrepentants from the right. Now, I'd like to avoid a culture war debate on who was more harmful to America, but should we do opposition research on every person, notable or otherwise, McCain has come into contact with? Are you saying if Ayers was repentant then this would not be an issue? If instead of standing on an American flag, he was draped in it, then you would agree that the association would be OK? If so, then you are criticizing Ayers for his freedom of speech and not his (current) actions. His actions are redemptive -- he's working on education, not tossing bombs. Do we even know that Obama was aware of Ayers' past? The associations that you carefully laid out do not appear to me significant. Maybe if you were describing me, then, yes, I don't attend all that many boards (though I do some) and possibly it would make sense to attribute issues of judgment because I meet so few (relative to Obama) people. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC comments. On first pass it reads fine to me. Can you explain what makes you believe that Obama's relationships with these individuals are covered out of proportion? The association with Bill Ayers probably doesn't need to be covered at all (and it's not)—he's well-known in local politics, and the "story" was only reported by fringe sources, from what I can tell. Rezko might be worth another sentence, but the paragraph on Wright also seems about right. All of these things should get more coverage in his campaign article, but the biography looks ok to me. Cool Hand Luke 02:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Slightly. Ayers is the most minor of the bunch, probably isn't worthy of much more than a sentence at most. Rezko seems to be represented ok. However, Wright should probably have a larger section, espcially given what is common knowledge about his relationship with Wright. It is commonly known that Wright was his spiritual advisor, was slated to be on hand during his announcement for presidency, was the pastor at his wedding, and baptized his children, not to mention a large influence on his book, "The Audacity of Hope". I would expect to see this info here, but it seems like this chapter of his life is quite sparse in light of the controversy regarding Wright in what I can only deduce is to minimize the relationship he had with Wright. Additionally, since his relationship with Wright extands far beyond his recent presidential aspirations, it seems apt that more information be included in his main bio regarding Reverend Wright. Arzel (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment It reads ok to me however I agree with Arzel that Reverend Wright section seems a bit sparse. Advice to Workerbee - This RFC seems a bit ironic to me. You have listed it as NPOV dispute but violate the NPOV yourself in the listing. In these instances less is more. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Previously involved users

Comment No, and I believe the question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. General "criticism of Obama" is not a point of view. We look to balance different points of view on specific issues, but in a biography we don't craft the article from the top down with the intention of finding and adding as much criticism as is needed to achieve a threshold that matches opinion polling or to "even the score" with other wikipedia articles (two rationales that have been suggested above). That is not balance, it is simple POV-pushing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - A mention of Ayers has been repeatedly considered and rejected. The Rezko language is the product of a long consensus process involving many editors, including the editor filing the RfC, and to some is already a compromise to add a longer and more derogatory mention than they preferred. The Wright material was under a discussion that seems to have gotten sidetracked by some disruptive editing and by this RfC. I think the RfC, phrased as it is to discourage the participation of the editors that reached these consensus points, is a process fork. Assuming, however, that the new editors are reasonably in agreement with the results of previous editing process here I trust this puts the matter to bed and we'll not be subject to yet another attempt to introduce the disputed expansion of this particular derogatory information about Obama.Wikidemo (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I hoped not to have to re-argue a position we've already discussed for 6 weeks but here goes, the short form. There's a sub-page, Talk:Barack Obama/weight, where I lay out for comparison the amount of space we devote to various people and things in Obama's life, and compare it to the much lengthier New Yorker article on the subject of Obama's Chicago years and rise to power. Based on that textual analysis, an analysis of the quantity of reliably sourced coverage, and the substantive importance of various things to Obama's life, I argue in detail that Ayers is worth no mention, and the Rezko mention is more or less right. Wright's mention is considerably too long by this analysis but I see no reason to re-open it at this time other than following up on several editors' attempts to improve the article's mention of Michael Pfleger. In the case of Ayers specifically, the substance is that Ayers was a nth-tier peripheral character in the Chicago political landscape, with whom everyone dealt, certainly all Democrats. Chicago politics is full of controversial and corrupt people; that's the way they do business there. Anyone with any connection to the black churches, African-American politicians, or local organizers, has connection to radicals. Anyone who deals with city politics deals with felons (something like half of the recent mayors have been indicted for felonies after leaving office). It is utterly unremarkable that Obama visited Ayers' house, Ayers gave him $200, they served on a panel together, etc. That's a baseline level of political involvement with a minor figure, and Obama has connections like that dozens or even hundreds of times over. The claim about launching Obama's career is sourced to a liberal blog, the author of which denies that's what she meant. Utterly trivial. On the text, the New Yorker piece finds 30-something different people worthy of more mention than Ayers. If we were to go into more detail about how Obama got his start in politics we should mention some of those. Yet we don't even mention most of the top ten, people who were instrumental. The long and short of it is that this article does not have much detail. If it were a balanced, 15,000 word piece like the New Yorker (X 4 = 60,000 words because we cover four times the territory) then sure, we could devote a couple sentences to Ayers like that article. We're 1/8 the length and hit only the main points. Ayers is not one of them. Finally, only about 1 in 400 news articles about Obama even mention Ayers, and the mentions there tend to be blog rants, editorials, incidental references, reporting of controversies, and fact-checking. We base our encyclopedic coverage on reliable, published sources. The world is not interested in this, so we should not be either. For all these reasons any mention of Ayers is inappropriate. By similar analysis an incidental mention of Rezko is fine but further detail and scandal-mongering is inappropriate, and we go into too much detail about who said what in discussing the events that lead Obama to change churches, something that's better suited for the article about campaign events than his bio. Wikidemo (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, you said, The Rezko language is the product of a long consensus process involving many editors, including the editor filing the RfC. I beg to differ. Since the consensus vote seemed carefully timed to occur during WB74's block, it's obvious (at least to me) that he was deliberately excluded. You've claimed that it's a process fork, but since you've provocatively ignored WB74's reasonable request and added your comments, you've thoroughly refuted that argument yourself. Let the discussion continue, please. Cheers — Curious bystander (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have not ignored WorkerBee74's request, as unreasonable as it is. If you will look at the heading above, this is the section for "involved editors". This talk page is not a good place to start accusing me or anyone else of bad faith. Your comment above is inappropriate. Please remove it.Wikidemo (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

Ayers needs to be in the article Talk pages are discussions, not votes. Eric the Red: Americans perspectives are not "esoteric" they are fundamental to an article on the Democratic nominee for president of, after all, the United States. Illinois, Chicago, and black perspectives are also important, and all have a place in the article, just as perspectives from outside the U.S. are important, but much less important than if he is elected president. The relative importance of various perspectives in the article, I think, is based on what makes him notable. As a presidential candidate, the views of his supporters and opponents both need to be considered, but less in relation to the election (because there's an article focusing on that) than in relation to what is thought about his life. In accordance with WP:NPOV, if a significant part of the public, or very important voices are concerned about Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, that tends to make the matter prominent enough to at least mention; other important factors are that prominent news organizations have included mention of it in articles about Obama's life and commentators opposed to Obama have mentioned it on an ongoing basis (Newt Gingrich mentioned it on Fox News a day or two ago; Sean Hannity asked John McCain about it yesterday and Hannity mentioned it today; Rush Limbaugh mentioned it today -- it doesn't matter what you think of these commentators, it is not contestable that they are influential).

Therefore: you say this is a biography and not a campaign document. Given that two large sections of this biography are given over to campaign topics, a sentence or two about Ayers is not out of place, given that Ayers is a campaign issue related to Obama's life story. POV issues go both ways -- either too much or too little space devoted to the topic.

Cool Hand Luke, you say, the "story" was only reported by fringe sources, from what I can tell. This is where asking outsiders to comment without providing an adequate background section first, with links, is wrong, because we get input from editors who are less familiar with the facts than the long-wrangling involved editors have been. The Ayers/Obama connection was reported in the major national media in the U.S. [4] [5] [6] and even the U.K. papers had some original reporting on it. Major, reputable commentators (National Review, The New Republic, I think George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer, certainly Jonah Goldberg in the L.A. Times and Michelle Malkin) and opinion magazines have weighed in on it. he's well-known in local politics: Very true (a very strange quirk of Chicago politics)[7], but that doesn't make him uncontroversial nationally, which has been the case before, during [8] and after Obama's association with him. He is widely reported to be unrepentant about his involvement in Weatherman, which was responsible for bombing government buildings and advocating violence (see Days of Rage, a riot in which 60 people were injured when Ayers was one of the group's top leaders). His own culpability for the death of his girlfriend, who died in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion (not something he wanted, but something he bears some responsibility for as a Weatherman leader; and if the bomb hadn't blown up in their faces, the Weatherman members were going to bomb an officer's dance at a U.S. Army base) is one of the things that makes him controversial. When the topic of his own responsibility for acts of terror comes up, he hems, haws and makes other strange noises on his own blog and elsewhere, but he's been quoted in the New York Times saying he was unrepentant, as well as on a PBS website (the quote is in the Bill Ayers article; I know because I added it there). I looked for an unambiguous statement from him on this and couldn't find one. Many mainstream news organizations that have reported on this simply say he's "unrepentant".[9] Like them, I think that's important. An educational organization disinvited Ayers to a national conference, and some alumni at the college where his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, works had also objected to her, as was reported several years ago. Whether or not the Chicago Tribune (on whose governing board Ayers' well-connected father sat when he was alive) or the Sun-Times think so, many others think Ayers is a morally reprehensible character. These objections were widely known in late 2001 when Ayers biography was published at about the time of 9/11. Then Obama got to know him. They served on the Woods Foundation board together for years, involving afternoon-long meetings and sometimes dinners, and Ayers was chairman of that board. Obama and Ayers participated in two panel discussions together -- one organized by ... Michelle Obama. [10] Ayers hosted an early get-to-know-you meeting at the start of Obama's first run for public office.[11] Ayers contributed $200 to that campaign. Obama wrote a glowing review of a book Ayers wrote on education reform. Ayers has refused to talk about his association with Obama, as numerous mainstream news organizations have reported. The Obama campaign and Obama himself have said as little as possible about the connection. In 2001, Ayers was pictured in Chicago Magazine standing on an American flag.[12] He still considers himself very much a radical, and if you look on his web site, he excoriates the U.S. at nearly every opportunity. He believes the U.S. is morally reprehensible for killing millions of people worldwide. Aside from any partisan dislike I have for Obama (and I have some), this simply makes me, and many others, very concerned about Obama's judgment and values. Did I mention that "judgment" and ethics are big themes in Obama's campaign? Ayers, from all we know, was probably not ever among the 25 people, or maybe 50 people closest to Obama. But when Ayers is this morally reprehensible, why would Obama associate with him the way he did, accepting his support, praising his work and working with him? It tells us something important about Obama's character and beliefs -- or at least I think so and, it's not hard to imagine, many others think so (which is why this is not a "guilt by association" charge because the thing Obama is criticized for is the association itself, not Ayers' own guilt). And that makes it worth a sentence or two in the article, with a link to the Bill Ayers article and the Bill Ayers election controversy article.

This is the short version of my argument, and it basically recaps my weeks-long argument about Ayers. If someone needs more links on a particular point, please ask. Noroton (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So just because O is American, we should throw outside opinions to the wind and flood the article with systemic bias? I don't think so. Should we not include any non-German opinion on chancellor Angela Merkel? It doesn't matter if certain commentators pretend that Ayers was a huge player in Obama's life, he wasn't, and that's what WP has to report. Wright is already given a paragraph, as much as he deserves, Rezko is given a sentence, as much as he deserves, and Ayers is given no mention here, the overall life story of Obama, again, as much as he deserves. We cannot allow this to become a forum for preaching criticisms of people we don't like. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik the Red: just because O is American, we should throw outside opinions to the wind and flood the article with systemic bias? This is an obvious exaggeration. And I was talking about perspectives more than about opinion. The perspective of the world about Dayton, Ohio is worth including in that article (the Dayton Peace Accords, association with the Wright Brothers), but it's not as important as information that Americans, Ohioans and especially Daytonites would be looking for. I have no problem with some non-U.S. opinion or article focus on Obama, both positive and negative, but I doubt anybody thinks it should be very much, compared with in-U.S. perspectives. That's not bias, it's judgment. We cannot allow this to become a forum for preaching criticisms of people we don't like. I think you have a point there. I admit that I loathe Bill Ayers' actions, opinions and lack of repentance. He had some influence on the people near him who died in the bomb blast: Diana Oughton and Terry Robbins -- and Robbin's girlfriend, Cathy Wilkerson, has criticized Ayers for his inadequate acknowledgement of his own guilt. Plenty of other Weatherman members have since expressed repentance: Wilkerson, Mark Rudd (kind of) and others. But my point in mentioning this is not that we should be judging either Ayers or Obama's association with Ayers, but that this is what has made the Obama-Ayers connection newsworthy and, for so many, "criticism-worthy". Few of Obama's connections are this controversial for a reason: Those guys didn't bomb buildings and become associated with people getting killed. Ayers did. That's the reason why this has been reported. So the length and depth of the association with Ayers isn't the only issue here. The connection is just inherently controversial. That's why commentators with radio and TV audiences in the millions are still bringing it up. Noroton (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Noroton

