Talk:Dreams from My Father/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Necessary Citations/Amendments

There are several statements that need to be validated.

• "Obama enrolled at Occidental College, where he describes living a "party" lifestyle of drug and alcohol use."

My understanding was that the party lifestyle of drug and alcohol use was mostly during his high school years.Davemcarlson 07:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• "transferred to Columbia College at Columbia University, where he majored in political science."

My understanding was that he majored in international relations. Can someone verify? Davemcarlson 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• "It was during his time spent here [as a community organizer] that Obama joined Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ."

I believe this happened later, after he returned from Harvard Law School. I think he joined Trinity with his wife (it's in The Audacity of Hope, but I don't have time to look it up right now), whom he married after graduating from Harvard (age 26-28 or so). I think that Obama wasn't at a place where he felt able to commit to any church until after he went to Kenya, which was after the community organizing Davemcarlson 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

have the time to look everything up, but the drug and alcohol lifestyle extended from high school to his times at Occidental. The book mentions that once he transfers to Columbia his life changes (he starts jogging every day, stops drugs and finds excuses every time his friends call him for drinks). UnknownParadox 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not our job to look up disputed statements that you dont like. If you think they are untrue then find the correct answers yourself with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.132.6.251 (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Linkage Issues

For some reason, Barack's father and mother both link back to him, which is really odd. We need to fix these link issues. Gautam ^Discuss 02:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Bill Ayers as Obama's ghostwriter

Original discussion

I see no reason why American Thinker shouldn't be considered an RS. IMO, the article make a convincing case that Obama is unlikely to have written this book himself. The part about Bill Ayers is more speculative, but speculation can be included if it is clearly labeled as such. Kauffner (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See our article on The American Thinker for why it's not a reliable source. See also Questionable sources, which this definitely is. Reverting. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article that you are referring to? It says that AT has been quoted in the New York Times and other major papers. We have higher standard than they do?

I did a check on who's been reverting this passage. It's anonymous IPs in Britain and Australia. I don't what to make of that. Kauffner (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting a source indicating "some people are saying this" and referencing them as reliable are two different things. The National Enquirer has been quoted in the New York Times — that doesn't mean that we can use them as a source, even when they're right.

If you want, we can bring this to WP:RS/N to see what a wider group of editors think about whether this source is reliable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started the discussion here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the thing up in exactly the form you are recommending: "Some commentators have speculated that...." Some of other responses say it is a "weird theory" or an "exceptional claim", but people with active political careers generally do use ghostwriters. The ghostwriters for Kenneday and Malcolm X didn't get credit until years publication. Kauffner (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points: so far it's only one commentator, not "some commentators". Second, even though ghostwriting is common in political circles, these days it's common practice to acknowledge when a book has been ghostwritten. I've seen articles in reliable sources which make the point that although most politicians get ghostwriters to pen their books, Obama actually wrote his. To suggest that this is not so is to suggest fraud on the part of Obama, which requires exceptional sourcing per WP:BLP. There are also genuinely reliable sources which explicitly state that Obama did not use a ghostwriter ([1], [2], [3], for starters). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How about an "authorship" section that cites what various articles have to say on the subject? Hillary used an uncredited ghostwriter for her memoirs.[4] Kauffner (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if a more reliable, mainstream source picks up Cashill's allegation. This one source isn't reliable enough to merit even questioning the book's authorship. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cashill's claims have been featured on WorldNetNews[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76166], Rush,[5], and Rusty Humphries[6]. These news sources all have major audiences. "Mainstream" means what? A liberal newspaper? Where does this requirement come from? Kauffner (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." Also, "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Despite the pseudoscientific trappings, Cashill's article amounts to supposition and gossip.

It's not about liberal versus conservative. A similar claim about a conservative figure that came from Huffington Post or DailyKos would be equally unacceptable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Klein's claim is the opinion of a journalist. Cashill's claim is the opinion of a PhD'd scholatr of American literature. I think both are equally reliable, and both belong in the article. This page is about a controversy. I should note that the attack on The American Thinker on that page comes from The Nation, which is itself no more reliable, to put it mildly.--Mikedelsol (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just that, opinion, and including it here would violate the standards of wikipedia. You can edit-war until you get blocked, but we're not going to include bizarre fringe theories in this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the Klein comment applying your principle. This is nto a fringe theory, and if anybody is going to be blocked, it is the Obamanauts. Are you guys paid? You should be--Mikedelsol (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You are incorrect when you say "this page is about a controversy". It is about a book, a book which reliable sources agree was written by Barack Obama and no-one else. Plenty of people with PhDs advocate fringe theories — the determination of whether they should be covered in an article is based on whether the claim has been repeated or addressed in reliable sources, which, as far as I can tell, this one has not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You've made this argument before. It's been rebutted before. Of course America Thinker is RS. A whole list of major media outlets has referred to it.

Everything is somebody's opinion. You can source opinions on both sides on both and get NPOV. Kauffner (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is not a reliable source either. Time is. If this gets coverage in mainstream sources, it can be included. Just because it's proliferating throughout the conservative blogosphere and right-wing talk radio, that doesn't mean that it's not a fringe theory. A comparison on the liberal side would be the claim that John McCain's oft-repeated story about the cross drawn by one of his Vietnamese captors in the sand is based on a story told by Aleksandr Solzhenistyn about his experiences in a Soviet gulag. Plenty of sources across the blogosphere (DailyKos, Huffington Post, etc.) made that claim, but as far as I know it never made it to any reliable sources. So, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, it's not mentioned in Faith of My Fathers.

