Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2

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 (22:24, July 26, 2007).

Barack Obama[edit]

previous FAR
Messages left at Columbia Univ. Project, Hawaii, Illinois, U.S. Congress, and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Also Gdo01 and Meelar.[reply]
In the future notify WP:CHICAGO as well. He is currently one of only 20 top priority articles for our project (out of nearly 11000).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notified (used tool as instructed by sandygeorgia): Barack Obama talk page, Maximusveritas, Jersyko (knows and already commented), Bobblehead, SandyGeorgia (knows and already commented), Dereks1x, HailFire, Steve Dufour, MPS, Italiavivi, Manic Hispanic, Jogurney.
Feddhicks, I have notified the Projects that you failed to notify, and partially cleaned up and completed the notificatoins of relevant parties; pls complete the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is of good quality and I think it would pass a good article nomination, but it is not of featured article quality anymore.

;Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable

  • The article is not stable and subject to an ongoing edit war. While I AGF and do not accuse the editors of being campaign workers, the edits of some editors (not named to prevent accusations) is trying to hide information, place some information in small print, deleting relevant information, etc. Some editors give up but this doesn't mean there is a concensus.
  • Article is prone to vandalism and reverts possibly due to frustration of the edit warring.
  • There are other contentious issues that no censensus has been reached. These can be found in the archives of the talk page. Essentially, many editors left wikipedia because a small group of editors kept insisting on doing it their way, even if it wasn't right.

::Examples include the controversy (without commenting what the right thing to do about each controversy) about his Muslim education (or explaining that it was a controversy but there's no substance to allegations), police endorsement and opposition, Myspace and internet support, etc.

;Images

  • Poor image, makes his skin blotchy and unattractive (subtle POV edit warring or not?)

;Length and focus

  • Exceeds recommended article length but attempts to shorten have only led to edit warring.

Loss of featured article status is no big deal. Prime Minister Blair's article is very good and loss of FA status does diminish Blair's reputation. Feddhicks 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has not changed to such a significant degree since its last FAR as to warrant further review. The edit warring noted above is being perpetuated by that editor. Since the only other substantial reason given for delisting that doesn't reference edit warring is "Poor image, makes his skin blotchy and unattractive", this article should obviously not be delisted. · jersyko talk 18:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:The lack of consensus is more than one editor. I am only concerned about hiding information by putting an important phrase in small print hidden in the footnotes, instead of the main article.

Other editors with other disputes include Group 1: Jersyko, Tvoz, Bobblehead; Group 2: Italiaviva, Jogurney; and the independent group: ManicHispanic, Vintagekits, UTAFA, Nuclearj, Hempbilly, and many others. All total, there are about a dozen disputes where all the editors have not reached an agreement (although some got fed up and left).
There is more than one area of edit warring. I don't represent the other editors and they have their own beef with the article, some of which seem to be very reasonable proposals.
The lack of FA status can be good. It does not say Senator Obama is bad because his article is not an FA. In fact, it encourages cooperation to improve the article rather than false resting on its laurels.
Feddhicks 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This FAR seems to be largely in response to a dispute over some minor content and whether it is adequately covered by including the content in a footnote rather than in the main body of the article and subsequent accusations of sockpuppetry. As far as the issues raised by the submitter:
  • Two reverts of actual content over two days does not make an edit war.
  • The article is of a highly visible person whose chosen profession is going to draw attention from vandals and the four edits from the vandalism only account and three subsequent reverts are a function of that. Granted, the page is on fairly permanent semi-protection, so that does cut down on the vandalism quite a bit.
  • Because a subject is frequently raised by different people does not mean that consensus has not been reached. I'm not going to go into detail on the specific examples given, except to say on the general level of "controversies" those have all been rather minor in regards to Obama and the amount of weight given to them has to be measured carefully.
  • The image is free... What's there to complain about?
  • The article's readable text is well within Wikipedia's guidelines, the size of the article is due solely to the 168 citations that have been used to support the article. All of which have been necessary because of the level of attention the article has gotten. To say attempts to shorten the article has been met with edit wars is a bit of an overstatement of what's been happening. Shortening the readable text more than what has already occurred would be detrimental to the article.
  • Granted, if some of the other reviewers can find things wrong with the article beyond what the initial reviewer has "found", that'd be excellent. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Group 1," "Group 2," etc mean?

