Talk:Barack Obama

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived.

Photograph

I, for one, would like to see a better picture of him for the top of the article. The current one reminds me of a bad driver's license photo. 75.16.248.253 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Rumor

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

Wikipedia does not exist to dispel rumors, no matter how incorrect they are. The article already covers his membership in the United Church of Christ in the infobox and the personal life section of the article.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. When the rumor is notable enough to generate significant press coverage, we can — and should — cover it here. [1][2][3][4][5] — goethean ॐ 18:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't realize reliable sources actually existed (I haven't trained myself to start paying attention to presidential politics a year before the election yet). In that case, it seems the context to the Muslim rumor is in connection with his presidential campaign, so perhaps that article would be a better place for it than here? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

He is not Muslim. His father was born as such, but has since converted to Atheism. It all stems from rumors of him attending a "radical muslim school" called a madrassa. It was "unearthed" by associates of Hillary Clinton. Whether or not she had anything to do with it is still up to debate. A spokeman for Senator Clinton said that it wasn't connected to her campaign. I think, however it does belong in his campagain article. And no, i'm not just spewing Obama support, CNN reported it http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

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

His father has been dead for many years, and one doesn't "convert" to atheism. Senator Obama's religion and his background are covered in the article. As for this false rumor, this has been discussed at great length (look back in the talk archives) and consensus reached to include the false rumors and refutation in the footnotes, which we do. More than that would give it undue weight. Tvoz |talk 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The rumor campaign was mentioned in the Doonesbury comic strip. Although that might not be a reliable source here. I checked out Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and there didn't seem like there was a place to talk about it there. How about a new article: Barack Obama Muslim rumor? Redddogg (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do this. Redddogg (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

And now this. --HailFire (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

No Criticism Section?!

