Talk:Barack Obama

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived.

Leading Candidate

I'm going to remove this distinction again unless the editor chooses to add it to Hillary Clinton's page as well. To add it to one and not another, even to say "a leading candidate" instead of "the leading candidate" does add bias to the article. Scottmkeen (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He leads the delegate count, so on the books, he is what is defined as "the leading candidate." 70.137.160.103 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But the wording is not 'the leading candidate' - it's 'a leading candidate'. And to be 'a leading candidate' you don't have to have a majority or plurality of anything. There are some that would argue that with Ohio and the big swing states Hillary is actually 'the' leading candidate but I see no reason to intersperse that distinction - unless of course one wants to be as undemocratic as the Obamabots are. But that's not generally a good idea, is it?

Liberal

Odd that the article fails to mention some stats consider Mr Obama's voting record to be the most liberal in the Senate. Anyone object to me adding it? (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/) Francium12 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I do. He's not liberal. As you put it. He's mainstream. Right in the middle. So it's not factual at all.

Not at all. It is factual. --Davidp (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing opinion with fact. "Liberal" is not an objective quality. This so-called rating is simply editorial opinion and should be treated as such.--Loonymonkey (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I'm not. We're not quibbling over the meaning of liberal but determining whether his record has been reported by a legitimate source as "most liberal". Thanks. --Davidp (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, that would be the National Journal's editorial position, not fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not grasping the issue. It is a fact that the magazine ranked his voting record as the most liberal. This is noteworthy in the Obama article. --Davidp (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The magazine? Then in such case the Wiki manifest is to report that the magazine gave this opinion - NOT Wiki. Unless of course it's your objective to slant public opinion. But you're not trying to do that, are you?

I beg to disagree. If we neutrally examine the article, we find many statements that are included which are mere opinion, yet sourced (hence qualified to be included). The following are already in the article:

he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms

a newcomer to Washington, he recruited a team of established, high-level advisers devoted to broad themes that exceeded the usual requirements of an incoming first-term senator

Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change

The Chicago Tribune credits the large crowds that gathered at book signings with influencing Obama's decision to run for president.

Former presidential candidate Gary Hart describes the book as Obama's "thesis submission" for the U.S. presidency: "It presents a man of relative youth yet maturity, a wise observer of the human condition, a figure who possesses perseverance and writing skills that have flashes of grandeur."

Supporters and critics have likened Obama's popular image to a cultural Rorschach test, a neutral persona on whom people can project their personal histories and aspirations.

a May 2004 New Yorker magazine article described as his "everyman" image.

in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s.

An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world

Is it really too far a stretch to state "According to the National Journal....". We cannot be intellectually honest if we summarily decide to include one sourced opinion then snuff out another sourced opinion using the justification that it is "opinion". I mean seriously, loon, if you don't have a problem with the New Statesman saying Obama is one of "10 people who could changne the world" and you endorse that going in the article, how could you possibly justify excluding the National Journal because it is "opinion"? Loon's direct words..."that would be the National Journal's editorial position, not fact"...so why then are you supporting the including of dozens of opinions in Obama's article then? I see selective editing at work. To better Obama's article, remove all opinions, or consider including this relevant fact about him, (that fact being the national journal cited him as the most liberal). I'd enjoy listening to anyone attempt to rationally defend this...my goal is to better the article, so in an effort to do so, lets include the National Journal's reference. It is sourced, and given the numerous editorial opinions in the article already, it is fair to include.

Considering the recent widespread reporting of his Senate record, I think there should be a mention. I agree with Loonymonkey though that simply stating that his record is "the most liberal" is an editorial opinion. As such, any mention of "how liberal" record should qualify it by stating who claims the record is liberal. Cogswobbletalk 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems some would like to distance Obama from his solid liberal credentials, but it's not an "objective quality" if you put it in terms such as The National Journal rating Obama the most liberal senator in 2007. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ Congressional ratings from the National Journal, from the American Conservative Union - not only are these ratings informative, allowing people to make comparisons of the voting records of different candidates, but there is also precendence for giving creedence to these ratings all throught Wiki.Shikamoo (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather some would like to distance Wikipedia from partisan politics.

And yet you see no problem with subjective sentences in the article such as, "Time magazine's Joe Klein wrote that the book 'may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.'" or, "...Time magazine named him one of 'the world's most influential people.'" as long as he is praised, eh? Blarvink (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is outright hype. Some 'fan' got carried away. Strike all these 'fan' statements. They denigrate Wikipedia enormously.

I am amused that everyone considers "most liberal" to be a criticism. Let's just add a statement like, "The American Conservative Union rated Obama's voting record as the most liberal of any Senator in 2007 (cite). Fishal (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a search for the words "liberal" and "conservative" in Obama's page and in McCain's page, and the results were very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.165.98 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right-- nowhere in the article is the word "liberal" even mentioned! Perhaps because it's become a Bad Thing to be. Fishal (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if you watch Fox News ;) But regarding the possible edit, while I don't see how it would hurt his article, I don't particularly see what it would contribute. This article already links to his political views page, which detail his voting record and stances. The reader can infer from that whatever they want about how liberal/conservative he is, so adding a line about the liberal rating wouldn't be necessary in my book. And if anything, I think it would be something you'd rather add to his political views page anyway. --Ubiq (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The "most liberal" rating is a smear tactic. It's used in the pejorative, typically on whoever is going to be the Democratic nominee. Same thing happened with John Kerry in '04. You expect me to believe Obama is more progressive than Russ Feingold or to the left of Bernie Sanders? Please. Adding something like this to the article only politicizes it into a tool for one side's agenda. Fifty7 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But he's an orthodox liberal as evidenced by his voting record. The only thing I dislike more than partisanship on Wikipedia is the intentional concealment of facts. Koalorka (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but 'liberal' says nothing. All 'liberal' means is you're - 'liberal'! Look up the etymology. It's a very weak description of a weak position.

Yes, the "most liberal" label is a joke. But he is liberal, and it is strange that it's nowhere to be found. (again-- is it fear that liberal is a bad thing?) -Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishal (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholly with the assertions regarding content, and the appearance of selective editing in this article, made by davidp, Francium12, Shikamoo, Blarvink, Cogswobble, Fishal, and Kaolorka. The tone of the discussion appears to this newbie to be weighted heavily with bias in favor of a double standard regarding inclusion of material which might give a reader cause to pause when considering the personal integrity and personal character of Barack Obama.

Ya think? LOL

These points are especially relevant in an article about the personal life, and therefore the personal integrity and personal character, of any person who seeks the highest office in the land.

