Changes

=== First: 17 Sources, Proposed Changes ===

=== First: 17 Sources, Proposed Changes ===

:{{hat|1=Consensus is against these changes as a whole, and specifically #4 which was also discussed separately. Discussion continues in other venues, but this particular thread is not covering new ground. -- <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)}}

:hat|1=Consensus is against these changes as a whole, and specifically #4 which was also discussed separately. Discussion continues in other venues, but this particular thread is not covering new ground. -- <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)  

:<!--{{user:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel}} (commented out by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - cute template but I think this could escalate any dispute here -->

:!--user:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel}} (commented out by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - cute template but I think this could escalate any dispute here --

:The following are my proposed edits to the Barack Obama page, with the intent being to make it more objective and comprehensive, rather than painting a deceivingly rosy picture of him.

:The following are my proposed edits to the Barack Obama page, with the intent being to make it more objective and comprehensive, rather than painting a deceivingly rosy picture of him.

:Original: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]"

:Original: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]"

:Proposed: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]  This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full]][[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html]], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=anw8dtE3kyvA]][[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3602710.ece]], Senator Emil Jones.[[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html]][[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2]]"  

:Proposed: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]  This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full][http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=anw8dtE3kyvA][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3602710.ece], Senator Emil Jones.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html][http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2]"  

:4. Proposed Edit to '2004 U.S. Senate campaign'.

:4. Proposed Edit to '2004 U.S. Senate campaign'.

:Original:  "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[58] Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"

:Original:  "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[58] Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"

:Proposed:  "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[58] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[[http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/]] 2 months later, and with less than 3 months remaining in the election[[http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/907427.html]], former Ambassador to the United Nations' Social and Economic Council[[http://www.colgate.edu/DesktopDefault1.aspx?tabid=730&pgID=6013&nwID=2534]], Alan Keyes, accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] Following a race in which Keyes was heavily criticized as a 'carpetbagger'[[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html]] by the press, and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions[[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/]], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"

:Proposed:  "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[58] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/] 2 months later, and with less than 3 months remaining in the election[[http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/907427.html], former Ambassador to the United Nations' Social and Economic Council[http://www.colgate.edu/DesktopDefault1.aspx?tabid=730&pgID=6013&nwID=2534], Alan Keyes, accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] Following a race in which Keyes was heavily criticized as a 'carpetbagger'[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html] by the press, and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"

:Ultimately I may add more suggestions later but this I think is a good start and comprises the bulk of the elaborations about his past I would like to see.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:Ultimately I may add more suggestions later but this I think is a good start and comprises the bulk of the elaborations about his past I would like to see.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ^{([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])} 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sceptre Sceptre]''' ^{([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])} 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I'll review them seriously when I have a chance.  Whether we agree or not in the end, I appreciate your  taking the invitation to start a new section and propose them straight, one at a time.  I hope we can all keep up a dignified, collegial, supportive spirit discussing them (kicking several editors, and myself, under the table... ahem!).  Thanks! - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I'll review them seriously when I have a chance.  Whether we agree or not in the end, I appreciate your  taking the invitation to start a new section and propose them straight, one at a time.  I hope we can all keep up a dignified, collegial, supportive spirit discussing them (kicking several editors, and myself, under the table... ahem!).  Thanks! - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikidemon Wikidemon] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon Wikidemon]) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Alright, I look forward to talking about this objectively, thanks for the offer!  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 06:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Alright, I look forward to talking about this objectively, thanks for the offer!  --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 06:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I haven't taken the time to study the other suggestions yet, but the first one, I think, has immediately obvious problems. The introduction should not be longer than is necessary. The mention that he is the laureate merely acknowledges that he ''did'' receive the prize. It does not, in any way, project any position on whether he deserved that prize or not. You are proposing a change that changes that statement from being purely NPOV to one that could be called POV. We haven't even had enough time to see how history has judged the 2009 prize, so why are we mentioning this in an article that is supposed to provide an accurate overview of his entire life? [[User:WHSL|WHSL]] [[User_talk:WHSL|^(Talk)]] 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I haven't taken the time to study the other suggestions yet, but the first one, I think, has immediately obvious problems. The introduction should not be longer than is necessary. The mention that he is the laureate merely acknowledges that he ''did'' receive the prize. It does not, in any way, project any position on whether he deserved that prize or not. You are proposing a change that changes that statement from being purely NPOV to one that could be called POV. We haven't even had enough time to see how history has judged the 2009 prize, so why are we mentioning this in an article that is supposed to provide an accurate overview of his entire life? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHSL WHSL] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHSL WHSL]) 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, if George Bush received a Nobel Peace Prize and got criticized for it, and we put that in the intro paragraph, people would be up in arms that it was merely mentioned without the opposition factor being mentioned as well.  On Bush's page, for example, it spends many sentences discussing the issues of criticism and popularity loss just in the introduction.  When an award receives as much criticism and controversy as Obama's Nobel Prize did, to not mention this even in passing in the prominent introduction is to essentially frame the fact in a positive and deceivingly so light.  I do think the criticism/controversy should be mentioned at least in passing, or else not mention the award at all, or it is appearing to only provide positive details in the introduction section, in contrast to other profiles (such as George Bush's).

