Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

role

Should someone mention his role in America. I see lots of Barack Obama pop art material in places. --Spikeleefan (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Overseas

Of course there is a huge controversy over his 200,000 listeners at a rally in Berlin, but I keep hearing about how he's immensely popular in Europe. I saw in an article on WP once (forgot which one) which provied poll data about how Europeans are rooting for him to win. This should be included in here. I know I should be bold but I really don't have the time to add this in myself. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama, Religion, and Redundancy

Obama converted to Christianity under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright. This is a huge deal for him in his life story, as communicated in interviews and his autobiography. Striking this from the article is improper. And, after we establish that Obama is a Christian, it becomes redundant and in poor form to go on to say "incorrect belief". That's a given. Trilemma (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The section is meant to describe Obama's cultural and political image with respect to his religion. It is not meant to cover all aspects of his religious beliefs and church habits. Please confine the details to the actual subject, and avoid adding any unnecessary stuff that is better covered elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

His relationship with Jeremiah Wright, his church habits, etc. are all part of his cultural and political image. Trilemma (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. They are part of his personal life, not his public image. Please note the title of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

His personal life is inextricably intertwined with his cultural and political image. Have you read the version for John McCain? Please do so. Trilemma (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not edit articles based on what other articles do, because that can mean lowering the standards of Wikipedia to the lowest common denominator. It is not "inextricably intertwined" - as evidenced by the fact that we have successfully managed to extricate it. This section is about the Muslim/Christian issue, not about his association with Jeremiah Wright (which is covered at length elsewhere). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but it is not our role as editors to 'extricate' public life from personal life. This article is to report on the cultural and political image of Obama, and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright is a part of that image. Trilemma (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor is it our role as editors to 'conflate' personal life with public life. My complaint here is not that his relationship with Jeremiah Wright should be excluded. It is about the relevancy of that relationship in the context of the public perception that he is a Muslim. Consider these two sentences as an example of what I mean:

1. John Doe is an omnivore because he has been seen eating meat products, but public perception is that he is a vegetarian.
2. John Doe is an omnivore because he has been seen eating meat products, such as the Double Whopper with cheese and bacon he had at Burger King, but public perception is that he is a vegetarian.

If we assume the "Double Whopper consumption" is adequately covered elsewhere, it is redundant information in this context - even jarring. The same is true with the attempt to shoehorn Wright into the section, because that relationship is not relevant in this context and it is better described elsewhere - perhaps even in a separate paragraph of this section, if necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Currently, this article is practically a hagiography. A user as refused to allow mention of Jeremiah Wright in the article, specifically in the race and culture section, despite the huge controversy and the resulting impact it had on Obama's image, as it doesn't meet his standard of 'public life.' Trilemma (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the wording of this RfC as being grossly misleading. The article mentions Wright with a wikilink to the entire separate article about him. An elaboration here that complied with all Wikipedia policies could be considered for inclusion, but what Trilemma has tried to insert is the assertion that "Obama, previously non-religious, became a Christianity in the 1980s, under Jeremiah Wright" -- violating WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and probably a few other policies. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll be happy to provide the relevant quotes from Obama's books. And a redirect above the article simply does not cut it. There's no discussion of how the Wright controversy affected Obama's cultural and political image, which is the subject of this article. Trilemma (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Obama's relationship with Wright, and how that affects his cultural and political image, should be in a separate paragraph. It his nothing to do with the perception that he is a Muslim. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree that the Wright and Muslim controversies are distinct and should be covered in seperate paragraphs. AzureFury (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE that an RfC is supposed to be written in a neutral manner (Please read WP:RfC for a further explanation of this rule). This is simply one editor's POV commentary written in the style of an RfC, but doesn't seem to be a legitimate request for comment. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I sadly have to agree and hope the editor of the RFC will rephrase it in proper style within WP-guidelines since s/he had not obeyed them in the past even so S/he acted in good faith. --Floridianed (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article

This article is an essay and relevant information should be merged into the main article. It seems that there is a tendency lately in wikipedia to have a navbox with these lame non enciclopedic "articles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.149.244 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Using daughter articles to treat narrow aspects of a broader subject is standard Wikipedia practice. This was also done with regard to the articles about the major-party candidates for President in 2004 -- see, for example, George W. Bush substance abuse controversy and John Kerry military service controversy. See Wikipedia:Summary style for a comprehensive explanation. JamesMLane t c 09:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are controversies. This is definitely an essay. delete. --76.19.149.244 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a component of a summary style article, spun of the main article due to lack of space, and completely consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The article stays. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with the name it should be called Public image of Barack Obama not Cultural and political.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.149.244 (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's your proposal, then you're really asking that the article be moved. There's a procedure for that. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves and decide if you think it's worth the effort. For my part, I think the two titles are fairly close in meaning, and it's not worth bothering with a move, which would entail also moving the parallel McCain article and then fixing links to both of them. JamesMLane t c 08:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article begin with "was nominated as the first African American candidate of a major political party for President of the United States" and then three sentences later, says his mother is White - making him HALF African-American and just as much white? It's contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.74.99 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say it looks rather dubious having this article. It seems in danger of becoming a POV fork. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe articles like this are important for chronicling the images of political figures. However, (and this may be more appropriate to mention on the main article) I think that a better effort is required to summary this article in the Barack Obama article instead of copying and pasting certain paragraphs. --Amwestover (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama as a politician section