But these things stand out to all but the most hopelessly naive. Which is why it's important to get them the F out of this article. As it makes Wikipedia look STUPID.

Asserting that links to anything critical of Obama are solely political, and should be inserted only in the Obama campaign page, and that such action is sufficient to fill the need/desire for information on the part of a reader of this article on the personal life and personal character/integrity of Obama would seem to be in accord with the assertion of the appearance of selective editing in this discussion.

I'm sorry - is this the 'official' position of Wikipedia? In such case Jimbeau needs to conduct a new purge.

Unless all Obama pages are rolled into that covering his Presidential Campaign, it does seem useful to convey in this article information about just who the man 'is' and what he is 'about'. Facts and references about investigations of the nature of his dealings and relations with Tony Rezko in the purchase of his home, as well as his decades-long membership in the Afro-centric and somewhat radical-left Trinity UCC, are obviously relevant to any reader seeking to know more about the personal integrity and character, as well as the overall personal religious beliefs, of any person seeking the Presidency. Therefore, such facts, along with such as those made by the above referenced contributors, should be included in any article about the 'personal life' of any major public figure. --Whraglyn (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Added the reference with citation. --Davidp (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason: Note that there are only 2 signed comments in opposition to adding this, both of which fail to understand that this is simply citing a widely reported ranking by a non-partisan reputable national magazine. Rather, these wikipedians are arguing whether he is, in fact, "liberal" - which is not the question. --Davidp (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to question your assertion that the National Journal is a non-partisan publication, and thus indirectly question the addition to the article. The publication is notable for launching scathing attacks on Democrats, particularly from Michael Kelly (now deceased). I also object to the whole "most liberal" terminology in general, which I see as nothing more than part of a Republican smear campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

National Journal is non-partisan and has a spectrum of opinions as part of its team. Why do we object to the use of "liberal" and support the use of "conservative" in these articles? There is no smear campaign but there seems to be a partisan protection campaign against information being disseminated in this article. --Davidp (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• This has to stop. Those (Davidp) trying to force inclusion of the subjective National Journal "rating" know full well that the term "liberal" has become pejorative. There's no consensus here (or certainly in the edits of the actual article) for inclusion of this subjective factoid. Stop reinserting it without consensus. Bellwether ^B_C 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Bellwether (and others) - How do you square the inclusion of Assessments by political interest groups on the John McCain page with the inclusion of this one assessment by a non-partisan political journal? Or, perhaps you're only interested in keeping the Obama page in pristine pro-Obama condition? This protectionist stance constitutes a POV slant to this article. I have a suggestion: Let's add a similar section to the Obama article. Agreed? If not, can Wikipedia enlist your help in removing that section from McCain's page? Much appreciated. --Davidp (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also please note that Hillary Clinton's page makes note of ratings such as National Journal's. Is Barack Obama a special candidate that demands special treatment in his Wiki article? Can anyone provide a rational argument for not including this information that will also apply to Clinton's and McCain's articles? --Davidp (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because the editors at the McCain article included such information does not mean it's a good idea here. You'd have to ask them why they included it. I don't edit that article. Bellwether ^B_C 00:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

SCHIP Support mis-leading

The article has the following abbreviated explanation of Obama's support for SCHIP:

"Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[79]"

Then goes on to say SCHIP was later vetoed by President Bush. My concern is that SCHIP is a tremendously complicated entitlement program, and the revised version was presented as expanding coverage to a maasive number of people, not just veterans but also people of substantial income, and many viewed it as a multi-billion$ entitlement increase in big government. The article should either do a better job of explaining the SCHIP expansion, explain why Bush vetoed it, or else delete any mention of the veto. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about SCHIP. Therefore, the sentence only deals with the single amendment to the bill that Obama personally sponsored. Fishal (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack's religion

The article states that Barack Obama is a muslim. He is not, he is of the United Church of Christ. I suspect this is a change to the page with malignant motives. -Preceding unsignedcomment added by 68.92.239.57 (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just run of the mill vandalism; it occurred at 2:17 and for some reason wasn't noticed for twelve minutes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ —Preceding comment was added at 03:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is so childish. Personally I doubt he has any religion at all. But the facts are these.

1. He got ten hours per week tutelage for over four years in islam. 2. His mother was a muslim. 3. His father was a muslim. 4. His stepfather was a muslim. 5. Who knows what his grandparents were but someone can look that up. 6. Saudi Arabia regards him as a muslim. 7. His Somali origins indicate he's not only a muslim but an ARAB.

It's clear however that this is a promotional article written by and for more Obamabots so it's really futile to discuss the matter. One can only hope you learn the proper meaning of two words eventually.

1. Democracy. 2. Encyclopaedia.

1. I went to school. 2. My mother was a teacher. 3. My father was a teacher. 4. My aunt was a teacher. 5. Several other people that I had something to do with when I was growing up were teachers. 6. That doesn't make me a teacher. 7. Saudi Arabia doesn't really care one way or another. Klippa (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned editor above (at 90.5.136.204) claimed as facts at least 4 significant mistakes: Obama's mother was not Muslim but Christian, Obama's father was not from Somalia but from Kenya, having Somali origins would indicate that one was Somali (one-third of 1% of the population of Somalia are Arab), Obama would've spent "a couple of hours per week studying Islam of some sort" [1]. Klippa (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At least the writer was candid enough to preface his rant by noting that it would be childish. Klippa (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT article by Jodi Kantor