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

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

---

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

• Investor's Business Daily, Obama Blames America First November 05, 2007

Many editors prefer to not have separate "criticism" or "controversies" sections in biographies because they can easily become dumping grounds for any real or imagined negative comment about the subject. Rather, it is preferred to integrate reliably sourced critical material into the text and notes of articles, sometimes setting up subarticles about a particular controversy that warrants it - and that's what we've done here. Tvoz |talk 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's very little encyclopedic value to these opinion pieces. I'm tempted to pull the link, but I'd like to hear other voices. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I didn't realize it had actually been added (thought it was just a suggestion) - I would pull it too, as it is not what is usually meant by "Further reading" - this is a minor editorial comment about one position, not a comprehensive editorial piece. Tvoz |talk 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC)It should also be noted that the lack of a Criticism/Controversy section is not limited to articles on Democrats and the inclusion of the section is not limited to Republicans. Ronald Reagan's article lacks a criticism/controversy section, while the Bill Clinton and Al Gore articles include them. All in all, whether to integrate the criticism into the rest of the article, or to include a separate criticism section is up to the editors of that page. I know there have been several attempts to get the criticism sections of the current Republican Presidential candidates integrated into the rest of their article (or sub-articles as appropriate), but unfortunately these attempts have failed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the editorial piece.. After reading it, I must say.. Not in the least bit NPOV and seems to be relying quite a bit on the crystal ball that is common in editorial board opinion pieces. So, not your typical "Further Reading" or External Link. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Further Reading" sections are generally for learning more about the subject not a backdoor way to sneak criticism in. The most recent editorial that was added to that section is simply an attack piece and offers no new information. We already know that Republicans don't like Obama just as Democrats don't like the Republican candidates. There is no need to stack up examples of such. --Loonymonkey 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Of course it is absurd to have an article without a criticism or controversy section. I and others have repeatedly provided edits to document the Rezko scandal as well as his diverse religious upbringing (atheist, muslim); however there are a couple of SPA editors who spend much of their lives purging this article from anything that would detract from the positive image they are trying to portray for his campaign. Per historical behaviour, this talk thread will be quickly archived to prevent others from understanding the extent of the fact purging. This article is POV and a disgrace to wikipedia. Good luck to others who wish to provide balance here Decoratrix 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections are troll-magnets, and they don't present information in a neutral and useful way. There aren't two realities- a pro-topic reality and a anti-topic reality- and so wikipedia should not present information as if there were. johnpseudo 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. One could make the same argument about any page and ask that all negative information be purged. A page should broadly reflect all available information about a subject, as long as it is reliably sourced. I think it does a disservive to both the candidate and wikipedia to purge all mention of controversies. lk 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No one said anything about purging criticism, lk. It's criticism sections that are not desirable. And it's far from "absurd", Decoratrix - integrating controversies is done in many articles on all shades of the political spectrum. I argued against controversy sections on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, for example, so I'll thank you not to make assumptions about the motivation of editors here. Tvoz |talk 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we agree that there should be sections noting controversial issues? Decoratrix, perhaps you should add a (NPV and properly cited) Rezko section? Also, considering the smear campaign that Obama's religous background has been subjected to, perhaps a section about his childhood experiences in Indonesia should be added? lk 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not agree - this material is already covered in the article's notes and subarticles, and separate sections would give them undue weight. Tvoz |talk 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only read that as a desire to censor criticism. I have no great desire to spend all my time checking this page. (On a personal note I actually prefer Obama to most other candidates.) But, I will do all I can to make sure that all factual cited, NPV controversies remain on the page. lk 10:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never argued to have a "criticism" section, but merely to state the known facts of the Rezko and childhood religious upbringing clearly. The IBD and Howard matters also deserve brief mention, and all these things can be integrated into existing sections or made into a topic heading without a POV heading. Everyone in this discussion seems to understand the value of this direction to neutrality except tvoz (who is a person that i believe has consistently deleted such material from this article). Decoratrix 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be a different argument if it were simply a matter of stating facts. However, much of what has been added has been pure opinion or speculation (sometimes based on facts already stated, sometimes with no basis in fact whatsoever). Worse though is when "factual" material that is actually not true is added. If an editor adds a false statement such as "Obama was raised Muslim but converted to Christianity" they can expect to have this edit reverted quickly, in accordance with Wiki policies. Accusations of bad faith won't change that fact. --Loonymonkey 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fires up google.. What IBD matter? As for the Howard incident. If it isn't already in the presidential election article it should be and a quick check of the presidential article shows me that it isn't.. So if you want to add the Howard incident there, you're more than welcome to. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that the Rezko issue deserves a mention in the main text? Hiding it in a footnote is clearly not giving it proper weight. I've been going through the archives of this discussion page, and it seems obvious to me that there are a significant number of editors who want Rezko to be mentioned in the main text. lk 08:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Rezko issue deserves coverage on Obama's page: not only from the questionable real estate transaction but for Obama's lobbying on behalf of Resko so that Rezko could receive approx 14 million in public funds and that Obama lied about the amount of campaign funds he has received from Rezko until the Chicago Sun uncovered the true amount (about $168,000). (Rezko is currently facing federal charges for fraud, money laundering and racketeering.) Obama's childhood, Prime Minister Howard's criticism and the Investor's Business Daily (IBD) article also deserve mention. All tolled these matters should not consume more than five percent of the article text. Decoratrix 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Rezko thing probably deserves a small mention, just a few sentences. Unless it turns into a big story (which it never has) it's still all just circumstance and speculation. No reliable source has actually accused Obama of involvement in corruption (and saying Obama "lied" veers pretty far from NPOV). Obama's childhood is mentioned in the article. I'm not sure what facts you feel were left out in that regard. As for the IBD editorial, it's just that...an editorial. Every candidate has a stack of editorials (pro and con) written about them. There is nothing noteworthy about this particular one and it doesn't present any unique facts. I can't see why it would need to be included. --Loonymonkey 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Loonymonkey on these issues, Rezko deserves an NPV mention, editorials are not noteworthy, and 'lied' is not NPV. I would prefer it if the section on Obama's childhood stated that he attended Catholic school and then a non-religious public magnet school between the ages of 6-10 in Indonesia. If someone introduces the Rezko issue in a neutral manner into the main article, lets not fight about it? lk 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In December 2006 there were detailed articles published in the Washington Post [6] and the Chicago Sun-Times [7] clearly concluding that the real estate deal is non news. Now it is not only non news, it is also old non news. Can you cite any reliable NPOV source published after these two articles supporting your view that the matter has been inadequately treated here? --HailFire 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The link you inserted is an editorial. It does not reference the original newspaper articles that it claims to draw its conclusions from. As per previous discussions here, editorials are not noteworthy and should be removed. --lk 06:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the link is to a site that does not own the copyright to the editorial. Chicago Sun-Times owns the copyrights, and has decided to put it behind a pay wall.--lk 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

