Talk:Barack Obama

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

What is the origin of his accent?

Watching him on tv, he seems to have a American Southern accent, but he was born in Hawaii and lived in his formative years in Indonesia. Is it affected to seem more "folksy?" Did he spend time somewhere that this accent was prevalent?

I think his mother's family is from Kansas and that's what his accent sounds like to me. People from the Illinois-Iowa-Kansas-Nebraska region have this sort of sound. 71.66.231.200 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "Illinois-Iowa-Kansas-Nebraska region", linguistically. Southern Illinoians have what could be described as a Kentucky accent; Obama has never lived there. Northern Illinoians either sound like Wisconsinites or else have the classically neutral Midwestern accent (which actually comes from Missouri). Iowans speak just as neutrally. Nebraskans are more culturally close to Denver than any of the places you mentioned, and would at least marginally derive their mannerisms from there. I don't understand the argument that Obama talks like he's from Kansas because his mother's family is from there, given that he himself never lived there. --76.217.94.0 (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't have a distinguishable accent until he began a national campaign; specifically when he campaigned in southern states. This would be consistent with his varied geographical upbringing and long time spent in the midwest. Scottmkeen (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Include details of Barack Obama's childhood experience with Islam?

It appears that some Wikipedia editors are removing or downplaying any mention of Obama early childhood Islamic origins and history. This is causing a general misrepresentation of Obama's childhood history by omission of important facts.I have tagged the article appropriately. So far no one has challenged any of the points below. Please so not remove the tag until dispute is resolved.

• Barack was born to a Muslim father and Christian mother..
• Barack's family on his father's side is predominantly Muslim, father( Baracka Obama snr) , grandfather (Hussein Onyango Obama) were Muslims, brother Abongo (Roy) Obama is Muslim.
• Barack Obama 's name is a shortening of Baracka which means the blessed one in Arabic.
• Barack Obana's middle name is Hussein ,an Arabic Muslim name which means "beautiful" or "handsome". It is commonly given to Muslim males after the name of the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad , Ali, the fouth Islamic Caliph in Islamic history.
• Father Baracka Obama died in 1982, Barack described his father Baracka as a non practicing Muslim though he got a Muslim burial at Barack's family's request.
• Stepfather Lolo Soetoro was a Muslim from Indonesia.
• Barack enrolled in Catholic school in Indonesia as a Muslim student.
• When Obama attended 4th grade in 1971 in a Muslim school , Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion. Barack studied Islam.
• Barack attended at least some friday Mosque prayers with his step father Lolo Soetoro .

--CltFn (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Stop using tags as weapons. Bellwether ^B_C 18:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You're using the tag to try and force unneeded information into an article. Obama does not even practice this religion anymore. If he was still a practicing Muslim then this argument against would be moot, however he does not. HoosierState 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not using the tag as a weapon , I am trying to say that we have a content dispute and this needs to be resolved per Wikipedia policy. Are you saying that there is no content dispute going on here? Why don't you challenge any of the points, which one can you refute? What you are doing is preventing the insertion of this material that you know is true, and why you do this I have no idea. --CltFn (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he never was a practicing Muslim which means that these editing attempts are not merely tendentious, they're in violation of wp:BLP. The whole "Obama used to Muslim" thing has been thoroughly debunked and discussed at length. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well call it what you want , in Islam when a child is born of a Muslim father, he is Muslim. Obama was enrolled in school as Muslim. He went to the Mosque with his step father. So the idea that he never practised Islam is dubious. But I make no judgements here about that , all that is being said are the facts which are listed. Furthermore , the only thing that has been "debunked" are the extreme crazy statements like his step father was a RADICAL Muslim or that Obama attended a radical Madrassa or that today he is a "closet" Muslim. I do not subscribe to such statemenents and that has nothing to do with what the points listed above.--CltFn (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't a muslim by auto-dint of your father's birth. You have to perform several ritual acts before you can be considered a muslim. Read the Islam article including articles of faith and five pillars. People think they can just say whatever they want about Islam and we're all supposed to be prejudiced dopes like them and believe it.Flickharrison (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the rituals weren't required, your argument is still wrong. Somebody could create a religion that claims all of humanity as members, or perhpas it's ritual for acceptance is the act of breathing. Just because the religion says so doesn't mean that we're all followers of that faith.Balderdash707 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. It's been an ad nauseum discussion, and I find the continual tagging of these articles, and attempt to shoehorn in discredited information bordering on (if not already there) disruptive behavior. Bellwether ^B_C 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions that his father was a non-practicing Muslim. It also notes that Obama himself is a Christian, and how he came to that decision. I'm not sure why his family's religious practices or the meaning of his name are important facts. Paisan30 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In Islam , the meaning of a name are very important. If Obama's father did not consider him Muslim why did he give him a highly symbolic Islamic middle name, which you can read all about by looking at Hussein in wikipedia. Why the name Baracka , meaning blessed in Arabic. I guess this would not resonate if one is not acquainted with Middle eastern culture. But that is what wikipedia is for, to bring knowledge to where it is lacking. Though not everyone agrees with that concept.--CltFn (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a non-practicing Muslim father really cares how important names are to other Muslims. Further, how many people still care about the original meanings of names. David means beloved yet who actually names their son that for this reason. You might say that its because of the language difference that the name doesn't mean the same thing anymore but everywhere that Barack has lived, Arabic has not been the main language. Basically a name is a name. I doubt Isaac is picked because people want their child to laugh. Gdo01 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable. His parents gave him his father's own name, as in Jr You've heard of that construction? His father didn't name him independently of his mother in some kind of secret Muslim symbolic rite. Why did Bill Richardson's parents name him William Blaine Richardson, III - is there some kind of hidden WASP message there, trying to deny his Latino heritage by emphasizing his Mayflower side? Seriously, give it up already. Tvoz |talk 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then let it be included in the article then , since according to you there is nothing to it.--CltFn (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• They're not, which has been the point of those of us who have removed the POINT-y tags. Thanks for weighing in, though, as CltFn (wonder what that name stands for?;) ) has been attempting to push through additions, and in lieu of being able to do that, has been adding tags to the article about "neutrality." The mor editors who oppose such POINT-y additions, the better off the article (currently at featured status) will be. Bellwether ^B_C 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not about Obama's current beliefs , its about his religious background and upbringing as a child. The suppresion of information related to Obama's religious background raises serious questions about veracity of this article. If this is were not an issue , then why all the fuss and editorial blockade when simply attempting to include this material in the article, Obama himself is the source for this in his books.--CltFn (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense but you're the one that keeps trying to force this into the article. The orginal user that brought this issue to the talk page has already said they have already given up on this issue. I believe this problem is settled, numerous have spoken against including it. This has already been proven false anyway. HoosierState 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense but i ALSO agree with cltfn this should be added to the article. this artcile is biased badly. --[User:mike71] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.211.157 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Proven false? , which one has been proven false?? I would be interested to know which one of the points listed above is proven false. By the wasy , as I have said several times before this comes from Obama's own books and writings and interviews. Those points are facts, not rumors.--CltFn (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Even still this info does not belong in the infobox. Only need to list his practicing religion, not past ones. HoosierState 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never suggested that the info goes in the infobox , you are confusing me with another editor.--CltFn (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] HoosierState is right about this being settled here. Repeatedly adding the list of particulars is disruptive. You've made your point, we all understand it, but we don't agree with your view. Please let it go already CLtFn. And by the way - your attempt to "subtly" suggest that you're a "Clinton Fan" with your username isn't going to fly either: I do not think you represent her views, would guess that she'd rather not have your kind of support, and wonder if it's not an attempt to smear two for one. Not that dirty tricks are something that anyone would consider using Wikipedia for. Enough already. Tvoz |talk 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been settled, the only thing that has happened is a content blockade by a small group of editors.. The letters CltFn have nothing to do with Clinton , and evidently you are not familiar with my edit history. For your info , my main focus is anti-censorship and anti-polical correctness regardless of ideology, or politics.What drew my attention is the censorship of this topic. --CltFn (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering you're the only one who supports these changes it's all but settled. HoosierState 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Things are not settled just because you say so. Why do you object to this material being presented in the article? If you want things to be settled then let it be presented in the article and we can move on from there. Are you afraid that there might be stigma attached to this that would not look favorably in the article? Is that it?--CltFn (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not I think this is absolutely pointless. And I did not say stop this, the large group of people objecting to this did. You are by far in the minority, thus this issue should be over. Putting this info in the article serves no purpose. By the way I see you've been blocked over 20 times for edit warring and look what we have here. Just stop this already. HoosierState 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked we are having a civil discussion on the talk page. You say that its pointless, yet it appears to be more that than to you , since you are going out of your way to stop its inclusion.--CltFn (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Things are settled, CltFn. The article is a featured article. The material you want to shoehorn in is spurious. You're apparently hoping that the information has a "stigma attached to it." Otherwise, why would you be pushing so hard to force in discredited information? Bellwether ^B_C 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying things are settled, this is a discussion. I don't see that the matter is settled. You have not made a single convincing argument to prove your point, you have not disproven any of the contentions, you have only participated in a content blockade with 2 other editors. --CltFn (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be different it you had other people supporting you're argument but you don't. The majority don't want it included. HoosierState 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