Regarding the fairness of this edit, Loonymonkey, Andyvphil, and other interested editors should be sure to read Wright's letter to the New York Times dated March 11, 2007. It's published in the this edition of the TUCC Bulletin at page 10. --HailFire (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. Wright confirms that Obama deemed it unwise to announce his candidacy at the church because it would highlight his connection to Wright (bottom of left column, p.11). So whatever the other faults Wright alleges in the article it was indeed reliable for the assertion that Obama has distanced himself from Wright. The comment tha the church is Afrocentric and political doesn't seem to me controversial either. Hardly explicit enough, in fact. I didn't miss the reference to the NYT writer's Jewish faith, something that is going to catch one's attention coming from someone who has recently honored Louis Farrakan as "Man of the Year". We indicate that Wright inspired the name of Obama's book and that it is a large successful church that has played a major role in Obama's life. We can't leave it at that. Smacks of concealing important information. Add something or I will. Andyvphil (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, the text that you are proposing does not fit the personal life section of this BLP. Where is the notability in this context? Why is it important to mention here that Wright was invited and then uninvited to speak at Obama's presidential campaign announcement in Springfield over one year ago? Personal life is about things like marriage, children, home, savings, habits, recreational activities, and religious beliefs. The section covers all of that with appropriate weight as judged by long-term consensus among the contributors to this article. --HailFire (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention that Wright was disinvited -- I said merely that Obama had distanced himself from Wright, whom we already note inspired the title of Obama's memoir. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the fact that the church has 10,000 members is more relevant to Obama's religious beliefs than its Afrocentric tenets? Anyway, I don't care what section you put it in, but that's where the article currently focuses on Wright and his church, so that's where I'm readding the material, since you've failed to address its absence. If you think it belongs elsewhere in the article, move it there. Simply removing this information from the article is not ok. Andyvphil (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust you will continue discussing before making edits that have not yet attracted consensus. The "distancing" was explicitly political, not personal, and the entire incident revolves around a one-time event that happened in February 2007. It's not notable anywhere in this biography article, but could possibly fit somewhere in the campaign article. --HailFire (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not serious, right? It's not a problem to find other cites than Feb 2007 for Obama replying to questions about Wright re Farrakhan etc., but I don't think for a moment that supplying them will satisfy you. However, I will be happy to supply them if you say it will cause you to drop your opposition to this very anodyne sentence.[2] Anyway, the idea that we can describe the church and pastor as important to Obama's personal life, and give details like the number of members and the pastor's influence of the name of Obama's book, without describing their more interesting characteristics in any way is obviously absurd. I've given you an extended opportunity to do it in a way completely acceptable to you. Time's up. Andyvphil (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Andyvphil, please don't put "see talk" in your edit summaries, when "Talk" doesn't contain anything remotely resembling consensus for your edit. Develop consensus and then make your insertion. Bellwether ^B_C 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just yesterday been instructed by an admin "You seem to be under the mistaken impression that editors have to discuss their changes. That's not the case. Not even when the content is "long-standing". Not even when more than one editor wants them to stop. Our policy on consensus states that the main way consensus is to be sought is through bold editing and active change." Sauce for the goose... And policy on "rough consensus" involves weighing the strength of the arguments. Feel free to make yours and I'll weigh them appropriately. WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments don't get much weight in determining "rough consensus", even if numerous like minded editors form a claque to protect a favored subject from intrusions of NPOV. Discussion on the talk page is the first step in conflict resolution, and editors who offer reverts but not reasons are not participating in the process. Andyvphil (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, Andy, you don't get to "weigh them appropriately." You get to attempt to build consensus for your change, and then make it. Period. Attempting to force in the material over serious objections, and without any form of consensus is abusing the process. Please stop. Bellwether ^B_C 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Additionally, you'll stop with the bad faith assumptions about "numerous like minded editors" who form a "claque to protect a favored subject from intrusions of NPOV." That is such a gross violation of WP:AGF that it's quite breathtaking that you most likely typed it with a straight face. Bellwether ^B_C 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the bullet point formatting, already. You can make do with indenting just like everyone else. Your self-importance is showing.

What are the "serious objections"? You still haven't made any. And Hailfire's three points, that the contents of the quote have been debunked, that the "distancing" was a one-off in Feb 2007, and that the information is in the wrong section are in sequence, false and fully debunked by my response, false and easily debunked - which I have said I will willingly do if that is truly his objection, and answered by my offer to let him place this information or its equivalent in any secion he desires, so that we may see if it fits better there.

You need to actually read AGF. It doesn't say you have to continue to AGF in the face of convincing evidence. Continuing to attempt to keep out any hint of the controversial political nature of the pastor and church who have been, by Obama's own testimony and the other text, so important to Obama's life and thus biography is, when I have first made that point ABOUT THE TEXT and not the editors, and you have failed to respond, primae facae evidence that you are pushing a POV, and I am not obliged to ignore that fact. If you feel otherwise, feel free to file an AGF complaint. Andyvphil (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll format my comments however the hell I want to. And you'll assume good faith of your co-editors, or you will be reported and blocked from editing if you continue to refuse to do so. Bellwether ^B_C 05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF:"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Your reverts combined with a continued refusal to engage in the first step of content conflict resolution, which is to attempt to justify your content preferences or answer my arguments is "evidence to the contrary".

