Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Muslim rumor

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn --JForget 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Muslim rumor

edit
Barack Obama Muslim rumor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Reasons: (1) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia; (2) all attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed; (3) subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. --HailFire (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination WITHDRAWN. --HailFire (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins, having looked more closely at the sources (CNN, NY Post, NYT, etc), and the contribs of the nominator I suspect this is a bad faith nomination. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may not personally buy the whole "assuming good faith" deal, but last I checked it's still a guideline here, Anteater. I don't see a drop in HellFire's contributions to warrant such prompt accusations of bad faith. Shem(talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. HailFire is a thorough, talented and conscientious editor who has made an enormous contribution here, quite obviously in an abundance of good faith. This accusation is totally unfounded and offensive. Tvoz |talk 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, his point 2 called CNN and the NYT "not reliable". I say he is trying to make some sort of point, and therefore made my conclusion. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, and regular folks too: Take some time to read through the entries at Talk:Barack Obama Muslim rumor and Talk:Insight (magazine) and you may see it differently than AnteaterZot. You may also solicit views from editors who have been active in the Barack Obama article where I have made over 1,000 edits since August 2006 and never once been charged with actions taken in bad faith. --HailFire (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per AnteaterZot's oodles of sources. hateless 08with :55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
All sources about rumors, but not one source verifying the key messages contained in those rumors. Why bother, even labled as "false" the rumor accomplishes its mission just by getting its key messages broadcast on Fox News, CBS, and the Washington Post; mainstream sources who in the interest of journalistic neutrality completely dropped the ball in clearly specifying what is TRUE and what is fabrication. But Wikipedia can and must aim for a higher standard than this. --HailFire (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a dim view of the intelligence of the average Wikipedia reader, I suggest looking at third-person effect and see if this applies to your views. In any case, censorship is not the answer. hateless 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one's proposing censorship. The content can still exist without being placed on pedestal with its very own questionably-titled article page. As said before, you don't see the John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child rumor article anywhere. Shem(talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not necessary to verify the existance of Flying Saucers in order to have an article on the phenomenon in Wikipedia. The subject is notable, the content verifiable, and the treatment is... reasonably NPOV. That's the standard Wikipedia aims for, anyway. Andyvphil (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Flying Saucers to WP:BLP, you are? Sorry, wrong planet. The goal is not to delete notable information drawn from WP:RS, but to keep it within larger articles where we can provide better context. We should avoid using Wikipedia to host an oddly named stand-alone article that duplicates existing Wikipedia content, and whose only "useful" purpose is to group, repeat, debunk, or manipulate a series of unsourced, unverifiable, and possibly unrelated rumors and reports on rumors, consequently helping to recharge the rumor mill, and cranking it up for the next cycle. If this is what Wikipedia is about, we are our own worst caricature. Washington Post are you following this? Some amateurs over at Wikipedia think they can do better at ensuring verifiability than your own professional experts. Or is that what you use us for? Imagine that. The pot checking the kettle and both of us empty. --HailFire (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Take action to prevent Wikipedia from blindly following Fox News, CBS, and the Washington Post into this bad smelling mud." I think that's called multiple reliable sources, i.e., WP:N. Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All sources verifying the existence of rumors, and so doing further substantiating and inflating the existence of those rumors. Find any WP:RS that verifies the content of the rumors. You certainly won't find them here, here, or here. The point, once again, is that Wikipedia doesn't need this article, and we can address all of its content in appropriate context through other articles where duplicate content already exists. --HailFire (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the existance of the rumors, a subject which you've just demonstrated is WP:N, refuting reason#3. You haven't pointed to any actual content of the article which isn't verified, so strike reason#2. So we're left with your assertion that the subject isn't encyclopedic. No matter how many times you point to the cartoon it won't substitute for showing us what