He does have other people supporting him, I support him, it should be included, this article is biased by not including information that is relevant but could hurt him. It doesnt matter if it could hurt him if its true. This isnt a campaign page. [mike71] 4 Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.211.157 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to sugges that the first section of the early life and career be as follows:

• Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at The Queen's Medical Center[9][10] in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Muslim father Baracka Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya, of Luo ethnicity) and Christian mother Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas).[11--CltFn (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Any objections?--CltFn (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Barack not about his parents. HoosierState 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bios of most other political figure or celebrity and the family religious heritage is nearly always mentioned why not in this bio? --CltFn (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because neither really cared much for organized religion leaving Barack to find his own spirituality. Gdo01 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys - This is a presidential election. Is there an intellectual among us that would pretend that a candidate's views on religion are not important. Obama talks about his views (and his mother's) in great detail in his biography. He references the Koran and the Bible (among others) as being on the shelf in his home. He is an intellectual himself with a thorough understanding of Islam and Christianity. If it's a big part of his biography, why is it not a part of this one? I only go back to this issue as it seems that his supporters refuse to look at this issue through a neutral perspective. Look at the comments above. People on this board are actually suggesting that a presidential candidate's family and religious influences (including past practices) are not relevant. Be serious. In this country, where censorship is an extremely bad word, the voters get to hear all and decide what's relevant. As one writer said above, I did not 'give up' on this issue....I just decided that the issue of Neutrality was more important. Frankly, unless I don't understand the rules of Wiki (and I'll admit I am new), it really seems obvious that Neutrality is in fact missing in this article. There is just too much missing (the Islam background being one example) for anyone to believe this article to be anything other than a campaign piece. If a POV issue was not raised in the 10 hours....what is a POV issue? Can someone explain?76.108.82.49 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a presidential campaign in progress is immaterial to Wikipedia and this article and has no bearing on what content should and should not be included. Wikipedia is not a voter's guide and has no obligation to educate voters on a candidate's views. The only obligation Wikipedia has, in the case of biographical articles, is to present a person's history in a manner that is compliant with Wikipedia's policies. There is also a substantial difference between a person's view on religion and claiming that they were raised or influenced by a particular religion when there is no evidence that they were. At best what can be said about Obama's religious upbringing is that his biological father and step-father were raised as Muslims and that his mother was raised by non-religious people, but by the time Barack was born they had either rejected the religion they were raised in (biological father), didn't see a point in religion (step-father), or had not adopted any religion(mother). As far as Islam is concerned, it is a pretty big jump to claim that Obama has a Muslim background, one could claim that he was exposed to Islam thanks to his time in Indonesia and an interest in his biological father, but, yet again, there is no evidence that Barack ever accepted the tenets of Islam or that it has had any influence upon him. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So the suggestion is that we add all eight paragraphs of information so that the article drives home the point that Obama has Muslim relatives? I vote no. The article clearly states that his father was Muslim. Adding more than that seems pointless. Paisan30 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are ok that we alter the first sentence of the the early life and career section to as follows?:

Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at The Queen's Medical Center[9][10] in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Muslim father Baracka Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya, of Luo ethnicity) and Christian mother Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas). --CltFn (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is true Barack Sr. was raised a Muslim, according to Obama's biography, he was an atheist by the time he met his mother. Atheism and Islam are not compatible, so it is difficult to claim he was Muslim. Additionally, it is difficult to claim that Ann Dunham was Christian at the time of Barack's birth. Yet again, according to Obama's biography she was raised by non-religious parents and had not joined an organized religion during his childhood. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not ok that we alter the first sentence in that way - it is misleading, as per Bobblehead's point immediately above. Tvoz |talk 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article already says that his father was a non-practicing Muslim. Paisan30 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The contradictions that are being thrown around are absurd. If the father was an atheist the why does the article say that he was a non-practicing muslim and why did he give his son an Islamic middle name after the prophet Muhammad's grandson? And why did per Obama, the family give him a Muslim burial ceremony? In any case the statement that his father was Muslim is not contested by anyone in the media nor by Obama, strangely enough the only people who are contesting it are a few editors here in wikipedia. By the way where is the source that says that he was an atheist? There is afterall a difference between a "non practicing" muslim and an atheist, that is actually a huge jump to go from a believer to a non-believer.--CltFn (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a misstatement by Paisan30. The article says Senior was raised a Muslim, but was a confirmed atheist by the time he met Ann Dunham. I'm going to go on a limb here and say that Hussein is Obama's middle name because his parents named him after his father, nothing more, nothing less. My middle name is the name of a Catholic saint, that doesn't mean that I was named after the saint and it doesn't mean my parents were Catholic. As far as Senior's burial... Senior was dead at the time, it's not like he was involved in the planning of his funeral. Senior's family was Muslim, so it's not surprising that they would have the funeral reflect their religion. You're using some very tortured logic here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK while we are on the topic , would you explain why Obama said that he was enrolled in school as a Muslim because it was his birth father's religion?--CltFn (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was based on his step-father's religion, not on his biological father's religion, who was a non-practicing Muslim. I notice that you are focusing on him being registered as a Muslim for 2 years while attending one of the best secular public schools in Indonesia, why are you ignoring the fact that he also attended 2 years of Catholic school and was registered as Catholic while there... Just because his school's required that he register as a religion, it does not mean that he actually was that religion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

