Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions
→Obama's service on the Joyce Foundation: eew, unclosed quote |
|||
Line 697: | Line 697: | ||
::It used to be, but much of that sort of thing was purged recently in an attempt to shorten the article and let the child articles shoulder more of the burden. The result has been a more focused article with less edit warring. (your addition about reversing the campaign financing pledge should be reverted for the same reason, the child article goes into the all the specifics). -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
::It used to be, but much of that sort of thing was purged recently in an attempt to shorten the article and let the child articles shoulder more of the burden. The result has been a more focused article with less edit warring. (your addition about reversing the campaign financing pledge should be reverted for the same reason, the child article goes into the all the specifics). -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*Still it deserves mention. Perhaps a link to its subarticle+section, with the appropriate naming? All I propose is a summary, even if its extremely brief. [[User:Duuude007|Duuude007]] ([[User talk:Duuude007|talk]]) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
*Still it deserves mention. Perhaps a link to its subarticle+section, with the appropriate naming? All I propose is a summary, even if its extremely brief. [[User:Duuude007|Duuude007]] ([[User talk:Duuude007|talk]]) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Then why not a link and summary of [[Obama-Ayers controversy]], even if it's extremely brief? [[User:Curious bystander|Curious bystander]] ([[User talk:Curious bystander|talk]]) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Campaign financing== |
==Campaign financing== |
Revision as of 17:42, 19 September 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 5 days ![]() |
Template:Community article probation
![]() | Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?
A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)?
A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?
A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common?
A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc?
A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?
A7: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!
A8: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.
A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A11: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this?
A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly?
A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed!
A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article.
A15: That's understandable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted!
A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:
Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail?
A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 5 days ![]() |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Political Views and Platform
I think it is absolutely essential that a subtopic be added under this heading to discuss his platform and political views.
I also think an article on his political influences may be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.211.61 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Website?
I think this should be in the section where it shows his website. The Obama for Illinois senator is old and outdated. http://www.barackobama.com/splash/first_to_know.html user:chasesboys
BarackObama.com is already included, I move to delete this section. natezomby (talk)
Obama is NOT half white
Obama's mother has native american descent. This means the strongest ancestry in his blood is black african. Why is this not mentioned?YVNP (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
>>> Well, you can say his mother was Native American and so he is not white, but that doesn't make him more black, that makes him less white and more Native American... and... was she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.5.19 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Currently Barack Obama identifies as an African American. We use the general term White American to cover his mother's descent and not delve deeply into his mother's ancestry. This article is also written in an outline style that only covers the basics and most important information about Obama, leaving the rest to daughter articles to delve deeper into the various subjects. While it may or may not be true that he has native American ancestry, it does not merit a mention in the article. If we mentioned every single facet of his ancestry delving way back to the middle ages, the page would be triple the length that it is now. It is also important to use the identity that Obama himself chooses to associate with and not apply the various other things that people tag onto him, that he himself does not use. Brothejr (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Does that matter? LTIC the One drop rule still meant he is legaly black. --Deuxhero (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- We're here to describe not prescribe what his identity is. .:davumaya:. 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is also important to use the identity that Obama himself chooses to associate with and not apply the various other things that people tag onto him, that he himself does not use I agree 100% with Brothejr, identity is not our issue here, his self identification (and the media branding of him) as black is not in dispute is it? Anything further is genealogical original research or somebody's opinion of what he should be called, neither of which is relevant to this article! natezomby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- We're here to describe not prescribe what his identity is. .:davumaya:. 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Does that matter? LTIC the One drop rule still meant he is legaly black. --Deuxhero (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The German media im sure branded Americans as terms similar to scum back during the war does that mean that americans are scum? (Invertedzero (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
- Wow. Godwin's Law this early? Nothing is in dispute here. Move to delete this section. natezomby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- It Still makes him half-black, his mother is Native american, that makes him Half-Native and Half-Black, it would be politically incorrect to say he is completely black or even mostly black.--Banditda (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's edits are not determined by how "politically correct" they are. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- But he is still only half-black. how about wikipedia being FACTUALLY correct The FACTS say he is only half-black and if it isn't based on politically correctness couldn't i just change "african american" to "black". there is no such thing as a consensus on FACTS.--Banditda (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a consensus to call him African-American, and that this fits his self-identification, the vast majority of published sources, etc. Race is not a fact, it is a social construct. That construct, in America at the moment, is that if you have one African-American parent and one European-American parent (or Native-American, I won't even get into that) and you call yourself African-American, then you may be described as African-American. Our consensus is to follow that construct. That is not meant to endorse it, simply to use the terminology that everyone else does. Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(Incidentally, he had no African-American parent -- he had an African parent and an American parent (which I suppose makes him African-American by national background, if nothing else.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.86.90 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- ok i get it, and now i understand that i can officially consider myself latino, or asian, even though i am mostly european and a native born american. I think ill go with latino, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.229.64 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh that last comment was from me BTW--Banditda (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- The FACT is that he IS a mixed race American and this is Wikipedia so that is how it should be stated. You all know that you're not supposed to use opinions when editing articles. If a white person and a black person have a child, it is considered a mixed child. I have a mixed nephew. I don't consider him black just because he has black in his ancestry. Why is Obama left out of this and seen as 100% black? I honestly dont know but I'm sure a lot of people out there would be suprised if you told them he was only 50% black because of how the media advertises him as the possible "first black president". Sorry to burst your bubble media. First MIXED major presidential cantidate? Maybe. wagexslave (talk) 12:05 AM, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
As I read this whole debate about him being half white or half black or half native american. I can only think of the days when if you had a single drop of Jewish or Negro blood, your existance was now contaminated. Nice going folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.246.175 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that Obama has a black Kenyan father and a white American mother. So the term biracial would be more accurate to use than African-American. He is biracial with a Kenyan father. Kenyan-American? Just because terms are commonly used doesn't make them correct. And Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature. Furthermore, is a White South African moves to the USA African-American? (Wallamoose (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
Controversy re: Rezko/Ayers
What about Obama's alleged ties to Rezko and Bill Ayers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk • contribs)
(Comment restored after total brain failure and Twinkle-madness on my part -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
- These two issues appear to be speculative in news stories that have yet to gain a formal influence on Obama's life. To talk about them in the article now would be a crystal ball of a poor synthesis. It would be the same as a "controversy" with Louis Farrakhan. These issues if they come to light may be better placed in 2008 general election. .:davumaya:. 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is that you, Megapen? If so, you spelled Rezko wrong again. The answer to your question can be found above and in any of the several dozen recent archives where this has been discussed. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and wholly innappropriate for this article. The Ayers controversy in mentioned in the article on Obama's campaign, where it belongs. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama's personal and professional ties to Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers' radical past are NOT speculative, rather, they are fact just as his 20+ year relationship to Rev Jeremiah Wright is fact. Both of these references should be contained in this article, unless of course, this article is just campaign propaganda, in which case it does not belong here in Wiki Land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.19.9 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, it would be appropriate for you to register a username if you wish to be taken "seriously" in a discussion. Next, you ought to review the many archives which already contain the answer to your question. If you are Megapen and here again to stir trouble, then you are trolling, and I'll ask you kindly to leave since the matter/matters are settled. And lastly, your accusation that this article is just campaign propaganda is disillusioned and won't help you gain Consensus by insulting Wiki Land. .:davumaya:. 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing speculative about the relationships with the terrorist Bill Ayers. I agree that these references should be in the article. To be fair John Mccain's warts are in his article and the same should occur here, unless there is bias? These relationships are some of the only glimpses that people can get into his character. I'm a new contributor so I hope I've followed the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Scott Yapp (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your Rezko information is prominently located in "Family and personal life." As for Ayers, let me direct you to Obama–Ayers controversy where the only conclusion one can draw from their "controversy" is that Ayers happens to be a well known professor and person in the community. Two and two in the same place do not equal one. Similarly McCain is often in the upper elite circles of very very terrible men who have maimed and extorted, but in how much we do say that is to be in McCain's biography? And labeling Ayers a terrorist is interesting, a terrorist implies someone who is wanted by the law and is either incarcerated or on the run. Last I checked Professor Ayers was an educator. .:davumaya:. 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing "prominent" at all about "your Rezko information." It's a single sentence, carefully buried in a vast field of text. That relationship deserves a paragraph at least. Ayers deserves at least a sentence, particularly since there's an entire article about Obama-Ayers controversy which should be linked here. If you're using summary style as excuse to exclude legitimate criticism, you have to follow WP:SS, which requires you to provide a link to the article where you've concealed the criticism. There is no doubt that Ayers is a terrorist. That is what makes him notable. Otherwise, we'd have a Wikipedia bio about every university professor in the world. Curious bystander (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems strange that Obama's well documented 20 year relationships with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko shouldn't be fully covered. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
- If by "well documented" you mean a small handful of soundbytes by Rev. Wright taken out of their theological context and repeated ad nauseum on tabloid radio shows, I don't think you're making a strong point. But as an Obama supporter I would like to see the supposed "shady real estate deal" with Rezko covered in greater depth, because it would dismiss the issue altogether. Obama paid market value for his home, and then bought part of the backyard from the Rezko's at market value since the Obamas had children and would use it. Not exactly a sinister, smoke-filled backroom kind of story, and probably worth detailing for the sake of factual clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5000fingers (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
These are tabloid non issues that have about and much coverage in the article as they deserve, or as much as should be found in any educated venue Cosand (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Cosand. Eloquently stated. .:davumaya:. 08:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought raise the same point in other pages where every single tabloid article gets inserted into the page? This page is quite sanitized compared with the Palin and McCain pages. Collect (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- The issues that may or may not appear there don't automatically result in editors of other articles being conscripted into working on them. If there's a specific tabloid or source that fails WP:RS, I suggest taking it up on the talk pages for those articles. But be forewarned: Comparing the negative content that's been rejected from this article and the negative content that appears in other articles may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. Factors such as active legal and journalistic investigations (as opposed to opinion pieces) make a significant difference in what can go into a WP:BLP article. You have to be very careful not to risk libel with poorly-sourced negative material, but if the sources are actually solid, then a given person's biography will necessarily become more negative -- ideally not in tone, which should remain neutral, but in content. One of the reasons so much negative information about Mr. Obama has been rejected from this article is that it's all sourced back to opinion pieces, with both legal investigators and journalists failing to state that there's any substance to them. In contrast, Ms. Palin has been the subject of numerous non-editorial news articles detailing various controversies, articles that have gone well beyond reporting the simple fact that Democrats have been making political hay of them. And of course, the current investigation of the controversial firing known as "Troopergate" has actual legal ramifications. In other words, they are two different people, with two different personal histories, and as such, the details that go into their respective biographies is going to differ. --GoodDamon 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Obama's relationships with Ayers, Rezko and Wright have also been "the subject of numerous non-editorial news articles detailing various controversies, articles that have gone well beyond reporting the simple fact that [Republicans] have been making political hay of them." In fact, some of these news articles don't even mention the Republicans (or conservative pundits) at all. But we don't see the same level of coverage here that we see in the Palin article. Why not? Curious bystander (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's just not true. The non-editorial articles about Ayers and Rezko that have appeared in reliable sources have almost universally been news about how Republicans have been making allegations. The articles have distinctly refrained from lending any credence to those allegations. In fact, to a large extent, they reject the allegations outright. As for the Jeremiah Wright controversy, it does appear in the article, and makes a larger appearance in the sub-article for that section. --GoodDamon 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Incorrect, GoodDamon. Nexis is a wonderful resource in moments like this. A search can be tailored with exquisite precision. The non-editorial news articles that mention both "Rezko" and "Obama" are over 2,000 but those that do not mention "Republican," "McCain" or "conservative" number nearly 1,000. Numbers for "Ayers" and "Obama" are somewhat smaller, but in the same proportions.