:::::Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, if George Bush received a Nobel Peace Prize and got criticized for it, and we put that in the intro paragraph, people would be up in arms that it was merely mentioned without the opposition factor being mentioned as well.  On Bush's page, for example, it spends many sentences discussing the issues of criticism and popularity loss just in the introduction.  When an award receives as much criticism and controversy as Obama's Nobel Prize did, to not mention this even in passing in the prominent introduction is to essentially frame the fact in a positive and deceivingly so light.  I do think the criticism/controversy should be mentioned at least in passing, or else not mention the award at all, or it is appearing to only provide positive details in the introduction section, in contrast to other profiles (such as George Bush's).

:Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider ''when'' Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early. <br />

:Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider ''when'' Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early. <br />

:Also, your statement regarding "positive details" is not one I would agree with at all. I can't see anywhere statements like "he is rated a very popular president". How can something be overly positive if you cannot find obviously positive statements? Could you point me to the specific places where you think the introduction is apparently POV? [[User:WHSL|WHSL]] [[User_talk:WHSL|^(Talk)]] 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:Also, your statement regarding "positive details" is not one I would agree with at all. I can't see anywhere statements like "he is rated a very popular president". How can something be overly positive if you cannot find obviously positive statements? Could you point me to the specific places where you think the introduction is apparently POV? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHSL WHSL] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHSL WHSL]) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::I very much disagree.  I see no difference.  For one thing, Hurricane Katrina happened pretty recently too and there is criticism of Bush about that on his profile.  If the Iraq War was happening right now, criticism of him about that would be warranted as well.  There were protests about that and it was clearly controversial just as there are clearly controversial issues surrounding Obama right now as well.  Controversy can be assessed at any time.  If numerous news outlets are reporting on it or there are mass protests going on, then it makes sense to mention this in passing.

::I very much disagree.  I see no difference.  For one thing, Hurricane Katrina happened pretty recently too and there is criticism of Bush about that on his profile.  If the Iraq War was happening right now, criticism of him about that would be warranted as well.  There were protests about that and it was clearly controversial just as there are clearly controversial issues surrounding Obama right now as well.  Controversy can be assessed at any time.  If numerous news outlets are reporting on it or there are mass protests going on, then it makes sense to mention this in passing.

:::* ''Palin has less controversy'' - Once again, you cannot quantify controversy like this. Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate; Obama is the current President.

:::* ''Palin has less controversy'' - Once again, you cannot quantify controversy like this. Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate; Obama is the current President.

:::* ''Not "accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people"'' - Wikipedia is worldwide, and suggesting that we all put articles from the American perspective can be quite offensive.

:::* ''Not "accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people"'' - Wikipedia is worldwide, and suggesting that we all put articles from the American perspective can be quite offensive.

:::Controversy is not easy to measure, and certainly cannot be assessed "at any time". The reason is that people will generally think and talk about the latest and greatest ones. Therefore, it is difficult - and not a good idea to attempt - to measure the effect of a particular controversy on history just months after it has happened. Just having multiple reputable news outlets reporting on it is nowhere near enough - they release news every day, covering new and old controversies. Just having protests is not enough either - there are protests all the time. One must wait for the weight of history to truly judge whether a controversy really had historical effect. There are controversies every day, but only a few survive in memories and become truly important. [[User:WHSL|WHSL]] [[User_talk:WHSL|^(Talk)]] 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Controversy is not easy to measure, and certainly cannot be assessed "at any time". The reason is that people will generally think and talk about the latest and greatest ones. Therefore, it is difficult - and not a good idea to attempt - to measure the effect of a particular controversy on history just months after it has happened. Just having multiple reputable news outlets reporting on it is nowhere near enough - they release news every day, covering new and old controversies. Just having protests is not enough either - there are protests all the time. One must wait for the weight of history to truly judge whether a controversy really had historical effect. There are controversies every day, but only a few survive in memories and become truly important. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHSL WHSL] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHSL WHSL]) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Hmmm...  as a side note, would you then say you have no problem at all with my other additions, since all of them have proved controversial over the years concerning Obama and are by no means recent?  Furthermore, shouldn't Wikipedia report recent events as well as old ones?  If there is a recent scandal, I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles mention this, or other controversies relating to a person or business.  It would make no sense to do otherwise.  Also, is there any Wikipedia policy stating that controversial events must pass a certain time limit before they can be addressed in an article? --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Hmmm...  as a side note, would you then say you have no problem at all with my other additions, since all of them have proved controversial over the years concerning Obama and are by no means recent?  Furthermore, shouldn't Wikipedia report recent events as well as old ones?  If there is a recent scandal, I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles mention this, or other controversies relating to a person or business.  It would make no sense to do otherwise.  Also, is there any Wikipedia policy stating that controversial events must pass a certain time limit before they can be addressed in an article? --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)