Yes, the article should be written from a primarily American perspective, considering that Obama is an American candidate. But a perspective is different than worldwide notability. An example of perspective is the use of the word "economy" in this article. The word refers to the American economy, not the British or German one, because there is an American perspective. However, how much weight an item gets should be proportionate to the worldwide notability. In the Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel articles, for example, more weight is given to topics important to a worldwide audience than topics important only to a constricted British or German audience, respectively. Reasons why not to vote for Obama, and indeed reasons why to vote for him should not have a large place in this article. (Not necessarily no place, just a smaller place than topics a worldwide audience would care about. FYI, my definition of "worldwide" is not synonymous with "non-US".) I apologize for my gross exaggeration that you pointed out. One last reiteration: an article can have a worldwide view of a subject and be written from a US perspective at the same time. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment, Noroton. I have to admit here that I'm speaking from a Chicago southside perspective. Ayers didn't make much of an impact in local news—at least not to the extent of Rezko. I would guess almost every southside pol has dined with Ayers at some point. I had no idea that it got so much national coverage. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it would get more coverage locally—but perhaps I'm getting too accustomed to the strangeness of Chicago's machine. For what it's worth, and unlike Erik the Red 2 above, I think the U.S. perspective on Obama is very important. He's running for the presidency of this country, after all. I promise to look into it more, and I might revise my comment. I still think a little bit more coverage of Rezko is merited. Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, after a review of the archives of this page, you seem especially adept at providing such a "background section." I think you could just cut and paste the admirable evidence gathering that you've already done, and I encourage you to do so. Curious bystander (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Ayers'(/Dohrn's) being unrepentant: "[...] Is this association between Obama and these dangerous radicals a scandal? Or is the scandal digging up all this ancient history? Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd. ¶ "In America we believe in redemption and even self-reinvention. And we don't usually require stagy Stalinesque recantations. But Dohrn and Ayers test the limits of that generosity. They remain spectacularly unrepentant, self-indulgent, unreflective--still bloated with a sense of entitlement, still smug with certainty. They are dead to irony. Dohrn declared her contempt for the judicial system but wanted into the bar association. The two of them encourage young people to 'be outraged.'"----MICHAEL KINSLEY ESSAY, TIME MAGAZINE (May 29)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's actually a fair point that with the Chicago media and political establishment not shunning Ayers at all, Obama was following a horrible, wierd example that they set. Personally, I think that makes him less culpable, but it doesn't stop making the association controversial enough to be mentioned. To make a molehill-to-mountain analogy, all of our early presidents from Virginia, from George Washington to John Tyler (or was Taylor the last one?), owned slaves, as did many (probably most) other people in their social class in Virginia. I'm sure we mention slaveholding in the Washington and Jefferson articles, partly because it has moral implications and has been commented on by prominent sources. Obviously, this O-A connection is not as big a deal and all sorts of people in Chicago were doing what Obama did, but also obviously, Ayers' controversial past was well known, and Obama, who had large political ambitions even then, knew Ayers would be controversial. I think Michael Kinsley is often quirky in his opinions, but overall that quote supports both the prominence of the situation and its controversial nature. That quote gives us some idea about how important this was in Obama's life -- it helps us know him better. That is something to consider when we decide what to include in an article. I think we all realize that associating with people with some level of a controversial past would be worth mentioning in this article, even if only this close. If Obama had done these things with Charles Manson or David Duke, we wouldn't be debating this. So in part, it's a question of how controversial Ayers was and is. It even strengthens the case for including Ayers that Chicago politics is such a pit of turpitude. That muck Obama came from itself has some WP:WEIGHT. It matters that he didn't get his political start in a leafy, squeaky-clean suburb. Noroton (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Any mention of Ayers whatsoever is grossly undue weight. This has been discussed many times, and it is our responsibility under WP:BLP to avoid soapboxing and distortion to introduce a POV. LotLE×talk 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, Ayers can "reasonably" be left out...with this reason most succinctly said this way: "Ya can't include every event in a person's life in his bio"; nonetheless it'd be preferable to mention him, for the simple reason that it's best for us contrubutors to have researched and written as complete a bio of Barack Obama (or for that matter of any notable person) as possible. Let me explain it this way: within the first paragraph following the lede @ "Rousseau," Wikipedia reads, "Like most submissive sexual fetishists, he was also an exhibitionist." Yet if WP's bio of Rousseau was only two sentences, would its best choices be (sentence No. 1), "Many consider Rousseau the father of Romantic philosophy"; (sentence No. 2), "Rousseau was an exhibitionist as a youth"? No. Nonetheless, the kind of detail that Wikipedia actually does go into with regard to Rousseau (and others) is exemplary and apt----since, after all, the sources (beginning with Rousseau himself, of course) believe it germaine to not only examine his, well, "Romantic" ideals, but also the unvarnished truths his self-examinations have brought to the fore. (And the same argument can be made for briefly mentioning in Freud's bio what's known about the father of Psychoanalysis's own psyche.) So, in the case of Obama, Obama has had an auspicious start to a polical career and in its start he knew certain folks and had relationships with them that have been characterized by neutral sources as thus and so: all of this pertinent and interesting info to be included in a most complete bio of the politician Obama. My belief that such info about Freud and Rousseau is a valuable addition to Wikipedia's coverage has no bearing on the fact that I personally find much value in their ideas and believe the prestige of both of these thinkers' contributions to Western culture is justified; likewise I believe looking at Obama's association with Ayers is useful and good, this opinion being unaffected by my support of Obama's candidacy.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That has little bearing on this discussion. Both Freud and Rousseau are long-dead historical figures. Clearly WP:BLP is not a concern with those articles while it is the primary concern here. In addition, this article must be concerned with all of the attendant issues that articles about politicians involved in high-profile races must address. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But how exactly would such a prohibition be thought to apply here? Since WP's policy regarding well-known public figures (as found on the BLP policy page itself) reads, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." 'Nuff said!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(Later.) From Wikipedia's "Freud" bio: "Dr. Jurgen von Scheidt speculated that most of Freud's psychoanalytical theory was a byproduct of his cocaine use." [Scheidt, Jürgen von (1973) "Sigmund Freud and cocaine." Psyche, pp. 385–430.]And what apparently is Wikipedia's position on von Scheidt's belief? The only cards showing in WP's hand are that it has selected and prepared a serving of his thought as "meat" for its readers (without its going beyond this and masticating it into pablum).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 11:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply to Freud, since he died in 1939. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

True. However, of course, even if Freud were to be living, the WP policies regarding living people would not check otherwise pertinent commentary appearing in WP's bio of him in any case, due to the fact that he was of course an exceptionally well known, public person. <sighs>  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who are arguing "the campaign is just one event in Obama's life," I remind you that it's only this campaign that makes Obama more notable than Jon Tester or any other freshman senator. Jon Tester gets about 300 words; Barack Obama gets about 3,600. Since it's the campaign that's making him this notable, it's the campaign that should be covered in greater detail here, while such details as his Senate committee assignments and his obscure family relationships should be moved to other articles to make room for it. That's WP:WEIGHT. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's not true, either. Obama was catapulted into the limelight with the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. This was a huge event for Obama, arguably setting him on the path to the presidency. I would compare it to when another relatively unknown African-American walked out onto a stage in Monterey, 1967, and made such an impression that only two years later he was the headline act in the most famous music festival in US history. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No real opinion on the increasingly silly analogies. What's the hangup about Jon Tester, anyway... maybe angling for a "Tester test" on Wikipedia guidelines, for the alliterative quality. I feel embarrassed though, Scjessey, that I'm not certain whom your referring to in your analogy: is this Jimi Hendrix who was at the festivals mentioned? ... and can we reason that if Hendrix' WP article says he OD'd, we surely must say that Jimmy Page OD'd too, for surely he is just as good a guitarist (if tongue-in-cheek is not obvious, I'm not actually taking a stance on the merit of various rock guitar greats). LotLE×talk 19:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I picked Jon Tester because that was the only other freshman senator I could think of at that moment. Maybe a better comparison would be Jim Webb, because Webb has a book or two published and Tester doesn't. A speech at the 2004 convention? Okay, Webb plus one paragraph. The fact remains that it's this campaign that elevates Obama from being worth 300-500 words to being worth 4000 words. Therefore it's this campaign that should be getting the lion's share of coverage in his biography, and such details as his obscure family relationships should be moved to other articles to make space. Right now it's like "halftime" in the campaign. When the second half starts, you'll all want the space. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a speech at the convention. The speech at the convention. It probably made him one of the top 20 Democrats in public office, and one of the top 5 in the Senate. It was his Monterey, and it set the scene for his Woodstock. He may not have played the guitar like Hendrix (or even the saxophone like Clinton), but he made a huge impression in Chicago as a community organizer, and then a huge impression in the Democratic party for his 2004 speech. The run for the Presidency is certainly the summit of his achievements to date, but it sure as hell isn't the whole damn mountain. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OR. In your judgment, it makes Obama one of the top five Democrats in the Senate. But if I'm not mistaken, he doesn't even chair any committees. In my opinion, the top six Democrats in the Senate are Reid, Byrd, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry and Leahy. They have the seniority and the committee chairmanships to support that ranking. Curious bystander (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

SCJ, use your Nexis service and compare (A) all articles mentioning Obama and (B) all articles mentioning Obama prior to January 2007, when he announced that he's running for president. A is roughly five times as large as B. Furthermore, B consists mostly of Chicago news media. It isn't just the summit. It's 80% of the mountain, according to the Nexis search. The other sections of this biography, particularly those covered by articles of their own, should be reduced in size and the section covering the campaign should be expanded. During and after the Democratic National Convention, we'll need the space. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be taking your bait, but I would like to take the opportunity to remind you of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Question To Erik The Red

This question keeps getting deleted, but I'd like an answer if no one minds: Obama called Wright his "close personal friend" and "spiritual advisor" for his entire adult life, and acknowledged that Rezko was a "friend" and "significant fundraiser" for 13 years, nearly his entire career in politics. His campaign staff has acknowledged that Obama has had a "friendly relationship" with Ayers for 13 years. Does this affect your opinion on the matter? Other editors who were previously uninvolved are also invited to respond. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama probably has a friendly relationship with over a thousand people, should we throw them all arbitrarily into the article? No. Blowing up the significance of controversial figures to the point where they are grossly overweight is nothing more than pure-and-simple POV pushing. I have heard all of the sound-bites provided by "fair and balanced" sources like FOX news. The significance of these people has been blown up by the media, and they are reported in their due weight here. Wright gets a paragraph, as much as a close adult friend merits. Rezko gets a sentence, as much as a significant fundraiser merits, and Ayers is not given any mention, just as much as someone with whom Obama had a friendly relationship merits. I will reiterate my point that Wikipedia is not a soapbox to broadcast superfluous criticisms of people we don't like. This issue has already been discussed, and should have been closed a long time ago. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my name is spelled with a "k"- that's the Swedish ancestry for you. :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama probably has a friendly relationship with over a thousand people ... But to the best of our knowledge, only two of them were leading participants in a terrorist conspiracy that blew up buildings and killed civilians in the United States. If Timothy McVeigh had somehow been acquitted and became a university professor, unrepentant about his bombing activities, and if McCain had a 13-year "friendly relationship" with him, received a $200 campaign contribution, a political fundraiser at McVeigh's home, and three years of service with McVeigh on a small board of trustees, I think there would be something about it in the John McCain biography. And if there wasn't, and I was working on that article, I'd be advocating its inclusion. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty ludicrous comparison. McVeigh was legally responsible for the death of 168 people, whereas Ayers is legally responsible for the death of nobody. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. The only reason Ayers wasn't tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison for three deaths when a Weather Underground bomb exploded prematurely was the FBI's fumbling of the case against him. He participated in a criminal conspiracy that committed felonies, and during the commission of those felonies, the conspiracy caused three deaths. Under the law, that's called "felony murder." You're from the UK so maybe you're not familiar with American laws. Use Nexis and look it up. In my hypothetical example, McVeigh was acquitted, so the legal result would have been exactly the same: unrepentant terrorist bomber who got away with multiple murders. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is still a ludicrous comparison. Maybe we should update the McCain article to talk about his collusion and support of warmongering criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? They are responsible for an illegal invasion of a foreign nation, the deaths of thousands of American servicemen and women, the dismantling of our Constitution with illegal wiretapping, the politicizing of the Justice Department and the Pentagon, illegal torture, detention of people (without legal recourse) and extraordinary rendition - far worse crimes than anything Ayers might have been convicted of. And these people were doing it for oil and power! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A neighbor donated $200 to Obama back in his Senate campaign, held a fundraiser at his house, and served on a board of campaign adviser for a couple of months. Does that warrant his inclusion in the article? No. The only reason you want Ayers in the article is because his name obviously carries negative connotations and that negative feeling would rub off on Obama ie. "Bill Ayers, a major terrorist persecuted by the FBI and a murderer of three people, is Obama's friend." That casts negative feelings on Obama. Some of your arguments seem along the lines of "Other political articles are biased, so this one should be biased, too." We should not drag good articles down, but try to raise bad ones up. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Merely linking the two names in this article, without any such linking elsewhere, would in fact be dragging this article down. But as others pointed out, Wikipedia would not do the linking. Wikipedia would only report on the fact that many other, very notable persons and very notable news media have linked the two names. Scjessey is getting more than a little ridiculous in ranting about Bush and Cheney, since no prosecutor or court has shown even the slightest interest in taking action against them. As much as I loathe Republicans, the attacks on 9/11 created a state of war and according to the Constitution, a commander-in-chief during a war has tremendous power that Congress cannot challenge. But I digress. Erik seems oblivious to the fact that Ayers committed crimes. WB74's legal analysis is corerct: Ayers, if he had been tried and if the evidence against him hadn't been illegally obtained, would probably be in prison for the rest of his life for felony murder. The fact that a politician with presidential ambitions would even associate with such a person is remarkable. While Obama has committed no crime, questions about his judgment in this matter are fair questions and many notable voices from all directions are asking them. This fact cannot be reasonably suppressed in this article. Curious bystander (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not in a state of war and the party in power has obviously committed far worse crimes than Ayers. But whatever camp you're in off wiki we base articles here on reliable sourcing rather than anybody's personal politics or legal analysis, much less a hypothetical setup of a criminal case that might have been. There's nothing at all remarkable that a powerful politician has unsavory people in his extended circle, they all do. There's no conspiracy, cabal, or suppression going on here to suppress information, only adherence to Wikipedia's content standards. The media have not seen fit to cover this to any substantial degree, so nor should we. Attempts to "balance" things or "question" the candidates are misplaced. That former radicals are part of grassroots politics may say something about the state of politics in Chigago, but nothing about the candidate. We're not about to turn this page into a political scandal sheet simply because some blogs and editorial pages do. How much longer are we going to deal with this distraction? We've talked about this on and off for two months at least. There's no reasonable likelihood that the material is going to be in the article. The horse is dead, the body is buried, and we're out of hay. Wikidemo (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You said, We're not in a state of war ... Since Scjessey is being cryptic about Jimi Hendrix, I'll be cryptic too. There's a famous Ivy League law professor who disagrees, and he has no love at all for Bush or Republicans. If you don't object, I prefer to rely on his expertise. The "obviousness" of the alleged crimes of the party in power is not obvious to me, and I'm an attorney who votes a straight Democratic ticket and loathes Republicans. You also said, There's nothing at all remarkable that a powerful politician has unsavory people in his extended circle, they all do. I can't think of any major party presidential nominee who had, in his extended circle, one of the founders of a criminal conspiracy that committed multiple murders. You've also said, That former radicals are part of grassroots politics may say something about the state of politics in Chigago, but nothing about the candidate. To the contrary, it illustrates the state of politics in Chicago and the candidate is purely a product of that environment. Curious bystander (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to not chest thump on credentials. You may consider me a a high school dropout from Idaho if you wish but I won't defer to any bar membership or college hiring committee. For every academic you cite who supports the notion that the Constitution disappears every time a bomb is planted I can find you ten professors plus a few founding fathers who argue we are a nation of laws, not executive power grabs. Here we're writing a biography of Barack Obama, not conducting our own vetting committee to determine whether or not he is of acceptable moral character. Drawing a link between the man and a peripheral character back in Chicago with whom he has almost no connection and nothing in common is farfetched. The only people doing that are his political opponents. That's not our job here. Wikidemo (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"The people doing that" include most of the daily newspapers in the United States with a circulation greater than 250,000. It isn't limited to Obama's political opponents, although the fact that they're doing it too, and that they're notable, adds fuel to the fire. If you don't mind, please provide links to reliable sources proving that "Ronald Reagan, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt [and] LBJ" had "associated with founders of criminal conspiracies" that committed multiple murders. I won't bother to mention the Bush family, since you will almost certainly give me Webster Tarpley, a LaRouche conspiracy theorist. Curious bystander (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik's response

