Talk:Dreams from My Father/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Ayers as Ghostwriter REDUX

But he didn't scowl, and didn't run off as he has been known to do. Instead, unprompted, he blurted out: "I wrote ‘Dreams From My Father... Michelle asked me to." Then he added "And if you can prove it we can split the royalties." Ayers admits writing Dreams

For a split second, Ayers was nonplussed. Then an Abbie Hoffmanish, steal-this-book-sort-of-smile lit up his face. He gently took National Journal by the arm. "Here's what I'm going to say. This is my quote. Be sure to write it down: 'Yes, I wrote Dreams From My Father. I ghostwrote the whole thing. I met with the president three or four times, and then I wrote the entire book.'" He released National Journal's arm, and beamed in Marxist triumph. "And now I would like the royalties." Ayers's 'Confession'

It looks like the ghostwriting charge is still out there and the alleged ghostwriter is no longer dismissing the question. Should a section be added to the main article dealing with this? Is Jack Cashill's work on this issue worth including? HMTKSteve (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The National Review thinks that Ayers is joking ("jerking some chains") ... --guyzero | talk 01:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You should read The Paranoid Style in American Politics which explains why theories like that are poplular. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
So if someone disagrees with you, you immediately suspect they are some kind of head case? That's certainly a patronizing attitude. Time has an article speculating that Palin's memoirs might have been ghostwritten.[1] Are they paranoid too? Kauffner (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Only when they claim that it was written by Madonna. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
When you ask an old activist a silly question, and his reply includes "now I would like the royalties", you can be pretty sure it's a joke. When the "Ayers's 'Confession'" link given above puts "Confession" in scare quotes, and starts with "It sounds like Ayers is jerking some chains", you can be certain that it is a joke. By the way, see WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghostwritten

I have reverted the following sentence that was added to the lede of the article, since it was both weaselly and fringe:

Various authors have suggested that the book was ghostwritten by Obama's neighbor and former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers.

The cited references were:

  1. "Author Chris Andersen...drew on anecdotal evidence to suggest that Dreams was written by Obama's neighbour and founder of a radical left-wing group, Bill Ayers." (Smith, Tymon, "Dreams from Obama's ghostwriter", Johannesburg Times, Oct 3, 2009)
  2. "In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams From My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing," (Andersen, Christopher, (2009), Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, pp. 164-166, 169-170. ISBN-10: 0061771961.)
  3. "Investigative reporter Jack Cashill has noted some intriguing coincidences between Sen. Obama's 1995 autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," and Mr. Ayers' 2001 book, "Fugitive Days," for which Sen. Obama wrote a dust-jacket blurb." (Kelly, Jack, "Obama's fishy associations", Pittsburgh Post Gazette, October 12, 2008.)

