Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Archive 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 80

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relentless Censorship of Anything that Would Hurt Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born alive bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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