Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Senate article

Is there an article on Obama's US Senate history? He's only been a senator for 2.5 years and the section is already rather lengthy. For some reason I thought there was one.. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro, 2004 Illinois Senate race

The opening says (or seems to imply that) a "boost" from the 2004 convention speech allowed him to win the Senate election that fall. This gives a bit of a misleading impression because Obama was a lock to win after Ryan dropped out and Keyes came in. While the speech only could have helped, it was not the reason he won. I propose that the phrase "boosted by increased national standing" be reworded and maybe put in the next sentence.--Gloriamarie 23:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


"United Church of Christ" is not Obama's religion. He is Christian. United Church of Christ is his denomination. How do we fix this? — goethean 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, I just changed it to Christian (United Church of Christ). Does that work for you? --Bobblehead (rants) 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, thanks. — goethean 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the book cover

I have removed the image of The Audacity of Hope book cover from this article; the only mention is "The first, The Audacity of Hope, was published in October 2006. An Italian translation was published in April 2007, and a Spanish translation will be published in June 2007. It has remained on the New York Times Best Seller list for the 30 weeks since publication." While it identifies the book, it adds no significant content to the article that words could not alone. Note that my statements are not impugning the article's editors, but I strongly feel that the use of the image is not a fair use but is instead simple copyright infringement. --Iamunknown 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also clear to me that this book cover, while perhaps nice to have here, does not meet agreed standards for use of non-free images on Wikipedia. Policing fair use is a thankless, but necessary job, and I think Iamunknown's contribution deserves (at minimum) some kind of counterpoint. I've also requested comment at Wikipedia:Fair use review. --HailFire 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
My counter-point was very simple, stated in the edit summary: I agree with User:Tvoz's rationale as provided on the image's page. Where is the line drawn with regard to authors? Italiavivi 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In the real world this would certainly be accepted as fair use. I think the Wikipedia policy is out of control and excessively restrictive, which is a frequent problem here (e.g., the you tube hysteria of some months ago). This is a good example of an the appropriate use of an image to illustrate a section - it is not gratuitous. Common sense and the real world ought to hold some sway in the formulation of Wikipedia policy. Tvoz |talk 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Take this up on the policy talkpage, then. Until the policy is changed, the image cannot be used in this way. nadav (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Text added giving critical commentary and political significance. WP:FUR now seem happy. Jheald 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying this edit, quoting critical commentaries by notable reviewers. I think the text now has the right weight and puts both works in an informative biographical context. Perhaps even the non-free image can now be justified. Thanks Iamunknown for flagging the issue, to the editors at Wikipedia:Fair use review for your comments, and to all who pitched in with rewrite ideas. --HailFire 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats a great copyedit and content addition, HailFire. Thanks for your work.  :) --Iamunknown 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, nice work. Italiavivi 02:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

well, I don't know wich translations you guys wanna mention in the article but a German version is out now too. Just to let you know.. -- 20:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

#2 after Clinton

A sentence has been changed mentioning Senator Clinton. This article is about Senator Obama, not Senator Clinton. So a sentence has been changed like this (see article for exact text)..Obama placed second in the polls after Clinton.. Feddhicks 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The mention of Clinton was totally appropriate here. Tvoz |talk 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

more books?

I read in the German article that Obama has signed a contract to write three books after the success of "Dreams from My father" of which "audacity of hope" is the first one. The second one is going to be a children's book which he's going to write together with his wife and the third one is still unknown. Can you guys confirm that? Why is it not mentioned in the article? I'm guessing everything is put on hold as long as he's running for president... Anyways, can anyone confirm the information? And is there some kind of update to it? thx, -- 20:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 9

Who did the last archive? What is the point in archiving just one line of text? JayKeaton 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the auto-archiver. Archive 8 was full, so when Miszabot archived that section it moved it to archive 9. Never fear, though, the archive will start to fill up shortly. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I don't usually bother checking the edits on high traffic/controversial pages, so I wasn't familiar with auto archivers. Thanks for taking the time to tell me ^_^ JayKeaton 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction made in the beginning part

Senator Obama is THE leading candidate, not among the leading candidates. At least in fundraising. Give the man credit where credit is due. This is only fair, whether or not you like the man or not. Feddhicks 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we have the return of the sock here.Tvoz |talk 17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who agrees with me is not a sock, everyone who disagrees with me is a sock???Feddhicks 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are certain aspects about your recent editing on this article that are similar to those of Dereks1x (talk · contribs). And then there is the whole trying to defend an obvious sock thing...[1] But all in all, most of the edits, particularly the one about Rezko has been covered over and over again on this article and general consensus is that it is adequately covered. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See archive 8. Show me where the consensus is? If you show me, I will agree. Tvoz called me a sock, I did not say the word. Feddhicks 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

An obvious sock. Even if the ban is in limbo at the moment, it's not appropriate to create multiple socks to avoid the scrutiny of other editors per WP:SOCK, and other currently active socks are known. Second, the user cannot legitimately claim to be keeping heated issues in one area as the policy allows, as the user has used multiple socks on this article. Because of my prior experience with this user, however, I have essentially exhausted any persuasiveness I had on point, so I will not block the sock myself. · jersyko talk 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Understandable. I hope that another admin will pick it up, however. See the Rfc respondent above as well. As far as I can see, the ban itself has not been contested - only one of the proven socks, for unclear reasons. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Congressional box

This is an article about Senator Obama. Why is there a huge infobox at the end listing all of the US Senators?????

It just waste room. If one is really, really cynical, they might say that it is there to show that Senator Obama is just one of many, many Senators and try to imply that being a Senator is nothing. I think it just wastes room. Feddhicks 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Project policy. Tvoz |talk 18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Navigational boxes like this are used in many articles, and I believe they are useful. Best regards. Jogurney 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


A few months ago I read this same article and I remember reading that Barack Obama swore into office on a Quaran. And he also attended muslim schools overseas. Now that information is gone? Was it true and removed because it made him look like a Muslim? Or was that information false? Please who ever answers: be honest. 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)CJR

Completely false. Wizardman 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You are thinking of Rep. Keith Ellison who was sworn in on a Qu'ran, not Sen. Obama. Italiavivi 21:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Rezko house

Tag placed because RFC in progress. POV tag should be removed at the end of the RFC, not later or earlier.Feddhicks 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Feddhicks is yet another sockpuppet of banned user User:Dereks1x, and has been blocked. Italiavivi 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence about the Rezko house is moved (text unchanged) to the body of the article. This is to avoid the appearance of trying to hide information as the original information was in tiny print hidden in the footnotes.

Nothing bad is said about Senator Obama. In fact, mention of it clears him. Hiding it makes it look like campaign supporters are trying to hide information. It is a fact that Senator Obama has the most internet supporters that any candidate of either party. It is likely that, among the hundreds of thousands of his internet supporters, that at least 1 or 2 of them use wikipedia and write for it.

This is different from the Muslim school controversy, which is a non-issue and is in fine print hidden away. Feddhicks 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As you well know, this has already been debated, discussed and consensus reached. Tvoz |talk 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Archive 8. There was no censensus. Some people want a whole lot about the Rezko controversy. So putting everything in fine print and hiding it is the extremist viewpoint. The other extremist viewpoint is to say that Senator Obama is a crook. The neutral point of view is a neutral statement which is not hidden. Feddhicks 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A REQUEST FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. Facts of case: Some say there has been a consensus, others say not. Some say that consensus can change. Facts of the case: Some want a detailed description of the Rezko affair. Some (me) want a brief, neutral statement. Some want the statement in very small print hidden away in the footnotes. Feddhicks 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(To the others, this may be the best way instead of edit warring. Let's see what others say.)

Here's some links to previous discussions on this topic.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A "Why isn't there any criticism in this article" extended discussion that includes Rezko. [2]
  • A proposal to remove mention of Rezko from the article. [3]
  • A discussion on a criticism section that includes Rezko.[4]
  • Another discussion on the criticism section including Rezko.[5]
  • Another discussion on the topic.[6]
  • A tangentially related discussion.[7]
  • As part of an exhaustive survey on the inclusion of various topics in the article.[8]
  • Another extended discussion on the subject.[9]
  • The long discussion in response to another RFC.[10]
  • Yet another extended discussion on the subject.[11]

Request for comment answer:
I am only partially commenting. Small print is hard to read. It should be regular print if in the body of the article or bold print if in the footnotes (otherwise nobody will see it). Which one, I have no opinion because there are too many links above for me to read and ponder. Plumbing 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that User:Plumbing's account was created on 22:38, 4 July 2007, shortly after the RfC that the user replied to was started, which seems curious especially since the argument given centers on the size of the type, as per this comment which was removed hours before this user posted the above. I suspect yet another sock. Tvoz |talk 06:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, you are too suspicious. There is mention of the print size in the RFC. You are out of line about that. You are correct about socks. I strongly suspect Plumbing is a sock of DreamGuy, a POV pusher.Mikkke2 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was removed before "Plumbing" could have read it, unless he wrote the RfC or carefully researched the RfC's edit history which really doesn't make a lot of sense. Thanks for giving us the names of more Derek socks, including, perhaps, your own. See this. Where have I seen this before? Tvoz |talk 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And this is likely another one - smae argument, same language, same person. Tvoz |talk 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop discouraging RFC comments which you do by launching personal attacks on people, like User: Plumbing. See what someone wrote about User:Plumbing, reproduced as follows: it just seems to be an account that is popping through multiple RfCs and doing what is requested, offering comments. --Elonka 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Further retorts and arguing just discourages any further editors from RFC comments because they don't want to be attacked. I doubt you will listen, but please try. Feddhicks 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't presume to speak for user:SteveDufour, but he probably didn't see this discussion on the Talk page. I believe if you use the POV tag correctly, it is easier to see where on the Talk page the relevant discussion is located. I think you place this POV|Rezko house inside the brackets. Then, when someone clicks on the POV link, they are directed to this section. Best regards. Jogurney 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Drip Drip Drip

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama is being scrubbed as he never has before. His prior campaigns were for lower offices. And in his 2004 U.S. Senate race, attention focused less on him than on primary and general election opponents who had their own serious problems. But this campaign cycle's scrubbing of Obama leads to another water analogy: News stories that raise ethics questions about his relationship with indicted dealmaker Antoin "Tony" Rezko have become a steady drip, drip, drip.

Before anyone accuses me of not WP:AGF, let me explain it seems curious as to why there is no mention of any of this, or any other controversy that Obama has been involved in, in the article, or conversely a fork. I have seen attempts to include this information here, and the continual removal of it could be interpreted as gatekeeping and article ownership. As the election begins to unfold, criticism sections on nearly every single major candidate have appeared; I don’t understand why this one has become unique. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 10 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)
You don't take a very minor matter and blow it up into something major just so you can show that you have a controversy. That is POV. The note covers the matter adequately, as does the Rezko separate article. There is no there there. Tvoz |talk 20:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The questions are, at what point does a "minor" controversy become one of a magnitude significant enough to be mentioned in the main body of the article? and when presented with a recurring "minor" controversy, how to present it in an NPOV manner without giving it undue weight? Answering those questions is the hardest part about the Rezko relationship issue. The Chicago Tribune and Times have spent a lot of ink rehashing this story to pretty much say "It doesn't appear that Obama did anything wrong, but here's what happened anyways..." and it has been picked up in other national papers to some extent, either mentioned in passing or full articles. The big thing one must remember is that just because something is "notable" it doesn't mean it's notable enough to make it in the article.--Bobblehead (rants) 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If something is “notable” then that absolutely positively means that it is notable enough for the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do believe the Rezko incident should be mentioned; it says a lot that people keep coming to the talk page to ask about it. I heard about it a month or so ago, went to the Wikipedia page and found nothing on it (I did not see the footnotes, and neither would most users) and thought it was odd because I like coming to Wikipedia to get a balanced version of events. I know this has been discussed before, but I'm just giving my two cents on the issue, as I think there should be mention of it and it's odd to leave it out.--Gloriamarie 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the footnote gives a link to the complete article at Antoin Rezko which is easily reached by a search on "Rezko" if someone was so inclined. Tvoz |talk 05:43, 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)
This is actually the same thing I thought when I saw the footnote. Bjewiki 16:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say that condensing the information from the Tony Rezko article on his relationship with Obama into 4 or 5 concise sentences would be appropriate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
When I first heard that there had been some sort of incident, it didn't occur to me that Rezko would have his own article, just that Obama's article would cover it. I'm not used to looking at Wikipedia footnotes to see if there are other articles linked from there.--Gloriamarie 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not just relegated to local Chicago papers:

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 last quote there is actually a WSJ editorial about a "mysterious", "Tokyo Rose"-style propaganda website, "". The first two merely remark about how discussion on the issue doesn't seem to be dissipating. This is a non-issue for anyone but the most determined political partisans. johnpseudo 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The first two are only a "discussion on the issue doesn't seem to be dissipating"?!? That’s a excellent reason for inclusion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the recent change that was made[12]. It makes it clear that there was controversy, that Obama admitted it was a misstake, and then nothing illegal appears to have happend. I think that's a very good NPOV edit that should make both sides happy. Bjewiki 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I also like this change.--Gloriamarie 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was this burried in small print, in a note again?...if anything, that makes it look like we're tyring to hide it. Bjewiki 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Placing it in the main body looks like we're trying to give an incident in which no wrongdoing is alleged on Obama's part undue weight. I support leaving the footnote (it is called a "footnote" by the way, not "burried [sic] in small print") as is. Italiavivi 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I am comfortable with leaving the information in a footnote, but would prefer the text in the footnote to be of normal font size (rather than the smaller font size used currently - which I haven't seen used in other articles). Jogurney 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I've seen the smaller font used in notes within footnotes in other articles, and we use it here a few times, but in principle I don't feel strongly about keeping it in that font. Tvoz |talk 21:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize the smaller size was used elsewhere. Assuming it wouldn't lengthen the page too much, I think it would be best to use the larger font size for all the footnotes on this article. Jogurney 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the font size should be larger also. — goethean 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
How do the footnotes look to you now? It lengthens it a bit, but I think we can live with that. Tvoz |talk 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: the footnotes and notes within footnotes are now all of equal size - but they are in reference style, smaller than the main text, like just about all articles with long footnote sections are. What I changed were the smaller notes within the footnotes which I have also seen elsewhere, but as I said, think we can try it this way. Tvoz |talk 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can support User:Tvoz's compromise. Italiavivi 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the new look of the footnote, and believe it satisfies the opposing undue weight and visibility concerns. Thank you. Jogurney 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, why is there no mention of his controversial church