Only the first among these is an independent and reliable source, and it is careful to attribute the claims and rumors to "critics", "conservative commentator" etc. For example, it introduces Chris Andersen as follows: "Author Chris Andersen, who has written salacious gossip about the Kennedys, Clintons and Princess Diana, drew on anecdotal evidence to suggest ...". That is hardly an argument for inclusion of his opinion in this article. Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Andersen's subject might be gossip, but his book has been reviewed all over the mainstream press. Andersen is an editor at Time magazine. The book isn't some ghettoized publication, to be put in the same category as News of the World. What's wrong with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette? Kauffner (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Anderson's book has been reviewed and is therefore notable enough to have a wikipedia article of its own. That does not mean that all of its claims and gossip are worthy of being added to the respective articles. As far as I see no reputable independent source has treated its claim that Ayers wrote Dreams of my Father with any credibility.
As for the ''Pittsburgh Post Gazette: nothing wrong with the newspaper itself, but the article you are citing is an opinion column, and not a news report. Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
An opinion article is a source for the opinion of the author. The text I added did not claim that Ayers actually did write the book, only that writers have suggested this. Kauffner (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there are a large number of media at least covering it, could a separate article regarding the controversy be entered and linked from here? Because of the sheer number of articles, etc discussing it, it seems that it raises it to a level of "notable", even if it does not meet the other criteria. The rules for content on Wikipedia are designed to keep it credible. At the level of coverage that the controversy has been covered, the act of NOT mentioning seems to weigh more negatively on Wikipedia's credibility than a simple sentence or two in the article would. Bytemaster (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's credibility suffers if we add silliness like this. There is very little sourcing at all outside of the anti-Obama partisan press. I see a handful of articles if that discussing not that there is any merit to the theory but that it's a fringe theory. Thus it's not worth including at all here. There is already an article about Andersen's new book, but as a weight matter that article should mostly be devoted to what the reliable sources say is significant about it, with little if any weight given to this as a tidbit. It may be worth adding to the Ayers article if we can get a reliable source for his apparent joke about the theory being true. Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that conspiracy theories should be added to articles other than their own. (For example, birthers, truthers, new world order.) The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so if someone builds a separate article, would it at least be appropriate to link to it from the main article, since I am sure a lot of people looking up this article are looking it up due to hearing about the allegations rather than hearing about the book itself... I think that should satisfy both sides of the inclusion/exclusion argument while not actually giving official credence to the allegations at this time. Just something simple like "for information about the theory that this book was written by a GhostWriter, see insert article title here". Bytemaster (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
There is an article about the book, Barack and Michelle, which btw does not mention Bill Ayers. Unless the conspiracy theory becomes big, like the birthers, it should not have its own article and certainly there should be no link from this article, just as there is no link from the Obama's biography to the birthers article. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
There are now dozens of articles on Google News about Ayers' claim to have written this book, from the Daily Telegraph to the Village Voice.[2] Of course he is having some fun messing with Obama's head, and I doubt Ayers literally "ghostwrote the whole thing." But his claim is certainly notable. To say nothing at all about ghostwritting in the article is to put partisanship first. Ayers analogized to a birther? That's amusing. Kauffner (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The Telegraph story is called "The latest crazy theory on Barack Obama". It begins: "Here is the next Obama conspiracy theory to seep into the mainstream from the outer moons of the Internet...." But it predicts "I have a feeling this supposition won’t get the traction of birthers’ theory...."[3] Amusing? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If you like the Telegraph story so much, let's summarize it and add it to the article.