- These articles appear in the gold standard of WP:RS: The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN ABC. They also appear in reliable sources that clearly lean to the left, and sympathize with Obama: Mother Jones, Village Voice, The Guardian, The Nation, The New Republic.
- What we're seeing here, in this article, is a campaign to exclude or diminish any material that would tend to wipe a smile off anyone's face at Obama campaign HQ. Even a link to Obama-Ayers controversy is forbidden. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ahhh. The usual misrepresentation of the facts, I see. Most "gold standard" articles that cover Rezko and Ayers simply describe Obama's connection with these men, without making any judgment about whether these connections are good or bad. A few opinion pieces from conservatively-biased rags (or conservatively-biased reporters writing for normally-neutral organs) have attempted to use guilt-by-association to put a negative spin on these harmless connections - most notably the discredited conspiracy theorist Corsi, but nobody has proven that Obama has done anything improper, such as firing a public official because they wouldn't fire an ex brother-in-law. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- "These articles appear in the gold standard of WP:RS..." WorkerBee, please provide some citations. Make sure your citations:
- Are not opinion pieces.
- Come from reliable sources. Note: An article count from Nexis doesn't cut it. Provide specific articles.
- Indicate the notability of the connections between Obama and Rezko or Ayers beyond -- and this is important, here -- opposition attempts to smear Obama by association. Here, I'll even give some examples of what would qualify:
- News reports that Obama and Rezko or Ayers were long-term best of friends. This would qualify for a sentence or two as significant for WP:BLP.
- Investigative reporting that indicates Obama supports Ayers' radical past or was involved in anything shady with Rezko. Note: The discredited house purchase "controversy" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. There was, as it turns out, nothing notable about the house purchase whatsoever.
- Stories describing legal investigations into Obama's connections with either man. I'll save you some trouble, here... There are none.
- It's time to put up. No more opinion pieces, vague implications of guilt-by-association, or reliance on opinion pieces and articles from conservative rags. Give us meat, or give up already. --GoodDamon 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- We've already dealt with this. There's no reason to re-open it now. Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- "These articles appear in the gold standard of WP:RS..." WorkerBee, please provide some citations. Make sure your citations:
"Most Watched Convention Speech in History"
Should this sentence be removed now that the numbers for the Palin speech have been reported as over 40 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Got a reliable source for that info? GlassCobra 09:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I think so...[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Quick re-read seems to indicate the numbers aren't apples to apples. Less networks for Palin speech, but not broken out in article. Maybe undeterminable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.39.44 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, to clear some of this up here is a direct quote from the Guardian[5]:
"Audience research body Nielsen estimated that an average of 37.2 million viewers watched Palin give her vice-presidential nomination speech at the Republican national convention across broadcast and cable outlets between 10pm and 11.15pm, east coast US time, on Wednesday night. This compares with the 38.4 million who watched Barack Obama's Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech at his party's convention last week." - The Guardian
I would contend that the Guardian is a reliable source for a Neilsen rating quote, and even if it isn't I also found that on Neilsen's site, "NeilsenWire" confirmed that Obama had more viewers[6] even though some folks seem to have missed their fact check. Saying it was the most watched convention speech (at least since they started such ratings) still holds true and is an important part of the article, unless the numbers from McCain's acceptance speech turn out to be even more. Heres the Neilsen quote:
"More than 37.2 million people tuned in for coverage of the third night of the 2008 Republican National Convention, which featured Sarah Palin’s much anticipated national debut. Wednesday night’s RNC broadcasts attracted just a 1.1 million fewer viewers than Barack Obama’s record-breaking speech on day four of the Democratic convention." - NeilsenWire
Hope this helps! Natezomby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Did this on the Palin talked page. Summary : Palin Numbers and Obama Numbers . Obama's numbers still appear to be higher, but only because 4 other networks aired Obama's speech which Nielson's tracked. I think some people are reporting the Palin PBS numbers on top of the Neilson ones unfairly against the Obama Neilson numbers. Addition of PBS numbers puts both of them over 40 million.
Person | NBC | ABC | CBS | FNC | CNN | MSNBC | Totals (In Millions) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Obama | 6.1 | 6.6 | 4.7 | 4.2 | 8.1 | 4.1 | 33.8 |
Palin | 7.7 | 5.9 | 4.9 | 9.2 | 6.2 | 3.4 | 37.3 |
Nielson's also collected numbers from BET, TV One, Univision, and Telemundo [for Obama only]. These networks didn't air the Palin speech. Neilson's total numbers reported for both candidates with all airing networks that they tracked was: Obama at 38.379 and Palin at 37.244 [in millions]. It has also been reported that Obama had about 4.0 and Palin with 3.9 [in millions] viewers from PBS. PBS didn't participate in the Neilson study - nor does C-SPAN (numbers unknown). The Obama entry here should be modified to state it's only true for a Neilson rating that included those 10 networks - otherwise it's argumentative. Theosis4u (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I noted on the Palin talk page. You're assuming that the viewers on the 4 additional stations that aired Obama's speech would not have switched the channel to one of the commons channels if they channel they watched it on did not air Obama's speech. Unfortunately that isn't an assumption that can be made.. It's also more likely than not, a bad assumption to make as it is more likely that more would have switched channels than would not have... Neilsen only works as an aggregate and that's how it should be included in this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's hard to come up with any apple to apple comparison. I don't believe there's even a weak argument to suggest though that the missing 4 channel viewers would of watched it on one of the other 6 though. Spanish language viewers are from - Univision, and Telemundo. Theosis4u (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Most US television stations include a Spanish translation in their broadcast on the secondary audio program. That's the "Broadcast with SAP" tag you see either at the end or at the beginning of the opening credits. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reaching...just like I would be if I made the argument that when my family comes over they put it on either univsion or telemundo and it stays on either of them - regardless of what's on it, content wise - until they leave. Theosis4u (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. It's no more reaching than your assumption that they wouldn't have watched the Obama speech on a different channel if it hadn't aired on the one they watched it on. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your assumption that simply because they watched it on Telemundo or Univision that they would not have watched it on a different channel. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reaching...just like I would be if I made the argument that when my family comes over they put it on either univsion or telemundo and it stays on either of them - regardless of what's on it, content wise - until they leave. Theosis4u (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Most US television stations include a Spanish translation in their broadcast on the secondary audio program. That's the "Broadcast with SAP" tag you see either at the end or at the beginning of the opening credits. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's hard to come up with any apple to apple comparison. I don't believe there's even a weak argument to suggest though that the missing 4 channel viewers would of watched it on one of the other 6 though. Spanish language viewers are from - Univision, and Telemundo. Theosis4u (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly seems like these speeches, more than just about any other televised event, are things where the viewers pick a channel to watch a specific thing. There might be a sliver of viewers who get BET on their TV but don't get NBC/CNN, but that can't be many. The viewership of these two widely-watched events is certainly close, but it does appear that Obama's was the "most watched political speech" or whatever. I don't have any special attachment to the sentence in the article, but I definitely don't want some contrived circumlocution with lots of caveats (omitting the point altogether would be fine, though I think it's modestly notable to include; just don't put in some awkward sentence rather than the direct and clear statement) LotLE×talk 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Thanks for the tireless legwork. I hope this doesn't sound like a stick in the mud but the viewership of the speech is a bit of a sideline. The entire paragraph about his convention speech may get cut down to a few words, or removed entirely, as it recedes into history and he wins or does not win the election. If it is unequivocally the most-watched convention speech in history it might merit a few words held up against his lifetime biography; if it is only debatably so and it has to be explained or proven with charts, I don't think people are going to care so much that they need to read it in his bio. It's relatively more important to the article about the convention, of course. If there are conflicting accounts and numbers, I would just report that the speech had a large audience that was by some accounts the largest ever, then footnote the whole thing, keeping in mind that it will eventually get farmed out to the convention article.Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- All mute now because McCain draws record 38.9 mln viewers, bests Obama Theosis4u (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yup.;) It's all academic now. Heh. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ha! Thank you Mr. McCain. Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yup.;) It's all academic now. Heh. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The news reports I've read state that Obama was shown on more networks, but has less total viewers than McCain for sure and likely less than Palin too. Also, Biden was way less than all three. Looks likee the wunderkind picked the wrng running mate, but the old-fogey picked the right one. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Request notation that viewership was equaled or surpassed by McCain speech one week later. Leaving original record is fine; not noting MCain's numbers is at best POV, at worst blatant dishonesty. The "new" record doesn't appear on the McCain page at all, which seems rather strange. Perhaps the community can agree on an identical wording for both articles...maybe in the vein of "Obama's nomination acceptance speech was watched by more viewers than any convention speech in history, a record subsequently matched by McCain's acceptance speech one week later." There, a NPOV statement that can go on both pages. Any objections? --Textmatters (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am really confused why PTV isnt shown on this list. Not only is it the only programming that provided an HD channel for the convention, but it was the most commonly pumped in signal from what I saw, far beyond that of fox. Where are its official numbers? Or C-SPAN, for that matter, the official site for commentator free viewing? Seriously, if you leave these two ratings out, you are leaving a massive chunk of viewers out. These numbers could be wholly innaccurate as a result. Duuude007 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Bi-Racial and not African American
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obama is of african and white european decent. he is not the first "african american" candidate for president because he is bi-racial. some will say that if you "have one drop of black blood you are all black" but where is the logic in that? i am half irish and half australian, mom from ireland, dad from Australia. so obama cannot be considered African American or Black when 50% of his genetic makeup is White European. Valliant1967 (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to check out all the previous recent discussions on this, as well as all sorts of reliable sources, reputable news organizations, and Obama himself. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
so he is not from two races? both parents are black? and "check out" Obama himself? what does this mean? is he so powerful that he can discount science and common sense? Valliant1967 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have written on the subject. Whether or not they fit in with your idea of reality is irrelevant. Calling Obama bi-racial in that sentence is original research, as it goes against what reliable sources say and indeed even what Obama considers himself. It is made clear in the body of the article that his mother was Caucaisian. But Obama is still referred to as an African-American. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- He is of course African American, but the neutral thing to do would be to mention he is Caucasion too. Why not mention in parenthesis in the lead that his father was black and his mother white, or some clarification like that? To an unknowledgeable reader that only reads the lead paragraph (which a very large percent of readers do) they would get the impression his race is a majority of African American. Most black people in the US today I would assume are not 100% black, however, Obama is 50% black 50% white, singling out the black seems like deceptive information here. Many readers only read lead paragraphs, therefore the lead should be very unambiguous, and for many people race is a large issue (which is confirmed clearly in this article because the lead mentions his race). LonelyMarble (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