I believe that this article could use a lot more content, and I've therefore added it to the request for expansion list. I've focused on the "Obama as politician" section and made the following contribution that has been reverted, but I don't see how it violates Wikipedia guidelines:

During the 2008 election season, Barack Obama's experience has been a topic of contention. Both Democratic and Republican politicians have criticized his experience and whether he's ready to be President of the United States. Since his nomination the criticism has been mostly from Republican politicians; many Democratic politicians now believe that Obama is ready. Criticism has almost exclusively centered around his readiness for the position of commander in chief as opposed to his abilities as a public servant. Hillary Clinton often stated during her unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination that Obama wouldn't be a candidate who's ready on "Day One". Since conceding the race for the nomination she has endorsed Obama. While campaigning for president, Joe Biden believed that Obama could eventually be ready for the job of president, but that at the time he wasn't ready. Biden, now Obama's vice presidential running mate, has since revised his beliefs on Obama's readiness, but his quotes from the 2008 Democratic Debates have been used in campaign ads for John McCain. Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman has criticized Obama's experience and readiness, citing his response to the Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008.

If you see any guideline violations and have any comments, suggestions, or additional contributions, please reply. --Amwestover (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This would definitely be in the wrong article, as it does not discuss Obama's image, and it relates directly to the campaign. Also, this seems like a very one-sided paragraph, with Democratic comment coming from early on in the primary season and everything else coming from Republicans and conservative commentators. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Campaigns are imperative in shaping a politician's public image. If everything related directly to the 2008 campaign or events leading up to it were removed, this article would be less than 2 paragraphs and be a candidate for deletion. So I don't believe that's a valid argument against my contribution or any future contributions which may and probably will reference opinions or events from the campaign, often as their focal point. In addition, to many people a person's experience level is very important in shaping the image of a person, just as much as their religion or ideologies. For instance, a person considered to have "wisdom", which would be part of their image, could only achieve that if they had experience. So contributing opinions and comments on said person's experience would be valid in an article on their public image.

My contribution is about the contention over the experience level of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign, undeniably important in shaping his image in the eyes of many people. It cites various respectable and verifiable sources and quotes respectable politicians' opinions and conclusions. The narrative presenting the quotes and paraphrases does not give opinion or draw conclusions. In addition, to further address your comments, I don't see how a.) there are any sides to this, and b.) how the fact that Democrats called his experience into question earlier in the campaign and how later Republicans called his experience into question would make this one-sided since that's how the order of events actually took place.

If you believe that more can be added, I encourage you to contribute. Wikipedia is an iterative process.

--Amwestover (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I think the contribution is (a) misplaced and (b) non-neutral. The first two sentences, in particular, are seem to be negatively-biased and unsourced original research. I assume you mean well, but I think you need to begin a consensus-building process for its inclusion before putting it back into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles of numerous political figures (the section below has a good sampling) have contributions similar to mind. I don't believe it is misplaces, especially since there's an existing Experience section in the article. Campaigns, amongst other things, are part of a political figure's public image. As for your non-neutral claim, contributing praise or criticism does not make an entry non-neutral; wording does. The narrative supporting the quotes does not draw conclusions or give opinions. The first two sentences in my contribution (the first three, actually) are a summary of the rest of the paragraph.

As I've said before, if you believe that more can be added or things should be changed then I encourage you to contribute; Wikipedia is an iterative and non-perfect process. I'm having difficulty reaching a consensus with you because I haven't heard what you think needs to be changed or how it needs to be changed. Reverting the contribution every time it is posted is counter-productive, and not warranted in my opinion since this is not vandalism or against Wikipedia's core content policies: the entry is worded neutrally, sources are verifiable, and no conclusions or opinions are drawn outside of sourced material.

--Amwestover (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Move title to "Public image of Barack Obama"?

"Cultural image" is not terribly clear or precise, while "political image" is needless to be said about a politician. Since the subject of this article IMO is the Public image of Barack Obama, or, "Obama's life..." (his (1)personality (2)lifestyle, and (3)background) "and its reflection in his public image" -- a much simpler title would be had through this move.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to propose the move before you do it. Last time you got into this we had about eleventy-billion moves of the Ayers/Obama article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't even figure out the point of this article. What is covered here that isn't covered (better) elsewhere? This seems like a content fork if anything. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that while the Obama main article gets so much attention, this one remains thin. Anyway, a list of sections or subarticles/stubs of the type is

- Condoleeze Rice - Public perception and criticisms

- Hillary Rodham Clinton - Cultural and political image

- Public image of Mitt Romney

- Mike Huckabee - Public image and personal life

- Public image of Sarah Palin

-Cultural and political image of John McCain

-Public perception of George W. Bush

- Dick Cheney - Public perception

- Bill Clinton - Public image

- Ronald Reagan - Cultural and political image

The move was a bit arbitrary. (Guess I'd been over-impressed that "Hey! A title is out there with two fewer words!")  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Encounter with Joe the Plumber

There appears to be some dispute over the relevance of Barack Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber in regard to shaping his political image. This explanation is intended for Scjessey who recently disagreed with the relevance of the issue, but there may be others who share the view.