errata: BO was registered in the Catholic school as a Muslim, solely because his stepfather (head of family) was Muslim. Both BO (per his comment in one of his memoirs about peeking during Christian prayer -- mandatory for children of all faiths attending the Catholic school -- and not seeing any angels) and his mother (per Obama's memoir, a declared secularist with only an anthropologist's interest in religion; per Obama's sister, an "agnostic"(mother, not sister); per her best friend in college, an "outspoken atheist") seem to have been sceptics at the time. Though BO has fibbed about this, saying he was always a Christian because he was raised by his mother, a "Christian from Kansas" ("coffee shop" interview during SC primary -- MSNBC, I think). RS available for all this. I'm not watching this page, so drop me a line if you want cites. Andyvphil (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry-- the article says that his father was RAISED Muslim, but did not practice the faith. To me, that says that he's a non-practicing Muslim... but I guess the article doesn't say it in those words. My parents are devout Catholics and gave me the middle name "Paul". I assume they had Paul the Apostle in mind when they named me, but I am 100% atheistic in my religious beliefs. In fact, I don't even consider the possibility that Paul the Apostle was actually inspired by a supernatural Being. Point being, I don't think that the names one is given by one's parents should be dissected in a biography piece. Paisan30 (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, CltFn, the "few editors" in fact represent a pretty widely held consensus. In any event, what you're looking for is Undue Weight. People have pointed out that some of the "facts" you cite are not exactly right (as discussed at length above). But we don't even have to reach that issue - the basic, verifiable information under discussion here is already in the article. The question is whether it is something that should be emphasized in the (in my view misleading) way that you suggest. The answer is no. The consensus view of most editors is that doing so would introduce WP:POV into the article - that the only reason to do as you suggest is to make some political point. We could argue about the validity of the point you'd like to make, but we don't have to - Wikipedia isn't the place to make a point. --TheOtherBob 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors can always find reasons why content that is unpalatable to their POV should not be included in Wikipedia, it does not change the basic facts about Obama's childhood. He was born of a Muslim father, given a Muslim name , he was enrolled as a Muslim in school in Indonesia, studied the Koran while Christian kids studied the bible and prayed at the Mosque with his step father, as a Muslim boy. Those facts cannot be changed by omitting them from the article.--CltFn (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• And you can attempt to force in your POV about how things should look in this article all you want. It's not happening. Too many good-faith editors (both Republican and Democrat) will not let it stand. This article did not get to FA status by people letting their POVs dictate the content, as you accuse. It received that status because of good-faith editors from accross the political spectrum worked together to make certain it was both well-written, and complied with BLP. You can continue your bad-faith accusations against the multiple editors who have opposed your POV changes, but it will not change the consensus. The sooner you deal with that fact, the better off we'll all be. -- Bellwether ^B_C 13:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to force a POV. I am simply trying to present all the facts , not just the ones that may appeal you or other like minded editors. The article would be much better served if we had a unfettered presentation of sourced information. At some point you will have to come to terms with this. You simply cannot block the presentation of information just because you have the support of a small group fellow travellers. --CltFn (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that those are not true statements. Many people are exposed to different religions as children. However, that is irrelevant, as Obama is a Christian and was never a Muslim. oncePaisan30 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here again , its a matter of point of view, in Islam for instance if Obama's father was Muslim , then he is Muslim. If Obama prayed at a Mosque, then he is Muslim, and if he ever recited the Muslim declaration of faith in Allah at the Mosque, and I suspect he would have, then he is Muslim. I suspect that in Muslim schools or Catholic school if Obama was enrolled as a Muslim student then the staff might just have considered Obama to be a Muslim. None of this means that today he is a Muslim , it just means that during his childhood period he was raised a Muslim, born of a Muslim father. Technically in Islam Obama would be considered a Murtad Fitri, a Muslim born apostate who has abandoned Islam in favor of another faith. That is the Islamic POV. Now its quite probable that in today's highly charged American political campaigns , that an association with Islam is not perceived as the greatest asset for a candidate , thus there may be an effort to distance Obama's basic life story line from anything to do with Islam. But whatever the conclusions people make , the points I listed at the top of this section are simple facts. It would make an interesting article to include all this stuff in it , but it appears that some are not quite ready to digest such inconvenient facts.--CltFn (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I am certainly not a supporter of Obama's presidential candidacy. I simply don't think that his family's religious activity during his childhood - or lack thereof - is relevant to his bio. I doubt you've gone to such lengths to document Hillary Clinton's record of attendance at Methodist services as a child, or give more than a cursory mention to John McCain's decision to attend Baptist services rather than Episcopalian (as an adult). Paisan30 (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Wikipedia article Shahadah, reciting it without internal acceptance would not make Obama a Muslim. Wouldn't be surprised if it was some sort of crime under Sharia, but it wouldn't be apostasy. And there's some business about having to be 15 years old... Anyway, this is a subject for a spinout article on Obama's religion, its representation and misrepresentation, and its affect on his candidacy, etc., rather than much treatment here. But the kernel for that article got deleted as a POVFORK, twice, I think. Andyvphil (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll make this simple: what you "suspect" doesn't matter in the context of this article. Your POV doesn't matter in the context of this article. This article has reached featured status. Had it included your suggestions, it would not be so. -- Bellwether ^B_C 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well.. I'm saying most of those are not true statements, but I'm not saying CltFn is lying, because I'm quite sure he believes what he's saying, he's just misinformed. Barack Obama Sr. was not Muslim, he was atheist. Whether or not the name has "Muslim" origins means about as much as mine having French origins (That would be it means nothing). Obama was named after his biological father and that's as far as it goes. Obama never attended a Muslim school. He attended a public school for two years where most of the children attending the school were Muslim. You can't call that a Muslim school unless you start calling public schools in the US Christian schools. There isn't any evidence that Obama went to the mosque with his step-father. The only evidence that he even entered a mosque is a childhood friend saying Obama went to Friday prayers at a mosque near his home a couple of times because the other kids in the neighborhood went and Obama wanted to play with them. The friend does not mention Obama going with his step-father. The only mention of Obama going into the mosque with his step-father was to attend community events. Attending a bingo night (or the equivalent) in a church does not make one Christian, so why would going into a Mosque to attend a community event make one Muslim. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Later, the source of the "Obama went to the Mosque" statement (Zulfin Adi) said in a Chicago Tribune article that 1. He only knew Obama for a few months and 2. He "wasn't certain" whether he ever saw Obama go to the Mosque. johnpseudo 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Barker piece is pretty bad jounalism. He says Adi "has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro" (a apparent falsehood - I can't find any instance of Adi being quoted saying that) then "told the Tribune he was not certain about that when pressed about his recollections".(emphasis added, both times) This is regularly cited as Adi impeaching his testimony that he had prayed with Obama and seen him go to the mosque with his father,[1] but it is nothing of the sort: It's Adi saying he can't support an assertion ("regularly") he's never made. And his sister didn't say Lolo only went for the bingo. The quote is "My father never went to prayer services except for big communal events. I am absolutely certain that he did not go to services every Friday."[2] Andyvphil (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Barack's sister said that he did go to the mosque but only for rare communal events.If you parse that correctly it means that he did go to the Mosque does it not? Or does that really mean that he was really going there to be baptised perhaps--CltFn (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• You've really shown your true colors with this post. Perhaps if one has to "parse that correctly" to ascertain some hidden meaning, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Please stop now. -- Bellwether ^B _C 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this article should ask whether he was going in to get baptised? No evidence has been produced to support such a claim, so speculating on it is pointless and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Paisan30 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No I was suggesting that Barack's sister seems to have made the point in a circuituous way that he did go the Mosque and I was wondering was sort of rebuttal would be offered to this.--CltFn (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