Its doctorine is as racist and as afrocentric as just about any church I've ever seen. No one forced him to attend this church. If I look on David Dukes wiki will it talk about his stint in the KKK? Ok, I just looked. Heh. It does have KKK stuff. So, uhh, again, what's the deal with the double standard. He chose the church, it did not choose him. 08:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

link to the racist church doctorine[13] KillerPlasmodium 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but why are black churches "racist," and would you refer to historically black universities as "racist" as well? Italiavivi 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
there may or may not be something racist about black churches. this church in particular has a racist doctorine. You can easily read it because i supplied the PDF. it's cleaelry racist and not mentioning his church has such views is alarmingly biased wiki editing. KillerPlasmodium 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There "may or may not be something racist about black curches," what does that mean? Is it your contention that black congregations are racist, yes or no? Also, what is racist about the .pdf you linked? Is it the part about African-Americans desiring black freedom? Italiavivi 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Oh, I dunno. I think having to pledge allegiance to BLACK leaders if a pretty racist dictate. I don't think I'll be talking much more with you as you obviously have something wrong with your logical faculties if you cannot see the half a dozen or more racist statements found in that doctorine.KillerPlasmodium 01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You guys are hilarious. Fifty7 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything funny about racism, nor do i find anything funny about wikipedia being a biased joke of a source

that claims to be anything but.KillerPlasmodium 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a link to his church's Wikipedia article; if there's something controversial about the church, you can add it to the church's page.--Gloriamarie 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, a would-be president of the united states does not get a "pass" on the fact he attended and continues to attend a racist church and has not stated he disagrees with their doctorine. No way in hell. Is this wiki only memebers of the Obama campain or something? Completely absurd.KillerPlasmodium 07:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can provide productive edits that assert that the church is racist, from reliable sources, you are free to add that to the church's Wikipedia page. Until then, I don't see what the issue is.--Gloriamarie 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not add it to both? As I said, he has chosen of his own volition to attend this church. He isn't repsonsible for the doctorine, but the fact he attends and continues to attend this church he is responsible for, not the church. Both wiki's should have it mentioned.KillerPlasmodium 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, KillerPlasmodium, you still haven't explained why (a) an afrocentric church is ipso facto racist, (b) the document to which you linked is evidence of racism on the part of the church, or (c) Obama's membership in the church means that he is in full agreement with every document produced by the church. Does the article of every prominent Catholic mention pedophile priests or the Church's history of racism and antisemitism? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, how is pledging your allegiance to BLACK leaders "afrocentrist" and not purely racist? Strawman, just like your other comments about Catholocism. Many Rabbis have done and said a lot of mean things about christians/catholics, too. But do they have a doctorine that is not from some cryptic section of a book whose meaning can be debated that says such things in plain, modern English. Your argument is a complete strawman, and the editing of this wiki seems to be a complete sham. I'm free to add it to the churches wiki AND here, which where it should be added, to both.KillerPlasmodium 01:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Malik raises good points, particularly when you think about American Catholics vs. church doctrine. And I read the pdf and fail to find it racist. Afrocentric yes, but that's not the same thing. Tvoz |talk 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, no. He spat out a couple baseless strawmen with nothing behind them. The meanings and teachings of a given religion when looking at a historical text whos meaning is constantly debated is not at all comparable to a church that has a RECENTLY CREATED IN PLAIN ENGLISH doctorine that is undeniable racist.KillerPlasmodium 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood me. I'm talking specifically about Malik's item "c" above (although I happen to agree with his a and b too), and I'm commenting about members of the Catholic Church who strongly disagree with doctrines that the Catholic Church explicitly espouses. If they are identified on Wikipedia as Catholics, there is no expectation that their individual disagreements with Church doctrine would be aired on their pages unless it happened to be something they publicly took a stand on. The page on the Catholic Church is where those comments should be made. As much as I might vehemently oppose the Catholic Church for its pedophiliac history, its anti-semitism, its insanity about birth control even in AIDS-ridden Africa, and many other matters, I don't expect that individual pages of Catholics here will include some kind of diatribe against the Church, which seems to be what you're looking for. It's inappropriate, it's POV, and it's other adjectives that I'll withhold for now. Tvoz |talk 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't explained why the document is racist — hint: it doesn't promote allegiance solely to Black leaders — nor have you provided a scintilla of evidence that Obama is aware of, much less in agreement with, the document. Unless you can provide reliable sources that say as much, it doesn't belong in this article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I read the linked document and don't find it racist. Perhaps you can provide an example? Best regards. Jogurney 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, the old "I don't think it's racist when black people are racist, only when white people are racist". Gambit. There is no way to get around it. The statements that you must pledge your allegiance to BLACK leaders is innarguably racist. No matter how much one twists and turns and tries every manner of trickery and obfuscation to discount it as anything but racist, it is purely racist. KillerPlasmodium 02:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if we editors believe if Obama's church subscribes to a racist doctrine or not, the only thing that matters is if a reliable source can be found that states his church is racist and that Obama has accepted this doctrine. Linking to the document that you have provided to us and then concluding from that document that the church is racist and that Obama accepts this doctrine is original research and violates WP:BLP, therefore it can not be included in the article. Please provide a reliable source that supports this conclusion. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

KillerPlasmodium is now indefinitely blocked for disruption. Sandstein 16:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Create a separate controversy section

This article needs a section like that of Hillary Clinton and McCain. See and Fixed. Botrag 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact Hillary Clinton's controversies are being integrated into the text and footnotes of her main article and the subarticles about her as appropriate- see Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies. And this has nothing to do with "preferential treatment" or the edit summary "Federal law says we treat candidates equally and give equal time.". We've discussed how to handle controversy and prefer to work it into the article rather than a laundry list that can easily devolve into trivia. Discuss if you like, but I removed the empty entry from the article.Tvoz |talk 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Botrag has been blocked as the latest sock of Dereks1x. Tvoz |talk 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

opinions posing as fact

I'm changing the caption under the picture of Obama at a campaign rally. "continues to draw large crowds" is NOT an objective statement. Large is a relative term and the AP story it "cites" as evidence of the "large crowds" is not an objective story but instead a recital of quotes from people like Obama who is obviously not unbiased when referring to his own crowds. The article can not begin to objectively compare crowds between candidates at the same venue, since any number of factors affect crowd size at a rally. This is obviously an opinion and omitting it does not deprive the reader of any facts whatsoever, especially since most users will only read the caption and never bother to read the cited article. *this must be taken into consideration*. the idea that we should expect every user to check every source in such a large article is absurd, and I doubt anyone would try to defend such a statement. that leaves the conclusion that this statement is misleading, since, being in a wikipedia page, it presents itself as documented fact.

The caption should be a subjective statement such as 'this is a picture of senator Obama doing such and such", not an subtle opinion being snuck into people's minds about the success of his campaign. C'mon people, don't paraphrase a news article into a sentence and try to pawn it off as fact. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia without bias, right? lets keep opinionated statements elsewhere! Revolen 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I think the new caption is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. I tend to ignore captions in images myself.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

I don't understand how this section is deemed purposeful. This is an encyclopedia after all, where do we make the cut? Most important of all, this random section of the Barack article, with random tidbit from random people at the end is just unfair, if its to stay, then more politicians, aka the candidates, should have such a section with the same random tidbits. I mean what the point of all those ultra politically oriented comment from the opposition in the end? yea they are quoted in the media... the utterly reliable media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehjord (talkcontribs) and

Maybe it's me, or the heat, but I really do not understand what you're talking about - and are you one person or two? Tvoz |talk 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think he's saying the section is just a collection of quotes rather than a unified topic (other than commentary on Obama).--Daveswagon 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

middle name is NOT "Hussein"?

From edit summary re removal of middle name from article: "Recent media reports have proven that his middle name is NOT "Hussein."" I've not heard him dispute that Hussein is his middle name, and I have not seen, or found, any of the media reports to which you refer. Please provide those sources per WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Background and race

Isn't Senator Obama mixed race? If his mother was a white American and his father a native of Kenya, isn't he as "white" as he is "black"? Since the intro goes on about his being African-American, perhaps someone can clarify this...—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

One of the vagaries of how race is determined in the US is that it is self-identified, so even though his mother was Caucasian, he identifies himself as African-American, therefore he is African-American. There is also a propensity to consider Caucasian as a recessive race for identification purposes, meaning that if one parent is Caucasian and the other is a minority, then the child is considered to be of the minority group.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how Obama "self-identifies", but for 400 years of American history a person was either 100% white or she/he was Black (See One-drop rule). The self-identification of Americans as biracial or multiracial is a very recent development* (only picking up steam during the past 10 or so years), and it is still met with many obstacles (e.g., forms that ask the applicant to check a box for only one race). (* excluding slave-era Louisiana, where people of mixed ancestry were differentiated by the number of Black grandparents or great-grandparents they had) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"The U.S. Senate Historical Office lists him as the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American currently serving in the U.S. Senate, although many Black commentators consider him a Kenyan-American at best, and not truly African-American, as his heritage,does not have any personal history in the American Black experience." -- besides being a terribly written sentence, I can't understand what it means at all. 06:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that they mean to point out that he is not a "black American" in the historical context of descending from American slaves, rather the son of a Kenyan.

That sentence has been removed. Tvoz |talk 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek cover

If the TIME cover [14] that said "Why Barack Obama Could be the Next President" wasn't fair use, I doubt this Newsweek cover is. Italiavivi 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've requested this WP:FUR. --HailFire 08:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


I saw on ABC a story about campaign supporters helping out their candidate on the internet, specifically wikipedia. I think they mentioned about Obama's travel section as an example of positive spin but the story wasn't anti any one candidate. Fineday 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Fineday registered June 5th, was an inactive latent account for a month, and now has about 40 edits [15]. WP:AGF be damned but it's highly unusual for someone to register, not do anything for a month, then dive straight into AfDs, RfAs, and FARs if they're a genuine newcomer. "Fishy" is all I will say about "Fineday" here. He is obviously familiar with how Wikipedia works [16] and is dropping more innuendo that those editing here are Obama shills. Italiavivi 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the FAR comment is reminiscent of "Federal law says we treat candidates equally and give equal time", and we know where that led. Tvoz |talk 06:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What happened to assuming good faith and all that? :) When I first began, it was to save a particular article from deletion, so I involved myself in some AfDs right off the bat, if I recall correctly.--Gloriamarie 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Below are discussions that were initiated by Local667forOb (talk · contribs) that is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Bobblehead (rants) 04:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

added information in his book for balance

In his book, he says he used drugs. Hiding this is not neutral. But just putting that isn't neutral either. So I put a part from his book that where he said he grandparents were very proud of his school and always told people about it. I think this is fair balance. Local667forOb 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is hidden- this has been discussed here many times - see archives. And what we say is neutral and doesn't need "balance". The sentence you added is about his grandparents, not about him. Tvoz |talk 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama wrote the book, not his grandparents. It's about his school, not his grandparents' school. Why are you so bent on portraying him as a crack addict? That's POVLocal667forOb 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, no one is portraying him as a crack addict. Do you think you could tone down your edit summaries and comments here please? The statement you added talks about how his grandparents felt about his going to that school - it actually has nothing to do with the discussion of his drug use that precedes it in the paragraph and is not particularly notable. The drug use in his youth is here because consensus was reached that it was something that should be included with the appropriate weight, which is not very much. He has talked and written about it, and we handle it fairly. This is not a campaign piece for or against the candidate - it is striving to be a neutrally written biography, in limited space, keeping to the Featured Article status the editors have worked hard to attain. Much of this is discussed in the Talk page archives. Also, not every little factoid can or should be included - just because something is sourced doesn't mean it is notable. Tvoz |talk 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Previously, the paragraph was about his drug use as stated in his book. Now, the paragraph is about his high school life as documented in his book (that he used drugs but also was proud of his school). This is really no POV. Local667forOb 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem - please read what I said above and look at the archives. I think you misunderstand the purpose of this paragraph. The reason for the inclusion in this article is to adequately cover the matter of youthful drug use, not to document his high school life. And again, your reference is about his grandparents' view of his school, not his - but even if it were, it would not be notable, in my view. His autobiography is a full-length book that includes many, many such details that we can't possibly include. This is a biographical sketch of his life and career, and we have to focus on those things that are notable. His admission of youthful drug use is notable, as agreed by consensus of the editors. What we have here, which has withstood many edits and a couple of FA reviews, is a neutral factual statement that it is felt needs to be in the article. His family's feelings about his school just aren't. Tvoz |talk 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

let's report the truth, please

I just corrected the fact that the police endorsed Dan Hynes, who lost to Obama, then changed their endorsement. Let's tell the truth. Local667forOb 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, someone told me that it's possible that the person who wrote this originally did not know the fact. Local667forOb 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

picture review?