With regard to Wikipedia policy there is a fundamental difference between Klein's opinion about the book and Cashill's opinion about its authorship — the latter has implications for WP:BLP, as it suggests that Obama has been committing literary fraud. WP:BLP#Reliable sources says, "When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" Cashill admits that he cannot prove his hypothesis. There is no policy-based justification for including this claim in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Josiah and Loonymonkey that this "controversy" has not yet received coverage in reliable sources, so we can't include it. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Josiah, Loonymonkey, and Akhilleus, and would add that this issue is also covered by WP:BLP, which Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations addresses: "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." American Thinker is many things, but "high-quality news organization" it is not. ~ priyanath ^talk 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I gather that Time magazine and the book itself can't be used either. Kauffner (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a helpful attitude. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop being naive here. This is not, in essence, a suggestion that a book by a leading political figure was written with the aid of a ghostwriter. This article in the American Thinker is, plainly and simply, a political smear, from a website that has engaged in such activity in the past. The object is not primarily to damage the reputation of Barack Obama by suggesting dishonesty - though that is part of it - but to suggest a close linkage with Bill Ayers, as part of a political narrative that implies - without a shred of evidence - that Obama is secretly linked to terrorism. The article by Cahill is a farrago, a piece of ill-disguised political journalism. He makes no attempt to take a balanced point of view. He suggests that the two books must have been written by the same person, because the writers have the same background, because they approach writing about nature in a vaguely similar way, because they both use metaphors relating to the sea and Obama could not possibly understand the meaning of the word 'ballast' because he is not a specialist on maritime subjects. He makes no attempt to compare the book's style to anyone else - except, laughably - a book by himself - and uses a variety of pseudo-scientific comparisions (eg, similarity of readability scores) to give an impression of seriousness. He admits to being 'pleased with the findings'. We ought not to allow Wikipedia to become a tool in what is, in essence, a political process. --Adelphoi En Kardia Dios Bous (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin who noticed this discussion by way of the fringe theories noticeboard, this seems to clearly fall under our biographies of living persons policy. The claim that someone lied about authoring a book is quite inflammatory and contentious; such claims require high-quality sourcing. The American Thinker does not meet the bar for sourcing this sort of claim about a living person in a Wikipedia article, and the material in question violates WP:BLP. Furthermore, as articles relating to Obama and the 2008 Presidential election are under article probation, I would suggest that tolerance for edit-warring to restore poorly-sourced, BLP-noncompliant material will be fairly low. Additional input can be sought through the usual means, including requests for comment or the BLP noticeboard, but edit-warring needs to stop. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a bestselling book. It's authorship is notable in and of itself. What if Obama becomes president? Every article dealing with comtemporary politics becomes BLP? The sorry history of memoirs written by U.S. politicans is that they almost all turn out to be ghostwritten. It would be extraordinary if Obama actually wrote the book all by himself. The hokey-sounding nautical stuff isn't Cashill's best argument either. The average sentence length for Ayers' Fugitive Days and Deams are the same (23 words). Kauffner (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cashill has published a new article comparing the book to known Obama writing samples and known Ayers writing samples. Using the techniques used in literary analysis and authorship analysis, including repeated themes and vocabulary, Cashill makes a compelling argument "Dreams from My Father" was written by Ayers. [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815] This is a significant development in this story. RonCram (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

People in the media are picking up on this story. [7] RonCram (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit closer to WP:RS than the previous sources, but it's still not good enough to pass the high threshold set by the article probation and WP:BLP. The Toledo Blade column Ron links to is an opinion piece by a local columnist, and WP:BLP says, "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." The relevance is clear here, but there are still no reliable third-party sources referencing this theory.

If the story makes it to the national media, either as a news story covering the claim and reactions to it, or perhaps in the writings of a nationally syndicated columnist, then maybe we can include it in a neutral fashion ("Jack Cashill has claimed this; other sources say that."). Similarly, if the Obama campaign responds to the accusation, that response would make the claim noteworthy. But so far it's still being ignored on a national/mainstream level, and we shouldn't and can't "push the story".

Finally, this entire affair reminds me of a bit from my favorite play, Arcadia by Tom Stoppard. In one scene, a literary academic is addressing a mathematician:

...One of my colleagues believed he had found an unattributed short story by D. H. Lawrence, and he analyzed it on his home computer, most interesting, perhaps you remember the paper? ... Well, by comparing sentence structures and so forth, this chap showed that there was a ninety percent chance that the story had indeed been written by the same person as Women in Love. To my inexpressible joy, one of your maths mob was able to show that on the same statistical basis there was a ninety percent chance that Lawrence also wrote the Just William books and much of the previous day's Brighton and Hove Argus.

Incidentally, readers interested in a more neutral assessment of Cashill's argument should read this blog entry by Ann Althouse, a bona fide centrist. (And no, Althouse's commentary doesn't meet the standard of WP:RS either.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Josiah, I am not familiar with the play but that was amusing quote. Like any field of human endeavor, authorship analysis can be well done or poorly done. I studied the subject some when getting my Masters. I have read some pieces that were absolutely atrocious. That said, I find the way Cashill handled the evidence in his latest article to be very compelling. He didn't rely on sentence structure but on vocabulary and recurrent themes. Of course, my opinion does not mean anything in this context. I am merely trying to explain why I think this is important. Regarding whether the piece in the Toledo Blade is RS or not, we need only know that the Blade is Toledo's only daily newspaper. That makes it RS. Someone may argue that the piece is only RS for the opinion of the columnist and not for the facts under controversy. I would grant that. But what still remains is there is a controversy in the media as to the authorship of Obama's memoir. I think the article should state that and let readers decide for themselves. RonCram (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Josiah, I just read piece by Ann Althouse. She was definitely skeptical of Cashill's article at first. By the end of her piece, she seemed to be somewhat dismayed by the similar seafaring imagery in both "Dreams" and "Fugitive Days." Ayers worked as a sailor for a time but Obama never did. For a non-sailor to use such imagery would be very strange. Althouse is taken aback by this similarity and ends the article by leaving it to the reader. I have to agree with Cashill. RonCram (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that Althouse begins by conceding that Obama probably did have a ghostwriter. I assume a specialist will run Qsum on the writing samples before long and we'll get some definite answers. Kauffner (talk)

I don't consider Qsum to be definitive. People write with different sentence length depending on their audience. Plus getting a different number would not give you the identity of the ghostwriter. Cashill has approached this like solving a crime. He tied means, motive and opportunity to William Ayers. The common seafaring imagery between samples, Ayers demonstrated ability and willingness to help would be writers and Ayers promotion of Obama as a "writer" is almost like a fingerprint at the crime scene. I am not saying any crime was committed, but Cashill used this approach to solve the mystery.RonCram (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that C. S. Forester wrote both Obama's and Ayers' books. Note the shared seafaring motives in the modern books and The Happy Return. Also, all three authors have an otherwise inexplicable tendency to use sentences with a lengths of more than 3 words, and use both "the" and "and" over and over again! In other words, the Cashill "analysis" is a sad joke, half cherry-picking and half botched statistics. Determining the properties of a text on a 30 sentence sample? 30 is just barely enough to get a meaningful average (always assuming the sentences were representative - unlikely, if they are from a single passage each). Where is the standard deviation? And why only 30 non-randomly selected sentences? And why was there no search for differences in style? Finding superficial similarities in any pair of long texts (from similar eras, in the same language, dealing with related topics, from authors from the same culture) is a trivial, but completely meaningless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, while you know something of mathematics, you are not as well informed on authorship analysis. Personally, I do not like counting the number of words in a sentence. This can change if the same author is writing to two different audiences or if his purpose is different. However, the points Cashill makes regarding recurrent themes and vocabulary are compelling. The theme of "constructing" your history is pretty rare and most people might look at it as lying - but there it is in both books. The large number of seafaring terms seems completely natural in Ayers book since he used to be a sailor but appears completely out of place in Obama's book because he never was. Think about Psalm 23. No one doubts it was written by the former shepherd, King David. Who but a shepherd would think in those terms? How can anyone but a sailor write in the terms used by Obama? But my analysis is no more meaningful than your uneducated analysis. The real question is: Is the controversy real and is it reported in reliable sources? The answer clearly is yes. RonCram (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this discussion? Since nobody has anything that even comes close to a reliable source for these fringe claims there isn't anything left to discuss. As seen above, the topic is simply devolving into a forum of personal opinion that has nothing to do with improving the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Second. Tvoz/talk 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The discussion is not fringe. It is occurring in daily newspapers and national publications. If you don't understand this, you need to reread the discussion. RonCram (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Major lulz for this section header. Hoo boy. Sure, the book maybe had a ghost writer. But to suggest that the ghost writer was Bill Ayers?? What is this, a Coen brothers movie??? Come on, that's ludicrous. Beyond ludicrous. Concur with closing this ridiculous discussion. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this discussion should not continue. If more reliable sources start reporting on this idea, then we should of course revisit the issue. But until then, let's not waste our time with this. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Even some of the Obama-lovers at the National Review think this claim is in a league of nuttiness with the Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracy theories ([8]). Time to put this to bed, unless perhaps there's a section in our 2008 U.S. Presidential election article on "Desperate last-minute ploys to turn the debate away from the economy"? MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ghostwriter

Commentators have expressed amazement that a U.S. politician was able to write a book of literary merit without the help of a ghostwriter...