Looneymonkey has said that I am "cherry picking" Kantor's article in order to demonstrate that Obama's church is less mainstream than it is. Actually I am just quoting Kantor in a way which exactly represents Kantor's meaning, and Kantor's meaning seems to align quite nicely with reality, which is why I quote her. The idea that a church which names Louis Farrakhan "Man of the Year" is mainstream is naturally controversial and if we are to address that specifically NPOV requires that both sides of the argument be presented. I haven't chosen to do that (nor was I the one who deleted LM's expanded choice of quotes) merely noting that the church is Afrocentric and political and that those qualities are reflective of Jeremiah Wright and that Obama has distanced himself from Wright. All uncontroversial and inoffensive observations, and necessary in the bio of a man for whom this church and pastor is so important. If I'm wrong about that, make your argument. If I'm uncontroverted but you still insist on censoring this information from the article your motivations do indeed come into question. If you think that observation is actionable, please, please complain. Such a complaint will be in a venue where devotedly pro-Obama sentiment is less dominant, and the result may not be what you want. Andyvphil (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I can cite numerous instances of Looneymonkey twisting wikipedia rules to slant articles, or defend them against critique. I am apalled at the degree individuals (i.e. looneymonkey) are going to protect Obama's article from any appearance of critique. I'm certain its obvious to numerous people. 24.18.108.5 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Repeatedly inserting the same material, over and over, against consensus is also blockable, just so you know. Bellwether ^B_C 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• And Looney's right: you are cherry-picking the article to make Obama's church seem extreme. You'll be reverted as the sentence is now phrased, since this is a featured article, and many good editors have their eyes on it to protect it from just this kind of thing. Bellwether ^B_C 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is determined by weighing the strength of arguments.("To [find the actual consensus] you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves...") Would help if you made some. Are you arguing that I am misrepresenting Kantor? That the NYTimes is a WP:FRINGE source? The degree to which Obama's church is mainstream is, as I have written, subject to NPOV policy, which states that all POV be represented, not that the existance of disagreement may be suppressed. You think the sentence implies that Trinity is "extreme" -- I think it merely says what what it says, and that what it says is true. But if you think something is missing that would offset the implication you detect, go ahead and add it. "Rather than disagreeing by reverting, see if you can improve on other's changes." But, "Don't ignore the arguments of other editors in a conflict though, or a healthy bold, revert, discuss cycle quickly turns into disruptive editing." If you're the one ignoring, then you're the one disrupting. Andyvphil (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the addition discussed above because (a) the information was added to the wrong place, since it is not related to Barack Obama's personal life, (b) the quoted source requires registration, and these sources are strongly discouraged and (c) the information does not appear to reflect the source's intended meaning - it would appear that the information presented has been taken slightly out of context, perhaps in an attempt to satisfy Andyvphil's personal agenda. Reading the comments above, it seems clear that the reasons I have given have already been discussed and my reversion should never have been necessary. Perhaps Andyvphil should take a step back an let others weigh in on the matter for a bit? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the alleged "Afro-centricism" of Trinity Church should be mentioned in the article, along with the fact that the neighborhood it is in is mainly black. It's not as if they are excluding non-blacks, just trying to take care of their people. This is common for other congregations as well. Redddogg (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. A discussion about Trinity Church belongs in an article about Trinity Church, and not in a biography of a living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just silly to think we can mention Trinity but can't describe it. Or rather that we can describe it as having 10,000 members but can't mention its political orientation. Not as breathtakingly out-of-this-world as suggesting that use of the website of the New York Times is "strongly discouraged", but close. And in what way do you suggest that the sentence I have provided ("The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama has distanced himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired pastor Jeremiah Wright.") misrepresents the source's intended meaning? Kantor writes "the church is also more Afrocentric and politically active than standard black congregations" and "Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama’s decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright...". Hard for me to imagine how I could hew any closer to "the source's intended meaning". Please clarify. Andyvphil (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Andyvphil, you are treading dangerously close to tendentious editing with your continued consensus-less insertions, and edit summaries that state "see talk" when there's nothing to "see" at talk but your waging a one man battle against consensus. Bellwether ^B_C 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, you need more than reverts to establish consensus. You need arguments. Which you have simply refused to offer. And, since I agree with Redddog, it appears I am no longer alone in battling not consensus but a group of editors who seem determined not to let too much information of a sort they don't like to be be revealed to seep into this article. Andyvphil (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• We've told you why. You've ignored us. Two editors don't make consensus. And your thinking you're right doesn't make it so. You cherry-pick Kantor's article to insert a slanted sentence, designed only to portray Obama and his church in a negative light. There's consensus against inclusion. The sooner you deal with that, the better off we'll all be. (On a side note, I noticed that since you couldn't get your negative info in, you've decided to jump in on the side of the "most-liberal senator" warriors. I'm not really very surprised at all.) Bellwether ^B_C 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you are trying to keep that "negative information" out as well. I've already pointed out that Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires that disagreements found in reliable sources about significant subjects (such as whether Obama's politics are centrist or left-wing) are to be handled by presenting the evidence advanced by both sides in a neutral fashion, not by suppressing any mention of the disagreement. And a basic question like that cannot be exiled to a subarticle, since policy requires that spinout articles be accurately summarized in the root article. And, no, I haven't ignored any argument that has been advanced against mentioning that Obama has distanced himself from the non-centrist views of his pastor. He has done so and saying so is not "slanted". I am not aware of any RS claiming that he has not done so, but if you can find one I am open to your quoting it, with the caveat that if what you quote is misleading the question may have to be developed until NPOV is again reached. And, no, I haven't "failed" to insert the sentence. I have merely once again waited in vain for for you or like-minded editors to show your good faith by either working on the text I have advanced or offering an alternative. Andyvphil (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Our "alternative" is that it stays out. Cherry-picke quotes, designed only to place an article subject in a negative light, don't belong. And, as our alternative (no inclusion of your material) has consensus, you need to stop trying to force your views anyway. Bellwether ^B_C 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony Rezko

The article should have some mention of Obama's connection to Chicago Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko, who is currently under Federal trial in Chicago. According to the Chicago Tribune (http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obama_confronted_on_rezko_in_t.html) there could be something to be known about Obama's conncection to a house/land purchase in south Chicago. Rezka has been a key Obama contributor since 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.238.38 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt at smearing Obama and adding some more NPOV stuff to Wikipedia! Please come back later! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfunk1967 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't even seem to smear senator obama correctly. The man's name is Tony Rezko, with an O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.4 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is so how come Hillary Clinton's Page lacks any information on her fraud charges which is very much conected to Peter Paul. I know he was discredited but that was by the Judge Hillary Clinton had appointed. If that information is added to her page then we will have to follow through with your claim and add to this page but seeing as how the prevelance of those charges have not been added/recognised I see no reason to give your claim any weight to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.250.173 (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Smear? Give me a break - This man has a very good chance to be our next president and this article is from a reputable paper in his home town. Critical analysis should be available, and there is a connection here in the house purchase. This article barely contains a critical word about this candidate, it might as well have been written by a member of his staff.

Obiously this is a newsworthy and well sourced story being snubbed. Fair? NPOV? I dispute that.

Maybe it was, judging from this reaction. As far as the Clinton Paul connection, that should be on the Clinton page.

User:Scjessey, you claim that Rezko is not relevant to Obama's biography. I did not insert Rezko, nor did your edit delete. All I did was change the word "controversial" to explain why he is controversial. The mere fact that he is included in this article (and that you leave him in the article) shows that Rezko is relevant, not to mention the significant press coverage this issue has received lately. Charges of political corruption are highly relevant to political figures, so this information needs to remain. --Flyboy121 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama songs

I ran into this article: Trend spotter: Amateur songwriters for Obama in the Christian Science Monitor. I couldn't find a good place to add it to the article however. The "public image" section seems to be mostly about politics. Redddogg (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not normally a person who limits what can be said in an article, but in this case, it should not be in the article. The only way I can think of is a section (or seperate article) titled "Obama in Popular Culture". C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Gun Control?

I think obama's position on guncontrol should be put in here. DeftalC3AU (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong article, if anywhere it should go in Political positions of Barack Obama Jons63 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

An addition of a navigation box to subarticles, directly below infoboxes

The title of the article for the 2008 Obama Campaign is quite a mouthful and people interested in it likely come first to the main article. In the interest of facilitating users navigation between the main article and the campaign and positions subarticles I've improved WP by adding a nav box directly under the infobox. --Justmeherenow (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The title "Life of Barack Obama" in this nav box is totally misleading, as the subarticles it points to only cover a small portion of his life. This nav box is being copied from the new John McCain set of articles, where literally his whole life has been split into subarticles, and the box is much more appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Biographical series, along with strictly chronological components, may contain articles treating the subject's work and legacy in the culture; and the fact that the McCain series very recently did not link to the article treating his political positions, due to this article's not fitting strictly under a "Life of" rubric, is just silly. In any case, while WP is a work in progress and so won't give all deserving subjects comparable coverage, I've got a sneaking feeling that Senator Obama may well be in a position to soon merit as extensive of encyclopedic coverage as does his more experienced---or elder or however to term it---colleague Senator McCain. --Justmeherenow (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Current components of the Obama biographical series are