Of course nothing Ayers says can be believed, but Cashill gives other reasons for thinking Ayers might be the ghostwriter for Dreams: (1) Both Dreams and Fugitive Days (by Ayers) make extensive use of a peculiar sentence construction: a triple parallel with no joining conjuction. ("Her face powdered, her hips girdled, her thinning hair bolstered" -- from Dreams.) This is a writing style associated with Joseph Conrad. (2) The opening sequence of both books end the same way, with the narrator told on the phone of the death of a loved one. (3) There is a story in Dreams where Obama goes to view the Hudson River and notices that it is flowing both north and south at the same time. This is because he happens to arrive at the exact point where the rising tide meets the downflow of the river. A similar story, also about the Hudson, appears in Ayers' writing (not in Fugitive Days). (4) The description of Obama's white girlfriend in Dreams is remarkably similar to the description of Ayers' girlfriend Diane Oughton in Fugitive Days, most notably with regard to their respective family countryside estates. (5) Average sentence length, a key indicator of authorship, is the same in samples from both books -- 23 words. I realize that none of this can put in the article. I am just trying to address the objection that is crazy to think Ayers had anything to do with Dreams. Kauffner (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I won't bother addressing why, in real life, it is a rather odd consiracy-minded thing to do to believe that America's president is the brainchild of a has-been former terrorist. As far as writing Wikipedia articles is concerned, the notion has no currency among mainstream sources; hence, an encyclopedia that is a compendium of current knowledge of things cannot reasonably delve into fringe conspiracies in order to report them as relevant views on the subject at thand. Wikidemon (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Cashill's "analysis" has been refuted convincingly.[4][5] It's like the Bible code - if you have two texts, no control (or suffiently bad controls, like Grant's 1885 memoirs), and no constraint on what you consider, of course you can find any number of similarities. They just don't mean anything... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
In that case, let's use the Times of London article as a source. It's certainly RS. And Ayers claim to have written the book is notable regardless of whether it is believable or not. Kauffner (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The Times piece is a bit unusual source-wise. It is a personal account by one of the parties to the issue, the professor who the Republicans wanted to hire to prove Ayers wrote the book and who considered the theory improbable. This presents some indicia of reliability, namely it is written by a distinguished expert in the field, presumably fact checked as to objective details, it is a major mainstream publication, and the author offers no opinions outside his field of technical expertise. On the other hand, as a first-person account it offers a number of things that cannot be fact-checked. At any rate, the theory is not notworthy with respect to the book, as a WP:WEIGHT, WP:POV, or relevancy matter. It is, however, an interesting tidbit with respect to the conspiracy theories about Obama, and as such I think it best fits in with the Bill Ayers presidential election controversy article, where I have collected all the known sources and added a section covering these claims.[6] I hope that will settle the matter - it absolutely does not belong here in this article given the state of the sourcing and apparent fallaciousness of the claims. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this blogger put it nicely: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence. The claim that a politician's book was ghostwritten is an ordinary claim.[7] That Ayers' and Obama's girlfriends both had country estates with lakes and treelines, both had the same color eyes and hair, and that the respective narrators describe their feelings toward them in terms of "two worlds"/"other worlds" -- well, it makes you wonder why Obama's white girlfriend doesn't have a name, and why there are no references to her independent of a few paragraphs about her in Dreams. Kauffner (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Book was published in 1995. Thus, it was already set for publication when Obama met Ayers during their time on the Annenberg Challeng. The case should be closed right there. End of story. He didn't attend that party at Ayer's house, that Palin is so fond of mentioning, until 1996, and there is nothing that shows the two knew each other before 1995. He was writing his book and submitting manuscripts to his publisher before he was even a lecturer at U of C. Even then Obama was in the Law School, Ayers was in the humanities. There would be no natural reason why the two would meet let alone Ayers knowing him well enough to write his book. The claim is inherently ridiculous. Why not just say Osama Bin Laden wrote the book? There is as much evidence and it equally contradicts known facts as much to make that claim as it does to say Ayers wrote it. Sure just say Osama wrote the book, I am sure World Net Daily will publish it on their blog and then try and peddle that as a source here. It doesn't belong here because the claim is entirely absurd and it contradicts facts that are well sourced. How could a man he met after the book was being published have actually written the book?
According to Dreams, Obama worked for a group coordinated by Ayers back in 1988. The other people on the Annenberg board were big wheels in Chicago business or politics, so one has to wonder how an unknown like Obama got to be chairman. Ayers' father was a prominent business executive and he went all-out to make sure his son gained status and pull in Chicago politics. So don't think of Ayers as a pariah just because he is a communist and a terrorist. It is not for us to judge if the ghostwriting allegations are true or not. They have been widely publicized, so some comment here is warranted. Kauffner (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No, no interest in adding fringe material to this article. Further, please watch WP:BLP about flinging accusations of terrorism at living people. This proposal has played out and it is not going to be accepted. We need to start archiving some of these stale threads. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Profiles in Courage - Authorship Controversy - Not Sanitized