I know the consensus is that no mention should be made of the "ghostwriting theory," but it is VERY disingenuous to have this sentence mentioning the shock and amazement there wasn't a ghostwriter in the article and and then rigorously "censor" any mention to the most prominent ghostwriting theory by Jack Cashill. There are two ways, then, to solve this, as I see:

(1) Put in a bit about the Ayers ghostwriting theory, even if it is in parentheses or a footnote. I don't think a one sentence, or even a sentence fragment, about Jack Cashill would be wrong, undue, or out of place. Something like: "Journalist Jack Cashill has written a series of articles concerning his theory that the book was ghostwritten by former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers, though many disagree."
or
(2) Remove the reference to a ghostwriter entirely, changing the sentence in question to "Commentators have expressed amazement that a U.S. politician was able to write a book of such literary merit:" and then proceed with the glowing editorial opinions.

Personally, I think the more information the better, so I'd go with number one, even if you put the sentence in a footnote after the word "ghostwriter" in the body of the text. But, the second option, though not my first choice, gets rid of the disingenuousness entirely.

TuckerResearch (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that bit was unusual. Went with two for now, we can see if there are other comments. Grsz¹¹ 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all nonsense fringe conspiracy theory stuff that has no place in a serious article. Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cashill's theory has been mentioned in the Times of London and in other RS. I don't see a basis for excluding it. A large percentage of the readers who come here will have heard of the theory. Quite apart from Cashill, American political memoirs are pretty much all ghostwritten, which is why I think the Christopher Buckley quote belongs in. Several of the reviewers quoted make the point that this is the best memoir written by a U.S. politician in the last 50 years. But if Obama actually wrote it himself, it would be pretty much the only book in this catagory. Kauffner (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Only problem is it was written in 1995, when Obama wasn't a politician. Grsz¹¹ 04:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Barack Obama: "Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention[33] and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations.[37] In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book.[37] He originally planned to finish the book in one year, but it took much longer as the book evolved into a personal memoir. In order to work without interruptions, Obama and his wife, Michelle, traveled to Bali where he wrote for several months. The manuscript was finally published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.[37]"

It makes perfect sense that he wrote it on his own, as he wasn't doing anything else at the time. This is a fringe theory that nobody takes seriously and deserves no mention. Grsz¹¹ 04:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You recount the story of how the book was published as if it is nothing remarkable. But who ever heard of someone writing (and publishing!) an autobiography fresh out of university before one has any accomplishments in life to write about? It suggests Obama had grandiose expectations about his future at time when his job experience consisted of community organizer and legal intern. And the most extraordinary part of the story is that Obama's real life has more than fulfilled those expectations. With a successful first book and nothing else going on in his life, why didn't he become a professional writer? But he didn't write his second book until after he was elected U.S. Senator -- and that book is in a very different style and rather more obviously ghostwritten. I'm just trying to get a handle on who the guy really is, and I suspect many readers are trying to do the same. I doesn't think it proper to treat relevant information as if it is some kind of state secret that our readers don't deserve to know.Kauffner (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the Harvard Law Review article. Obama was the first African-American president of one of the most prestigious law review's in the country. That's a rather unique accomplishment and likely to attract the attention of publishers. Him being the Harvard Law Review president also meant that he could have worked for any law firm in the country and made a heck of a lot more money than he could have made as a non-fiction writer. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

All of this is indirect speculation from questionable sources. If any of this rises to the level of believability then we could simply note that the book may (or may not) have a co-author. The world is full of ghostwriters. It's no more a shame than that someone with a great style does not cut their own hair. Either it is or it is not. However, this is a potentially POV / nut-case issue due to the nut-case conspiracy accusations by some, and maneuverings, to show that the supposed "unrepentant terrorist" Bill Ayers was in fact the author of the book. Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Buckley doesn't even mention a "ghostwriter" in this article. Grsz¹¹ 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You may have been able to imply that from Buckley's comment about Obama being a rarity among politicians today by writing his own book, but you're right, ghostwriting was not specifically mentioned. If I had actually read the article prior to your removal, I would have wondered why it was being used in this article at all. The manner in which Buckley wrote the statement it makes no reference to this book specifically, but is rather a statement about Obama's writing ability in general. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This opinion on the subject was just published. I have no idea if the writer is correct or not, but I thought I'd post the link for anyone here who might be interested. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a WP:FRINGE opinion. Why bring that up here? The author's obsession with this particular conspiracy theory is mentioned at his own article, Jack Cashill. Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fringe

I've reverted the same author's attempt to put fringe material in the lead.[9] Though it might be true that a Utah congressman and his in-law tried to pay an Oxford professor to be part of their smear campaign, that is hardly notable to the book, nor does it support the text it was cited for. This might belong in an article about campaign smear tactics but it is extremely fringey and has next to nothing to do with the book. This well-meaning rewrite[10] is more neutral, but it still is not relevant per WP:WEIGHT, and the heading "authorship questioned" implies incorrectly that the authorship of the book was actually questioned (as opposed to impugned) or is even subject to legitimate question. Wikidemon (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The lead sentence in the article highlights the smear attempt: "The Republicans have made a last-minute attempt to prevent Barack Obama’s ascent to the White House by trying to recruit an Oxford academic to “prove” that his autobiography was ghostwritten by a former terrorist." That's the real point of the article. The "prove" in quotes by the article's author implies a bribe.~ priyanath ^talk 03:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's no merit in the claim, but now that it's been reported on by reliable sources I think it's appropriate for us to mention it (and the fact that it's widely dismissed), per WP:FRINGE. I'm open to any suggestions for a better heading. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I just changed the heading to the completely neutral "Authorship" (before seeing your note). As I said in my edit summary, "Obama's authorship confirmed" would be an option, but arguably POV on the other side. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any real harm at this point. I do think it gives too much attention to the matter, particularly in comparison to the brief coverage to everything else overall. The fact that it's become such an odd election year issue, and a notable individual is pursuing it as an election ploy, is an interesting curiosity. Speaking of that, there are some potential WP:BLP and related problems in the "controversies" section at the Chris Cannon article. I was going to add a mention of this but it already looks like enough of a coatrack. Wikidemon (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same thought, which is why I just left a note at Talk:Chris Cannon instead of adding this there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering just how fringe this is, I would still not be opposed to deleting the entire section - and would favor shortening it. The section has the potential to turn into a coatrack. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to hack at it, feel free. As a matter of interest, I found another article on the attempted smear in the Salt Lake Tribune. There's also more from the Oxford don here: he says, "...in regard to the Ayers allegation... I feel totally confident that it is false" and goes into some detail about why it fails his analytical processes for determining authorship. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is fascinating, and with that many sources it passes the threshold of notability. But I don't know where it could be included. A stand-alone article might be seen as pointless, and next to some of the more prominent smears this one is pretty trivial. A list article about the smears would be interesting IMO but these generally get deleted as coatracks. What's so instructive about this is that Cannon, his brother-in-law Fox, and Cashill, are seemingly earnest in their utter conviction that Obama did not write his own book - the professor comments on their sincerity and says they are simply misguided. Talk about WP:AGF. Accepting that belief, Cannon's course of action is understandable, even exemplary. Rather than trumpeting a claim he cannot prove he tries to quietly find out for himself, and awaits the results before making a public fuss of it. Told that the results would have to be made public and might be considered a Republican smear, he thinks better of it. What is so interesting about it is that sometimes the perpetrators of even the improbable smears actually believe them, not just their gullible audience. This is a counterpoint to the notion that these are all calculated, even sinister attempts to win elections. Wikidemon (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to use the professor's own succinct summary to trim the section a bit, but I'm slightly concerned that this version makes it look more like "he said, she said" instead of "he claimed, she scientifically disproved". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