I for one believe that Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber is paramount in contributing to his political image. It has been a polarizing issue regarding Obama's tax policy, which is obviously relevant to a politician's image. Enough credence has been given to the encounter that Joe the Plumber now has his own Wikipedia article (which went through several deletion requests) and is also mentioned in the United States presidential election debates, 2008 article. The amount of media attention the encounter received was astronomical, and the aftermath is still a popular media and campaign topic. If anything, I think the section is a little light. The opposing opinions on the matter can and should be expanded; and also I think it is warranted to mention the Obama/Biden campaign's reaction to the event and its aftermath because I think this has also contributed to shaping the campaign's image. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your position on this. I do not believe "Joe the Plumber", or the media circus surrounding his brief discussion with Obama, has made the slightest difference to Obama's image. This is backed up by a complete lack of reliable sources that say Obama's image has been changed with this "event". This might be a significant campaign-related event, but to suggest this is significant to the public image of Obama is overreaching recentism. Since this is a child article of Barack Obama, I believe this can be considered to be a BLP concern. As such, you must build a consensus for the inclusion of this material. Until such time that a consensus for inclusion is reached, the section in question should be removed per WP:BLP and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see how you'd think that Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber has had no effect on his political image. It is directly related to a political aspect of Barack Obama -- his tax policy. In addition, it has been a very polarizing issue. I can't see the reason for disregarding this because it is a "campaign issue" (which are very relevant in shaping a politician's political image) or recent, which is neither a policy nor a guideline. Because the contribution is still in its infancy, their seems to be a lot of weight given to the encounter itself; in order to discourage elaboration of the encounter itself I've include a further information link to the Joe the Plumber article. I think more time needs to be spent on exploring the reactions the encounter garnered and I believe a case can be made that the Obama/Biden response may be relevant also but there would of course need to be source material to back this up. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly believe that this should be fully documented on Wikipedia, but this is the wrong article to do this because it does not seem to be related to Obama's public image. The fact that this issue has made no apparent difference to the polling data is telling here. This is more relevant to the McCain campaign article, in fact. This really should be removed from the article until (and if) there is a consensus for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's drastically changed his public image either, but I don't think that should be a requirement for exclusion. The article is called Public image of Barack Obama, not Events that have changed the public image of Barack Obama. What the event has done is invoke discussion and reactions on beliefs that may have already existed, and because of that I think this is all very relevant to his political image. For instance, one thing this event has done is invoke questions about how far left Obama really is. This was the first major event that invoked reactions that his positions on some issues, tax policy in this case, may be so far left that they're socialist. These beliefs may have existed in many people's minds before the event, but what other event could be attributed to invoking those beliefs?

As I've said the actual encounter with Joe the Plumber isn't the import part, it's the reactions it invoked which are pertinent. The other articles focus more on the encounter itself, this is the place where public reaction to the encounter should be documented. That is why I said earlier that more credence should be given to the reaction and less to the event itself. But since the encounter was the catalyst, it should at least be briefly mentioned. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For inclusion, you would have to find a reliable source that specifically states that the "Joe the Plumber" stuff has changed Obama's public image. Continued speculation isn't going to be helpful. In any case, I do not believe this issue has caused people to believe Obama is "more left" or "more socialist" - at best, it has reinforced the erroneous beliefs of a few misinformed Republicans. In fact, the whole things has made the McCain campaign into something of a laughing stock - especially with their "I'm Joe the Plumber" ad invoking Spartacus. Sorry, but I'm afraid it's reliable sources or bust. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've said this multiple times, this article is not about changes in the public's image of Barack Obama. If that were a requirement then most of this article would need to be removed, but that is not the case. A shift in people's opinion of someone is not required in order to be pertinent to this article. In addition, the sources that have attributed to the contribution are indeed reliable. If you believe otherwise, please specifically cite where in the policy you think otherwise.

And I think it goes without saying, but you personal political opinions on this matter are irrelevant and do not warrant reply. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP concern

Again, I must point out that this is a BLP-related issue. The burden of demonstrating the relevance of an inclusion falls upon those who wish to include. As a child article of Barack Obama, this falls under the auspices of WP:BLP. This is a campaign-related event that has no impact on Obama's public image, and there are no reliable sources given that disagree with that statement. Until a reliable source can be found, edit warring this section into the article is disruptive. Seek consensus before inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

References note

I ran a tool tonight that converts bot added titles and bare references. I wanted to leave a note to let the editors of the article know that if there is not an issue with some of the references used on the page, there could be in the near future. References that are from ap.google, google news, or yahoo news are time limited. If you will look at any references that come from there, it's highly probable the same exact stories can be found on TV news or more prominent newspaper websites that won't expire, and can be replaced before they become dead links. There are some that were already dead links tha have been updated. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Andy Martin Slander

