Originally posted by zeeblebotKeep digging - you might one day find gold. (Or something shiny you can drool over.)
no mention of "ayers".
a single sentence mentioning tony rezko, whereas rezko's page has several paragraphs on rezko's relationship to obama.
no controversy section.
what's he afraid of?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Controversy_re:_Rezco.2FAyers
Controversy re: Rezco/Ayers
What about Obama's alleged ties to Rezco and Bill Ayers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk • contribs)
(Comment restored after total brain failure and Twinkle-madness on my part -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
These two issues appear to be speculative in news stories that have yet to gain a formal influence on Obama's life. To talk about them in the article now would be a crystal ball of a poor synthesis. It would be the same as a "controversy" with Louis Farrakhan. These issues if they come to light may be better placed in 2008 general election. .:davumaya:. 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Is that you, Megapen? If so, you spelled Rezko wrong again. The answer to your question can be found above and in any of the several dozen recent archives where this has been discussed. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and wholly innappropriate for this article. The Ayers controversy in mentioned in the article on Obama's campaign, where it belongs. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
B.S, re "violation of WP:UNDUE"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight
Undue weight
Policy shortcuts:
WP😀UE
WP:UNDUE
WP:Undue weight
WP:WEIGHT
WP:UNDUEWEIGHT
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.
Since Wikipedia has no practical space limitations, notable minority views can have articles specifically devoted to them. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. Reference to the majority viewpoint should be made in proportion to its prominence in the sources. The article must not rewrite majority-view positions from the perspective of the minority view, nor rewrite minority positions from the perspective of the majority.
However, Wikipedia is not the place to present or argue for new ideas. Even proven facts do not belong in Wikipedia until they have been covered by reliable sources on the subject, and topics may have their own articles only when they have become notable (see also No original research and Verifiability).
When a clear consensus can be identified in reliable sources indicating that a particular view is a minority or majority view relative to the article's subject or to the general context of the material, it is appropriate to indicate this in the text of the article. It may also be appropriate to contextualize viewpoints relative to their acceptance in various communities which sources indicate to be particularly relevant.
To determine proper weight, consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt would be an awfully long webpage if it mentioned the name of everyone that Obama had a passing acquaintance with.
no mention of "ayers".
a single sentence mentioning tony rezko, whereas rezko's page has several paragraphs on rezko's relationship to obama.
no controversy section.
what's he afraid of?
Originally posted by zeeblebotwhat's he afraid of? (My italics)
no mention of "ayers".
a single sentence mentioning tony rezko, whereas rezko's page has several paragraphs on rezko's relationship to obama.
no controversy section.
what's he afraid of?
Are you trying to insinuate that Obama wrote/writes his own Wikipedia page? If you think the article needs correction/improvement (it may well), enter the editorial fray there. Or, just criticize the article and its writers, without the insinuation...
Originally posted by torch71I reckon neither Palin's daughter, nor Rev. Wright, not the Monica Lewinsky issue were newsworthy. Some people just like to gossip about their political opponents, or gossip to sell stories.
Probably because he isn't headline news worthy, like Palins daughter.
Originally posted by CliffLandinwhat the heck, it's CliffLandin!
This is truly unbelievable!
But then again, John McCain's wiki page doesn't mention Rev. John Hagee.
Somebody must me scrubbing it!
have you been out to the asteroid belt and back? ...
----
no wonder McCain's wikipedia page doesn't mention Hagee. even the DISCUSSION page on his wiki doesn't mention Hagee. coz all Hagee did was endorse McCain, and McCain has since rejected the endorsement.
=>
from Hagee's wikipedia page:
"McCain further distanced himself from Hagee stating, "I've never been in Pastor Hagee's church or Pastor Parsley's church. I didn't attend their church for 20 years, and I'm not a member of their church. I received their endorsement, which did not mean that I endorsed their views."