← I think that this is giving undue weight to an extremely fringe claim - as I said to Josiah, this seems to me to be like reporting that no one has said that so-and-so beats his wife - so I'd be in favor of removing it. There are many crackpot theories out there, many are reported on, and I don't think this one really reaches the threshold for inclusion. But I suppose I also don't see any real harm, as long as it's written the way it is now. I do wonder if there are BLP implications in mentioning this at all, however. Tvoz/talk 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've given the folks at the fringe theories noticeboard an update, so they can chime in too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Smear", "attempt smear" -- that's the language of a campaign operative. RS seemed so important before, but now we're citing a self-published Web site. In any case, I think the BLP issue is bogus. Who wrote a best selling book is notable for its own sake. It's not just some biographical detail.

Millican's essay is mainly criticism of computer analysis commissioned by Cashill. The three studies that Millican rejects are ones that Cashill never used or published. Millican doesn't come to any conclusion regarding the study that Cashill did use. So the blustery soundbite isn't supported by a conclusive argument demonstrating that Ayers couldn't have written the book. In any case, Cashill's arguments for thinking that the book was ghostwritten were not even addressed and IMO still stand. Kauffner (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Drat! Foiled again by dogged conspiracy theorists with their literary analysis. You got me, my comments were written by James Carville. We paid the professor to write this.[11] Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon's confession speaks for me too — I'm actually Donna Brazile. Or am I David Axelrod? I forget.

More seriously, I'll just note that the sentence cited by the self-published blog is also supported by a citation from the Salt Lake Tribune. The word "smear" comes from the headline writers at The Times, which is usually considered the newspaper of record for the UK — and besides, it's not in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is Obamanista humor? Don't quit your day job. Kauffner (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This section certainly meets the pattern of other Fringe Theories: people who are not trained experts in a field—(not even close to the level of meeting WP:RS)—pretending to be experts in writing analysis. The only arguable expert in writing analysis is Millican, and he's described as "a philosophy don". The other 'experts' are a political hack (the congressman's brother-in-law), and two writers who peddle their opinions for a living. Having a reliable news source or two write about the fringieness of it all doesn't give notability—except perhaps for a List of attempted political smears based on fringe theories. I think that it still violates WP:BLP ~ priyanath ^talk 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Although Millican's work is in philosophy, he's also notable for his work in computer-aided textual analysis. Take a look around his website. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I understood that - but the only expert in the article is somehow put on equal footing with the others by describing him as a philosophy don. I didn't quite know what his title or official expertise was, so adding that would sure help. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I read an article on this guy's 'method'; it basically analyzes word length and spits out a 'grade level' for your writing. He ran this 'analysis' on sections from Obama's two different books, and came up with different numbers. Meaning he used longer words in part of one book than in part of the other. That's basically the sum-total of his method, and of course it is meaningless. He's a loonie and obviously doesn't deserve mention here. jackbrown (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Authorship" section absolutely, positively, without quesiton, must go as per WP:UNDUE

At risk of violating WP:CIV: Are you fucking serious?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

The Bill-Ayers-as-ghostwriter smear is the most looney-tunes crackpot bullshit desperation tinfoil-hat face-on-Mars asinine conspiracy theory I've heard in relation to this election. (Well, except for my wife's uncle who thinks that Obama is in cahoots with the Palestinians, but I digress...) By entertaining that crap here, we are making a mockery of everything Wikipedia stands for.

Wikipedia -- the Free Encyclopedia that EVERY Escaped Mental Patients Can Edit.

Gah, no. Alright, I'm taking this to RfC. This is not even close to acceptable. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Authorship' section must be deleted immediately. Including such tinfoil-hat nonsense in a supposed Encyclopedia article is asinine, childish and pathetic. I can't believe the article's editors have been polite enough to leave it in here so long. jackbrown (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Does mentioning the Ayers authorship theory violate WP:UNDUE?

The section header speaks for itself. It is all I could do to word this in a somewhat neutral manner. I am frankly appalled. I'd unilaterally remove it, but a flimsy consensus appears to have developed above. I disagree very strongly with that consensus. I can't believe a broad consensus among more than a few Wikipedians would support including this drivel.

FWIW, I added the controversy to the Jack Cashill article myself. It's relevant there. If some crazy lunatic makes a crazy allegation, and the crazy lunatic happens to be notable, then the crazy allegation goes in the crazy lunatic's article -- NOT in the subject's article. Otherwise, Wikipedia articles would constantly be under assault by notable crazy lunatics! --Jaysweet (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you keep going on like that you can start forming at the mouth. Political memoirs are pretty much all ghostwritten, even the ones that claim they aren't. Has anyone else ever written an autobiography right after graduation and had it published? The contract with the publisher was for a book on race relations, but apparently Obama couldn't produce anything worth reading on that subject, so he switched to an autobiography. Yes, talented writers have come out with outstanding first novels, but Obama admits in the introduction that he has no talent or ambition as a writer. This is writing strictly in service of a political career -- a career that didn't exist at the time of the writing. Who would have known at that time that Obama would even have a political career? Maybe the guy who later kick started that career by appointing Obama chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, his first position with status above legal intern. This article doesn't necessarily have to mention Ayers, but there should be some indication that people have questioned Obama's authorship. Kauffner (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from discussing your personal opinions about Barack Obama here. This is not a forum for discussing opinion, it is solely for discussing changes to the article. As there is no credible reliable source that makes these fringe claims, mentioning it (even briefly) in the article would be grossly undue weight. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Those were my reasons for thinking that the book is ghostwritten, since it's apparently necessary to establish that this not a lunatic theory. Audacity of Hope was written when Obama was a U.S. senator and way too busy to do the writing himself, although by then Obama could afford a professional and therefore wouldn't have used Ayers.[12] Kauffner (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous red herring... While there is zero evidence that DfMF was ghost-written, and a fair bit of reason to believe that it was not, that part of the theory is not what I find so tinfoil-hat about this whole thing. To say you think DfMF might have been ghost-written is a little bit unreasonable IMO, but it is not "crazy". What is crazy is to say that Bill Ayers wrote it. That's just a totally random off-the-wall connection with zero supporting evidence. It would be like if I said that JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald were secret gay lovers two years before the assassination. Maybe JFK was gay (probably not, but it wouldn't be insane to think so), and maybe Oswald was gay (same thing: probably not, but it wouldn't be insane to think so either), but to think the two were lovers would be batshit insane.