There seems to be an effort to slander Andy Martin in violation of WP:BLP with edits such as this. Labeling him a "vexatious litigant" is not what wikipedia is about. It is against [[WP:NPOV}} and WP:BLP despite this not being his article. Glen Twenty (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Though let's remember Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Quark1005 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

What is the consensus on the introduction to this page? Could there be more said than just his race (and I guess implicitly the significance of his victory? Quark1005 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. This article needs an introduction that summarizes and presents the main points of the article, and includes the article title in bold text. Can someone who's highly active in this article start working on that? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Public Image

I re-added sourced information that was removed without explanation. EagleScout18 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And I deleted it. WorldNetDaily is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reliable source. Also, this has nothing to do with his public image. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus requested

Resolved

 – The only supporter of this item was indef-blocked

"Citing "security concerns," Sen. Barack Obama's campaign reportedly banned signs and posters from a scheduled outdoor Berlin speech the German media is reporting may draw a crowd of 1 million." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70197 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/22/bild-barack-obama-bans-protest-signs-in-berlin/

Keep Valuable information for article. Keeps a balance, NPOV. EagleScout18 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these sources meet the standard for BLP-related articles. Furthermore, the information has nothing to do with Obama's public image. Continued attempts to place this in the article are disruptive. Strongly opposed to inclusion, obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding German source: http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/politik/2008/07/21/obama-verbietet/schilder-bei-seiner-berlinrede.html and mention of ban in LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/25/nation/na-berlin25 EagleScout18 (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First source is in a foreign language, and therefore unusable. Second source is okay, but your proposed addition still has nothing to do with Barack Obama's public image. Consider the election article instead (although you will have to find consensus there too). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is slightly off topic but I a disagree with one of the statement made above. While I do agree that the protest ban is NOT something that needs to be added to the article I do question the claim that foreing language sources are unsuable. At least two different AFD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of Hearts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto: Shippūden the Movie 2 have come to the exact opposite conclusion. To reiterate I am not arguing for adding the protest ban or arguing for the particular foreign language site (I have no clue if it is reliable or not) but simply pointing out that the language of the source itself is not itself a good enough reason to declare the source unusuable. --76.66.187.161 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree Especially if the foreign language source is credible, notable, etc. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Information pertains to public image, belongs in article. EagleScout18 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This has no place in the article. Even if you find reliable sources, the current prez and past presidents do that all the time. Definitely non notable, as in 'dog bites man' is not notable. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Propose to close RfC as marginal proposal extremely unlikely to gain consensus, brought prematurely before any reasonable attempt at discussion - Wikidemon (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Close it as a non-notable minor news item. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Close non-notable news item, which EagleScout18 seems to be single-mindedly forcing multiple RfCs for. I don't see anything notable about this. Dayewalker (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support closure — aside from the non-notability of the info, there's no indication that this has anything to do with Obama's public image. Is this a claim that he's seen as an opponent of free speech? Any RSes that make this connection? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Close and keep trivia out of article. Consensus was requested, and consensus has been found. ~ priyanath ^talk 06:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Remain open Leave other (unbiased) editors time to respond. EagleScout18 (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Close RfC and Oppose mention in this article. This has no more to do with this article than it has to do with the other places one editor is trying to insert it. Tvoz/talk 08:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose mention. Except for a passing phrase in the LA Times article, this all seems to derive from an article in the Bild, which is a sensationalist tabloid and not a reliable source. (For example, back when Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI I tried to use information from Bild to add biographical information to his article, which had to be removed because what they printed was utterly false.) But even if it could be attributed to impeccable sources, it's still uninteresting trivia. —Angr 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Item for possible inclusion

"Obama Pakistan comment prompts local protest" by Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Chicago Tribune [1] EagleScout18 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I reformatted it. I think the information is interesting and notable, and probably belongs in the encyclopedia somewhere, but it's not a sufficient enough part of Obama's public image to be in this article per WP:WEIGHT. I wonder if there is an article somewhere that discusses Obama's dealings with Pakistan, or Pakistani-American participation in politics, or something along that line. If not, maybe a reason for a new article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion! The report on the ban might also fit there. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let's have a page containing every complaint connected with Obama. Be sure to include a link to the Limbaugh page. And don't forget to write about that frizzy-haired idiot in St. Paul who spoke to McCain and he shushed her - for being an idiot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, leave out the part about frizzy hair. Some subjects are just not notable.Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It got plenty of airplay. Certainly more than the other two items did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

More airplay=greater significance? Maybe work on the Rihanna article instead. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If that confrontation, seen on national TV, is not notable, I fail to see how a couple of random protests matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to start a frizzy hair article. The subject of the protests is the discussion at hand. Two editors so far find it significant. 2-1, top of the third. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to create the spinoff article, Complaints about Barack Obama or maybe Yes, We Can Whine. That would also be a good dumping ground for the birth certificate garbagio. Then we can take bets on how long it will be before the AFD appears. And don't forget to link to Joe the Plumber. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Naw, I'll stick with the Pakistan and Afghanistan Obama protest issues. I'll leave the Yes, We Can Whine up to you. EagleScout18 (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan and Afghanistan did not vote in the election. Ms. Friz presumably did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Conversely Pakistan and Afghanistan collectively constitute more of the "public" than Ms. Friz, even if you don't count the Pakistani US citizens that the linked article mentions. More relevant is that the article simply is not about his public image. It about a particular aspect about his public image among a certain group and makes no effort to connect the incident to a role in his overall public image. If we want an article about what every different public group thinks of Obama, then this article is not it. However, its compilation would be pretty original research. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

