Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:56, 19 September 2008 [1].

Barack Obama

[edit]
previous FAR #1: January 2007, previous FAR #2: July 2007, previous FAR #3 (closed April 2008)
Notifications left at Scjessey, CENSEI, Die4Dixie, Ohaohashingo, Justmeherenow, Rick Block, WorkerBee74, Bobblehead, Theosis4u, Textmatters, Duuude007, Always bored, Thingg, J.delanoy, Redrumracer, Sunray, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Erik the Red 2, Noroton, Andyvphil, Wikidemon and Meelar by Curious bystander. ‎
Tvoz already aware; I will notify (from articlestats) HailFire, Jersyko (retired), Josiah Rowe, Johnpseudo and Grsz11. Also WP Politics, ‎ WP US presidential elections, WP Illinois, WP Chicago, WP US Congress and WP Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not other talk page template projects? I added Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ‎[reply]



This article has become a piece of Barack Obama campaign literature. As User:WorkerBee74 commented on the Talk page, "What we're seeing here, in this article, is a campaign to exclude or diminish any material that would tend to wipe a smile off anyone's face at Obama campaign HQ. Even a link to Obama-Ayers controversy is forbidden." Negative material about the candidate is immediately deleted whenever it appears. This triggers a long, drawn-out battle on the Talk page.

Certain editors are homesteading on the article to prevent the introduction of any such material, or diminish it in both size and visibility: subheaders mentioning eminiently notable controversies about the candidate are routinely deleted. Even material that does not reflect negatively on the candidate, but merely indicates that it's possible he might lose, is routinely deleted. Featured Article status requires neutrality of content. This article miserably fails that test. I'm a supporter of the Barack Obama campaign, I've donated money to the campaign, I'm a volunteer for the campaign, but this is ridiculous.