Same thing here. Maybe DfMF was ghost-written (probably not, as there are reasons to believe based on Obama's work as a professor that he would be perfectly capable of writing his own book... but as you point out, many memoirs are ghost-written, so it wouldn't be inconceivable), but to think the writer was Ayers is batshit insane. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into it as per WP:FORUM, but some of Kauffner's statements about the CAC connection are also factually incorrect.

I'm removing the section as per the unanimous opinions below. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would support removal of the entire section, and I think a few others would too. As I said above, this could be moved to List of attempted political smears based on fringe theories. Or for sweeter justice, List of political smears and negative campaign talking points that helped Barack Obama become the 44th President of the United States of America, since it seems these things backfired. ~ priyanath ^talk 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. It's a fringe theory with few proponents, and became only a minor wingnut issue on the blogosphere. The episode is notable in itself - it's sourceable, involves a number of notable individuals and issues, and is quite an interesting story - but it does not have too much to do with the book. At best it is worth a single sentence with a link to its own article or section of another article somewhere. Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The entire section must be removed. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy-theory message board. Just delete the whole section, no mention of 'authorship' at all.jackbrown (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the last version of the "authorship" section prior to removal was clear enough that this was "nutter-territory stuff" that nobody could think Wikipedia was promoting it — and since the subject had been discussed in reliable sources, I thought that a brief mention (and dismissal, by the same reliable sources) was appropriate. But if an apparent consensus of my fellow editors disagrees, I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to reinstate it.

One further point to Kauffner: the reasons you may find Cashill's theory plausible are irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you want the section reinstated, you need to make the argument in terms of Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Your goal should not be to convince Wikipedia editors that the theory is correct (it's not, and that's irrelevant); it should be to convince Wikipedia editors that the theory is noteworthy. See the quotation from Jimbo Wales at WP:WEIGHT: most editors seem to think that this theory is "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and therefore "does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." If you want this to be included, you need to prove that it's "held by a significant minority" and you need to "name prominent adherents". Jack Cashill is not sufficiently prominent to meet this standard. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Times of London is as RS you can get. The comments of Pirandellian and others suggest this is a case of political partisanship overriding Wiki standards. Why was no one willing to do a full analysis despite the fact that $10,000 was offered? Maybe they didn't want their tax, court and other private records exposed like Joe the Plumber. The guy who analysized Primary Colors did it for no money -- and Joe Klien wasn't even suspected as the author beforehand. Kauffner (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you read the sources you propose? Millican was ready to do the analysis, but insisted on publishing the result, no matter what. Fox then withdrew. A deal was agreed for more detailed research but when Millican said the results had to be made public, even if no link to Ayers was proved, interest waned.[13] Millican did some analysis anyways, and published the result. Do you have any (reliable) sources that more people were offered money and declined, or is this pure speculation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cashill's version is the Fox couldn't raise the money and Millican is just mad he didn't get paid.[14] And, yes, there is another group of academics who did stylistic analysis, but they have refused to allow their names to be used publicly for fear of retaliation. Kauffner (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cashill has many stories, but in the one you link to, he does not make this claim. What he does do his hawk is 2005 book by giving the impression it covers this 2008 fantasy. But anyways, a self-published piece by Cashill, unlike the Times, is not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Times is an RS. That's not in dispute. The question is whether their story is sufficient to justify the mention of the theory here. The fact that they printed the story doesn't make them an adherent of the claim, per the Jimbo quote at WP:WEIGHT. Your other comments are inappropriate per WP:NOTAFORUM.

And who's Pirandellian? Are you suggesting that the contributors here are Wikipedians in Search of a Consensus? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove section Undue weight for idiotic fringe theory, and possibly a BLP violation; while a good faith attempt was made to word it in a way that would be clear that it is a rejected fringe theory, it should be out altogether. Tvoz/talk 09:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Times is a reliable source. I would propose that whether this story is a tiny minority viewpoint or just a minority is relevant for whether the theory should be made known on Wikipedia. The only distinction is whether it gets its own article or not. Problem solved. The only query I have is, in accordance with [15], why is this not either in this article, or have its own article? 76.229.159.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Because "timeliness" is not the same as "notability". Do you honestly believe that two years from now, even 1% of the people reading Dreams from My Father will be thinking about Cashill's crackpot theory? It was a partisan crank trying for a clumsy smear job at the 11th hour before the election. The fact that it has ZERO effect on the election, and only a fleeting minor effect on the 24-hour news cycle, makes it not notable. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jaysweet and Tvoz. dougweller (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the RFCpol tag, since I think this is more or less resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:43, 11 November 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.

Cherry picked quotes

Adding 'favorite' quotes from the book to prove a point violates both WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. ~ priyanath ^talk 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can say this about adding anything. Besides, the quotes I have added have been widely discussed in the media. If quotes don't make a point, they are pointless. Do you think quotes should be chosen by a randomizing algorithm? Kauffner (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Priyanath. Please see WP:POINT along with the other links he provides above. --guyzero | talk 07:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to read this rule yourself, since it is not what you seem to think it is. There's no rule against making a point. The rule is against disrupting Wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. The quotations Kauffner is trying to add are the ones which have been chosen by conservative commentators for their inflammatory appearance. Most, if not all, of them, are less inflammatory in their original contexts. (For example, as I recall the section about reading Farrakhan's newsletter, Obama is actually pointing out how self-defeating and useless that sort of rhetoric is; he's not writing approvingly of it.)