Again, nobody has answered my main question: why should Ayers be in this article, and not the other friends and $200 contributors and party hosters? The only answer is that Ayers, unlike the others, happens to be a murderer. Ayers would have been convicted, as you say. There's hardly anyone who would dispute that. And that's exactly why the POV-pushers want to include Ayers in this article: to fabricate larger-than-reality ties between Obama and a felon. We cannot stand for this kind of POV pushing. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, Erik, your main question has been asked by others and answered at least 10 or 12 times. (Read the archives if you don't believe me.) It was also answered again by CB in the edit directly above yours. Here is the answer once more; please respond to it rather than pretending it doesn't exist:

Wikipedia wouldn't be "fabricating larger-than-reality ties." Wikipedia would only be reporting an overwhelming mass of commentary by the most notable, reliable news media in the English-speaking world. These sources are the gold standard of WP:RS. They have no connection to the McCain campaign, the Republican party, or the American conservative movement. Nexis tells me that this media commentary frequently doesn't even mention Obama's political rivals, or mentions them elsewhere in the article in an irrelevant way, so it isn't just parroting the Republican talking points. This is purely neutral commentary from the giants of print journalism.

Wikipedia would also be reporting the observations of such notable persons as George Stephanopoulos and Peter Hitchens, who also have no links to the McCain campaign, the Republicans, or the American conservative movement. If you must accuse someone of "fabricating larger-than-life ties," accuse them. We're just reporting what they're all saying. All of them. The entire mass of them.

From my perspective, it's this relentless campaign to keep out any mention of Ayers, make quadruple amputees out of any mention of Wright or Rezko, and get rid of anyone who disagrees that is the POV pushing here. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God, will you please stop banging on about this? If you want to voice your opinion, go and create a blog or something - just like I did. This talk page can no longer stand being your soapbox. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just answering Erik's question for the 12th time, SCJ. I do not appreciate being told to shut up and go away. Just like Wikidemo, you're not only obstructing criticism, you're trying to obstruct any discussion of criticism on the article's Talk page. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to shut up or go away. I'm telling you to stop soapboxing. I cannot understand how you can possibly think I am obstructing the discussion of criticism, when that is pretty much all we have been discussing for several months now. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC

Again, I'll give you my proposition: include Ayers, and you will also have to include every single other person who contributed to the Obama campaign in the same way Ayers did. The neoconservative wing of the media brings out every single obscure skeleton in the hopes of dashing Obama's presidential hopes. The mainstream media then has to report "what Rush Limbaugh has to rant about today", and then because of people like you, there's a push to put things like these into Wikipedia, just on the "Well, the media said it, so it has to be true" rationale, without scrutinizing these things at all, and determining whether or not they are true. The other option for including Ayers is to write about him like one would write about, for example a creation story: "According to the X religious tradition, Y deity created Z at the start of time". So Ayers would be mentioned like, "According to some media, Bill Ayers was a significant contributor to the Obama campaign- cite source-however, other sources have noted that Ayers' contributions were not exceptional-cite other source-." Please, please, please, stop soapboxing and then claiming obstruction of discussion when we tell you to stop. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read slowly for comprehension this time, Erik. I'm using Nexis, an extremely powerful search engine that uses only mainstream news sources, locking out the right-wing fringe sources like World Net Daily. The search structure can be fine-tuned with exquisite precision to exclude such words as "Limbaugh," "Coulter," "McCain" and "Hillary." I have run this search many, many different ways; and I'm still finding dozens of articles, starting with the NY Times, the Washington Post and other gold standards of reliability and neutrality. I've even filtered out "the neoconservative wing of the media": Fox News and the Washington Times.

This is independent, neutral commentary. They're not just reporting what Limbaugh and other right-wing critics are saying. They're finding the Ayers relationship notable on its own merits. "Every single other person who contributed to the Obama campaign in the same way Ayers did" would include the fundraiser Tony Rezko held for him at his own home. Erik, if you insist, I could go along with that. I could find every supporter who has ever held a fundraiser for Obama in his own home and we could include them all. But none of them is as notable as Rezko and Ayers because they're not criminals. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, I am not denying that there is a tie between Ayers and Obama. I am merely saying that it is to small to deserve significant mention in Obama's life story. Please stop soapboxing. I'll say it again, in case you didn't get it the first time: please stop soapboxing. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Rezko and Ayers are criminals. That makes them notable enough to have their own articles. However, it does not make them any more worthy of a lengthy mention on Barack Obama's page. You could not say "Obama's fundraisers include federal criminals such as Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers" and uphold WP:NPOV. Once more, please stop soapboxing. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about "lengthy," Erik? Once more, it is clear that the people advocating for the inclusion of Ayers material are only asking for one or two sentences. That's not "lengthy" in an article that's around 4000 words. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is lengthy in proportion to their due weight, not the length of the article in general. Their due weight is the letter "A". Once again, you cannot single out Ayers among Obama's significant contributors because he does not deserve singling out, and it reeks of implied guilt. Do you have a suggestion for a neutral, unbiased sentence about Ayers that does not give him undue weight and does not try to shed his guilt on Obama? One sentence still is undue weight, but I'm willing to compromise. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think an entire capital letter like "A" is really too much weight for this. Maybe just the forward slant on the left side would be balanced. However, in a compromise to WB, I'd be happy to accept any single character as a summary of the Obama/Ayers connection... no need to limit it to ASCII even, anything in the whole Unicode range is fine with me. Btw. great skill using LexisNexis is a good qualification for a job in the Justice Department. LotLE×talk 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise Bill Ayers proposal

Does anyone mind if I propose a single sentence? At the end of the Wright paragraph we could add something similar to WB74's single sentence: "In April, a controversy also arose when George Stephanopoulos asked Obama, during a televised debate, about his friendly relationship with Weather Underground founder William Ayers." Curious bystander (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• That sentence sounds like a good compromise to me, only because it presents the existence of the controversy, which was important, but does not make any judgement on the controversy, or over exaggerate Ayers' relationship with Obama, which indeed would violate WP:WEIGHT. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with LotLE below that the sentence should go in the primary campaign article instead of the general bio article. Many of the arguments seem to be based on a lack of knowledge of the existence of other Obama articles ie the campaign. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. The wording also has the advantage of merely spelling out that Ayers' helped found Weatherman, instead of generically labeling him a 60s radical. (A la Jane Fonda?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• You can propose what you want but I don't see the point. I oppose inclusion of the Ayers reference on weight, relevance and NVPOV grounds as discussed extensively over the past 8 weeks, and don't see any realistic chance of consensus developing to include it based on the events and sources as they currently exist. Wikidemo (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose any addition of irrelevant Ayers material, as has been consensus for 8 weeks. The same couple users continuing to propose the same rejected edit doesn't suddenly add relevance. The proper weight for this in a general biography is zero words (it might merit a sentence in the primary campaign article though). LotLE×talk 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per WP:WEIGHT. I would, however, support a variation of this sentence in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008:

  "In April, a minor controversy arose when George Stephanopoulos asked Obama, during a televised debate, about his relationship with Bill Ayers."

These changes would be necessary because:

1. The wasn't much of a "controversy", except in the right-wing blogosphere (and the general condemnation of the ABC debate itself).
2. "Also" is redundant.
3. "Friendly" would imply friendship - Obama said he had friendly conversations, not a friendship (they hardly knew each other - just acquaintances).
4. Their association had nothing to do with Ayers' membership of the Weather Underground, so specifically mentioning it would be a BLP violation.
5. He is referred to by everyone (including Wikipedia) as just "Bill Ayers".

-- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Continue to strongly oppose At the present time, based on what is known to date, no mention of Ayers is warranted in a general biography of Barack Obama. Nothing has happened in the last weeks to change the situation, so I wonder why so much time is being wasted here discussing the same thing over and over. If a mention went anywhere it might go in the primary campaign article, but even there I would say we need to consider its relative weight, etc., and I'm not prepared to say if I would support it there. But here there is no question in my mind - this is a weight, relevance, and neutrality matter - and no matter how many times the same thing is raised without something new, I have no reason to change my position on this. Tvoz/talk 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support as a last ditch effort to compromise. Let me remind all opponents of this proposal that a couple of months ago, there was a significant amount of Ayers material in this biography (more than one sentence, if I recall) and it stayed, in a fairly stable manner, for several weeks. What happened to make you change your minds about this? Did the Obama-Ayers controversy somehow become less notable? WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note - I have added similar language to the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 article where it seems to belong.[13] The incidental contacts are of no import to the life of Obama but they were a (minor) issue in the primary campaign, so I think a brief mention and link to the issue is reasonable there. Wikidemo (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong thanks to you, Wikidemo. Now can the endless battling finally come to a close? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

Comment: Like others have said above, I do not see a NPOV issue here. This is an encyclopedic biography, not a campaign article, or a general discussion about the man. After reading the article for the 'umpteenth time, I feel that there is just the right amount of criticism of his life within the article. Each criticism that has been included, has been something that has directly affected and shaped his life and decisions (I.E. Rezko and Wright for example.) Yet, NPOV does not mean we should include every criticism of the man or that we should follow what the current opinion polls, shock jocks, blogs, editorials, etc are saying. Some of the criticisms that other editors are fighting tooth and nail for are merely incidental relationships (I.E. Ayers) that have neither shaped or effected his life. The only people who have placed any significance to these incidental relationships are Barack Obama's political opponents and concurrently do not lead the reader to a better understanding of the man. Brothejr (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I have said before, since Obama's relationship with Ayers is so minor, the only reason I can see for wanting to include it in this article is to try to hope some of Ayers' alleged guilt will rub off on Obama - certainly not neutral in any sense of the word. And this is the long version of my arguments, you will all be relieved to hear. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama's relationship with Ayers is [...] minor. I address this objection in my comment at 22:18, 26 July. The rest of the statement is unhelpful, and similar unhelpful comments have been made in the past by other editors on both sides (I think I've made some of them). Please, let's get away from impugning motives when we don't have to. -- Noroton (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Scjessey (and others) above. Ayers does not belong in this article, any more than he belongs in the Daley article or the Tribune article (as both defended him). Ayers is just not a significant person in Obama's life. (The claim that he 'launched' Obama's political career is especially absurd.) Flatterworld (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "launched" greatly overemphasizes Ayers' role. My comment at 22:18, 26 July answers Flatterworld's objection (and one of Scjessey's) that Ayers is just not a significant person in Obama's life -- the very controversial nature of Ayers' past makes him more significant than the association would otherwise be. Noroton (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below in the "Guilt by association" section. It's actually "questioning judgment by association" and Wikipedia isn't doing the questioning. We would only be reporting the questioning by other, very notable people and news media. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More criticism is needed. Full disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat and an Obama supporter. The articles offered for comparison, particularly George W. Bush and Tony Blair, contain a lot of criticism. Tony Blair was a Featured Article and George W. Bush is a Good Article, so the addition of criticism would never cost this article its FA status. As an American attorney, I do not adhere to the Napoleonic "All which is not expressly authorized is forbidden" philosophy of law. I adhere to the Anglo-American "All which is not expressly forbidden is authorized" philosophy. There's no real criticism in this article, like we see in the Blair and Bush articles. The many policies that Scjessey and others have cited do not forbid criticism that is well-sourced and notable. WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of criticism that is well-sourced and notable in proportion to its significance in reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT is satisfied by keeping it fairly brief and providing a link to the specific article dealing with each controversy. As an Obama supporter and new Wikipedia account holder I feel that it's best to put these controversies out in the open in this article, show Obama's side of the story, and show that there's really no substance to the allegations. I've only been participating here a little bit and was not involved in the months of acrimonious debate we have seen here, so I feel my comments belong in this section. Curious bystander (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That rationale seems to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We do not start out by determining how much criticism an article should have and then pouring in as much as we can find until we reach that threshold. Every thing we add needs to have its own reason to be added and needs to adhere to all of the considerations of WP:BLP material. Most importantly, we never add criticism to one candidate's article simply to "even it up" (as you said earlier) with another candidate's article. An article stands on its own. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyond all that, are you suggesting something similar to Criticism of Tony Blair? Flatterworld (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also Criticism of George W. Bush. But in both cases, the existence of a separate article entirely devoted to criticism hasn't kept a substantial amount of criticism from finding its way into the biography. Also, Loonymonkey, you misunderstand me. I have only compared this article to those two because arguments have previously suggested that adding criticism would cost this article its FA status, or make it NPOV, when the reverse is true. Curious bystander (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have misunderstood you. In earlier comments on this subject you stated "there are 19 instances of criticism in the John McCain article, compared to only eight here. Let's start evening it up." That is exactly the sort of arbitrary tit-for-tat editing that I'm speaking of. That isn't balance, it's POV-pushing. We don't add criticism to an article in order to even the score with other articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He said that, yes; but then he rephrased, and I think he's showing a pretty good understanding of policy. Far better than a few others on this page I could name. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newbie here, but I can read. WP:NPOV requires the representation of any POV, in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. There is a POV which isn't giving Obama a pass on his relationships with Ayers, Rezko and Wright. That POV must receive proportionate representation in this article. That is Wikipedia policy. Curious bystander (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By that policy alone there should be no mention of Ayers (prominence is under the threshold of inclusion), Rezko is about right, and Wright is covered moderately too much. Also, we have a number of overlapping policies, informed and augmented by our guidelines. You're citing WP:WEIGHT, which is one part of WP:NPOV. WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS apply, as well as the question of logical organization of information in one article or another, a meta-issue. Probably some others. Adding derogatory information about a political candidate for the sake of making the article more derogatory because some editors consider it a "whitewash" is a really, really bad idea and violates WP:NPOV no matter how you cut it. Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've read all of those policies and I disagree. Since it's true and verifiable in reliable sources, it satisfies WP:BLP. Since it's verifiable, it satisfies WP:V. Since multiple, extremely reliable sources verify it, it satisfies WP:RS. This is not suggested for the sake of making the article more derogatory, but for the sake of representing a POV in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. Curious bystander (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments above, at #Existing criticisms in this article. The weight issue is amplified here since this is an article written in summary style. I said there, and I'll repeat here, that I think Ayers should be mentioned in the sub-article on the campaign but does not warrant being mentioned here. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Block (now there's a name for an administrator), if there was a link to the Obama-Ayers controversy article in this biography, you'd have a point and I would concede it. But there isn't. Curious bystander (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions about "guilt by association"

Noroton says "...the very controversial nature of Ayers' past makes him more significant than the association would otherwise be."