• Dreams from My Father - autobiographical writing
• 2008 presidential campaign · Political positions - dealing with works and legacy

Any we ought delete? --Justmeherenow (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama referred to Canada's Prime Minister as the "President" of Canada

1: Where should this go? It happened last August[3] and is particularly important,maybe, because he was a politician in a border state and should have known better, perhaps. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes he should have known better, but a single instance of someone making a mistake is not significant enough for placing in the article. IMO it does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes like this are extremely commonplace and hardly worthy of mention. Can you imagine how long the article on George W. Bush would be if we routinely included mistakes like this? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First you don't know if it was a simple mistake or a reflection of his ignorance of the government of Canada. Second, it's not the fact that he made a mistake it's the fact that this particular mistake has taken on political significance and has been widely reported and discussed. It's not simply what is said but how what is said is significant, politically or otherwise. Not mentioning these types of incidents that people are talking about does not give a complete encyclopedic picture. It's not for the editors to decide what mistakes are worth talking about and which ones are not. These stories take on a life of their own and the article should simply reflect the national conversation and potrayal of Obama. Voters deserve to be made aware of these types of incidents and its not the intention to simply smear him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your argument, refer to Wikipedia:Recentism. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• This thread is emblamatic of the problems created by Evans' editing of this article and this talkpage. There's no "there" there, as they say, and there never is with Evans' complaints and suggestions. Bellwether ^B_C 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems completely non-notable. It would need a lot more attention before it could be considered for inclusion. (And how is Illinois a "border state?" Did Wisconsin get annexed by Canada?) --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey is correct. Illinois is not a border state. It borders Lake Michigan, which I assumed bordered Canada, but which is located entirely within the USA. I was wrong about that. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute? : The words 'controversy', 'controversial', 'criticism' appear nowhere in the article, and nowhere in any reference links...

...The word 'controversy' appears precisely once in all the many reference links at the bottom of the page, (among which i have yet to find one link to a story even slightly critical of Obama), and that appearance is in a link to a Time story in no way critical of Obama, or of anything about his career. There seems to be an emerging pattern here: NPOV minimum use of one or two citations/links with 'negative-bias' terms, seemingly inserted only to give the appearance of neutrality by using the NPOV 'letter of the law' to evade NPOV purposes and intents. This assertion violates 'Assume Good Faith', but the pattern seems clear.

The word 'critics' also appears only once in the article, and only in the context of an assertion that even his 'critics' agree he has qualities which his supporters claim are positive character attributes. See the pattern?

The word 'progressive' appears only twice, and each time is used also only in a context which makes clear that Obama is considered not progressive 'enough' by others. Thus the insertion of the word seems intended only to blur Obama's appearance of 'progressiveness' in the mind of the reader, rather than to identify or clarify that Obama is frequently and publicly referred to as among the most 'progressive' of the candidates currently running for U.S. President.

How is this possible in an article which purports to detail, or to link to details of, the life of a politician who is also recognized widely as among the most 'progressive' of his peers in both the Illinois State Senate, and in the U.S. Senate?

The word 'liberal' appears nowhwere in the article, nor could I find it in the references, citations, or the links I followed which are included with the article. This apparent break in the asserted pattern actually shows the asserted pattern more clearly, through the exclusion of the word 'liberal' in this article, since the term 'liberal' is being gradually excised from public discourse. Since it is at least arguable the term is no longer 'widely used' or 'considered relevant' by many, the writer(s) appear to have concluded there was no need to include the term to further the appearance of upholding NPOV standards in this case. Thus, the complete and entire exclusion of the term strengthens the case that hidden bias is masquerading as NPOV in this article.

Every other biographical Wikipedia page on current political figures which I have thus far encountered has a section in the article titled something like 'Criticism', or 'Controversy', etc. There is nothing remotely like that on the Obama page.

The only reference to Obama and his links with Tony Rezko are in the context of a link to a story in which Obama is lauded for 'regretting' his real estate deal with Rezko. There is also no mention at all of Rezko's contributions to Obama campaigns, despite months of intense coverage in numerous sources.

How can an article be said to qualify as NPOV when there are no, or virtually no, references or links to criticism(s) in the body of an article, nor in the reference and citation links at the end of an article?

All one has to do is run a web search on Obama with any one of the term(s) 'Rezko', 'liberal', 'progressive', controversy', 'criticism', etc, to get a plethora of pieces in major sources to which to link. Yet there are on the Obama page no references or citations, let alone links to, any of those widely accepted sources. Why not, unless there is an attempt to circumvent NPOV standards by giving an appearance of adherence as demonstrated above?

It is my impression that lacking one, let alone all, of the commonly used NPOV conventions and standards referred to above, especially in an article on a public figure about which there is substantial public interest if not controversy and/or criticism, disqualifies the article under NPOV standards.

In my reading of the Obama discussion page, i find not one reference to the above facts. Even if my questioning of Good Faith Assumed in this case is incorrect, isn't the lack of 'criticisms' and 'controversies' links, citations, references, let alone article Sections, something which should raise at least some interest among editors?

In my opinion, this article should be immediately flagged as being under NPOV dispute. I am depending on the integrity and honesty of the editorial wikipedia community for this tag, since i have no idea how to do anything tech related, let alone Wikipedia-oriented. (believe me: you don't want me trying to tag and change things on article pages. It took me over two hours to find the discussion page, and to figger out how to do this raising of some questions! You can ask my kids about the chances for utter ruination when i try any sort of tech stuff. They won't let me even touch their computers!)