1k is on target here. The link suggested by Hailfire is an editorial, clearly pro Obama, and does not even discuss the meat of the issue: that Obama paid less than market price for his ORIGINAL parcel due to the oddly simultaneous closing by Rezko; thus the real estate transaction represented a substantial undisclosed contribution by Rezko to Obama. The editorial fails to mention the important correlative data that Rezko was a major contributor to Obama and that Obama failed to attribute the correct amount of the Rezko contributions until the Sun Times exposed Obama's incorrect disclosure. The editorial cited by Hailfire further fails to take note of the influence, lobbying and letter writing Obama conducted for Rezko's benefit so that Rezko could receive public subsidies for his real estate ventures. Decoratrix 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Intereseting opinion, but I don't see what it has to do with an encylopedic article. If you're looking for a forum in which to argue your opinions about Barack Obama, there are much better options than Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the page is extraordinarily light in covering the eventful 2004 Senate race that resulted in Barak Obama's election. Based on recollections, Mr. Obama was badly trailing in the race against a popular Republican candidate going into the final weeks of the election, but racy stories (patronage of sex-clubs) leaked from the Republican candidates sealed divorce found there way into the press caused the original candidate to abruptly withdraw from the race. The GOP hastily backed the ill-fated candidacy of the Virginian Alan Keyes for the Illinois Seanate seat. Alan Keyes proceeded to make controversial comments about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, and other issues, thereby allowing the Democract candidate, Obama to skate through the general election....Steve Paredes Ann Arbor MI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.123.137.143 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

STOP TROLLING. HOWEVER, I DO ENCOURAGE CO-OPTING YOUR INTERESTS WITH THOSE OF TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS. AFTER ALL, YOU DO HAVE SHARED GOALS, AND THEY CARE ABOUT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS YOUR NATION.Whitemensburden (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I think it would be more than fair and objective to point out - in light of Senator Obama's criticism of the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in the political process -that his own past campaigns have not exactly been free of such ties[8]. Perhaps this could be detailed in the "110th Congress" section where his remarks on the issue are detailed rather extensively? 64.53.176.235 09:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in on this argument here, but I find it amusing that not only is there no criticism section, but people honestly believe that there doesn't need to be a criticism section. If there are this many people clamoring to include a criticism section, then that should tell you all you need to know. People are also forgetting what exactly a criticism section is. The criticism in the criticism section does not need to be factually accurate, or non biased-- it just needs to be a documentation of some of the larger issues that Senator Obama has been criticized for. The job of wikipedians is not to determine whether his political critics are accurate. They just need to document and record them in a criticism section. If you take a look at the bios of most political figures on Wikipedia, they all have a criticism section. This section is merely a logging of the issue(s) that he has been criticized on. Period. In Senator Obama's case, I would think some criticism pretaining to his relationship with Rezko, his church, and the recent criticism he has received about his proposed health care plan would be relevant and appropriate. It's important to remember that this is not a debate about whether the criticism is accurate or legitimate, but rather, a criticism section is used to log and document major criticism he receives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.112.5 (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Rezko in the main text

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

Restored single paragraph treatment of marriage, children, condo, 2005 house purchase, and neighboring property. --HailFire (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone who knows about the issues and arguments have a look at the Antoin Rezko page? I'm afraid it's not up to the standard of WP:NPV. It needs to be cleaned up so that the facts are presented without any bias or speculation. thanks --lk 11:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just about to remove the POV tag from the the Antoin Rezko article. Please have a look and let me know any objections. --lk 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I added the pronunciation of Barack in the opening section and it was removed (with the comment 'Why?'). Since I often hear people - even BBC news reporters - refer to him wrongly as [ˈbærək], I thought it was a useful addition to the article.--Sdoerr (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to English pronunciation. kwami (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem paragraph?