I am confused by Fred's description. Italiavivi 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Feddhicks, please follow instruction number 6 at the top of the WP:FAR page, notify all relevant parties, and leave a record here (see other FARs for an example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]

Pasted from talk page: Comment - I am satisfied with the footnote mention of the Rezko relationship. My understanding from previous discussions (see Bobblehead's list above) was that most editors agreed that the controversy/relationship was notable but to give it more than a sentence or footnote mention would give it undue weight (compared to other more significant topics in this article). Other political candidate articles have used similar techniques (footnote mention of notable but minor controversies) such as Ron Paul. I hope this helps. Best regards. Jogurney 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul's article doesn't use tricky tactics as this article. That footnote further expands on a sentence in the article. The Paul article says there is controversy and explains the controversy in the footnoot. The Obama article makes no mention of the house controversy and then hides a one sentence in the footnotes that mentions the controversy. The Ron Paul footnote is in normal print. The Obama footnote is in such small print that some people can't even see it. Therefore, Jogurney's logic proves there is a problem.

SteveDufour removed the POV tag because he said "no topic was added to talk page to discuss possible problems" This shows how bad the small print in the footnote is. Steve read the personal life section and then looked at the talk page and didn't see any personal life discussion. However, the footnote is part of the personal life discussion. It is so hidden that a veteral editor, one who has edited Barack Obama more than hundreds and is in the top few editors as far as number of Barack Obama edits, did not even see it. This proves that the small print is a problem. Feddhicks 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for me to assume good faith on the part of an obvious sock of a banned user. It's obvious to me that this FAR exists solely to draw attention to a single content dispute on a minor point. A FA will not be delisted almost solely because of the size of a bit of text in a footnote. This is an improper use of FAR, an attempt to skirt the required dispute resolution methods, and a violation of WP:POINT. I cannot take this FAR seriously. · jersyko talk 17:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if pictures are an issue, check out the public domain photos I have found at Google images. Pick one and upload it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not notified of this FAR, and I can guess why. This is just another tactic by a sock of a banned user who has used these tactics repeatedly to disrupt editing on many Wikipedia articles. Indeed some of the names he lists here are known or suspected socks of the same user. Bobblehead's summary and analysis is correct, as is Jersyko's, and this is an improper use of FAR. The RFC he instituted a couple of days ago didn't yield the support he wanted so he's now instituted a FAR and is canvassing for his POV as well. This is just one more disruption in a very long history. Tvoz |talk 15:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::AGF, you guess wrong. You wikistalk by following me to obscure article and disrupting these articles so I knew you would come here. If you did not wikistalk or come here, then I would have notified you. You just proved again that you wikistalk. Can't you see that you are part of the problem. Even Bobblehead, who I don't agree with has a calming effect but your edits cause disruption. Again more proof of edit warring which makes an article unsuitable for FA. With no FA status, there will be incentive for you to reach consensus so that we can bring the article back to FA status. Are you opposed to making an article better?

Do not look at me as the bad guy. I do not re-revert stuff on the article. I discuss, like here. Many others actually edit war by making the reverts and try to stop discussion, like this FAR.Feddhicks 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is proof that there are many edit warring problems in this article making it unsuitable for FA (but quite possibly suitable for a GA). All this edit warring above involves only one of many issues.