Also, the content of this article is not stable. There is an ongoing presidential campaign, and the subject of this biography is locked in a very tight race. Featured Article status requires stability of content. This article fails that test. Curious bystander (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Meelar (original nominator of the article) Curious bystander (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done about 20 notifications, I think that's enough to get this party started. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications have not been correctly posted to the top of this FAR, so all can see who has been notified. See a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed notifications: if anyone sees someone I missed, pls notify with {{subst:FARMessage|Barack Obama}} ~~~~ . Curious bystander, you have not identified specific actionable issues related to WP:WIAFA that need to be addressed. Please do so. Briefly. It would be helpful if you reference, for example, crit 1a, 1b, 1c, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that might be critical of Obama looks like wikigaming to Wikidemon. Nothing remotely critical of the candidate can be put in the article without a World War. The Obama-Ayers controversy is not even mentioned, although it is referred to constantly by Obama's critics for at least six months now. One would think this would indicate WP:WEIGHT. Obama's close, influential relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko have been minimized almost out of existence in the article. Editors profess to see BLP violations in the slightest criticism of the God they worship. It's not a Wikipedia article. It's an Obamapedia article. Wikipedia is unable to deal with this many POV pushers. This website's inability to do other than worship one party's candidate for office makes me sick. When I attempted to get in a sentence describing two bestselling books critical of Obama (which one would think would have some WP:WEIGHT -- one was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, the other, #5, while Obama's two books were described in an entire short section -- the alternative supported by the Obama supporters was to remove the section and replace it with a list, which was actually less informative for the readers. The focus of many of the editors is clearly to help Obama, not the readers. An encyclopedia that professes -- at least tries -- to have a neutral POV should be embarassed by this article, not proud of it. Noroton (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above personal attack is unworthy of a response - I'll just say it's anti-Obama wikigaming and is basically a fabrication from start to finish.Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, Noroton. You've hit the nail on the head. There are people literally camping out on this article, and instantly deleting anything that resembles criticism. Curious bystander (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't meatpuppet personal attacks. The toxic incivility has been going on for months and has only been quelled by article probation and by some of the problem editors taking a break from the page until recently.Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as this is nothing more than a content dispute. Ayers is a non-issue anymore. It had no affect on the campaign, let alone what this article is about - Obama's life. Grsztalk 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All should note that the nominator, Curiousbystander, was just cleared of a block for edit-warring on this article, and is just trying to make a point. Grsztalk 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the alleged "instability" is coming mostly from the nominator. Grsztalk 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's life is this campaign, Grsz. Without this campaign, he'd be just another freshman senator with just another 250-word Wikipedia biography. Also, I notice that no one has addressed the "stability of content" problem. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as the nominating editor is clearly abusing this process to re-ignite a content dispute. Also, several "regular" editors of the article in question were excluded from the notification process (including myself), whereas a long-vanished editor who agreed with the nominator's POV was notified - an additional abuse of process. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way does this meet Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria if the Sarah_Palin page is representative of what should and shouldn't be included - comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral. Either the Sarah_Palin page needs some serious attention by administrators or the Obama page is nothing but a propaganda piece. Theosis4u (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our newly expanded article on Sarah Palin is a mess, and a hotbed of bad editing. But what does that have to do with Barack Obama? This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for equal treatment of politicians.Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for the comparison is self-evident. If the Obama article is reflective of certain qualities that give it a rating as an excellent quality then it can serve as an example to similar articles. One should also be able to reverse that process, if one compares it against similar articles but find a large gap of content of details on controversies that are discuss and to the depth they are discussed then the article fails on the Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria for -
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details
presents views fairly and without bias
focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail
And the submitter accused that this Featured Article status is being used to prevent content changes to maintain it's "stable" criteria. There is a point in stating that during an "election" process that something like "Feature Article" shouldn't be inferred as an argument to beat back edits. [note, I haven't research the truthfulness of the accusers claims] Theosis4u (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Procedural Close I have observed this particular article with a light hand. Typo fixes and the such. I am mostly satisfied with it. to nominate this is a waste of time, and mention of rezco and ayers is nothing more than tabloid. Even Major news sources who have reported info on them should know better than to release information that wasn't thoroughly researched, for the sake of ratings. Duuude007 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have a problem with all of those hundreds of high-circulation mainstream media sources that have reported on the Rezko, Wright and Ayers controversies, try a letter to the editor. We base content here on what the notable, reliable sources say. And the notable, reliable sources say that these controversies are worth talking about. Curious bystander (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - This looks like wikigaming to me, too. The content in question has been repeatedly, consistently rejected as failing WP:BLP, because it consists not of reported facts about Obama's life from reliable sources, but of the opinions of people who attach great significance to Obama's association with Rezko and Ayers, despite every reputable news agency dismissing such significance. Let me make something clear: No one disputes the fact that Obama knew Ayers or Rezko. But only conservative bloggers and opinion writers attach any significance to those associations. As far as the reputable sources are concerned, those associations are notable only insofar as the conservative bloggers and opinion writers have