Talk:Barack Obama

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived.

Template:Talkbottom

Smoking

Would the fascists who control this article allow some mention of his smoking habit? This been discussed quite a bit in the media and could become a campaign issue. Of course, if we want the article to remain an Obama advertisement, we might want to sweep his nicotine addiction under the rug. Ogeez 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not very civil. A better way to describe it would be this: "Obama's cigarette smoking is getting increased press coverage lately and I think it merits mention in this article. I believe there was a poll out recently (the standard "Would you vote for a qualified _____ for president?" poll) which showed that a large percentage of people would not. I think this merits mention in the article." I would agree that it should go on his campaign page, but not here. The fact that Senator Obama smokes is not notable. The fact that it may affect his campaign, and that his campaign has responded with a "Quit Smoking With Barack" program, is. But not here. Lots of people smoke. Mykll42 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically the answer is, "No, but we can stick it in an article that no one will ever read." Out of curiosity, does the Obama campaign have a full time staff of volunteers devoted to running this article? There's nothing to prevent that from happening. Given the way any mildly negative information gets suppressed, it wouldn't surprise me. The ironic thing is I think Obama would be better served by un unbiased account of his potential strengths and flaws. But I guess you would rather make this into a second Obama campaign web site. Maybe we should put up a link where people can make donations. Ogeez 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think his being a smoker is negative information and I think his attempt to quit will strike a positive chord with the electorate. My problems with it are not the NPOV issues but the notability issue. About 25% of Americans smoke. I do agree that the election page could be more prominent. Oh, and I don't work for the Obama campaign. Please be civil. Mykll42 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil Ogeez and assume good faith of other editors. Referring to editors as "fascists" or accusing editors of working for Obama is not a good way to go about improving this article or any articles on Wikipedia. This article is NPOV and well referenced. It was even a featured article at one point. The Obama smoking issue is not relevant to his notability, per BLP. I understand he has recently quit (or is still currently trying to quit), and this fact may be relevant given that it's generated the note that it has (do a google search for Obama quit smoking if you must), but since he's decided to quit and there's not been any proof of him smoking since, calling him a smoker in this article would qualify as original research, which is not allowed. I know it may appear this article is biased in favor of him, but it has been strictly upheld and maintained per wikipedia policies. Obama just happens to not have generated a lot of negative note, (real) criticism, or (real) controversy.

It might help not to look at articles like "We need to have a balanced amount of positive and negative information in this article". Rather, look at it like "We need to use NPOV language/wording, and include relevant, notable information about this person/thing/place/idea in order to represent accurately the person/thing/place/idea we are writing an article about." --Ubiq 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just look back at the rest of this talk page. Every time something negative comes up, it is deemed "not notable." Yet the article includes shameless puffery such as: "The Washington Post noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build bipartisan coalitions." Is there any other politician who gets this type of treatment? I make no apologies for referring to the editors of this article as fascists, nor for accusing them of working for Obama. Just because they use polite language and come up with excuses like "undue weight" for rejecting negative information does not justify the ridiculous pro-Obama bias of this article. It's not like you're fooling anyone. People will come here looking for answers to questions like "Does he smoke?" or "Is he Muslim?" and instead see this puff-piece that refuses even to acknowledge these issues. Ogeez 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because he isn't Muslim. It is clearly indicated in its own section that he joined the United Church of Christ in his 20s. The only issue I have is that more should be explained about how his mom disliked organized religion and his step-father was somewhat secular also. That would finally clear up the whole Muslim thing. But this is completely offtopic. As for on topic stuff, WP:SMOKERS clearly says quitting or smoking does not matter unless it plays an integral part of his life. Sure there are "multiple available citations" but that "does not mean it is notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article." Gdo01 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop right there. WP:SMOKERS is an essay I assembled, one looking for consensus concerning article subjects who are smokers. It is not in any way official policy. I myself am actually of the opinion that Obama's public effort to quit smoking is notable enough for inclusion in the article. Italiavivi 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake but I still don't think quitting smoking is important until he makes it important. He only seriously addressed it once and has not seemed to address it again. Gdo01 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You win. According to official Wikipedia policy, we are not allowed to mention the smoking habits of a guy who wants to be president of the United States and a role model for children. You guys certainly know Wikipedia policy better than I do. I'll give you that much. Maybe we could start a new policy on WP:How_his_parents_met that would say statements like this are not notable: "His parents met while both were attending the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student." Or is that more important that his smoking? Ogeez 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to ask you again to not call me a fascist. The object here is to create an encyclopedia article. Between 15-25% of Americans smoke. Barack Obama the Senator smoking is not notable. As an aspect of his political campaign, it is. I note you haven't added anything to the (unprotected, btw) campaign page, or its discussion page for that matter. If we were truly trying to remove negative information, don't you think his past cocaine use would be the first to go? Mykll42 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

His smoking might not be notable, but his very public effort to quit smoking is. The Obamas have been very open about it, with countless reliable sources available. Italiavivi 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill smoked and drank regularly. Hitler did neither. The point being, smoking has nothing to do with leadership capacity and quality. 205.202.240.101 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above point.

Ogeez, the article is not "ridiculously pro-Obama biased". You're not doing anything to contribute to this article or wikipedia. You came to the wrong place if you were looking to smear a presidential candidate you don't like. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to include relevant, representative information about something. That's what this article does, and it's a fine example of a good article. The problem with including a lot of the "negative" information you want to be included is, none of it is notable. Read the policy. If he were to say something blatantly racist and there was a public reaction/outcry, such that it generated plenty of note, it would be included in this article, regardless of the political affiliations of the editors. But somehow I don't see him doing something like that, so people who see him as a threat will continue coming here to find out why his article is so "biased". --Ubiq 02:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish every political figure had as good an article as this. Steve Dufour 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be rad to include a fully contextualized discussion of Obama's smoking including the fact that individuals with lower incomes (working-class) are more likely to smoke than those with higher incomes. Also, why doesn't GWB's page list his cocaine use? Probably it's controlled by "fascists" as well. -- Autumninjersey 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Smokin' Obama ! Consider the moment when we first learned that Obama smoked. Did it skewer, however briefly, previous thoughts we held of him, whether yea or nay? Probably. Ok, certainly. Now, after becoming aware of such, did our opinions of him become sufficiently altered that our perception of the man took a new form? Probably, not. If we liked him, we continued to like him. If we didn't, then we continued to not. Net effect of all of this is that the smoking issue is, well, just that, an issue for each of us personally. But, is it an issue of encyclopedic proportion. History says no. Current events say yes. If we decide yes, given the current free-flowing content of Wikipedia, then logic guides to mention, for all public figures, their smoking habits [John Brown, smoker; Jane Brown, non-smoker]. Because if the smoking habit of one is sufficient for encyclopedic entry, then the non-smoking habit of another becomes equally necessary. Since no one is prepared to do that, I vote we leave it out [though it bothers me, personally, that he smokes]. --Free4It 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that including it would be an example of recentism. I don't agree that if it's included in one article, it should be included for all articles — notability of a specific event or characteristic should be determined on an article-by-article basis. I'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that it should be included since the media made a (relatively) big deal out of it a few weeks ago — this has entirely died down, though. If it comes up again in a big way in the campaign, then it should probably be included, at the very least in his 2008 campaign article as a campaign-related issue. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It bears pointing out for the sake of newer users that WP:RECENT is an opinion essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or Wikipedia policy. It is a concise expression of opinion, and does not carry inherent weight in determining article content. I am also personally of the opinion that WP:RECENT directly contradicts WP:NOTABILITY, which is a guideline, in that the notability policy specifically states that notability is generally permanent. Italiavivi 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: On Larry King Live, March 19, 2007, Barack re-affirmed he is still an ex-smoker - now even more on a non-issue. There is no need to note all the ex-smokers in bios! Samatva 09:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Except when they bring it up on every interview they give... Obama's made his quitting notable. --Bobblehead 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that he, and the media, keep making it public issue,that he is quitting smoking is certainly worthwhile to put on here Vegeta206 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the meantime someone can edit the article? as it stands, the line about Obama's former smoking habits sounds like an advertisment for nicorette gum. I dont think it's relevant to include what brand of gum he used, or even if he used it at all. 198.186.64.22 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know that this paragraph is the best place for the smoking mention. I like the way the sentence is written now, but does it belong in a section on his early life, right next to talk of pot and blow? Italiavivi 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I changed "family and religious life" to "Personal and religious life" and moved it there. That seems to work - do you agree? Tvoz |talk 05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Personal life" is definitely an ideal place for mention of smoking. Italiavivi 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The exhaustive controversies survey.

