Changes

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography.  Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week.  I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it.  You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd.  There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought.  Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics.  The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies.  It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound.  If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation.  Please provide comments and present supporting evidence.  If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1.  [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography.  Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week.  I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it.  You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd.  There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought.  Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics.  The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies.  It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound.  If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation.  Please provide comments and present supporting evidence.  If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1.  [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

== Reversion explained ==