Other issues involve other problems. These include (taking quotes from the talk pages):

;Relentless Censorship of Anything that Would Hurt Obama

Why is it that I added something to this article about Barack Obama's opposition to a bill protecting infant victims of botched abortions and it was deleted by another user MINUTES later? Can somebody explain why CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM of Barack Obama is deleted with no explanation? Also, there is NOTHING negative about him in the whole article. Compare that to any article about a REPUBLICAN Presidential candidate and you will see what I mean. But for now, I will re-add the article from world net daily and hope that none of the censors (obama supporters/staffers) don't delete for fear it will take away from the positiveness of this fluff piece.

Has anyone else noticed how any mention of anything controversial regarding Obama does not survive in this article. It appears to be a tool for the Obama '08 campaign and they are stomping out all opposition in fascistic style. Can someone please report what's been going on here to the wikipedia administrators.

;"not easily pegged to typical U.S. categories of the left or right"? Hi. While I am inclined to support Obama (we're both left-handed smokers), my BS detector lights up a little after reading this. In the Political Image section it describes him as being neither lefty nor righty. He's been against the Iraq war since day one (a position typically reserved for the extremes on both sides - like Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich), is pro-choice and advocates universal healthcare. In 2007 America this combination puts you on the left.

;Biased report on police endorsement Hellfire made an edit in September. Essentially, it says that Obama got the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and a citation is given. However, looking at that citation [2], the Chicago Tribune article actually said " 'I don't see him as pro-law enforcement," said Wheaton police Chief Mark Field. "I could spend hours with this man talking about his voting record. It is very anti-public safety." The crowd of 60 police officials applauded only once during Obama's 20-minute remarks. The whole article is about the chilly reception that Obama got.

This does not seem like very balanced reporting by Hellfire. It seems like there is a POV being pushed, i.e. trying to convince the reader that Obama has police support.

It's really very hard for me to see that this is other than biased editing by Hellfire. Furthermore, it wasn't just an honest mistake in editing because Hellfire recently reverted Italiavivi's correction accurately summarizing the citation back to the biased, one sided summary of the Chicago Tribune citation.

;Picture I don't feel Barak's picture is from a neutral point of view. This looks like an image from the campaign for his presidency.

Let me get this straight. A flattering picture of a person violates NPOV? Are you serious? KyuzoGator 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(editor's note) so an unflattering picture may violate NPOV?

What is the image being considered a possible POV issue? The infobox photo? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;Race and "blackness" Since his Senate race in 2004, some American politicians and commentators, many African-American, have asserted that Sen. Obama is not "African-American" or not "black like me" because he was not descended from American slaves. His "blackness" has been questioned.

(editor's note) was overwhelming noted by many to be notable.

;Antoin Rezko real estate In November 2006, Barack Obama acknowledged his participation in a real estate deal to which Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an Obama campaign contributor, was a participant. Under the deal, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining properties, with Rezko later reselling part of his parcel to Obama. No laws are alleged to have been broken and Obama is not under investigation. Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have appeared improper, and said "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it." [5]

(editor's note) was found to be notable. No discussion was made on using small print despite false claims of a consensus.

;Wikipedia has spoken After reviewing the ongoing discussion regarding Senator Barack Obama's categorization as an "Irish American Politician,"

(editor's note) The consensus outnumber the minority by almost 2-1, yet the minority imposed their views.