Please forgive if my lack of wikipedia/html skills results in confusion or hassles among more experienced users, or among editors. No offense offered to anyone, no offense inferred from anyone. Cheers, All! Whraglyn (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)whraglyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whraglyn (talk • contribs) (sort of)

I think you'll find the kind of Obama-bashing Republican language you are looking for in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the link, my friend; but I am not seeking 'Obama-bashing', let alone 'Republican' 'language' in any article on Wikipedia. I am seeking a resolution of what appears to my newbie brain to be bias in selective editing of the article. If your response were to the point, your ad hominem assumptions leading to your aspersion(s) regarding my intent would not reveal so clearly your seemingly obvious bias in this matter. You may wish to recuse yourself from further participation in this discussion before your apparent inability to control your seeming bias in such talk pages results in admin actions which you may find less desirable than actually discussing in an impersonal manner all points made in talk pages. --Whraglyn (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

coming over from the obama pres. campaign page to tell you- yes we are not locked over there so we do get a bit jiggy sometimes. what we do not do is keep a running tally of how many times we write certain words, and import meaning from that list. If you can't criticize someone without using the word "criticize" then maybe you should not be editing an encyclopedia. Just because it is how search engines work, it does not mean it is how the human brain works . 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your lecture, and the tone, are as useless in this dicussion as they are unrelated to the issue at hand. --Whraglyn (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "liberal" is rather ambiguous and unhelpful for an encyclopedia; moreover, I don't really understand why you are pressing for it. Is "liberal" supposed to be derogatory? The issue with the word liberal is that it is simply a rough characterization; there are no objective criteria to define what liberalism is, particularly in the modern sense (classical liberalism, for example, was actually for small government and would be most similar to libertarianism in modern American political culture). The word could be added, although I don't know where (and I don't know why it is biased not to include it). Regardless, the word "controversy" is not mentioned in this article because there are few controversies surrounding Barack Obama. Feel free to create an article on that if you wish, but the only controversy that exists is that he has been accused of being a Muslim and that he has a shady relationship with Tony Rezko. While an article could be created on Obama's controversies, they don't really fit here since it would be undue weight. Hillary has been pushing the Rezko business for weeks now, and it still hasn't taken off. It's simply not noteworthy to the average American (or even to the Republicans and Fox News!), so how could that be labeled as "controversial" if, frankly, no one cares? Obama has very few controversies surrounding him, other than the occasional internet rumor. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether enough has been made of these points by Hillary or any other person. The question is why is there such a clear and sharp break between the lack of 'criticism' on the Obama page and the almost universal acceptance of such on other pages. --Whraglyn (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx for your input, 2.0.180.2 and Rosywounds. The fact that the terms I listed in my original post include the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive' has no bearing at all on the question of whether there are, or are not, included in the article sufficient facts regarding the personal beliefs and the personal character of the subject of the article.

The inclusion of a count of such terms in my original post was only to show that such terms are used far less frequently, and with far more, shall we say 'agility of usage', than on ANY other bio page i have seen thus far of other major public figures, even those with public records far less qualified to have such terms used in the Wikipedia pages covering their 'personal' lives.

The term count was done at all only to show there appears to be reasonable grounds to ask whether the Obama page is being selectively edited, and whether that selection in editing is pro-Obama, and if so, 'why'?

You seem to each be missing the simple fact that almost all, ( i say 'almost all' only because i have not read every single major public figure bio page posted on Wikipedia, but the usage of 'criticism' or 'controversy' sections is overwhelmingly frequent and widespread among the radnom sample of over 100 bio pages i have scanned), bio pages of other public have entire sections of 'controversy' and/or 'criticism' in the body of the article. The usage of such sections in the body of 'personal' pages covering other major public figures seems to be almost a standard or conventional usage across a wide range of persons and subjects on Wikipedia.

'Why is this norm acceptable for so many pages, but not for that of the 'personal' page on Obama?' is a legitimate question.

The question thus becomes not one of 'Why do some contributors ask about the lack of such sections/terms on the Obama 'personal' page?', but that of "Why do some contributors strive so strongly and persistently to deny the disparity between the use of such terms on the 'personal' page of Obama and those of others on Wikipedia?'

A related question which arises naturally from a casual and disinterested reading of this discussion page is 'Why do so many of those who oppose the insertion of 'controversy' or 'criticism' sections, references, citations, or links in the 'personal' page of Obama use a tone which is condescending, patronizing, and subtly impugning of the intent of contributors who ask these questions?'

Each of the above questions regarding the editing of the Obama page are asked because they are raised by the apparent seeming bias in the editing of the Obama page under discussion.

Rosywounds, as for your assertion there is no 'need' to include 'controversy' and/or 'criticism' references on the Obama 'personal' page simply because there is 'little controversy' regarding Obama: Guess you have not heard of how media coverage of Obama is so sycophantic that the notoriously liberal/progressive writers and players on Saturday Night Live parodied same in a now-world famous skit the last couple of weeks, eh? Please search on the terms 'Obama' and 'controversy' or 'criticism'. I would truly be interested in your response to the results of such a search. Cheers All! --Whraglyn (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My friend, we know the answer...we all know it. Obama is coddled and protected here. His followers (aka Obamists) protect their Messiah, leaving out untold amounts of valid sources. Note on McCains article you find the word "conservative" dozens of times. This Obama page is nothing more than a delicately constructed promotional piece. Here are some opinions cited in this article: a May 2004 New Yorker magazine article described as his "everyman" image. in a March 2007 Washington Post opinion column, Eugene Robinson characterized him as "the personification of both-and," a messenger who rejects "either-or" political choices, and could "move the nation beyond the culture wars" of the 1960s. An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world All of them op-ed, but all of them sourced...all of them in the article. So why wont the Obamists include the sourced and valid (and often cited) fact that the National Journal calls him the most liberal of all Senators. I find that a fascinating distinction. Well, Loony has himself said that the reason the National Journal citation isn't included is because it is "opinion"...yet there is plenty of positive, heavenly, Messianic opinion in the article right now....I find it sickening that the hawks over this article view Obama as so frail that they somehow have the "High Calling" of protecting him. THis article is a sham, it is not neutral. Don't even try to label it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! Thx for the data included in your post, 24.18.108.5! Where is the outrage at the inclusion of such 'opinions' positive and supportive of Obama on the 'personal' page? Each of the above cited quotes from the article has far less to do with the 'personal' life of Obama and far more to do with his public life and aspirations to power. Why has not one of those who were so quick and thorough in their resistance to even asking the question under discussion ever commented on this point? IF such obviously 'public' comments are allowed on Obama's 'personal' page when it is clear they are far more relevant to a page devoted to the 'public' life of Obama, the conclusion that there is some degree of selective editing in some form on this page becomes more inescapable every day. I ask each of those who above have resisted the raising of this question to apply their points to this latest factuality. Come on, folks! Show us your unbiased uncompromising editorial zeal for only truth in this case! Failing that, i shall begin to, according to Wikipedia standards, BOLDLY insert the facts, citations, references, and links after 9:00 PM CST on Friday, March 7, 2008. Cheers All! --Whraglyn (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Obama article does seem more biased then the Clinton article. Clinton's article discusses *two* instances she was critized for wearing a skirt. However the Obama article doesn't mention the *one* time he incorrectly refers to the "president of Canada". In addition "Gender" is a whole heading over on the Clinton page, but Obama's ethnicity is only mentioned in passing. Whats the big difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.149.189 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

you guys are hilarious. WP has a longstanding effort to eliminate criticism sections in articles- and instead of going and eliminating the HRC criticism section if it bothers you so much, you come here and whinge that we should add one, even though that is in direct opposition of WP policy. uh huh. and you guys all are registered so you could just DO IT YOURSELF. I am an IP and I can't edit these unlocked pages. so be bold instead of spamming the talk page with stuff that frankly, we've all see before. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheney [and Barack's cousin Harry Truman, etc.]