Why censor any mention of it here? Are we to pretend that there is absolutely no question whatsoever? Come on, stop being the editorial activists here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikamoo (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack Cashill is not a reliable source. Please read the discussion over this subject above. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The allegations appeared the Times of London,[8] which is considered a top WP:RS source. Political bias trumps NPOV, at least in this case. Ten years from now, what aspect of the book are people likely to remember? Probably not the awards it won, or which character represents what real person. Kauffner (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That source establishes only that the Republicans and their media supporters were using desperate tactics in the last few days of the election, an issue not terribly relevant to this article, which is about Obama's book. There may be a place for covering the promotion of fringe political theories and tactics, but not to give them a podium in all the articles about the subject of those theories and targets of those tactics. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the allegations appeared in the campaign only increases thier notability. They are not going away. In fact, they are in a new book (now tied to racism and thus surely even more notable). They appear in major mainstream newspapers here and here. Kauffner (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's already covered in the Jack Cashill article, where it belongs. As a discredited fringe political attack with no mainstream adherents and relatively little coverage it doesn't belong in the article here about the book itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, guy. The horse is dead. It smells funny. Stop hitting the poor thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
When there are developments, it's legitimate to bring the issue up again. There's new Obama bio by David Remnick that claims the ghostwriting accusation was a hugely important moment in the campaign.[9] Not that I agree with that theory, but it certainly ups the notability. "Mainsteam adherent" is not a phrase that appears in WP:Fringe. Is Christopher Andersen not mainstream? Kauffner (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
In that case, the information belongs in an article on important moments in the campaign. Political smears are discussed in an article about smears, not in the subject smeared because to do so would lend credence to the smear. See WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say it most properly belongs in the article about that book, which I just created: The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama. Remick says something much more quotable about Dreams there, he calls it "a mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreating, invention, and artful shaping". Apparently he goes into great length about the writing of Dreams, tying it into Obama's act of self-invention. Some of that probably does belong in this article, because at this point the Bridge may be the most comprehensive, authoritative account about the book and its authorship process. It's conceivable that the Ayers stuff could deserve a mention here if Remick truly thinks it's that important, but I'm skeptical and I'd have to actually see the source. It's a 600+ page book, so best not to mine it for the one paragraph about one's pet Obama issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Theatre Reference