These are just from ONE page of 9 in the archives. Also note that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the above quotes, just that they raise some important questions that a censensus has NOT been reached. Feddhicks 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please, but this suggests that this is not a valid username. Maybe it was a sig. Tvoz |talk 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As near as I can figure, the notification list is the users (excluding IP addresses) that have commented in some way on which "controversies" should be included in the article and which should not rather than a list of the people that have made significant edits on the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the notifications were proper at all, but that's the least of it. Tvoz |talk 01:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am even trying to find out what is going on with the FAR and the folks who brought this up are just not responding, so I don't know what to make of this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I checked the list of top contributors, and they are the list above. It's just that the notification was sloppy; I guess I'll have to continue doing it myself on every FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Retract that; from the top contributors,[1] Tvoz and Meelar weren't notified. (And please note that I figure on the list of top editors *only* because I did ref cleanup in the last FAR. I am not a regular or interested editor of the article, and only cleaned up refs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SG commentary
  1. Disclaimer: According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, I figure among the top 10 editors of the article. I have never been a regular editor or follower of the article, and to my knowledge, I have never made a content edit to the article. I figure as a top editor because I "cleaned up" the refs during the January featured article review; all of my edits can be reviewed on or around January 9, 2007. When I clean up refs, I edit by section, and since you can't see the ref display until saving the edit, it often takes repeated edits, resulting in a high edit count. I say "cleaned up" because they were (and still are) the cleanest refs I've ever encountered during a FAR, and I found literally not a single marginally-reliable source. The referencing on the article is a standard by which other articles can be judged, and is superior to most articles passing FAC today. That I could still be one of the top editors, after only cleaning up refs half a year ago, speaks to the article's stability.
  2. Disclaimer: I am decidedly not an Obama supporter, and don't really understand all the kerfluffle about a Senator with very limited experience (but a remarkable ability to raise money).

As far as I can tell, after four days, there is not a single editor in the extended commentary above who agrees that this article warrants review. My own review of Feddhicks' concerns is:

  1. Feddhicks says the article length is an issue. It is well within WP:SIZE guidelines, with 34KB in prose and 29 KB in refs.
  2. Feddhicks complains about the quality of the images: I detect no image issues (although I struggle to understand Fair Use, they all look fine).
  3. Feddhicks says the article is prone to vandalism: I refer him to WP:WIAFA.
  4. Feddhicks says the article is not stable: I can't find any indication of that, and Feddhicks hasn't made a case that backs up this claim.
  5. Feddhicks says there is an ongoing edit war: I don't find indications of that either.

If Feddhicks has content issues, I suggest he follows the procedures for dispute resolution. Perhaps an argument could be made that Exernal links need pruning per WP:EL and WP:NOT; Wiki isn't Obama's personal website, and the links are a bit out of control. That is the only deficiency I can find in the article: I suggest that External links be pruned, and move that this FAR be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;Correction to incorrect info

Feddhicks says there is an ongoing edit war: I don't find indications of that either.

That's because I have been extremely restrained. Whenever I (or other editors) make a NPOV edit that is the least bit negative, even if 1% negative and 99% positive, the editor or editors called Tvoz/Bobblehead/Jersyko revert it. Only occasionally does another editor do it. This is edit warring. Do you want me to defend the article like they do and respond to edit wars? Feddhicks 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also other info raised by others that seem reasonable. They have been shut up by those 3 user names.

Also, about SG wanting to close the debate on the FAR, thank you for your help. The rules say differently about closure. "Nominations last for two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing", also consensus has not been reached as few participants have commented other than Feddhicks and Tvoz-Jersyko-Bobblehead, also I've made a NPOV improvement and we'll see how quick that gets reverted (hopefully not reverted). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feddhicks (talk •contribs).

I have made one revert on the Obama article in probably about a month, maybe more (I don't know precisely) more than two months, and it wasn't even to a Feddhicks edit. Thus, the ONLY reason you would lump me into that group of reverters with Tvoz and Bobblehead (without conceding to the truth of the assertion that they are reverting your edits, I have no idea) is if you are a sock of Dereks1x and experienced me reverting you in the distant past. Thus, again, this FAR is pointless and has been brought by a sock of a banned user that needs to be indefinitely blocked. I'd do it myself if not for my involvement in this discussion. · jersyko talk 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