There's no need for any quotations, really. There might be a case for a section talking in a neutral fashion about how some conservative commentators have taken certain quotations out of their original context in an attempt to make Obama look radical or anti-American (assuming that we can find both examples of notable commentators doing that and other notable commentators refuting the willful misinterpretations they're promoting). Even that would have to be handled very carefully, to avoid placing undue weight on a minority view. But placing the "worst" quotations in the article outside of any context is completely unacceptable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also point out that this article is in the scope of the Barack Obama article probation. If this continues, I will issue limited time topic bans until November 5th. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What Obama writes about himself is a "minority view"? This is such a joke. Kauffner (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be a "minority view" to present these passages as representative or significant. Reviews of the book as a book have not focused on these passages. It's all about the context. If you want to say, "Conservative commentator John Doe III highlighted Obama's description of his college years..." that might be acceptable, if John Doe III is notable. But if we choose which excerpts we think are notable, then we're engaging in original research, and almost certainly violating WP:NPOV. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Take a look at Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men, a featured book article. It has an extended pull quote from the book about Madame Roland. Besides, if you quote from a review, what's the difference? It's "cherry picking" the review. Kauffner (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Madame Roland isn't running for President, and articles related to Mary Shelley aren't on article probation. The comparison is specious. More important, that article is full of secondary sources which discuss the book — the quotations don't stand alone, out of any context. The pull quote about Madame Roland is presented in the context of Shelley's treatment of women and figures from the French Revolution, and the text which discusses that context is cited to two scholarly works on the subject. We need that sort of cited context for the quotations you want to include. If these quotations are important to an understanding of the book Dreams from My Father, then some reliable source will have commented on them. Find one, and then we can talk.

Similarly, if you want to find other reviews from mainstream reliable sources, so that the Klein quote isn't given undue weight, that would be fine. But when you try to throw in a quotation about Marxist professors without any context or any citation from a reliable source indicating that this is at all important, it gives the strong impression that you're more interested in pushing a specific political viewpoint than in improving the article on a politician's memoir. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Translations

There is an Italian translation (ISBN 8888389865), a German (ISBN 3446230217), a Swedish (ISBN 9100121967), possibly more. These should be mentioned in the bibliography. 89.247.21.175 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Style

I think there should be this heading and commentary to cover the style of writing. --Jane McCann (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Real people

How are the Associated Press, ABC News, Chicago Tribune, etc... not considers a "reliable source"? Southishappy (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the recently added speculative section that was removed, it is not that those sources are not considered reliable. It is that none of those sources supported the claims that were being made in this article (or even had much to do with it). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not speculative? How so... If the sources states "Loretta Herron is bias of the character Angela", that that supports it, right? Southishappy (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is the source for Frank Marshall Davis? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This article from the Chicago Sun-Times in which Barack Obama's maternal half-sister says so. That's just one. You argued that whole concept was wrong. Fine, change the wording to satisfy yourself, but characters are based on actual people. Southishappy (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

1. It's still speculation 2. These are opinion/feature pieces and not news articles 3. It is a violation of WP:BLP. Priyanath ^talk 00:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By this standard, a review in an RS publication wouldn't qualify either. It's unusual for books to be mentioned in news stories, except maybe for stories about sales figures. If speculation gets reported in the RS, it becomes notable. I don't get the BLP stuff. You are interpreting BLP to mean that the article cannot mention living people? Kauffner (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the trolling comment that you finished your post with, and answer the rest. The editor was adding this material as fact, when it is purely speculation. If the sources (and I mean the author of the articles) doing the speculating are reliable, then it might be ok to add it to the article, and say that 'so-and-so speculates such-and-such'. I'll let others give their opinion on whether even that is good enough, since I'm not sure. Priyanath ^talk 04:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oic. You obviously have no idea what the relevant rules are and you're making it up as you go along. But I'm the one who's trolling. Kauffner (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Define speculation. I think this depends on whether you believe the people written about in the book are real people? Either there is a real Ray or a real Angela or there isn't. These articles have first-hand interviews. The real people know who they are (NYC roommate or high school buddy or former boss, etc...) and admit freely that they are those characters in the memoir. Angela, Marty, Ray, Old Ward Boss and Sadik all admit that they are the people written about in the memoir. Southishappy (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The authors of the articles are speculating about the identities. That's 'speculation'. I've edited the section to reflect the speculation, and added reference tags for the unsupported statements. I also believe that combining the various articles into one statement/table about the identities is Synthesis/Original Research (see WP:OR). The BLP issue is also still open to debate. Priyanath ^talk 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To Priyanath: you're speculating and you're wrong. These are article interviewed the actual people and they'd know who they are. It's not original research despite your belief. Combining info from various source is exactly what Wikipedia consistantly does. Southishappy (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added back one citation needed tag. It will remain there until there is a citation supporting the statement. I've added back the Original Research tag because I believe this is Synthesis (WP:SYNTH). It will remain there until it's discussed further. Let's leave it up for a week and see what kind of feeback we get. Priyanath ^talk 20:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone if you do. YOU are the only one CLAIMING speculation and it's not right to base your claim on your own personal beliefs. Gerald Kellerman, Loretta Herrin and Keith Kakugawa and others were interviewed for these articles, but I just repeating myself. I'm not basing this on my own beliefs but the articles sited, but if you leave it along, I will too. The feedback so far has been against Priyanath, but if he/she wishes to wait, that's fine with me so long as he/she doesn't keep adding that speculation stuff based on their own POV. Southishappy (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

At least one of the articles had nothing to do with an interview, it was purely based on the author's own speculation. There has been no feedback about this since I posted it here: WP:OR/N. Let's give it some days for feedback and discussion. So far, two editors here have supported it, two are against it. More discussion is needed. The tags remain until then. Discuss, be patient, stop edit-warring. Priyanath ^talk 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

One article does not mean all are speculation. Priyanath's speculating. Either there are real people are the whole book is made up. Unless you have a part in the article where its written, "We speculate that this is the real so-n-so" than you're doing orignal research. Please stop undoing my edits since I did the orignal edit and Priyanath is causing a edit war by reverting them. Southishappy (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, slow down, take a deep breath, and give a few days for discussion. In the meantime, we can't present your table as fact, when it is based on speculation and synthesis of several sources. Priyanath ^talk 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't present it as speculation either.

• Obama apparently didn't think much of Jones. In his memoir ``Dreams from My Father, Obama dismisses the character based on Jones as ``an old ward heeler who had little clout left after backing the wrong candidate.

Speculation by the writer of the article. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Earl Chew, who is the basis, at least in part, for the character "Marcus" in Obama's memoir

Speculation by the writer of the article, and even vaguely at that, by saying only "at least in part". Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Our grandfather . . . thought [Frank] was a point of connection, a bridge if you will, to the larger African-American experience for my brother,'" Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister, said in an interview.

She is not saying that "Frank" in real life is "Frank" in the book. Speculation on your part. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Although Davis does not appear to have been a constant figure in his early life, Obama in his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, presents Davis -- referred to in the book only as Frank -- as an important influence who gave him advice about race and college.

Speculation by the writer of the article. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Loretta Herron, Founding member of Obama's South Side organizing group, Developing Communities Project, and the basis for the character Angela in Obama's book, "Dreams from My Father"

Speculation by the writer of the article. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• As first reported by the Wall Street Journal, Ray's real name is Keith Kakugawa

Based on what? Facts, please. Otherwise, speculation. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Kellman is "Marty" in the book.

Speculation by the writer of the article. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Obama's campaign wouldn't identify "Sadik," but The Associated Press located him in Seattle, where he raises money for a community theater.

Speculation. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Together, the recollections of Siddiqi and other friends and acquaintances from Obama's college years paint a portrait of the candidate as a young man.