EagleScout18 can work on that while awaiting the end of his indef-block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read DAWN (newspaper in Pakistan) for what was going on for several days before Obama's comment. The protest was about statements from others (int he Bush administration), but in the U.S. it was blamed on Obama. It's actually an interesting story, and clearly demonstrates the difference in relying on nothing but US MSM coverage (whose journalists were parachuted in afterwards with no background in what was going on) and paying attention to local coverage by reliable sources. Flatterworld (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

EagleScout18 was trying to push an anti-Obama agenda, so that figures. Now that he's blocked, he'll have plenty of time for reading. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Citizenship

The fringe theories concerning Obama's citizenship do not have anything to do with his public image, except perhaps in the addled brains of a few vexatious litigants and sore losers. Data exist that demonstrate a significant portion of the public incorrectly believe Obama is a Muslim, but no data exist that demonstrate a significant portion of the public incorrectly believe Obama is a foreigner. I have removed this material and adjusted the religion section accordingly, per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I think the only reason it was included here, was because attempts to add it to other, higher profile Obama articles were unsuccessful. Look for it to pop up next on Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama or some other equally unrelated article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I shall monitor these articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) People, you are completely misinterpreting WP:Fringe. As Bobblehead recently wrote: "According to WP:FRINGE, conspiracy theories are not to be given undue weight, but may be included in articles as long as they are verifiable via reliable sources." [2]

The whole issue about Obama's eligibility is an extremely notable fringe theory, having been covered in just about every major newspaper and television network in the country. Links upon request.

Wikipedia does not ban discussion of fringe theories, and instead simply requires that they be described as such in a neutral and accurate way. For example, there is a Wikipedia article titled Paul is dead that is in turn referenced by tons of other Wikipedia articles.[3]

It is improper to delete any mention of fringe theories from the entire family of Obama-related Wikipedia articles. You won't tolerate one single mention of it? I do not support or endorse these fringe theories, but they are definitely notable and ought to be mentioned at least briefly in this obscure Obama sub-article.

Note that the main McCain article includes lots of fringe views about him: "The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a 'Manchurian Candidate' who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days." Plus that main McCain article includes info about the McCain citizenship controversy.

I am going to revert this deletion once. I'm not going to get into a fight about it. Please reconsider.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So, you've reverted again without further discussion. Can't say I'm surprised. Have a nice day.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are quite wrong about this. For one thing, questions raised about Obama's citizenship or eligibility for the presidency have absolutely nothing to do with his public image, which this article is about. Also, it is the vexatious litigation that has been "covered in just about every major newspaper and television network", not Obama's presidential eligibility. Finally, what goes on in other articles has no bearing on what goes on in this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no question that this is a fringe theory, and whether it is a notable fringe theory is debatable. But that's a moot point as it clearly has nothing to do with this article. These frivolous lawsuits by a couple of vexatious litigants and cranks are amusing bits of trivia, but clearly not part of Obama's public image. Also it's really not clear who you're addressing or what you're talking about when you say "So, you've reverted again without further discussion. Can't say I'm surprised." --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing the editor who made this edit. In any event, it appears that you (Loonymonkey and Scjessey) are taking the position that no Wikipedia article about Obama (and there are many) should even briefly mention, link to, or even footnote this matter. Is that really the position you want to take? A high-profile fringe theory involving Obama, that has been in newspapers nationwide, should be inaccessible to Wikipedia readers reading about Obama?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you comment on the article, not the editors. Familiarize yourself with WP:SOAP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you comment on the article. You have no inclination to answer any of the qeustions I asked about the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so you waited a whole three minutes before accusing others of "reverting without discussion?" Sorry, I'll try to type my comments much faster next time, but I'm not sure if I'll ever be that quick. As for your comments, it's clear that your reason for wanting to include this has nothing to do with this particular article and everything to do with with a desire to make this fringe theory "accessible to Wikipedia readers." That's what's known as editing with an agenda. It's far better to stick to the merits of each particular article and how they can be improved than to shop around for places to stick information that you feel needs to get out there. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You might try discussing before removing material that has been in the article for a long time. It doesn't matter how fast or slow you were typing. The fact is that you were typing at the article rather than at the talk page. As for your accusation that I am editing with an agenda, yes, my agenda is to make information accessible to Wikipedia readers that ought to be accessible according to Wikipedia guidelines. No sin in that, AFAIK.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the material, and I posted why at the beginning of this section. The burden of demonstrating why something should be in the article always falls to the editor wishing to add material, particularly in the case of BLP-related articles like this one. No prior discussion for removal is necessary - especially when the material in question is (a) irrelevant and (b) against WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