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

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

Steve, the problem with highlighting the 2005 house purchase as a "land deal controversy" worthy of its own paragraph in this WP:BLP of Obama is that there isn't any controversy. The cited source tells us: The Obamas moved into a $1.6 million house in June, trading their condo near Hyde Park for a historic home nearby. The royalties from his first book and an advance of nearly $2 million for future books allowed the family to pay off debts from law school and past political campaigns.[9] Nothing extraordinary there. The reason for discussing the house is simply that people are interested in knowing where and how he lives, as a notable aspect of his personal life. I know some editors here would like to expand the discussion about Rezko, but we can't do it without something notable to talk about. Trying to add more about Rezko really risks throwing off the WP:NPOV and conveying a false impression that Obama did something illegal, which all sources agree he did not. At least that's how I read the sources, but I am open to hearing other views. --HailFire 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I really wasn't trying to expand that, just trying to move it away from the info on his family. Is there another paragraph it can be moved to? I will make a couple of minor tweeks to the wording for now. Steve Dufour 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I changed it too:

In 1992, Obama married Michelle Robinson, whom he met in 1988 when they both worked at the Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin.[131] They now have two daughters, Malia, born in 1999, and Natasha ("Sasha"), born in 2001.[132] The family lives in a US$1.6-million home in Hyde Park, Chicago.[133] The purchase of this house in 2005 and the subsequent acquisition of an adjoining strip of land drew media scrutiny in November 2006 because of financial links with controversial Illinois businessman Antoin Rezko.[134]

I think that it flows better, and more information on his family can be added if it is too short. Steve Dufour 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