CltFn, what's your point? He's entered a mosque before. Whooptie-freaking-do. I've been in the places of worship of many religions, it doesn't mean I converted to those religions upon entry. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)I'm sorry to say this CltFn, but that statement is a little absurd. It doesn't matter if you're Republican, Democrat, or Moonie - you cannot use Wikipedia to push any point of view. You're resorting now to the argument that NPOV doesn't exist, or that the concept of "rules" is just unworkable. Sorry, no go. We have rules, and NPOV is one of them (perhaps the most important of them). You should respect that, and stop trying to push your point of view through Wikipedia. --TheOtherBob 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everything said above. There isn't much more I can add to the argument against this. HoosierState 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention: Regarding the above section

The user who made the above section has an extremely long history of violations of Wikipedia policy (See Block Log). We as Wikipedians do not have to tolerate people using out site to spread out political smears (See WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE). Having taken into account the long-term abuse by this user which dates back to 2005 I as an administrator have indefinitely blocked his editing privileges. I ask all users who regularly contribute to this article to leave me a note if such activity continues on this or related articles so that the proper action can be taken. Thank you and good day.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thus truth was silenced because no one wanted to here her.(208.61.109.241 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Poisoning the well fallacy-- the above section merits inclusion into the article. What are you trying to protect about Obama? State the facts of his upbringing, just the facts...of which you want to keep hidden. So much for "NPOV" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Paisan30 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The "facts" as you call them are only your spin on the actual facts. The facts of Obama's life are out there. Nothing is hidden. It's just not spun in a way that some would like it to be. -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fallacy you're looking for is ad hominem - "poisoning the well" is a special case of argument ad hominem that occurs prior to the remainder of the conversation, such as "before I let Joe get up to speak, I'd like to remind you that he's a convicted felon and shouldn't be trusted." In any event, this is neither - it's a notification to those editing here that they no longer have to deal with a repeated tendentious editor and POV-warrior. No one cares what his (or your) point of view may be...this just isn't the place to express it. (And, yes, we know that you just want to add *cough* "facts"...carefully laid out to express your point of view... Come on, man, we've been through this - you can read the whole thing above.) --TheOtherBob 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again Bob, it was a poisoning the well fallacy. And wrong again Bob, I want facts, not point of view. And wrong again Bob...(ad infinitum)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)

The actual facts do deserve to be mentioned though:
He went to a public school in Indonesia rumored but proven not to be a madrassa. Then he said that politicians owe America better.
Without the first part it would be:
Then he said that politicians owe America better.
Anynobody 06:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, per undue weight. Wikipedia is not a rumor depository. Just because someone claimed something doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Especially with the weasely wording "rumored but not proven." -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any facts to include, just a smear all around. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• You know there's a Wikipedia article on the poisoning the well fallacy, right?...that it's possible to look it up? When you do, you'll note a temporal aspect - that it has to occur prior to the opinion expressed. Here the alleged *cough* "ad hominem" occurred after. So, well, sorry, but you're just flat wrong. (Oh, I know that's all totally irrelevant, and I may be violating WP:DBAD by noting your error, but we can at least be accurate.) To the rest - no, you want POV. You can call it "facts" and ignore Undue Weight, like your...counterpart...CltFn did ad infinitum above - it's still your POV that you want to add, and that's not permitted here. Sorry. --TheOtherBob 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, respectfully undue weight would be mentioning the Insight article without including the CNN/NY Times articles proving it wrong. So obviously that particular rule is not in jeopardy of being violated. You also said: weasely wording "rumored but not proven." This is incorrect, I said The rumors proved false and cited NY Times and CNN sources saying so.

Bobblehead There are facts to report:

• It is a fact that Insight wrote an article the day after he announced looking into starting a campaign talking about a "madrassa" he supposedly attended as a kid. (It turned out there info was based on rumor rather than fact)
• It is a fact that the allegations made in the article were proven wrong, NY Times, CNN

TheOtherBob I'm actually not like many editors who are unwilling to discuss their errors. In this case though I fail to see an error on my part, using reliable sources, (which are verifiable by the links I've included) only the facts are discussed. Anynobody 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(PS this wasn't part of my post) Anynobody 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - from the way the comments flowed I took you to be the same person as the anon above. (I thought you had just not signed in before). It actually makes a pretty big difference, because the edits you're proposing are narrower in scope and less POV than those the earlier anon (and CltFn) seemed to propose. I originally took your edits to be part of their POV exercise, but they seem to be something much different. My apologies. So to the edit you propose? Well, I'm not sure we need to dignify the whole madrassa thing by including it here, because I'm not sure if it was a notable enough event - but I'd be open to the type of brief mention you propose if other editors were. I wonder, though, if we need to put it into some sort of context - any thoughts on that? --TheOtherBob 22:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Early life and career section I think the school should be identified as an Indonesia public school and that Indonesia should be identified as a majority Muslim nation.Nathanael101 (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should every story about a person educated in American public schools mention that the United States is a majority Christian nation? Paisan30 (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not. That the comparison isn't very apt should be obvious. If Obama was named Joe Smith and had went to school in Kansas and was running for president in Indonesia and this was an Indonesian website and if most Indonesians couldn't locate the United States on a map, then yes, I would mention that the United States is a majority Christian nation. The main point is that Barack Obama has had more personal exposure to Islam than the average American or than the other candidates. This can be read positively or negatively. It shouldn't be the editors place to assume a negative reading and so omit the information. I don't think my suggestion is the best solution but the two oblique references to his "atheist" father and non-religious step-father seem to skirt the issue. The very fact that it is such a sensitive topic should be acknowledged in some way in the article without giving it that dread undue weight.Nathanael101 (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Note that Nathanael101's only edits have been in a sandbox and entering into dispute at this talkpage.) Now, following your hypothetical, then, how in the world would noting that the U.S. is a "majority Christian nation" be relevant at all to "Joe Smith's" Indonesian Wikipedia article? Answer: it wouldn't. Neither does the fact that Indonesia is a "majority Muslim nation" have any place in this article either. It's designed only to inflame anti-Islam passions. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TheOtherBob don't worry about the misunderstanding, were I in your shoes it's likely I'd of made the same mistake. (I don't make a habit of double checking people's posts.)