At the end of Chapter Ten, Obama spends two pages describing and quoting from an unattributed play. I thought I recognised the play, but came to Wikipedia to check, and was suprised to find there was mention of it here. I used Google to confirm the play is For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf. I think it would be helpful to mention this, though I'm not sure where it would go given the current format of the page. Aknyra (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Reader drama critic Albert Williams has now identified the play as appearing in the memoir. Is this a WP:RELIABLE source? Aknyra (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2004 Crown (Random House) edition of the book acknowledges that it excerpts the play. So that confirms the reference, but I guess it also obviates the need for Wikipedia to mention it. Aknyra (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Drugs?

Is it true that obama admits to using cocaine and pot in this novel? 204.184.80.26 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like he was quite a drug fiend for a time:

Kauffner (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ayers takes credit again

Bill Ayers has taken credit for this book again, this time on videotape:

AYERS: Did you know I wrote it?
QUESTIONER: What’s that?
AYERS: I wrote “Dreams From My Father.”
CROWD: We know that.
QUESTIONER: You wrote that?

Kauffner (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's out of context, and a primary non-reliable source. Ayers joking about the subject belongs if anywhere on the Ayers article, if reliable secondary sourcing can be found that these jokes are biographically relevant. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Discussion of the claim that Bill Ayers ghostwrote Obama's book has been rejected before from this article as an unsupported WP:FRINGE theory with currency only among anti-Obama political operatives that were at the time advancing the "Obama pals with terrorists" argument as part of the election cycle. A consensus was established by WP:RfC in 2008 to exclude the material (see above on this page), and nothing has changed in the sources then. If anything, the issue withered on its own as the election politics receded. The material currently proposed is based almost entirely on opinion pieces and advocacy journalism from two unreliable publications, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker, and is in large part Jack Cashill advancing his own claims. As such it is a WP:BLP violation with respect to both Obama and Ayers. The one reliable source there, a Washington Post book review, basically says in a mocking (and therefore not fully reliable) tone that Cashill is nuts. There isn't much of a real dispute there, but to the extent it is a political matter coverage belongs in Bill Ayers presidential election controversy (where it's already mentioned). Covering Cashill and his antics is best done in the Jack Cashill artcile and, indeed it is covered (from an unduly sympathetic perspective) there. I'm removing this again - one last time before taking this to dispute resolution. Please discuss any disputed material on the talk page rather than edit warring, particularly material that has been rejected before and has a WP:BLP objection. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Several of the sources that the IP used are pretty low quality stuff. But if the problem was really just the sources, we could use either Christopher Anderson Christopher Andersen's Barack and Michelle (2009) or to David Remnick's The Bridge (2010). These are both widely reviewed mainstream bios. But of course you have consistently opposed including material that could interpreted as critical of Obama in any article, so I don't expect sourcing arguments to persuade you. Kauffner (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice nonsequitur personal attack there, not to mention an outright falsity. Please, if you have anything you'd like to contribute to the article please stay focused on article content. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Especially since the Christopher Anderson he linked to died in the middle of the 19th Century. Details, Bob (no, that's not outing, it's a movie quote). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed that material from the article again, in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
@Kauffner: Do you have a suggestion for a change to the article? Do you understand that Ayers is sick and tired of people asking him whether he wrote Obama's book, and has chosen to joke about it for at least the last couple of years because his initial serious comments only resulted in more and more absurd requests for his time? Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, y'all, it's time to drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. The article has been fully protected for a time, the sourcing won't change, and (most importantly) there's an ArbCom decision in place regarding all this. And, first and foremost, WP:BLP holds precedence. If there's ANY question about the accuracy of the material or the reliability or verifiability of the source, the material's going to get pulled, end of story. Now can we please find something more constructive to do? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to interpret BLP as meaning that no negative material concerning Obama can appear in Wiki. I mean the guy is president and all, you know. Remnick has several pages about this issue and his book is a general biography of Obama: "This is a charge that if ever true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy" (p. 253); "The true author of Obama's book, Jack Cashill suggested, was likely Bill Ayers" (p. 253); "A writer for National Review's popular blog The Corner declared Cashill writings "thorough, thoughtful and alarming." (p. 254). As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that a politician's memoir is ghostwritten is an ordinary claim. JFK, Malcolm X, Hillary...you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find an American politician who wrote his own stuff. Obama's second book is rather more obviously ghostwritten. But as Ayers says in the video, that one is just a hack job, so who cares who wrote it? Obama has even claimed that writes his own speeches, but I don't anyone takes that seriously.
@Johnuniq: Once he tried to murder people with bombs, and now poor Ayers has to deal with questions! But I would say that he is quite obviously enjoying himself....making Obama squirm? ...jerking the liberal news media around? Well, whatever it is he is doing. My suggestion is that the article needs some statement somewhere, which acknowledges that a controversy exists. Ideally, this should be in the lede and it should include a link or inline citation that leads to a more detailed discussion. After all, I suspect this issue is one of the top reasons people come to this article. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, you've also demonstrated that including the Ayers material would violate WP:NPOV. Another reason to exclude it. But there still isn't a viable reason shown here to push the edits through in contravention of WP:BLP...which is why ArbCom placed the limits on these articles as they did. Now, if you feel you have a strong enough case to take to ArbCom and convince them to change their decision, feel free to do so. In the meantime, though, you'd do much better to just walk away from the horse. And that's as far as I go on this. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
What edit would supposedly be in violation of BLP, and of which guideline? You write in an authoritative tone and link to various guidelines. But if you made any substantive point, I missed it. And if you believed the advise about horses, you would follow it yourself. From the way you use "NPOV" above, I have to wonder if you understand what the term means. Is this the ArbCom decision you've been referring to? It says nothing about article content. Kauffner (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, WP:General sanctions/Obama article probation outlines conditions that apply to this article. You may want to review a page linked from there, namely the sanctions log which shows that the matter is taken seriously. Returning to this article, the situation is simple: all reliable sources agree the book was written by Obama, so that is what belongs in this article. Yes, some websites and news outlets report the gossip concerning Ayers—a mention of that may belong in some article on Ayers. However, WP:ONEWAY requires that such fringe material not be mentioned here. The only reason anyone would have to continue this discussion would be to produce a reliable source with due information that is not already in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You might try reading the discussion in this section before responding to it. Christopher Andersen's Barack and Michelle (2009), published by William Morrow, and David Remnick's The Bridge (2010), published by Vintage, both discuss this issue and either one could be used as an RS under Wiki guidelines. These were both hugely publicized books, reviewed everywhere. The point of Wiki is to create articles that are interesting or useful to the reader, which is not how I would describe this article at the moment. Kauffner (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Full circle. I'm going out on a limb and saying you're being insistent about the Andersen and Remnick books out of good faith, and not deliberately ignoring what's been pointed out by several other editors. Looking at all the discussions above, though, it does appear that consensus is to NOT include the statements by Ayers, based on WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. So, unless that consensus changes, you can expect to have any reference to Ayers' claims regarding ghostwriting removed as fast as it's added...unless, of course, something happens to sway that consensus. So it's time to put this to bed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that Remnick is cited as a source in the Barack Obama article, even though he is still apparently way too fringe for this article. Kauffner (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Remnick's book The Bridge is used at Barack Obama among a flock of other sources to support three uncontroversial statements about Obama's early life. That book was well regarded, so it seems reasonable though perhaps unnecessary to list it as a source. Remnick seems like a serious careful journalist, he won a Pulitzer prize and has worked at major mainstream publications, so as a starting position I would assume any book by him is reliable as long as it sticks with journalism rather than opinion. If he says that the ghostwriting claims had a significant effect, I think that's enough to mention them here in exactly that context - that the claims were made and that they could have had an effect on the election. It might make some sense to have a section here on the history of the claims but it might make more sense to keep them where they are on Cashill's bio page and just link to that here. See, I don't object if we have good sources and they're presented neutrally. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and per my original comment Remnick's book is a new source that was not considered during the RfC so it's reasonable to take a fresh look. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No mention of William Ayers is Orwellian