people removing pictures from here. should we have a picture review? After all, I can think of reason why some pictures shouldn't be here but I don't yank them off. Local667forOb 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary said when I removed it the first time, your picture gives a not-so-subtle POV message which is not appropriate, and the picture itself adds nothing to the article - it doesn't illustrate the text - it is just provocative. Further, the caption you posted was incorrect - this was a posed picture, not a picture of him during a meeting. There have been questions about other pictures that were taken from his Senate page - we're careful about the images on this article, so talking about it here is a good idea when someone removes an image - edit warring isn't the way to go. Please don't re-add the Superman picture. Tvoz |talk 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec)If you have a problem with any pictures on this article, you're more than welcome to replace them with a more appropriate picture. As for your Obama w/ Superman statue picture... The natural tendency for readers is to assume the image is related to the section that they are located in and an image of Obama posing with the statue (while cute) isn't exactly NPOV when placed in the section about his state legislature experience. Don't get me wrong, that section could do with picture, but one that is actually related to his state legislature experience is vastly preferable to an image that was taken during his US Senate career. Perhaps you could upload it to the Barack Obama category on Commons? [17] There is a link to commons down in the external links section. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will review the other pictures and apply the same standard as you want. Local667forOb 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

suggestion for missing content

Some articles have election results near the bottom. This is a good idea. Obama's article doesn't have this. Since he won 70% or so in one election, showing this is really impressive!Local667forOb 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has size restrictions that the readable text should meet and there are certain things that are intentionally left off as they are covered in other articles with a summary to the main article. This article is already at that size limit and there is an article for his US Senate election. As a result, a summary of the election was left here (including his 70% to 27% win) with a link to the election's article. The table with the election results are stored in the election's article.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:SIZE, it says "article size is no longer a binding rule". So, while I agree that Obama's shoe size is not needed, content is more important than size. Also, Obama is a person very much in the news so naturally the article is longer. If we are in a "whack it out" mood, I have plenty of ideas. It's not needed. In fact, there is consensus in the archives not to whack things out. No need to point out names of who said it. Local667forOb 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • laugh* I did say "should be followed" not "have to be followed". The 32k of readable text is still a good guidline to follow for a quality article. But as I noted, the vote spread for his US Senate election is included in the section already and the results table is included on that article as well. Adding the results table here would be redundant to what is already in the article. As far as the "whacking out" comment, guilty as charged. There is content in this article that I don't think should be in the article, but others think it should stay, so stay it does. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another possible addition is his net worth being #50 out of 100 senators. I saw an article that says his investing is conservative, but smart. I saw an article that Senator Feinstein, who is very rich, had information on her net worth but one of her congressional staffers took the information off wikipedia. That stunt is referenced in the Dianne Feinstein article; see it! By saying he is #50 of 100 shows that he is not stupid but is not a fat cat either. He's worth between $1 and $2M. Local667forOb 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The election information is in the text of the article, and does not need to be highlighted when there is so much else to talk about here. This has been discussed before. I think adding net worth to any of these articles is problematic as it changes, may reflect a spouse's finances, etc. Whatever is revealed in the required disclosures for candidates could be included in the individual articles about the presidential campaigns (it may already be there in fact). Tvoz |talk 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I lived in Chicago for 10 years and that kind of loopsided election results are not uncommon there. Steve Dufour 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

it is invasion

Goeth...something changed invasion to military action. The actual reference said "If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion" by President Obama. So some people may say the change to "military action" in the wikipedia article is trying to make it sound better. I think invasion is a better word. After all, if you make things sound too easy, you get into trouble like Bush did in Iraq. Saying it like it is, for example, we will invade you is sometimes better. However, I'm not so fussy that I have to change this article back to the word invasion. Local667forOb 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Obama's comment was along the lines of "if we have actionable intelligence and President Musharraf won't act on it, we will." That is not quite the same as saying the US would launch an invasion, although it sounds like a threat of unilateral military action by the US. Perhaps "unilateral" should be inserted before the "military action" bit. Best regards. Jogurney 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The press is calling it a major Obama speech. Even Obama agrees. His website says Senator Obama delivered a major address on national security today at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "

In his own website, there is a quote from Obama's speech.

"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban."

He talkin' tough! Local667forOb 22:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss

Please discussion deletions of referenced material. Plain vandalism, like saying his religion is Islam, doesn't need discussion. There was a lot of wholesale deletion by someone with no discussion here. That's not good. Local667forOb 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't wholesale deletion, there was a major reworking of the page by an experienced editor who incorporated additions that you and others made as well as adding new references and updates. Please read the page with that in mind, and don't just change things back to the way you had them. Some things work better in footnotes than in the main text, as we try to keep the size down to a reasonable length and maintain our Featured Article status. As has been said already, just because an item is true and has a reference does not make it notable for inclusion. We have to make choices all the time about what goes in and what does not, what goes to sub articles, and what goes to footnote. For example, your "Barack H. Obama, Jr." addition is unnecessary and not really even supported - the Britannica entry that you linked to doesn't make the point that he was known that way - it just lists his name as such, perhaps based on their style format. And in any case, what is notable about it? If you have citations where he is repeatedly called that, and there is some point that is being made by including it, ok, but just adding it does not have any apparent meaning. If you have something in mind, why don';t you explain it here on talk. Another example of an edit you made that is not needed is your adding of his first name into the picture caption as a "fairness edit" - Wikipedia biography style is generally to not repeat the first name of the subject unless it is needed to clarify (like if a section is referring to both Bill and Hillary Clinton) - your notion of fairness in your edit summary is not appropriate - this is not a matter of fairness. I think it's a good idea that you get more familiar with policy and style guides. Tvoz |talk 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama Jr.

Pick on some of these but the fact remains, he is a junior. Once I knew a boy that was John Arthur, II, not junior. So that guy's name was not John Arthur, Jr. We called him John. Local667forOb 00:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of those sources refer to Bill Clinton as William Jefferson Clinton. It's obviously their style to use full names, so their use of Obama's full name isn't meaningful. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Malik is correct. And can you explain why you think it is notable and important that the "Junior" be included? As was mentioned upstream, his father died many years ago and there's no indication that the Senator called himself "Jr.". Why is it significant either way? Tvoz |talk 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We should know his real name. Just like Jimmy Carter's full name was James Earl Carter, I think. Local667forOb 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, is exactly where it should be. Stop raising irrelevant things, please. Tvoz |talk 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama is responsive to the environment

See excerpt from Detroit Free Press article He lectured Detroit automakers about their having failed to anticipate the effect rising oil prices would have on consumer buying habits in a May 7 speech to the Detroit Economic Club. Then, after he got an earful in return when it was revealed his car was a Hemi-powered Chrysler 300 that got 25 m.p.g. on a good day -- the senator from Illinois went green, switching to a hybrid.

In fact, he got a Ford Escape hybrid SUV, according to campaign officials. That was before Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. blasted Obama in early June on Mackinac Island. There have been no reports that Ford's criticism has prompted Obama to turn it in.

The Escape hybrid appears to be the car of choice for campaign '08. Others reported to have one in their fleet are John Edwards, Sens. Christopher Dodd and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Govs. Mitt Romney and Bill Richardson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Local667forOb (talkcontribs).

picture is ok

I can admit a mistake. A few days ago, I cut out a picture that had been there for a while. I put it back! Local667forOb 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Senator Dodd article has a very honest confession

{{Future election candidate}} This tag could tell people that we are honest and state this. Also, if there is vandalism, like calling him Islamic, then this tag gives a subtle warning that this article is subject to vandalism without overtly starting the word vandalism.Local667forOb 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Those tags are silly. Why does placing an election tag on an article make it a "very honest confession". That is equally silly. And it would be Muslim not Islamic, he is not a republic. Turtlescrubber 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would call the tag "silly", but use of it does appear spotty, even among 1st tier candidates. This is probably a better question for WP:POLITICS as to if this is a preferred tag and when it should be applied to all of the declared or at leats top tier candidates. --StuffOfInterest 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews


I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick

Miner Barnhill and Galland

He worked for this company. Their website is Perhaps the link could be added to the mention of their name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Image for Barack Obama#Political advocacy section

Image:Obama at Darful Rally 3.JPG image was removed by User:Bbsrock. I've put it back and ask that it remain in the article until a rationale is provided for its removal or replacement. My own reasons for including this image are that it (1) depicts Obama at a rally performing political advocacy, the subject of the section; (2) adds to the adjacent text that describes his participation at that specific event; (3) is an image uploaded to the Wikipedia Commons by the photographer and released to the public domain. --HailFire 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is of poor quality and Obama is not even visible. I do not understand why the image that I added Image:Obamatalk.JPG is being repeatedly removed, since it depicts him "advocating" at a campaign event in Iowa and is of much better quality. It has also been released into the GDFL. Bbsrock 01:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Obama does not need to be visible in all pictures in his articles. Political advocacy is not about a single person talking to themselves, but rather a person trying to convince a crowd and the image Hailfire prefers does a better job of depicting that than your closeup. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

NEITHER Photo is good for this section. The close-up one is too close-up, but the far-away one is so far away it could be Clinton speaking for all we know just looking at it! What is needed is a middle-ground photo. Something that shows Oboma close but has the crowd in the picture as well. This article is about Obama, so he should be plainly visible in the photos. VigilancePrime 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A middle-ground photo is needed, but I think for now my photo is far better, simply due to the fact that Obama can actually be seen in the photo. For such a high-profile article there is no need to have a grainy, amateur looking photo without Obama even visible. I have been looking around Flickr for a better photo, but haven't been able to find one yet. Bbsrock 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and it is not correct that Obama is not visible. Take another look at the photo HailFire provided and click on it - there is a large screen on the right which clearly shows Obama speaking. This picture illustrates the section specifically, and is in Commons, and is a better image of this advocacy than bbsrock's. Doesn't hurt to keep looking for better images, but this one is preferred because of its specificity, etc. Tvoz |talk 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

added "black" and "white"

I just added the words "black" and "white" to this sentence which starts the second paragraph: "Born to a black Kenyan father and a white American mother..." I think it makes the information more clear and easy to follow and I don't see how it could be offensive to anyone. Does anyone have a problem with this? Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

But is it necessary for the intro? We have that clearly stated in the "Early life" section where we talk about his "Luo father" and say: ""That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind." Tvoz |talk 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem in stating it right away. BTW I find it offensive for someone to say "American" and assume the listener will think "white American." Steve Dufour 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Can the RFC be closed now? Eiler7 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which RFC are you referring to? Tvoz |talk 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh -I thought the Rezko one had been closed. It was brought by a sockpuppet who was evading a community ban, and yes, it should be closed. Tvoz |talk 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Near the start of the article it says: "...Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before entering politics." Some people might say that these things are a part of politics. I don't think it's such a big thing, but what do people think about saying "running for office" rather than "entering politics"? Steve Dufour 23:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed here and here. Also added "public" for both edits. --HailFire 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Steve Dufour 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama Not African-American, has Malasyan heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yes, in the sense that he lived in that part of the world. On the other hand, he is certainly a black American. Steve Dufour 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Whose voice that is?

May I know whose voice is on the recording of the article? I find it very professional. Is that some wikipedian or someone else? regards. -- 14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Local667forOb is Dereks1x

Just to let everyone know, Local667forOb is another sock of banned editor Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).[18] I've already posted a comment on AN/I to get him blocked.[19] Hopefully that'll come at some point and we can go about undoing his recent edits. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

-sigh- If I wasn't involved with monitoring and editing this article myself I'd do the duty. Best to have an uninvolved admin take care of it. I see the WP:AN/I post, which should draw someone's attention soon. --StuffOfInterest 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully an uninvolved will respond. I've had the worst luck getting them to do anything about Dereks1x socks in the past.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Spoke to soon. Picaroon blocked 'em.[20] --Bobblehead (rants) 21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So was Dexmar. Tvoz |talk 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking

Please stop attacking me and calling me a sock. The checkuser request has come back. My main interest is Oprah. I also see that there is merit to the Dan Hynes endorsement because it tells the whole story, not a santized partial truth. The other stuff, I'm not so interested.

Want me to go away? Just sit back and breathe, stop fighting, stop calling me a sock (that is now a personal attack now that the checkuser is back). After sitting back a day or two, seriously consider what I've edited. If you explain a convincing reason, I'll consider it. However, based on several of your edit summaries and lack of talk page, the rationale being my edits is stronger than your revert reason.

Once again, please lay off Oprah until you want to troll. Oprahwasontv 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note: Checkuser is only one means of determining sockpuppetry. Edits are subject to reversal when consensus hasn't been reached to make them - several other editors here have reversed the Hynes matter because it is not deemed notable. So perhaps you should sit back and consider that. As for Oprah, we're not listing endorsements in this main article, as you can see. Tvoz |talk 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Bottom line is let's all rest and stop attacking me. I've seen other make what you call inneuendo so I'll say it....Tvoz, you and Hailfire seem to edit the same and Bobblehead edits like he's cooperating with you, which is called a 4 letter word in the same category as pork and beef.
I hope you won't keep reverting and edit war. I'm willing to listen but you know what's important to me. Some stuff like the car he drives is not important to me. Oprahwasontv 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, despite what you claim here, you reverted far more than just the Oprah and Hynes - you reverted back to Local667forOb's edits which have no consensus. Again, checkuser is not the only determinant of sockpuppetry. Obvious, disruptive socks are to be blocked without regard to checkuser. Tvoz |talk 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Oprahwasontv. Please read WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. All edits by banned editors may be reverted regardless of merit to enforce their banning. Additionally, as evidenced by Dereks1x's immediate return as Dexmar and Dereks1x's 26 other sockpuppets, Dereks1x has a history of coming back to support the edits of his recently banned sock and continuing his tendentious editing pattern. Your reverting of my removal of most of Dereks1x's edits fit that pattern and as such you were lumped into that lot. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, as noted by Tvoz, checkuser is far from infallible and is only meant to be "The icing on the cake" in regards to determining a sockpuppet. It is not uncommon for multiple users to share the same IP address due to the editors accessing Wikipedia through the same proxy or having multiple editors living at the same residence. Alternatively, it is also not uncommon for a single editor to have multiple IP addresses due to dynamic IP addresses or editing from multiple locations. All in all, the only real way to tell if a person is a sockpuppet is to compare editing patterns and wording. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Hynes

Reason per deleted reason deleted by another user. Oprahwasontv 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Her endorsement is very notable. Oprahwasontv 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already included on the presidential campaign article.[21] --Bobblehead (rants) 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop the Insanity

Any reason we can't protect the page or something? Especially with the prevalance of sockpuppets and whatnot? The only non-consensus to the edits seem to be the puppetmaster and, now, "Oprah" - which I kind of find suspect based on edits and contrib history... Granted, the sockpuppets seem to have been established a long time ago (well, more than the five days a semi-protection places). There's got to be a way to stop this insane and inane re-editing of that text. VigilancePrime 02:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only next step is full protection and there isn't nearly enough activity to warrant that. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Nor should legitimate editors be inconvenienced because of one person who insists on being disruptive and tendentious. Tvoz |talk 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please stop edit-warring

Continuous edit warring as the one exhibited over the last few days will ensure that either all edit-warring parties get blocked for a time, or the article protected.