Without question, Sen. Barack Obama's actions have come under intense scrutiny since announcing his bid for the White House. Allegations of controversy have arisen concerning many elements of Sen. Obama's life and person, including on this article's Talk page. Some dispute whether or not many of these elements even qualify as controversial, and many dispute these elements based upon notability. It's the goal of this survey to gather a snapshot of consensus concerning the notability of these many elements.

If you are a subscriber to the opinion essay "polls are evil," you're in no way required to participate. No one's forcing you, I simply ask that you not go out of your way to disrupt those who don't mind using a snapshot format.

I gathered most of these items from Talk page archives, and tried to present them as accurately and neutrally as possible. In some cases, I could not find extensive sources, but used the sources listed by past Talk participants. If I have missed any items/elements, feel free to add them in a sub-section with format similar to those below.

Please add *Notable or *Not notable following each item, based upon whether or not you feel each item is notable enough for inclusion in the article, then sign your vote with ~~~~.

---

2004: Denied 'unequivocally' running for president in 2008

"I was elected yesterday," Obama said. "I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois." [1]

• Not notable. Changing one's mind is not inherently controversial; he is entitled to changing his mind without it be construed as a "controversy." Also, this detail is already prominently noted at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not even close to notable, and a mile from "controversial". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Any senator running for election or newly elected will deny their intention to run for future office. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Unfortunately, this is a standard politician lie. Ogeez 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Covered at the presidential campaign page. - PoliticalJunkie 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - Shows his admitted lack of experience. Will definately be noted in the race! - Eisenmond 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not Notable It is not uncommon for politicians to deny they will run for office days before they announce they'll run for office, I don't see why him saying he would not run in 2004 is applicable. Especially not in the main article, it might warrant a sentence in the campaign article in the History/Background. --Bobblehead 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not Notableas a controversy. However, it probably should be included in a campaign article or a campaign section. Briefly Jiffypopmetaltop 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not Notable as a controversy, but I agree it belongs in the campaign article...AltonBrownFTW 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Race and "blackness"

Since his Senate race in 2004, some American politicians and commentators, many African-American, have asserted that Sen. Obama is not "African-American" or not "black like me" because he was not descended from American slaves. His "blackness" has been questioned.

[2]

• Notable. Sen. Obama's racial identity is a notable, widely discussed, reliably sourced, controversial matter. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable, though it does lead to some remarkable circumlocutions, wherein it's not suitable in some circles to refer to a man whose father was African and whose mother is American as African-American. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Though I believe this is more of a campaign issue than a personal issue. If it was first brought up in his Senate race, I concede it belongs here. Making this debate balanced will be tricky, because someone saying a man of African descent is not African American is news, while someone saying he is African American is not. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not Notable. Since when is a man's race any qualification or disqualification for the Presidency? What exactly does any of it have to do with whether or not he can do the job?72.230.38.54 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Not Notable I just don't think it should matter personally. It would detract from the article a bit IMO unless it was discussed just masterfully. --Ubiq 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Given that he may become the first black US president. Ogeez 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Played roles in his campaigns. - PoliticalJunkie 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - for obvious historical reasons - Eisenmond 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable It would have to be handled carefully as the people bringing this up generally aren't questioning if he's African-American, but if he has had the "African-American experience" and can relate to the trouble African-Americans face in this country. --Bobblehead 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable and given due weight (with sources from varied perspectives) in the article's Cultural and political image section. --HailFire 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a good place for it. Would you care to give it a shot yourself, HailFire? Italiavivi 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the most notable info has already be added by previous edits citing commentators Younge (The Nation), Crouch (New York Daily News), and Page (Houston Chronicle) <click on author's names to see where each is cited and to read their articles>. The reader is presented with sharply contrasting viewpoints ("Black Like Me," "Not Black Like Me," and "...Silly Question") and can decide for him/herself what's controversy and what's just useful, notable information. There's certainly other sources we could add, but I'm not sure they would offer anything new beyond what's already eloquently addressed in these three articles. --HailFire 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have clicked before I typed—the links to both the Crouch and Page articles are now broken. If they can't be recovered (just tried), we should come up with alternative wording and sources. For starters, there's this and this. --HailFire 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC); Also this, possibly this, and certainly this. --HailFire 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying this. --HailFire 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notable But for the fact that he is biracial, not that he isn't descended from slaves.Shakam 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Yeah, it's time for this to be written up. I suggest that Shakam takes the first crack at it. Jiffypopmetaltop 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT: He has to deal with racism just like any other Black person-- plus Kenya was under British colonial rule (a brutal Racist system) and his ancestors suffered under that system. People who say he isn't African American are really narrow-minded. Is there only one way to be African American? Who here is pretending to 'decide' who gets to be Black and who doesn't? Ridiculous. 128.138.173.224 06:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (reinstated this as a comment and moved to bottom of section)

• Notable, but only because people have made it an issue. His not being the so-called "American Black" is not inherently important but people have started talking about it. Also, he's just as African American as the next guy. He also would have to face racism just like anyone else, because his skin color is Black, and Americans are great at making assumptions (I mean come on, don't deny it, we are). Stop Me Now! 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Antoin Rezko real estate

In November 2006, Barack Obama acknowledged his participation in a real estate deal to which Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an Obama campaign contributor, was a participant. Under the deal, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining properties, with Rezko later reselling part of his parcel to Obama. No laws are alleged to have been broken and Obama is not under investigation. Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have appeared improper, and said "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it." [3]

• Not notable. No laws broken, no wrong-doing alleged. A minor "appearance of impropriety" at best. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not even Caesar's wife. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable All of the pertinent information is write there in the description: "No laws are alleged to have been broken and Obama is not under investigation." Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Like previously stated, no wrong-doing or laws broken. --Ubiq 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Obama's close personal and business ties to a man indicted for extortion is notable. The phrase "no laws are alleged to have been broken" is a typical sleezy politician non-denial. Ogeez 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Nothing wrong's been done. - PoliticalJunkie 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - This article should provide an answer to controversial issues, so as to provide an accurate account of issues, especially those that have the "appearance of impropriety" - Eisenmond 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable An associate got taken down for events not related to Obama. If it were similar to Tom Delay's associates going down, then it'd be notable. --Bobblehead 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable because censoring it implies lack of a neutral view. Supporters of Sen. Obama may take comfort that he provided an explanation, i.e. in retrospect, he wouldn't have done it. Actually, this is the reason that I visited the Obama article...to find out what the heck the fuss was about but now I see I have to go elsewhere to find it....that makes wikipedia look bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TL500 (talk • contribs).

• Not Notable, if my understanding is right. All it says is he and another guy bought property and the other guy later sold it back to him. Unless some details were included that were signifigant, I would avoid stuffing it into the article.
• Not notable Nothing illegal or unlawful happened, yet the inclusion in the article makes it appear as if something wrong happened. This is a kind of weasel wording. Khorshid 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

George W. Haywood stock investing

Sen. Obama purchased more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors. Obama said he “did not see any potential conflict in getting advice, in terms of a stockbroker,” from Mr. Haywood. The senator said he told the broker he wanted an “aggressive strategy” for investing, but he did not identify stocks, and has referred to their arrangement as a blind trust. Obama later sold the stocks at a net loss of $13,000.