These are not entirely "fringe theories". In the case of the mysteriously unavailable birth certificate, questions do remain. The birth certificate Obama has made available is not the actual birth certificate that was created when he was born. It is the short form birth certificate printed and drawn from a computer database. And while it may have the *legal* weight of an original birth certificate, they are not one in the same. A reasonable person cannot help but wonder why the original birth documents remain stubbornly unavailable. Adding fuel to speculation was the statement by Hawaii Dept of Health stating they have his "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." There's a little wiggle room there. It's not much of a stretch to suggest that may mean there is some sort of electronic record in their computer but the actual physical document is either missing, destroyed, or varies from the electronic record. At any rate, I noticed the birth certificate controversy has been removed from this Wikipedia article. Fine. I'm not going to play in this playpen other than to suggest off to the side that I for one DO see an an issue with Obama's birth certificate and I believe any reasonable person, acting in an unbiased manner and looking at the available facts cannot help but arrive at the same conclusion. Jbarta (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are and WP is not news and especially not fringe news. Let's just wait after the final verdicts are in and give it a little side note in the article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. There is not going to be any "side note" because this has nothing to do with Obama's public image. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be here. One of the sub-articles would do just fine and like I said, after the final verdict is in which might take weeks or month. There is no rush here on WP, right?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with Obama? If so, which Obama article would you recommend?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll see then. No sense to discuss details now which are forgotten by the time there might be worth a inclusion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) - I'd recommend none of them, because all the discussion about Obama's eligibility for the presidency is fringe bullshit that isn't worthy of an encyclopedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with you that fringe bullshit should automatically be excluded. If it is widely reported, then WP:Fringe requires that we follow the reliable sources. As Bobblehead recently wrote: "According to WP:FRINGE, conspiracy theories are not to be given undue weight, but may be included in articles as long as they are verifiable via reliable sources."[4] At the risk of repeating myself, there is a Wikipedia article titled Paul is dead that is in turn referenced by tons of other Wikipedia articles.[5]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, you can't be serious, Ferrylodge, not even you. Paul is dead was a cultural meme, a massively discussed matter for people of a certain age at a certain time, long before the Internet and the blogs made it easy to pass things around. It was not an insane fringe theory, it was a popular urban legend, a prank that took off. Books and articles were written about it. A movie was made about it. F. Lee Bailey had a tv special debunking it. Dozens of songs, scripts, and satirical venues invoked it. And much more. There is no notability analogy here - none - and it is hilarious and sad at the same time that this is the depth to which you are sinking in order to make your case that this Obama nutbag fringe theory is notable for inclusion in an article about his public image, or an article about his mother, or a biography about him. Tvoz/talk 23:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As you know Tvoz, I mentioned Paul is dead to illustrate the point that "Wikipedia does not ban discussion of fringe theories." See my comment above. That example perfectly illustrates that particular point, as do a multitude of other Wikipedia articles, including the John McCain article which mentions various fringe theories about him. I was perfectly happy to have this article be the only Obama article that mentions the fringe theory in question. If it's in this article, then I could not care less if it is any other Obama article. But there is a deliberate effort afoot to completely whitewash this matter. I do not subscribe to the fringe theory in question. However, that theory has been very widely reported in just about every major newspaper in the United States. Whether the fringe theory tarnishes Obama's image or not is irrelevant to its notability. Anyway, I'm glad to have provided hilarity for you.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The hilarity is not the first time. And for the record - I haven't said that there is no place in the encyclopedia for this nutbag fringe garbage - I just have not seen it placed anywhere that remotely made any sense to me. And indeed it is in the encyclopedia already. The weight you gave it in Alan Keyes is ridiculously unbalanced, but it's there. I haven't weighed in on the deletion review for Donofrio v. Wells. But the fact is that this story however widely reported had no impact on his mother's life, has had no apparent impact on Barack's life as of yet, and has nothing to do with his public image. As for McCain, the untrue smears during the 2000 campaign about his daughter, for example, absolutely did have an impact on him and on the campaign, so they are rightly included in the campaign article and/or the bio. The inaccurate Kerry swiftboat stories also had an impact, and are rightly included. These birth certificate stories that you do not subscribe to had no effect, other than to make the wingnuts happy, so again there's no analogy. And I repeat, Paul is dead was not a fringe theory in the way we use that term here - it was a cultural phenomenon, as I so eloquently explained above. You know that's the truth, but good try. Tvoz/talk 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The example of "Paul is Dead" is provided here in the guidelines. Feel free to remove it if you think it's a bad example. As for which Obama sub-article you think this particular fringe theory can be mentioned, please do let me know when you divulge the name of that Obama sub-article. As you know, this particular fringe theory is entirely comparable to fringe theories that are mentioned in the corresponding "Image" articles of McCain, Palin, and others.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than back and forth about whether or not it's "fringe" and where it does or does not belong in WP, it would be interesting to hear either of you address the actual facts of the birth certificate issue in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. Jbarta (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry - this is not a forum for discussing whether any editor here believes the story, or why. This page is only to discuss whether it should be included in this article. And Ferrylodge has made it quite clear that he does not subscribe to the theories - he just seeks to immortalize it here, for his own reasons. Tvoz/talk 23:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're basically right, Scjessey. It's trivia but depending on future developments it could be worth mentioning at some point. McCain went to the same "bull..." and if I'm not mistaken, there is (or at least was) some information about it, not that we have to do the same here but yet, maybe we could do so at some point (or maybe not). I consider this discussion stale at this point anyway and would like to close it.