Edit-warring never accomplishes anything beyond a block or page protection. COnsider this a friendly and last warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All reverts on this article in the last few days have been to enforce the ban of Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who returned as Local667forOb and Dexmar as evidenced by their editing patterns and an RFCU. All of this is documented further up the talk page[22] as well as the RFCU for Dereks1x. Laters.--Bobblehead (rants) 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope everyone know that Oprah is also a sock of Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I never said anything because I thought it was incredibly obvious.--addition-- I just saw the coversation above and regardless of checkuser outcome, oprah is still an obvious sock of Dereks.Turtlescrubber 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Turtlescrubber 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am cheking what the last series of reverts are about, and I am really puzzled. What is the deal? If there is such an intensity of reverts, there must be a way to resolve it. I do not see much of a difference if this text remains or not He has also been known as "Barack H. Obama, Jr."[1]". What is the deal? I am protecting this page for a few days until we can get to the bottom of this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the article is protected for a few days, can involved editors summarize the dispute here? I read the diffs between the reverts and do not see any problems at first glance. If there are content disputes, I may be able to assist: Just respond below with a short comment summarizing your viewpoint regarding these edits, without any personal comments about other editors. If such comments are made, I will strike them out and not consider them in my response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite comments in my talk page by User:Bobblehead, I stand by the page protection and my request for a summary of the dispute above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no dispute, there is a tendentious editor that was banned and the reverts were to enforce that ban, nothing more, nothing less. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. There is a dispute which needs to be addressed. You would be better to leave ban enforcement to admins. Post any concerns at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard. If there is a confirmed banned user via SP accounts, we block these when there is evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Jossi needs to help out

I am shocked at the ill-treatment and incivility going on here. I saw how poorly another editor was treated which is why I looked at the edits and stepped in.

Other editors showing savage behavior

Without naming names, look here. Here's the proof. Jossi asked for discussion about content. We got none. Just name calling and accusations. In contrast, I explained my reasons for my edits.

If you ignore the checkuser and look at behavior, the savage behavior editors show worrisome signs. All of them just attack and don't explain why their reverts are good (except to yell "sock"). As jpgordon said, look at the behavior. The savage editors are behaving curiously exactly alike. Independent/unrelated editors would likely have different behavior characteristics and some would explain and explain differently.

As far as me not editing about Oprah. This is a lie. I did edit about Oprah but in another article.

Reasons for edits

My reasons have already been explained. Why waste my time having to re-explain when the others don't. For your benefit....

It is dishonest to tell the half story about Obama's police union endorsement when the real story is that his opponent was endorsed and there was significant dislike among the rank and file for Obama.
I like Oprah so I won't further explain why her endorsement and speculation to be vice-president is interesting.
there's more, but just look at the archives.

If the tactic is to chase away editors so that you can control the article then it's working. I have no desire to fight with unreasonable and incivil attackers. Oprahwasontv 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to move on, Oprahwasontv. Consensus is against reverting back to a version that includes edits by the confirmed Dereks1x sock. If you want to include the edits, then you need to build consensus for their inclusion on the talk page before you add them. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Several editors have reverted you, Oprahwasontv. You need to accept this and move on. If you fight this, you'll just look like a sock. Bhwin 23:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been reverted by several editors and the consensus is not on your side. Have you thought about just moving on?;)Turtlescrubber 04:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama redirect

There is a dispute over on Talk:Obama (disambiguation)/Talk:Obama about whether "Obama" should redirect to this page. More contributors to the discussion would be appreciated. —Lowellian (reply) 20:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have create a move discussion and protected the Obama and Obama (disambiguation) pages from being moved during the discussion to prevent the move warring. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You made the move then protected the outcome you openly desire. There's no "requested move" discussion to be had, the move has been made and protected. Italiavivi 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not make the move and then protect the outcome I openly desire. You are blatantly lying here. Just check the logs and the history. The current location of the article is not where I'd prefer it, but I wanted the moving to stop long enough to have a rational discussion without the article being moved from one title to another and back again. If you don't want to have a rational discussion, that's your choice, but your lying and constant assumption of bad faith on the part of others is not acceptable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Your use of sysop tools in in collaboration with another editor who supports the same outcome as yourself is what's unacceptable here. No one need assume good faith of your actions given the discussion on your User_talk page during your and Neier's protection of the articles. Italiavivi 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You are assuming collaboration where there is none. If you look at the timestamps on the various pages, you'll see that I protected both articles from being moved and started the discussion a while before that comment was placed on my page. Again, there was no collaboration here. Nothing was premeditated. I saw that Neier had moved the article again, so I protected both pages for 7 days to prevent further moves so a discussion could be held on what to do with the pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you saw Neier had moved the article again, so you protected it. Thank you. Italiavivi 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to quote me, please don't take it out of context. The rest of the quote is, "...protected both pages for 7 days to prevent further moves so a discussion could be held on what to do with the pages." The rest of the sentence is necessary to get the full meaning instead of the slanted, partial, and incorrect meaning you are implying. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is now a straw poll on Talk:Obama/Talk:Obama (disambiguation). Please go there to vote. —Lowellian (reply) 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


There is currently an ongoing discussion about whether Obama should be a disambig or should redirect to here. Interested editors should participate at Talk:Obama (disambiguation) Nil Einne 08:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Not ongoing anymore--I struck out the above comment.

Jossi, unprotect this page.

You've protected an article based upon editors reverting the contributions of a sock-puppet wielding community-banned user. Go read WP:BAN, then kindly unprotect this page. I'd like to get back to editing here, thanks. Italiavivi 18:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN describes reverting edits of banned users. It does not describes "reverting edits because I think that the editor is the banned user". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, siding with sockpuppets is bad policy. If you don't understand what is happening on the page then you probably shouldn't be the one "protecting" it. Turtlescrubber 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not siding with anyone. If there are allegations of sockpuppets of banned users, report them and if found to be true, I will be glad to perma-block these accounts. What is unacceptable is the editing behavior in this article in which the only arguments forwarded are "rv sockpuppet of banned user" or similar. The article will remain protected until the seemingly innocuous edits can be discussed civilly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussed by whom? There is only one user trying to push a certain set of edits made by a previously banned user. If you would bother to look at the past history of the page and the puppeteer in question, you could easily come to the same conclusion that all of the editors on this page already have. I stand by my previous statement of, "If you don't understand what is happening on the page then you probably shouldn't be the one "protecting" it." Turtlescrubber 00:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone want to contest the protection, please make a request in WP:RFPP where you can get a second opinion about the need for protection until content disputes are resolved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Y'know, Jossi, you're not the only one here. There was a nest of sockpuppetry (a Dereks1x specialty), they found it, I verified it, end of problem. Were I not loathe to overturn another admin without discussion, I would have done so already. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, JP. Feel free to overturn if you see that necessary. Unprotected. My concern is about not looking at the edits made instead of just simply saying that these edits where made by suspected SPs. From what I see, these edits are much of a do about nothing, and if we can stabilize this article by looking at these edits, I am for it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And if those SPs are verified, I will be more than happy to perma-ban them in the process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So you only listen to administrators. Guess the non-admins aren't worth your time. Much respect for that. Turtlescrubber 03:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If a fellow admin challenges an my action, I listen. Now, my concern still stands: I have seen a lot of smoke for very little fire. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It is most definitely a good thing that us lowly plebeians don't have any pull with an elite admin like yourself. Imagine if you had to listen when uppity non-admins challenged your actions. That would be dreadfully unnerving, mixing with the baser classes and all. Turtlescrubber 05:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing my point: I was doing RC Patroll when I came across this article seeing multiple reversions of material that seemed innocuous. I asked one editor about the reasons for his reversions, which he politely replied to. I made an assessment that a high quality article such as this one, should not have to be in such a state of flux, and in which the most heard comment in talk is about SPs, allegations of SPs, and other miscellanea. Looking at the edits themselves, I saw that regardless of the past with a banned user, some of these issues could be resolved as they were not major, protected the article and asked editors to provide a summary of the dispute. Involved editors did not approve, so I replied with the suggestion to contest my protection at WP:RFPP, which they did not take. Then jpgordon, came and contested the protection and I obliged. I stand 100% by m y decision to protect, my assessment that editors involved can do much better than this in dealing with WP:DE, and by my decision to unprotect after challenged by a fellow admin. Happy editing≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I think I understand your point completely. I also understand that you believe yourself to be on a higher level than ordinary editors and only respect input from your fellow admins. I am not questioning the actions you took on this page except for how you ignored everybody's opinion until another admin came along. Think about it. Turtlescrubber 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought about it and I stand by my comments. I did not "ignore the opinions" of any one. I acted based on my understanding that required the action of protecting the article. I also invited you and others to contest my action at WP:RFPP, which you and others ignored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey now, Turtlescrubber. None of that. The page is unlocked, that's the important thing. How or why it happened isn't overly important. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Turtlescrubber is absolutely right about Jossi's attitude. Jossi is being both arrogant and totally out of line. This "I'll only listen if someone else with sysop access challenges me" stance is rubbish, and sysops who take that line are bad for the project. Italiavivi 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The only possible sock that remains unblocked is Oprahwasontv. Local667forOb's block log and Dexmar's block log. The only thing preventing Oprahwasontv from being banned is that the checkuser came back as unlikely. But it is odd that a user that claims to be a fan of Oprah's hasn't made a single edit to her article or pages related to her. Not to mention the oddity of a user that hasn't made an edit since July 4th (the same time Feddhicks (talk · contribs), another Dereks1x socks returned to activity) suddenly appears and reverts my removal of most of Local667forOb's edits within an hour and a half. It could be a phenomenal coincidence, but given Dereks1x's habit to use multiple socks at the same time... Coincidence is difficult to believe. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, my "unlikely" is simply "unlikely as far as IP analysis goes" -- no behavioral analysis is involved at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is very true. Unfortunately checkuser results have achieved the status of manna from god lately. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, Jossi, this has been a fairly stable article, except when the many sockpuppets of Dereks1x have descended upon it and made quirky nit-picky edits that numerous editors disagreed with, and then those accounts went about insisting on their edits in such a contentious manner that it became obvious they were sockpuppets, following the same pattern. Or when socks of Dereks1x took this to unmerited FA review, wasting our time and impeding the work of Wikipedia for no reason other than disruption. Or when they arrived out of the blue, like Oprahwasontv did, just to revert to the edits of another one or two of the socks who were blocked, claiming that he "liked" that version better. Go back a few days and you'll see that these edits were not supported by anyone other than the sock and his fellow socks. The editors here don't agree about everything to be sure, but we have worked together to create a featured article whose citations have been pointed to as gold standard, and whose text is comprehensive, neutral, and informative. If you look at the edit history and actually read what has gone on here on talk you'll see that almost all of the dissension was caused by a rolling group of disruptive socks of one banned user. According to WP:BAN -- an official policy -- it is entirely correct for editors to revert edits made by a sock in evasion of a ban -"RV edit of sockpuppet" is a completely legitimate reason for reverting, contrary to what you say above. It is not edit warring to do so. Frankly, I'd appreciate an apology for your accusation on my talk page, but I don't expect one - instead, you might consider what is being said on this page, as we have had more experience dealing with this disruptive editor than you may have had. Oprahwasontv is another sock, and he needs to be blocked - but you know, it's a lot of work to find the diffs and write the whole thing up - time I'd rather spend doing productive things - and I am tired of being jerked around by this guy. No one who edits this page has spoken up to say that this appears to be a legitimate editor, or that his edits were valid - and right now he's crawled back under the rock. I think what Bobblehead wrote just above spells out what this guy is up to, and it should suffice for a block. Maybe someone else has the energy to write it up more formally - I don't right now, but I'll write something in support if someone else will take the ball. Or we can wait for him to re-emerge. By the way - the page was semi-protected because of a large amount of IP vandalism - you might have left the semi-protection in place, when you removed your full protection. But we can wait and see if the IP vandals return - I know where my money is on that one. Tvoz |talk 05:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem in apologizing to you. If you spend any time in RC patroll, you will come across many different situations, some of which with long histories of disruption. In some cases, I am able to assist, and in some other cases I am not. In this case, I can see that my assessment and intervention was not appreciated, so be it. I just think that an article of the quality of this one, should not be disrupted in the way it is by one editor such as the banned editor and his alleged and confirmed SP, and there may be ways to encourage this person to let go than just continue escalating, reverting and perpetuating the situation. But that is just my opinion. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hope springs eternal, but unfortunately I think the intent of the banned user and his many socks is to disrupt, not to legitmately edit. Some of the more conciliatory among us have tried reasoning with him and offering often lengthy explanations of why a particular change is being reverted, but it hasn't made much difference. He's like the proverbial dog with a bone, and it's not clear what the motivation behind it is, other than disruption. But that's just my opinion. Tvoz |talk 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: {{user5|Oprahwasontv}] was blocked as another sock of banned user Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). As such, his edits are subject to reversal. Tvoz |talk 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Position

I don't see anything in this article talking about his pro liquified coal position. Also his wife's connection to Treehouse foods and Bay Valley Foods. I think every political candidate should have an environmental position section. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BmikeSci (talkcontribs)

I moved the new topic to the bottom of the page. But I see no reason not to have it in as a subheading. Write something up with a source or two and put it in or put it here on the talk page and we can go over it. Either way I have no problem with the addition. --Rtrev 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
His position on liquified coal is in this article already with citations - see Barack Obama#lLegislation. The appropriate place for a section on all of his environmental stands would be an expansion of the "energy policy" section in the Political positions of Barack Obama article, and I think that's a good idea. Tvoz |talk 17:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Drug Use, revisited

I wonder if it's (in)appropriate for the early life/career section to include his drug use. it seems out of place and irrelevent. Perhaps if the consensus decides to keep it, would it not be more appropriate to put this in a category regarding "political controversy" or something to that extent.... 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)findingdan

I don't agree. Consensus was reached a long time ago that a mention of his teenage drug use was appropriate, and it therefore seems obvious that it belongs in "early life" - it is not a political controversy, it's a fact of his youth that he has written and spoken about. Tvoz |talk 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC) article.