• Not notable. Blind trust which Sen. Obama liquidated at a net loss. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• The whole damn point of blind trusts is you don't know what's in them. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wait and See As of now, this is just election news. If talk of it persists or escalates, it will be notable. But not until then. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Not something he was aware of and he had a net loss to avoid conflict of interest when he found out about it. --Ubiq 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wait and See I agree we should see how this plays out. Ogeez 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable It seems to have died out already. - PoliticalJunkie 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - if it comes back up. Remember, financial responsibility is a major point in the elections - Wait and see - Eisenmond 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wait and See Too early to tell what affect this might have as far as the "notable" meter goes. During campaigns anything remotely interesting is front page news and this falls under that header right now. --Bobblehead 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Wal-Mart and Wake Up Wal-Mart support

Sen. Obama is a vocal supporter of Wake Up Wal-Mart. He has criticized Wal-Mart's labor standards, including pay rates and allegedly diminished benefits. [4]

• Not notable. This is a political position, and belongs at Political views of Barack Obama. Editors cannot claim every single contentious political position, such as labor/union views in this case, as a "controversy." Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Italiavivi nailed it. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Agreed. Should be in his political views page. Not his biography. --Ubiq 02:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Ogeez 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Belongs at political views page. - PoliticalJunkie 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Who cares? :) --Bobblehead 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable and already in main article's Political advocacy section. A political position, not a controversy. --HailFire 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting "present" as Illinois state senator

As a state senator, Sen. Obama voted "present" on some bills related to abortion, concealed firearms, and strip club zoning. Obama's campaign has explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of a bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to "score points." [5]

• Not notable. Senators are entitled to voting "present," especially when faced with bills that contain poison pills. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Might be notable; who says it is other than that blog? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable I'm still unclear as to how a state senator exercising his right to vote 'present' is notable or a controversy. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Not a controversy or anything out of the ordinary. --Ubiq 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Ogeez 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Not even a reliable source. --Bobblehead 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable as note (re anti-abortion opposition to Obama's speaking at Saddleback Church#Global summit) and already noted. --HailFire 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable I'm surprised that few so far consider this otherwise. Voting present on important and controversial bills is indicative of many things. But i do agree that better/more sources are neededErnham 01:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hussein

Due to America's familiarity with Saddam Hussein, some have drawn attention to Sen. Obama's middle name also being Hussein. Polling indicates that many believe Obama's middle name will hurt him in a presidential election [6], and Republican Party supporters have drawn attention to his middle name (referring to Obama in full as "Barack Hussein Obama") on several occasions. [7] Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notable, despite this being fallacious race-baiting smear at its absolute worst. Right or wrong, his middle name is controversial to Americans, and Republican Party operatives are openly waving his middle name about as a tactic. Decidedly notable, for better or worse. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable, or at least not a controversy. (How can someone's given name be controversial? What it is is a place where idiots can attack; that's not controversy, though. Minor point of vulnerability.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable We very clearly include his middle name right up there on the top. It's the second word of the article. Any attempt to use his middle name as a campaign issue belongs on the person doing the campaigning first, on his campaign page second. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable for the well-articulated reasons above. 128.103.14.115 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Hmm, I could see a Silly Anti-Barack Obama tactics being made for things like people using his name against him, heh. But I don't think it belongs in his biography, along with the Fox News madrassah controversy. --Ubiq 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable His name is not "controversial," but it is certainly interesting. People want to know what his name indicates about his background and heritage. This is a perfect example where the people trying to protect Obama may be hurting him by suppressing discussion of this issue. Ogeez 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable The first sentence in the article covers it. - PoliticalJunkie 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - again, this is an issue that Americans will want to look into, and the information about the "controversy" of his middle name should be listed so as to provide a more thorough account. If he loses because of name recognition you can guarantee it will be listed, so why not take note of it now - think outside the box. - Eisenmond 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Especially not in regards to Barack Obama, put it under Stupid Americans. --Bobblehead 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Kinda Sorta Obama does make mention of it in The Audacity of Hope, but that was regarding to his Senate career. Shakam
• Not notable per my reasons below. This is an extremely, extremely common and ordinary Muslim name, akin to "Smith" or "Peters" in the US. It has no negative connotations at all in any Muslim country. It is only in Western countries, unfortunately, that the connection is always made with Saddam. I personally know several people who have changed their names from "Hossein" because they were constantly harassed in school or at work or had trouble finding jobs because of this. I can tell you that this is one of the main reasons that Iranians in the US and the disapora in general, even religious ones, rarely give their children Muslim names anymore. Even in Iran its becoming less and less common for these reasons. Khorshid 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Obama/Osama

CNN mistakenly used Obama's last name instead of "Osama" in the headline of a report on the hunt for al-Qaeda's leader. [8] Yahoo News mistakenly attached a photograph of Obama to a caption which read "Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida." [9] Both CNN and Yahoo! have issued apologies/explanations. Fox News chief Roger Ailes has deliberately switched Bin Laden's name with Obama's in jokes. [10]

• Not notable. Typographical/technical errors might be warranted on the news outlets' articles, but decidedly not here. Roger Ailes' remark belongs at Fox News alongside a section on the Nevada Democratic Party canceling a Fox-hosted debate due to the "joke." Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe notable in an article about CNN's copy editors or whoever writes the headlines. Roger Ailes' very funny hah hah jokes might have a place as an example of Republican cheap shots, but that's about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable See above Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable While I disagree that they were "mistakes", it would seemingly need to belong only in the respective articles for CNN and Yahoo either way. --Ubiq 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Better to address this than stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not an issue. This mix-up has happened over and over. Ogeez 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable But does it merit mention at the presidential campaign page? (Someone recently added it there) - PoliticalJunkie 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - Ted Kennedy even made this mistake on the campaign trail, or senate floor, or something... I remember... It keeps happening, and it will stick in people's mind. The issue is very notable - Eisenmond 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Same as Hussein being his middle name.. Stupid Americans. --Bobblehead 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable i agree, this is being blown out of proportion, is this the only dirt the media can dig up about Obama?--Lerdthenerd 09:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable per Bobblehead and others. The way some people gave people with the name "Hussein/Hossein" total hell (causing many to go so far as to legally change their names and having difficulties in finding work) after Desert Storm and then of course in recent years, is reflective of why we should avoid making such connections here. This kind of ignorance knows no bounds. Khorshid 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Effort to quit smoking

Sen. Obama is a smoker [11], and is in the middle of a public effort to quit smoking [12]. His effort includes the use of Nicorette, a nicotine replace gum. Michelle Obama agreed to her husband's presidential campaign on the condition that he cease smoking for good, and calls herself "the one who outed" her husband's smoking. [13] Fox News' John Gibson covered Obama's smoking as a "dirty little secret" during a Fox News broadcast. [14] A "Quit Smoking with Obama" effort has been assembled by participants on Obama's campaign site. [15]

• Notable. Michelle Obama's reluctance for her husband to run for president was widely covered prior to his announcement, and that his agreement to quit smoking played a part in assuaging her concerns is decidedly notable. He has been public and open about his effort to quit smoking, despite attempts by political opponents to use it as an attack. Multiple reliable sources, including primary source interviews with himself and his wife specifically on the subject. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable While I agree that smoking in general, even in a politician, is not notable, his campaign staff have made it notable with the "Quit Smoking" group. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable to an extent I agree that the Quit Smoking bit is notable, but I think referring to him as a "smoker" is false, especially if he's quit. So we'd have to be careful. --Ubiq 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• What's quite fascinating is that there seems to be more concern for his status as a wannabe ex-smoker thn there is for his African ancestry. The times they are a-changing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable For reasons described above. Ogeez 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable It's playing a role in his campaign, one article I read talked about him chewing Nicorette gum. His effort to stop smoking has become extremely open and public. - PoliticalJunkie 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - With all the current smoking backlash, including states banning smoking in places of business across the country, his smoking habit is a big deal... Remember the Dole campaign in 1996? The cigarette costume guy was everywhere... still a big deal! - Eisenmond 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - But only as a sentence in the 2008 Presidential election section and only in regards to him promising to quit smoking in exchange for his wife letting him run. --Bobblehead 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - it is notable, it is a fact, the people are obviously interested into the issue, so it should be seen on here Vegeta206 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism from Australian Prime Minister John Howard

Shortly after Sen. Obama officially announced his candidacy for president, Australian Prime Minister John Howard unleashed a scathing attack of Obama's stance on the Iraq War. [16] Howard said "I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory," and that "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." Obama brushed aside Howard's criticism, characterizing him as a close personal friend of George W. Bush, and highlighting Australia's comparative troop contribution in Iraq. Howard was harshly criticized by Australian opposition leader Kevin Rudd, Republican U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and several others in response.