round and round in circles, no conclusion Tvoz/talk 06:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is totally ridiculous that this Wikipedia article doesn't mention that Bill Ayers wrote dreams from my father. It is Orwellian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, is not what is under consideration. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It is sad that the truth is not under consideration yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest adding something sourced to David Remnick's book that dismisses the Ayers claim. He mentions Cashill by name, so there can be a link. Kauffner (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kauffner's suggestion. I, personally, think Obama could have easily written it himself (based upon some of his exquisite and profound discourse as far back as high school), but to leave out all mention of the Ayers claim leaves this article incomplete. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE: articles should not unduly mention fringe claims as that gives them a false credibility. There is zero evidence that Ayers had anything to do with this book (and yes, I am aware that Ayers has made statements which confuse some people, however those statements are simply jokes arising from the frustration with being repeatedly asked inane questions). Note that I do not need reliable sources to make my comment, but reliable sources would be needed to add text to the article (something where a reliable secondary source has performed an analysis of the situation and has concluded that there is a possibility of the claim being anything other than political propaganda). Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Christopher Andersen's Barack and Michelle looked into the allegations and concluded there was something to them, so yes, an RS secondary source has, "performed an analysis of the situation and has concluded that there is a possibility of the claim being anything other than political propaganda." But this standard would seem to be your own creation. Wiki is supposed to be a summary of the secondary sources and Remnick thought these allegations were worth spending several pages rebutting. "Undue" implies that there are other more notable aspects of this book and the would be shortchanged if the authorship issue was mentioned. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's the thing: if there were the slightest possibility that the claim about Ayers had some merit, there would not be just a mention in a book that is apparently a quick rehash of already published material—there would be several gold-plated investigations by major media outlets with published evidence. See WP:REDFLAG: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and repeating gossip in this article would violate WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
What major media outlet investigated Profiles in Courage? JFK got a Pulitzer out of that, you know. A modern U.S. politician who could actually write would be more extraordinary than one with a ghostwriter. Whether the claim is extraordinary or plausible is irrelevant anyway. Remnick is used as a source in the Barack Obama article. Here is what he had to say: "This was a charge that, if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy." (Remnick, p. 253) Kauffner (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Just an observation. It seems to me that both arguments are based upon Editors' opinions of the validity of the issue rather than what the Reliable Sources are saying. There seems to be no dispute that some Reliable Sources are mentioning the issue over a long period of time so to leave it out 100% would reflect obvious Editorial bias. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It's clearly not a valid issue so yes of course, how we cover an untruth, fringe theory or campaign smear is different than how we would cover a viable question of fact. Beyond that, though, a number of sources do occasionally mention it so it may be of due weight to include, but they all dismiss it so we would have to be careful to avoid giving it credence. These days the sources seem to be lumping the "Obama pals around with terrorists" crowd into the same camp as the "secret Muslim" and birther movement, basically analyzing it as out of politically motivated mainstream paranoia.[10] - Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not followed it but what I do see in today's news from the RSs is exactly as you say. However, you and Kauffner seem acquainted with some books and authors which might have something worth including, maybe? I heard about the claim way back during the election and it was getting a lot of airtime then even though it seemed like just another "guilt by association" attack that was being hurled at Obama. But, maybe I'm wrong(again), isn't it just plain weird to have the issue in another article [11] about a broader topic and not here about the specific topic? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
While it appears weird at first glance, in fact not mentioning fringe claims in a main article is standard practice (see WP:ONEWAY). There are thousands of nutty claims on the Internet, and many of them are covered in an article about the claim. However, they are usually not mentioned in main articles because that would give a false credibility to the claim. There is no reason to believe Ayers wrote this book, so mentioning the speculation here would unduly inject doubts—exactly the reward that the fringe proponents are seeking. Anyone wondering whether there might be something to the claims about ghostwriting should think hard: Would Obama's well-financed and highly motivated opponents fail to pursue any faint possibility that Obama's authorship of this and The Audacity of Hope may not be valid? If any faint evidence were available, would it have been loudly trumpeted? The fact that the only commentary is blogosphere speculation shows that no evidence is available. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
So you think that Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope himself? He was a busy U.S. senator then. Unlike when Dreams was written, he had plenty of money to hire a professional at that time. Hope is just standard hack output, so any number of people could have written it. Obama has also claimed that he writes his own speeches. The man must just be writing all the time. Kauffner (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner, what Johnuniq thinks, or what you think, or what I think about whether Obama wrote his books is completely irrelevant and out of place in this discussion. What is relevant is that no valid evidence has been presented supporting this fringe theory, and it therefore does not have any place in this article. Please keep your personal opinions out of it. Tvoz/talk 09:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is very simple: Ayers wrote "Dreams", so quit ignoring evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to do your research for you, just point out the truth and you can take it from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.137.151 (talk • contribs)