well, my eyeballs are pretty reliable, and when your momma is white, you are not black. if obama considered himself an ardvark would you report that? Valliant1967 (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Only if other reliable sources said so as well. (Right?) —Kal (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Check out the One-drop rule and Race in the United States. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
i must say that i agree with lonely marble, it is only fair. Valliant1967 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what you think is fair. It matters what reliable sources report. And reliable sources report that he is African-American. It is not Wikipedia's fault that some readers don't read the whole article. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously reliable sources point out he is 50% black, 50% white. I don't care about using the specific term "bi-racial". Your argument seems really defensive and irrelevant. It is very obvious we can get a million sources that say he is half white as well as half black. The argument here is whether it is relevant to say he is African American and not mention he is Caucasion also in the lead paragraph. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
it does matter what i think Mr Red, i am trying to be a useful member of wikipeida. Valliant1967 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- In the context that his race is mentioned in the lead of the article, A-A is the most appropriate as it is this part of his racial ancestry that the press is focusing on and not his Caucasian part. While it is true that Obama is bi-racial, he is not being put up as the "first biracial person to be nominated for President by a major political party", he is being put up as the "first African American to be nominated for President by a major political party"... --Bobblehead (rants) 00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not climb down and reach a compromise? Just put this up: "He is the first African-American (bi-racial) to be a major...". It's not enough added verbage to congest the sentence, makes everyone here happy <cough>, and gives the reader additional info up front. The man also fits the definition of "bi-racial", arguing about sourcing on this point seems like requiring one to reference that the "world is round". Spiff1959 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because if we don't follow what the source says that would be original research? --Bobblehead (rants) 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Using "African-American" does not invalidate "bi-racial", and vice versa. They are not mutually exclusive. By including both you are including ALL sources. Spiff1959 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a longstanding consensus on this page to identify Obama as African American, because: (1) Obama self-identifies that way in his speeches, writing, etc; and (2) the preponderance of reliable sources identify him primarily that way. As a quick illustration (not argument or proof - the decision on this is pretty firm) if you google Obama with "African-American you get 11,000+ news hits.[7] Obama + "biracial" has less than 600 news hits.[8] So obviously being of African descent is a bigger deal with the sources than being of mixed descent. This does not invalidate other things. Race and culture are complex issue and one may fit multiple overlapping categories, e.g. being Native American and Caucasian, or Hispanic and Jewish, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, in addition to having this in the FAQ, perhaps we should just create a sub-page for this... Wikidemon (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- How is my propsed compromise of using "... African-American (biracial)..." not identifying him as African-American? Throw in "bi-racial" and "mixed-race" and you get another 400 hits on google. So all the sources would be satisfied if both monickers are present in the sentence. Wouldn't you say a great majority of those described as African-American can not claim to have a caucasian mother? Were not raised by white grandparents? Wouldn't you say that is a very important aspect of Obamas life? What is wrong with including your preferred phrase to satisfy 90% of the sources, and including the other as well to satisy the remaining 10% of news sources and provide a very important piece of information about Obama's life to those readers who may not go beyond the opening paragraph? A long-standing consensus only stands as long as there is a consensus? But just to reiterate, this change would not affect the status quo, it simply adds key info, satisfies the remaining news sources, it only costs adding one word to the paragraph, and makes those who have posted here wanting an edit happy. It would also thrill the posters who have argued this debate in the past, and would alleviate the future debates on this same point. Win-win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, in addition to having this in the FAQ, perhaps we should just create a sub-page for this... Wikidemon (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent)Looking at everyone here who is arguing that he is bi-racial must be included into the outline biography over and over again keeps on reminding me one thing, and that is that they continually forget what Obama thinks. While you yourself may identify as bi-racial, and you may see others as bi-racial, the one person who has the most say in the matter, is the person themselves. This is an outline biography of Barack Obama. This is not a discussion on Barack Obama, social commentary on Obama or the country, not a political commentary, but an outline biography of Barack Obama. He self identifies (I.E. he calls himself) as an African American. It's kind of like a person who has a Christian father and a Jewish mother calling themselves Jewish. It is strictly up to the person themselves and no one else. Added upon that, we have thousands of very reliable sources saying that he calls himself African American, including from the person's own mouth. I would think that people would be respectful of what Obama chooses and not apply labels to him that he chooses not to apply himself. This is like someone up to you and telling you are something else other then what you call yourself. As stated in the FAQ and in the variety of reoccurring arguments about the same thing, Barack Obama self-identifies as an African American and his outline biography reflects that. Brothejr (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- We can't say what "Obama thinks". In his most recent speech, the acceptance speech, the only description of himself was (paraphrasing) "My mother is white, and my father is Kenyan". Obama appears African-American, has likely has always been treated as an African-American, maybe it's more convenient for him to go with that than to say "No, I'm biracial" then have to go into a minute-long explanation each time? Who knows? He has described himself as biracial. He has never denied that he is biracial. Ten-percent of the media accounts attribute him as biracial or mixed-race. Respectful? What you all are saying is that if Sandy Koufax called himself a "pitcher" and 90% of the media articles refer to him as a "pitcher", yet 10% of the media articles identify him as a "leftie" or a "southpaw", that we don't want to go against sources, or disrespect his wishes by identifying him on his wiki page as a "left-handed pitcher". That is EXACTLY what you're saying. Spiff1959 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly, your Sandy Koufax analogy does not fit here because him calling himself a pitcher (which is a profession) is not the same as someone calling themselves one race or another. While Obama has not hidden the races of his parents, he still identifies and allows others to identify him as African American. As has been mentioned before, there is more then enough reliable sources calling him African American. If you feel there is a problem of him calling himself an African American and not mixed race then I'd suggest you contact his campaign and bring it up with him as he is the only one to choose which race he self identifies as and no one else. However, as this is an outline biography of Barack Obama, then calling him African American (A race he self identifies as) is appropriate. Brothejr (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Don't put words in my mouth, or twist what edit it is that I (we) am advocating. I NEVER said not to refer to him as African-American. Did my analogy recommend to not refer to Koufax as a pitcher? My analogy is dead-on. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Adding on to my last comment. I think the issue here is the idea of mixed race and how a person self identifies themselves. I can easily understand that there are a good portion of people who have mixed races from their parents. For example, a person with an African American parent and a Caucasian parent. They look like an African American, yet that person want's to be known as mixed race for whatever personal reason they may have. These mixed race people have a hard time getting people to see them as mixed race and not one or the other, but both. So while these mixed race people are trying to fight to be recognized as mixed race, they latch onto other people who are also mixed race because they see those people as feeling the same issue and problems as they are. Yet, the underlying theme here is those people of mixed race who want to be seen as mixed race, has self identified and want other people to identify them as mixed race. Because of this, they purposely choose to see others as mixed race even if the other person does not see themselves as mixed race. The basic issue here is self choice. While a person might be mixed race it, is completely up to that person and no one else, to choose how they self identify as. In this instance, Barack Obama does admit to having a mixed race background. He is happy with it, he is proud of it, yet he has chosen to self identify as an African American. While this goes against what those who identify as mixed race are arguing, it is not right to tell Barack Obama what he should self identify as or whose self identifies as mixed race to change Barack Obama's outline biography to reflect their own values and views. Brothejr (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Could you put my last comment back where it was beneath your "Sadly..." post? I'm not sure an "Adding on to..." comment is appropriate 14 minutes after I'd already replied? Kinda throws off the continuity of things. If I respond to your new "Adding on to..." then it really pushes my prior comment off into oblivion making it appear a disjointed orphan, and making your "Sadly," comment appear to have gone unrebutted. Thanks ;) Spiff1959 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- (I've moved your comment above, sorry we posted just about the same time and your post was added right after mine.) To show the problem with your analogy is this: Sandy Koufax was a pitcher and calling him a leftie/southpaw is still the same as calling him a pitcher in baseball lingo. Besides, a pitcher is still a profession not a race. As stated above, the main issue here are people who identify themselves as mixed race wanting to everyone else to identify Obama as mixed race despite what Obama himself wants to identify as. It is stated down within the article his linage, yet it still uses the race he chooses to identify as. Brothejr (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- "despite what Obama himself wants"? I can provide instances of reliable sources where he described himself as biracial. Do you have a source somewhere where he asked that no one reference those conversations? That he specifially did not want to be referred to in that way? (as an aside, I'f Charles manson asked that we not refer to him as a murderer, would we comply to not hurt his feelings, or show disrespect?) The compromise I proposed above, with one word, adds key, impeccably-sourced, information to the article, without negating the existing content one iota. The post ending with "Win/win?" above lists the rest of the benefits. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Simply put, it is not a compromise. It is getting the words you like up in the lead paragraph. While you have some sources that call him biracial, and he does admit to being biracial, he identifies as African American. Plus, any addition to the lead calling him mixed race when he does not self identify as mixed race will be reverted do to it being WP:SYNTH and also a bit of WP:OR. Let the article reflect what Barack Obama chooses to identify as and lets not push the issue any further? Brothejr (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Spiff, the issue is that in the context African-American is being used, calling him bi-racial is original research. Barack Obama is not being billed as the first bi-racial candidate for a major political party, he's being billed as the first African-American candidate for a major political party. There simply isn't a way that we can include that he is the first bi-racial (even in the format that you're trying to add) without violating WP:NOR. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- His being biracial is well-sourced - definitely not original research. In fifteen seconds I see it in the Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today. Here is a CNN article devoted to the very subject.[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/09/btsc.obama.race/index.html I think it passes the threshold of relevance / notability, and it has been mentioned from time to time in the article. So I have no objection, and in fact there seemed to be consensus for noting this in the article a couple days ago (see above discussion at Talk:Barack Obama#Before anyone reverts it). There is no contradiction between his identifying as African-American and his being biracial. Just not as a primary identification here, and not in the lead. Also, even though there is some sourcing to call him the first bi-racial candidate that's a little shakier. Race is a very slippery thing, and we are all multi-racial to some extent depending how you look at it, and any claim that he is the first implies that no other president has been multi-racial (something we should take with a grain of salt) Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hasn't Obama said that there is only one race- the human race? I really don't think we should apply a label that he would obviously object to. "African American" is simply the common term for an American of significant african ancestry so the term is entirely appropriate for Obama. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the Early life and career section already identifies his father as a black Kenyan and his mother as a white American.... Identifying him as bi-racial seems redundant... --Bobblehead (rants) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hasn't Obama said that there is only one race- the human race? I really don't think we should apply a label that he would obviously object to. "African American" is simply the common term for an American of significant african ancestry so the term is entirely appropriate for Obama. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- His being biracial is well-sourced - definitely not original research. In fifteen seconds I see it in the Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today. Here is a CNN article devoted to the very subject.[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/09/btsc.obama.race/index.html I think it passes the threshold of relevance / notability, and it has been mentioned from time to time in the article. So I have no objection, and in fact there seemed to be consensus for noting this in the article a couple days ago (see above discussion at Talk:Barack Obama#Before anyone reverts it). There is no contradiction between his identifying as African-American and his being biracial. Just not as a primary identification here, and not in the lead. Also, even though there is some sourcing to call him the first bi-racial candidate that's a little shakier. Race is a very slippery thing, and we are all multi-racial to some extent depending how you look at it, and any claim that he is the first implies that no other president has been multi-racial (something we should take with a grain of salt) Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> The journalistic top-down style states that the opening paragraph should concisely summarize the main points of the story. There seems consensus at least to admit being born of a caucasian mother and raised by whites is a key point regarding Obama. I have some support now that identifying him mainly as African-American and also biracial does not detract from the fact that he is still African-American. Given that, a one-word addition to the opening sentence seems worthly to impart additional key information. I've laid out my case as best I can. I was trying to act as an intermediary of what I see has been a frequently-recurring debate and come up with the best solution possible. Some might want to save their posts as they may need to use them again with the next person who wants "A-A" removed entirely, and the person after that, and the person after... Take care. Spiff1959 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't think it is appropriate to use a term which Obama would himself strongly object to- that his mother/grandparents are/were white is not so important to who he is that it should go into the lead paragraph. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- He obviously does not mind being identified as a minority race - the aphorism notwithstanding. There's no evidence to suggest he has objected to being known as biracial. If we are going to cover race we might as well cover all the issues within the bounds of relevance, POV, verifiability, and so on. I think the main question is just how notable it is. Given the sourcing, I would say it's fine enough for a word or two in the article body but not the lead. If elected he will be the first of a lot of things, but the most notable of them is the one everyone is talking about, the first person (partly, substantially, and recently) of African heritage... which in America given the lingo of the times we call "African-American."Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where has he said anything about identifying as a "minority race"? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- He identifies as African-American. Do I need a cite for that? Wikidemon (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- He has never said African Americans are a separate race to everyone else. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- You've lost me. How can you infer that he objects to being called biracial, but not that he objects to being called African-American, from his repeating the saying that there is only one race, the human race? Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- He himself has called himself African American. If he believes that there is only one race, then he obviously does not believe that his parents were of different races so he obviously would not want to be called bi-racial. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- He has called himself African-American, he has called himself biracial, he has stated there is only one race. All are verifiable. He has never disowned any of those statements. What right do you have to do so? Spiff1959 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- When has Obama called himself bi-racial? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I looked around a bit and I concede I was unable to find him referring to himself directly as that. Frankly, I couldn't find him "labelling" himself very often at all. But he has called himself A-A. I've never argued to not use that as his primary racial identifier. I just think a compromise to end the debate would be to include both facts in the lead. It should impart A-A as the preferred descriptor, and the addition of some reference to biracial adds important info and should not detract from the A-A identificaion. Spiff1959 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- When has Obama called himself bi-racial? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- He has called himself African-American, he has called himself biracial, he has stated there is only one race. All are verifiable. He has never disowned any of those statements. What right do you have to do so? Spiff1959 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- He himself has called himself African American. If he believes that there is only one race, then he obviously does not believe that his parents were of different races so he obviously would not want to be called bi-racial. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- You've lost me. How can you infer that he objects to being called biracial, but not that he objects to being called African-American, from his repeating the saying that there is only one race, the human race? Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- He has never said African Americans are a separate race to everyone else. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- He identifies as African-American. Do I need a cite for that? Wikidemon (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where has he said anything about identifying as a "minority race"? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- He obviously does not mind being identified as a minority race - the aphorism notwithstanding. There's no evidence to suggest he has objected to being known as biracial. If we are going to cover race we might as well cover all the issues within the bounds of relevance, POV, verifiability, and so on. I think the main question is just how notable it is. Given the sourcing, I would say it's fine enough for a word or two in the article body but not the lead. If elected he will be the first of a lot of things, but the most notable of them is the one everyone is talking about, the first person (partly, substantially, and recently) of African heritage... which in America given the lingo of the times we call "African-American."Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Trying to discredit him as a black man
As I said before Obama is half black while he is about 455 white and 5% native american. His black ancestry is therefore the most prominent. He is black in the same way that Asians are the largest race. Asians make up 45% of the world while every other race is at 20% or 10%. The same goes for Obama's ancestryYVNP (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- He is not White, bottom line. One drop of non-white blood and you're done- there is no point in wasting time thinking past that drop of impurity which muddies-up the blood. (sorry, I'm just havind fun here, but honest to gawd there are people that still think like that!). I personally think that if you go back far enough, and honestly enough, we all have mud for blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.46 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Senator Obama is not African American according to U.S. Law. Senator Obama is an Arab-American according to U.S. Law.
Senator Obama’s racial background consists of the following: 50% white (mother, both sides), 43.25% Arabic (father, both sides), and 6.25% African Negro (father, one side, 1 generation removed). 12.5% is the legal threshold one must prove to claim racial status under the law. In addition, Senator Obama cannot make a sociological claim as an African American either. He was not raised as an African American, was not raised by African Americans, and was not raised in an African American neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont Igonre Truth (talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SOAP. And while you're at it, I recommend WP:RS and WP:V, policies and guidelines that should explain why your statistics about Mr. Obama's racial background don't matter (as well as being absolute bunk, by the way). --GoodDamon 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
A solution, all be it semantic, to this problem
My understanding is that Mr Obama's mother is what one would call an American and his father I believe was born in Kenya? Thus he is what one would call African. Therefore by the definition set forth by almost everyone complaining that he is not African American he would be half African and half American. Thus in much the same way as an child of German mother and Arab father would be Arab-German Mr Obama is African-American. Problem solved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.robinson (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
awe-struck supporters
I think there should be something included in the article about the people who faint and see him as a near god. It is something that is very unusual in politics and would be valuable information to include, especially if it included some explantions. Crd721 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Umm.. I don't think there is anyone that sees him as a near god. Are there those that are huge fans of his, indeed, but I doubt anyone is going to be setting up a Church of Obama, despite what the Republicans say. As far as including the faintings, I'm not sure how that is anything but trivia. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Or the heat. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen people though looking up at him (literally looking up at him) with awe-struck eyes, and have their hands together like they are praying. Just one of my observations. And Im not a Republican, either, and I haven't made up mind yet in the election, Im about equal on McCain and Obama, so this isnt just me spreading right wing propaganda. At any rate the level of support by his supporters is unheard of, ignoring the fainting/"god" stuff. And haven't people fainted indoors or in the winter? Crd721 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are referring to how our beloved Senator Michelle Bachmann sees GWB as god/savior/almighty? .:davumaya:. 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, the people I'm thinking of were young supporters of Obama, much younger than Michelle Bachmann, who I never even heard of, so I dont think I could have made that mistake. Also, it was clearly at Obama rallies, I could clearly tell it was Obama and not GWB, who was no where in sight. So there is no way I am consfusing who I saw. And yes, I know you are being a smart ass, so I decided to be one too, but everything I said was true. When has Michelle Bachamann ever been seen on tv? Crd721 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are referring to how our beloved Senator Michelle Bachmann sees GWB as god/savior/almighty? .:davumaya:. 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen people though looking up at him (literally looking up at him) with awe-struck eyes, and have their hands together like they are praying. Just one of my observations. And Im not a Republican, either, and I haven't made up mind yet in the election, Im about equal on McCain and Obama, so this isnt just me spreading right wing propaganda. At any rate the level of support by his supporters is unheard of, ignoring the fainting/"god" stuff. And haven't people fainted indoors or in the winter? Crd721 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Or the heat. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- In regard to the fainting, please refer to Mr. Obama's 2008 speech in Grand Rapids in which he accepted John Edwards endorsement, you will notice, if you watch the recording of the speech, theat someone does indeed faint in the crowd.98.108.73.89 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, I don't know the proper signing etiquette for saying things here, but I would point out that someone fainting in the crowd doesn't indicate anything about Obama himself, as we don't know the situation that person was in health wise. As for looking up at him, well, he is on a stage, its inevitable. And for the hands clasped together, its called 'clapping'. One often stops clapping with ones hands clasped together. I believe I saw it for McCain and Palin to. I think these points are coincidental. While he does have strong support, he is a canidate. They all have strong support, thats why they're canidates. If they have more its generally because they are 'better' canidates (as in better at what they are doing, not as in they would naturally be better as a leader). ~14th September, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.102.52 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- This whole discusion seems to be getting completely OT. It doesn't really matter what editors thing of Obama or anyone else's supporters. If we have multiple reliable sources that mention Obama's supporters think of him as a god or that they faint more then supporters of other candidates, then we could probably include this in one of the related articles. If not, then we don't care what editors have seen or think of his supporters (or anyone elses) Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Controversies
There needs to be a section on Obama's earmarks requests ($740 million) that he requested in the US Senate from 2005-2007
Also, there ought to be a mention of his "Present" votes in the Senate since this is a key issue in in the presidential campaign. Here is the Washington Post reference sheet.