• Notable, including in the main article. This is a highly unusual partisan attack from a foreign head of government. The notability of this is undeniable. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable But briefly. It was big news when it happened but it remained big news for all of a week. We should make sure not to give undue weight. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Agreed that it's pretty notable criticism. But like Mykill42 said, let's keep it brief. --Ubiq 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable, as above. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Especially given the importance of the Iraq issue. Ogeez 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Also covered at the presidential campaign page. - PoliticalJunkie 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - Eisenmond 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable But already mentioned in the campaign article, so doesn't need to be included in this article. --Bobblehead 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

False "madrassa" report/smear/attack

See Insight Magazine#Madrassa. A false report originating from Washington Times-owned Insight Magazine accuses one of Sen. Obama's elementary schools in Indonesia of being an Islamic seminary (a "wahhabist" "madrassa"), and alleges Sen. Obama to have been a Muslim in the past. [17] The report bears a resemblance to a false email forward that has been in circulation for some time. [18] The report also claims to have received their information from operatives of Sen. Hillary Clinton. The claims against the school itself are debunked by a CNN investigation in Jakarta [19], claims of Sen. Obama having ever been a Muslim are refuted by himself, and Sen. Clinton denies any involvement with Insight Magazine whatsoever. Fox News issued a retraction, warning their reporters to take care with information retrieved from the internet. [20]

"claims of Sen. Obama having ever been a Muslim are refuted by himself"

Sorry. This doesn't pass the critical thinking test. If Obama really ever was a Muslim do you really think he would let people know about it?129.98.225.131 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notable, but must be written in full compliance with WP:BLP and WP:Undue weight. Must note that the report was fully debunked, wholly false, and originated from a right-wing outlet. Only warrants a summary, with full details belonging at Insight, Fox News, or a scandal-specific article. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable I think reporting this on Obama's page opens up a very frightening situation. Any story could be fabricated, distributed, broadcast, and then merit a mention in an article. The incident is news and, I believe, already has its own article. I recommend linking to it in the Further Reading section and leaving it at that. The same story could have been written about absolutely anyone, it has nothing to do with Obama. Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Not in this article anyway. A link to the article about it might be acceptable though. --Ubiq 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable Better to clear the air. Ogeez 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Non notable A link to the madrassa article is all that's necessary. - PoliticalJunkie 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - yes. People have questions about the issue, so it should be noted, with the quote about it as written in his book. - Eisenmond 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable It has its own article. However, having said that, it shouldn't be included in this article as its more in relation to poor reporting by Insight than anything Obama did. Maybe a link in the See also section. --Bobblehead 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable as note and already noted. --HailFire 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Non notableNot for this page.Jiffypopmetaltop 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable it's not actually false, just misinterpreted. He DID in fact attend a madrassa. The connect between "madrassa= wahabist was/is falseErnham 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable per Mykll42. The potential for abuse in a smear campaign against a potential presidential candidate is too much. Khorshid 06:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mother's ancestors owned slaves

Two of Sen. Obama's ancestors, a great-great-great-great grandfather and great-great-great-great-great-grandmother on his mother's side [21], each owned two slaves.

• Not notable. That's four "greats" and five "greats," for those too lazy to count. Italiavivi 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Not the slightest bit notable or relevant to him and would likely only be included as an effort to smear him. --Ubiq 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• As, somehow a criticism? No. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Ok, I admit this is not significant. Ogeez 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Not notable. - PoliticalJunkie 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - Seeing as how a great number of our historical leaders are now (noted) as being slave-owners, should it not be fair to mention that his bloodline is tainted as well? (sarcasm intended) - Eisenmond 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Even if true, his mom seems to have made up for any past transgressions of a distant relative by marrying an African-American and producing a child. --Bobblehead 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable So what? Nearly all African Americans' ancestors owned slaves. Armyrifle 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Parking tickets at Harvard

During the exploratory phase of his candidacy, Obama paid off $375 worth of parking tickets and late fees that he incurred during law school at Harvard. [22]

• Not notable. Pardon my brevity, but give me a break. Italiavivi 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not Notable But fun on the talk page! Mykll42 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not Notable I don't see this as much of an issue. Who cares?--C.Logan 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Considering HLS's hefty tuition costs (today at $110,000 for three years), I think Senator Obama's action was rather admirable. 128.103.14.115 01:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Funny stuff, but not notable. --Ubiq 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Silly. Ogeez 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Trivial matter. - PoliticalJunkie 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable - If $375 was not the total cost, but rather a plea deal??? I smell conspiracy theory... any takers :) - ok... Not Notable - Eisenmond 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable Yet again.. Anything remotely interesting regarding a candidate is front page news. --Bobblehead 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• unnotable take this to fox news. --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Notable in the context of things that he's doing to clear his name. (It's only not notable if the incident is isolated. However, Obama has also done other things to clear his name, such as by investing in mutual funds and money market accounts, not individual stocks, after he was accused of buying stocks then proposing funding that would benefit those stocks).71.212.111.238 23:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He was never accused of buying stocks and then proposing fundng that would benefit those stocks. There are no allegations of illegality or ethics violations. Mykll42 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Relentless Censorship of Anything that Would Hurt Obama

Why is it that I added something to this article about Barack Obama's opposition to a bill protecting infant victims of botched abortions and it was deleted by another user MINUTES later? Can somebody explain why CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM of Barack Obama is deleted with no explanation? Also, there is NOTHING negative about him in the whole article. Compare that to any article about a REPUBLICAN Presidential candidate and you will see what I mean. But for now, I will re-add the article from world net daily and hope that none of the censors (obama supporters/staffers) don't delete for fear it will take away from the positiveness of this fluff piece.

Has anyone else noticed how any mention of anything controversial regarding Obama does not survive in this article. It appears to be a tool for the Obama '08 campaign and they are stomping out all opposition in fascistic style. Can someone please report what's been going on here to the wikipedia administrators.

Propaganda placed into an article, any article, for the explicit purpose of hurting the candidate, especially when that material is not just controversial but unfounded, and further, during an election year is... Not proper. If there are articles you feel are being similarly treated, then you should patrol them similarly. Nothing is stopping you, so long as you can provide a legitimate case. AltonBrownFTW 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please can we put these type of distorting type selective facts somewhere else? Most congressional bills are complex. Many times bills are voted up or down many times. I can always pull apart some bill and say, see, republicans didn't vote for xxx (ignoring that they voted against it for another valid reason). This type of tactic is NOT encyclopedic, and should be rejected on pages of candidates for all parties. Augustz 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. Just because something is "complicated" does not mean it is exluded from a a wikipedia entery. Try again. But yes, this wiki is joke, little more than a propaganda tool at this point. Ernham 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else here smell a rat? The lightning speed with which any edit that put Obama in a bad light by so many users is downright frightening. The pro-Obama editors seem to all be vertible experts in wikipedia policy and regular folk are dicredited relentlessly undone and pushed aside even when their edits offer factual and sourced information. When one pro-Obama user has undone an edit 3 times, another one pops up MINUTES later to to do the fourth ensuring that none of them will violate the 3 unedit rules. In an election cycle, it is scary that this sort of control of information could take place.

The sheer SPEED of removal of these edits points to the fact that there must be a staff of editors paid to moniter this page. How else could so many people be watching this article at the same time all with the same agenda? It is high time we report the behavior on this page to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes disputes for an investigation. Rebyid 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I've also been accused of being on Hillary's and John Edwards' staffs, and I've been known to edit Nelson Rockefeller, George W. Bush and George Washington. What can I say - those paychecks are just rolling in. Tvoz |talk 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I too am rolling in the dough from the checks Sen. Obama sends me every month. He paid me tons to highlight his cigarette smoking and contested "blackness" in this article! Italiavivi 17:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you guys are not being paid to be on this page all day, then how can you afford to do it? Are you all independently wealthy and have nothing better to do? I find that hard to beleive. Most people edit articles in their SPARE TIME, not ALL THE TIME. So depite you're sarcasm I still think it's suspicious and should be investigated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.108.189 (talk • contribs).