A bit more family back ground please

For those of us who would be spared 3-5 hours of surfing if it is simply included here, let me suggest that some more info on this guy's father (a Senior Official in the Financial Section of the Government of Kenya with a Harvard Phd, which I guess means that he should be identified as Dr. Obama, best guess I have is that he is sort of notable and maybe should have his own biog). For the sake of simplicity somewhere (maybe just here in the discussion if it offends everybody's sensibilities) a very brief almost maybe just a statistical mention maybe just the names and numbers and dates for his mother's family slaves, (especially answering the question: did his mother's family still own their slave/s in 1863 ? I.e. at the time of Lincoln's Proclamation), Maybe it is irrelevant however if someone whose mother's family owned slaves(and his father's family--being East African Muslims of some wealth-- likely also owned slaves) is put forward as a great representative of the African American Equality movement despite being the descendant of their opressors, perhaps he or someone else needs to deal with the issues of him being a wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing here. John5Russell3Finley 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your rant is not all all relevent to this article (or the discussion of the article for that matter). Please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox for further explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Loonymonkey: The issues raised by John5Russell3Finley are valid issues for discussion. The article is written as an advertisement for Obama. There is no criticism of him and inconvenient facts about him are completely left out of removed entirely. At one time, there was information about Obama attending a Muslim-centered elementary school when very young, but that information has been removed. This article does not have balance. It puts a halo on Obama's head. Now, I don't necessarily agree with everything that John5Russell has written, but your flippant dismissal of his comments is inappropriate.--InaMaka (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Except, InaMaka, that there is information about the false rumor regarding his attendance at a Muslim school as a child in Jakarta - read the Presidential campaign section. (And Loonymonkey is correct that the talk page is for constructive discussion of ways to edit the article, not a place to vent someone's own personal POV agenda as the previous commenter was doing.) Tvoz |talk 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not state that Obama attended a Muslim school. I stated that he attended a "Muslim-centered" school. According the outside article that is referenced in this article, Obama was listed as "Muslim" on his paperwork and child that were considered Muslim--whether they were or not--were encouraged to practice Islam. So, no, what you stated above is incorrect. I was not repeating the "false rumor." I am stating facts that are not in the article. Also, John5Russell3finley has a right to express his opinion whether you or Loonymonkey agrees with that opinion or not. Now, his comments can and should be worked into the article if John5 has outside reliable sources to back up his claims. And, once again, the comments of another editor should not be dismissed out of hand by Looneymonkey or any other editor. That is not in line with Wikipedia process.--InaMaka (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. He doesn't "have a right to express his opinion," at least not in a Wikipedia article. NPOV is one of the core prinicipals of Wikipedia as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are plenty of places out there on the internet in which one can rant to their heart's delight about whatever opinions and theories they patched together during "3-5 hours of surfing" but this isn't one of them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Not true. You don't like what he stated, but that has nothing to do whether he has a right to express an opinion. He did suggest changes to the article. Now, you don't like those suggestions, but whether you agree with the suggestions or not does not negate his right to express opinion on those changes. Now, there are plenty of places out there on the Internet where you can go to express your dislike of his opinion, but that does not negate his right to express his opinion about changes to the article. You don't like his opinion, but that is not the criteria that Wikipedia is based upon. Also, Obama attended a school as a child that described Obama as "Muslim" and that school did encourage children that were classified as "Muslim" to practice Islam, whether they were really Muslim or not and those facts have been removed from the article. So, yes, the article does place a halo on his head. It does not touch on facts that might be considered by some to be negative and it does not provide substantive criticisms of his opinions and work, which almost all bios have--as long as those criticisms fall within the rules of BLP. So to sum up, John5 expressed his opinion on a substantive change to the article, which is his right, and then you stated that he is on a soapbox, which he was not, because apparently you did not like his suggestion. Now, we don't know if those changes are valid or should be implemented because he did not outline what he wanted the changes to and he did not provide reliable sources to back up his claims, but that is another issue. I'm not even sure that I agree with his premise, but we can't have people running around throwing out the soapbox claim without more evidence. That does not agree with the premise of Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? What specific changes did he propose to the article? I've just re-read the rant that started this whole thread and I still can't figure out what he is actually proposing for the article. There's something about Obama being a "wolf in sheep's clothes" because his mother's ancestors may have owned slaves but that's just conjecture. There isn't any new (or credible) information given and there aren't any suggestions for how this opinion would be incorporated into the article. There's no point in going back and forth here. This talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article. Complaining that ones own opinions aren't represented in the article isn't a proposed change, it's just a rant. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong.--InaMaka (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)That a great-great-great-great-grandfather on his mom's side owned two slaves and, based on some uncorroborated generalization based on his father's family's religion, geographical origin, and wealth, that a distant ancestor on his father's side may, or may not, have owned slaves. All in all, nothing to see here, best to let it drop and move on, Loonymonkey. You're just feeding the trolls. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Bobblehead, I'm not a troll. However, if you would like to get into a match where we call each names I don't think that is within the rules of Wikipedia. I have suggested a change to the article. Obama attended a public school that provided time for students to engage in religious activity. He was characterized as "Muslim" whether he really was or not. That information should be in the article.--InaMaka (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Please add more info about Obama Sr and his family.

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2) A statement that Sen. Obama comes from a Slaveholding family who were dispossed of some of their slaves under the emancipation proclamation seems to me justified given Oprah Winfrey's Performance on TV Today, which was really spread very thickly on the News especially 10 Dec 2007 PBS News Hour. I think this belongs in the Cultural and political imagesection. Its controvercial nature makes it more relevant and the man bites dog performance from Oprah Winfrey makes this very clear as of Today. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Point 2): I do not agree that anyone living today should have to suffer comments about the actions their ancestors 5 generations back. They are somewhat interesting anecdotes; that is all. They are pointless in (brief) encyclopedic articles that appear on Wikipedia, except, possibly, for someone who descended from royalty. Anecdotes about former slaveholding ancestors of current public figures are appropriate for "entertainment-news" stories on CNN, FoxNews, Oprah, and in book-length biographies - not here. (If you were interviewing for a job, do you think it is appropriate for a prospective employer to consider information about the actions of your maternal great-great-grandfather?) Charvex (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