Due to page length here, I created a separate article for after seeing this mainstream media coverage which came out today from Reuters. Sen. Obama appears to have started a political landslide of online social networking use, which has since been emulated by John McCain ("McCainSpace") and others. It was immediately tagged as an advertisement (which it is not), and there is now an ongoing deletion debate for the article. Italiavivi 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone should update Audacity's bestseller status

The Audacity of Hope does not show up on the NYTimes's latest nonfiction bestseller list ( It may reappear after its Nov. 6, 2007 paperback release, but is not currently a NYTimes bestseller. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural and Political image section revisited

The more I read through this section, the more it comes across as a disorganized mishmash of random columnists' opinions. The number of "not black enough" samples alone were very much bordering on WP:UNDUE, but I was able to find comments from Barack and Michelle on the matter. This section needs a trimming, if not a total redefining, though. Italiavivi 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of term "non-white" in "Presidential Campaign" section

The concept of race is regarded as outdated by many scientific fields (reflected here, and the term non-white seems to imply that he is no parts white, but he is in fact half white. According to many published scholars (and reflected in the full version of this article the term "non-white" also confers the notion that "corruption" of the white genetic gene-pool qualifies one for non-white status, even if said person does have a mixed heritage in which a traditionally "white" heritage is present. It seems more appropriate to say that he would be the first African-heritage president of the USA. Also, I would have just changed this and left a note, but I haven't edited much and I am shy. Bondolon 07:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

100 Black Men Of America

I created an article on 100 Black Men Of America. Please feel free to contribute to the article if you wish.

Grundle2600 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

this article needs to be restored

this page needs to be restored. someone edited offensive and irrelevent content into it. Politique 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - the offending material was removed. Tvoz |talk 05:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes

The 'Jr.' point has come up before: No, the presidential candidate does not use that suffix. Yes, it would be incorrect if he (or anyone else) did. From Judith Martin, "Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior", 1982, Atheneum, New York, p. 31-33 (same point made on p.696): "...Is it true that now that Grandpa is gone, everyone moves up a notch?...Everyone does move up a notch. You and your husband are not Senior, but merely Mr. and Mrs. Curt Nicholson. Only a widow uses Senior, to distinguish herself from her daughter-in-law who, as the wife of the eldest lviing person of the name, does not use any suffix, as you and your husband should not now. Your son is now junior, and his son is now 3d." Flatterworld 15:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What is so important about omitting or describing the "Jr.". If this is the whole dispute, I am stunned that it has escalated to banned users, sockpuppet accusations, etc. Much of a do about nothing, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

While most political candidates have some sort of "controversy" section on their Wiki-bio, Obama's page does not. This might mislead people to think there actually is no controversy surrounding Obama. Please consider that there is no reference to his "firebombing villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan comment; or his flip-flops on running for President or bringing U.S. troops home; and especially note how Obama's well-documented ties to financier Tony Rezko, and how Obama has given Rezko's contributions to charity (multiple time) but only after being "caught" each time, are not mentioned (althought, buried deep in the footnotes, you can find a link to a newspaper article that mentions Rezko in the title, but that's it).

It just leads to the impression that Wikipedia is protecting Obama. Even though Obama's multiple Rezko ties and scandals have been kept hush-hush in some elements of the media, it's not hard to find citations and sources ( for starters).—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The lack of a controversy section has already been discussed to death and general conclusion is that controversy sections are an indication of a poorly written article. If there are any "controversies" involving Barack Obama, then they should be worked into the existing prose. The Rezko issue has also been discussed quite extensively (take a look in the archives) and general feeling is that what is currently included in the article is an appropriate weighting. It is also not uncommon for a politician to deny they are running for an office until they formally announce, so not exactly sure that's a "controversy". As for the rest of the issues you have, it's the first I've heard of 'em, so can't comment on them. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Placing the content about Rezko in the footnotes does give the appearance that it is being hidden; it should either be moved to an appropriate section (ex: Personal life) or removed from the article entirely if the other editors here genuinely feel it is not noteworthy enough. I've never seen content placed in a reflist before and frankly I think its poor form. As to including a controveries section, Bobblehead is correct in stating that they're indicative of a poorly written article; they generally just invite POV and are unencyclopedic.--Rise Above the Vile 18:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually investigated the Sun Times like I provided, you'd find that the Obama / Rezko issue isn't simply a matter of Obama blindly receiving a one-time campaign contribution from a known felon. Obama has had to "give back" Rezko money on at least three different occassions (excuse the editorializing, but because Obama got caught three different times with his hand in the cookie jar), has been involved in a land deal with him, and had a much deeper relationship with Rezko than the candidate / faceless donor his defenders in the talk-page archive seem to imply.

I'll write up a well-sourced section about the Obama / Rezko relationship (I have the advantage of being a lifelong Illinois resident) and add it to his page...and it will be removed quite expiditiously. Mark my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Rezko situation should be discussed briefly within the article.--Gloriamarie 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Back in January, I wrote this:

Presidential candidates ought to take sustained and preemptive measures to protect their security, but their Wikipedia articles should not.

Over half a year and many edits later, I still feel the same. What is the justification for the sustained and preemptive semi-protection that we have seen on this article for most of the last six months? Are we trying to deal with recent vandalism or just wanting to not deal with it all? Don't we have smarter, more consensus-oriented tools for screening unhelpful edits on widely watched articles like this one? Before the vandals return in force (yes, I agree they will, it changes nothing in my view) let's please try once more for a consensus strategy to keep this article open to edits from unregistered and recently registered editors most of the time. I hope this view finds some support here, or at least a more sustained effort to build consensus. Thanks for listening. --HailFire 09:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

When one is dealing with a persistent string of anons/redlines repeatedly changing his religion to "Islam," it ceases being about simple vandalism and starts being a WP:BLP matter. Italiavivi 13:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Italiavivi. As I see it, the problem with this article being left open for anon and new editors is that every time we try it we are hit with a barrage of often vicious racist vandalism that is damaging to the subject and gives Wikipedia a very bad image. It is true that there are many editors watching this page who are usually quick to revert, but as you've mentioned above elsewhere, HailFire, this has been one of the most frequently read pages on Wikipedia and there are likely people around the world looking at it constantly, day and night. Most people do not know about how the encyclopedia works, and those who have the misfortune of landing on the page just when one of the racist vandals has made an edit will get a distorted, unacceptable view of the subject with at best incorrect information and at worst libelous or hateful venom. This is an embarrassment to the project and to all of us who work hard here trying to keep the article accurate and fair. I am completely aware that registered editors often cause just as much damage, but by limiting editing to them, it seems to me that we at least reduce the problem. With much respect - I haven't seen anything to change my mind from what I said here either - I truly don't understand what you have in mind as a consensus strategy for dealing with this, but as ever am interested to hear what you have in mind. Right now it hasn't started up yet, so I'm all for waiting and seeing if somehow this time will be different. Tvoz |talk 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I laughed just seeing Tvoz write the words "I agree with Italiavivi," so I took a screenshot. Anyhow, I should clarify: I'm not advocating permanent semi-protection, I'm only defending the past semi-protections of this article. All protections followed lengthy strings of "Islam," "Hussein Osama," or "nigger" vandalism. Italiavivi 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection is only a temporary measure. This, and many high profile articles in WP, can be semi-protected occasionally when there is a need. See WP:SEMI#Semi-protection. This article is watched by many, as well as being on the "watched articles" list on the RC patrol channel at #vandalism-en-wp ].≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Italia, every once in a while. For the record - I'm not necessarily asking for permanent sprot here either, but I think that for the duration of this campaign it probably will be needed, and after that who knows. In the past we've found over and over again that it's needed here despite the many eyes watching it. Same thing seems to apply to both Clintons, Bush, and some other articles that have what appears to be indefinite, not temporary, semi protection. As I said, I'm not against waiting to see what happens this time, but I think we need to remember why we've had to request semi-protection so frequently in the past, and it's not garden variety "Hi Mom!" vandalism that is irritating but not harmful or a BLP concern. Tvoz |talk 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal -- Next time semi-protection is needed to deal with recent vandalism, let's advise our helpful Admins to set an expiration counted in days, not weeks or months. --HailFire 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the need for sprotection at this point. The current level of vandalism is being easily dealt with by editors watching this page and by the CVU. If you feel that there is a need to protect, and disagree with my assessment, place a request at WP:RFPP were it will be assessed by those admins that are active in that board. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone asked for it to be semi protected at this time - we're discussing the future, I believe, based on past experience. I pointed out that it had been semiprotected when the last flurry of protect/unprotect took place and that sprot might have been retained then, but I further said a few times that I'm not against taking a wait-and-see approach. HailFire is talking theoretically about the future as well. Tvoz |talk 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You are right. My misunderstanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fyi. --HailFire 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from thinking the sprot wasn't necessary, I don't have a comment. The edit war over the redirect was more disruptive than the vandalism that has hit the page since it was unlocked. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
HF, I'm not sure that your request to DarkFalls represents the overall consensus of the editors here - we've had the same tired argument lots of times without really reaching any conclusion. But I don't care - if it expires sooner we'll see when we need it again. Uninvolved neutral admins have repeatedly judged that the page needs sprot without being asked, I think because it's obvious. I wish I understood why this approach seems better to you, and why you don't mind having the vicious vandalism available for readers unfortunate enough to log in at those times. It does damage to the subject and to Wikipedia's image, is a gross waste of effort, and real changes have often been overlooked in the sea of vandalism that we've had to deal with. But it's not something I feel like fight ing about. Not while the Great Disambiguation War is going on, anyway... Tvoz |talk 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fyi. --HailFire 10:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Copying these links to two pages [23] [24] containing content discussing past and future application of sprot on this article. --HailFire 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fyi. --HailFire 05:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we keep this tag at the top of the article until we can make some progress in our continuing discussion about the application of temporary/indefinite sprot. Thanks. --HailFire 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow why Tvoz |talk 06:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a view held by some contributors that small icons are best reserved for articles with indefinite protection. As this discussion had come to focus on whether this article is one of them, I thought it was better to use the more informative tag until consensus became clear. --HailFire 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Although, I must say this experiment with periodic unprotection seems to be indicating that an extended period of semi-protection for this article is a good thing. Since Jossi unlocked it on August 11, the article has only lasted an average of 3? days between protections (4 days, 5 days, 2 days).[25] --Bobblehead (rants) 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, as you pointed out earlier in this thread, the first move to semi-protect was probably premature. I also think the two subsequent sprots were triggered unnecessarily, well before revert+warning followed by targeted blocking had been attempted for a reasonable interval. Just before the current sprot, I count 10 unique IP vandal incidents in just over two days; overall, the article remained in a vandalized state for 21 minutes, an average of about 2 minutes for each incident. During this same period, there were about 4 non-vandal IP edits, and (according to Wikicharts estimates) approximately 2000 visitors to the article. Perhaps the most useful result of this experiment is that all of us can join with Tvoz in narrowing this discussion to a key issue instead of hoping that the repeated instances of sprot applied for two or more weeks are just temporary measures: Does this highly visible, but closely watched, article concerning a public figure who is running for U.S. president require an exceptional application of indefinite sprot, or can we the Wikipedians put our heads together to find a more perfect solution? I'd like to hear views from both sides, but especially from any remaining "anyone can edit" believers out there, as this discussion has been getting rather one sided, and more than a bit lonely (for me) of late. --HailFire 20:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if you ignore the first sprot, the second and third applications of sprot were done after an average of 3 days of unprotection. I'm not going to comment on the events leading up to the last two sprots as I haven't been around much lately, but the fact that two different admins felt the need to sprot the page should say something about the level of vandalism to this page and the visibility that vandalism has had. With your opinion request on "anyone can edit", I point you to the next three words in that sentence "almost any page". There are always going to be pages that, for whatever reason, are vandal magnets and as such it is in the best interest of the project that they get a lengthy sprot. This page just happens to be one of those pages. This doesn't mean the article has to be protected indefinitely, just for extended periods followed by experiments in unprotection to see if the need for protection remains or not. The last month has been one of those unprotection experiments and, in my opinion, this round the experiment has failed.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching the revision history via RSS for 3 months now. For whatever reason the vandalism this last month has been rather high. I suspect that the vandals wait for the protection to be removed and then strike again. In a sense, the protection may be acting as a goad. These guys are contesting with your ability to keep the page clean. To defeat this, you need to deny them the satisfaction. Make them work harder to introduce their vandalism and then remove it quickly when it appears. I don't know what other tools are in the arsenal but protection certainly helps deter the vandals, because it forces them to register and then go through a waiting period before they can tag the page. This delayed gratification coupled with an almost immediate removal of the graffiti is a good way to go. --Tanjstaffl 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of Image:Flickr_Obama_Springfield_01.jpg in presidential campaign section

This photo is the best available free image for illustrating this section. It has been used here before and relates directly to the opening paragraph. Bbsrock, please state clear reasons before making another replacement, and seek consensus on this talk page before changing it again. --HailFire 00:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this photograph depicts his announcement of his campaign. Why not use Bbsrock's Image:Obamaaustin.jpg to replace Image:Flickr Obama Austin 01.jpg further down in the article? It is definitely a nice photo, from the same rally in Austin (so the 20,000 caption could stay) and much better than a photo which doesn't even show Obama himself. Italiavivi 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Bbsrock made the right move in shifting Image:Flickr Obama Austin 01.jpg to the Barack Obama#Cultural and political image section. The caption now being used in Barack Obama#Cultural and political image describes the Austin crowd, Image:Flickr Obama Austin 01.jpg clearly portrays a portion of that crowd. The source cited at the end of the caption is worth reading, as it supports the "diverse" characterization included in the caption, and represented in the photo. This whole section is all about how people see Obama. This image shows people doing just that. I won't get into photo quality comparisons, but these too should be considered. --HailFire 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Although both images in question depict Obama's rally in Austin, I feel Image:Obamaaustin.jpg is far better for illustrating the presidential campaign, because it shows him campaigning. The image of him in Springfield is of low quality and not representative of his campaign. True, both images are from Austin, but I think for now the pros of that image outweigh the cons. For the image of his multicultural supporters, Austin does not need to be mentioned in the caption, because the image is supposed to be representative of the kind of overall support he receives. Bbsrock 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the image after no one responded. Bbsrock 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe not everyone has weighed in yet. I disagree with this last change and reverted to the previous - the Springfield image specifically illustrates the text in the Presidential campaign section and therefore makes much more sense and Image:Flickr Obama Austin 01.jpg works well for cultural and political image because of the reasons HailFire gives above regarding the caption and footnote and the photo's relevance to the text. ObamaAustin doesn't really show anything other than him and his campaign posters. (And relevance to the text is more important that technical picture quality, in my opinion.) Tvoz |talk 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The image does not necessarily have to be referenced specifically in the text if the section is about his presidential campaign. In a presidential campaign, a candidate obviously has to campaign, and I feel that is enough "reference" for inclusion in the article, especially over an image that is of poor quality and makes the article look worse, in my opinion. Several other articles for presidential candidates depict them "campaigning" in images without specific reference to where and when they were campaigning. Bbsrock 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, but that picture doesn't really portray anything specific - it could be anywhere, and is just his face surrounded by campaign signs. What does it add? The Springfield picture actively illustrates the launch of the campaign, and is a more active shot. Tvoz |talk 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a new photo of Obama campaigning in South Carolina. Although there is no specific reference to this event in the section, I would ask that you consider the aesthetics of this high-profile article and leave this photo, which is of much better quality than the Springfield one. It also eliminates the problem of a "duplicate" with the previous photo that I had wanted to use. Bbsrock 06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ObamaSouthCarolina.jpg. It's a sharper photo than the Springfield one, but IMO not nearly as meaningful from an encyclopedic point of view. Image:Flickr Obama Springfield 01.jpg has special historic significance, and it is one of the rare free images where Obama is pictured together with his family. In fact, it first appeared in this article in the "Personal life" section, just for that reason. People familiar with last year's "draft Obama" initiatives may also like to check the photo credit. I also think candidate-stands-in-front-of-US-flag photos are so commonplace as to be boring. What was significant about the Conway, South Carolina rally that it merits inclusion? Just some thoughts. Thanks again for contributing. --HailFire 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I again agree with HailFire about the Springfield picture - it may not be the very best in clarity, but it is a real shot that specifically illustrates the article text which is always preferable to yet another head shot. We know what he looks like -we want to see something more active and illustrative, I think. The Springfield shot captures the feel of the announcement. Tvoz |talk 03:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying this. --HailFire 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that version of the image is much better looking. Would you suggest putting Image:ObamaSouthCarolina.jpg anywhere else in the article? I think it would be useful to have an image of him actually campaigning. Bbsrock 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A false interview of Obama in Politique internationale