This article mentions the controversy over Obama's abortion record but does not mention what it was about. Here is a link to his interview with CBN where he calls the National Right To Life Committee liars. And here is a link to the NRTLC's allegations. James 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't the presidential campaign article. This is a biography about Obama's entire life. I suggest you bring your suggestions to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. In terms of the man's life, I don't think the earmarks he's requested as Senator have any more bearing than, for instance, John McCain's (whose article I just checked; it doesn't go into earmarks, except by way of mentioning Mr. McCain's overall stance against most of them). You have to consider such factors as recentism and weight here. There are articles, such as the campaign ones, where mention of recent allegations and political discussions makes perfect sense, but that doesn't really apply in a biography unless a reliable source establishes its weight in comparison to the rest of the individual's life. And again, I'd like to remind you that this article is written in summary style, meaning the more detailed information belongs in the sub-articles, while the bird's-eye-view stuff goes in the main one. --GoodDamon 06:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't the presidential campaign article. This is a biography about Obama's entire life. Without the presidential campaign, Barack Obama's entire life history would be worth about 250 words here. He is no more notable than any other freshman senator in the US Senate. We should be devoting more space to the presidential campaign, to provide more details. Curious bystander (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, McCain has reportedly never requested an earmark. I would think that is an important aspect in the US Senate portion of Sen. Obama's life story. Just as the "Keating Five" scandal is significant in the McCain article (mentioned three times). Surely if the legislation Obama has sponsored is inclusive in summary style, then his voting record is. If he had had a 30 or 40 year record like Biden or McCain, then, yes, it would be cumbersome. But even so, it would be a severe oversight to fail to include a LINK to a Biden/McCain voting record article if one existed. But Sen. Obama has only a three and 1/2 year record, thus it is not a great burden to link to, say, a Washington Post article that summarizes his record. For that matter, I don't understand why there is not link to the Obama–Ayers controversy. Obama launched his Senate campaign in Ayers's living room, and they were political allies for almost 20 years. If the Wright and Rezco associations are significant, then I would think Ayers deserves a mention. None of this would undermine the summary style of the article. It would merely avoid confusion as to why there are holes in his bio. James 09:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.6.153 (talk)
- This is not to say anything one way or the other about the quality of the earmarks, but Mr. McCain has requested them before. He asked for $10 million for the University of Arizona in 2006, and in 2003, he requested $14.3 million in a defense appropriations bill for Luke Air Force Base. Those are earmarks. But all that aside, may I suggest reading the sub-articles to see if the information you would like to add is already there? --GoodDamon 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Jeremiah Wright
The Jeremiah Wright paragraph is written in a way that strongly implies an inaccurate time-line. It says "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. After ABC News broadcast clips of his racially and politically charged sermons, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" that addressed issues of race. Obama subsequently resigned from Trinity "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church." But of course, in the More Perfect Union speech (his response to the sermons) he disassociated himself with Wright's comments but refused to denounce Wright or to end his relationship with him. He ended his relationship with Rev. Wright 6 weeks later after an embassing National Press Club appearance. To say Sen Obama "subsequently" resigned Trinity suggests it occurred shortly after ending his relationship with Wright and for the same reason. But of course it occured weeks later after a sermon by the new pastor and by Father Pfleger. Summary style should avoide extensive details, but it should not leave a significantly false impression. James 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- In response to the various controversies proposed for inclusion here, where is there a hole in the bio? Per summary style, NPOV, etc., we cover in the BLP article only things that are biographically relevant. With respect to earmarks nearly every member of both houses of Congress has their hand in earmarks. McCain, as a Senator, is known for a number of good government initiatives relating to campaign finance, spending, etc., so it makes some sense to mention that briefly in his article as a defining point of his long career in office. That doesn't mean that we should mention in every other Senator's bio that they were not reformers. The Wright, Rezko, and Ayers matters were discussed to death and we arrived as a group after months of hand-wringing at a consensus as to how much weight to give each issue here. In Ayers' case that is none because Ayers is not significant to Obama's life. Ayers did not launch Obama's career - that is just an opposition talking point. He is one of dozens to hundreds of Chicago constituents with whom Obama dealt at that level. That Obama's opponents make political hay of it because Ayers' past is supposedly unacceptable in the context of a presidential election is at most an issue to the campaign, where the matter is covered. Rezko by contrast is marginally notable to Obama's life as a bona fide but minor scandal, and someone Obama was much closer to. And Wright caused a blow-up with Obama's church and religion, which is clearly a lot closer to the core of his life story. Even if you take it out of the context of the current election, if you are a person of color and church is a big part of your civic and personal life, and you quit your church in protest (or embarrassment, pressure, disgust, whatever) because the church preachers take a divisive position on race, it's fair to call that a life issue. Buying a home and having a major patron / sponsor like Rezko is a life issue. An incidental professional brush with a civic leader with a controversial past, and playing by one of the rules of the game professionally, are not life issues. The weight of the sources bear this out. Outside of blogs, opinion pieces, and partisan journalism you see almost no mention of these things, other than factual reporting that partisans are making an issue of it. Wright and Rezko probably take up too much space in the article as it is but they are relatively complex issues that are hard to do justice in a brief mention. We link from here to articles where they are discussed in more detail. Wikidemon (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a gaping hole in this bio that consists of William Ayers, more details about Rezko, and more details about Wright. So much effort has been poured into making these mentions as amputated as possible, that ambiguities have arisen. More details are appropriate. Curious bystander (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- The only -- and I can't emphasize this enough, apparently -- people who are saying there is anything notable whatsoever about Barack Obama and William Ayers being acquainted with each other are conservative bloggers and conservative editorial writers. Once and for all, they are not, have not been, and will not be reliable sources. The fact that they have generated enough noise to themselves be reported on by the media is notable, but not applicable to this biography, which must adhere to WP:BLP, and so cannot, shall not, will not use opinion pieces for critical content. Give it up already. Continuously, endlessly pushing for that load of malarkey to be included in this biography is POV-pushing, and if I may say so, a rank and foul example of the inability to tell opinion pieces from news articles. Let me say this in no uncertain terms: Until the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and a bunch of other reliable news sources report that their investigations have revealed some kind of powerful connection between the two men, it does not belong in his biography. Right now, it is opinion that there's anything meaningful about their relationship. When it is not opinion is when it goes into the bio. Are we all, at long last, finally clear on this? --GoodDamon 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Don't bother with "but Palin's article says this," and "McCain's article says that." Those are other articles. If they're broken, go fix them. Don't break this one. --GoodDamon 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a gaping hole in this bio that consists of William Ayers, more details about Rezko, and more details about Wright. So much effort has been poured into making these mentions as amputated as possible, that ambiguities have arisen. More details are appropriate. Curious bystander (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
We are totally off-point here, and the place we went off-track is Wikidemon's response. The point is that the Jeremiah Wright paragraph is objectively inaccurate. It states and strongly implies things that are simply untrue. Don't care? Okay, then say so. Don't get into a totally irrelevant argument about the whether some things should be included and others not. The comprehensiveness of this post IMO an viable issue, but it is not the issue here. The issue is "accuracy". The Jeremiah Wright paragraph is inaccurate. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is the suggestion to replace "Obama subsequently resigned ..." with something like "Following additional controversial sermons delivered at the church, Obama resigned ..."? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama II should be Barack Obama, Jr.
Please check if this is correct and change if not.
Thanks,
Fredstang (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Fred
- If you look at the source provided, it shows his birth certificate, and the correct name. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- i think it comes down to the name obama uses today, just how is he on the ballot. if he uses junior the article should say Jr. [a birth certificate does NOT mark you for life.] I have NOT used my given name in 40 years. I did run for office once and was know by AL not ALAN. I campaigned as AL and i was on the ballot as AL, NOT ALAN. i would object to being called something other then my chosen identity!!! if obama use Jr. instead of the II that is how this article should read. Buzzards27 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Obama refers to himself as "Barack Obama" (which is why this article is so titled). He does not use junior, II, or any other suffix. However, the article also gives his full name per longstanding Wikipedia convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- i think it comes down to the name obama uses today, just how is he on the ballot. if he uses junior the article should say Jr. [a birth certificate does NOT mark you for life.] I have NOT used my given name in 40 years. I did run for office once and was know by AL not ALAN. I campaigned as AL and i was on the ballot as AL, NOT ALAN. i would object to being called something other then my chosen identity!!! if obama use Jr. instead of the II that is how this article should read. Buzzards27 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Education and Experience
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article mentions that Senator Obama received a BA from Columbia and that he majored in Political Science. It is reasonable to infer that his BA is in Political Science (isn't that usually a BS though? I guess it depends on the conferring institution.). Just wondering if the article could state this more specifically (ex, " a BA in Political Science with a minor in ...."). Also, I am wondering if Senator Obama has any actual EXECUTIVE experience directly relevant to the EXECUTIVE office of President of the United States of America (for example, EXECUTIVE offices such as Mayor or Governor), or is his experience only in Legislative office (senator) and social work? I understand that he has no military service what-so-ever so there is no reason to ask about that subject. Thanks!
- This would be Barack Obama's biography article. Based on the unnecessary allcaps and thinly veiled contempt, I'm inclined to direct you towards either:
- The campaign article - The issues, as such, that you mention more properly belong there.
- WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not a forum for you to air your political opinions.
- I hope you find this helpful. --GoodDamon 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Obama's full-time chief executive experience by age 30:
- three years as executive director of the Developing Communities Project
- one year as president of the Harvard Law Review
- six months as executive director of Illinois Project Vote!