Back to the madrassa bullshit, that's what it is IMHO but it's become extremely notable by virtue of the media response. Feeding Frenzy For a Big Story, Even if It's False discusses the especially notable aspect of the whole thing, the fact that big news like Fox messed up and went ahead to report incorrect information. (Kinda like Rathergate and CBS in 2004). As long as the message is complete the only people who look bad are the ones who reported a rumor, certainly not Obama. (Also the Clinton angle is worth mentioning, given the dismissal of those two aides for essentially perpetuating the original story.) Anynobody 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I could get on board with that approach. I think there's another article currently being considered for deletion that covers some of this material, though - how much we include here might depend on the outcome of that, of course. --TheOtherBob 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nota bene. --HailFire (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with TheOtherBob what is discussed will depend on the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy. My last version was based on the continued existence of said article.

HailFire, if I understand your argument it's based on two premises. The first being that stuff from before Feb 2007 should be excluded, the second that we should hold off because there will be more to report in the future. My counterpoint to the first is that we really should use the subject as a boundary rather than a set timeframe. The media perceived that Insight's article was timed for and meant to affect Obama's decision to run, meaning that it does fit under the subject of his candidacy. The second premise is actually a sort of false dilemma, you may not be aware of it but we're actually not bound by such concerns for several reasons. Primarily because it's understood that information could change at anytime and if it does there is room to accommodate the new as well as old. I expect that you're right, and there will be more to discuss before the campaign ends, however there is no limit to the amount of notable information that can be included. (It turns into more of an organization problem than one of size, by organizing extremely detailed info into spin off articles. Anynobody 00:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Barack Obama's name. In general Muslims do not name a child the exact name of the parent. It is considered a form of ancestral worship forbidden by the Qu’ran. You rarely if ever find a “senior,” “junior,” designation in Muslim nomenclature.

Most often children will be given their own first name. Some Muslim communities go so far as to dictate that no other living relative may carry that same first name. Thus allowing for a kind of individual ownership of the name within the family. The middle name most often will be first name of the child’s father, even if the child is a girl. This identifies them as the child of so and so, through male lineage. The last name of course is the family surname (which according to Muslim tradition girls may keep when they marry).

So if the person is named Fatimah Abdullah Shaikh, you will know that her father is Abdullah. Likewise, Muhammad Mustafa Khan, indicates that his fathers is named Mustafa.

The fact that Barack Hussein Obama carries the exact same name, in the same order as his father strongly suggests that the father was not a practicing Muslim at the time of the junior Obama’s birth. It further suggests that his father was very westernized and just adopted the very western nomenclature of naming his son after him. Nothing religious in how Barack was given his name at all. Bcc cindy (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

CltFn, you seriously need to get over your erroneous anti-Muslim bias. The "fact" that Obama's father was a "practicing Muslim" at the time of Barack's birth has been thoroughly discredited . . . he was non-practicing and atheistic. If you knew anything about Islam, this is considered apostasy and in extremist circles such as Wahhabism is punishable by death. Now, putting this aside for a second, I'd like you to admit that your attempts to insert the canard of Barack and Islam is nothing more than an attempt to appeal to the post-9/11 anti-Islamic climate in America in order to tarnish the character of a man who stands a decent chance of being elected President. You're transparent.Scientz (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm viewing this from the UK, and this section on the one above seem bizarre to say the least. Being impartial (well relatively so) I read the comment "Wikpedia does not care if he is running for the office of the president" (or a statement to that effect) - this is simply wrong in my view. I for one I came to wikipedia on this matter to have a look at his background *because he is running for president". Excluding information on his upbringing is stupidity surely? CltFn does appear to have a questionable editing history, but if they are facts, then I can't see a reason not to have them on the page. What is anti-muslim and what is anti-muslim is for the reader to decide not you editors. Your job (as I see it) is to insure the article is accurate and relevant, and looking at the comments CltFn made (which I can of course see why you have concerns) they do fit here (if and only if they have valid references of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As an intellectual property lawyer, I must caution that there is a genuine and reasonable legal concern arising from this discussion. Specifically, it has now been fairly thoroughly documented on debunking websites such as Snopes.com that Obama has only ever practiced Christianity, and was never a Muslim, and there was never any basis for any person to assert that Obama was a Muslim. Because the misinformation appears to have been published by persons trying to damage Obama, this gives rise to a cause of action for defamation of character (possibly even a fraud claim brought by third parties deceived into believing the misinformation). Although Obama is a public figure, and higher standards apply, the lack of foundation for these claims might be found to raise them to the level of actual malice required for a lawsuit to be founded on defamation of a public figure. In short, it would be a very, very bad idea to include these claims in any context except to note that they have been documented as untrue. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add to the above that I have researched this issue thoroughly, and have in fact worked on several defamation cases in the past, including defamation cases brought against public figures. Cheers again! bd2412 T 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about defamation cases brought by public figures? Won any of those? ... Andy Martin threatened to sue me and Wikipedia when I asked him if his original press release about Obama was available online, but he would have lost. ... Given the political demographic here, and the visibility of this page, the idea that anything actionable directed against Obama will survive more than a few minutes is absurd. Now, BLP pretends to higher goals but it's main purpose is to prevent legal exposure for Wikipedia. The idea that we need to go beyond policy in order to protect Wikipedia from suit by such an unlikely source as Obama would not be well founded. The real problem, IMHO, is the number of editors (and more importantly, journalists) who, faced with Katie Couric's question "Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?" and convinced that the answer ought to be yes, but knowing that the answer may be no, decide to be less than forthcoming about the truth. Which is, among other things, is that Obama probably did learn Muslim ritual and recite surahs at school, and went through the motions of Muslim prayer at both school and mosque, albeit "not seriously" or with much internal belief. Does that mean he was a "practicing Muslim"? No. But it's an answer to the question "was Obama a practicing Muslim?" that doesn't attempt to conceal, mislead or obstructively minimize. Andyvphil (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Race Problem

The US Census 2000, for the first time of any census, gave Americans the choice of choosing two or more races in Question 6 ("What is this person's race?"). According to Elizabeth M. Grieco and Rachel C. Cassidy. (US Census Bureau. March 2001. "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: Census 2000 Brief", US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, Washington DC 20233.)

"People who responded to the question on race (in Census 2000) by indicating only one race are referred to as the race alone population, or the group that reported only one race category. Six categories make up this population:

• White alone;
• Black or African American alone;
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone;
• Asian alone
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone; and
• Some other race alone

Individuals who chose more than one of the six race categories are referred to as the Two or more races population, or as the group that reported more than one race. All respondents who indicated more than one race can be collapsed into

• Two or more races category,

which combined with the six alone categories, yields seven mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. Thus, the six race alone categories and the Two or more races category sum to the total population."