One may be interested by the news that Alexis Debat, an "expert" associated with the National Interest review, has made a false interview of Obama published in the otherwise reliable French magazine Politique internationale. See Pascal Riché, Une fausse interview d'Obama dans Politique internationale in Rue 89, 5 September 2007. Debat also works at the Nixon Center and is a consultant for ABC News since years. He is often quoted by the media (Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran)... Asked by Rue 89, Ben LaBolt, Obama's speaker, was astounded to learn of the existence of this "interview" which Obama never made. Debat has claimed in the past having been in Edenvalle University in Great Britain — which doesn't exist. He claims to have had a doctorate in the Sorbonne, but this was denied by André Kaspi, French historian at the Sorbonne, specialized in US history. During the 2005 civil unrest in France, he was interview by TV as a "former social worker", allegedly because he has passed some times at Martine Aubry's foundation, Agir contre l'exclusion (which, if true, would still not make him a "former social worker"). He however usually presents himself as an expert on terrorism and Al-Qaida matters... Tazmaniacs 12:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rue 89's scoop was taken up by The Washington Post, and Debat resigned from The National Interest: Howard Kurtz, Consultant Probed in Bogus Interview, The Washington Post, September 13, 2007. Tazmaniacs 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"I think we should not have had this discussion on,..."

"I think we should not have had this discussion on nine-eleven or nine-ten or nine-twelve,..."

"It perpetuates this notion that the original attacks had something to do with going into Iraq."

"This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake,..."

"There are bad options and worse options."

< >.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 05:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If listing his quotes from yesterday is in violation, then, once again, this website proves its bias.

If you can prove that he did not say anything like this, similar to this, then prove that.

Further, I could have just attempted to squeeze these quotes in someplace, on the primary article; but, I did not do that, as the article is too complex.

He did say these, do you know how to input them on searchengines? Do you need me to convert them into searchlinks, to demonstrate how many websites quote those in various combinations? Do I need to find some journalist, send them to your home?

Whatever do you require?

Please, deletion is rarely the best first reaction, particularly w/ a signed message, @ the bottom of other comments, in appropriate chronology, & avoiding any disruption of other comments. If someone says something that you cannot comprehend, well it is labelled "talk", "discussion", not "deletion".

If you want to debate whether these quotes are accurate, then, okay. I do have other things to to however; it is 02:05.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 09:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually explained why you were adding the quotes to the talk page, then it would have been kept. Instead, all you did was provide a list of quotes with no explanation as to where the quotes came from or who made them and a link to the MoveOn ad which contained none of the quotes in which you provided. As such, the only assumption one could draw was that your addition was not an attempt to improve the article, but rather an attempt to use this talk page as a discussion board. As an editor with over a year of experience, in which time you've made almost 840 edits to article talk pages, you should be familiar with the proper usage of talk pages, if not, please familiarize yourself with WP:TALK and next time.. Try and actually include an actionable description of what you are expecting to happen as a result of your addition to the talk page. I would also remove the link to the MoveOn ad from your initial addition as it is clearly does not support your quotes and serves no purpose in your stated intention of needing assistance on how to get these quotes worked into the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what I also was saying on your user talk page last night. These quotes are not self-explanatory - I for one still can't tell what point you think they illustrate. Tvoz |talk 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. Good point. When I initially read hopiakuta's explanation I sent it through the internal copy editors and the corrected version they returned gave the impression the user was confused on how to include the quotes in the article. But now that I've fired the copy editors and have closely read the unmodified version of what hopiakuta read, it would appear the point of the addition is not to improve the article, but to rather to use the talk page as a discussion board or as a substitute for Wikiquotes. Outside of a better explanation from hopiakuta, I'm left with the opinion that the inference they are trying to make is that there is a connection between Obama's quotes and the rather silly ad that MoveOn put in the NY Times that the wingers are trying to get the Dems to distance themselves from..--Bobblehead (rants) 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I did offer an explanation; but, I had neglected the proof:

I had sincerely thought that many other people would have heard it. So, it seems, the people who care about these pages, had never heard it:

< >.

Okay, I do concede that the "silly" quotes dovetail w/ the "silly" advertizement. Okay.

Most advertizing is silly. Most political debate is silly. We tend to be a convoluted, hypocritical, easily diverted, confused, species. I, also, concede that I am, frequently, amongst the the most confused, therefore causing much of my writing & speaking to be confused, confusing.

However, in the assume good faith model, I am, generally, trying to express something that I believe is true. As f/ that other "faith",....: devout ignostic.

This week's hearings are absolutely necessary, completely silly, ridiculous, absolutely the truth, such as these quotes.

I "...was confused on how to include the quotes in the article." I am, moreso, now.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could work a summary of the quotes into the rather lengthy section on Political advocacy, in which there are several paragraphs covering Obama's position on the Iraq War. Although, I would caution against drawing any connections between Obama's comments and the MoveOn article unless you can find a source that makes that connection. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe on Political positions of Barack Obama where there is more room for detailed explanation. Tvoz |talk 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a full transcript of Obama's remarks. This opinion column by Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan also offers an interesting perspective. However, I don't see anything in Obama's remarks that adds anything new about his Iraq position that is not already adequately covered in the article. Except for the remark about whether Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker's testimony should have been delivered on 9/11, these are all points that Obama regularly makes in his campaign speeches. --HailFire 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


This page garnered a positive mention in a recent Washington Post article. Kudos to Hailfire, Tvoz, Jersyko, and everyone else who has helped maintain the high quality of this article. 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Obama a Muslim?

Although I am not sure "where" to place this on the main page; I think it is rather important to note that Obama was sworn into office with his hand on the Koran, not The Bible. Just because someone is baptized doesn't mean they practice Christianity (his own statement about faith is that it can be used to accomplish his political goals). I see the "Personal life" section mentions his father being Muslim, but says nothing about his education as a Muslim himself. It also doesn't mention that even after his father left, Obama continued in Muslim school. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced Obama to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Isn't all this information very importanat? I apologize for my lack of links, but I am pretty new at this and am at work. I just thought someone might take enough interest in this information to add it. (Waxman22 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Actually, no, Obama was not sworn in on a Koran. Nobody is sworn in on any holy book, it is not part of the official ceremony. If they want to be sworn in on a holy book in a private ceremony, they can be, but even then, Obama was not sworn in on a Koran. You seem to be conflating him with Keith Ellison, who did hold a private ceremony in which he was sworn in on a Koran as the first Muslim elected to Congress. And if you go back through the archives, you can see a lot of discussion of the talking points you raise. Shsilver 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The debunked and bullshit school claim is mentioned in a footnote along with a bunch of references showing how bullshit it is. It's not worthy of mention in the article IMHo given that it's basically a non issue. The only ones who fell for it were Fox News everyone else quickly realised it was complete BS so basically it was a tiny blip Nil Einne 23:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Board of Directors Joyce Group

Someone should update this to include the fact he was a gun control zealot who was on the board of the Joyce Group a rabid anti-gun group. Also note Chicago has an illegal gun ban in his home state, as well as an equal protection (14th) violating ban on concealed carry permits (cops get them, others dont, violates equal protection of laws).

Barack Obama was on the Board of Directors for the Joyce Foundation from 1998 to 2001. You can find more information at The Joyce Foundation.

He is well versed in constitutional law so he is premeditating treason.

mickrussom 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite that the Joyce Group have rabies? Can you site that Obama, a ten year professor of constitutional law, is acting treasonous by his applicable support of some conditions and rules within the framework of the firearms that Chicagoans still have access and rights to possess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

404 links

As of Sept 24, 2007, the following links in this article return an HTTP code of 404:

I recommend that they all be removed since they are a waste of the reader's time. I find that the changing {{cite web}} to {{cite news}} is a good way to handle removing the url while otherwise leaving the ref in place.--RidinHood25 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the broken links and confirmed that all current links were available as of September 30, 2007. Also updated accessdates. --HailFire 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am mistaken but...

Is his middle name really Hussein? Contralya 11:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You should definitely read the archives. It is. --Rtrev 13:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It sure is odd how someone running for president has the same middle name as Saddam's last name. Contralya 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a very common Arabic name. As you can read here, it means "beautiful" or "handsome". —bbatsell ¿? 01:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, Barack isn't an Arab, Arabic names are just frequent in the Koran, so non-Arab Muslims like to use them as well. Funkynusayri 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
His parents were atheists. It's cultural, not religious. johnpseudo 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Youngest person running for president

Somebody please mention hes the youngest person running for president of 2008. Hes way younger then the rest of those old bags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talkcontribs) 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be worth a mention, if it is true and has been mentioned by an outside source. Steve Dufour 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The other presidents were not old bags! Obama (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected status revisted

In the more than two weeks since this article was semi-protected without an expiration date I count three vandal/unhelpful edits. Any support for reopening this article to new and unregistered editors and giving unprotected status a similar two-week trial? --HailFire 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hailfire, the problem with vandalism on this article(and Wikipedia wide, for that matter) has rarely been an issue with the named accounts that have been around long enough to edit this page, it is the anonymous/newly created accounts that have been problems. So I'm not sure what the amount of vandalism that this article has received since the indef semi-protect was implemented has to do with getting this article unprotected... All in all, your count just shows that semi-protection is working. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright Bobblehead, I admit the unconvincing logic of my previous post. :) Here's another try: Perhaps the idea I have been trying to express is that I don't think vandalism on this widely watchlisted biography of a leading presidential candidate ought be managed the same way as we might manage it for articles about cheese and taco. Considering the context of this article, isn't there a substantial risk that semi-protection, a tool designed to help us address one problem, may be creating another? Semi-protection is great for calming suspected outbreaks of coordinated vandalism after revert, warning, block strategies have failed. I am all for that. But that is not what has happened on this article the last few times that semi-protection was applied. All I am saying is we should give anyone can edit a chance--at least once every two weeks, and we really don't need to make a dash for the bunkers the moment someone hurls some nasty language or an inappropriate image at the article. Is this logic just a bit more convincing? --HailFire 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how anything has changed in regards to the nature of Obama's high profile/visibility since the sprot was last implemented that would alter this article being a vandalism magnet. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As you'll guess, I agree with Bobblehead. And if Pro crast in a tor's reading of Wikicharts is correct here - even 10 minutes of vandalism standing on this article means that hundreds of people see the problematic material - and I think that is unacceptable, given the nature of the vandalism. Setting ground rules for participation in a given activity is not prior restraint: If the Wikipedia Foundation is the government in your analogy, prior restraint would be announcing ahead of time that an article about Barack Obama can't be published. Prior restraint is not Wikipedia deciding what ground rules for such writing are, any more than it's prior restraint when a newspaper decides that you have to provide them with your name and contact information (a lot more restrictive and revealing of one's identity than getting a wikipedia username, I might point out) in order to have a letter to the editor published, even anonymously. So let's try to keep freedom of the press out of this - it's really not relevant. Tvoz |talk 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Obama / Muslim

I believe that this article should include the fact that Barack Obama has been raised a muslim and should not be trusted with leading our country. He could quite possibly be a threat to America especially with the war on terrorism. He may be a threat to national security if elected for president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robrhoten (talkcontribs) 15:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, you may "believe" that but can you cite any reliable sources which support that belief? We don't edit the articles based on personal belief but on verifiable facts. --StuffOfInterest 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Obama does not wear an American flag on purpose

Mr. Obama revealed that his not wearing an American flag pin was something that he purposely doesn't do. He said it. It is notable.

It is not that he didn't think of it. It is not that he forgot. He said "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

See,CST-EDT-edit05new.article Ephraim Inoni Jr 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you add it to his you'll have to add it to every other candidate's page, except for Rudy's. ABC News covered this a couple of nights ago and pointed out that Obama is far from being the only one. Seems more like a flash in the pan news story than something worth having in a permanent biography. --StuffOfInterest 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it is a politically driven point and should not be noted in the article. Doktor Waterhouse 06:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Statements he's made (found here) seem to point in that direction:

The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be "an instrument of God."