And Jbarta, we just don't talk fringe here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion only started a couple hours ago. Please leave it to be archived automatically. This page is not being clogged up or inundated by comments. Let other people chime in if they want to. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The only future development that would warrant a mention (and this would still be the wrong article) would be that Obama was somehow ruled ineligible for the presidency. The fact that Obama was born in the USA makes these fringe theories absurd. This differs from the McCain issue insofar as the fact that McCain was not born in the USA and had to rely on other eligibility criteria - still "fringy", but not in the same league as the anti-Obama wack-jobs. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a point here. I didn't go that far as that he is not eligible for President but was more thinking about strange rulings (by the supreme court) and major scrutiny by the media. But as I said, I consider this issue closed at least for now (and unlikely to have merit to be open up again). And yes, as I said before, the article where it would belong and fit would be still open. Gosh! If, would, could happen; We're not here to predict or even talk about the possible future. So again, let's close this useless thread.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if every single reliable source in the country has blaring headlines about this fringe theory, none of that matters? No Wikipedia article about Obama should mention this fringe theory even in a footnote? I repeat that this is completely contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FL: As long as they're running out of real news you'll see them popping up, yet it is just repeating the same old over and over again with tiny little up-dates.Can we close this now? --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please close this. The horse is dead, so continued flogging of the poor beast is not necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just stop commenting. I intend to stop commenting for now as well. No one is forcing you to keep commenting. Please just leave the section open in case other people come along. It's not right to have your say and then close down the discussion. Please don't make me go hunt for the pertinent guideline (not that it would affect things here).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a little surprised at the bias going on here. There is much talk back and forth about "fringe", but no real discussion as to the merit of the facts (someone even went so far as to imply that we don't discuss the facts here). It seems to me that a few Obama supporters are attempting to discount potentially emabarrassing issues surrounding their candidate by dismissing the issue as some sort of fringe theory and dismissing those who raise the questions as nuts and whack-jobs. You know, I voted for Obama. I would like him to succeed. I think he is legally eligible to be President. And last I looked I'm not that much of a nut. At the same time, I cannot be blinded by my admiration and support of Obama and pretend that the birth certificate issue is nothing more than the ravings of a few loons. Tell you what... will a fellow Obama supporter please throw me a bone... will one of you at least agree that the birth certificate Obama has posted is NOT the actual birth certificate created at his birth. At least own up to that. Jbarta (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The only bias I can see is by Obama-hating POV pushers and fringetards who are unable to see that some morons from the lunatic fringe obsessing about Obama's background has nothing to do with Obama's public image. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Briton. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, if you're calling me a "Obama-hating POV pusher and fringetard", please stop with the personal attack. You are taking the untenable position that a very widely-reported fringe theory about Obama should not be mentioned or footnoted or wikilinked in any of the Obama articles. That is contrary to WP:Fringe. The McCain article contains plenty of fringe theories about him, and I support inclusion of that info because it was widely reported. Mentioning something does not imply endorsement.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Ferrylodge keeps bringing up the McCain parallel, let me clarify two aspects. The smears against him in 2000 are included in our articles because they were a significant reason for his loss in the South Carolina primary that year, and loss of the nomination race to GWB. The constitutional eligibility issue based on his being born in the Panama Canal Zone is mentioned briefly because there were non-fringe experts who, based on the accepted facts, commented that there were technical constitutional doubts involved, although in practice there was never any legal or political question that he would assume office if he were elected. By comparison, I don't think there are any non-fringers who buy the "relinquished citizenship" or "father was British subject" theories about Obama. A conspiracy theory that disputed the facts of McCain being born in the PCZ (saying he was really born in regular Panama) is floating around out there, but we do not include that in our articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WTR, those reasons are precisely why I have consistently OPPOSED including this particular fringe theory in the main Obama article, and have consistently OPPOSED creation of a separate Wikipedia article about it. WTR, do you agree with other commenters here that NOT ONE of the Obama sub-articles should mention, footnote, or wikilink the fringe theory in question?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• If Wasted Time R doesn't convince the fringers with his post no one can. So I'm about to close this discussion very soon (what I should have done boldly before) unless somebody has some real point to make, and by that I mean to enhance the article rather than soap-boxing around here on talk.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean-Keeper, would you please indicate for us the pertinent guideline regarding closing discussion threads? Is the idea to wait for someone to have the last word who you agree with, and then quickly close the thread before anyone can respond? And if you insist on calling me a "fringer" then I will consider it a personal attack. You know very well that I do not subscribe to any theory that Obama is ineligible for the presidency (nor to the theory that Paul is dead, incidentally).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't help to improve the article it is just a disruption clogging up the talk page. I don't have to agree with "the last comment made" as long as they make sense to me. Can you please try to consider at least some editors as neutral and give a sh** at least on WP? And no, no personal attack from my side. Don't know how you did get this false impression (since I didn't called you a "fringer" and don't think about you as such) but if you have a problem in this regard you might want to leave it out here and bring it to my talk where it would belong if at all. And guess what: I'm doing this editing meanwhile I'm cooking and I'm getting hungry so I'm hoping for no further responses for tonight :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. There seems to be a spirited discussion going on here about how fringe theories should be treated by the Obama articles. Seems productive to me. Anyway, have a good meal.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion threads get closed when they cease to be productive, like this one. You appear to be on a crusade to get a fringe theory shoehorned into an Obama article, thus legitimizing it. That's just disruption by pushing a fringe agenda. There is no reason for these crackpot theories to be mentioned in any of the Obama articles because the media coverage they have received refers to the fringetards, not the eligibility of Obama for the presidency. This is similar to the attempt to associate Obama with Ayers in order to label him as a terrorist sympathizer. You claim to not subscribe to the fringe theory, yet your actions appear to indicate otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I guess your strategy is that the best defense is a good offense. And I certainly find your comments about me offensive. Take a look at the Evolution article, for example. It says: "In some countries—notably the United States—these tensions between science and religion have fueled the ongoing creation–evolution controversy, a religious conflict focusing on politics and public education." I could cite to you literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles, including BLPs, that mention notable fringe theories. I am not arguing that this article should say much about it. A footnote woiuld even suffice. However, you seem to be intent upon sanitizing the article, and smearing anyone who disagrees with that approach.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, you're getting totally off topic and now it's you, starting a forum here. Please keep such off the article's talk page.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You think that mentioning creationism at the Evolution article is not relevant? I'm trying to show Scjessey that notable fringe theories not only can but must be mentioned if they are sufficiently notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:08, 10 December 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.