race

Where is the discussion of race on the talk page? Shouldn't he be labeled Multiracial instead of African American? He is not black or white. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate Historical Office considers him to be African-American. (Formerly, this was attributed to that office rather than stated directly by Wikipedia itself; I'm not sure why that change was made, but presumably it's because of a lack of contention and a desire to keep the lead section simple.) He's considered African-American in addition to being multiracial because being an African-American is not conceived of as "all-or-nothing": it means that you are an American with recent African heritage, not that your ancestors have all been exclusively 100% African-American or black (a standard by which even Al Sharpton couldn't be considered African-American). If an American with 50% Kenyan ancestry is not African-American, than what about one with 75% Kenyan ancestry? 99%? Where do you draw the line? In any case, this seems to be the standard usage; our Halle Berry article, for example, lists her as "the first African-American woman to receive a Best Actress Academy Award", even though her mother was white. -Silence (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the US it's based on self-identification, there is no line to draw. However I couldn't find a source for his self-identification. Personally, I think it's a very racist attitude to say that pure European ancestry is white, and any part African is black (aka African American). Clinton's article doesn't call her a European-American. Well if the Senate page says he's African American, then he is. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, "black" is not a synonym for "African-American", as commonly used (especially in a text intended for international readers, like Wikipedia). That may be the main source of your problem: pretty much no one disputes that Obama is African-American, but there is more controversy over whether he is "black", because of the many complex connotations of that term in U.S. society. "African-American" and other heritage designators are not mutually exclusive, unlike "white" and "black": it is entirely possible to be both "African-American" and an "Asian-American", for example. (Indeed, we have Tiger Woods categorized under both Category:African American sportspeople and Category:Asian American sportspeople; whether he or Obama are "black" is something of a nonissue, and not for Wikipedia to unilaterally decide.) Clinton's article doesn't call her a European-American because third-party sources do not make note of that, whereas they regularly make note of Obama's heritage. -Silence (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

college

When did he graduate college? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See "Early life and career". He got his BA from Columbia in 1983 and his JD from Harvard in 1991. johnpseudo 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

middle name

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is the title of hillary's page why isn't Hussein in the title page of Barack's.RYNORT 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Because she uses "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as her name. That's why the page is "George W. Bush" not "George Walker Bush". And that's why this page is "Barack Obama". Tvoz |talk 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz got the answer right, but just something to point out: You do realize that Hillary's middle name isn't 'Rodham', right? That it's 'Diane'? And so the reason that Obama's middle name isn't in the article title is precisely the same as the reason that Hillary's isn't in her own article's title. (hence Hillary Rodham Clinton, not Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) 209.90.135.57 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo byline quoting estimate by campaign staff

The text below the picture says "Obama's campaign estimates 20,000 people attended this event", with a source of two separate news articles, both giving only Senator Obama and his campaign as sources of the attendance numbers. In the first instance, it specifically states the number is an estimate given by the campaign. In the second, Senator Obama is quoted as mentioning crowds of 20,000 in his stump speeches. Should what Senator Obama tells supporters during stump speeches or an estimate by his campaign be considered encyclopedic? Crowd estimates are notoriously skewed depending on who you ask, supporters or the opposition, on this I hope we all agree. I think the text below the picture would be better left as just the first sentence, "Supporters at a campaign rally in Austin, Texas, on 23 February 2007", which is factual and verifiable.

I removed "continues to draw large crowds" below the same picture not six months ago (large? larger than what?), though I guess someone really wants to quote those two news articles which repeat the campaign and Senator Obama mentioning crowds of 20,000. I'm sorry, I just don't think that either of them are an unbiased source for that information, nor, speaking towards the number being verifiable, do I trust the reporter (from one of the two sources) who repeatedly referred to a standing senator as "Mr.Obama". Revolen (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good call. I dislike a lot of extra information and/or opinions being put in picture captions anyway. Redddogg (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Condensed caption. --HailFire (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First black president

I took this sentence out of the intro:

If elected, Obama would become the first black U.S. president.