"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

So by "a Kingdom right here on Earth," does he mean a Christian-run government? That would be the conclusion a lot of people would make if a Christian Republican had said those things. Jinxmchue 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little sketchy to me. I would say it doesn't need to be included that you can label Obama as such because he hasn't really clarified what he meant. He could possibly mean he wants to create a heaven on earth? Coffee and TV 15:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not African American

Obama is not African American. For two reasons. Firstly African Americans are not the same thing as immigrants from Africa. African Americans are descendents of slaves who have been in America for many generations, and effectively have only American heritage. Obama is the child of someone born in Kenya. He has no African American heritage. The only similarity is the colour of his skin. Secondly, Obama is 50% white. Sorry if I'm being too picky. Carl Kenner 01:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • African American isn't such an exclusive term. Funkynusayri 05:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Last time I checked an African American is someone from African desent. Gang14 05:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Obama is an American citizen with notable African descent, hence African American. If you argue against this, you are wrong. Sorry, but your semantics isn't going to change the obvious and indisputable fact that he's an African American. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:06 06 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh and by the way, the racist one-drop rule says that he's an African American because according to the one-drop rule, he can't be white. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:06 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
          • First, the editors of this article need not decide for themselves what makes a person an African American when Wikipedia already has an article that defines African Americans as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.[1] In the United States the term is generally used for Americans with sub-Saharan African ancestry. Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who were enslaved within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are—or are descended from—voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, or elsewhere.[2]"
            Second, please take a look at African American#Who is African American?: "For example, 55% of European Americans classify Senator Barack Obama as biracial when they are told that he has a white mother, while 66% of African-Americans consider him Black.[52] Obama considers himself to be black[53] though he is generally considered to be African American.[54]" — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
            • For those who subscribe to the out of Africa theory, all Americans are African-Americans. Just as all Asians are African-Asians, all Europeans African-Europeans, etc. And the point is? That ethnic/race classification is a slippery slope without definitive answers and is used more often to divide than unite people. Carlossuarez46 06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah, but, we're talking about modern ethnicities, not 50 000 years ago. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:05 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
                  • Not only that. The "out of Africa" theory is a theory, probably a true theory, but still a theory. There should be evidence that someone has African heritage and the ooA theory just isn't enough. Str1977 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
                • We're talking about African American in context of Obama - you are putting time line definitions on it - so in how many years will the African Americans (however you define them) of today cease to be so due to passage of time? Carlossuarez46 16:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • Well, for starters, I don't think you can say there were any African Americans before 1492. But that's just me being generous, because after all, an American state didn't exist in 1482. So it really comes down to the past 200 years or so. Also, it doesn't exist any pure blood scale for being "African American." — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:07 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

PLease read what Malik Shabazz said a few posts up: it seems to me that should end this conversation as far as this article is concerned, as it has other times that this has been raised (see talk archives). Otherwise, please move the discussion elsewhere - this space is for discussing the editing of this article; it's not a forum for discussing the general subject of racial identity. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


This article reads as though it could have been clipped right from the biography page of Barack Obama's campaign website. In order to be neutral, the article needs to present a more complete picture of Obama containing criticism from all sides. As it stands now the article basically fawns on him. I think it still needs a lot of work despite being labeled as a "featured" article. 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this post from Antodav (talk · contribs · logs) who posted the neutrality tag? It would appear so based on recent edit histories. If so, this is not specific enough to be useful. My reading of WP:BLP is that we are charged with writing a neutral biographical encyclopedia entry, presenting facts about the subject that include criticism where it is relevant and notable, not including anything we can dig up just so that we can say that we have criticism, and not giving it undue weight in the article. I believe we've done this properly. We're not supposed to do analysis - we're supposed to present facts and let the readers and researchers draw their own conclusions from them. Criticism that appears here include his voting record in the Illinois legislation, his position on liquified coal, his comments regarding Kenya, his stance on abortion rights, the "is he black enough" critiques, his political image, and perhaps other things. I don't see fawning - I see a well-sourced, neutrally worded biography that has gone through the FAC process and two FA reviews. If you have specific areas that you think need addressing, please share that with us. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 00:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This article does not appear to meet Wiki's standards of neutrality. The selective exclusion of irrefutable facts shows that bias. I'll check back, but this practice concerns me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney and Obama are cousins

This isn't a joke. Member - Society of Dog Lovers 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. The things you learn from Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting piece of trivia, but I think it's being given far too much weight in the article at the moment. It should probably be pared down to just a sentence or two. --Loonymonkey 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Much improved as part of the family tree footnote. Tvoz |talk 06:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes someone needs to put this fact in the article. Obama and Cheney are 8th cousins. Obama and BUSH are 11th cousins. Obama also shares relation with Truman. [26] I don't know how to enter this with the semi-protection, but this is certainly very pertinent.Whitemensburden 04:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a one-line piece of trivia. "Obama is an eleventh cousin of George W Bush and an eighth cousin (or perhaps a ninth cousin once removed) of Richard Cheney. 11th cousin is something like 1/4096 related... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is information about our current administration and a potential administration. I don't know what the criteria for something to qualify as trivia is. The information should be displayed, and left for the reader to decide, instead of excluding/censoring the facts.Whitemensburden 17:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone is in agreement that it should be mentioned but someone took it out completely. One sentence is enough for me, not more. Zero sentences is too little. Member - Society of Dog Lovers 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's just trivia and not even worth the sentence. Turtlescrubber 01:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not taken out completely - it is in footnote 154 (Cultural & political image section) along with a bunch of other incredibly distant relatives - as indicated above - more than that would be giving a very minor point too much weight. Tvoz |talk 07:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You do not put content in notes or references. That is not the way you construct or read an article. Content goes in the article. References are where that information came from. A reader can choose to look at the reference or not, it must not be content but citation of content. It is either important and in the article, or it is not. Putting something only in references is utter editorial nonsense. WikiDon 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - and so does WP:FN. ""Footnotes are useful for material that would be distracting if included in the main text, yet is helpful in explaining a point in greater detail." This is done all the time: on Wikipedia, in scholarly books, everywhere. I would not object to the header being "Notes and references" rather than just "References", but I don't think that is particularly necessary. However, what you call "utter editorial nonsense" is common practice, and not nonsense. Tvoz |talk 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
my vote is for inclusion of the facts in the main body of the article. pertinent information that should be left for the reader to interpret.Whitemensburden 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Pertinent to what? And what is preventing the reader from interpreting material that is in a note? No one is taking it out, as pointed out above. It's just a matter of how much can go in the text and how much in the notes. Tvoz |talk 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pertinent to the election process--- knowing a candidate's family ancestry. Obama had slaveowners in his ancestry, this is also pertinent, and is also excluded from the main body of the article. If you or anyone else had relations to either the Cheney or Bush families, wouldn't you want others to know about it? I wouldn't. Come on people, quit the blatant partisan censorship and at least mention it in the main body.Whitemensburden 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha. Yes, everyone needs to know he is an eighth cousin of Cheney. Lame. Ass. Trivia. Turtlescrubber 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Future Election Tag

I was going through all the current candidate articles to make sure they are consistent in "future election" tagging. When I went to change this one, I noticed there was a note on the page saying to not tag this as there is already a tag on the 2008 election section of the article. I disagree that it belongs here. Although the 2008 election section will change the most, during most elections, we find out a lot more about candidate, including that which is not specific to the 2008 election. As it is, candidates' entire articles are likely to change, not just one section. I decided to WP:Be Bold and change this as I could find nothing about in this in the archived discussions. Maybe I missed it. Let me know. --Jdcaust 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, forgive me, I see that in other articles the standard seems to be to keep it to the election section. I changed back to keep this with the standard, but I'd still like to here people's thoughts on whether it belongs there or up top. --Jdcaust 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think it belongs on top. The article doesn't change enough to constitute the tag. I think it looks wiki articles look unprofessional, like the myspace of encyclopedias. I don't think there is an official policy on it but just more user preference. Turtlescrubber 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point on how it keeps it clean looking. Its not like this tag is of top importance like a neutrality tag or deletion tag or something. I'll just leave it alone. Good luck to the editors here as the election approaches! Unfortunately, I'm sure all the presidential candidates will see plenty of unscrupulous editors drop by. --Jdcaust 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Does not reflect the stated policies of Wiki

I'm afraid that this article, by it's selective exclusion of factual events, does not reflect the stated policies of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What selective exclusion? In order to make constructive changes to an article, you need to provide specific examples and explain yourself better. Simply coming on here and complaining generically accomplishes nothing. --Jdcaust 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This article excludes information on his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Why? Shouldn't this be included in the page? Just flip to the wikipedia page on Rezko and there is a whole section on his dealings and relations with Obama. Antoin Rezko. Clearly a section needs to be included on his relations with Rezko. Barack lied to the Chicago Sun-Times about how much Rezko donated to his campaign, and he also lied to the Chicago Tribune that he had never done any favors for Rezko, when in fact, he had written letters on Rezko's behalf to Chicago and Illinois officials so that Rezko could collect a hefty contract to develop senior citizen housing [27] [28]. Obama's dealings with Rezko were improper, and he subsequently lied about them. But, apparently this is not significant enough to include in the page. What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This would probably make more sense in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 than here, I think. I do agree that the article is mildly hagiographic, but that's true of a decent portion of our '08-election-related articles (much of the rest are mildly attacking, with relatively few at the happy middle). So it goes with contentious issues. --Delirium 08:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't this link be at least at the bottom of the page?

[29] Contralya 10:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

His full name

I read in the german vanity fair his full name is "Barack Kisuaheli Hussein Obama" ? Is it right? Sei217.232.103.35 08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's doesn't appear to be correct. At least I can't find any source anywhere that indicates his legal name is other than listed here. --Loonymonkey 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Anyone notice that the footnotes section is just as long as the main article? Isn't that kinda odd?Heqwm 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of featured articles on Wikipedia where every little thing that anyone could possibly question (and quite a few things where no one would) require a citation. I'm currently working on a featured article review and we've got about 170 citations and they are still saying the article is undercited. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, couldn't it be made collapsible though? 07:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama?

Somebody probably ought to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to fix. Hussein is Obama's middle name. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Does wiki typically include middle names? It seems odd, and he doesn't use his middle when introducing himself or on correspondence. Since his middle name is typically only included in attacks against him (attempting to connect him to radical muslims), it appears to assume a biased position by including it here. 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)curious reader

Yes, Wikipedia includes full names in the lead for every biography if they are known and sourcable. Please see our manual of style. —bbatsell ¿? 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody confirmed that Hussein is in fact his middle name? I usually only see it in literature that portrays him badly, so I'm a bit suspicious. --MiguelMunoz 08:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hussein is really his middle name.--Rise Above The Vile 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Barack Obama a candidate for the 2008 presidential election."

One should know by reading,at least,the 3 first lines that "Barack Obama is a candidate for the 2008 presidential election." The article is edited in that way that you'll only get to know that fact by arriving at paragraph 4. I mean take a look at the Hillary Clinton's page for example,there is no doubt left about whether or not she is running for presidency, already from the 2 first lines. I believe we should clear up misunderstandings and edit it "fairly",without mentioning that there are millions of people seeking information on candidates and among those people many won't unfortunately get so far in their reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigabo (talkcontribs) 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, actually. Instead of saying he's the junior senator from Illinois and "a member of the Democratic Party" (which sounds a little clumsy anyway) it should probably say "and a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination." This is more or less how all the other candidate articles treat it. --Loonymonkey 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Done, changed it to the same intro sentence as Hillary's. Bjewiki (Talk) 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Black" and "white" removed