in WP:NOT you were referring to as reason#1. Andyvphil (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that I've refuted every element of this below. Assertion is not debate. Feel free to contribute to the latter. Andyvphil (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've done no such thing, save reasserting your belief that these three paragraphs deserve their own page. That aside, your veiled snideness and steadily escalating incivility is unbecoming someone who supposedly just wants debate, Andy. Shem(talk) 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about that, too. I'm perfectly happy to see the material placed in, say, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 provided it is allowed to stay there. But what you repeatedly describe as "three paragraphs" a resident editor has described as a "massive section on the Muslim rumor", and he has deleted SouthernTexas' and my collaborative work to place it there. So... as I said, all your points were refuted: (1) It is not true that this material is repeated whole elsewhere and scattered appearances of parts of it is no substitute. (2)&(3) There is no other article on this subject, so it is not a content fork. This article does not avoid NPOV guidelines, so it is not a WP:POVFORK. Nor has anyone pointed to anything in BLP that it might violate. Did you make a fourth point I missed? Andyvphil (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are right, I should justify this better. I cannot find sufficient evidence to say that this is a term on it's own, as opposed to a description of an event. While it is worth mentioning, I fail to see how it is sufficiently notable as to justify it's own article, separate from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. -Verdatum (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it's not even mentioned there, except one line about Iowa emails. Be WP:BOLD. Drop it in there. If enough of it survives you could convince me. Andyvphil (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I would have preferred that the media not make this rumor notable, now that they have, it is our duty to report on it. The list of related articles put forth by HailFire gives me more reason to have this article, as this article provides a central focus point that all of those articles can link to and a useful place to put links to the relevant phenomena. The last thing we need is several paragraphs of information related to this rumor on Obama's person article or campaign article. Its notable is in regards to the media and political attack strategies, not in regards to Obama himself. johnpseudo 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems hailfire's original three arguments are pretty much shot down by the others preceeding me, with the possible exception of 'not suitable' -- but that's a notoriously subjective call. I find the article relevent, supported, and about as encyclopedic as anything in the realm of politics ever gets on Wikipedia. Mostly, what I question here is the motivation for deleting it. I still haven't heard a good argument for deleting it! It's factual, relevant and it's not hurting anyone. It appears to be helping lots of people get to the truth and dispell the rumor. Finally, I recall that on Wikipedia, Polling is NOT a substitute for debate. Hailfire, let's hear some justification in your debate (would be good for you to cite some Wikipedia precedent) and perhaps a little less lobbying for votes. riverguy42 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, then delete. Also, horribly phrased title.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being the second one to admit that "merge" is just another way of saying "delete". If this material is placed whole in any other article the editors there will assert undue weight and subject it to severe entropy. If some of this material belongs in all the articles HailFire lists then put it in those articles. Then link to this article, where each element can be seen in the context of the others. There is no reasonable argument that content can appear in only one article. There is no other article on this subject, so it is not a content fork. This article does not avoid NPOV guidelines, so it is not a WP:POVFORK. Nor has anyone pointed to anything in BLP that it might violate. Nor anything in Wikipedias policies or guidelines that would indicate it is "unencyclopedic". When you're reduced to consulting the growlings in your stomach you need to realize that you look an awful lot like a POV warrior yelling IDONTLIKEIT. Andyvphil (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we need to add the "AfD is not a vote" template. Andyvphil (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perpetuating rumors that have been proven false - even in the guise of just reporting on the fact that a rumor existed - is not what BLP and NPOV call for. To have a dedicated article to talk about false accusations seems to me to be pushing a political agenda designed to discredit a candidate in an election - and we should not allow Wikipedia to be used to abet that kind of dirty trick. The false rumor and its debunking receives ample weight, with citations, in the main article, as is appropriate. Tvoz |talk 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already in the Obama article and covered/weighted/sourced appropriately. No need for an article dedicated to a false rumor. R. Baley (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is "covered/weighted/sourced" to exactly this degree:

One day after the video was posted, the Internet magazine Insight reported that Clinton campaign staff were questioning Obama's account of his pre-teenage years in Indonesia.[1] Insight's report was repeated on Fox News and briefly lent legitimacy to an Internet whisper campaign spreading the false rumor that as a child in Jakarta, Obama attended a Muslim religious school.[2]

I invite you to assert that this is an adequate substitute for the article under discussion. I can't promise I won't smile derisively. Andyvphil (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andyvphil, are snide remarks really helpful to this discussion? Tvoz |talk 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This coming from someone who's just asserted that the article was written to perpetuate rumors that have been proven false while pretending ("guise"; syn. pretence) to be just reporting on the fact that the rumor exists. I'll be less contemptuous when your arguments get better, and you start trying to refute mine. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already asserted, no need for me to respond any further (whether baited or not). R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if the above text added that the Clinton campaign denied the Insight report. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a useful addition. . . R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, not so adequate after all. It's already in this article. Be bold. Make it fully adequate. Andyvphil (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't notable, then why does Google news have 77 hits in the past month for "obama muslim rumor"? Our threshold of notability for the creation of new articles is not relative to other political stories- it's relative to the degree of coverage from reliable sources, of which there is plenty for this subject. johnpseudo 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reread what I wrote and then reassess your statement. Wikipedia should be better organized to have better articles.--STX 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My, what a bright John Hancock you have. Can't miss your contribution to any page on which you appear... I don't see any barrier to you adding material from this article to Obama's 2008 campaign article. Why don't you just do it, and then we can judge whether the result is an adequate substitute? Andyvphil (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the material to the article and I think it fits well. This information should be a sub-section in a larger article not an article of itself. This shows better organization and is more encyclopedic.--STX 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks reasonable to me. There are some problems, but I bet those are ones that have snuck back into the "Rumor" article's text rather than being due to you. Next, we can expect the attack of the "merge and delete" crowd. Success in this experiment requires that they be subdued. Put it on your watchlist, and we'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, TX just put it there. Let's see if it survives. Andyvphil (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, johnpseudo (a "keep", see above) just killed it there. I've reverted, once, but then it's up to you "merge" guys to put your reverts where your mouths are. ("Merge-and-kill" POV warriors are excused.) Andyvphil (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by starter of article I see that it has been pasted there. I would be happy with this if this article ends up being deleted. Just as long as the information is there and people can find it. That way people can check out rumors they have heard. Redddogg (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In general there should not be articles on rumors. How do we know that every instance of a person saying something is a part of the same rumor? As others have said, the information can be included in other articles if it is not already. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that the Martin allegations are connected to the Clinton/Insight ones, but we can verify that the connection has been made in a RS. Yes, "rumors" would be better in the title, but that's an argument for renaming, not deletion. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I started the article. I think the amount of interest that has been generated shows that the topic is notable. People are looking for information on the things they may have heard and will be coming to WP to find a neutral article that is based on reliable sources. If the information is only covered by a short paragraph in a longer article they might miss it. Redddogg (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for a redirect. Andyvphil (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there was a policy that said that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting what policy? WP:N disagrees with you. Andyvphil (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:NOT. We're not here to report every news article. This "rumor" has been given undue weight. Delete the article, give a brief mention on the main Obama page and move on. Not every internet hoax and mistaken news report should be given a full article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried WP:NOT, but as I said to HailFire, No matter how many times you point to the cartoon it won't substitute for showing us what in WP:NOT you were referring to as reason#1. He didn't answer. How about you? I'm looking for a quote from policy here, not an assertion. Andyvphil (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not indiscriminate, not news, not... encyclopedic. We're giving a internet hoax way too much weight. You do remember undue right? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "quote from policy" don't you understand? Since WP:UNDUE is strictly about balance within an article your suggestion that there is something about the existance of an article that might violate it is even more implausible than Hailfire's suggestion that something in WP:NOT will apply. Andyvphil (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the problem with renaming this article with that title is that this article is not about that. Thanks for your suggestion, however. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed article to Media coverage of anti-Obama whisper campaigns.

Four things I'm WP:BOLDLY attempting to do with this move:

  1. Shift the article focus to media coverage of the whisper campaigns (the reason for their notability), not the whisper campaigns themselves, hopefully addressing WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N concerns;
  2. steer the article decisively away from becoming a WP:POVFORK of Barack Obama#Early life and career;
  3. remove the word "rumor" from the article title, thereby solving perhaps to some subtle, but nonetheless serious WP:BLP and WP:NPOV problems; and
  4. (with some trepidation, but an abundance of good faith) retain a separate article space for the current stream of WP:RS reports about anti-Obama innuendo and gossip, including childhood years in Indonesia and non displays of (symbolic) patriotism, or any similar unsourced and unverified claims that may float to the top of the mainstream media establishment in the weeks and months to come.

I hope this change satisfies most of the editors who have contributed to this discussion. If so, I would support closing this WP:AFD once work is completed to make all necessary adjustments. --HailFire (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you prefer "whisper" to "rumor". I do agree with you that the media coverage is more notable than the rumors or whispers themselves. Redddogg (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "whisper" thing either. The messages, etc. seem to be literally rumors; and only figuratively whispers. I don't know how a person can literally whisper over e-mail. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...or in press conferences, on websites and in broadcasts. Never mind literally, the subject isn't even figuratively whisper campaigns. There's bold, and then there's cavalier. Don't you think you could have at least mentioned your brainstorm before acting on it? Andyvphil (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whisper has the connotation of planning. For example, Karl Rove initiated a whisper campaign against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000. We don't know if anyone planted these rumors, so I think rumor is better. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ For responses to the Insight report, see: Kirkpatrick, David D (January 29, 2007). "Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even If It's False". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-30. "Obama, School Deny Radical Islam Claim" (video). Associated Press. WPVI-TV Philadelphia (ABC). January 25, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-18.
  2. ^ Smith, Ben (October 13, 2007). "Untraceable E-mails Spread Obama Rumor". Politico. Retrieved 2007-11-18. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) See also: Zeleny, Jeff (November 10, 2007). "Obama Fights Foes, Seen or Otherwise". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-18. Hayes, Christopher (November 12, 2007). "The New Right-Wing Smear Machine". Nation. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama_Muslim_rumor&oldid=1137596889"