I think that there are several problems with it. For one thing WP is not a crystal ball. This alone prevents us from making statements about what might happen in the future, if I understand the policy correctly. Secondly, although in the USA most people would consider Senator Obama "black", some people would not and in Africa and other parts of the world he would not be considered "black." The third reason is that probably some of the other presidents probably had black ancestors too, so they might be called "black" under the One drop rule. I have heard this said about President Buchanan, but couldn't find an online reference that said so. I think I read it in the book Before the Mayflower. I will also check out Senator Clinton's article and see if it says she will be the first female president. BTW someone pointed out the Secretary of State Rice might end up being president in 2008 if Bush and a couple of others die. That would beat 'em both. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillary's campaign article says: "No woman has ever been nominated by a major party to run for President in the history of U.S. presidential elections." I went ahead and put the same kind of sentence here and in the campaign article. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I utterly disagree with this here and on the campaign article and have reinstated the text. This is not a crystal ball matter at all - I think you misunderstand the guideline. This is a true, sourced statement, not a prediction. Use common sense, please. The point about Obama not being black is not worthy of answering has been responded to many times on the talk pages of this article, and Wasted's point about Rice was facetious - and it would be Bush, Cheney, Pelosi and Byrd before we got to Rice: we'll worry about that when the time comes. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How is the point about Obama not being black "not worthy of answering"? His mother is white, his father is black.

Some would say that makes him black. Some would say it means he isn't. I can't say I care either way, but it's certainly inappropriate to dismiss it as an issue entirely.

Though I don't presume this was your intention, you certainly implied, "of course he's black. There's no way a reasonable person could ever believe anything else", which, of course, would be combative, uncooperative, and unprofessional. (Again, I don't presume this was your intention; merely how it looked.) 209.90.135.57 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I see that the consensus is against me so I will not argue about this anymore. I still think a statement about what might happen in the future does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I also didn't mean to say that everybody who says Obama is not "black" is unreasonalbe. I am an American over 50, having grown up in segregated America, so to me he is certainly "black", or "negro" as we said back then. To younger people he might be "mixed race" however. Cheers to all. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Combative, uncooperative and unprofessional"? In that case, I modified my intemperate comment above to remind Steve that the point has been discussed many times here, as I believe he might recall. I will change the sentence in the article to read "African American" in place of "black", although if you'll look at African American, you'll see in the first line that the terms, in America, are more or less interchangeable. And, in my opinion, this is a lot of smoke over a non-issue. Tvoz |talk 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin Language interwiki

Latin Wikipedia (i.e. Vicipaedia) now has an entry for Barack Obama. Please add the following interwiki to this page: [[la:Barack Obama]]. Thanks, 71.208.238.48 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Added here. --HailFire (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Barack HUSSEIN Obama??

I doubt this is correct! Why should he have the same surname as Saddam Hussein (unless he is Saddams son of course)? Solomon Stein (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hussein is Barack's middle name. By the way, Hussein is not Saddam's surname - Arabic naming conventions differ from Western conventions. Hussein was Saddam's father's name.--Rise Above The Vile 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

added dug specifics

added the part about how he said he used drugs to help him in his book.RYNORT 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the information you added was both factually and grammatically incorrect. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on complaint about lack of criticism section, which was removed just before I hit "Save page"

I am a Republican who likes Senator Obama, but probably will not vote for him. I would much prefer to read an article telling the positive points about someone. Of course criticism should be mentioned but it shouldn't be the major thing. I would like to see the other articles more like this one rather than the other way around. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Obama Criticism section?

GO ahead, censor my post again, I'll just repost it. You wont stop me, unless you ban me. But why would you ban me? Because You will not include a section that other candidates have? BIAS! Wikipedia has a terrible reputation, and the hawks here are proof. I speak for A LOT of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.63.188 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is the IP of RYNORT (talk · contribs), who has constantly been warned for POV pushing. See my [[{User_talk:Blaxthos#excuse_me|this thread]] and the one below it for more info. I will again issue words of caution to him. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Political Positions???