- Obama has also served as chief executive of his three campaigns for state office and his three campaigns for federal office, including:
- his successful 21-month U.S. Senate Democratic primary campaign in Illinois that led to his March 2004 come-from-behind surprise landslide victory in the most expensive U.S. Senate primary election campaign in history
- his successful 20-month U.S. Presidential Democratic primary campaign (visiting 48 states and 8 countries) that led to his August 2008 U.S. Presidential nomination in the most expensive election campaign in history
- Newross (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Obama's full-time chief executive experience by age 30:
Contempt? No, just ligitimate questions (although, you are correct, I do not prefer this candidate at this time). Allcaps, I wanted to get your attention to that specific word because it seems that people are either not grasping or intentionally overlooking the logical relevance of executive experience to becoming President (such as mayor, governor, business owner, or executive officer (ex, military: captain, civilian: CEO). I will check out the links you provided and thank you for the assumption of good-faith as I am really being serious (I wouldn't do it here but if I wanted to express political oppinion and spout critisisms and talking points I would be typing alot more than this). I will use the points and links that you both have provided while considering my final choice to vote. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.46 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- This whole "executive experience" thing is a meme to come out of the current election. It is not generally considered a qualification for office. In the past, and more broadly, terms like "leadership", "vision", "organization", "experience" and so on have been more prevalent as campaign selling points. Occasionally somebody's business experience leading a for-profit company (or being in charge of a large military operation, or a large wing of government) is held out as real-world experience, but not "executive experience" in the abstract. Being a small town mayor, head of a small group of lobbyists, or independent owner of a small business may or may not give you some common sense but it is a completely different thing with different skill sets than supervising tens of thousands to millions of underlings. In fact, for most candidates supervising their own campaign and office staff is the closest they will ever come before the election to actually being personally in charge of anything. The two main routes to the Presidency historically have been Congress (generally the Senate) and being state governor. Very few have gone directly from business, mayorship, or other offices. But none of this is terribly relevant to an article like this that describes Obama's biography. He did what he did in his life. Whether you or anyone else feels that qualifies him for office is something to take into the polling station, not an encyclopedia article (unless it is well sourced and notable as a campaign issue, in which case it might go in a campaign-related article). Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The question of executive experience is not a meme. It is a legitimate question. It is generally considered a qualification for the office of president. All candidate who have executive experience talk about their experience. All candidates who lack such experience dismiss its importance, but there is no substitute for experience. Sarah Palin has just as much experience in elected office as Barack Obama, and he has two years of executive experience in government where he has none; and she's not the one running for president. I support Barack Obama and will be voting for him (unless he's indicted for something before the election), I've donated money and even more valuable time to his campaign, but I recognize that executive experience is a legitimate criticism. Curious bystander (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your claimed political position is irrelevant, and does not offset editing the article for the task of introducing derogatory material about Obama. The line about "executive experience" does reflect Republican criticism of Obama and defense of Palin. It is transparent and unconvincing. Nobody could seriously compare Palin's experience to Obama's. Again, the "executive experience" thing was not generally described this way and has not generally been considered a relevant qualification for the presidency or, frankly, any other class of job in America. High-level experience and responsibilities in relevant jobs, yes. The fact of it being "executive" per se, no. Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me that executive experience for an executive position would logically be relevant and I do think that the good points previously noted highlighting senator Obama's would be in no way derogatory, in-fact beneficial. Why so touchy about this topic? I seriously wanted to know when I asked and am now pretty surprised at the level of defense that seems to be expressed. I honestly do not think that if someone were applying for an executive position, say something as important as CEO of a Bank (or President of the United States), that he or she would be seriously considered if he or she had no previous relevant executive experience (as is apparently not the case as noted by our friend in this discussion Newross). Please people, chill out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.36 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is for discussion on improving the article, not for general discussion about the article's subject. Since this seems to be the latter, I am archiving the discussion. As to the unanswered question in the original post, "It is reasonable to infer that his BA is in Political Science (isn't that usually a BS though?" -- Under Wikipedia standards, it is never reasonable to infer anything that can't be properly sourced. More directly to the point, I majored in accounting in college, but my degree is not a BS in accounting, but rather a BS in Business and Economics with a major in Accounting. --Clubjuggle T/C 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Featured picture
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg/220px-Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg)
Question: Why is that we aren't using the Featured Picture Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg in this article? We should always be striving to use our featured content. Even if it's not the infobox, we can find room for this photo? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the need. There are plenty of pictures of Obama in the article already, and I'm not sure of the context with which we could use this one. It's certainly a dramatic photo, but it would probably go better in a sub-article that includes information about that particular speech. --GoodDamon 18:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where it fits in with the article, unfortunately. California Proposition 87 (2006) seems to be short on images.. Perhaps there? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Fits thematically, might work... --GoodDamon 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- But where? The only place I can see is if we replace Image:Barack Obama in New Hampshire.jpg with it and mention he was campaigning on behalf of Prop 87. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- You know, the more I look at it, the more I like it... and the more I can't figure out where to put it. It's a really detailed, really dramatic picture, but I frankly think Image:Barack Obama in New Hampshire.jpg is better suited to its current location in that article. I'm stumped. I'd like to place it somewhere, but haven't been able to figure out where. --GoodDamon 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- But where? The only place I can see is if we replace Image:Barack Obama in New Hampshire.jpg with it and mention he was campaigning on behalf of Prop 87. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Fits thematically, might work... --GoodDamon 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where it fits in with the article, unfortunately. California Proposition 87 (2006) seems to be short on images.. Perhaps there? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- sorry, damon but i think you first impression is correct. the intent of this photo is to show an angry black man discontented from the people, the new hampshire puts obama into the crowd he is speaking to, much better photo. Buzzards27 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- This picture is great, it is very nice with the light and the resolution is high. Perhaps it can be at the lower sections? 83.108.225.40 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would cordially recommend that it should be used to replace another, less striking photo. Perhaps the photo of Obama playing basketball. Curious bystander (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replace the dreadful lead image! This one is much better. Setwisohi (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
leave this image out, no good reason served. intent of inclusion apears to be to demean obama [image tends to look frightening]. Buzzards27 (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Intent of inclusion apears to be to demean obama"? Ouch! It's certainly not my intent. And I can't see why you think it is the intent of others. But I'm sure you don't mean it the way it reads. Setwisohi (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- yeah, your intent is pretty clear, if that5 isn't your intent drop the request for inclusion. the photo leave people with a FIRST impression that obama is an angry black man they should somehow fear. you know, don't vote for him becuz he is a little uppity...
- anyone can capture a photo of someone in mid word and use it to create a negative caricature of that person. i do not think this article is the place for it. why don't you take your photo over to the free republic? they'll love it there. Buzzards27 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds this comment rude? 90.231.2.252 (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do not like this image either. The lighting is kinda "artsy", which may make a good photo, but not particularly a good factual representation of the subject. It also seems to connote "angry" or "threatening" in the facial expression rather than something more neutral. LotLE×talk 19:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's a nice photo but it does not present a well-rounded straightforward view of the candidate, so not very encyclopedic. Wikidemon (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't quite get the same hit off of it of "angry" that other people are seeing, but I just can't find a suitable location for it. My main problem with it is that, however dramatic the photograph is, it lacks the visual context that would make it a suitable replacement for other photos. It's a shame, as it really is a good photo, but I have to agree with Wikidemon that it's not an encyclopedic photo. Encyclopedic photos don't lack context. --GoodDamon 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin (main image) vs Barack Obama (main image)
The lead image of Palin is much more flattering than the lead image of Obama. Hers is 3/4 profile and smart-casual clothes outdoors. His is formal, front on, indoors and rather off-putting. Can't we change these so that both are of a kind? Setwisohi (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry, not being clear: my point being that we need to be fair and that the above image of Obama would be much more balanced). Setwisohi (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think the Obama one is much better...Palin's is unflattering and informal...not vice presidential at all. Obama's is nice and stately...it inspires confidence.LedRush (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"I actually think the Obama one is much better...Palin's is unflattering and informal...not vice presidential at all. Obama's is nice and stately...it inspires confidence." Just like this place, filled with people that make everything you read on this site biased. Moderators do no good, either. It's always a double standard, on Palin's page vs. Obama's page, there are plenty of issues Obama has gone back on his word on because it might not look favorable to a Presidential Nominee, but you won't read about it here because the only people who edit and have any real say here are supporters of Obama or the Democratic party. You really can't read anything these days without some sort of sick political inspired hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.218.215 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Why delete my original submission, I thought this site was for people to edit with constructive points? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.218.215 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure it was deleted? It might have been archived. Duuude007 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
use of non-english letters in pronounciation of obama's name
sorry, but for the life of me i CANNOT understand why foreign language letters would be used to aid in the English pronunciation of Obama's name. the correct English letters should be used to aid in the proper pronunciation of his name. just becuz his name has foreign origins does NOT justify the use of foreign language letters. without knowing these letters i have no idea how they would be pronounced. seems like a rather transparate attempt to imply the type of sterotypes that the new yorker mag. cover noted. i believe that obama's family origins are discussed in the main article and there is no need to add to that with he use of foreign letters that the average person just would not understand or know how to pronounce. PLEASE correct using proper english pronounciation. i found this: Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced: bah-ROCK hoo-SAIN o-BAH-mah) [1] Buzzards27 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- This article, like probably a majority of all other biographies (and also many articles on place names, etc) gives an IPA pronunciation of the subject's name. It's true that International Phonentic Alphabet is not necessarily widely known, but it gives an unambiguous pronunciation of names and terms, unlike a dialect-specific pseudo-spelling like that suggested above. Some articles also give a link to an audio file of a name as pronounced; that wouldn't be bad to have here, if someone creates it. LotLE×talk 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- IPA is an encyclopedic standard used world wide, and is the standard in Wikipedia as well per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
i do note that the style guide says that phonetic pronunciations can be used in addition to the ipa pronunciation. is there a good reason NOT to use the one i suggested? i also wonder why some think this ipa is BETTER than simple phonetic pronunciations. not to start any conspiracy theories but i noticed that the ipa 'standard' seemed to become the standard around the time [sept 2007] obama began running for office. any correlation there? is there a consensus that the phonetic pronunciation be added to this section? Buzzards27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC).
- The International Phonetic Alphabet has been around for perhaps a hundred years and is the agreed upon international standard for a lot of things, especially for linguists. It is perhaps the default universal alphabet that fits in line with Wikipedia's use of Open Source and Public Domain. Obama and IPA have nothing to do with each other. As well, inserting a "phonetic" pronunciation does nothing. English speakers will pronounce his name the way they please and your "phonetic" example will probably more confuse them than help. If you didn't notice there are about two dozen distinct American accents of English let alone UK, Australia, Canada, etc. By far, the primary concern over a phonetic pronunciation is that there is no official pronunciation of his name by which there is a source for it. .:davumaya:. 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- i did NOT question how old the ipa is, i questioned how long it was the standard here. best i can tell is that around sept 2007 it first was used here, and i note that it is not universally used here. according to the style manual, under pronounciation, "For English pronunciations, pronunciation respellings may be used in addition to the IPA." [This is a pronunciation respelling key used in some Wikipedia articles to UNAMBIGUOUSLY spell out the pronunciations of English words., DOES THAT IMPLY THAT IPA IS AMBIGUOUS?] if your claim is true that there is NO offical pronounciation of obama's names, just how was the current ipa prounciation arrived at? i think if your claim is true, an evaluation of the current ipa prounciation guide would be in order.
