Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 1

This is an attempt to write an article on this candidate, Barack Obama. It attempts to be a biography, not a day to day account of his campaign, nor a campaign advertisement. Disclosure: I am a US citizen. I am not registered to either party as a voter. Larry Yount 21:58, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Steve has complained (privately) that Richard reverted his edits without explanation. I agree that that is simply unacceptable, particularly in light of recent discussions. Well, as a very imperfect stopgap measure, here's what I've decided: Steve, feel free to redo your edits, if you want. Then, Richard may not touch them; others will have to do so, if they are flawed. If he does edit them, then tell me, and I will ban him from working on this article. --Larry Sanger 21:34, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Steve was the one who changed my edits. with, as you can see, no explanation on the talk page.Richard Jensen 21:48, 10 January 2008 (CST)

The facts are here:

1. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Barack_Obama&diff=100246909&oldid=100246908
2. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Barack_Obama&diff=100246910&oldid=100246909
3. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Barack_Obama&diff=100248705&oldid=100246914

On what Larry stated I could do, what I'm choosing is, "sometimes the polite way is to let the other person undo his or her own work, once a mistake is pointed out."

Stephen Ewen 22:22, 10 January 2008 (CST)

How about:

Obama, a charismatic speaker,[1] repeatedly criticized Clinton for her 2002 vote supporting war against Iraq, and for her alleged ties to lobbies and old-fashioned politics.

Warren Schudy 23:47, 10 January 2008 (CST)

I don't have any problem with the new text of Richard, as it seems clear that Clinton is part of the old way of doing politics in the USA. What I do have a problem with, is that Richard removed the improvements made to other parts of the text by Stephen. Please reinsert them, Richard, because they are needed. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:56, 10 January 2008 (CST)

I'm happy to restore Steve's innocuous changes. But let's get the rhetoric clear: elections are fought like wars and politicians attack each other, soi attack" is the correct term. see [1] Obama did not use words like "alleged" and to insert them in a paraphrase distorts his position. The theme of "change" versus "old politics" is basic to Obama's "Many Iowa voters have responded to Obama's message that he is a fresh face who can unite a polarized electorate and move the country away from what he calls the "same old" politics. at [2] CZ is not endorsing Obama's attacks, it is explaining them. Richard Jensen 00:12, 11 January 2008 (CST)

At least to my ear, "X attacked Y for Z" says not only that X said Y does Z, but also that Z is true. I suggested inserting "alleged" to remove the implication. Another way to fix it would be to use "X accused Y of Z" or something like that instead. Warren Schudy 00:30, 11 January 2008 (CST)

It seems Richard reverted all of the edits (a bunch of Stephen's edits) between one of his edits and his next edit. Perhaps Richard is working on it in an external text editor and forgot to download Stephen's changes before making his own? Warren Schudy 00:18, 11 January 2008 (CST)

law practice

I emailed the firm Miner, Barhill and Galland to ask them to verify our statement about his law work. Richard Jensen 00:32, 11 January 2008 (CST)