It's called checking your watchlist a lot. Reverting inappropriate edits takes seconds; re-writing takes a bit longer. After a while you can do it in your sleep, which I sometimes do. Not to sound hokey, but I think the only agenda that the regular editors here share is a desire to have balanced and fair articles, without distortions inserted by people who really do have agendas, and without the annoying petty vandalism that articles like these attract. I've said before, we don't agree on everything at all. Read the talk pages and archives. I have just under 3500 edits, and only 181 are to the Obama page, and another 183 to the Obama Talk page (which I actually find to be kind of an interesting fact - as many edits talking about the article as actually changing the article). If I work for Obama, then he's one hell of an understanding boss, seeing as I spend so much of my time here not editing his page. We've already established that Hillary and the Edwardses have me on staff - what about Cat Stevens? John Lennon? Phil Ochs? Sorry if this doesn't convince you, but that's life. And if you don't like my sense of humor, that's ok too. Tvoz |talk 22:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, no fighting. Reverting inappropriate edits can be done quickly. This does not justify the accusation of "campaign worker is watching the board." No name calling! However, I must add that inappropriate reverting can also be done quickly. Unbalanced editing and unbalanced censorship of unflattering, but accurate, information about the subject of any article is inappropriate. This type of high profile article requires reputable citation for just about every statement made, whether negative or positive. I haven't examined what was reverted so I have no opinion as of yet.KMCtoday 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"not easily pegged to typical U.S. categories of the left or right"?

Hi. While I am inclined to support Obama (we're both left-handed smokers), my BS detector lights up a little after reading this. In the Political Image section it describes him as being neither lefty nor righty. He's been against the Iraq war since day one (a position typically reserved for the extremes on both sides - like Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich), is pro-choice and advocates universal healthcare. In 2007 America this combination puts you on the left. Not neccessarily far from the center, but absolutely NOT on the right half of the scale. If there are some lesser known positions that move him to the right, you really ought to mention them. I'd have to unfortunately agree with the swiftboaters above who speculate that this page has been 'caputured' by members of his campaign. 24.98.251.37 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, throughout the article, it is clear where his political allegiances lie. The section you're referring to is specifically referring to his "image", and cites numerous reliable sources that allude to the bipartisanship he has displayed throughout his career, and does not say that his beliefs are anywhere other than on the liberal side of the American political spectrum. I agree that we can probably make that more clear in the text. (Also, it isn't very nice to make the claim that you did at the end, as it's entirely untrue.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly states on numerous occasions that he's a Democrat. The line you're referring to is more of a comment on his insistence to treat each political issue individually, instead of adhering to party lines for the sake of party/political reasons. Did you not read the rest of the section? It has multiple criticisms, etc. --Ubiq 23:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know just why he is so popular in the democratic party. How does someone so young and with so little experience get seen as such a visionary? Everything I have read about his politics leads me believe he is moderate democrat ideologically close to both Clintons. I do not get any notion that he is suggesting anything particularly new. Yet there is all the buz around him versus any other Democratic Senator? If anyone has some ideas about this I would very much like to see them discussed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs).

Because the democrats are race hucksters at every turn. Sadly, blacks tend to overwhelmingly vote democrat anyway, so he is really more bluster than anything.Ernham 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not our place to speculate. We are only here to write the article about him. All we can do is cite what reputable sources have said about him. Anything else would fall under WP:NOR. Please remember that this is not the place to discuss Barak, but the place to discuss the article about Barak. --StuffOfInterest 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then whose place is it to speculate???? Hello? The point of the discussion page is go places and talk about things that wont make it on the main page. (Again I am not advocating putting original research on the main page.) One could though explain with sources his popularity. If it can be done this way it is essential to an article about him. In the future when people look back at him in history they will be wondering why he was so popular. This is a very important point. History is not just dry facts but an explanation of them to provide coherence to those facts. If this is not the place where is the place??? Custodiet ipsos custodes 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe StuffOfInterest is talking about WP:TALK where it says the talk page is to only discuss improving the article. So, if you want to discuss why he's popular, perhaps you should head over to one of the discussion boards dedicated to talking politics. However, if you'd like to add why he is popular to this article, I'd suggest you find a reliable source that explains that. One thing I've noticed is that requesting others to look up information for you tends to be ignored. --Bobblehead 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"One thing I've noticed is that requesting others to look up information for you tends to be ignored." - given the importance of the question especially because Barak Obama may be the next President of the United States perhaps those doing the ignoring should stop and think....Custodiet ipsos custodes

You're raising a question about why he's popular - it's bothering you, you believe that is something that ought to be addressed in the article, am I right? I think what Stuff and Bobble are saying is that the best way to proceed is for you, a person who has expressed interest in the topic, to do some research and see if you find reliable sources that speak to this, then add it, or post it here on talk for discussion about if, how and where to add it. There are a lot of things to be considered in this article - each of us focuses on what we think is important - so if you think this is important to be included, find something to include and I'm sure you'll find people here to talk about its inclusion. Bobblehead is just pointing out that leaving your concern here and expecting others to share it and research it is less likely to get a result than doing it yourself and giving the group something to work with. We're all busy - do the legwork and then let's talk. Tvoz |talk 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "ever-present Obama" article.

I've been trying to word this tidbit in a fair manner, but the more I look at its source (a blog post from RealClearPolitics [23]), the more I have a problem with its reliability. The author, Nathan Gonzales, paraphrases all of Sen. Obama's responses to his questions.

When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

I had mistakenly placed the phrases "uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill" and "attempts by Republicans to score points" within quotation marks, assuming them to have been Sen. Obama's responses, but now realize that Mr. Gonzales has provided no directly quoted responses from Sen. Obama in his blog post. Due to its origin (a conservative blog), and the fact that it provides none of Sen. Obama's actual responses, I question its reliability as a source for this article. In previous Talk discussion, there was a fairly solid consensus (including from anti-Obama-POV editors) that Obama's past "present" votes were neither extraordinary nor notable. Should this become an issue covered by reliable sources, we can re-visit it later. Italiavivi 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, with the full context it sounds reasonably accurate, though I don't think it is super notable, many politicians do this, both the gotcha side and the avoiding the vote side. Augustz 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure focusing on the abortion bills represents undue weight as both sides were represented in the paragraph. Undue weight doesn't necessarily mean focusing on one topic, but rather focusing unnecessarily on one viewpoint or in excess of what the topic is worth. This is particularly true when the only "present" votes that are really drawing attention is his votes on the pro-life bills. That being said, I'm not strictly opposed to the "present" issue being removed as the only source that's calling the present votes an issue is Gonzales's op-ed piece. However, his votes against the partial birth and the "Born alive" bills (either as a "no" or a "present") being an issue has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources.[24][25] So I don't see a reason why those votes can't be included in a sparsely covered state legislature section. --Bobblehead 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Describing "Present" votes as "votes against" is POV. Italiavivi 15:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Obama WAS Registered "Muslim" in his Schools and attended mosques

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama15mar15,0,5315525,full.story

Here is a quote from the article: "His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended."

Barack was called Barry in Indonesia. And here's what someone who knew him told the LA Times

"His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque," Adi said. "I remember him wearing a sarong." This is a valid source and this story should be mentioned in the article. It is very noteworthy as to the canditade's childhood background as this likely shapes his world-view as an adult. The previous unsigned commment was added by User: 69.125.108.189 at 01:56, 2 April 2007

Obama's statements in this article and in several public forums contradict what these sources say and that should be noted in the article. If the Obama supporters don't think there is anything wrong with having been registered as a Muslim, they should have no problem with this fact being in the article and its NPOV becaue having been is Muslim is not a bad thing, but the facts are the facts.

I hope we can dicuss this civilly and hopefully find a sentence that represents accurately this issue and that everyone can agree on. But consistently undoing my attempts is not the way to accomplish this and violates wikipedia's 3 undo edit rule. Rebyid 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read the article. 'The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends.' If you are going to quote items 40 years old subject to a lot of mixed evidence including in the article itself, why not quote the following "Instead of using his fists, Obama gained respect — and friends — by using his imposing stature to protect weaker children against the strong, Dharmawan said." Obviously I think neither of these types of things positive or negative belong in the article. Augustz 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my quotes from the article not accurate? Are you saying he was NOT registered as a Muslim in both of his elementary schools?! This went uncontradicted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebyid (talk • contribs)

It's probably worth noting here that under Indonesian law, everyone is forced to register as a member of one of a half-dozen set religions. "Non-religious" is definitely not an option. The relevant quote from the article is "He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim."--Pharos 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That is correct.Tvoz |talk 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The relevant quote from the article is "He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim."

1. Interesting. You are conceding that Obama's father was a Muslim. You will have to take that up with the others on this talk page who insist that he was an atheist. See Discussion on Origin of Obama's first name above.