Right. I think this conversation is over. Tvoz/talk 06:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This Article Does Not Discuss the Actual Book

proposal not actionable
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article largely cannibalizes a Washington Post article about Obama. It is certainly not about Obama's book. Inexcusably, this article presents as "narrative" facts that appear NOWHERE in "Dreams." Speedy deletion is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do more than give an opinion: give examples with sources for what you think is wrong with the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I did. Please read my comment again. I noted that the article is based on a WaPo article (see the footnotes) not the book.
It is the burden of the article's author, not me, to provide proper sources and insure that the article addresses its purported topic. However, to respond to your improper request (this once) the article states in the very first paragraph that Obama's parents met at the University of Manoa. That fact is not set forth in the book -- precisely why the author's failure to give citations is so egregious. Whether that fact is true or not is irrelevant. The article is a review of a specific book, not a general biography of Obama. So if you object to the wholesaler deletion of the article, go through it line-by-line and indicate on which page of "Dreams" each purported fact appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The article is not going to be speedily deleted. As with many Wikipedia articles about books, it is not fully cited and could use considerable improvement. If you see any specific parts that disagree with the citations or could use better citations, please feel free to propose changes here or make reasonable incremental changes in the article per WP:BRD. Note that articles about the book are considered far better sources than the book itself, as it is our role to present findings published by other secondary sources that are reliable. If the source does not talk about the book or doesn't say what it's purported to say, then that is a sourcing error. Further, a source that talks about Obama should generally talk about him in the context of the book so as to avoid "synthesis", a form of "original research", by which Wikipedia editors rather than the sources are making connections between two things. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC).
Again, it would be helpful if you read my comment (carefully!), the Wikipedia article (carefully!) and the WaPo source (carefully!) before citing a bunch of rules that have no application to the issues under discussion. I'm rather aghast that you're defending this article and acting as if there's merely been some minor citation or sourcing error. This article is a review of a WaPo piece called "The Ghost of a Father," not Obama's "Dreams" book. The "Ghost" article does not mention "Dreams" (and thus is not a secondary source) and many of the "facts" mentioned in the Wikipedia article (including the Manoa claim) do not even appear in the "Ghost" article it cites. In short, the entire article is merely made up, or its author's original research or opinion. So, speedy delete! And please don't bother responding again unless you've properly reviewed the relevant materials -- it's highly discourteous to prolong a Talk discussion in such a manner. Hope this helps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, your request is not stated in a way that is intelligible or actionable by the standards of Wikipedia article editing. Are you saying that the first paragraph under "Narrative", the only material sourced to the Washington Post news feature, should more closely follow the gist of what is actually in the news story or the book? Well then, feel free to propose a different version. If anyone else feels like doing it they're welcome too, of course, but we're all volunteers here so berating the community for not understanding you or following your dictates isn't a terribly effective way of asking for help. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
NOWHERE ??
  • Obama, Barack (1995, 2004). Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 1-4000-8277-3
    p. 9:

    In 1959, at the age of twenty-three, he arrived at the University of Hawaii as that institution's first African student...In a Russian language class, he met an awkward, shy American girl, only eighteen, and they fell in love.

    p. 17:

    And so, when my mother came home one day and mentioned a friend that she had met at the University of Hawaii, an African student named Barack, their first impulse was to invite him over for dinner.

  • Merida, Kevin (December 14, 2007). "The ghost of a father". The Washington Post, p. A12:

    "He crouched down and put his arms around me, and I let my arms hang at my sides," the son recalled in "Dreams From My Father," a soul - baring memoir rare for a politician, written long before Obama contemplated a run for the White House.

    Barack Hussein Obama Sr. grew up herding goats in the remote village of Alego, Kenya...Bright and enterprising, he became in 1959 part of the first large wave of African students to study abroad. With a scholarship to the University of Hawaii, the 23-year-old quickly fell into a small group of graduate students who met on Friday evenings to eat pizza, drink beer, and talk world politics and economics...It wasn't long before Obama brought another planet into their orbit, an 18-year-old white freshman from Wichita, Stanley Ann Dunham (so named because her father had wanted a boy).

    But it is also true that Obama, after his election as the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, wrote a 442-page memoir, published in 1995, that deeply explores his father's absence. It is rich with dialogue, precise recollections and emotion-laden self-analysis. It concludes with several chapters about his visit to Kenya, where he meets siblings, aunts, uncles, his grandmother and his father's ex-wives, and he finally understands the turmoil that consumed his father's life. At the end of the book, Obama is sitting between the graves of his father and paternal grandfather, weeping.

    "I think that book was very cathartic for him, and it was a hard book to write," Michelle Obama says. "It was very hard for him to get all the pieces and make sense of them. But once you do that, you're done. I think he has clarity on that part of his life."

Speedy hatting of this unproductive discussion is order.
Newross (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete. As your slopping down of text proves, the word "Manoa" appears in neither "Dreams" nor "Ghost." It was made up, along with numerous other "facts", by the author of the Wikipedia article. The claim that my objection unintelligible, is itself unintelligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.75.221 (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Son of Strelka Son of God

Dan Warren used snippets from the audiobook version of Dreams from My Father to compose a new work "Son of Strelka, Son of God", which is a myth about the creation and end of the world. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Warren's work, but is it appropriate to include a reference to it in a new section of the Dreams from My Father article? Slate.com has an article about Son of Strelka, Son of God at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/07/a_whole_new_obama_myth.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.167.33 (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

While it is interesting what people will do, no—an article does not mention or link to works that are not directly related. While there is a relationship between the two works (one being a bio and one being a rip-off), it is not related in an encyclopedic sense. If there were an article on the derived work, it would link to here with an explanation about its origin, but a main article should not be used to promote someone's spinoff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Time

Time magazine call "Dreams" non-fiction. As large parts of it are untrue, it is hard to say what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.247.123 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Zero critical reviews?

There are ZERO reviews of the book that are critical? TuckerResearch (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dreams_from_My_Father/Archive_2&oldid=789372581"