Obama is a biracial American. He has been described so in the media, including in the latest newspaper endorsement—from the Chicago Sun-Times—that he garned today. Please also see the numerous citations in the section above (from some of the world's best-known English language newspapers) that describe him as such. There is nothing "POV" about these newspaper articles; the authors span the gamut: black and white, male and female, conservative and liberal, straight and gay, and American and international.

For any American citizen, but especially for biracial Americans, the US Census Bureau gives the choice of self-identifying as "Two or more races" category. That Obama is described by the US Senate Historical Office as the fifth African American senator, is the result of the self-identification—Black or African American alone—and not "Two or more races" category. This needs to be explained, otherwise, the lead doesn't add up. For this reason, I have changed the sentence in the lead to:

“ A biracial American¹ who self-identifies² as African American, Obama is listed by the U.S. Senate Historical Office as the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, the third to have been popularly elected, and the only African American currently serving in the Senate. ”

References:

1. Scott, Janny. "A Biracial Candidate Walks His Own Fine Line". The New York Times, December 29, 2007.
2. Grieco, Elizabeth M. and Rachel C. Cassidy. March 2001. "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: Census 2000 Brief", US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, Washington DC 20233.

I feel this is a WP:RS and WP:NPOV (to use the canned Wikpedia simplifications I detest) resolution of the problem. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your synthesizing of primary sources is interesting reading, but it will not change the content of this article. -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which source above do you consider primary? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• The census briefs. You synthesize their contents to come to your own conclusion. That's the definition of OR. -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The census briefs are not primary sources! It is an analysis of primary data by two econometricians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• The census briefs are an extension of the census itself, which is specifically listed here as "primary sources." -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the census itself collected primary data, but the brief is a report that analyzed that data and was published a year later in March 2001. Here is the beginning of the first paragraph: "This is a report, part of a series that analyzes population and housing data collected in Census 2000, provides a portrait of race and Hispanic origin in the United States and discusses their distributions at the national level." Neither the brief, nor the NYT feature article are primary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• The brief is an extension of the census. It's a primary source. And your analysis and synthesis of both primary and secondary sources (which the NYT qualifies as) is become tedious. -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, but you don't really think that the brief is the only source out there? Here are three that are bona fide journal articles:

• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference

The first source says the same thing that the census brief does. There is also a vast public health literature on ethnicity in the US, since different racial groups have different health risks. Notice the title of the second paper above, "Race/Ethnicity and the 2000 Census: Recommendations for African American and Other Black Populations in the United States." Obama, from a public health perspective, belongs to the other black population, not "African Americans," a term which is reserved for descendants of people who survived the middle passage and slavery and who, sadly have greater health risks. You might find this tedious, but this what reliable secondary sources are about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

F&F, it's time to let this subject drop. Your synthesis of original research is not going to alter the fact that Barack Obama is considered to be an African American by himself and a majority of Americans and none of the sources that you have provided in this section can be used to support a claim that Obama is not African American. You seem to have a rather strong POV on whether or not Obama can be classified as an African American and I'm concerned that it is affecting your ability to comply with Wikipedia's policies on Neutral Point of View and No Original Research (particularly WP:SYN) in regards to this topic. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Although, you keep accusing me of saying he is not African American, the edit I made in the article, didn't say that, but rather explained how he came to be African American, given that he is biracial and is characterized as such by many sources, including the 14 newspaper articles (cited above) from some of the world's best-known newspapers. Again: those newspaper articles are not saying that he is not African American, but simply that he is biracial. In other words, they make the case that referring to Obama as biracial does not violate WP:NPOV or WP:NOR.
• "... Barack Obama is considered to be an African American by himself and a majority of Americans" Need I remind you that Wikipedia relies solely on reliable sources, not what a majority of Americans think. But you are off the mark there in any case. The majority of Americans do think that he his biracial (and in fact, not African American). Here is are results of the Williams/Zogby Poll: Americans' Attitudes Changing Towards Multiracial Candidates (December 20, 2006), "More than half (55 percent) of whites classified Obama as biracial after being told that Obama’s mother is white and his Kenyan father is black. Likewise, 61 percent of Hispanics also saw Obama as biracial, the Williams Identity Survey conducted by Zogby International shows. The Zogby Interactive survey polled 2,155 adults from Nov. 1-2, 2006. The poll contained a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points. For blacks, the Obama candidacy is viewed differently as the Illinois Democrat cannot escape the nation’s past racial history. Sixty-six percent of blacks that responded to the interactive poll classified Obama as black."
• "You seem to have a rather strong POV on whether or not Obama can be classified as an African American and I'm concerned that it is affecting your ability to comply with Wikipedia's policies on Neutral Point of View and No Original Research (particularly WP:SYN) in regards to this topic." I would refrain from making patronizing comments like these. As I have repeatedly mentioned above, the only reason why I am editing this page is that I have an interest in FAs (and this article is one). If your remarks are preparation for leaving a warning on my page for a trumped-up charge of trolling, I would advise you to discuss the matter with someone neutral like FAC director user:Raul654, whose judgment in these matters I respect, and have him explain my error to me.
• In your revert of my edit you talked about the consensus reached on this talk page. I would like to remind you again, that while a consensus is important, it does not take precedence over reliable sources, and that there is such a thing as a consensus in error. For example, the consensus here presumably included the assent of user:Bellwether BC, didn't seem to understand (above) that a published analysis of primary data (viz Census 2000) is not called "primary," whether it is called a "census brief" or not. The consensus likely also included you yourself, who made the surprising assertion above that the practice of linking of the term "African American" to slavery is consequent to the advent of Barack Obama on the political scene; this, when, at a whim, I can bring up a dozen peer-reviewed journal articles, written long before Obama showed any political stirrings, which make precisely such a connection. As I indicate above, the field of Public Health is full of literature in which "African American" refers precisely to the descendants of slaves. I will, of course, not revert in the same summary fashion that you have done and observe the 1RR rule that I observe in Wikipedia edits.
• All I am suggesting is that the sentence explain how Barack Obama came to be African American," given that he is biracial and given that the Census 2000 gave all Americans the choice of "Two races" category. There is no synthesis of original research here; the edit I have made: "A biracial American who self-identifies as African American" simply provides a level of detail that is expected in a featured article, in light of the confusing label "African American." Every bit of my addition, including the entire phrase itself, is supported by secondary sources. Neither user:Bellwether BC, nor user:Bobblehead has provided correct explanations of why what I have said constitutes WP:OR (including WP:SYN). If all they will provide are repetitions of Wikipedia rules, without explaining where exactly the rules have been broken, I shall be forced to request an RfC here. (And please don't see this even remotely as a threat.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• No matter how we "see" it, it is a "threat." You're saying, "Either include my version, or I RfC it." That's a threat, pure and simple. No one supports you, so you threaten to waste our time on an RfC. -- Bellwether ^B_C 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please RfC it. An article RfC is a good thing; it brings more attention to the issues at hand, and the whole point of open source anything is that more eyes are better. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. You aren't getting anywhere with the editors currently on the article, perhaps you will have more luck with the community at large. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please expound upon your racist and/or politically motivated arguments to the community at large. Nobody has anything better to do and their is no better use of everybody else's time. 71.178.149.105 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me rather a waste of time to argue about whether Obama is X, Y, Z, or whatever, based on any source whatsoever, including his own self-identification. Wikipedia:How_many_legs_does_a_horse_have?. If we have reliable sources that say he's X, Y, Z, or whatever, then quote whatever they say, cite, and move on. IMHO we'll probably wind up with several different cited opinions on this, and that would be a good thing. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that actually is very perceptive, and especially appropriate not just for Obama, but for politicians in general, who thrive on whatever people make of them. So, just as Hillary Clinton (the girl from Wilmette, or is it Winnetka) is now a New Yorker who can put on her best Southern drawl when on the pulpit of the Ebenezer Baptist in the Great City of the South, Obama (a biracial citizen of the Kenyan-Kansas variety, with no links to the middle passage or slavery), can turn up at the funeral of Rosa Parks and credit Ms. Parks—by her act of iconic defiance in the front of the bus—with instantly rescuing his parents' interracial marriage from social ostracism, when, it turns out, all along, his parents were married four years later. I am happy to change the proposed edit below to something that conforms to your suggestion. Whether it escapes the gimlet eye of the self-appointed guardians of this page, remains to be seen. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's good that you continue to post here. Your anger and bias becomes more blatantly obvious with every word you type. (See your nonsense (and it is nonsense) about "Obama (a biracial citizen of the Kenyan-Kansas variety, with no links to the middle passage or slavery.) -- Bellwether ^B_C 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anger? You are the one who seems angry. Might I suggest that you lighten up. I was being both facetious and ironical in replying to user:Writtenonsand and at the same time both agreeing with her/him and making a general point about the incongruities of politics. The discourse here would be more productive if you pointed out inaccuracies rather than reacted with canned hysterics ("nonsense," WP:I'mmortified). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PS There's nothing inaccurate in what I said. All has been said by others before in reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that a Kenyan-Kansan is not an African-American but if in medical health jargon Obama is not African-American, but instead "other black" (and no one has questioned this, bad faith accusations of OR and other obstructive and faulty Wikilawyering aside) I can't see the objection to a terse clarification, which F&F has provided. Assertions that there is a consensus against his clarification are bogus. Andyvphil (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