Show me the speculative part of those sentences because even if you disagree, that's your opinion and you're just speculating while these are professional journalists. You can state that speculating on someone's else work makes it true? What's your arguement. That these people are making it up?

Put together into a table that says "Real life person" that is "Referred to in the book as" makes it both Synthesis (see WP:SYNTH) and dishonest (by portraying speculation as fact). And because most of these are living people, it's probably a violation of WP:BLP in addition. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, we've established that your favorite word is "speculation." Do have an actual point to make? Because I just don't see one. Why don't you get out of the way and let people who can write turn the article into something worth reading? Kauffner (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely that chart is not an example of good writing or something worth reading, is it? So it might be helpful to respond to the point that Priyanath is making about synthesis instead of attacking him/her. Tvoz/talk 07:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tvoz, for trying to calm the waters here. Kauffner, since I'm not interested in continuing a lame edit war - and you and Southishappy haven't shown any interest in discussing the real issues - I'll take a timeout, since this is getting nowhere. C'est la Wikipedia. I think the involvement of other editors would help move things along, and make a better article. Priyanath ^talk 18:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sales Figures

I'd like to know approximately how many copies have been sold of the book.

Perhaps this should be part of the "version" section, usually each printing has a certain number of copies.

scottst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.127.19 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Not a single negative review? Lycurgus (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Andersen's book

A book article is not a BLP, and the authorship of a bestselling book is notable for its own sake. It's not a detail of the author's life. Even if this was covered by BLP, Christopher Andersen is an editor of at Time magazine and his book is a quality source. Google news currently has 140 articles about this book. Kauffner (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have left a 3RR warning and asked you, again, not to insert this kind of stuff pending consensus per BLP and BRD. I would remove it again but I do not wish to edit war - someone else may.

Please review WP:BLP again. It applies to all pages on the encyclopedia. You have been trying to add the improbable fringe claim to the encyclopedia for almost a year now that Bill Ayers was the ghost-writer of dreams from my father. The fact that a new gossip-style unauthorized biography now repeats that claim does not make it now worth including. Anderson is not a reliable source for this kind of claim. He writes sloppy tabloid-style biographies of famous people for the mass market. This one is, overall, a glowingly positive biography. However, it is poorly sourced and makes claims that are hard to corroborate. That Ayers wrote much of Obama's book is an extraordinary claim, which would require extraordinary sourcing. Andersen is hardly the type of source to trust for this kind of analysis, which is the stuff of experts. He himself admits that it is speculation. It appears that Anderson makes the claim without any proof or sourcing, other than apparently Jack Cashill (whose claim was discredited) and that Andersen himself read Obama's book and Ayers' work and thinks they have similarities -- a point that has already been debunked. Further, as a single source that is making that claim it does not pass WP:WEIGHT concerns. True there are 140 google news hits (not many), including duplicates and unreliable sources, for the book at the moment. But not a single reliable source to date even mentions Andersen's Bill Ayers Claim, only the conservative press and blogosphere that has been promoting this story all along, plus a couple liberal sites debunking it.[16][17] The reliable sources all go into some other claims, like that Michelle shot down a VP nomination for Hilary Clinton, that Sasha had spiral meningitis, and that Obama was uncomfortably friendly with some women who were "grabbing [his] ass".[18] Or they're book reviews, like this one: Entertainment Weekly gives it a "D+" grade.[19] We'll have to decide elsewhere, on other articles, how much if any of this book can be used as a reliable source regarding Obama. Likely, the best thing to do would be to create a separate Wikipedia article about the book, should it win any awards or climb to the best seller list, or otherwise achieve notabilit. But mining it to support this one obscure old anti-Obama claim is very weak. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, the claim that Obama wrote the book by himself is the extraordinary one. Obama has also claimed that Audacity of Hope and that his speeches are his own writing, although where would that leave Jon Favreau? Obama was a busy U.S. senator when Audacity was written. The sorry tale of American political memoirs is that from Malcolm X and JFK to Hillary and Bill, they all turn out to be ghostwritten. Dreams is just the sort of book you would write if you were planning to run for president -- certainly much better for his career than the book he was supposed to write about race relations. Kauffner (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Anderson's claim is extraordinary ... he apparantly neither cites nor acknowledges any sources for this claim in his book other than a "Hyde Park neighbor" which is a silly way to make such an extraordinary claim. Coupled with the fact that no other reliable source seems to corroborate this claim, it either should be totally stricken from the article per fringe or at most clearly labeled as an allegation rather than fact. cheers, --guyzero | talk 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be stricken entirely as poorly sourced. The presumption is that the author of a book is the person who the publisher says wrote it. Any claim that presumes deceit needs a lot of corroboration. The question of whether one person has helped another with a book, and the difference between collaboration, advice, ghost-writing, and editorship, is a complex one, well beyond the scope of an article like this. It's not clear whether Ayers offered Obama advice or not on the book, we don't have a good source on it. Authors have assistants, researchers, editors, and so on. Businesspeople and professionals often hire professional writers to work with them on books, and the contributions could go anywhere from writing the entire book without even speaking to the author, all the way to simply serving as an editor or adviser. If Ayers was somehow involved (and there is no reliable indication at the moment that he was), without a mainstream source commenting on its significance the matter is of no notability at all. Who else pitched in? Likely dozens of people... read the book's acknowledgments. Singling out Ayers is a POV matter that would serve only to advance an anti-Obama smear tactic from the presidential campaign. Andersen seems to have no direct knowledge of this and is only repeating Jack Cashill here. In a Fox News interview he repeats something else, a debunked claim that Obama's political career began in Ayers' house, so the depth of his awareness of the whole matter is suspect.

The anti-Obama conspiracy theory talking point, which Kauffner has advanced before, is that Obama was not a good enough writer to have written the memoir. The notion that the President of Harvard Law Review cannot write a book is on its face ludicrous. It is lawyers' jobs to write. Harvard is (arguably, along with Yale) the pinnacle of the legal profession in the United States. Law Review is the most prestigious organization, and President is the highest office. One gets there by writing well. Six Supreme Court justices were at Harvard Law Review. Archibald MacLeish is an alum. It's all speculation to opine whether or not Obama had it in him or not, but the speculation itself is suspect. Some commentators off-wiki equate this to the birther phenomenon.