As I assume most people would, I can here looking for an enumeration of his political positions. I find it beyond strange that there is none. The closest thing I could find is the statement that he took the opposing position to Alan Keys on a number of issues. Erikmartin (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

His positions are located at Political positions of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Parity with Hillary Clinton Wikipedia site?

I'm not a political partisan but love presidential politics - particularly during incumbency change. In that light, I see a stark distinction between the Hillary Clinton website and the Obama Wiki site (as well as other candidate sites). So, I'm wondering if there is parity between the authorship agreements between all candidate sites. My impression is that the Clinton writers crafted her Wiki site to have no edges. This quality is not the same for the Obama Wiki site, for example (IMHO). Is it possible that Wiki editors are developing the Clinton Wiki to be superior to the Obama (Edwards, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani) Wiki(s)? If you review all of the comments in all the major candidate Wiki's - one can understand the general principle of this assertion. But then again, who has time to do that aside from junkies like me ... Oxford Den (151.197.127.231 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)). (Oxfordden (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

• Well, there's no distinction between "writers" and "editors" here. What changes or improvements would you suggest? You can make them on your own, of course. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Jpgordon, many of the political Wiki sites have restrictions on editing. As I'm truly unfamiliar with the hierarchy of who can restrict the editing I just want to point out hte disparity. On some sites, my (well referenced) comments continue to be removed by the 'owner'. Perhaps I'll have to spend some time reading about how that works ... thanx .... OxfordDen (151.197.127.231 (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)) ... (Oxfordden (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not have "owners" of articles, it's actually prohibited here. However, this article is currently semi-protected, which means IP editors (such as yourself) and new users can not currently edit the article. You are more than welcome to post suggestions on the talk page, or if you have a specific edit that you'd like to make, just post it here with an explanation of where in the article you'd like it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would make a wild guess that there are more Obama supporters here on WP than those of any other candidate. Even if this article is not "owned" it is well defended against attacks by Republicans or fans of Hillary. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked out Hillary Clinton article and it does seem to be better written. On the other hand, it contains far more negative information than this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hillary has been in the national public eye for a lot longer and accumulated a lot more negative things than Obama has. Not to worry, I'm sure Barack will start piling them up soon enough. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Then again, she is running on "experience" not "nice person-ness" :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Views on Israel

I believe that Obama's views on the USA's relationship with Israel should be mentioned. He has made a few comments, such as those detailed in this piece (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269112,00.html) that bring his support for Israel into question. Maybe under a "Controversies" section?69.212.65.64 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Or even better.. How about in an article called Political positions of Barack Obama in a section called Arab-Israeli conflict. Oops, already done.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

African American????

The claim that Barack Obama is the only African American currently serving in the United States Senate is wrong and clearly contradicts the section on his parents. His mother is white and his father is black and thus he can only be half African American. I think it is disgraceful and racist to claim that he is African American when clearly his heritage is BOTH Caucasian AND African. This section of the article should be changed for clarity, consistence, and correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalMoth (talk • contribs) 07:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here a hundred times or more. He, himself, identifies himself as an African American. One does not have to be 100% "black" or of African ancestry to be one. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the intro to African American:

African Americans or black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.[1] In the United States the term is generally used for Americans with sub-Saharan African ancestry. Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who survived slavery within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are—or are descended from—voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, or elsewhere.[2]

It sounds to me that that includes Barack since he "has origins" and "ancestry" from the "black racial groups" of "sub-Saharan Africa." Steve Dufour (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama on The Today Show 12-21-07

On December 21, 2007 Barack Obama appeared on The Today Show.

Minor comment

Might be good to introduce Michelle Obama (when she's first mentioned in the text) as his wife. Something along the lines of "Obama met his future wife Michelle Robinson in 1988". I know it's in the caption, but some people might not read the caption. Also, could the caption be fleshed out a bit more? Where are they in that photo? 69.202.60.86 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)