Lolo Soetoro was Obama's stepfather, not his father. Obama's mother married Soetoro when Sen. Obama was a child. Sen. Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., was an atheist. Italiavivi 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

2. It also should be noted that under Muslim law, religion passes paternally, so if Obama's father was Muslim that means he was born a Muslim.Rebyid 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And thankfully, Wikipedia isn't obligated to identify individuals in strict accordance with Islamic Law. Welcome back from your ban, by the way, Rebyid. Italiavivi 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good to be back.Rebyid 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. </two cents> Fifty7 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama place

Barack Obama is in third place according to this poll [26]

Born alive bills

Okay, how about we discuss whether the segment below should be included in the article rather than adding and reverting it without any real discussion. --Bobblehead 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

“ Obama has been heavily criticized for his vote on a series of bills while serving in the Illinois State Senate that sought to protect the infant survivors of botched abortions. In 2001, Sen. Obama voted "present" on bills S.B. 1093, S.B. 1094, and S.B. 1095 even though he has been supportive of abortion in the past. However, this can be construed as a “no” vote as a vote in the affirmative is required to pass legislation in Illinois State Senate. ”

The Nathan Gonzalez blog post is not a reliable source. Consensus in past Talk discussion is clear on the "present" issue, and describing "present" votes as "against" votes is decidedly POV-pushing. Abortion advocacy is already covered (from better sources) in the article. Italiavivi 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should keep any of this, but I would propose this version of the paragraph:

Opponents of abortion have criticized Obama for his "present" votes in 2001 on a series of bills, S.B. 1093, S.B. 1094, and S.B. 1095, that sought to protect the infant survivors of botched abortions.

About the WSJ piece: I think it was referenced because it named the bills Obama voted "present" on. The WSJ guy is criticizing Obama for being weak by not voting outright no, rather than criticizing Obama solely for his abortion stance. I think the Keyes reference definitely should go, though. Dce7 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "WSJ piece," to be clear. It is a blog post from RealClearPolitics that has been syndicated at WSJ. Turning the "present" votes into a controversy based upon a single op-ed blog post is unacceptable Wikipedia practice, and creating an entire new abortion section based upon one of these present votes is decidedly undue weight. Italiavivi 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it may be undue weight (I wasn't the one who originally wrote this). However, I would suggest that the cited article from The Hill is the only reference that is needed, and the rephrased section as I wrote it above will stand by itself with only that one citation. So let's consider its propriety in light of the claims in the article from The Hill. Dce7 04:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Obama's record on abortion is already adequately covered in the article: he is pro-choice, and has been criticized by those who are pro-life. To insert further criticism from pro-lifers into this (featured status) article constitutes construing a typical political position (being pro-choice) as a controversy, and is unquestionably POV. Italiavivi 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Ever present Obama" article may have began on RealClearPolitics, but it did make it onto the Wall Street Journal opinion pages and that adds a measure of reliability to the article. The WSJ doesn't reprint just any blog post. Now, onto the article itself, the paragraph in it's current form probably shouldn't remain in the article as the "present" votes do not appear to be an issue outside of Gonzales's opinion piece. However, the criticism he's gotten from pro-life groups should be mentioned in the article in regards to the Born Alive bills and the other anti-abortion bills should probably be added as another sentence or two in the political advocacy section. Definitely not a paragraph though. --Bobblehead 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It is unacceptable to continue adding lines to a pro-choice politician's article every time he or she is criticized by a pro-life op-ed author. This is, again, turning a typical political position into a controversy. Italiavivi 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys — as I just suggested, forget the op-ed. Assume that the only citation we will keep is the one from The Hill which mentions a small protest and the advocacy of some pro-life groups. Dce7 04:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My point still stands. It is unacceptable to continue adding lines to a pro-choice politician's article every time he or she is criticized by a pro-life group or author. Italiavivi 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(starting back on the margin) Italiavivi, I generally agree with you. However, I think the one italicized sentence above (my rewriting of the original section), with only the citation from The Hill, might be relevant at the end of the political advocacy section. It clarifies why those people were mad at Obama. Dce7 04:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification? They are upset with him because they are pro-life, and he is pro-choice. Obama's article is not the place for the minutiae of why every individual pro-life group condemns a pro-choice politician. The article follows: He said that while his group “won’t concentrate on Obama,” he wanted to cut through a 'ga-ga' media following to ensure that voters know the senator’s position on the issue. This article already makes clear Obama's position on abortion. Italiavivi 04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dce7. A google search for "Born Alive" and "Barack Obama" returns more reliable sources than just The Hill saying there is concern over Obama's votes against that bill and the partial-birth abortion ban bills. --Bobblehead 04:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked that pro-life organizations are "concerned" over a pro-choice politician's stance on late-term abortions. Italiavivi 04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you didn't add anything substantive to this discussion with the preceding comment.;) His voting record in the state legislature is a more accurate measure of his pro-choice stance than his answer in a questionnaire and they are the source of the pro-life criticisms. --Bobblehead 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to insist that a specific "concern" from a pro-life organization warrants a new line of pro-life criticism in this article, but it's a pretty weak argument. You've in no way responded to the substance of my argument, that this is simply an anti-abortion group criticizing a pro-abortion politician over his stance on a form of abortion -- and it's not even his stance, actually, but their attempt to portray his "present" vote as a vote against. Italiavivi 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to understand that he has been criticized from both sides about the "present" votes. Please note that the footnote (122 presently) already points to an article (page 3 of that article) that talks about the criticism from a pro-choice rival for the nomination regarding the "present" votes. So the paragraphs as added were misleading and extremely POV. Since the criticism from the pro-choice side is already discussed in note 122, I added a line and the reference from The HIll to that note to indicate the criticism from the anti-abortion groups about those "present" votes. There is now balance, and links to articles that more fully explain the two sets of criticism. More than that, I think, is unwarranted, and would be POV-pushing again. Tvoz |talk 05:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I support Tvoz's solution. It compliments the information already present (without placing undue weight in the article's text), and is an adequate solution to this conflict. Italiavivi 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just replaced The Hill article citation with a more neutral reference, a news article, talking about anti-abortion groups' criticism of Obama's "present" votes. Tvoz |talk 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always disliked the use of ref tags to cover content as they're often used to bury controversial topics. I'm also unsure how him being criticized by pro-life groups in the article's text is undue weight as long as the praise he's received from pro-choice groups is also included. Abortion is an important issue in American politics and the text of this article minimizes his support for legal abortion by only mentioning it in the context of him being criticized for being invited to an evangelical church to talk about AIDS. If anything, how that paragraph is written now is POV as the only thing it mentions in the readable text in regards to his support for abortion is the criticism he's gotten for his opinion and using the most negative quote available. I could also argue that the paragraph itself is undue weight and not particularly notable. The pro-life groups criticizing his support for abortion as why he shouldn't be invited to a church to talk about AIDS is the equivalent to including references to Westboro Baptist Church in Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003.--Bobblehead 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As said prevously, I think the voting "present" material belongs where it is in the footnote, but I moved the Planned Parenthood point out of the fn and into the text - I think it's a bit clearer and more balanced now. (I also found that church quote to be excessively negative when left on its own.) But it's also important to remember that there is an entire article on his political views which appropriately goes into more detail about his position on legal abortion and other issues.Tvoz |talk 08:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure the "present" issue is worthy of mention in the footnotes really. All the sources have said a "Present" vote is equivalent to a "No" vote and it didn't seem to impact his Planned Parenthood rating. I headed over to the political views article and made the same edits there right after I left the above comment (I'll have to go back though. I like your wording better than mine).--Bobblehead 08:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems more neutral. Adding a sentence saying that he recieved a 100% rating from NARAL seems hardly a way to thouroughly cover this issue. Maybe we should add how strange it is that a 100% NARAL ratee only felt strong enough to vote "present" on this bill?

"Obama has been heavily criticized for his vote on a series of bills while serving in the Illinois State Senate that sought to protect the infant survivors of botched abortions. In 2001, Sen. Obama voted "present" on bills S.B. 1093, S.B. 1094, and S.B. 1095 even though he has been highly supportive of abortion in the past. Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he did not mention how he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no,” and how giving medical attention to babies who were already born as the result of abortion abortions, as the bills required, "overturned" any existing laws."