That is the very essence of the problem right there. A pure, undiluted example of guilt by association. This would be in direct violation of this section of BLP policy, where it says: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." I don't see how my point could be made any plainer that that. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a "guilt by association" charge, then you should be able to answer the following questions:

1. What is the accusation that Obama is being associated with and called guilty of?

2. If it were David Duke whose home Obama was going to, who he was appearing with on a panel organized by Michelle Obama, who he was sitting on a small foundation's small board with, from whom he was accepting a $200 campaign contribution, and whose book received a glowing review written by Obama, would it be "guilt by association" to mention that in the article? If not, what's the difference?

3. Is it not possible that, for a presidential candidate, scrutiny of the people a candidate chooses to associate with, when they are especially controversial, is worth pondering for what it says about the candidate? Not necessarily that the candidate is guilty of the same thing that the controversial person is guilty of, but as an indication of what the candidate finds tolerable?

4. Why do you suppose the New York Times reported the association? Here it is from May 11:

Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.

Now, along with Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations. In 2001, Mr. Ayers said he did not regret the Weatherman bombings. Even so, in Hyde Park, he and his wife were viewed favorably for their work in addressing city problems. Mr. Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Mr. Obama said recently.

The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it “a searing and timely account.”

--Noroton (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste too much of my time answering these questions because I've already explained about eleventy-billion times why mentioning Ayers is wrong, but here are some quick and dirty responses:

1. Ayers is alleged to have done some bad stuff 40 years ago. Obama has met the man, sought his counsel, and served on a board with him. Ergo, Obama is bad too. That is how guilt by association works.
2. I don't know anything about David Duke, so I can't offer a response.
3. I agree; however, I believe this does not apply in this case because (a) the level of contact Obama had with Ayers is relatively insignificant, and (b) Ayers is not the evil man some people seem to be making him out to be. His is now a distinguished professor and a significant civic figure in Chicago. By all accounts, it would have been downright difficult for Obama to avoid Ayers. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to try to judge Obama negatively based on what appears to be an inevitable association with a man who has become a veritable pillar of Chicago society.
4. Perhaps it was because at the time, they were supporting Hillary Clinton. Since her failure, NYT has continued to be rather critical of Obama, I have noticed, as if they are sulking after backing the wrong horse.

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree more or less with Scjessy's comments as well so I'll take a swing at it:

• 1) Guilt by association. The accusation is embodied here:[14] "Can we elect a president that associates with friends that are self-declared terrorists?". It's simple. The radical right is going down a well-worn path, cynically promoting a stronger connection than really exists so that they can say Obama is "friends" with a lot of evil people. In its most polite form they say it impugns his "judgment". But obviously, many go beyond that to say he sympathizes with terrorists, will be soft on terrorists, is under the sway of terrorists, or has a secret anti-American agenda. It sounds silly to even say it, but they've convinced a substantial number of Americans that he is some kind of Manchurian Candidate - Muslim, studied in a madras, is an Arab, etc. Even sensible people see a taint that gnaws at them and gives them a sense of unease, perhaps enough to vote for the tried and true - nobody accuses McCain of being anti-American. The thing about guilt by association is that it's not specific; it works on ungrounded suspicions and emotions.
• 2) David Duke. David Duke would get no mention either. David Duke is not a respected academic moonlighting as a self-important but peripheral Democratic political operative in local Chicago politics, but if you transposed the roles and he were the sort to sit on serious academic panels, write well-received nonpolitical books on academic subjects, make small political donations, and serve on community-empowerment charity boards, then no, an incidental brush with David Duke would be utterly irrelevant as well. It's hard to mirror the roles because conservative nut jobs like Duke don't behave the same way as liberal nut jobs like Ayers, nor does left wing attack politics work the same as right wing attack politics.
• 3) Is [association with evil people] an indication of what the candidate finds tolerable? Maybe yes, maybe no. but this translates into a question of whether we should practice guilt by association here. The answer is no.
• 4) The New York Times can cover whatever it wants - that's not the criterion for inclusion. Bill Ayers does not have substantial coverage in the press in proportion to the other people and events in Obama's life, and this one article doesn't even contradict that, much less provide a meaningful counterexample. Strictly as a weight issue the Times article is about a narrow subject, Obama's "transformation...from his leftist Hyde Park base to more centrist circles", so that's about 1/8 to 1/16 the scope of this article. Within that subject the article gives Ayers somewhere between an incidental and a minor mention - roughly 8 1/2 sentences, 190 out of its total 5,000 words, or 4%. By that calculus if we were truly covering Ayers in the same proportion as the Times we would devote perhaps 0.25% to 0.5% of our article to him. Ours is slightly longer - 6000 words. So that would suggest around 1/2 to 1 sentence, 15 to 30 words. But the purpose of our article, even the section on Obama's political rise, is not to expound on the thesis of a "transformation". It's to report the biographically important details. To answer the specific question, as the Article itself says it is covering the subject because "Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations" - in other words, it is covering the guilt by association campaign. In the world of politics, people boostrap issues out of nothing by blogging and editorializing about partisan talking points like this to the point where newspapers cover the sensation, then they point to the newspapers as proof that there's something to the nonsense. But the coverage is about the scandal, not about the substance.

- Wikidemo (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming an involved editor, I'd like to answer these.

1. Agreed with Scjessey.
2. David Duke or Charles Manson are false analogies. Ayers is a respected professor of education; the book you mentioned that Obama recommended was a well known book on education reform. I read the Chicago mag's Ayers profile you provided above and, although he retains very provocative opinions, he is certainly not part of the lunatic left anymore, as J. Edgar described him, more part of the leftist bourgeoisie. I would think possibly more analogous parallels would be Pat Buchanan, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy and other unrepentants from the right. Now, I'd like to avoid a culture war debate on who was more harmful to America, but should partisans do opposition research on every person, notable or otherwise, McCain has come into contact with?
3. You appear to be saying that if Ayers was repentant then this would not be an issue. If instead of standing on an American flag, he was draped in it, then you would agree that the association would be OK? If so, then you are criticizing Ayers for his exercise of speech and not his (current) actions. His actions are redemptive -- he's working on education, not tossing bombs. Do we know that Obama was aware of Ayers' past? Wouldn't that be a requirement to impute judgment problems? The associations that you carefully laid out do not appear to be significant. Maybe if you were describing me, then, yes, I don't attend all that many boards (though I do some) and possibly it would make sense to attribute issues of judgment because I meet so few (relative to Obama) people although I don't know the back story of every person.
4. The New York Times was reporting that Mr. Ayers had "become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations."

∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

An addendum to my answer to question #4: If Ayers was a significant associate of Obama, then you should have no problem providing sources pre-dating the partisan controversy. The Chicago mag Ayers profile doesn't mention Obama. How many pre-controversy sources establish this relationship? The link to the charity doesn't establish that this was significant. What news outlets or other reliable sources made note of their closeness before it became a campaign issue? A lack of independent sources may indicate this is a campaign, opposition issue and not a colleague worthy of biographical interest. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 16:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What I find a little disingenuous about this opposition is the idea that controversy doesn't matter and isn't worth any weight. We are asked to show that the Obama-Ayers relationship would be notable enough, without the controversy, to be included in the biography. It's as though the controversy doesn't (or, in the judgment of a few Wikipedia members, has no right to) exist. It is all the controversy that makes this relationship notable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What goal does it serve to call those who disagree with your minority position "disingenuous"? There is nothing incongruous about paying heed to relevancy, weight, and having information in the right article where it belongs. The Ayers controversy is not notable to Obama's life so it does not belong in his biography. If it is notable to the election campaign then it can be included in that article. Wikidemo (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Important distinctions

There are two important distinctions here that are being blurred (perhaps deliberately) in this "guilt by association" discussion. First, it's not guilt by association. Since we're making a point of ignoring right-wing fringe sources, it's clear that mainstream and even left-wing fringe sources are questioning judgment by association, which is far more legitimate. Obama is essentially running on a good judgment platform.

Second and more important, Wikipedia isn't doing any of the questioning. We are only reporting the fact that there is a multitude of eminently notable sources, from Hillary and McCain to the NY Times, Wasington Post and LA Times, and even Mother Jones, The Nation, The New Republic and The Village Voice, who are questioning Obama's judgment because of these relationships. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not really correct. Almost without exception, mainstream media has written about the Obama/Ayers relationship in the context of how Republicans and the right-wing groups intend to use this relationship to their advantage in the election. From a campaign perspective, MSM has concluded that Obama's minor relationship with Ayers might prove to be a small headache - that is why I have consistently advocated that this relationship be given coverage in primary and general campaign articles. From a biographical perspective, however, the relationship is essentially meaningless (neither a positive or negative factor). If it turns out that his relationship with Ayers is seen to cost him the election, then it will absolutely get mentioned in this BLP, but right now the relationship is not significant enough to warrant a mention. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving discussion

The foregoing WP:RfC is now subsumed into the new WP:RFAR report here - Wikidemo (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, don't archive this RfC. You've tried several times now to shut down discussion prematurely. Until the ArbCom accepts the case, this RfC cannot be subsumed into it. Please stop trying to shut down discussion. It is inappropriate. Curious bystander (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using this talk page to attack other editors. If you disagree with my understanding that this RfC should be closed while the Arbcom case is underway you are free to say so in a neutral matter on your talk page or mine. You have interspersed this discussion with a number of accusations, and I would appreciate your removing them.Wikidemo (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

He may as well, this RfC was a complete joke. All the usual editors spilled right in, continuing the fights from all the other sections, and seeing it as the ding-ding of a new round in their little boxing match. As Someone who, until recently, avoided this cesspool of an article because it was such a fistfight, and then got involved after seeing numerous AN/I threads about it, I find there's way too little criticism of the guy. I said as much when I supported the specific and more expansive of the tiny non-mentions about Pfleger and the church. What I find surprising is that Obama–Ayers controversy is an orphan, not linked here OR at the presidential primary article. That's a major problem. MAJOR. Orphaning a controversy? big problem. ThuranX (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for the Obama–Ayers controversy article to be linked from here, because there is (rightly) no mention of Ayers. There definitely should be a mention/link in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008, and I am surprised that there isn't, but I don't monitor or contribute to that article. You are wrong, however, about the controversy article being an orphan. You will find it linked from Bill Ayers, Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund of Chicago. So not a "major, MAJOR, big" problem at all, really. Also, how do you define "too little criticism" exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton's response

(unindent)Apologies for the length, but there's a lot to say (and I consider this just about my final comment), and for the delay: we had a little detour over at WP:RFAR. The responses to my four questions included some good points, but I won't attempt to address everything. I think these responses show that opposition to including a mention of Ayers in this article isn't simply "whitewashing". He simply isn't as close to Obama as, for instance, Rezko and Wright, so he didn't have as much of an influence on Obama's life story. The case for including mention of him has always been to include a sentence or two, no more. And I do think it's significant that Obama was in a city where Ayers was an accepted part of the community. So far as we know (and Ayers and Obama are pretty mum on the association, but no other sources have shown up), Obama wasn't getting any closer to Ayers than the powers that be in Chicago were (although it's disingenuous to say he didn't have a choice -- he worked with the guy and accepted his support). That doesn't destroy the case for including Ayers, but it makes it more difficult.

All three responses (from Scjessey, Wikidemo and Therefore) evaded the 800-pound gorilla in the room: the terrorist past that makes Ayers controversial. They also evaded the point of question #1. Another way I could have put it was What is [..] Obama [..] being [...] called guilty of? The answer, "Obama is bad too" doesn't address it. Wikidemo responded, But obviously, many go beyond that to say he sympathizes with terrorists, will be soft on terrorists I don't see that point as unreasonable on its face. Obama's association with Ayers is part of the record of Obama's past history on how he responds to terrorism. It is a legitimate part of thinking about a national legislator or presidential candidate to consider both what that person has said about terrorism and how that person has acted with regard to terrorists (including past terrrorists, because there's no evidence of Ayers being one now, despite his lack of repentance). (As Thomas Sowell has put it: There is nothing more real than a man’s character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it. There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. Stripped of the context of Sowell's POV column, does anyone doubt the principle he's stated here? Is this Ayers association not part of Obama's track record on dealing with terrorists?)

And of course, Wikidemo was engaging in guilt by association to conflate all the people who were concerned with this matter with the "radical right". Very cute, but the explanation I've just given completely debunks the idea that concern about this association is really just "guilt by association". With this kind of obvious explanation now laid out here, I don't think it's really honest for anyone to use that term again in this discussion without explaining why the point I just made is wrong. I expect partisan campaigns to engage in that kind of thing, but editors trying to put partisanship aside and create a neutral article shouldn't. (And don't anybody give me the line that you're not a terrorist unless you actually kill people. Helping to set bombs in order to terrorize the public is quite enough.)