For the record, I have objected to premature closure of this discussion.[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the closure of this ridiculous discussion on the basis that the complainants have failed to understand that this is the wrong article to discuss fringe theories, and that media coverage has concerned the fringe theorists and not Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility of wingnut information

In the section above, Ferrylodge repeatedly asked which of the Obama-related articles should have a link to information about the fringe theory concerning his eligibility. I note that there is now a separate article on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which is linked to on more than 100 other articles. Most of those links appear to arise from the article's inclusion in the "Conspiracy theories" template, but it is also linked from the Barack Obama main article, as well as from daughter articles that aren't directly related, such as Political positions of Barack Obama. My own inclination would be to link it as a "See also" from Family of Barack Obama but not others. In any event, I trust that this extensive linking has satisfied Ferrylodge's concerns. JamesMLane t c 03:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your section title is inaccurate. Many of the people pushing this stuff are of the constitution-in-peril/Ron Paul/black helicopters/never-met-a-conspiracy-theory-they-didn't-believe type, and thus are just plain nuts, not wingnuts. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As between massive underlinking to the point of invisibility, versus massively ludicrous and inappropriate overlinking, I would have to opt for the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would. Unless it was something you didn't approve of, in which case you switch you position faster than you can say "POV-pusher". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're such a sweetheart. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, instead of choosing between two extremes, what would you say to linking from the "Family" article? You repeatedly asked which Obama-related article should have the link, and I've given you my answer. JamesMLane t c 12:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others think of that idea before forming my own opinion.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If we link this, the "family" article would be the only reasonable one for now. I'm not exactly delighted by it but I give my approval to do so pending consensus among others.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's presently linked at Template:BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox. I would definitely be opposed to going from that to the other extreme of no linking at all in the Obama articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"I'd like to hear what others think of that idea before forming my own opinion". After your last comment it seems to me that you already made up your opinion and are just waiting to get endorsement of it. Your response doesn't fit well with your comment above if I may say so. Please tell us more (to prevent misunderstandings?).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do I favor wikilinking Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories only in Family of Barack Obama and nowhere else in the Obama articles, or do I oppose that idea? If I recall correctly, I have not expressed an opinion on that question yet. I only said that it ought to be linked somewhere in the Obama articles. I am not sure where the right place would be. Maybe the right place is exactly where it is now, at Template:BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Your above post was open to interpretation.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that wikilinking that article on the the "Conspiracy theories" template is overkill, but wikilinking it at Template:BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox may be appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Okay, I thought about it some more, and I think the best place would be a "See Also" wikilink at the Obama 2008 campaign article. This whole thing developed during the campaign, and he released his short-form certificate during the campaign. I don't think it's particularly pertinent to his family, and is much more pertinent to his "Fight the Smears" effort regarding eligibility for the presidency. However, if we cannot agree on a place for this wikilink, then I would support leaving it in the Obama template where it is now.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it from the Obama template to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. We'll see how well that works. If people object, then maybe it will go back on the Obama template.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see the argument for saying it's pertinent to the campaign, so this solution is acceptable to me. JamesMLane t c 13:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nicely done and has my full support.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)