I just created the article Barack and Michelle, which would be a far more apt place to describe the book's claims instead of tacking them to the Obamas. In so doing I've reviewed all of the reliable sources I could find, and not one saw fit to mention this tidbit. There's talk of the Obama Girl, (and the Obama's girls'), Obama snoring, Obama leaving messy dishes, and hundreds of other topics, but not a single mention (yet) in any of these of Ayers' supposed contributions to Dreams from my Father. This is still circulating only among the conservative blogs, commentaries, and pundits. Barack Obama is hyper-notable. Everything of any importance about him has hundreds, usually thousands of mainstream sources. Dreams from my Father currently has 6000+ hits per my unrestricted time google news search (which vastly undercounts vis-a-vis a current search), and not a single one mentions Andersen's book. Andersen's book has 150+ hits in current news and not a single reliable source among them mentions Dreams from my Father - any hit from google news turns out to be a conservative blogger or pundit calling Obama a "literary fraud", a disciple of the "terrorist" Ayers, etc., and any hit from a reliable source turns out to be a user comment. So the entire nexus is the passage from the book itself. Talk about cherry-picking. If we were going to cover the book at this level there are hundreds of other facts that would come in before this one. When a single pop culture book with questionable fact-checking seems to corroborate a fringe theory advanced by the conservative press, and the mainstream press utterly ignores the matter, it is not worth reporting. Nor is it worth impugning the authorship of a bestselling book based on a stray claim. Wikidemon (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, as guyzero wrote it, it's neutral and not terribly offensive. The only issue there is WP:WEIGHT. I've wikilinked to my new article, and also changed the language from calling it an "allegation" or "claim" to a "report" and a writing. WP:WTA cautions us to avoid words like "claim" because they're loaded, and indeed in this case, I don't think Andersen intended it as an allegation. Andersen's book is glowingly positive towards the Obamas per the reviews. I think he just meant it as a tidbit of gossip without thinking of it as impugning Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right wrt allegation/claims, thanks. Note too that I'm not convinced that any of this "report" passes UNDUE for the article per the reasons you cite above. Hopefully some additional commenters will weigh in on this today. --guyzero | talk 18:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be a service to the readers? As it is, everything political or remotely controversial gets reverted and the article is a big nothing. I suspect that a large percentage of the people coming here have heard the claims of ghostwriting, so the issue should be addressed somehow. The Ayers claim might sound bizarre, but the primary significance of the book is that it has been used as a measure of Obama's intelligence, so the identity of the ghostwriter is a secondary issue.

If Obama is really just that great a writer, why didn't make a career out of it? Instead, his writing is narrowly focused on advancing a political career. Obama's appointment as editor-in-chief of Harvard Law Review was an affirmative action deal. He didn't write or edited much of anything for the magazine. Are we to believe that the reason reviewers of Andersen's book focus on Obama's snoring, or the origin of the "Yes, we can" slogan, is because these aspects of book are, objectively, more notable? Surely this an indication that the issue has been wired somehow. Andersen talked quite a bit about Ayers in his interview on Fox. The liberal media rushes to the defense of so many other aspects of Obama's life with, "hundreds, usually thousands of mainstream sources." Yet for whatever reason, no one has bothered to write a convincing rebuttal of Cashill's claims. If anyone has found one, I urge them to put a summary and a reference in the article. If Ayers didn't write the book, this should be provable by showing that the sentence lengths are different or something like that. Kauffner (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you wish to air your skepticism about Obama's substance. That's fine but this isn't really the place. Wikipedia rests on the weight of the sources, not the analysis and opinions of its editors. And as it turns out, the mainstream sources do not lend any credibility to the theories you are advancing, and yes, they do seem to think that snoring is a bigger issue than this conspiracy theory. If you're unhappy with what you perceive as coverage bias there, I can't think of much to do about that. We're not reporting the snoring thing either. Well, I guess I am, but in the article about that book. In part that's because this is a tabloid-ish book apparently, and that's the tabloid type stuff. So that's what the reviewers pick up on. Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are some kind of shill for the White House. Somehow or other, the conclusion is always that anything that could be interpreted as critical of Obama has to be removed. My posts just "air...skepticism." Your posts, meanwhile, represent "the weight of the sources," although they often simply your spin on the same issues. This attitude is patronizing.

Wikipedia doesn't have to base every editorial judgement on Google hit counts, as if editors were lobotimized. Andersen's book is an RS. There are also sources for this story here, here and here. This article is its own thing, independent so what's in some other article. There is no sense in comparing the hit counts for snoring vs. ghostwriting, since only the ghostwriting issue is relevant to this article. Kauffner (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll avoid the ad hominem but I was being generous. All the reliable sources that reach the issue say that Obama wrote the book. That's where the sourcing lies. Andersen is an outlier, and in this regard not reliable, certainly not a strong enough source to be worth quoting here. There is scant sourcing that this is even a noteworthy campaign smear. If it is, it may be worth repeating somewhere, conceivably here, but in a neutral way that describes it as a campaign smear. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll avoid ad hominems? I'll believe it when I see it. I listed RS above that can used as sources. It's not like the article is so long additional information won't fit. If you find RS on the other side, i.e. sources that argue he didn't use a ghostwriter, we can include that too. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't compute. The author of the book is who the sources say it is. There isn't sufficient sourcing to air the fringe claim that Ayers wrote it, so it ends there. Nobody refutes the claim, nobody supports it. There are no reliable sources to suggest it's a noteworthy claim so as an opinion it fails WP:WEIGHT. Wikidemon (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest is that Bill Ayers has admitted he is the author. Kauffner (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. At this point the edit warring is just getting disruptive. Discussion will move to WP:AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, not an RS. Some blogger takes a picture of Ayers at an airport and claims that, "Then, unprompted he said--I wrote Dreams From My Father", and another blogger repeats this claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The claim that Obama didn't write his autobiography, but Ayers did, is extraordinary. The sources don't pass muster for a non-controversial claim, let alone this one. --guyzero | talk 02:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"It sounds like you wish to air your skepticism about Obama's substance. That's fine but this isn't really the place. Wikipedia rests on the weight of the sources, not the analysis and opinions of its editors." No, of course not -- unless the the editors are exaggerating Obama's substance by constantly touting his Harvard Law credentials while ignoring that his only pre-"Dreams" scholarship was a poem about apes and figs and an unsigned case note. And ignoring that the "Professor's" post-law review scholarship was precisely ZERO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.128.161 (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I report

Because this seems to be more of an edit war than a discussion (and for other reasons that should be apparent there) I've filed an administrative report on the recent edits to the article regarding this material. You may find it WP:AN/I#Edit warring at Dreams from my Father. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So much for avoiding ad hominems. That didn't take you long. Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not worth a substantive response. Please honor consensus, BLP, NPA, etc., on this page, and pursue any complaints against other editors elsewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner's edit says: "A new biography by veteran author Christopher Andersen, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage," reveals that former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers wrote most, if not all of President Obama's book "Dreams From My Father."" "Veteran author" implies an authority that is not warranted. "Reveals" implies that his claim is true. Before including this rumor, it must be shown that it has received some recognition. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, even if the book were mentioned, it should not be in the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Glowing reviews of book, which are opinions, are acceptable regardless of source. However statements made in writing that state that a ghostwriter was used for preparation are libelous? I'm sorry, but this seems like censorship. Ask yourselves what you would do if we were talking about a George Bush book... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Here4now2 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 October 2009

Same result for any claim like that regardless of author. Wikipedia content policies are editing rules; censorship is a completely different concept and not relevant here. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The m-word

Why no mention of the word "muslim" in this book summary? The book clearly states that his father was born into Islam, and that his stepfather practiced Islam as well, he also referred to the school in Indonesia as muslim as well, and that this information has commonly been cited from this book is too significant to leave out. Bachcell (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)