Much of what a president does is to focus public discussion and attitudes on serious problems and policies. We're entitled to wonder how a President Obama would prosecute a war on terror, no matter what he says now, when his attitude toward a former-but-unrepentant terrorist was to treat him as normal. Whatever you personally ultimately conclude about this concern, it's NPOV for us to consider it a reasonable one (that many prominent commentators have expressed) when we think about including a sentence or so about Ayers.

The case for including Ayers rests very largely on the fact that this person did things in his life so terrible that to voluntarily associate with him is to excuse those horrible actions -- promoting a riot, helping to bomb buildings, being involved (not in an entirely clear way, but clearly with a degree of responsibility) with the planned bombing of an officer's dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey, an operation that resulted in the deaths of three people who turned out to be in the Weatherman group itself. This is serious stuff that left victims in its wake and hurt this country. A lot of people, including me, believe in redemption and forgiveness, but you don't redeem yourself without coming clean and admitting you were wrong, something Ayers has never, ever done, despite writing a whole book about his Weatherman experiences, along with articles and his own blog. For a possible president of the U.S. to, in effect, excuse a terrorist of his terrorism, despite a lack of repentence, tells us something important about that candidate, which is precisely why the matter came up this year and just won't go away. Too many prominent news organizations and commentators have looked at it for it to be considered not notable. It is very much a prominent campaign issue, and a Wikipedia editor concerned about providing the most important information about Obama in an NPOV way should want to include it, especially when Obama has put the themes of his judgment and ethics front and center in his campaign, and especially with U.S. policy toward terrorism a prominent issue for either a senator or president. We decide these things not based on either our own partisan feelings or entirely on the exact amount of media coverage given to something (as if we are capable of gauging the exact amount), but largely on our judgment as to what is more or less important about this article subject, with a very rough approximation of how much coverage a topic has received from the most prominent sources.

Nevertheless, I think we've discussed every aspect of this matter that's worth discussing, and there just isn't a consensus to include it. Since I don't find that there's any more to say about this, I'll drop it unless some new information turns up or someone makes a new, compelling argument we haven't considered, and I suggest everyone else here do the same. I do expect more coverage of this, and I actually expect that to happen, but until it does, we're just spinning our wheels here to no good purpose other than potentially riling up each other even more. Noroton (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC):Thanks, Noroton.

You're right that I was painting everyone with the same brush in using the term "radical right" to describe those in the world beyond Wikipedia who are hawking the Ayers/Obama connection at the national level as if it's a major issue. It's probably a mixture of different things, but there's definitely a heavy component of ideologues, political operatives, and those for whom politics is a game. But whatever it is, it's way over the top as things in the blogosphere tend to be. Your question was how highlighting the Ayers/Obama connection was practicing guilt by association, and I answered with an example from a relentlessly anti-Obama attack page I found within several seconds of googling. That's not to suggest you or anyone else here does not have more meaningful reasons to consider the matter worth contemplation, just that guilt by association is being practiced offwiki.

As a topical question, no, it's not plausible that Obama's willingness to be seen with a college professor who fomented riots and planted bombs in the 1960s is going to make him any more likely to accept those who would blow up American embassies in the 2000s. That speaks more to a willingness to look the other way for the sake of expediency when there seems to be no consequence (a political pragmatism that is far more the rule than the exception) than it does to any fondness for terrorists. As offended as you may be by Ayers' anti-American activities, others are offended by other people. But these are tenuous connections involving several logical steps and weak inferences from there to here. Any special place Obama had for Ayers is indiscernible when viewed against the hundreds to thousands of people Obama met in the rough and tumble realm of Chicago politics - or in the case of the party in power, when you run a country you work with thousands of people and some of them are unsavory. There's nothing wrong with this guilt by association when you're deciding how much to trust someone, who to vote for, or how to inform your own world view. It's just a corrosive force within the world of political campaigns to try to manipulate people's suspicions for political gain, and a weak basis for making substantive content decisions on what is worth telling our readers about here. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

(a) I thought you were doing the "guilt by association" thing here, yourself, consciously, to make a point; I see what you mean, I meant to ask how was noting the association necessarily a g. by a. move; our arguments here aren't tainted by the fact that worse arguments are elsewhere -- it just doesn't matter what's said elsewhere when we have our own reasons; (b) it's not "willingness to be seen with" but working with, going to the home of, having dinner with, accepting support from; (c) there is no comparison between a terrorist whose actions led to many injuries and nearly led to many deaths, and wound up leading to a few deaths and the other people you mention; even G. Gordon Liddy, the best comparison that someone out there had brought up, didn't do things that led to the death of others; (d) What GOP candidate has ties as bad as Obama to Ayers? (e) There's nothing wrong with this guilt by association when you're deciding how much to trust someone, [or] who to vote for -- then I don't get your opposition. Noroton (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no smarty-pants dig on my part. It was a counterexample to prove a point, not an attempt to belittle the discussions here. It's not our place to debate politics, I'm just pointing out that if we're going to question people's judgment by drawing dots from who they associate with, people on the other side of things are certainly extremely mistrustful of other politicians based on crimes committed there. That's why the label "terrorist" is useless - I disagree (below) that it means the same as terrorist does today, but it was in use for sure in the 70s. Ayers actions are not in dispute, only what to call them. Labeling them terrorist doesn't explain things any more, it just applies a value judgment. Like calling Yoo a torturer (or perhaps a torture enabler) for leading the Administration's shaky excuses to permit waterboarding, sleep deprivation, nonlethal beatings, "stress positions", terrorizing people with dogs, freezing naked prisoners, etc. I personally don't know what ties McCain may have, but I would think that anyone alive has worse skeletons in their closet than Obama's passing social / political brush with Ayers. Ayers was respectable in Chicago at the time. It is only in the context of this election that some people wish to retroactively revoke his chance at redemption decades after the fact.02:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of points you make that I simply must respond to. It appears that you base your argument on two salient points:

1. Bill Ayers was a terrorist
2. Obama's relationship with Ayers can be seen as an example of how the man might deal with terrorists and terrorism.

The second point is only really important if the first point is true, and that hinges on whether or not Ayers is regarded as a terrorist. Well until recently, the answer was emphatically no. He was an "activist" in a time when activism was the response to some of the terrible decisions surrounding the war in Vietnam. Ayers allied himself with a one of the more radical activist groups of the time, but the Weather Underground were not characterized as terrorists. It was not until much, much later that the word "terrorists" was used, and this was many, many years after the group had disbanded. Thanks to the conservative right, the "terrorist" characterization is all the rage. Everyone is a terrorist now - a million names on the "terror watch list", including radical librarians and the evil sewing circle regime.

I digress, but I think you can see where I am coming from. "Terrorist" is the designation du jour, so it is unsurprising that the term is now applied to a man who has not been convicted of anything (although this has been conveniently forgotten by the conservative right). And that brings me to the second point. Obama's association with him is unremarkable. Indeed, hundreds of politicians and civic folk in Chicago associate with Ayers, but none of them are called into question for their judgment. And what makes this even more ridiculous is that it is Obama, not Bush or McCain, who wishes to pursue Osama Bin Laden. Obama is the man who wants to end the war in Iraq so that we can go after the real terrorists - the people who murdered thousands of our people, rather than just blowing up themselves and the odd monument.

So in summary, to say that Obama's association with a civic leader and distinguished professor means he's going to be soft on terrorists, when he is practically the lone voice insisting we go after these bastards in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and when his opponent insists on wasting more time and American lives in Iraq, is pretty unbelievable. Rather than shoehorning Ayers into this article, we should be spending our time writing an article criticizing the conservative right for distorting the truth and lying to the American people to further their warmongering agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Ayers fits the definition of terrorist to a "T" and was called a terrorist before the Obama campaign and even before 2001 (I saw him called that in a NY Times article from the 1970s). Ayers flouted not just laws but democratic rule in the U.S. -- he wanted to terrorize people into submission. It's not so much "how he might deal with terrorists and terrorism" as it is an example of his attitude. We don't exactly know his attitude, of course, but we know he wasn't all that disgusted by Ayers: he certainly had plenty of opportunities to distance himself from Ayers. I find it very telling that Michelle Obama would organize a panel discussion in which Ayers was on the panel. I don't see any disapproval of Ayers here at all. We all know why he wasn't convicted: The FBI violated Ayers' Constitutional rights. That had nothing to do with Ayers' guilt or non guilt. Anyway, this isn't primarily a matter of following laws but of committing abominable acts up to and including acts that resulted in death. And Obama is very obviously not the only candidate who wants to pursue Bin Ladin. Noroton (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (((made a couple of wording changes -- Noroton (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC))))

The 'terrorist' label

Ollie (the patriot who once expediently helped freedom-loving counter-revolutionaries fight Che-admiring communists through extra-legal means) was never classed by the U.S. government as a "terrorist"; and Bill (the one-time John Brown-like, domestic anarchocommunist revolutionary), who since the 1980s has dedicated his life to moving the culture to greater participation by minorities and increased attention to social ills through nonviolent means, rejects the label as well. Chomsky would apply the label to both and off-wiki, I'd agree; however on-wiki I'd say just briefly describe each's actions and not worry about labels.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pikachu is a terrorist. At least he makes my head hurt. I think we agree that once we move beyond facts and get to labels it's harder to reach agreement, hard even to agree on what standards to apply.Wikidemo (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, don't joke like that. In the past few days dozens of people were killed by terrorists in three different countries. That flippant attitude insults them. Noroton (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me as though there are multiple layers here -- how to characterize Ayers's actions in the 60s, how to determine how "repentant" he was when Obama worked alongside him 30 years later, how Obama should have weighed the past and the present Ayers (informed by Ayers's "level" of repentance), and (apparently, according to Noroton) the conclusion Obama should have reached regarding the "moral repugnance" of Ayers. Many of these layers are informed by the POV of each of the actors and editors. (Characterizing Ayers's actions as "resulting in death" is absolutely POV, and not reflected in the facts, as it seems pretty clear that Ayers was not involved in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion.) It's the multiple jumps that, to me, support the conclusion that Ayers does not belong in the Obama biography -- it's tenuous enough in the campaign article. Mfenger (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me you'd have a better perspective on Ayers by reading this review of his memoir by Cathy Wilkerson, one of the survivors of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, especially the parts about Ayers' influence and the last two paragraphs. It isn't a coincidence that many of the news stories about Ayers in the past eight years have used the word "unrepentant". But this discussion is straying from the topic. My only point was to show that outrage at Ayers is not some feigned move by political commentators and others, and you don't have to agree with that outrage to understand that it's genuine and widespread. Characterizing Ayers' actions as resulting in death is not an opinion but reflecting the facts, and I don't see any evidence that you, Mfenger, have looked into the matter enough to give an informed judgment on that. If this is not behind a subscription wall, this is an interesting 2004 article in the New York Times that would also help you understand how the sources we're supposed to follow have been reporting on Ayers. Noroton (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayers is a terrorist, and he is unrepentant. Those are not merely labels, but facts. If necessary, we can put quotation marks around the phrase "unrepentant terrorist" and cite one of the many very notable and very reliable sources that have used that label to describe those facts. Curious bystander (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, calling Ayers an unrepentant terrorist is not going to fly in any article on the encyclopedia, much less here. By his account and many others he is neither a terrorist nor unrepentant. Some people offwiki wish to call him that, nearly all of whom have a political agenda. That the disparagement of a person is reported as what someone else said rather than endorsed as a fact does not cure that it's a matter of opinion, and not reliably sourced. We go for facts, not the back and forth of invectives people hurl at each other. Ayers did what he did, and that is adequately covered in the encyclopedia. Identifying him as an "unrepentant terrorist" in his references degrades any attempt to be factual. Might as well call Bush a "failed President" every time we introduce him. The problem is solved, simply, if we identify them by their name, wikilink, and if they're not a household word to all, something about their occupation or claim to notability, e.g. "former radical", "education expert and former Weatherman leader", etc. Throwing in a swift kick that he's an "unrepentant terrorist" is utterly gratuitous politicization of the article. 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (unsigned, by Wikidemo)

Wikidemo (sign your posts, please) Mfenger, are you trying to provoke other editors? You're not only making provocative statements, but they're leading us farther off the topic of this page. Commenting on an utterly gratuitous politicization of the article is rich -- the topic is political and this is a talk page on an article about a politician. And calling Ayers an unrepentant terrorist is not going to fly in any article in the encyclopedia doesn't make the statement any less true. If we were to follow what the most prominent sources say and the predominant reporting on Ayers, "unrepentant" and "terrorist" can be quoted time after time after time in, for instance, news articles from, for instance, The New York Times. I see no evidence you are familiar with what's been written about Ayers. Noroton (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That was me, not Mfenger. How is calling Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist" in the Obama article not gratuitous or not politicization? It's a value judgment, not a matter to which truth or falsehood even applies. He did what he did. Whether that makes him a terrorist or not is a political argument, or at best a semantic one, not a question of truth. He denies it. I'm rather familiar with what's been written about Ayers, thanks to the nonsense that's been creeping into the encyclopedia on the subject, and I don't see that many major responsible reliable sources use "unrepentant" or "terrorist" as a way to identify Ayers but even if they did it would be a BLP violation and not remotely a matter for this article. Wikidemo (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not every quotation in the biography needs to be neutral. Some should be critical, some should be supportive. The result would be NPOV. Put the words "unrepentant terrorist" in quotation marks, use one of many notable and reliable sources that uses those very words, and there you go. Curious bystander (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No. That would be completely unacceptable, for all the reasons that have already been said dozens and dozens of times. Even a single-word mention of Ayers would be completely disproportionate. Putting something in quotes does not suddenly make it okay. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did Ayers material exist here for months?