An early sentence starts: "Born to a Kenyan father and an American mother...." A while ago I changed this to "Born to a black Kenyan father and a white American mother...." It stayed that way a while and then the words "black" and "white" were removed. I think it is better with them. For one thing some Kenyans are not black (about 1% according to its article) and many Americans are not white. For another it seems like the article is trying to avoid talking about his racial background here. To me that makes a bad impression, as if we were ashamed or embarassed to talk about race. I also mentioned before that I personally find it offensive when people say "American" and expect it to be understood as "white American", as the article now seems to be doing. (p.s. the introduction does not now mention his multi-racial background. This has got to be a part of his notability.) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. I will try changing the wording back and see what happens. Redddogg (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No Criticism Section?!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm closing this discussion as it is obvious that a "criticism" or "controversy" section will not be included in this article as it is a sign of a poorly written article and gives undue weight to minor controversies and criticisms. If any editor feels a specific controversy or criticism needs to be included, or covered in more depth, within the existing prose of this article, you are more than welcome to discuss its inclusion and where to put it in another section of this talk page, but there won't be a section dedicated to such things. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it astounding (although with Wikipedia, frankly, I am no longer that surprized) to find that there is no Criticism section on this Democrat. I would have added a sentence (or a quote) or two, with a footnote to the appropriate article (I know, I know, "why don't you start one yourself?"), but not having the time to start one myself (where to begin?!) I don't see what other choice there is but to add it as an entry in the Further Reading section. Asteriks 11:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Many editors prefer to not have separate "criticism" or "controversies" sections in biographies because they can easily become dumping grounds for any real or imagined negative comment about the subject. Rather, it is preferred to integrate reliably sourced critical material into the text and notes of articles, sometimes setting up subarticles about a particular controversy that warrants it - and that's what we've done here. Tvoz |talk 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, there's very little encyclopedic value to these opinion pieces. I'm tempted to pull the link, but I'd like to hear other voices. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I didn't realize it had actually been added (thought it was just a suggestion) - I would pull it too, as it is not what is usually meant by "Further reading" - this is a minor editorial comment about one position, not a comprehensive editorial piece. Tvoz |talk 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
(EC)It should also be noted that the lack of a Criticism/Controversy section is not limited to articles on Democrats and the inclusion of the section is not limited to Republicans. Ronald Reagan's article lacks a criticism/controversy section, while the Bill Clinton and Al Gore articles include them. All in all, whether to integrate the criticism into the rest of the article, or to include a separate criticism section is up to the editors of that page. I know there have been several attempts to get the criticism sections of the current Republican Presidential candidates integrated into the rest of their article (or sub-articles as appropriate), but unfortunately these attempts have failed. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the editorial piece.. After reading it, I must say.. Not in the least bit NPOV and seems to be relying quite a bit on the crystal ball that is common in editorial board opinion pieces. So, not your typical "Further Reading" or External Link. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. "Further Reading" sections are generally for learning more about the subject not a backdoor way to sneak criticism in. The most recent editorial that was added to that section is simply an attack piece and offers no new information. We already know that Republicans don't like Obama just as Democrats don't like the Republican candidates. There is no need to stack up examples of such. --Loonymonkey 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a "controversies" section, or at least sections that note the controversies surrounding him. If you bring up a page on any other politician there is almost invariably such a section. At the very least there should be some mention of Antoin Rezko. Although the Antoin Rezko page itself probably needs cleaning to an NPV standard. lk 06:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is absurd to have an article without a criticism or controversy section. I and others have repeatedly provided edits to document the Rezko scandal as well as his diverse religious upbringing (atheist, muslim); however there are a couple of SPA editors who spend much of their lives purging this article from anything that would detract from the positive image they are trying to portray for his campaign. Per historical behaviour, this talk thread will be quickly archived to prevent others from understanding the extent of the fact purging. This article is POV and a disgrace to wikipedia. Good luck to others who wish to provide balance here Decoratrix 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Criticism sections are troll-magnets, and they don't present information in a neutral and useful way. There aren't two realities- a pro-topic reality and a anti-topic reality- and so wikipedia should not present information as if there were. johnpseudo 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. One could make the same argument about any page and ask that all negative information be purged. A page should broadly reflect all available information about a subject, as long as it is reliably sourced. I think it does a disservive to both the candidate and wikipedia to purge all mention of controversies. lk 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No one said anything about purging criticism, lk. It's criticism sections that are not desirable. And it's far from "absurd", Decoratrix - integrating controversies is done in many articles on all shades of the political spectrum. I argued against controversy sections on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, for example, so I'll thank you not to make assumptions about the motivation of editors here. Tvoz |talk 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Then we agree that there should be sections noting controversial issues? Decoratrix, perhaps you should add a (NPV and properly cited) Rezko section? Also, considering the smear campaign that Obama's religous background has been subjected to, perhaps a section about his childhood experiences in Indonesia should be added? lk 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, we do not agree - this material is already covered in the article's notes and subarticles, and separate sections would give them undue weight. Tvoz |talk 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I can only read that as a desire to censor criticism. I have no great desire to spend all my time checking this page. (On a personal note I actually prefer Obama to most other candidates.) But, I will do all I can to make sure that all factual cited, NPV controversies remain on the page. lk 10:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never argued to have a "criticism" section, but merely to state the known facts of the Rezko and childhood religious upbringing clearly. The IBD and Howard matters also deserve brief mention, and all these things can be integrated into existing sections or made into a topic heading without a POV heading. Everyone in this discussion seems to understand the value of this direction to neutrality except tvoz (who is a person that i believe has consistently deleted such material from this article). Decoratrix 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be a different argument if it were simply a matter of stating facts. However, much of what has been added has been pure opinion or speculation (sometimes based on facts already stated, sometimes with no basis in fact whatsoever). Worse though is when "factual" material that is actually not true is added. If an editor adds a false statement such as "Obama was raised Muslim but converted to Christianity" they can expect to have this edit reverted quickly, in accordance with Wiki policies. Accusations of bad faith won't change that fact. --Loonymonkey 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Fires up google.. What IBD matter? As for the Howard incident. If it isn't already in the presidential election article it should be and a quick check of the presidential article shows me that it isn't.. So if you want to add the Howard incident there, you're more than welcome to. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that the Rezko issue deserves a mention in the main text? Hiding it in a footnote is clearly not giving it proper weight. I've been going through the archives of this discussion page, and it seems obvious to me that there are a significant number of editors who want Rezko to be mentioned in the main text. lk 08:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly the Rezko issue deserves coverage on Obama's page: not only from the questionable real estate transaction but for Obama's lobbying on behalf of Resko so that Rezko could receive approx 14 million in public funds and that Obama lied about the amount of campaign funds he has received from Rezko until the Chicago Sun uncovered the true amount (about $168,000). (Rezko is currently facing federal charges for fraud, money laundering and racketeering.) Obama's childhood, Prime Minister Howard's criticism and the Investor's Business Daily (IBD) article also deserve mention. All tolled these matters should not consume more than five percent of the article text. Decoratrix 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The Rezko thing probably deserves a small mention, just a few sentences. Unless it turns into a big story (which it never has) it's still all just circumstance and speculation. No reliable source has actually accused Obama of involvement in corruption (and saying Obama "lied" veers pretty far from NPOV). Obama's childhood is mentioned in the article. I'm not sure what facts you feel were left out in that regard. As for the IBD editorial, it's just editorial. Every candidate has a stack of editorials (pro and con) written about them. There is nothing noteworthy about this particular one and it doesn't present any unique facts. I can't see why it would need to be included. --Loonymonkey 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Loonymonkey on these issues, Rezko deserves an NPV mention, editorials are not noteworthy, and 'lied' is not NPV. I would prefer it if the section on Obama's childhood stated that he attended Catholic school and then a non-religious public magnet school between the ages of 6-10 in Indonesia. If someone introduces the Rezko issue in a neutral manner into the main article, lets not fight about it? lk 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In December 2006 there were detailed articles published in the Washington Post [30] and the Chicago Sun-Times [31] clearly concluding that the real estate deal is non news. Now it is not only non news, it is also old non news. Can you cite any reliable NPOV source published after these two articles supporting your view that the matter has been inadequately treated here? --HailFire 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The link you inserted is an editorial. It does not reference the original newspaper articles that it claims to draw its conclusions from. As per previous discussions here, editorials are not noteworthy and should be removed. --lk 06:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, the link is to a site that does not own the copyright to the editorial. Chicago Sun-Times owns the copyrights, and has decided to put it behind a pay wall.--lk 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
1k is on target here. The link suggested by Hailfire is an editorial, clearly pro Obama, and does not even discuss the meat of the issue: that Obama paid less than market price for his ORIGINAL parcel due to the oddly simultaneous closing by Rezko; thus the real estate transaction represented a substantial undisclosed contribution by Rezko to Obama. The editorial fails to mention the important correlative data that Rezko was a major contributor to Obama and that Obama failed to attribute the correct amount of the Rezko contributions until the Sun Times exposed Obama's incorrect disclosure. The editorial cited by Hailfire further fails to take note of the influence, lobbying and letter writing Obama conducted for Rezko's benefit so that Rezko could receive public subsidies for his real estate ventures. Decoratrix 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Intereseting opinion, but I don't see what it has to do with an encylopedic article. If you're looking for a forum in which to argue your opinions about Barack Obama, there are much better options than Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the page is extraordinarily light in covering the eventful 2004 Senate race that resulted in Barak Obama's election. Based on recollections, Mr. Obama was badly trailing in the race against a popular Republican candidate going into the final weeks of the election, but racy stories (patronage of sex-clubs) leaked from the Republican candidates sealed divorce found there way into the press caused the original candidate to abruptly withdraw from the race. The GOP hastily backed the ill-fated candidacy of the Virginian Alan Keyes for the Illinois Seanate seat. Alan Keyes proceeded to make controversial comments about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, and other issues, thereby allowing the Democract candidate, Obama to skate through the general election....Steve Paredes Ann Arbor MI —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recollection is incorrect. Obama did not once trail Jack Ryan in polls in the election. You can also read the article on this specific election here. —bbatsell ¿? 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's extremely important to note that every Republican candidate either has a Criticism/Controversies section or has criticisms scattered throughout their "biographies". There is not anything negative said about ANY of the Democratic candidates (except for Bill Richardson). Not even John Edwards' $400 haircut! Nor Barack Obama's church! This would suggest that Wikipedia feels strongly about its Democratic candidates! ha But seriously, this is very concerning.Kgj08 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the Hillary Clinton article. There are copious amounts of "negative" info in her article. As far as this article, is there any "negative" information missing that you feel should be included? The complaints about Obama's church seemed more aimed at his church rather than Obama and seem to have pretty much disappeared lately, so not sure how notable that is. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more than fair and objective to point out - in light of Senator Obama's criticism of the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in the political process -that his own past campaigns have not exactly been free of such ties[32]. Perhaps this could be detailed in the "110th Congress" section where his remarks on the issue are detailed rather extensively? 09:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in on this argument here, but I find it amusing that not only is there no criticism section, but people honestly believe that there doesn't need to be a criticism section. If there are this many people clamoring to include a criticism section, then that should tell you all you need to know. People are also forgetting what exactly a criticism section is. The criticism in the criticism section does not need to be factually accurate, or non biased-- it just needs to be a documentation of some of the larger issues that Senator Obama has been criticized for. The job of wikipedians is not to determine whether his political critics are accurate. They just need to document and record them in a criticism section. If you take a look at the bios of most political figures on Wikipedia, they all have a criticism section. This section is merely a logging of the issue(s) that he has been criticized on. Period. In Senator Obama's case, I would think some criticism pretaining to his relationship with Rezko, his church, and the recent criticism he has received about his proposed health care plan would be relevant and appropriate. It's important to remember that this is not a debate about whether the criticism is accurate or legitimate, but rather, a criticism section is used to log and document major criticism he receives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rezko in the main text

I've moved the sentence about Rezko from the footnotes into the main text. Please discuss here before changing it. Also, I removed the link to the Sun-times editorial by Conor Clarke. Firstly, it's clearly pro-Obama and doesn't present facts that are not available elsewhere. Secondly the link is to a site that does not hold the copyrights to the piece. If you believe that Obama is innocent of all wrongdoing in this issue, please make a (short & concise) case in the article itself. I've read and heard of Rezko in enough places that I think it's worthy of at least a mention in the main article. --lk 10:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored single paragraph treatment of marriage, children, condo, 2005 house purchase, and neighboring property. --HailFire (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone who knows about the issues and arguments have a look at the Antoin Rezko page? I'm afraid it's not up to the standard of WP:NPV. It needs to be cleaned up so that the facts are presented without any bias or speculation. thanks --lk 11:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just about to remove the POV tag from the the Antoin Rezko article. Please have a look and let me know any objections. --lk 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem paragraph?

"In 1988, while employed as a summer associate at the Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin, Obama met fellow employee Michelle Robinson.[131] They began dating and were married in 1992. They now have two daughters, Malia, born in 1999, and Natasha ("Sasha"), born in 2001.[132] The family moved from their Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to a nearby US$1.6-million home in 2005.[133] The house purchase and subsequent acquisition of an adjoining strip of land drew media scrutiny in November 2006 because of financial links with controversial Illinois businessman Antoin Rezko.[134]"

To me it seems like there is a change of subject in the middle of this paragraph. It starts talking about how he came to have a family and then switches to the land deal controversy. It's true that the link is that the family lives in the house that was a part of the controversial deal. However, to me anyway, there seems to be enough of a change of subject to split the paragraph in two. Steve Dufour 04:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, the problem with highlighting the 2005 house purchase as a "land deal controversy" worthy of its own paragraph in this WP:BLP of Obama is that there isn't any controversy. The cited source tells us: The Obamas moved into a $1.6 million house in June, trading their condo near Hyde Park for a historic home nearby. The royalties from his first book and an advance of nearly $2 million for future books allowed the family to pay off debts from law school and past political campaigns.[33] Nothing extraordinary there. The reason for discussing the house is simply that people are interested in knowing where and how he lives, as a notable aspect of his personal life. I know some editors here would like to expand the discussion about Rezko, but we can't do it without something notable to talk about. Trying to add more about Rezko really risks throwing off the WP:NPOV and conveying a false impression that Obama did something illegal, which all sources agree he did not. At least that's how I read the sources, but I am open to hearing other views. --HailFire 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I really wasn't trying to expand that, just trying to move it away from the info on his family. Is there another paragraph it can be moved to? I will make a couple of minor tweeks to the wording for now. Steve Dufour 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I changed it too:
In 1992, Obama married Michelle Robinson, whom he met in 1988 when they both worked at the Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin.[131] They now have two daughters, Malia, born in 1999, and Natasha ("Sasha"), born in 2001.[132] The family lives in a US$1.6-million home in Hyde Park, Chicago.[133] The purchase of this house in 2005 and the subsequent acquisition of an adjoining strip of land drew media scrutiny in November 2006 because of financial links with controversial Illinois businessman Antoin Rezko.[134]
I think that it flows better, and more information on his family can be added if it is too short. Steve Dufour 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work. Steve Dufour 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Rumor

My dad is currently "warning" people about Obama being a radical Muslim. I looked up this accusation and found an entry on Surely my dad isn't the only person who believes this rumor. People who come here with that in their heads but find no information about it are going to think Wikipedia is "covering" for him or something (which is the mindset the rumor is designed to invoke), so it would be very good to acknowledge the rumor and give an easy link to Snopes ( ). I'm not putting it up myself because I'm not sure if it actually belongs under Personal Life (which seems the most likely) or elsewhere (perhaps a separate heading?), and furthermore I'm not sure whether this has been in the article before and removed for some reason. Also too lazy to check through the history to find out. So someone else please put this information in the correct place. Thank you. Kilyle 06:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to dispel rumors, no matter how incorrect they are. The article already covers his membership in the United Church of Christ in the infobox and the personal life section of the article.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. When the rumor is notable enough to generate significant press coverage, we can — and should — cover it here. [34][35][36][37][38]goethean 18:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I didn't realize reliable sources actually existed (I haven't trained myself to start paying attention to presidential politics a year before the election yet). In that case, it seems the context to the Muslim rumor is in connection with his presidential campaign, so perhaps that article would be a better place for it than here? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

He is not Muslim. His father was born as such, but has since converted to Atheism. It all stems from rumors of him attending a "radical muslim school" called a madrassa. It was "unearthed" by associates of Hillary Clinton. Whether or not she had anything to do with it is still up to debate. A spokeman for Senator Clinton said that it wasn't connected to her campaign. I think, however it does belong in his campagain article. And no, i'm not just spewing Obama support, CNN reported it

If you aren't too lazy to read this, it says he was educated in a Basuki school, which is a public school. Being a teen who is actually interested in politics, i've seen plenty of people spewing this pro-republican bull everywhere and refuse to say he's not a muslim. I'm not insulting Republicans, but the ignorance of children who think Soulja Boy is more important than Ahmadinejad. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

His father has been dead for many years, and one doesn't "convert" to atheism. Senator Obama's religion and his background are covered in the article. As for this false rumor, this has been discussed at great length (look back in the talk archives) and consensus reached to include the false rumors and refutation in the footnotes, which we do. More than that would give it undue weight. Tvoz |talk 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The rumor campaign was mentioned in the Doonesbury comic strip. Although that might not be a reliable source here. I checked out Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and there didn't seem like there was a place to talk about it there. How about a new article: Barack Obama Muslim rumor? Redddogg (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I will do this. Redddogg (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And now this. --HailFire (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Boldy went: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Muslim rumor. --HailFire (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)