--Pic82101 8:45, 8 April 2007 (EST)

This seems "neutral" to you? Well, any objective reader will see that it is quite far from neutral. You are blowing this up way beyond its actual importance, and like Bobblehead, I question the inclusion of these "present" votes in any form - but to satisfy your concern that the present votes be acknowledged here, we have included them in a balanced way, with criticism coming from both sides of the spectrum. You clearly only want to represent your POV and that has no place here. Unless you reach consensus here to include anything else on this, please don't change what we have. (And when you add comments to Talk it is helpful if you place them on the bottom of the discussion, or at least indented under a specific point you're replying to, not at the top of the discussion - it is confusing that way.) Tvoz |talk 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you want Tvoz, 500 links??? You just can't stand criticism and Obama's failure to explain his actions can you? I don't like him and I don't hate him but this is a BIG issue considering that he's running for PRESIDENT which requires an enormous decision making capability that he clearly lacked on many issues including this, when he was in the Illinois Senate. Voting "present" is a sign a politician can't make up his mind or fears the political consequences of casting a straight vote. Just because criticism of him disagrees with YOU it doesn't mean it's not neutral. And stop claiming the Born Alive controversy is something that doesn't mean anything. I including his response to the issue and showed the errors in it. I am not pushing any POV but you seem to be doing a bit of it with your constant censoring and disagreeable attitude towards anybody who wants to bring some balance to this article. And where did you include the "present" controversy in the article and where are both pov? If I missed it, please quote me where I diverged from the facts in my paragraph and I will be more than happy to drop the whole matter. Hmmm...

• I wrote he was criticized, true.
• I wrote he voted "present" on S.B. 1093, 1094, and 1095, true.
• I wrote he was highly supportive of abortion in the past, true.(maybe "supportive," then.)
• I wrote that he had objections and concerns about the bill and asked why he did not say why he didn't vote "no" on it if he said he was opposed to it, true.
• I wrote that he also did not address why giving medical attention to babies who already born as the result of botched abortions, as the bills would allow, violated Roe vs. Wade as he said it did, true.

How am I pushing MY pov here? Did I make all these facts up? No. Am I offending your support of Barack Obama? Maybe. But we're in a free wiki where facts matter more than opinions. But anything critical of Obama that is true is fanatically censored by you who seem to be more concerned about pushing your povs than having a true and balanced article? If this was any other politician I can assure that the criticism section would be a whole lot bigger. Let's be factual, not opinionated.

--Pic82101 11:54, 8 April 2007 (EST)

• Any time you feel a need to point out something someone didn't do -- for example, "failed to mention" something or another -- you can and should assume that you are attempting to insert POV. "Failed to mention" means you think that he should have mentioned something; but what you and I think should have happened is our own opinion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

redundant section - see imediately above

O.k., this is the talk page. Let's discuss this paragraph.

"Obama has been heavily criticized for his vote on a series of bills while serving in the Illinois State Senate that sought to protect the infant survivors of botched abortions. In 2001, Sen. Obama voted "present" on bills S.B. 1093, S.B. 1094, and S.B. 1095 even though he has been supportive of abortion in the past. Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no." He also failed to mention how giving medical attention to babies who were already born "overturned" any existing laws."

Pic82101 00:21, 8 April 2007 (EST)

See the section immediately above this one. Tvoz |talk 00:32, 8 April 2007

Housekeeping Duties / Cleaning Up Article

Article excessively long?

This article is over 100k long, which seems to indicate that the creation of a number of child articles are in order here. The Senate career section is almost 30k in length on it's own and could be easily copied and pasted into a Senate career of Barack Obama article and then expanded/reformatted into a quality article. I could even see the senate campaign moved off to the career article with a short6 summary of the sections left here hitting the high points of the election and his senate career. The cultural and political image section is also ripe for being made into a summary for a child article. The political advocacy section and the presidential election section seem to be excessively long for summaries of another article. I know there isn't a chance in heck of getting this article down to 32k without leaving a pile of drek behind, but it should be doable to reduce the length down to a more acceptable and quality 60k with a proper application of WP:SS. What does everyone else think? --Bobblehead 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

After copy and pasting the printable version to an edit window and removing the Notes, References, Further reading, and External links sections, I get "This page is 32 kilobytes long." See Wikipedia:Article size#What is and is not included as "readable prose". --HailFire 09:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia says this article is 102kb. Clicking on the link, it recommends articles be 32 kb but says that the size doesn't have to be strictly followed because there aren't too many obsolete browsers. Still, the article is long. There are sections broken out but then there's still a lot of text in those same sections. I just looked at Mitt Romney's article. He was Governor yet his article is short and sweet, not so wordy like this one. Granted, his needs to be beefed up a little. Anyone want to try?

Again, with regard to the interface saying 102kb, please see Wikipedia:Article size#What is and is not included as "readable prose" as linked above. Italiavivi 02:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider

• Cutting out 2004 Democratic Convention speech. What is notable was that Obama gave the speech. That's what his claim to fame and recognition comes from, not the contents of the speech. Likewise, the late Governor Ann Richards came into the spotlight for the same reason. However, nothing she said was notable except the silver spoon joke. Do you remember what she said? See how lack of notability these convention speeches are!
• Presidential Campaign section. Why do we need to devote 8 lines to his announcement speech? This is an article, not a campaign press release. If we treat Bush and Clinton in the same respect, then their articles would be 50 times longer because of their many speeches. Equal treatment is what we should strive for because that is NPOV. Unequal treatment hints of POV or at least unintentional POV. What's important is that he announced and was predicted for a while that he would announce before he actually did.
• Political advocacy section. This is just a rehash of a link to "Political positions of Barack Obama" article. Consider moving all of this out to that link.
• Cultural and Political Image Section. This is all opinion. What ever happened to the NPOV? In the US, there are probably half a million different opinions on the guy's image, if not more. If people want to save it, consider a new article and link to "Public Image of Barack Obama".....(edit: oh, that's just what Bobblehead said)

KMCtoday 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with your proposed removals. As pointed out above, this article's readable prose is well within guidelines. Italiavivi 02:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. This article gets nailed by the amount of references used in it, alas. Oh, the irony. --Bobblehead 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the proposal as well. First, it's not necessary: as was noted several times above, the readable prose is within recommended guidelines. If you follow that link you'll see what we're referring to. The references are comprehensive - that's a good thing - and that's part of what adds to the total amount of K you saw. But the guideline is about "readable prose" and we've worked to keep it within those guidelines. On your other points, much discussion has taken place and continues to on the talk pages about what should be included and what not, and we've shortened and lengthened sections, and forked off sections to separate articles, and added things that were earlier deemed less notable, changing emphasis as events dictate, and have done it pretty successfully by consensus. I expect that will continue, as we have a lot of eyes on this article. As for the article on Mitt Romney - it sounds like a good project. Good luck with it. Tvoz |talk 03:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree as well. This is a well referenced article. Ronbo76 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:KMCtoday's proposed expansion in the State legislature section.

From User_talk:Italiavivi:

I saw your edit on Obama reverting mine. Actually, the vast majority of my edit is just to add "citation needed" when things are not referenced and very little editing of the actual text. The Obama article is the type that should be very well referenced because of the nature of it. Whoever wrote the original police part is very biased because that's not what the reference said at all. He may have got the FOP endorsement but he got a very chilly reception at ANOTHER police association meeting (which is what the reference was about). There, the audience applauded only once, which shows how little support he has there. So here we have a sentence in the wikipedia article which is clearly POV hence my correction. KMCtoday 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You did quite a bit of editing to the actual text, including the addition of phrases such as "not pro-law enforcement" and "anti-public safety" under an edit summary of "small clarifications." [27] I believe your edit summary was quite disingenuous, reading now. Italiavivi 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing was initially just to add citations when big error was noted. However, you made corrections that were along the same line of thought in trying to more accurately have this article reflect what the citation was actually saying.KMCtoday 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clearly POV to call his bills "detrimental to law enforcement" and I've rewritten the sentence to conform with the source. FCYTravis 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Italiavivi:

You (Italiavivi) mention concensus. There is agreement by FCYTravis. However, the point is NPOV, not necessarily concensus if consensus is for inaccurate reporting. Hitler had concensus. He won the vote fair and square. Even Bush won the election. I am for accountability, i.e. citing material and citing it accurately. This is for not only Obama, but also Romney. I am not picking on Obama specifically. I have raised citation issues for Bush, too.KMCtoday 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Police endorsement discussion

Hellfire made an edit in September. Essentially, it says that Obama got the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and a citation is given. However, looking at that citation [28], the Chicago Tribune article actually said " 'I don't see him as pro-law enforcement," said Wheaton police Chief Mark Field. "I could spend hours with this man talking about his voting record. It is very anti-public safety." The crowd of 60 police officials applauded only once during Obama's 20-minute remarks. The whole article is about the chilly reception that Obama got.