I've archived the below discussion as being against the spirit of the recently proposed article probation because it consists mainly of disparaging other editors rather than any discussion reasonably directed to improving the article. - Wikidemo (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't disparaging other editors. I was just asking them why they changed their minds. Please stop trying to WP:OWN this page. Thanks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has answered this question and I believe it's being deliberately avoided. Why was there space and weight for a couple of sentences about Ayers 2-3 months ago, but not now? Did the Obama-Ayers controversy somehow become less notable? Or did POV pushers realize how damaging it could be, and decide to remove it? Under the circumstances, it's a fair question and I believe it deserves a straight, non-evasive answer. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe nobody noticed it? Vandalism and inappropriate material can exist for months with no action taken, unfortunately. In the Seigenthaler incident, the defamatory biography was on Wikipedia for four months before anyone noticed it. So let's not wring our hands about what happened months ago and charge our fellow editors with POV pushing and let's get back to the business of the article in its current form. Gamaliel (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that "nobody noticed it" exhibits either an easily remedied ignorance of the history of this article, or an approach that is disingenuous at best. Real vandalism is removed from this article within minutes. It is perhaps the most closely watched article on Wikipedia. Ayers material has been discussed on this page, off and on, for several months and wasn't completely removed until around June 1. Its most strident opponents participated actively in that discussion, including Noroton, Scjessey and Wikidemo. A straight answer please, without pretending that "nobody noticed the vandalism." WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's a straight answer, though not the one you are looking for. Do not use this talk page as a forum to slur other editors. Stick to discussing changes in current article content, not griping about alleged historical wrongdoing on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm discussing changes in current article content. I'd like to restore the Ayers content that was removed. I'd like to know why the editors who removed it did so, when for months they had no objection to its presence; their only objection was to its size and the details of its composition. Why the change of heart? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You can address the current objections without making accusations of POV pushing or implying that there is something wrong with those objections because they didn't make them at a time you arbitrarily deem fitting. If you start another section like this again, I'll just delete it. I shouldn't have to keep reminding you to stick to content discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - FYI, the content was originally added by Fovean Author (banned for sock puppetry) shortly after the matter was raised in that crappy ABC debate. It has been endlessly debated, revised, and edit-warred over ever since. As predicted back then, the so-called "controversy" amounted to nothing and it has been rarely mentioned since. It is rightly excluded per WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are the one being disruptive. Stop your efforts to misdirect this discussion from article content to your false accusations against me. The so-called "controversy" amounted to nothing ... That isn't a good reason for removing it from this article, which covers the entire history of Obama's life, including events which aren't in today's newspapers. If it was notable enough to include in May, why isn't it notable enough to include in August? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say that there was no controversy over the Ayers material before now. It was originally inserted by a banned user, and has been warred over, with many violations of 3RR and talk page flames since. It should be removed per WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENT and WP:CSB. Saying that it should be added because it existed before is like saying that America should re-institute slavery because "it was legal for centuries, and that means it was right." You actually need to think about things before making actions, instead of going blindly on what happened before. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It was "notable in May and not in August" because the material was added in May in violation of WP:RECENT. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's more like it. Now we're getting somewhere. Slavery and encyclopedia editing? Apples and oranges. WP:RECENT? It was added on April 21, not in May; and it survived in various forms for months, including efforts by a genuine sockpuppet named Life.temp to delete not just the Ayers material, but any and all material that might inspire criticism of Obama. The fact that it was added by a temporarily blocked editor is irrelevant. He was blocked for reasons completely unrelated to this article. I suggest a review of WP:RECENT. It says, "A political candidate's biography article may become bloated with specific details related to a particular election season despite that politician having a career outside that election." I don't believe that adding one or two sentences about Ayers would suddenly transform this bio from "not bloated" to "bloated." There is way too much material about his three years in the Senate, and not enough about his eight years in Springfield. If you are really, truly looking for a violation of WP:RECENT, there it is. Help me fix it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Next, I'd like to demolish this WP:CSB claim. Systemic bias? Are you really claiming that the inclusion of Ayers material reflects a systemic right-wing bias at Wikipedia? I have never heard of anyone claiming that Wikipedia has a right-wing bias; but I've seen plenty of claims, supported by numerous examples, that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. Including Ayers material, not deleting it, would counter such a bias. Please elaborate on your WP:CSB claims. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The "temporarily blocked" editor was given a six-month block for sockpuppetry, disruption, personal attacks, incivility, and tendentious editing - part of an escalating series of blocks related to this article, so actually it is a false statement to say it was "for reasons completely unrelated to this article." Also, no matter what new procedural or tangential excuses you come up with, it does not alter the fact that any mention of Ayers would still be in violation of WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and probably WP:BIAS. It is no longer a WP:RECENT matter, because nobody is talking about it (which is precisely what WP:RECENT is supposed to warn us against). It became a non-issue, as predicted by the neutrally-minded editors at the time. Further debate on this matter is just disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Claims based on WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and all the other policies that are routinely trotted out here to prevent the addition of any criticism have already been shot down in flames dozens and dozens of times. As Cb says, it's true and verifiable in reliable sources, so it doesn't violate BLP; it represents a significant POV and NPOV does not mean "no point of view," so it complies with NPOV. As always, the last line of defense is WEIGHT, because there is no handy formula for that; it's based entirely on opinion. Further debate on this matter is just disruptive is just another attempt to shut down discussion of an edit you oppose. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Next I'd like to respond to what you said about Fovean Author. He was blocked for among other things, vandalizing your User page and he said he regretted it. It seems to me that his "disruption, personal attacks, incivility and tendentious editing" occurred elsewhere; a review of his diffs here shows nothing more than what one might expect from an editor who was relentlessly baited, and it was fairly mild compared to his comments in his own SSP case, which more immediately preceded his block and were therefore its proximate cause. He could have been a very valuable contributor to this project, and six months was over the top for what he had actually done; and I think Jossi, the blocking admin, realized that when he offered to reduce the block to two weeks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please pay attention while I go through this one more time:

1. It violates WP:BLP because it attempts to smear Obama by using guilt by association.
2. It violates WP:NPOV because it fails to "[represent] fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views."
3. It violates WP:WEIGHT because it turns out not to be significant part of Obama's life at all. There are literally thousands of facts about Obama that are "true and verifiable in reliable sources" that have to be left out because they aren't significant enough.
4. See also WP:ROC for a good summary of the kinds of problems with trying to shoehorn this sort of stuff into the article.

Let me also restate that I strongly believe that by continually raising this matter over and over again, after exhaustive debate and repeated consensus for exclusion, you are now being intentionally disruptive per WP:TEND. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In response:

1. It does not violate WP:BLP because it is verifiable in reliable sources. If hundreds of notable people and reliable news media sources are trying to smear Obama using guilt by association, that fact is notable; and the article survived your AfD attempt by a 2-1 margin against deletion. But I don't even think it's guilt by association in most cases. I think it's legitimate questioning of Obama's judgment.
2. I'm getting over 300 Nexis hits for "Obama Ayers" and I limited the search to the last 30 days. It includes Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post and CBS; it's not limited to the National Review, although they're noteworthy and well respected. It's easily duplicated for all to see using Google News. This is a significant view, and failing to represent it is what violates NPOV.
3. See previous Nexis search, also WP:WELLKNOWN. WP:WEIGHT is satisfied since hundreds of mainstream news articles are still talking about it.
4. It's relevant for the same reason, so it satisfies ROC.

Now allow me to use a hyperbolic apples and oranges comparison like Erik. If you were on trial for a murder you didn't commit, and in the jury deliberations room, one juror was saying "There's still reasonable doubt" while the other 11 were chanting "Guilty, guilty, guilty," wouldn't you want that one juror to stand his ground and not back down? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

-

-

-

And by the way: why did consensus change? I never did get a straight answer to that question. You used to accept the presence of Ayers material here; you only argued about its size and composition. What made you change your mind? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Go back and read the archive. You will find a comment where I talked specifically about why I changed my mind. It was during the "voting" fiasco, in case you have forgotten. Then go and read WP:TEND again. Then read it again in case you didn't follow it the first or second times, because a huge chunk of it describes your behavior. Please, please, please stop your tendentious and disruptive editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me find those comments and read them, and I'll get back to you. In the meantime, is there anyone else who was participating in the discussion at that time, who would like to explain why you changed your mind about including any Ayers material? Thanks in advance. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing five different pages of archives, I can't find it. The archives are a mess. The bot archives threads, not in the order in which they're started (that we're all familiar with), but in the order in which discussion on them is ended. SCJ, why don't you just give me a straight answer and tell me why you changed your mind? Obama-Ayers controversy somehow became less notable? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal analysis

Mfenger, I would like to add that WB74's legal analysis is spot on. Ayers not only participated in, but was one of the founding members and masterminds of a conspiracy. That conspiracy, with his active participation, committed several felonies and was planning to commit more. At that moment, the act committing two felonies (unlawful possession of explosives and unlawful manufacture of an explosive device) caused the deaths of three people. This is a textbook case of felony murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a): "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder ... committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any ... sabotage ... is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree." Section 1111(b) continues: "Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life[.]" As a matter of law, a defendant may be vicariously responsible for the actions of his co-conspirators. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). Curious bystander (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I must have a sticky tilde. He has expressed qualms and regret about his past actions. Whether he has "repented" is in his heart and not for an encyclopedia to judge or speculate on. The entire subject of the level of penitence 40 years after the fact of a college professor and local political organizer with a fringe radical past is farfetched and many steps removed from the biography of a candidate for president. Whether Ayers is remorseful or not has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Taking a single controversial quote out of context to use against a him, then blowing that up 40 years after the fact to use against a presidential candidate, is so remote it is not a matter for serious discussion. It doesn't pass the straight face test. Let's not belabor the point. Wikidemo (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah-dee, blah. Now go and read this, please. There is nothing "spot on" about it. You may disagree with the process, but the fact remains that the process did not convict him. Now it is time to drop this pointless argument and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whomever you are (I don't know since you didn't sign your name), you said, By his account and many others he is neither a terrorist nor unrepentant. His own biography here at Wikipedia, well sourced, quotes him saying that he "no regrets" and that "I feel we didn't do enough." He has also said, "I don't regret setting bombs," and "I acted appropriately in the context of those times." While he rejects the title "terrorist," as Noroton observes it is a reasonable title. He admits unlawfully setting bombs. He admits that his intention was to frighten people. This sounds very much like a terrorist to me. Curious bystander (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That was me. He has expressed qualms and regret about his past actions. Whether he has "repented" is in his heart and not for an encyclopedia to judge or speculate on. The entire subject of the level of penitence 40 years after the fact of a college professor and local political organizer with a fringe radical past is farfetched and many steps removed from the biography of a candidate for president. Whether Ayers is remorseful or not has nothign to do with Barack Obama. Taking a single controversial quote out of context to use against a him, then blowing that up 40 years after the fact to use against a presidential candidate, is so remote it is not a matter for serious discussion. It doesn't pass the straight face test. Let's not belabor the point. Wikidemo (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You said, He has expressed qualms and regret about his past actions. Please provide a link to a reliable source for this claim. It contradicts what the New York Times quoted him saying. I've even seen and heard a video of the panel discussion where he made the statements I quoted above, and it's probably available on YouTube. The only thing he regrets is not setting more bombs. Curious bystander (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the quotes at Bill Ayers, here's another one of many sources: Even while clinging to some of the old revolutionary ideals, these former members of the Weather Underground have for the most part renounced violence, especially the tactic of bombing civilian targets. In a memoir he published in 2001, Fugitive Days, (Beacon Press), Mr. Ayers hedged a little, fondly recalling parts of his underground life and repudiating others. About bombing, he said he could not entirely rule out the possibility of someday doing it again. -- "Far Left Gathers For Weather Report", New York Times, June 12, 2004. Don't misrepresent the record, Wikidemo (not that I think anyone is doing it on purpose). Noroton (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is how someone apologizes, guys: She said several times that she felt a deep sense of regret and shame for having participated in the robbery. And she said she had long hoped to have a chance to apologize directly to the victims' families. -- Kathy Boudin in The New York Times as she sat in prison hoping to get parole. August 20, 2001. Here's Bill Ayers: "I don't regret setting bombs," Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough." The writer of that article thought the matter was so important that these were the first two sentences in the article (and you usually don't begin a news article with a quote unless you've got a damn good reason to do so). The editors thought the issue was so important that they gave the article this headline: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen" and although Ayers later whined that they didn't get his quote exactly right and he didn't exactly say that, here's Bill Ayers' letter to the Times. That's not how you show repentance. That's how you get called "unrepentant" time after time after time in subsequent news articles in both the Times and elsewhere. THAT is the record, based on WP:NPOV sourcing, and it reflects the predominant view of Ayers and repentance, folks. Noroton (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

....Let's not worry about Ayers' repentance. It can be stated that he's not in his own article, and that for the controversy. If the controversy ever gets reprised here, then it can be placed in some critic's mouth how Ayers is unrepentant. As for, philosophically, if Ayers' IS unrepentant, that depends on the meaning of what he's supposed to be repentant of. He's proud of having been a revolutionary. He did flirt with hurting people for a bit and he came to renounce that. He doesn't consider himeself someone who targeted innocents (in the aggregate, I suppose). Of course, by the FBI's (as well as most Americans') current definition, Ayers is most definately a former terrorist. Along with McVeigh.

Yet wouldn't, according to the UK's definition, also be former terrorists any still-alive Tribal Nationists among the Irish from the early 20th century? Wouldn't Menachem Begin have been, from mid-century? Wasn't (the quite conservative in modern terms) anti-Imperialist George Washington, in the 18th century? (Nationalism is such a big thing in modern times: Turk nationalists competing with Greek to ethnically cleanse vast territories, and so on and so forth, tribe after people after ethnic group after religious minority. Yet Anarchocommunists divide the world into enlightened and reactionary instead. That's the nature of politics, defining groups into competing dualities in some way. Right versus left is an overriding one: .....let's see, we've got current Tribal Nationalists such as David Duke, who renounces violence, as well as anti-Government individualist such as Timothy McVeighs, who don't, both generally classed both on the Right; and anarchists who'd presently trash downtown areas during protests and also tweedy white-haired professors such as Ayers and Dohrn peacefully working toward social renewal through the teaching of law or and philosophies of education, both said to be on the Left.... but I'm getting waaaay banal here.) Back toward what I'm hoping to get at---- Individuals each have their own policial leanings. And the fact of the matter is that geez not every single American is going to happen to support the same side of international conflicts that their government has taken during wartime; that's just the way it is.

During the Mexican-American War, some Spanish-speaking people (and others) in the United States probably supported Mexico; ditto the Spanish-American War when some supported Spain; some German speakers (and others) supported the Kaiser in World War I; the Axis during WW2. So, well, Monsieur Ayers and Mademoiselle Dohrn just happened to be strongly believing AnarchoCommunists back in the 70s; that's all. And now they have to bear the brunt of being on the losing side on that one. Think Benedict Arnold. Remember, Ayers' idol John Brown may well have been a visionary before his own time---- but he was also hung! While Ayers hasn't. Anyway, the times were such that mister JFK had sent the CIA to directly or indirectly murder civilian Socialists in cold blood in South America and elsewhere; then mister LBJ escalated "The War.".....all the while thousands upon thousands of civilians were disappeared all around the world during the era, up through the Nixon administration.....their being accused, sometimes not incorrectly, of being Commie-lefties.