Shouldn't the fact that Dick Cheney is his cousin be mentioned? Contralya (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't first cousins, are they? 4th cousins or beyond are, for practical purposes, unrelated. Obama was unaware of this relationship until they did genetic testing on him. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking news from the Satirical Political Report:

An archaeological dig in Cairo, conducted at the behest of Jesus Tomb producer James Cameron, turned up ancient manuscripts confirming that Obama's Egyptian ancestors enslaved the family of Elijah Lieberman, Joe Lieberman's "great-to-the-300th-degree" grandfather.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very funny. Fishal (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's even funnier is that Obama and George W. Bush are 10th cousins. Could indicate either that genetics mean nothing or everything. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<winking>Yes, genetics mean everything! lol. Obviously the minute fraction of genetic material that Barack and Vice President Dick Cheney have in common is the "would-make-a-very-powerful-Vice-President" gene.</winking> That is, modifying only for correction from the NYT, Obama inherited ~1⁄2¹⁰ of the genome of his ancestor Maureen Duvall, a French colonist of Maryland in about 1655; and ditto---except to the ninth power---for Cheney. While Harry Truman, Barack's fourth cousin four times removed, shares with Barack the "underestimated-at-first" gene; Barack's cous Wallis Spencer, the Dutchess of Windsor, the "fairy-tale-come-true" gene; and Barack's cous Robert Duvall and possible cous Mark Twain, the "wittily-compelling-oratory-and-stage-presence" gene; etc. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So many jokes can be made for this (please don't yell at Obama supporters, I'm one of you *waves an Obama flag*) Anyways, to answer the yet-to-be-answered question, NO the fact that they're extremely distant cousins cannot be included, because that's like saying I'm distantly related to Beethoven, it's true, but who cares, the link is older than he is. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is under attack by sneaky vandalism

Please check all information someone has been slowly removing information from the article in between edits. I pick up one. User: 02:08, 1 March 2008 User:Gigi2934 removed information about Obama's past drug use. I would recommend someone look into this. Other thing might have been removed. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well...

An actual specific incident of an obvious attempt to keep any and all facts which in any way even MIGHT give any reader pause.

Please tell me why the fact of Obama's self-admitted 'experimentation' with illegal drugs is not germane to his 'personal' page?

Failing that, i shall insert such factual, sourced, info after 9:00 PM CST on Friday, March 07, 2008.

The obvious tone of intimidation regarding the insertion of any criticism or controversy of a major public figure is becming clearer moment by moment.

Cheers All!

--Whraglyn (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true. The drug use is relevant, as is the fact that he's a liberal. I really do think that the rating should be mentioned, since it is a Source that puts a Label on Obama's voting record. It should be mentioned that the rating comes from a partisan source, of course. Fishal (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he say he smoked pot, ONCE? again correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like he abused it. George Bush abused alcohol and drugs, and there's only one sentence of the matter on his page. if Obama only did it once, then who cares? Let's include any possible one time homosexual experiences in college for people too. Let's list the other women Bill Clinton got head from.....excuse my language, but I'm not backspacing, I don't believe in the backsspace button. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Yet more partisanship. Hillary's page is - and says - 'Hillary RODHAM Clinton'. This page CONVENIENTLY hides 'Hussein'. If Obama was ashamed of this name he would have changed his name long ago. STOP RUNNING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR HIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.136.204 (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is consistent with either Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary uses both Clinton and Rodham Clinton as her surnames, Rodham being her unmarried name and Clinton being her husband's name. Rodham is not her middle name.

You can't claim the Clinton page as support for renaming this page unless it is Hillary Diane Clinton or Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Klippa (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody here doesn't know the difference between a "middle" name and a maiden surname. WNDL42 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The first four words of the article are "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." So I'm not sure who's "hiding" anything. Fishal (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In bold type, no less. Paisan30 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Come on.. We can't expect the trolls to actually read the article before complaining about it, can we?</sarcasm> --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have some angry Hillary fans on the talk pages, huh? C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense About 'Universal' Health Care

1. Someone has to do something about this arrogant mindset that there's such a thing as 'universal' health care in the US. It's like saying 'world series' when international teams are not invited. Wikipedia is not a resource for people in the US and calling a national health service 'universal' is just repugnant.

2. Stop hyping Obama's health plan as universal/national. It's not. He doesn't have a plan like that at all and to promote this in the first or second graf smacks of partisanship. Obama's plan is a way to increase affordability according to current guidelines. In other words without changing the basic infrastructure. THIS IS NOT A HEALTH CARE PLAN. Were you to know anything about national health care plans elsewhere on this beautiful planet you'd understand this; as you've obviously not gone through the trouble of doing the research as you should - then take the word of others who know a lot better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.136.204 (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1."Universal" has more meanings than just one (across the universe). Universal in universal health care refers to "everyone" having access. It's not arrogant or "Ameri-centric" or whatever. "Michigan has universal health care" means every one in Michigan is covered. "Spain has universal health care" means everyone in Spain. It doesn't have anything to do with arrogants, it's word usage. Context is everything. "Comprehensive insurance" refers to coverage, not to being able to comprehend it! Check out a dictionary, most words have more than one definition.

2,YOu might not approve of the "World Series" being named as such, or consider it arrogant, but that IS what it's called. It's not up to Wikipedia to change the language or to redefine words. As I said, words have more than one meaning- world for example can mean the earth but it can also refer to "the world of" (ie. in the world of coin collection, in the fashion world etc.) World Series of Baseball refers to the world of Major League Baseball in North America, currently including 1 team from Canada.

3. I do agree that Obama's plan is not Universal and is misrepresented as such. That should probably be fixed. But wikipedia is NOT the place to redifine the meaning or usage of the word universal in universal health care. In this usage it means, 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole. NOT the whole of the universe, the whole of the population or citizenship of the specific area being discussed (in this case the US). Any body fo government or anything else can use the term "univeral" to pertain only to themselves without arrogance.

u·ni·ver·sal /ˌyunəˈvɜrsəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-nuh-vur-suhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure. 3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service. 4. used or understood by all: a universal language. 5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas. 6. versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius. 7. of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause. 8. characterizing all or most members of a class; generic. 208.53.102.132 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000

Madrassa citations

RE the current reference 15, which starts with the article called "Obama Madrassa Myth Debunked". The article itself correctly refers to the madrassa as an "Islamic madrassa", unfortunately it's title doesn't. Isn't displaying this title perpetuating the wrong usage of the word? It is the only use of "madrassa" in the article. Since the NYTimes apologised for misusing it in the wake on the Insight story, I doubt many in the media have misused it since. The problem is that so many of the old reports used the incorrect meaning. Is there one which hasn't? It would be better to cite that one.