- i am asking that the phonetic pronunciation [or "pronunciation respellings"] i suggested, Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced: bah-ROCK hoo-SAIN o-BAH-mah), be used in addition to the ipa prounciation guide. i'd also ask that the current ipa guide be evaluated to determine if the correct symbols are being used. Buzzards27 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Per the Wikipedia:IPA for English policy, everything checks out. Why are you arguing against policy? Find something more worthwhile to worry about. Duuude007 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, the version of the pronunciation suggested may not even be accurate. I would have said "bur-RAAK hoo-SAYN oh-BAH-muh" - and therein lies the reason IPA is used: as an Englishman, I pronounce "rock" differently from Americans; therefore, to use it in a pronunciation guide creates ambiguity. I remember how much I roared with laughter when I saw my stepson's middle school biology text book refer to the word's pronunciation as "by-AHH-luh-gee", when I pronounce it "by-OL-oh-gee". IPA gets around these problems by taking regional and international accents and dialects out of the equation. Almost all modern day dictionaries use IPA exclusively nowadays. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Talk page recently blanked
Philz4555 blanked other people's text and posted his opinion in its place. Look at the difference between his edit and my revert. This cannot be assumed good faith. Who is with me? Duuude007 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Already reported. --Floridianed (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit request
racist slander contained in opening line - please remove immediately as it is offensive to blacks and Muslims
- Good thing you made a reference or even added a date to what you think is offensive. This way everyone will know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Not done No evidence of offensive material in opening line.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- My guess is anon was referring to this edit which was not surprisingly reverted before he/she posted Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely, eh? I am satisfied with that decision. Duuude007 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
On the page it says, "Obama co-sponsored the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", while drilling into the Act's page it clearly says he did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.2.218 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've modified the text which was using "co-sponsored" somewhat loosely. Obama and Sen Feingold introduced an amendment to the bill in Jan 2007, sponsored by Obama and co-sponsored by Feingold (hence, "co-sponsored" by Obama), that was included in the bill. The amendment [9] pertains to (among other things) corporate jet travel. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs
It should be noted that there have been no meetings of this subcommittee while Obama has chaired it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfahl (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "subcommittee's" meetings have been held at the "committee" level, at the request of the chairman of the committee, which takes prescedence over the subcommittee. Obama has attended these meetings. Try and provide all of the facts please. Duuude007 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion
I personally think that wikipedia/a wikipedian should reword or remove some content on the infobox. There has been controvery over whether he is Christian or Muslim. He claims to be Christian, but can we be sure? I personally think that the religion part should be removed until this matter is resolved. If you think I have place this message in error, please inform me. I would like to open this for discussion. I am not online much, so if you like you can also Email me. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 16:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- The matter is resolved. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not accuracy. Do we know what is in his most private, secret heart? No. That's not possible. We can only know what reliable news sources report his religion to be. Christian. Case thoroughly, completely, and utterly closed. Sorry to be short about this, but this is not at all a productive line of discussion, will not result in improvements to the article, and relies on arguments from sources that practically define failing WP:RS. --GoodDamon 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. I had briefly forgotten the verifiability and accuracy part of wiki. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. It won't happen again. And that is true... very reliable news sources do say that he is christian. I had just thought that since there were claims of different religion. But yes. Since this matter HAS already been solved!
- So let me be clear that this will NOT happen again. Once again a apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. I hope I did not come across as rude. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 19:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I really appreciate that. Verifiability can be tricky, especially with such controversial topics and heated opinions. The claims that he is a Muslim come from very strongly opinionated sources which may very well consider themselves to be reliable per Wikipedia policy, but they're truly not, any more than MoveOn or Huffington Post. And as an aside, I would disregard any source that simultaneously labels a person a follower of militant black theology from a Christian church, and a secret, radical Muslim. --GoodDamon 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Post-convention polling numbers
You're trying to start an edit war, Wikidemon. I have inserted neutrally written and impeccably sourced material about recent trends in polling in the presidential campaign. This is not a hagiography. If you want to revert it, gain consensus for your reversion. Curious bystander (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment here is inappropriate per article probation, and you should refactor or remove it. Your attack on me here is unwelcome and inappropriate. Do not edit tendentiously. If you want to make disputed changes you are free to seek consensus here. Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the trend itself is notable, or at least as notable as anything that is likely to itself change over the next 60 days, but I would suggest it be included in either the McCain article under 2008 Presidential election section, the Palin section Under 2008 Presidential election section, both, or neither. It doesn't appear to me to fit here, as it is really about McCain/Palin, not Obama. Just my 2 cents.--Textmatters (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a watershed event in the campaign. Before Palin was named as McCain's running mate, Obama was ahead in nearly every poll. It looked as though he was going to win the White House on cruise control. Since Palin was named, Obama has been behind in nearly every poll. I have restored the paragraph that was reverted and would respectfully invite an explanation of why it doesn't belong here. Curious bystander (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have reverted - you are well aware of article probation at this point so do not edit war to try to insert content. Sarah Palin's popularity at the moment is of interest to Sarah Palin's article possibly, and to the campaign-related articles. It is not a biographically important detail of Obama's life. We don't need a whole paragraph in the campaign section against a 2-3 week trend in polling numbers. In this article it is simply an anti-Obama tidbit, which is improper per weight, relevance, recentivism, and POV. Wikidemon (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a watershed event in the campaign. Before Palin was named as McCain's running mate, Obama was ahead in nearly every poll. It looked as though he was going to win the White House on cruise control. Since Palin was named, Obama has been behind in nearly every poll. I have restored the paragraph that was reverted and would respectfully invite an explanation of why it doesn't belong here. Curious bystander (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I gotta butt in here... This is WP:RECENTISM. I respectfully remind you that when every poll showed Obama with a substantial lead, that information was not in this article. When every poll showed McCain with a lead, that information also was not in the article. Now that the polls are leaning towards Obama again... it still doesn't belong in this article. Let's say Obama wins. Will the polls as of September 16th, 2008 be all that notable on, say, September 16th, 2009? No, not for his biography. --GoodDamon 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- And I'd like to add that the introduction of the material you propose could very easily lead to someone else adding something like "But on suchandsuch date, the polls leaned this way. Then they leaned that way. Then this, then that..." And so on, ad infinitum. --GoodDamon 22:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I gotta butt in here... This is WP:RECENTISM. I respectfully remind you that when every poll showed Obama with a substantial lead, that information was not in this article. When every poll showed McCain with a lead, that information also was not in the article. Now that the polls are leaning towards Obama again... it still doesn't belong in this article. Let's say Obama wins. Will the polls as of September 16th, 2008 be all that notable on, say, September 16th, 2009? No, not for his biography. --GoodDamon 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored Cb's paragraph because it belongs here. As campaign events go, naming Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate rated about 9.8 on the Richter scale. Before it happened, Obama was in the lead; since it happened, Obama has been behind. Name a policy that the paragraph violates. Reverting it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a complete fantasy. Before the conventions, the race was a statistical tie. The Biden announcement and the DNC caused a bounce. Then the Palin announcement and the RNC caused a bounce. Now we are back to the statistical tie. This happens in every election cycle and isn't notable in any way. It is an excellent example of why recentism should be policy, and not just an essay. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- But it is just an essay. WP:WELLKNOWN is bedrock Wikipedia policy. The paragraph at issue here has the gold standard of reliable sourcing and it would be a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT to exclude it. I repeat: name a policy that it violates and explain why. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- This article is Obama's biography. It does not have to include every single reliably sourced detail regarding the 2008 Presidential election. That is why devoting an entire paragraph to McCain's convention bounce lends it undue weight, and why it shouldn't go back in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just from a common-sense perspective, WorkerBee, you're thoroughly failing to take into account the long view. Yes, WP:RECENT is an essay, but personally I think it applies very well here. No one will find the convention bounces notable for Obama's biography (or McCain's, for that matter) in a year. Or heck, in six months. But all of that is moot. Those details belong in the campaign articles -- no question about that, it's a notable event in terms of the campaign -- but they do not belong in this article. Removing that paragraph does not violate WP:WEIGHT. On the contrary, for Obama's biography, you're weighting the convention bounces too highly. There's no reason but POV-pushing to try to force off-topic -- and now out-of-date, considering recent polls -- information in the man's bio. This article is not part of the presidential campaign. I shouldn't have to be reminding you of that. Please check your POV-pushing at the door. --GoodDamon 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the way it works is, when someone adds something to an article, and someone else disagrees and removes it, there is then a discussion on the talk page, and there needs to be consensus on the talk page before re-adding the material. BRD, not BDR, and especially not BDRDRDR.
Without having much of an opinion on whether the section should stay in or stay out, I’ll say that as an uninvolved admin, if I see someone re-add the polling section without a consensus here to do so, I will block them; my first time using article probation, but it seems a very clear cut case to me. And, before I get accused of taking sides, please read my first paragraph again for why it defaults this direction and not the other.
I actually see something of a weak consensus here not to include it, but the night is young, and consensus can change. But don’t re-add it again until and if a consensus in the other direction develops.
Also, a 3RR reminder for everyone involved on both sides; this isn't a BLP thing, it's a content thing, so AFAIK 3RR still applies. --barneca (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- The arguments for including appear to boil down to "it's well-sourced." Of course it's well-sourced. It was all over the news. I can provide equally well-sourced documentation to the effect that:
- None of that, of course, applies to this article, and no content referencing any of those well-sourced facts should be included. The same goes for the polls... They are important in the context of the campaign articles, but not in the context of Obama's life story, any more than they would be important in McCain's. The ongoing attempt to insert them is little more than POV-pushing. --GoodDamon 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- The vacant plug for Palin's virtues by the same editor who has disrupted this page before (and caused the article probation) has no place in a biography of Obama. GoodDamon makes a good point in his/her tongue-in-cheek metaphors: completely irrelevant topics that happen to be sourced do not belong here. LotLE×talk 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26625240/
...notes a 4% margin for error. This was also dated on Sept. 9, 2008, well before the post convention polls had stabilized.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/palin.republican.vp.candidate/index.html
This is a blog. We all know what their role plays in Wikipedia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/10/women.uselections2008 is international news talking about US news. How about referencing the source it provides instead of a 3rd party opinion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_090907.html Duuude007 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ermm, aren't they all reliable sources? And isn't this a very, very important event in the presidential campaign? And hasn't the Obama campaign shifted its gears and changed its strategy in response? If they feel it's a significant event, why don't you? The fact is that post-convention polling has stabilized. It used to be averaging about five points in Obama's favor. Now it's averaging about two points in McCain's favor. This is a watershed event. LotLE, pointing fingers at others and accusing them of "causing the article probation" is hilarious, coming from you. Curious bystander (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is campaign news, and not even particularly notable at that. We have gone from a statistical tie to a statistical tie. Earth-shattering, DEFCON 1-like amazingness! Tag-team edit warring to try to include non-notable, non-neutral material should be a blockable offense under article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Simple fact: This will go to archives. If this single event is truly the reason he somehow does not become president, then it is relevant. If anything else is a reason he does not, or if he does become president, then this point you are trying to make has absolutely no relevance, positively no notability. Personally, I don't think it does even now. If you care about contrasting balance, you would also consider that in the last week, Palin's approval-disapproval net rating has now gone from the highest to the lowest of the four, as soon as people got to know her. That has no place in this article either, but I am merely proving a point. Duuude007 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is no way to know whether this is an important event in the campaign. What will matter is the final vote, and perhaps demographic break-down of the vote. A narrative of how the vote got to that point will be useful in the campaign article but in the bio articles only if it is a life event for the person in question. The edit warring and uncivil accusations against the productive, legitimate editors here by a group recently returned to the article, are clearly inappropriate. Now we have a section started as a personal attack on me[13] by an editor claiming that my first revert of the clearly non-neutral content was "trying to start an edit war" (which he pursued until blocked). We don't need this here. If you want to include something you can be bold or better yet propose it here, and if there is a reasonable objection you talk about it civilly to see if there is consensus. That is very simple. Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Curious bystander has been blocked for edit warring. 24 hours this time, duration will escalate fast if it continues. --barneca (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Curious bystander said something very important here: "...isn't this a very, very important event in the presidential campaign?" It's certainly notable for the presidential campaign articles. But this isn't a presidential campaign article. This is Barack Obama's biography. In six months, if that, no one will care what the convention bounces were, and certainly it won't be regarded as notable enough for this biography, any more than the convention bounces of past presidential candidates have been considered important in their biographies (don't bother, I've already checked... the post-convention polls are not mentioned in at least the last three presidents' biographies, nor those of their opponents.) Incidentally, post-convention polling has "stabilized" with Obama generally in the lead (see today's Gallup results). And you know what? It still doesn't belong in his biography. --GoodDamon 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not to beat a dead horse, but:
Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates "the Palin effect" was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.