And how about the many, youthful, lefty Mao's Little Red Book quoters here in the U.S.? Well, the F.B.I. just tried to keep tabs on them; it didn't bury them in mass graves----at least not here in the U.S., as the U.S. government generally would turn a blind eye to such a practice internationally, during the era. Not to say Leftist regimes didn't do the same kind of thing, of course. In any case, the point being: Ayers and Dohrn had no reason to want to support any struggle against the forces of Communism in Southeast Asia of the time; they in fact believed themselves in philosophical agreement with the general aims of "Ho!----Ho!----Ho, Chi, Minh!," as the Weatherman's chant of the time went. How many proletarian patriots of the Cong and of North Viet Nam----philosophical fellow travellers of Ayers and Dohrn----were being killed by mindlessly American flag waving American troops in ratio to each single American casualty? How awful that the reactionary Imperialist American regime had so much blood of revolutionaries and sympathizers on its hands! That was the feeling on the Anarchocommunistic Left of the time. (Click here to see the vintage cover to the Bring the War Home pamplet, advertising the Day of Rage.)

Time moves on, and more recently, in 2001, Dr. Ayers reflected on his conduct during the era within a memoir. Then in 2003 he took part in an intellectuals' electronic bulliten board type discussion----where one guy mentioned to him having gone to the Museum of Modern Art and having looked at this huge metal, machine-like sculpture with blade-type things all over it, its metal inscribed with seemingly countless Vietnamese names: each one a victim of The War. Ayers' response was

Your image from MOMA is haunting and exactly the point---a radical lesson:every human life is of value,each an entire universe to be treated with a measure of reverance and awe...I was taken with the profiles of grief in the NY Times after the catastrophe of Sept.11,and I read them religiously every morning as a kind of ritual.And then our government,inevitably it seems,lashed out and started killing nameless,numberless others.They each had a mother and a father also,they had likes and dislikes,friends and their own little quirky ways of living and being,but of course they won't show up in the Times.So then I stopped reading the profiles---they had become a segregated and exclusive space....On radical action:I guess I think that in a world so violent and oppressive to so many,a world so dramatically out of balance and in desperate need of repair,there must be a lot that each of us can find to do.History is not something that happened and now sits on a shelf somewhere....It's happening now and no one knows the future.But for sure tomorrow depends on what we do or don't do today,so we ought to all get busy.The problems,the horrors,the challenges are deep.We live in the headquarters of an aggressive and violent empire,a country built on stolen land and stolen labor,a country out of balance and desperately denying any wrongdoing.There is work to be done,work that involves remaking ourselves and our culture in order to free the planet.....The questions we face are huge ehical and political and strategic questions,not little tactical ones.But I must object to a definition of terrorism that is both too large and too small.The use of violence by a non-govt.group....both lets the main perpetrators of terror thruout history off the hook,and conflates the actions of Bin Laden with the Berrigans,the Brownshirts with John Brown and Nat Turner,the Klan with the African National Congress.A firmer definition,which applies to all groups,is the killing of innocents to achieve a political end.We still have to figure out the question of a just cause,but terrorism is never really defensible,and in my book I try to show a group of young people flirting with the idea of answering official terror with a terror of our own,never pulling it off and finally renouncing it as an option....

I.e., although his group had flirted with such ideas as that of blowing up some U.S. non-commissioned officers at a dance in the U.S., they eventually thought better of it and renounced personal violence in favor of violent sabotage to facilities----in, yes, actions that he still believes befitted the times.

Whatever.

But we can't cover all this in an article about Obama; we might at some point be able to mention a critic's mention of Ayers' lack of repentance, should the issue ever be thought to deserve more than a phrase's mention here, along with mention of Ayers' having been a Sixties radical who's now an education activist; but that would be about it. But at present there's not even consensus to even link to the article about the controversy. So be it!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

At an article on Ayers' level of regret for his past actions we could include for the sake of balance and weight his own statement that he has regrets, and some analysts opinions that what he calls his own regret is not really regret - if that could pass all the other content policies of the project. I might even agree with you that his so-called regret does not seem terribly sincere. On the other hand I might also argue that the whole question of asking for contrition from people who forty years ago used radical means on one side or another in the Vietnam war's home front is besides the point, and the bigger unsolved issue is uncovering the crimes and deceptions of those who promoted the war. That killed millions of people, it didn't just damage government property. Pikachu has not. But this is not a forum for poltical debate. What possible relevance does this have for an article on Barack Obama? Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've conflated government officials acting under the authority of the law in a democracy in the context of a war against totalitarians as being essentially like terrorists. That's like conflating Kathy Boudin's fellow murderous robbers with the cop and security guards they killed in Rockland County, New York, because both sides had guns. If you're going to conflate government officials in war with terrorists, call George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant and Franklin Roosevelt terrorists. Even when poor policy decisions resulting in many deaths are made, or possible overreactions take place (the World War II bombing of Cologne may well have been one), not all actions that result in deaths of innocents reach the immoral depths of terrorists deliberately targeting the innocent. You know that. It was the North Vietnamese government and Pol Pot's government that killed millions in Indochina, not the United States. And they did it deliberately. That's the record. We're discussing this because you're making provocative charges on an emotional topic and misrepresenting the record. Noroton (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not conflated, compared. I am making the point that our job here is not to polemicize on how evil people's contacts are, not that one form of illegality resulting in death is better, worse, or the same as another form of illegality resulting in death. Wikidemo (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You asked for a link? Okay, from the horse's mouth: "I never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it" and "I'm often quoted saying that I have 'no regrets.' This is not true." http://www.nationaljournal.com/hotline/print_friendly.php?ID=hl_20080418_6472 (with sub-links in the source). If you want to synthesize other sources and opinions to argue against the man's own denials that he is unrepentant and a terrorist, we have a serious WP:BLP and WP:NPOV problem even in the article about him, much less the article about random people with whom he's come into contact in his life. Does anybody reasonably think we would add this kind of language to the Obama article? We have no consensus to mention of Ayers at all, and it seems extremely unlikely to happen. Why are we spending time considering a remote proposal like this? Wikidemo (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Days of Rage was an act of terrorism Ayers helped organize. Ayers was one of the top leaders of Weatherman and bears significant responsibility for the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion that killed his girlfriend and one of his best friends as the bomb was prepared that would have killed innocent people at an officers dance at Fort Dix. Ayers has had every opportunity to make a Kathy Boudin-like statement and has not done so. We are perfectly entitled to call him "unrepentant" and a "terrorist" as the predominant mainstream sources do, based on the unambiguous statements that Ayers did make. The man's own "denials", as seen in the blog post from which your quote is taken, are written in a confusing, obfuscating way in context (I saw that quote from Ayers in the original blog post, and its context obscures what he does and does not have regrets about. The Hotline page you quote from took the quote out of its confusing context). That's the record. Noroton (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to that opinion. It may well be a good one. But again, the job of calling people criminals (and other derogatory things) against their own denials and despite a lack of judicial resolution, and hypothesizing on what might have happened or what's in someone's heart, is not Wikipedia's. That's the point of bringing up Pikachu and all the others. Some truly believe comparable but much more serious claims about them. But this is the wrong project for that kind of thing. And doubly removed, in an article on a Presidential candidate with whom a man had some incidental interaction. Why are we discussing this? Wikidemo (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing this because you're making provocative charges on an emotional topic and not representing the record accurately. The proofs for "unrepentant" and "terrorist" exist, they're in the sources, and it doesn't require original research to quote them. You want to move on from this? Stop commenting on how beautiful the emperor's clothes look. He's naked. Noroton (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• In this archived AN/I discussion there are links to sources pertinent to the comments made in this section. Those sources and quotes may be useful if this subject comes up again. Noroton (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing out of context

Wikidemo, you said: You asked for a link? Okay, from the horse's mouth: "I never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it" and "I'm often quoted saying that I have 'no regrets.' This is not true." You've edited that statement out of context. I see this sort of thing now and then in my profession, and that's why I always conduct painstakingly thorough research and discovery on my cases. In particular, I like to research the case law cited by opposing counsel and we have a process known as "Shepardizing." this often shows that the state of the law is exactly the opposite of the way it's represented. My colleagues and, in most cases, their clients are moral and ethical people. But when they get into a jam, as you've done here, they sometimes see the code of ethics as flexible. They aren't really lying when they edit out of context. They just aren't telling the whole truth.

The original quote is from Ayers' own blog, here:

Regrets. I’m often quoted saying that I have “no regrets.” This is not true. For anyone paying attention—and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/ways—life brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I’m sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say “no, I don’t regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.” Sometimes I add, “I don’t think I did enough.” This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings. The illegal, murderous, imperial war against Viet Nam was a catastrophe for the Vietnamese, a disaster for Americans, and a world tragedy. Many of us understood this, and many tried to stop the war. Those of us who tried recognize that our efforts were inadequate: the war dragged on for a decade, thousands were slaughtered every week, and we couldn’t stop it. In the end the U.S. military was defeated and the war ended, but we surely didn’t do enough.[15]

I don't know why he slipped into referring to himself in the third person, but that's what he wrote. So we see that Ayers denies he has no regrets. That's true. But the only specific regrets that he articulates are a regret that he didn't set off more bombs, and a regret that he didn't do enough to stop the war. What was he doing to stop the war? Why, he was setting off bombs and inciting a riot in Chicago. Then we go to the link you provided at National Journal, which chops up the quote but still retains its essence: Ayers' only articulated regret is that he didn't set off more bombs. Please stop editing out of context, Wikidemo. I'll bust you for it every time.

In response to Mr. Block's template below (and I remark again, what a fabulous name for an administrator), we are discussing the suitability of including material about Bill Ayers in this article. Many attempts have been made to shut down this discussion prematurely. Please don't be one of them. Curious bystander (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

After another read, I've figured out why Ayers referred to himself in the third person: he was describing how others are describing him, without using quotation marks. Now I don't feel nearly so illiterate. Curious bystander (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that it isn't Wikidemo's fault that the quote was taken out of context: His source (usually pretty reliable journalists who were on a deadline) did that. Wikidemo found the quote at the National Journal "Hotline" web page and the journalists who put that together had selected the quote. Even reliable sources screw up. Noroton (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Position On Reparation for Slavery?

Can anybody provide information about Obama's position on the topic of reparation for slavery? --Lance E Sloan (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the Obama article, not the candidate himself. If you need information like that, I would recommend emailing the Obama Campaign or doing a bit of Googling. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go→The Associated Press, August 2, "Obama opposes reparations for slavery"  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Landslides

I'm concerned about this section of the lead paragraphs:

Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After winning a landslide primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.

It speaks of a "landslide" primary victory in March 2004, and a "70%" victory in November 2004, but there is no suggestion that the 2000 loss was a landslide too. I'll attempt a fix if there is no objection.Ferrylodge (talk)

Using a term like "landslide" in the introduction does not seem appropriate to me, since that is a characterization. I've removed both, and I've also changed the text that referred to "winning a primary victory" (which makes no sense). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Accessability

Templates are supposed to go after the text in the lead. SeeTalk:John_McCain#Layout_and_accessibility. I'll fix if there are no objections.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Islam

So after he left Islam he goes and joins the chuch of a craker hating precher. Nice. We are all fucked if he gets elected. Who do you think Bin Laden would vote for?

Warning: This article is on "probation"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Do contributors to this article know that as the result of an AN/I discussion, the page Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation has been set up? Details are there, including a link to the AN/I discussion. Editors here should pay attention to that, and it would be unfortunate if people forgot it and get caught up in a warning, and then be on the edge of some kind of administrator action. This should be noted at the top of the page, probably in a rewrite of the large orange box there. It would be best if some uninvolved administrator puts some kind of a reference to the probation page up at the top, where it can stay permanently. I'll wait 24 hours and if no one else pitches in to do it, I'll do it myself, although I don't think I'm the best person to do it. Noroton (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Though I am not an administrator, I have placed the template, as I'd hate to see someone blindsided. If I have made a policy error, please feel free to revert me (I will not consider it edit-warring). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the proposal was ever adopted, nor have any administrators agreed to oversee the article. I wish it were, and that they would, although I do have some quibbles with the specific terms proposed. Wikidemo (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is listed at Wikipedia:Article probation#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, if I remember correctly, ArbCom declined to place the article on probation and stated that the problem was being handled by the community. I've removed the template, however, as it's difficult to keep up with some of this stuff, if there is an actual ArbCom decision I've overlooked please restore it and place a link to the discussion here. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you may be mixing up two separate actions that happened around the same time. The article was placed on probation by the community at WP:AN/I (see the list of articles on probation I posted above). ArbCom declined to review a separate complaint. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it helps if I correct my link, which I just did --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But was it actually placed on probation by the community or was it simply listed as such by Ncmvocalist? That's the part I'm not clear on. Where is the consensus discussion which placed the article on probation? I agree with Noroton below in that pretending it's on probation (if it officially isn't) doesn't accomplish anything as there is no weight of sanction. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's correct that article probation was never actually adopted. Still, let's all just pretend it was, and edit and discuss carefully and respectfully. Do nothing that would cause you problems if it were under probation. LotLE×talk 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiser words were never spoken. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wise right up until the moment that someone gets specially sanctioned and says Hey, that was never official! And I didn't know about it!, not that either saying that or believing it is going to do any good for that editor, but it'll just cause more editors to raise more heated questions. This is why they put seals on important documents. I notice that setting up the Obama probation page and placing the notice at "community sanctions" was done by Ncmvocalist, whose actions have been controversial at AN/I. I assume he also closed the AN/I discussion thread about this. Either the AN/I discussion received consensus and therefore authority to implement or it didn't. (I'd prefer that it did.) Also, any admin may hold back on acting if the admin thinks the authority is unclear. The probation wasn't meant so much for editors trying to work within the system but largely for editors trying to game it, so clarity counts. I think another posting at AN/I is necessary. Oh, I hated typing that last sentence. Ugh! Noroton (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I've already started it Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation aka is Barack Obama on probation? Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All right. The discussion at AN/I attracted few comments and was archived today at Archive 460 (here). It is not in effect, in my opinion, and the page Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation set up for it should be deleted. I wish that were not the case, but it is. I'd prefer that someone else arranges for that deletion, but if no one else does in 48 hours, I'll go through the rigamarole myself. Noroton (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this morning at ANI asking for clarification of this article's probation status, and for an appropriate template to be placed on the page if the article was in fact under probation. User:AGK was kind enough to create an appropriate notification template and add it to this page. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Noroton (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed that it was already under probation (including daughter articles, since this is a summary style BLP). I also assumed that was the reason why everything had gone quiet. I'm glad that it is, because it more or less prevents the kinds of BLP violations we have been seeing over the last few months. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad this has been clarified, because I too was unsure if it was officially adopted. For remedies to have any teeth, the status has to be clear. Let's hope it works so we can stop talking about meta issues and get back to editing the article as needed. Tvoz/talk 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! And in the interest of limiting meta-discussion, I'll tag this thread for archive. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sponsored or co-sponsored?