made a lot of noise about them. They have distinctly not validated that noise. What we know, with absolute certainty, from reliable sources, is that Obama knew Ayers and sometimes attended the same meetings in his work. This does not add up to a biographically significant association. What we know, with absolute certainty, from reliable sources, is that Obama bought a house with a perfectly normal home-loan, and that is the limit of his business dealings with Rezko. This also does not add up to a biographically significant association. He is not being investigated for either association by any mainstream journalists or by any criminal investigators. The only people pushing this story are not reliable sources. They've certainly generated a fair amount of media coverage, notable enough for inclusion in the campaign articles. But until these can be demonstrated to be biographically significant relationships in Obama's life, the campaign articles are the only appropriate places for them. --GoodDamon 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damon, you know very well that this is incorrect. Obama's business dealins with Rezko also included work done for his property management firm as an attorney, helping to obtain federal grants and loans; and of course, there's that $250,000 in campaign contributions that Rezko either gave or obtained for Obama. Rezko is now on his way to prison for campaign finance violations. This casts a dark shadow on Obama and as an Obama supporter, I am willing to acknowledge that shadow. Trying to hide it is not what Wikipedia is about. Curious bystander (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten the campaign contributions, since so much of the Rezko discussion has been over the house purchase. And that's what's actually mentioned in the Obama article at the moment, presumably since purchasing a home is a major event in most people's lives, and in this case is more notable due to Rezko's involvement, even if unrelated to Rezko's illegal activities. But we're talking about Obama's biography. Rezko's own legal troubles are his, not Obama's, and Obama hasn't been implicated in any of them. If you feel more details about Rezko need to be in the article, that's a different topic, but it appears you agree with me about Ayers. So in the context of this FAR, is it fair to say the only remaining disagreement is on how much detail the main article should go into on Tony Rezko? If so, I stand by my vote that this be speedily closed. --GoodDamon 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The aim of FAR is to identify problems and find ways to retain FA status if possible. I see two problems identified by the nominator: difficulties with WP:NPOV compliance, and lack of stability. A major root cause of both problems is the activity of tendentious single-purpose agenda accounts. The best way to improve the article's neutrality and stability is to assertively rein in these agenda accounts. I have some ideas on where to start with this, but will defer listing them at this juncture. MastCell Talk 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that if an editor has a content dispute that has not been solved after several months of advocating it, the proper dispute resolution procedure is RfC or something like that, not trying to get the article delisted as an FA. Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec X2) I certainly agree wit GoodDamon on a content basis. We have gone through an excruciating, thoughtful, serious, long process to arrive at a real consensus on exactly how to describe several matters that may be seen as negative for Obama, and having done so to maintain stability and all the while deal with the many dozens of vandals, sockpuppets, trolls, POV editors, etc., who are on the article every day. I was keeping a log on the article probation page of every account that was blocked or banned but at some point I gave up and just started covering the significant ones. The list is now at thirty. Watching over such an important article takes the cooperation of a number of dedicated, diligent editors and the natural tendency when someone wants to add for the nth time - n would probably be several hundred by now - that Obama is a closet Muslim, Arab, friend of unrepentant terrorists, communist, birth certificate forger, not really African-American, under investigation for this or that, and every possible variation of the N-word, is to revert and dismiss out of hand. And if they persist and revert, tell them to read the FAQ, point them to the article probation terms and their "welcome to wikipedia" greeting, and go find consensus on the talk page. A class of editors, equally persistent but somewhat more skilled in their efforts, have been bombarding the article for the past few months as well. Hence we have article probation. I can sympathize with anyone who is trying to keep peace on the Sarah Palin article. It doesn't have the mean streak of racism and vandalism like we do here but the POV edits and the number of people who want to insert random trivial disparaging material, rumors, campaign criticism, etc., is at least as bad as anything we ever had here. I doubt that article could ever reach featured status before the election but perhaps the editors there could learn from the editors here that hard work, a no-nonsense approach, refusal to tolerate incivility and edit warring, and so on, can greatly calm an article. The Obama article is a very good article. I won't offer an opinion as to whether it is truly FA level of not - it got its designation a few years ago when Wikipedia had lower standards. But this is not the place and time to review that decision, certainly not on the question of whether we do or don't adequately disparage him for his contacts with a 1960s radical bomb-thrower and a real estate fraud. Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Curious, all news must be WP:VERIFIABLE. This is doubly so important on a WP:BLP article. Please read WP:PROVEIT for more information. Simply put, if a report is proven misleading, even from the most upstanding news source, they lose credibility, and sometimes employees. Inputting these same tabloid statements into the Obama article would effectively reduce the quality rating of the article. But hey, thats your argument, only in the reverse. Ironic. Duuude007 (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<Moved to talk page>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question I would like to know how it was decided (and by whom) which editors would be notified of this action. As the editor with the second highest number of edits on the article, last one being just 2 weeks ago, I am curious why I wasn't pinged. I don't suppose it could be because of positions I have taken regarding the editing of the article in the past, now, could it? Were other prolific contributors to this article similarly not pinged? Closing admins, please take note. Tvoz/talk 01:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not informed. I would like to have been. However, it is mentioned on the article's talk page, so I'm not sure it's a big deal. --GoodDamon 02:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it is a big deal, because not everyone reads talk pages all the time - especially this one, which has so often been inundated with repeated POV attempts at adding content that has been rejected, that editors take breaks from it. If a legitimate FAR were actually underway, the editors who know the most about the article,and have worked to keep it as an FA a long as it has been so, ought to be pinged so they can weigh in. Easy enough to do so, by looking at the page stats or at the previous FARs, etc., yet the pinging was selective. Tvoz/talk 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural answers: I am just catching up here, Tvoz. So to answer four procedural issues I see already:
1) Notifications should be posted back to the top of this page, as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. If some are missing, I will complete the rest, but first I need to see what has been done. The instructions for notifications are at the top of WP:FAR; they should include all WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, all top contributors per article stats, and in a case like this, probably all recent talk page participants. Since FARs run for a very long time, and are carefully deliberative, if someone was left out early on, it will make no difference in the long run.
2) Raul654, Marskell or Joelr31 decide whether to close FARs (see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR). They/we had several discussions after the last Obama FAR was closed; clamoring for this FAR to be closed is less likely to be helpful than calmly addressing the issues.
3) I see Barneca has gotten involved (thank you), and the page has already grown excessively long. Mastcell has explained the purpose of FAR, which is to identify issues and hopefully resolve them. Because FAR is intentionally deliberative, bickering is not going to help and is not going to make a difference in the long-term outcome. If participants want to bicker, they should take it to talk here or the article talk page: this page is for evaluating the content wrt WP:WIAFA, and off-topic or personal attacks should be moved to the talk page here.
4) FAR and FAC pages are not sub-sectioned; I suggest that participants keep their comments on topic, and focus on specifically addressing why the article does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy - perhaps not a problem in the long run, but notification is an issue in the short run, I believe, and may speak to motivation at work here. FAR is not supposed to be wielded as a weapon in content disputes, or at least that's the way I see it. Tvoz/talk 03:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, it won't be; FAR is a deliberative process, and is not dispute resolution, for just such reasons. If deficiencies are identified, they will be carefully deliberated here. If they are not, Marksell will close the FAR. All the off-topic hollering and accusations and anything else not related to WP:WIAFA will not affect the process; it will only unnecessarily fill up the page. Those who want to argue if so-and-so is a staffer or not, or picks his or her nose, or whatever, can do so, but in the final analysis, the question here will be if the article conforms with WP:WIAFA. Those arguing to keep the FAR open need to briefly, without the bickering, identify specific deficiencies wrt WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having been through numerous FARs on this and other articles, I know that you will keep the process itself on point, and that's fine with me. Now I'm waiting to see if any legitimate issues are raised. And, I hope we can keep the "I am an Obama supporter, but..." and "this article is dominated by Obama fanboys" comments out of this discussion - the first is usually laughably untrue and the second is insulting to hardworking editors, and neither is helpful to identifying if the article actually has FA issues. Tvoz/talk 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible then that it needs to be closed as a community or administrative matter, or a matter of article probation, rather than a matter of FAR process. These are not issues to be resolved here. We can't let behavioral problems and process gaming spill all over the place. Wikidemon (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has been argued before; take your concern up with Raul654. THIS page is for discussing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misc cleanup needs:
    • The section heading, "U.S. Senator, 2005–present" breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language: something like "U.S. Senator, from 2005" might work.
    • The image in "Early life and career" is causing text squeeze, see WP:MOS#Images. If not deleted, it should be moved down.
    • There are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues in several sections: Images within sections should be below the templates at the top of sections, and maintenance template are in the wrong place. See the structure sections of ASSESSIBILITY.
    • WP:MOSNUM, ... its staff grew from 1 to 13 ... is awkward, might better be ... its staff grew from one to thirteen.
    • Ack. External jump in the text, sample: which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[60] External jumps belong in External links or as citations.
    • I am uncertain this italicization is correct, see WP:ITALICS ... introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 ... I know law cases are in italics, but legislation, unsure?
    • Logical punctuation needs to be addressed per WP:PUNC, sample: ... "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church."
    • Citations still look very clean, but I saw some unformatted citations, so a review might be in order (there are too many for me to look at all of them :-) All need publisher, author and date when available, and last accessdate on websites.
    • Inconsistency in date linking in citations should be addressed (slowly, over time, since this is a recent WP:MOS change). Some dates are delinked, others linked, example: Fornek, Scott (October 3, 2007). I don't suggest trying to do this kind of work during an election cycle :-)
  • All in all, still a very clean article, none of this is significant (except the external jump in the text, I hope there aren't others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on this version. Suggested prose changes:
    • "Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992...powers to be." This sentence is too long and complicated. I had to read it over twice.
    • "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." Why not?: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." I know he had another job at the same time, but it is unnecessary to complicate the sentence to point this out, when the other job is mentioned in the next paragraph.
    • Why aren't Senators Carper, Coburn, McCain, Feingold and Lugar, President Bush or St. Paul, Minnesota linked?
    • "In March 2007, 'Obama' was officially accepted...obamacam." Seems trivial.
    • "Further reading" is unnecessary given the plethora of references. Can "External links" be trimmed?
    • Images I would have said a signature was an original work of art, and hence copyrightable by the creator, but I could be wrong.
    • I did not find any obvious partisan statements or missing information. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. If editors would like to debate further, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is beyond the capacity and purpose of the Featured Article Review to deal with most of the comments here.

As for stability (1e), dealing with trolls, vandals or single purpose edit warriors does not make for an unstable FA. If it did, we'd never be able to feature controversial or widely covered subjects: instability would become self-fulfilling and trolls would exploit the fact. The question is whether there is a competently written, neutral article, that neglects no major details beneath (so to speak) the warring and vandals. Here there is. I see no convincing case to leave this open.

I will copy Sandy's and DrKiernan's comments to article talk as they provide some specific clean-up concerns for people to address. Marskell (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Barack_Obama/archive4&oldid=1138476551"