without conceding to the truth of the assertion that they are reverting your edits..That's wikilawyering..ILLEGAL/AGAINST WIKI POLICY....Bobblehead just reverted a comment against concensus. More people think the small print footnote is a POV attempt to cover up.Feddhicks 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed quotes: The continual relegation and of this does smack of ownership. I realize this is an FA and consideration should be taken when editing it, but come on, this is getting out of hand. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The "footnote" looks like more of an attempt to bury it rather than address it.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I'm actually an Obama supporter (full disclosure), but as a Wikipedia editor I have to somewhat agree with User:TDC. I think the Rezko thing warrants a *small* mention (more that just a note like it is now). Whether or not Obama did anything wrong is not really the point, the point is that there was a controversy around the issue. Again, i don't think there should be a whole long section on the Rezko thing like some people want, but I think it atleast deserves a mention of a sentence or two somewhere. Bjewiki 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further proof of edit warring..above personal attack by Jersyko. He calls me a sock because he says he is uninvolved and bringing up his name is evidence of socking. The truth is that Jersyko brought his own name up early on by writing here. Therefore, he is trying to trick others. Therefore, this is edit warring. Please, stop! This is not an anti-Obama attempt. It is an attempt to improve the article, not make it a biased campaign ad. Even the Obama campaign is not so brazen as to hiding Rezko. Feddhicks 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I blocked Feddhicks as an obvious sock of banned user Dereks1x and requested review of my block at ANI given my involvement in the discussion here. · jersyko talk 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please deal with the incorrect and inflammatory heading Feddhicks inserted on the talk page? [2] Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, there is a POV issues with the article, that is actively being discussed. If no progress one way or the other has been made on this, then it is time to delist the article from FA status. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this edit dealt with things well and solves the issue. (However, it has since been reverted.) I think the incident should be mentioned in the article itself in a few sentences. Obama released a statement on it and everything.--Gloriamarie 17:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming up on the two-week mark; have you all worked that out yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Rezko matter, the fontsize in the relevant footnote (and other similar ones) has been equalized so that it is no longer smaller and therefore it is now more readable. This takes up more space but it seemed worthwhile and it satisfied several editors who had raised questions about the font, including Jogurney who if I recall correctly came to the page in response to the RFC about the Rezko matter. The majority view, I believe - not unanimous, but this is Wikipedia - is that the note within the footnote is adequate at this time, in same size as rest of footnotes. This FAR was brought by a sockpuppet of a banned user whose edits here are now stricken, and it was raised, I believe, to disrupt editing. The content disagreement about the relative importance of this matter should not have come to FAR and I would respectfully request that it be closed so we can get on with the business at hand and continue to edit the article based on consensus of the editors. Tvoz |talk 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to hear from Torturous Devastating Cudgel; unless TDC still has concerns, my Move to close FAR stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to try some edits before this FAR gets closed, including substantially pruning the external links section per your suggestion. May we keep it open just a bit longer? --HailFire 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope today's edits address most of the legitimate concerns that have been raised here. Thanks for waiting. I have no objection to closing this FAR. --HailFire 22:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Tvoz |talk 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on ABC a story about sites like wikipedia used by supporters to help their candidate. It wasn't specifically about Obama but did mention Obama's article. There was mention of his travel section. Since they mentioned about that, let me give you my 2 cents worth. The travel section is pure spin. Maybe someone is trying to make him look like a world leader. It really doesn't belong in any biography unless the biography is book length.

So overall, if we are serious about featured article status, the whole article needs to be revamped to make it a biography, not a campaign press release, like ABC said. Cut the travel section, maybe move it to the campaign article, clean up some misleading statements, move most of the campaign news off, after all the articles like FDR doesn't have his campaign details, etc.

If we want to award all the people running for president a featured article star, then it's equal treatment that we give Obama one. Since ABC mentioned grass roots people supporting their candidate on the internet, like wikipedia, we don't want to ruffle their feathers and can make everyone happy by giving everyone the featured article star. Fineday 04:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this comment makes any sense or has any relevance to the issues discussed in this FAR. Tvoz |talk 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Barack_Obama/archive2&oldid=1078809945"