The contest appears to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice presidential selections: Mr. Obama has the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll in mid-August.
- From today's New York Times. Events have passed this by, which reinforces the issue of WP:RECENTISM. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Curious bystander said something very important here: "...isn't this a very, very important event in the presidential campaign?" It's certainly notable for the presidential campaign articles. But this isn't a presidential campaign article. This is Barack Obama's biography. In six months, if that, no one will care what the convention bounces were, and certainly it won't be regarded as notable enough for this biography, any more than the convention bounces of past presidential candidates have been considered important in their biographies (don't bother, I've already checked... the post-convention polls are not mentioned in at least the last three presidents' biographies, nor those of their opponents.) Incidentally, post-convention polling has "stabilized" with Obama generally in the lead (see today's Gallup results). And you know what? It still doesn't belong in his biography. --GoodDamon 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- I am closing/archiving this as it is quickly dissolving into personal attacks from each editor. - Brothejr (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Featured article review
===THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED=== inflammatory headline renamed - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This piece of Obama campaign literature, formerly known as a Featured Article, is not neutral. It is a walking violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it fails another test of Featured Article status: the content is insufficiently stable. I'm submitting it for Featured Article Review. Curious bystander (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It would be stable if POV pushers such as yourself did not go around disrupting it. How does it violate NPOV? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is not unreasonable to ask Curious bystander what exactly isn't neutral. I've reviewed the article again, and it seems perfectly neutral to me. In fact, I think it is a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should be. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- If the amount of criticism in this article even approached the amount of criticism in George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Hillary Clinton, I might agree with you. Curious bystander (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right now Curious bystander is stirring up a hornet's nest by canvassing everyone who has edited the article - including most of the disruptive editors from the past few months - to participate in the FA review. The article was stable for the past month when he and other problem editors were gone. This is looking to be terribly disruptive.Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- The procedure for FAR requires me to notify people who have edited this article. You're now being heard to complain because I'm following the prescribed procedure? Curious bystander (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- You should withdraw the nomination, and probably withdraw from editing this article if you will not stop causing disruption. You are indeed stirring up quite a bit of trouble to an important high quality article that had been civil and stable in your absence. Wikidemon (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Only problem is you've only been notifying editor's who have been pressing an agenda that you know would come to your rescue. Grsztalk 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see if I follow CB's logic here: we need more criticism in this featured article, so it can be more like the good articles listed above. Okay, I get it now! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
FAR closed; useful leftovers
I have closed the FAR. I'll leave some minor clean-up issues here, from SandyG and DrK. Marskell (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Misc cleanup needs:
- The section heading, "U.S. Senator, 2005–present" breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language: something like "U.S. Senator, from 2005" might work.
- The image in "Early life and career" is causing text squeeze, see WP:MOS#Images. If not deleted, it should be moved down.
- There are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues in several sections: Images within sections should be below the templates at the top of sections, and maintenance template are in the wrong place. See the structure sections of ASSESSIBILITY.
- WP:MOSNUM, ... its staff grew from 1 to 13 ... is awkward, might better be ... its staff grew from one to thirteen.
- Ack. External jump in the text, sample: which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[60] External jumps belong in External links or as citations.
- I am uncertain this italicization is correct, see WP:ITALICS ... introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 ... I know law cases are in italics, but legislation, unsure?
- Legislation or proposed legislation should be just a regular proper noun, no quotes, no italics. Thus, the This Benefits Everyone Act, not the This Benefits Everyone Act or the "This Benefits Everyone Act". There are a bunch of places where this is currently wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Logical punctuation needs to be addressed per WP:PUNC, sample: ... "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church."
- Citations still look very clean, but I saw some unformatted citations, so a review might be in order (there are too many for me to look at all of them :-) All need publisher, author and date when available, and last accessdate on websites.
- ^ Obama: I trusted Rezko" (March 15, 2008).
- ^ ObamaSpeak
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/offbeat/2008/02/19/moos.obamafied.cnn: CNN Video
- ^ Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama
- Inconsistency in date linking in citations should be addressed (slowly, over time, since this is a recent WP:MOS change). Some dates are delinked, others linked, example: Fornek, Scott (October 3, 2007). I don't suggest trying to do this kind of work during an election cycle :-)
- All in all, still a very clean article, none of this is significant (except the external jump in the text, I hope there aren't others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comments on this version. Suggested prose changes:
- "Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992...powers to be." This sentence is too long and complicated. I had to read it over twice.
- "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." Why not?: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." I know he had another job at the same time, but it is unnecessary to complicate the sentence to point this out, when the other job is mentioned in the next paragraph.
- Why aren't Senators Carper, Coburn, McCain, Feingold and Lugar, President Bush or St. Paul, Minnesota or Boston, Massachusetts linked?
- "In March 2007, 'Obama' was officially accepted...obamacam." Seems trivial.
- "Further reading" is unnecessary given the plethora of references. Can "External links" be trimmed?
- Images I would have said a signature was an original work of art, and hence copyrightable by the creator, but I could be wrong.
- I did not find any obvious partisan statements or missing information. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I mentioned about the signature for Palin as well: every candidate in the last 3 election cycles (or the last 5, save four candidates) have signatures here on Wikipedia, so there is a prescedent. Duuude007 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Would-be FAR content comments, no Rezko/Ayers/Wright involved
I hadn't looked at the article in a while, so gave it a fresh-eyed read-through last night (didn't note which version it was). Deliberately looked at content other than Rezko/Ayers/Wright. I was going to give these content comments to the FAR, will give them here instead:
- The lead needs to say something more about the 2008 presidential campaign. Gaining the nomination is one of the great accomplishments of Obama's career, especially in terms of defeating a front-runner with a famous name, setting fundraising records, and prevailing in an unusually long nomination contest.
- A cite would be good on "Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard".
- How did he end up running for the Illinois senate in 1996? Why did he enter politics? Who supported him in the run? Was it an open seat? Did he have to contest a primary? Was it an insurgency campaign or was he the choice of the local Democratic party? What was his margin of victory? What were the issues in the election, briefly? A politician's first race is very significant, due to all these factors. The Hillary and McCain articles, for example, go into more detail about their first races than this article does.
- Some of the same questions about the 2000 U.S. House primary race against Rush. Why did he try to oppose an incumbent of his own party? What we the main issues, briefly? Why did he fail? Yes, I know there are subarticles underneath the main one, but a little more attention to Obama's political history here and on the previous point is warranted.
- Why did Ryan withdraw in 2004? An odd one-sentence paragraph that just leaves the reader hanging there. (No need to shy away from a good sex scandal! These articles can always use a little spicing up :-)
- The middle paragraphs of the 2008 campaign section, that detail the 2008 caucuses/primaries, are not very good at all. They ignore the chronology of Iowa and New Hampshire coming first. They are too delegate-focussed for those early states as well (to the rest of the world, Hillary won New Hampshire!) There is no mention of the racial divide leading into South Carolina, and how Obama won a huge share of the African American vote (not a given, back in 2007). There is too much rote listing of states, without enough analysis of demographics, of how Obama did well in primaries where African Americans or younger, college-educated, or more affluent voters were heavily represented and Clinton did well in primaries where Hispanics or older, non-college-educated, or working-class white voters predominated. There's no mention of how Obama completely out-organized and dominated Hillary in caucuses, which was a key factor in building up the delegate margin. There's no mention of how well-managed the Obama campaign was, and how it avoid the internal dramas that the Hillary (and McCain) campaigns suffered from. There's no mention of how Obama struggled a bit during the last three months (when Hillary won more votes and delegates than he did). There's no mention of how they both broke the record for the most popular votes ever in a primary campaign. In short, the treatment of the campaign is both boring and superficial, when it should be engaging and analytical. (I'll volunteer to do some work on this section, since I'm going to be revising the same section in the Hillary article, which currently suffers from a different set of flaws.)
Anyway, those are my comments. I also noted, as did Sandy and DrKiernan above, that some of the MoS conformance aspects of the article have slipped. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- 100% Endorsed Everything on this list should be addressed. It would indeed improve the article further. If the article has size issues, then we can decide to summarize and split at that time, but we had better make sure that the cross referencing and cross-linking on both sides is very thorough. Duuude007 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama's service on the Joyce Foundation
I see nothing in the article about Obama's time spent on the Board of Directors (and in fact was offered the Chair). The Joyce Foundation is an extreme left wing policy and fund raising organization favoring, among other things, the complete confiscation ban of hand guns.
- So suggest an addition, properly verifiable and NPOV, of course (and NPOV does not mean "NRA point of view".) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Grammy winner?
There is no mention of his winning a Grammy Award, yet he's in a category for winners. Anyone know why that's there?--Appraiser (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. He's won two spoken word Grammys, one in 2006 for Dreams From my Father, and one in 2008 for The Audacity of Hope. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't know that. That fact should probably be mentioned in the text.--Appraiser (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- It used to be, but much of that sort of thing was purged recently in an attempt to shorten the article and let the child articles shoulder more of the burden. The result has been a more focused article with less edit warring. (your addition about reversing the campaign financing pledge should be reverted for the same reason, the child article goes into the all the specifics). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Still it deserves mention. Perhaps a link to its subarticle+section, with the appropriate naming? All I propose is a summary, even if its extremely brief. Duuude007 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Then why not a link and summary of Obama-Ayers controversy, even if it's extremely brief? Curious bystander (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Campaign financing
I understand the concept of covering campaign financing in the sub-article, rather than here, but if that's the decision, then the first part of that sentence should go too. To merely state that he didn't take public financing without mentioning the fact that he reversed his earlier intention is unbalanced. The Palinites would love to fill this article with smear, and I think that can be averted by keeping it FA and as NPOV as possible. In my view, that requires coupling campaign financing with his earlier statement.--Appraiser (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- FA-Class Hawaii articles
- Mid-importance Hawaii articles
- WikiProject Hawaii articles
- FA-Class Chicago articles
- Top-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- FA-Class African diaspora articles
- Low-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
- Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
- Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press