This does not seem like very balanced reporting by Hellfire. It seems like there is a POV being pushed, i.e. trying to convince the reader that Obama has police support.

It's really very hard for me to see that this is other than biased editing by Hellfire. Furthermore, it wasn't just an honest mistake in editing because Hellfire recently reverted Italiavivi's correction accurately summarizing the citation back to the biased, one sided summary of the Chicago Tribune citation. I was just editing to make sure edits have citations when I found this irregularity. (For now, I'm just checking facts on this and other news articles, not really writing much). Let's not pick on Hellfire for now but the question remains, it's really hard to see why the long standing wording isn't pushing a POV by being biased editing.KMCtoday 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, KMC, the only "unbalanced" or "biased" thing I see here is an attempt to place offhand criticism from a single police chief on par with an official endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. See Wikipedia:Undue weight. I would also ask that you cease the innuendo you are directing toward User:HailFire; despite my past disagreements with him on this article's content, he is a fine Wikipedia editor in general and has made a phenomenal positive contribution to this particular article. Italiavivi 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If Obama got the endorsement of the FOP, then prima facie he's got significant law enforcement support. The Chicago Tribune article essentially said there were some FOP opponents and some FOP supporters - I think "mixed reaction" is a far better term to use there than "subdued," which is rather ambiguous. Is a "subdued reaction" to be construed as opposition or merely indifference? So we can say the FOP supported him but the Illinois police chiefs were split. FCYTravis 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your (FCYTravis) rewrite does reflect what the Tribune article said. The problem I have with Hailfire's edit was he or she twisted what the Tribune said and wrote it here in wikipedia.KMCtoday 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am actually more in agreement with HailFire's (his username is not "Hellfire") philosophy that context is important, and that sources support relevant parts of the article's text, not the other way around. That one member of the Police Chiefs Association had bad things to say about Obama is nowhere near as notable as the Fraternal Order of Police endorsement, and drawing extra attention to this one police chief's disagreements (when there were other chiefs there to get Obama's autograph, per the source) is decidedly undue weight. I can compromise to my version (not your "version like mine") if consensus deems it absolutely necessary, but foremost support HailFire's version (the past consensus version, which I am restoring now). Italiavivi 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Italiavivi's revert to HailFire's text- and changed IACP back to HF's "police union" (=FOP) because that is what this citation is supporting. The cite says: "Last week, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. Union officials cited Obama's longtime support of gun-control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises on bills backed or opposed by the FOP." Citations are there to support the text. If there are other reliable source citations to present a different point of view, please submit them. Meanwhile, I find the header for this section, and the implication in KMCToday's comments, to be offensive. The twisting that I'm seeing is not coming from HailFire or from Italiavivi. Tvoz |talk 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What seems like the real story is that Obama did get the FOP endorsement but there's significant dislike of his policies. That's why Obama got the icy reception at his talk. To be applauded only once is worse than the chilly reception that Bush got at the NAACP where they applauded a few times. When the sentence was placed before, it essentially said "FOP supports Obama" and gave the citation. Anyone reading the citation can see that it's deceptive (whether intentional or not). A balanced viewpoint would be "some support, but some police oppose".

An example of being one sided like the above would be to say "Hillary supports the war" citing a newspaper article which might have said "Hillary supported the war by voting for such and such bill. Now she is for a planned, stage withdrawal." FCYTravis' revision just corrects it. It does not say Obama is wrong.KMCtoday 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's start fresh

• I consider myself a fact checker, have no strong opinion for or against Obama, and have done fact checking on Republicans, too.
• If anyone has been offended by the past discussion, I am sorry. Consider starting fresh like now.
• The main issue that I see is that there is a lack of unbiased reporting in the police issues. An editor made it a point to include FOP endorsement and provided a reference. Upon reading the reference, the wikipedia article seems unbalanced. The wikipedia article should reflect a balance of police opinions about him, not just an endorsement. Therefore, it would be inaccurate and a POV to include only the FOP endorsement and not include an overall police opinion of him(although I am willing to accept on good faith that it was an unintentional POV for the sake of compromise).
• Although I generally fact check and not edit, my editing about Obama has been continual revision not just reverting as some have done. Can you make a similar sign of good faith.KMCtoday 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this "fresh start" the reason that, only 12 minutes ago, you posted a message to another editor's User_Talk page accusing editors here of 'censorship'? Between referring to my edits as "vandalism" and your accusing editors of "censorship" immediately before posting this "fresh start" offer, my assumption of good faith on your part has near run out, KMC. Italiavivi 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an attempt to step back. The use of the term censorship was because of quick reverting though, in the interest of good faith, I'll decline from explaining further. Please note that messages to others may be done to get a better understanding of the problem without a big arguement here. Please respect privacy.KMCtoday 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no - that's not going to wash. if you have something to say about "quick reverting", why don't you just come out and say it. Accusation by innuendo is really not ok. Tvoz |talk 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All of you need to deep breath here. This is a simple content dispute and the claims of censorship and complaints about the claim are not helping. It is generally more helpful to discuss the content in question and not assume the reasons behind an editor's actions.--Bobblehead 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Bobblehead, that we should keep to the issue of content. But I think saying "The use of the term censorship was because of quick reverting though, in the interest of good faith, I'll decline from explaining further." is exactly the opposite of assuming good faith - as was the original heading to this section - and I don't think it should be condoned.Tvoz |talk 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always been a big fan of not feeding trolls. If you ignore the pointy bits they get bored and go away. --Bobblehead 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to the nature of this latest round of edit warring. The primary purpose of the source used to support Obama's endorsement is to report the subdued response he got from Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police so while the wording proposed by FCYTravis and KMCtoday might be a little too much POV, not mentioning the subdued reaction at all fails to provide all points of view. Can't have one and not the other, so either remove his endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police or give the subdued reaction from IACP equal time in a less POV manner.--Bobblehead 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. My reading of the source article is that there was a subdued response at one meeting of a police chief group, but that there also was support at that meeting. That organization does not endorse candidates, so it seems to me the response by one group of people one day is not a notable point worth including. The FOP, on the other hand, formally endorsed him - that means that they as an organization took a public stand of support for someone who had some positions that they disagreed with. To me, that is notable. I have no problem at all including something about other police groups supporting or not supporting, if there are reliable sources for it, and if it was more than one police chief saying he had a problem and others being subdued. That's just not notable. I haven't researched this issue - for all I know there are articles out there that talk about police groups who formally supported his opponent or made a public statement =as a group= that they opposed him. And if those exist, maybe someone will bring them forward,, and maybe they belong here. But the point of the paragraph is that despite his having some positions that some people in law enforcement oppose, a police union - the FOP - came out in support of his candidacy. That is notable. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer to this problem is to find a new source, one addressing only his endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police. Italiavivi 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I don't feel Barak's picture is from a neutral point of view. This looks like an image from the campaign for his presidency. Before you judge compare it to the image for Tom Delay. Don't get me wrong, I think Delay's is fair, the images IMHO should be more raw photos, not photo ops or in a good light. --User:kibbled_bits 11:17 PM, 9 April 2007

It's a picture from his US Senate website, while Tom's is from the congressional pictorial directory. Perhaps the editors of Tom's website should use better pictures on that article. *shrug* It's a picture of Obama in front of the building where he works, not sure how it's a violation of NPOV. Now, a picture of Obama in front of the White House, that might be questionable. --Bobblehead 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Black Caucus

After a bit of spamming by an overeager congressional worker, I noticed that some members were not noted as such. Would it be alright to add to the "Senate career" section, after the ending sentence beginning "He is a member of the following Senate committees:" a note saying ", and also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus." ? Shenme 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say absolutely yes, as long as it is confirmed that he is actually a member of the Caucus, not a supposition that because he is African American he would be. I don't mean to imply that you are making that supposition, Shenme, just think a citation would be a good thing for this.Tvoz |talk 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And - I looked at their official website and confirmed his membership, so added it to the article. I didn't anticipate any objections, but of course it can be discussed here if there are any. Thanks for bringing it up. Tvoz |talk 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)