This part of the lead paragraphs also seems problematic (emphasis added):

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he cosponsored legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the current 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

To say that he "cosponsored" some legislation, and then that he "sponsored" other legislation gives the impression that the latter legislation was not merely cosponsored by Obama but rather was authored and spearheaded by him. Is that accurate? And should we distinguish between bills (that don't pass) from "legislation" (that does pass)? Maybe someone more familiar with his work in the Senate can address these questions?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

When you put them next to each other it creates a misimpression. However, in general co-sponsorship is a subset of sponsorship. Very few bills, other than nonbinding honorary bills, have a single sponsor. So it's safe to say that most legislation that is sponsored is really a co-sponsorship. As to who drafts it, usually industry reps, lobbyists, think tanks and congressional staffers.Wikidemo (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change "sponsored" to cosponsored then. How about the distinction between a "bill" that is introduced versus "legislation" that actually passes?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing bills from laws would be useful (obviously, we have to know and cite the facts). It's a somewhat different thing to propose a bill and to propose one that manages to pass (the difference can be for lots of reasons: sometimes a bill is "symbolic" and not really expected to pass, other times it is amended in negotiations, other times vetoed even if passed by Senate... still, it's a good first-pass distinction that can be factually cited). LotLE×talk 20:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sponsorship and co-sponsorship have specific meanings within the context of Congressional usage. Any bill brought to the floor will have exactly formal sponsor - the Senator (or Representative, in the House) who introduces the bill. It will also have zero or more co-sponsors. In some cases, sponsors can number in the dozens (Coburn-Obama had 47 sponsors), some of whom may have contributed significantly to the bill and others whose contributions may be minimal. In other words, every bill has a sponsor, and it may also have cosponsors, who are not co-equal with the sponsor. In this context, "co" is used here in a similar way to the subordinate relationship of "copilot" to "pilot", not the equal relationship of "co-chairpersons". Since the usage of "sponsored" versus "cosponsored" has a defined meaning in this context, and the usage as it previously existed appears to be accurate I am reverting the change. On a related note, Wikipedia could probably use an article on sponsorship of legislation, but I lack available sourcing to write it. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)It looks to me like there may be some very serious issues of inaccuracy here. This article says:

In the current 110th Congress, he has cosponsored legislation regarding lobbying ....In January 2007, Obama worked with Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act," which was signed into law in September 2007.[67]

But according to this legislative history, Obama was neither the sponsor, nor a cosponsor, of this Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Am I missing something here? This is the only piece of legislation mentioned in this article that I have checked.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was originally proposed in the Senate as S. 2180, which had 40 cosponsors, including Obama. The number of cosponsors was reduced during the amendment process. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A more convenient link of same. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, S. 2180 was in the 109th Congress, not the 110th, it had a different title, different cosponsors, different content, and a different legislative history; presumably, Obama declined to cosponsor the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in the 110th Congress for a reason. These errors in the present Wikipedia article really should be corrected, and the other legislation mentioned in this article should also be reviewed. And, of course, he was a cosponsor rather than a sponsor of S. 2180.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found out what the deal was. Obama cosponsored S. 230 introduced by Russ Feingold, which was later incorporated into the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs of this Wikipedia article say that he "sponsored" this stuff, not that he "co-sponsored" it. And your details about S.230 ought to at least be footnoted.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't look at me - I didn't write any of that stuff. I'm just trying to help you get to the bottom of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Does anyone object if I change "sponsored" to "cosponsored" in the lead paragraphs? I already did it once, and got reverted. Or better yet, why not change it to just "supported" so we avoid the issue altogether?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection, although I am not qualified to say which is the correct terminology. I would fare better if we were talking about UK government bills! If "cosponsored" is the accurate term, we should use that. "Supported" opens a whole can of worms, because you could argue that he "supported" any bill he voted for, and "rejected" any bill he voted against (which would be nonsense, of course). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's no significant difference between a cosponsor and a supporter. According to C-Span, "A Sponsor is the member who introduces a bill and is its chief advocate."[16] Also according to C-Span, a "Cosponsor is a member who formally adds his/her name as a supporter to another member's bill. An initial cosponsor is one who was listed at the time of the bill's introduction, not added on later" (emphasis added).[17] If we're aiming for plain English here, "supporter" is okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Per Clubjuggle, thanks for the explanation of (co)sponsorship. I believe that we should use that precise language in this article (and other Senator articles), obviously subject to actually finding and citing the facts. If there is any detail wrong about which bill Obama really did sponsor or cosponsor, I encourage Ferrylodge (or anyone) to fix that with better citation. As Scjessey points out, getting it right can be complicated, as bills are modified, incorporated into omnibus bills, amended, reconciled, etc. Let's try hard for accuracy nonetheless. LotLE×talk 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll change it to cosponsored then, since it's very clear that he did not sponsor the lobbying legislation in question.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "sponsored or cosponsored" since he sponsored bills in some of the categories listed and (apparently) cosponsored others. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)According to the Library of Congress, Senator Obama has cosponsored 659 bills and 278 amendments, for a total of 937 cosponsorships. The mere fact that any Senator has cosponsored something is virtually meaningless, because it's as easy to do as voting (easier, in fact). Therefore, I recommend that the lede paragraphs of this article be rephrased to remove the fact of cosponsorship. If Sen. Obama strongly advocated for a particular bill, then that may be worth mentioning, but that he cosponsored that bill (or any other) is trivia.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable observation. Still, even though he was not the formal sponsor, he did have very significant involvement in the creation of Lugar-Obama, the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (with Russ Feingold), and the Hagel-Obama collaboration to reduce nuclear terrorism, which later passed as an amendment to another bill. Taking it out entirely is probably not the answer. Any suggestions on how we approach this? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle with Ferrylodge. Cosponsorship by itself does not mean much. However, advocacy of particular legislation or involvement in drafting it short of sponsorship could make a bill more relevant to associate with Obama than are many of the 937 "bare cosponsorships". Rather than simply delete the set of cosponsorships from the lead, perhaps we can first see if we have evidence of Senatorial actions (such as floor speeches, public editorials, etc) that show a close association with those things listed, and if so revise wording while keeping the basic positions in the lead. LotLE×talk 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Association with legislation

Ferrylodge has raised a concern (correct in my mind) that per se cosponsorship is not enough grounds to mention a particular bill in this article lead. However, for many of the positions mentioned, I believe Obama's association with the position is greater than mere cosponsorship shows. Perhaps he "spearheaded" or "advocated" or the like for some of these topics.

While I do not think the lead should be littered with a dozen footnotes about relation to each legislative position, I think it is worth reaching consensus on each specific position as to whether there really is a relevant legislative association. The citation might come later in this article, or in one of the child articles, as long as it seems clear in discussion that a given position really is closely associated with Obama (rather than just a "yes" vote or signing on with 40 other cosponsors). The existing paragraph is below. LotLE×talk 02:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he cosponsored legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the current 110th Congress, he has sponsored or cosponsored legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities

As items (please comment next to each):

• Control conventional weapons

  Seems warranted: Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. LotLE×talk 02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  Your link says that Sen. Obama was not a sponsor of the Lugar-Obama legislation. He was a co-sponsor.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  Hmm, according to http://obama.senate.gov/press/060523-lugar-obama_bil/: "WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee today passed out of committee, S. 2566, the Lugar-Obama Act. Modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, the bill was introduced by Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) to expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons." I confess I'm a bit flummoxed about exactly what's going on with this bill, and how to describe Obama's role. LotLE×talk 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would probably be best to steer clear of press releases from senators, if you're looking for a neutral assessment about their legislation. The Library of Congress data is neutral, and there are probably also neutral reports from the press.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it looks my original "authored" really was right (http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/): "Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction." LotLE×talk 04:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, Lulu, you really should look for neutral sources, rather than press releases of senators.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have misunderstood the point I've presented in the excerpts. I'm looking for a sanity check on whether these issues really are more important to Obama's career than others he may have had an incidental role with as cosponsor. The fact a Senator might boast of a certain thing in a press release is strong evidence there; another WP article isn't an in-article citation, of course, but it does provide background. In contrast, we wouldn't e.g. expect a press release from Obama's office glowing about his successfully joining 90+ other Senators in his yes vote on the 2006 budget omnibus bill. LotLE×talk 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you look at press releases of Senators, then almost every piece of legislation they're involved with is a dramatic breakthrough and a result of the most careful and wise deliberation. Not that I'm cynical or anything.  :-) You really ought to focus on neutral reliable sources. It's true that on each Senator's web site, there may be some legislation that is boasted about most or least, and so it might be okay to say that Senator so-and-so is most proud of thus-and-such, or believes that thus-and-such is his greatest achievement. But more is needed. Saying that one thing is the Senator's most important achievement really doesn't tell the reader very much, because neutral authorities (e.g. the press or google books or whatever) may agree it's his most important achievement while not believing that it says very much about the senator (or while not believing that it's very important for the country).

Also, you mention that "we wouldn't e.g. expect a press release from Obama's office glowing about his successfully joining 90+ other Senators in his yes vote on the 2006 budget omnibus bill." Well, why don't you check the Senate votes on Lugar-Obama or Coburn-Obama and see if they were at all controversial.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your focus on "controversial" legislation, Ferrylodge. You mention this a couple times. That seems neither-here-nor-there to me. If something is too controversial, it won't pass, and won't be an accomplishment (or if it is, in a different respect). Of course, something completely bland (e.g. non-binding resolutions to honor some famous or virtuous person/group) isn't really an accomplishment either (even though it will get near unanimity). Looking at what a politician claims as significant is a fairly important indicator of his or her political persona (subject to it being true, and not the only one of course, but not at all something to dismiss the way you've claimed in this thread). LotLE×talk 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't dismissed it. I specifically said above, "it might be okay to say that Senator so-and-so is most proud of thus-and-such, or believes that thus-and-such is his greatest achievement." But a Senator's role in a piece of legislation ought not to be assessed by looking only at Senators' press releases. One of many things to look at is (in your words) whether he was "joining 90+ other Senators in his yes vote." If so, then that indicates the Senator wasn't crossing the aisle to be bipartisan despite opposition in his party. By the way, can we please agree that the lede of this article is now blatantly misleading, since it says Sen. Obama "sponsored" the two pieces of legislation in question? Can we please change it to something else?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(out)I still don't get the "crossing isle" thing (which is similar to "controversial"). In some cases, that may be significant, in others not. For example, it is also common to say of a politician: "Overcoming uniform opposition from the other party, Sen.Foo managed to win a majority for major legislation on Blah-Blah." There's no simple rule about whether getting support from her own party or the opposition is automatically "more important" as a politicians accomplishment. LotLE×talk 19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Obama overcame uniform opposition of the other party to get this legislation enacted, then that would help establish notability of his role. Or, if he crossed the aisle to get it done, despite opposition in his own party, that would also help establish notability of his role. But presently, this article doesn't seem to rely on anything to establish notability, except the press releases of senators. That's all I'm trying to say. By the way, thanks for the recent change to get sponsorship out of the lede.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Public accountability of fed funds

  Warranted (but we can say "authored" for this and previous): The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget. The site lists all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward and provides breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[32] LotLE×talk 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sen. Obama was a cosponsor, not a sponsor, of this legislation.[18]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• This looks a bit similar to above. It's clear that something of a special connection is going on with a bill that bears Obama's name (more than the 900+ he merely "cosponsored"). From Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006: This bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, for himself and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain on 2006 April 6. I'd like to mention this correctly, but it definitely seems like "lead worthy" for Obama, once described accurately. LotLE×talk 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much Senator Obama contributed to writing this bill, but certainly he is not listed as a "sponsor." Maybe you can find press reports about it that give him substantial credit. However, press releases from senators, and quotes from Wikipedia articles, do not seem like the most reliable sources. Something worth keeping in mind here is whether the legislation was controversial; if Senator Obama crossed the aisle to work on legislation opposed by a substantial number of Democrats, then that would show considerable bipartisanship.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• lobbying and electoral fraud
• Climate change
• Nuclear terrorism
• Care for military personnel

General comment about legislation, alternate language

Ferrylodge has raised some legitimate concerns about the level of involvement Obama has had in legislation he is associated with, and has used the Library of Congress records to back up his concerns. My concern is that the process of creating and passing legislation is more complicated that some people think. For example, we have previously discussed Obama's involvement in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act where it appears he wasn't even a cosponsor. A deeper investigation revealed that he was heavily involved in the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act which later passed as the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. In this case, it is fair to say that Obama was involved in authoring the act, albeit in an earlier form. Trying to concisely convey these details within the article lede will be futile, and it is probable that this will be the case for much of the legislation Obama has been involved with. It may be better to go with this kind of approach:

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he cosponsored helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the current During the 110th Congress, he has sponsored or cosponsored helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. Since After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.

In addition to substituting "sponsor/cosponsor" text for "helped create", I have also struck out text that made the paragraph seem "current" rather than "historical". Here is the same version without annotation:

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.

A deeper analysis of his legislative record is better suited to the relevant section and associated daughter article. Opinions? Comments? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good solution. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it a bit for this section, I'm very sympathetic with Scjessey's more generic "helped create" phrase. It appears that even legislation bearing Obama's name isn't necessarily sponsored by him, which is funny. I'd definitely want to list those among his legislative foci/accomplishments though. So I vote for the language change indicated above. LotLE×talk 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)