...on the other hand, the health jargon doesn't seem to have impacted the African American article, unless a quick glance misses something. F&F, wouldn't you do better to fix the root rather than one of the twigs? My jaundiced view of the bogus Wikilawyering employed against you is unchanged, but my suggestion is you get something in there first. Andyvphil (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidley & Austin

The name of the law firm where Barack Obama and Michelle Obama met is "Sidley Austin" not "Sidley & Austin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.40.53 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I made the change. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is obscure - but was it ""Sidley & Austin" at the time they met? And, importantly, would that even matter? (I have no idea...never come across this issue before...) --TheOtherBob 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Going purely off the article and this source[3], it was known as Sidley & Austin at the time of Obama's employment. The company renamed to Sidley Austin, LLC in 2006.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia article, current Sidley Austin, LLP is result of 2001 merger of Sidley & Austin and other firm whose name has since been dropped. So I've restored '88 name, S&A. Andyvphil (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion Contradiction

Profile states religion as 'Muslim' while article states 'Obama is himself a devout Christian'. I'm almost certain the latter is true.

Philpill (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Which profile says he is Muslim? I did find an oddly placed sentence in the "Early life" section that inaccurately said his father was Muslim and mentioned Obama being a devout Christian. Considering the section is about Obama's early life and Obama's father was not Muslim then and Obama was not a devout christian at that point in time, I've removed the sentence. Does that resolve the contradiction you saw? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I figured out what you were talking about. The article was vandalized by another editor, but the change has been reverted, so we're all good now. Thanks for identifying the issue. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be emphasized more than Obama is a Christian. I've had several people swear to me that he's a muslim and that he said he's a muslim. This needs to be cleared up once and for all, perhaps even being mentioned a top the page. 74.140.239.213 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

People are stupid, and emphasizing his religion is stupid, given that it is not a major emphasis of his campaign. Just because people are stupid doesn't mean we need to emphasize that they're wrong at the top of the page; it should be in the article where it is appropriate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, the fact that Obama is a Christian, and that religion is the basis of a major false (indeed potentially defamatory) smear against Obama raises the profile of this element of his personal history. bd2412 T 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Leading candidate (again)

This article (like Hillary Rodham Clinton) -again-, should have leading removed. Neither Obama or Clinton have a large enough gap between them. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Be bold and remove it. At such time he becomes the clear leader, it can be put back in. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning? Obama and Clinton are practically tied. If any candidate needed leading in their article? it would be Republican frontrunner John McCain (but don't add it there either). GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokers, I can't find it to remove it. There's too much confusion on the editing page. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this - both articles correctly say "a leading candidate", not "the leading candidate". There is a clear and obvious difference between those two constructions. As I said when GoodDay said this on the Clinton talk page, removing "a" ignores that the Democratic race has narrowed down from eight to two, each of which is a leading candidate. The lack of gap between them is irrelevant, as is McCain. Please don't remove it. Tvoz |talk 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh (sorry Al Gore), all right then. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The article "a" does make all the difference. I should have looked at this more closely before making my earlier comment. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• GoodDay tries every few days to remove this descriptor from both the Obama and Clinton articles. I don't think anyone really knows why. Bellwether ^B_C 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Super Duper Tuesday results would discourage the usage of a leading. But I'm fine with it now. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"A leading" would have made good sense last week for either Clinton or Obama; however, with only two candidates remaining, it is now redundant. More generally, "a leading" applied to a candidate X, implies that candidate X is one of a group of "leaders." That, in turn, in logical terms, presupposes a group of "stragglers." However, the set of stragglers is now empty. Alternatively, saying that Clinton or Obama is each "a leading candidate" is logically equivalent to saying, "Clinton and Obama are together the leaders in the field of candidates." But that field doesn't have any one else. In other words, "a leading" applied to one candidate in a field of two, is equivalent to applying "the leading" to a field of one. And that, most people will agree, is redundant. The sentence should be changed to "one of two remaining candidates." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel is still in and he has a section on the MSNBC delegate scoreboard ... ;)--Tombomp (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He has a snowballs shot in hell (or worse) of winning, or even finishing second. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely; I was just showing that the set of stragglers is in fact not empty --Tombomp (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Malia's birthday

Most articles on the Obama children list Malia's birthday as 4 July 1999. I believe this is wrong and that her correct birthday is 4 July 1998, as evidenced by several articles from their campaign in Iowa, which stated that she turned 9 on 7 July 2007. Eg, http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/07/sweet_iowa_july_4th_blog_speci.html

90% of the other references to her birthday seem to be copies and miscopies of 1999, apparently from Wikipedia.

Manumoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manumoka (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to sound rude, but who cares? This is an encyclopedia article, not an obituary. Actually even obituaries, don't have exact dates of children's birth. How about other luminaries like Einstein, Gandhi, or Freud, does Wikipedia have exact dates of their children's birth? Unlikely, I think. It is enough to say, "The year 1999 saw the birth of ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I just realized, you are talking about the year. Sorry. Please correct the year, but throw out the day and month. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

More apologies! :) Apparently, Einstein's first son's actual date of birth is mentioned (but not the second's). So, you be the judge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is generally preferred to only include the year on living people that are not notable except for their relation to their parents. Heck, in many cases the name of the children are not listed in articles, just that a son or daughter was born in a certain year.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

disambig/delete...

baruch needs disambig Randomblue (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Any other common misspellings worth tracking down? TheodoreTest (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Present vote criticism

There is a section that mentions that he has been criticized by pro-choice people for his present votes on critical legislation. What is not mentioned is that the citation used for this fact states outright that this criticism is baseless. This convenient omission is clear POV. The article is locked now, so I cannot make the correction needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.209.253 (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that the text of the article makes it seem like Obama literally voted "no" on some bills that might be characterized as "pro-choice." Or, in an alternative reading, he voted "no" on some bills that might be characterized as "pro-life." Neither of these claims are supported by the source. What the source does make clear, and the article doesn't mention, is that "present" votes, under the rules of the Illinois State Senate, have the same effect as a "no" vote. I'm an Obama supporter, so it would be inappropriate for me to edit the article. The text "for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues" should be changed to "for a series of "present" votes, which have the same effect as "no" votes in the Illinois State Senate, on late-term abortion and parental notification issues."Mawginty (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find this section problematic. I just talked to a friend today who had decided against voting for Obama because of the biased information in this section. Fn 38 even links to an article debunking this voting "present" issue. Why is the article locked for editing? It is not objective in the least. 75.73.12.37 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Denis (11 Feb 08)

The article is locked so that only established editors can make changes. This is due to repeated vandalism. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No citation of Iowa victory and his speech there

That was a speech broadcast world wide. Many newspapers around the world translated it and put it in 2nd or 3rd page. That speech reborned JFK spirit inside of many people on internet. I vote to mean it as an "historial speech", of course in his political career, and may discuss in political history. --213.97.224.11 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of his refusal to wear flag lapel pins? If we want to present both sides of the issue, fine. But it bears discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"both sides of the issue"? Which issue? Do politics need a pin to tell great speeches? Sorry, but i didnt understand that reply, since i guess it was out of frame on this discussion. May be, are you meaning that wikipedia is only for americans? (of course my-this was out of this frame) Anyway, i wanted to put on discussion one fact, Obama was unknowed for the world until that Iowa speech. And may be, time will say us that we will need a single wiki-page for describe that speech.--213.97.224.11 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for it being out of context, but in case there was any confusion, I was referring to the flag pin issue. The implication that Wikipedia is only for Americans or that it is expected that a politician wear flag is of course horrifying, but also irrelevant. The fact is that Senator Obama is running for the highest executive office in the United States of America. I don’t wish for this to become a debate in and of itself, but I think what caused the stir was his remark that wearing a pin becomes a substitute for “true patriotism.” Both the Chicago Sun Times (who endorsed him) and the New York Daily News took him to task in editorials on 10/5/07 which anyone is free to pursue. The point really isn’t whether he (or they) are right or wrong – he is of course well within his rights to stand on his principles. But this has made some news and it's entirely fair to take note of that.

controversy subsection

While Mr. Obama has less controversy attached to his career than many other politicians there needs to be a concise exposition of controversies attached to his name. Otherwise it could be asserted that the article was not neutral. I took the liberty of undoing the first revert to my addition however I'll otherwise leave it to the article's usual editors to consider my postulate.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversies are more than welcome to be incorporated in the existing article or one of the many sub-articles, but they will not be in a controversy subsection. Controversy subsections are by and large glorified trivia sections that invariably become a dumping ground for every complaint about the person, whether they are truly notable or not. All in all, if you would like to propose that a specific controversy be added to this article, you're more than welcome to propose that it be added. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, is there a Wikipedia guideline that discourages sections/subsections dedicated specifically to controversies? →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My thesis is that he doesn't have enough controversial material to add multiple sections such as are seen in the Hillary Rodham Clinton or Richard Nixon articles. But I might point out that the general reader needs to have a clearly defined place to find the information.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC) I did go back and change the subheading to "Concern over business relationships" however I'm afraid that if you don't have a clearly defined area for these concerns to be addressed then the general reader will assume the worst.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wordbuilder, Bobblehead is probably referring to one of the possible interpretations of WP:NPOV#Article structure. My opinion (which I'll admit no one here asked) is that when the general reader comes to one of these articles they need to have all the major areas of concern easily laid out and addressed in a neutral manner...in an easy-to-find place. This particular article isn't a huge project of mine but when I read it something became apparent to me (a general reader): the fact that his few real controversies don't need to be buried in a discussion about his domestic life. That's all. No plans for mutiny here. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually controversy sections are strongly discouraged and are not found in the presidential candidate articles for good reason. They are poor encyclopedic style and in practice tend to simply become POV magnets where anyone opposed to the subject will dump any editorial or attack piece they can find. Most importantly, they give undue weight to subjects which may not be at all noteworthy. It is much better (albeit harder) to weave notable controversies into the relevant sections of the article. In this particular case, a lot of work was spent by a number of much better and more experienced editors than myself specifically dismantling these attack sections in the presidential candidate articles and integrating anything notable into the body of the article. Please note that there are no criticism sections in the John McCain or Hillary Clinton articles either. This is by design.

By way of illustration, Gzkn [4] made a very good point about the idea of a separate criticism section over a year ago, saying: "think about whether a general 'praise' section would make sense". --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm not advocating such a section. I was just curious as to what the guidelines said regarding the subject. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama victories

As of February 9th, Barack Obama has won in the presidential primaries the states and territories of:

Lousiana Utah Missouri Illinois Delaware Georgia Connecticut Alabama South Carolina Washington (state) American Samoa and the Virgin Islands —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrftkd13 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• This information - along with info on the more recent primary victories in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, the Virgin Islands, and Maine, belongs in the campaign article. bd2412 T 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• This should be summarized in the main article in some way, but doesn't need to be dealt with in depth. Bellwether ^B_C 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Third grade essay

What do you think about mentioning the essay he wrote when in third grade saying he wanted to be president someday? It might be interesting to the readers. Borock (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The USA PATRIOT act

Will someone who understands the story of Obama's involvement in, and voting on, the reauthorisation of the Patriot Act, please provide an accurate and reasonably thorough summary. (It seems bizarre that this is missing. Perhaps it was in an earlier version of the article.) Archelon (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I perused the article but can find nothing about two issues that have been bothering me. Did you write about them? First of all: Is it true that Barack took his oaths of office on the Koran? and not the Bible? Secondly: Is it true that Barack will not do the Pledge to the Flag or say the Pledge? Thanks Ekalaka333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekalaka333 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of those assertions are false - see the Snopes article debunking them. Obama was sworn in on the Christian Bible, and has actually led the entire Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance on several occasions.[5], [6]. bd2412 T 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Ethnicity

This question maybe already answered in previous discussions but I was wondering; If Obama's mother was caucasian and his father black does that technically make him an african american? Levi Seigel (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes him biracial: that is if race even existed. 69.247.178.243 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)