Also The Jakarta Post link in the ref15 list goes to a mostly blank page for me - it might be broken.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added an archive link for the Jakarta Post link, thanks for noticing that. As for the Chicago Tribune's title, considering the common usage in English is for madrassa to mean "Islamic Madrassa", rather than the correct translation of "a place of learning", I don't think there is really a problem with retaining the Chicago Tribune link. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested full protection

In looking at the edit history of this page, I see a number of editors that could be submitted for blocks due to edit warring, but rather than go that route (blocks=bad), I figured I'd request temporary full protection for the article instead.[4] Seriously, how about y'all try to use the dispute resolution process rather than this unending edit war. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why don't y'all try WP:DR: "If... you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article,..."[such as that Obama has a unusually liberal voting record or that it is relevant that he belongs to a politically-oriented chuch where the politics are controversal] "...think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story." And, if you follow the blue link, "Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally." The ideas that Obama is unusually liberal, or that it's relevant that the church he became connected to politically as a community organizer long before he chose to join it has a record of fringe positions like naming a Jew-baiter "Man of the Year", are signifificant and notable. Your efforts to censor those POV are against policy. Andyvphil (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm. Andyvphil, it's not just one side that is edit warring here and I'm pretty sure that your comment above is not very conducive consensus building. Seems to me that there is enough blame to spread around to all sides of the edit war. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

actually I would mostly blame andy. this is the third page he has done the exact same thing, with the exact same results. I am really not interested in ratting someone out but I have been looking more and more into what dispute resolution would actually entail, because I think in between the three or four pages andy is a regular on have seen enough bad diffs and what have you that some users could perform a proper rfc if they wanted to. So I have some questions about how that works. Also I have seen user:Wndl42 try a couple different tactics with very limited success, such as reporting andy to the sockpuppet watch and trying to perform a checkuser, both of which were essentially denied. So we know what doesn't work. But I am wondering, is this and rfc content issue or an rfc user issue? And which one is more likely to get the results we need, which is not blocking or restricting anyone, but simply keeping the page stable and accurate. In fact I don't even mind andy starting new edit wars because that is how the page expands. what andy needs to learn and what I hope some sort of rfc would teach him (and his brethren) is to realize when he has lost an edit war and to move on. he has as much right as anyone to add new content or rv vandalism, but he needs to understand that does not equate with using misleading edit summaries, deleting RS cites, and getting the same text rv-ed eight times by three different editors. that is called consensus and if the carrot of voluntary compliance is not working with user:andyvphil perhaps it is time to try the stick of dispute resolution. because I hear these complaints from everyone. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have concerns about Andyvphil's editing practices then an user conduct RFC would be an appropriate avenue to take. However, I don't think that an user conduct RFC will resolve the edit dispute here. In looking at the edit history, Andyvphil was not the only user that was reverting back to the preferred version Andyvphil was reverting to. If the editors on this talk page can not resolve the edit dispute, then I would suggest starting a content issue RFC. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Andy's not even trying to build consensus. He wants what he wants, dismisses all arguments against it, and puts it in anyways. He's the main problem. Bellwether ^B_C 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that this is a user conduct issue, then I would suggest going to WP:RFC/U rather than blaming one specific user for the edit war that got this article edit protected. Placing blame here is not going to resolve a conduct issue. Having said that, if your reasoning is sound, what harm comes from opening up a WP:RFC/P and/or WP:RFC/BIO? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't excuse myself from fault or point fingers. However, I do think that sometimes the problem with trying to build consensus is getting everyone to take part in good faith. Where does the questioned edit belong during the time that consensus is being discussed? If someone puts it into the article, those that feel it doesn't belong revert summarizing, "no consensus for this inclusion (see talk)". If it's taken out, those who feel it does belong revert summarizing, "no consensus for this removal (see talk)". →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the policies and guidelines, the threshold has been in the absence of consensus, the default is to return the article to the condition prior to the start of the edit war and to work for consensus from there. Having said that, in practice it has either required an edit protection, or it has always fallen upon one side of the disagreement to step up and allow the version that they do not prefer to remain in existence until consensus is reached on what the wording should be. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree for protection, but not a FULL protection. There's too much new information that's coming in about Obama, most importantly the democratic primary information. I believe a partial block, to get rid of the anon's who want include b.s. things, such as he did crack and gave a guy a bj, and any other b.s. stories, but it shouldn't be prvented from EVERYONE editing it. there's just too much going on. Trying to put a full protection on this page, is like putting a full protection on the calender, there's too much going on to not be able to edit it. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

c'mon, what's wrong with a little b.j. talk from the IPs every now and again? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of 72's edits have been better than those of non-IP editors. The edit war which caused the current block involved mostly established users. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

at this point I am considering getting a username so I can participate on this and the HRC page. sometimes it just seems too awesome to pass up. but usually I like just being an IP because everyone underestimates you. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version

I have protected the page due to edit warring. The protection will naturally expire in one week. Should the issues be resolved, any administrator can unprotect it earlier than that. Please work your issues out on the talk page, here, keeping the WP:BLP policy front and center in mind. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not in any way questioning your action. It seems that featured articles often go downhill quickly. I think it's very sad that an article that was once featured and was also praised by a writer with the Washington Post should come to this. Wakedream (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Present" Votes

There is only one mention of Obama voting "present" in the Illinois State legislature(in reference to late term abortion votes). The truth is that Obama voted "present" 130 times in the State legislature, on a wide range of issues (not just abortion) and this is something that has to be included in that section of the article. The text, as it stands right now, gives the impression that Obama was criticized only for his present votes with regard to the abortion issue. It does not convey the extent to which he employed this option; an option that is often viewed as a resort for those wishing to "take politcal cover" and to avoid controversial votes which might be held against candidates in their political future. This is an important issue and an essential aspect of his tenure in the State legislature. It is also an essential piece of the Obama political picture as he tries to distinguish himself as the next potential leader of the free world. Can somebody please explain why so much of this information is omitted? This article from the MSNBC/NY Times site can be referenced: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant? A present vote isn't a commitment either way, so maybe we should have a section about just how neutral that dastardly Obama is? 76.25.115.99 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)